Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

Harmsway wrote:

ASYLUM (1972, dir. Roy Ward Baker)

Gotta dig a movie that unites Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom, Patrick Magee, Charlotte Rampling, and Robert Powell.

Those Amicus anthology horror flicks were excellent. I'd highly recommend Tales From The Crypt, Vault Of Horror and Dr Terror's House Of Horrors to anybody who enjoyed Asylum.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Certainly a more accurate depiction of the character and the mood of the comic than Stallone's 'let's have the helmet come off about 10 minutes in and saddle him with a 'comedy' sidekick' effort.

I suppose at the time Stallone made that travesty, they couldn't have got away with the levels of violence required in a more accurate depiction of 2000AD comics. And no actor would agree to spend an entire film behind a mask. There seems to be less problems about that these days, what with V For Vendetta, f'r instance.

(my favourite comic book of all, by the way)

And the slo-mo scenes were very much like a comic book effect. Probably couldn't have done that at the time either.

I suppose, if nothing else, Stallone's Dredd was a product of the time, and it did bring the whole Mega City story to people who may otherwise have never heard of Judge Dredd. And, as film version of comics go, it's still better than that godsawful travesty that is From Hell.

BTW - Durham Red next??? <<<<<<<<< :D

CHARLEY VARRICK (1973)

Siegel + Matthau + Joe Don Baker = Excellence

I love it more and more with each viewing.

Vertigo

rich San Francisco locations, Jimmy Stewart and the rest. Unlike above I need further viewings. Citizen Kane was the same. I guess with these great movies after years of them being called great you seek to be hit by its greatness straightaway. Same with the Godfather...Greatness comes around on second viewings.

Control wrote:

CHARLEY VARRICK (1973)

Siegel + Matthau + Joe Don Baker = Excellence

I love it more and more with each viewing.

The way Siegel shot around the car stunt snafu was masterful.

Control wrote:

CHARLEY VARRICK (1973)

Siegel + Matthau + Joe Don Baker = Excellence

I love it more and more with each viewing.

Watched that on Friday, along with PRIME CUT. An excellent double feature. Wish I could get a hold of the scores. Gotta love the old lady in the trailer park. They should have written Dench's M like that. And maybe they could replace Bassey's song in Goldfinger with a Baker rendition of "I painted her."

I watched A Bout de Souffle.

I didn't see one goddamn souffle anywhere.

I dunno about this movie. I like the sense of life in it, and Jean Seberg is wonderful. But boy do I not like a lot of that jump cutting business. It doesn't look "arty" to me, it just looks random and slapdash. Maybe I'm a cretin, or maybe that's what "arty" is. I'm sure it caused a stir when released, but the film didn't bowl me over. In fact, it's taken me a couple attempts to get through it. But now I can say I've seen it.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

A film about a boastful piece of criminal shit.

Myopic bullshit. It's about Hollywood.

Manhunter wrote:

Completely over-the-top and pathetic, it lacks any emotional significance.

Said from your bourgeois ivory tower.

Manhunter wrote:

After the masterpiece BLOW OUT, De Palma obviously decided to make films for the masses...

That kind of "enlightened cinephiles > ignorant plebs" false dichotomy is ruining film appreciation today. BLOW OUT was made for the same audience that SCARFACE was, whether you like it or not. That fact that different audiences hold them as "their own" was never part of their design. Never confuse hindsight with truth.

I really don't know that BLOW OUT was made for the mass audience. Back around 1978 or so, TAKE ONE or some film mag like that actually ran a WRITE A MOVIE FOR BRIAN DEPALMA contest, which in essence was writing some pages for what would eventually become BLOW OUT. the fact he was inviting input from cineastes suggests he wasn't trying to do something mainstream. Then again, I don't think he got anything useful from the gimmick.

De Palma tried to move the mainstream upwards, at least initially. (What's the antonym of dumb down?)

For example, Body Double started life as a mainstream porno. All that was lost in the Hollywood Kenwood, though.

Quote :

Aside from that, my only other criticism is that now Bond's investigation seems a little dry and prolonged.

Blue Velvet (1986)

I finally managed to watch it on blu-ray and despite it looking even better, I didn't quite enjoy the movie as much as I used to. It doesn't strongly effect me so much now, but there's still a lot of great stuff with the cast and unsettling imagery that few (perhaps none) can replicate.

Sorry Tux, I pressed 'edit' instead of 'quote' and posted. :oops:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

A film about a boastful piece of criminal shit.

Myopic bullshit. It's about Hollywood.

This Island Earth (1955, dir. Joseph M. Newman)

A surprisingly intelligent film, at least in its first half. The way the aliens approach the scientists from their first interaction (saving the plane) via the smart giving of instructions to build that fancy machine to the private flight of Dr. Meacham to the research center (was it a castle?) is very clever and full of suspense. Dialogues are pretty good, the special effects are marvelous for that time. The second half of the film, however, while being entertaining, disappointed me, because it wasn't that clever and surprising anymore (or I missed something). They travel to a far away planet, stay there for what seems a few minutes, just in order to return to earth again. The aliens' plans are only alluded to (or was I too tired? I don't think so), and the whole second half seems to consist mostly of action scenes. After the brilliant built-up, I subconsciously had expected more interesting things to happen. But the rest of the film was certainly well entertaining. I just wasn't scared by the mutants; they were just too cute.


