Last Movie you Watched?

TCM had two lovely movies in a row:

Hooper (1978) with Burt Reynolds as a aging stuntman that is still at it while the next generation is up and coming. Still an enjoyable movie with a lot of stunts and silly fun.

Bullitt (1968) with Steve McQueen doing his policing with one "famous" carchase. Still a decent thriller and a nice who-dunnit.

The next movies was Where Eagles Dare, which is a brilliant movie but I decided to get some sleep.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939)

The awesome Holmes and Watson of Rathbone and Bruce face the menace of the much underrated George Zucco's Moriarty. I know Watson's comic bumbling is elevated and not to everyones taste but its actually my favourite part of the movie, all in all a tight production that strikes all the right notes, never stands still and leaves you wanting more.

8/10

Sharky wrote:

I count nightmarish electrical failure in the hotel

An odd moment, to say the least. A few scenes earlier, we saw Hanna in the CIA's interrogation complex, completely unfazed by all the high technology there, correctly pinpointing the security cameras without a second's thought and escaping from the place as though she were the architect who'd designed it. And now we see her all surprised, delighted and baffled by such wonders of the modern age as a kettle and a TV with a remote control.

To quote the good Dr. Lecter: "It won't do." No film that trashes its own internal logic in this way can be anything other than a risible bore.

Sharky wrote:

She discovers a whole new world for the first time, and learns that human beings are more than just faceless targets, and conversation is not just reciting a dossier by rote. The responsibility she feels for her adoptive family, her friendship with the girl, and her attempts at becoming normal, all fundamentally change Hanna.

No doubt that's precisely the arc that the filmmakers intended, but there's many a slip twixt concept and execution. There's nothing wrong with the scenario you describe, and it would make for a gripping and moving thriller, but HANNA ain't it. It's all gone about in such a bungling, vague and halfhearted fashion that it counts for nought.

Sharky wrote:

Many said the same about the talkies. There are only pernicious directors and pernicious films, not pernicious art forms.

Fair point.

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I count nightmarish electrical failure in the hotel

An odd moment, to say the least. A few scenes earlier, we saw Hanna in the CIA's interrogation complex, completely unfazed by all the high technology there, correctly pinpointing the security cameras without a second's thought and escaping from the place as though she were the architect who'd designed it. And now we see her all surprised, delighted and baffled by such wonders of the modern age as a kettle and a TV with a remote control.

You have a point, but you could argue that because Hanna was bred as a killing machine - she would have done scenarios involving cameras with her dad, maybe with deer antlers or some other natural substitute. She wasn't intended to blend in with civilian life, sit down on a sofa and watch Jeremy Kyle. Just get from A to B as efficiently as possible in any language.

To draw a comparison with David in A.I., Hanna is another poorly thought out experiment made by irresponsible adults.

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

She discovers a whole new world for the first time, and learns that human beings are more than just faceless targets, and conversation is not just reciting a dossier by rote. The responsibility she feels for her adoptive family, her friendship with the girl, and her attempts at becoming normal, all fundamentally change Hanna.

No doubt that's precisely the arc that the filmmakers intended, but there's many a slip twixt concept and execution. There's nothing wrong with the scenario you describe, and it would make for a gripping and moving thriller, but HANNA ain't it. It's all gone about in such a bungling, vague and halfhearted fashion that it counts for nought.

I'd say a counts for a lot more than nought, but it isn't perfect, I'd agree. It has perfect moments, but loses its way somewhat in the last act. I thought the Eric Bana character could have been better handled, for one.

Erica Ambler wrote:

That said, I am surprised by your defence of Hannah, which seems a quite unremarkable film to me. You must've identified with the protagonist quite strongly.

I had a huge boner for Saoirse Ronan. As a 22 year old lad I can afford to say that.

saint mark wrote:

TCM had two lovely movies in a row:

Hooper (1978) with Burt Reynolds as a aging stuntman that is still at it while the next generation is up and coming. Still an enjoyable movie with a lot of stunts and silly fun.

Had a REALLY good riff on the Bond theme too, for a stunt scene.

trevanian wrote:

saint mark wrote:

TCM had two lovely movies in a row:

Hooper (1978) with Burt Reynolds as a aging stuntman that is still at it while the next generation is up and coming. Still an enjoyable movie with a lot of stunts and silly fun.

Had a REALLY good riff on the Bond theme too, for a stunt scene.

