Last Movie you Watched?

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

No one could do it better than Spielberg & Williams.

I don't think Spielberg's JURASSIC PARK is anywhere near the Platonic ideal.

Maybe not, but I'm simply that I don't think there's anyone around who'd be more capable or fitting.

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

No one could do it better than Spielberg & Williams.

I don't think Spielberg's JURASSIC PARK is anywhere near the Platonic ideal.

Maybe not, but I'm simply that I don't think there's anyone around who'd be more capable or fitting.

Agreed. Plus, JURASSIC PARK has some amazing effects work. If the film were done again today, they'd surely fuck that up.

It has its perks, but also has some serious flaws. I don't like the pacing or the dialogue. And the whole story is watered-down. Crichton's novel was a clever sci-fi/techno-thriller. Spielberg's film was hardly that.

I did enjoy Williams's work, though. Hope they release an expanded version of the score at some point.

I gotta admit, I'm hard-pressed to think of anybody working today that would fit the bill.

That said, I'm kinda curious as to what Cronenberg at his prime might have done with JURASSIC PARK.

Mr. Brown wrote:

I don't like the pacing or the dialogue. And the whole story is watered-down.

Yeah, I'd agree the script needed some more work, but I do like the character derived dialogue that's there. Sparse but witty, although it's the cast that really bring it to life.

Mr. Brown wrote:

ICrichton's novel was a clever sci-fi/techno-thriller. Spielberg's film was hardly that.

The film and the novel are very different animals. Although they're both from the same Gothic/Mary Shelley mould, the film's got Spielberg's tough through and through. A humanist (but not hippy or "new age") view of the natural world, and there's a spiritual dimension that isn't as pronounced (if present at all, IIRC) in the novel.

Mr. Brown wrote:

I did enjoy Williams's work, though. Hope they release an expanded version of the score at some point.

Compared to THE LOST WORLD there's not much unreleased music, but there's nice moments left out. i.e. the transition from the mosquito encased in amber to the dig site, the Carl Starling tribute for the cartoon display, the coming storm etc.

Harmsway wrote:

That said, I'm kinda curious as to what Cronenberg at his prime might have done with JURASSIC PARK.

He'd have been the best fit, but the novel was released in 1990. That was when Cronenberg was working an NAKED LUNCH, which was pretty much the beginning of the end.

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

That said, I'm kinda curious as to what Cronenberg at his prime might have done with JURASSIC PARK.

He'd have been the best fit, but the novel was released in 1990. That was when Cronenberg was working an NAKED LUNCH, which was pretty much the beginning of the end.

Yep.

That said, I have heard surprisingly great things about A DANGEROUS METHOD from some friends, and will see it next week. I hope I like it more than I liked his last few films.

Missed this.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I love THE THIN RED LINE. Absolutely towers of the TREE OF LIFE in almost every respect.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone love that film, though I know it has its fans. I'd much rather watch THE TREE OF LIFE.

THE TREE OF LIFE is prettier to look at, but it feels relatively empty. THE THIN RED LINE is one of the finest war films I've ever seen, and believe me I've seen a lot.

DRIVE. A preposterously overrated, derivative, silly and unpleasant bore.

Sounds like me.

Sharky wrote:

THE TREE OF LIFE is prettier to look at, but it feels relatively empty.

Excluding the childhood sequences, which are as compelling as anything from any film from the last few years, then, yes, I'd agree. But in those childhood sequences, Malick does get a lot of insight and profundity in there. It's in the more cosmic, overtly allegorical stuff that Malick loses his way; he's best with "found" moments, not visual metaphor.

Sharky wrote:

THE THIN RED LINE is one of the finest war films I've ever seen, and believe me I've seen a lot.

So have I. THE THIN RED LINE is a textbook example of how *not* to make an art film.

Harmsway wrote:

THE THIN RED LINE is a textbook example of how *not* to make an art film.