If I remember correct the whole movie is built up around a spyactioner where Burt doubles for actionstar Adam West as a sort of 007 pastiche in a movie called "the Spy who laughed" and indeed some scenes are coloured with a James Bond like music which sounded better than anything DA has done in his last two movies. :pirat:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I count nightmarish electrical failure in the hotel

An odd moment, to say the least. A few scenes earlier, we saw Hanna in the CIA's interrogation complex, completely unfazed by all the high technology there, correctly pinpointing the security cameras without a second's thought and escaping from the place as though she were the architect who'd designed it. And now we see her all surprised, delighted and baffled by such wonders of the modern age as a kettle and a TV with a remote control.

You have a point, but you could argue that because Hanna was bred as a killing machine - she would have done scenarios involving cameras with her dad, maybe with deer antlers or some other natural substitute.

A pity that her dad never took her through the scenario of household electrical goods going on the blink.

Nah, to me it just smacks of the filmmakers wanting to have their cake and eat it with this "character" - omnipotent Jason Bourne-style escape artist and killing machine in one scene, and wide-eyed innocent in the next. You can't sell a character as both Snow White and The Terminator. Or maybe you can, I dunno - nothing's impossible, I guess, but I reckon it would take a lot more panache to make it work than Wright and co. seem able to muster.

Sharky wrote:

To draw a comparison with David in A.I., Hanna is another poorly thought out experiment made by irresponsible adults.

SPLICE (which I quite enjoyed, although it certainly has its flaws) also comes to mind. The trouble is that the revelation that Hanna is an experiment comes far too late in the film to have any impact. Just as we know from the start of A.I. that David is a robot (it's not a surprise that we're hit with some distance into the film), I think HANNA would have worked better if we'd known right away that she's some kind of DNA experiment thingamabob. I know it's kinda sorta hinted at near the start, but it's not enough. The first scene of the film needed to show Bana creating her. It wouldn't blow a surprise (as presented in the film, this so-called twist has next to no impact anyway), but it would make her arc towards "humanity" clearer and more compelling (as well as - perhaps - making some of the script's more implausible moments somewhat easier to buy).

Sharky wrote:

I thought the Eric Bana character could have been better handled, for one.

Indeed. And he gives a dreadful performance. I can picture Daniel Craig doing much better in the role (as underdeveloped and often laughable as it is) and even going a long way towards carrying the film.

I've no idea what kind of production history HANNA had, or whether there are any alternate versions of it, but it's the kind of film that I suspect would be much more coherent and satisfying in a longer director's cut. And it wouldn't surprise me if earlier drafts of the screenplay were much more interesting than the finished film. There's a clever and original spy thriller here, but I do think it got mangled along the way.

The Man Who Fell to Earth

Interesting sci-fi story told with various, rather well-handled filmmaking techniques. Cinematography and a diversified panoply of fitting music stand out. It run 128 mins., so I guess it wasn't the Director's Cut. Two nights passed in the meantime, so my thoughts on it are already shady. I mostly liked it. Bowie is pretty good. I like the development the alien character makes while dealing with the power structures of human society. E. T. for grown-ups made by a real artist, one may call it (without trying to insult it). I'd love to see the DC, which should run a couple of minutes longer (IMDb says 139 mins, I believe, which would correspond to a running time of about 133 mins. here). There was a comment in an IMDb review about the DC making a lot more sense, though I didn't have terrible problems understanding it. But rewatching it will be necessary some day.

Lake Placid.

David E. Kelley. Seems Betty White is always killing people with a skillet. This and Boston Legal. In fact what this needed was William Shatner in Denny Crane mode in either the Bill Pullman (faux Paxton) role or Oliver Platt's.

Heck, even Bridget Fonda's. No...James Spader.

Quote :

E. T. for grown-ups made by a real artist, one may call it.

Drop this smart-about-movies crap. It isn't becoming.

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

E. T. for grown-ups made by a real artist, one may call it.

Drop this smart-about-movies crap. It isn't becoming.

Question, Sharky. Does being an asshole a natural talent, or is it something trained?

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

E. T. for grown-ups made by a real artist, one may call it.

Drop this smart-about-movies crap. It isn't becoming.

Question, Sharky. Does being an asshole a natural talent, or is it something trained?

I hone it like a well sharpened sword.

I wondered why you spend so much time here. ;)

ESCAPE FROM L.A. (1996, dir. John Carpenter)

Entertaining silliness.

THE TOURIST (2010, dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)

It wants to be the next CHARADE, but it doesn't have the wit or style to measure up.


PLAY MISTY FOR ME (1971, dir. Clint Eastwood)

While the film was playing, I was thinking "I'd rather be watching FATAL ATTRACTION."

-------

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/viewtopic.forum?t=1492