Just as well, since I despise textbooks.

Sharky wrote:

Sounds like me.

I'm sure you're significantly more entertaining than Nicolas Winding Refn's so-called film, Sharky. :)

Anyway, if THE TREE OF LIFE is a much worse film than THE THIN RED LINE, I'm avoiding it like the plague.

And I'll add that I saw not a single moment of visual beauty worth a damn, or even a single shot worth sitting up and taking notice of, during that half hour or so I endured of THE THIN RED LINE.

From memory, though, DAYS OF HEAVEN is lovely to look at in places, and I do recall enjoying BADLANDS (many, many years ago - can't remember much about it). Early Malick = good, recent Malick = appalling is my current stance.

I'd go with THE NEW WORLD next, Loomster.

Loomis wrote:

Anyway, if THE TREE OF LIFE is a much worse film than THE THIN RED LINE, I'm avoiding it like the plague.

It's not, and you should definitely see THE TREE OF LIFE. It's overflowing with visual beauty and makes for the best Blu-Ray showreel imaginable.

And, contrary to Sharky's suggestion, I don't think you'll like THE NEW WORLD much. Particularly if--like me--you don't care for THE THIN RED LINE.

BADLANDS is good. The best thing I can say about Malick's other films is the cinematography is gorgeous.

FYI, here is a pretty hilarious/interesting commentary on Malick by Christopher Plummer, who worked with Malick on THE NEW WORLD.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968, dir. Sergio Leone)

Does anyone know how to use close-ups as well as Leone does? And Ennio Morricone's score is heaven-sent.

All the King's Men (1949)

Wasn't expecting anything, but my interest was perked when I saw Robert Rossen's name as he did THE HUSTLER. I liked the movie pretty well. Better-than-average Best Picture winner for me.

Raising Cain (1992) [Some dude's recut]

The only version I've seen, but I'll get around the theatrical cut eventually. The deleted material must still exist, so it would be really cool to see Criterion do something about this film by 2018 or so.

I really enjoyed the film. Really liked John Lithgow, John Lithgow, John Lithgow, and Jay Leno is drag.

Lolita Davidovitch is a really hot lady.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Raising Cain (1992) [Some dude's recut]

The only version I've seen, but I'll get around the theatrical cut eventually. The deleted material must still exist, so it would be really cool to see Criterion do something about this film by 2018 or so.

What did you think?

Harmsway wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Raising Cain (1992) [Some dude's recut]

The only version I've seen, but I'll get around the theatrical cut eventually. The deleted material must still exist, so it would be really cool to see Criterion do something about this film by 2018 or so.

What did you think?

Caught me before I edited, as I forgot to address that.

I really enjoyed the film. Really liked John Lithgow, John Lithgow, John Lithgow, and Jay Leno is drag.

Lolita Davidovitch is a really hot lady.

Frustrating as there is some lost director's cut. It's a really cool idea. Yet another riff on PSYCHO, but interesting nonetheless.

Made me think of what I'd do with a De Palma style thriller with a peeping tom serial killer in drag. I thought of the name KILLER LOOKS. IMDb says that title has been used.

Hamlet (1948)

Some interesting visual stuff going on. I'm not enough of an expert on William Shakesberg to judge the trimming, or gutting, of the play. I have to say I'm not much on watching this kind of stagey acting on screen.

Harms suffers from the same condition. I call it the curse of being American.

I like to see truthful acting, not simply clear recitation of dialogue. There's a wealth of depth in Shakespeare's words. I don't expect crying, just depth. Not feigned mechanical gestures.

Olivier's never mechanical, by any means. It's often stylised and theatrical, but always with conviction. That last factor separates good acting from bad acting.

Sharky wrote:

I'd go with THE NEW WORLD next, Loomster.

I wouldn't. It's shit.

Santa wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I'd go with THE NEW WORLD next, Loomster.

I wouldn't. It's shit.

Suck my dick.