Burn After Reading (2008, dir. Ethan Coen, Joel Coen)

Some of it was amusing. Pitt is still utterly useless in both comedy and drama (and anything else), but I like Clooney.

Trouble in Store

not enough Rutherfurd (Dame). Good solid fun, light on everything and a blast to boot.

FieldsMan wrote:

Sorry Tux, I pressed 'edit' instead of 'quote' and posted. :oops:

I did that once. I didn't even intend to post so much on DR. NO as my opinion of it was the same as it's been for years. When I watched it I was wishing I could erase all of the Bond films from my memory and see them all fresh again. Maybe skip the Brosnan ones, and avoid the psychological damage.

BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. Uninvolving (and indeed often boring) fare that's ultimately little more than a two-hour wallow in stylishly-shot degradation and despair to the blaring accompaniment of a very Scorsese-ish rock soundtrack featuring the likes of The Clash, R.E.M. and Van Morrison. Less a brutally realistic and emotionally searing fly-on-the-wall drama than a derivative and tired blend of Tarantino on an off day, Oliver Stone at his most bombastic and Spielberg at his most sentimental. Nicolas Cage isn't bad, John Goodman is wasted (why his character wasn't combined with Ving Rhames' character and given to one actor or the other I've no idea) and Patricia Arquette and Cliff Curtis are deeply unconvincing.

Harmsway wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO was alright, but beyond that I'm no fan of Gus Van Sant.

I found the majority of it pretty torturous, although part of that was probably having to watch it in a film appreciation class.

You're not alone. I can't stand MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO.

I tried and failed to sit through MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO many years ago. I've only seen a couple of Van Sants and GOOD WILL HUNTING is the only one I actually like.

Aw, I like BRINGING OUT THE DEAD quite a bit.

I thought it was and is the last great Scorsese film. Very underrated.
Breathless is like Kane all over again, but with a very breezy sadistic quality. It is incredibly freeing to see for the first time, and every time thereafter. Forms the polar opposite to The 400 Blows. To me, Godard burned out very quickly and this is still incredible. The 50th anniversary restoration was stunning on the big screen.
And oh god....then there's Jean....I was about 12 or so when I first saw this film. And I've been in love ever since.

Psycho. Because we always like to be played by a master...though I think it works better in the open Academy framing.

hegottheboot wrote:

Psycho. Because we always like to be played by a master...though I think it works better in the open Academy framing.

Hadn't heard of that, was it meant to be seen open matte?

It's been debated, with most staying with the idea of the 1.85:1 matter being the intended. No one knows for sure, but since Hitch used the Presents TV crew and with the exploitation nature of the production I always felt that the Academy image suited the film more. The VHS and early LDs show this framing, and here's a thread with comparative screengrabs;
http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4781&sid=f2e5f9dc41276e10791f21914dd4d678#p4781
The best presentation I ever saw was a battered 16mm print open matte and it worked incredibly well on the screen. They only added a tiny bottom masking bar for the shower sequence.

DOWNFALL. Made an unsuccessful attempt to sit through this one a few years ago, but found the subject matter so upsetting that I was unable to stick with it. And, obviously, it is upsetting (and, sure, I know that DOWNFALL was never exactly intended as a piece of lighthearted escapism). Anyhoo, I gave it another whirl and am glad I did (if "glad" is the right word). This is an exceptionally well-crafted and well-acted film, probably one of the best of the century so far in terms of the technical mastery brought to the table by all concerned. It goes without saying that it's also harrowing, thought-provoking, sobering and moving. Focusing as it does not only on Hitler and his top team but also on their secretarial and support staff (and their families) - "regular people", in other words, It seems more chillingly intimate a film about Nazi Germany than any I can think of, and this is, I suppose, the chief reason it packs so much more of a punch than something like, say, VALKYRIE.

Harmsway wrote:

Aw, I like BRINGING OUT THE DEAD quite a bit.

What do you like about it?

I appreciate how BRINGING OUT THE DEAD expresses Scorsese's spirituality in a way that none of his post-LAST TEMPTATION flicks do, and enjoy the surreal, exaggerated style Scorsese brings to what otherwise might have been a drearily gritty film. It's a bit awkward, but it's the last film of Scorsese's that I found interesting.

The Offence (1972, dir. Sidney Lumet)

The character of Johnson is very neat in concept, but I am not sure about the execution. I had watched this more than 20 years ago, not since, I was excited by it then, but not really convinced the day before yesterday. But this may be due to being tired for most of the time watching it. For example, I am not sure I like how directly Johnson addresses the sexual problems with his wife (speaking to his wife); sure, it's credible, because he seems to have reached a state where he has to speak out about his frustrations. He clearly has a lot of issues. It's just so that the hole scene felt a bit odd to me, while when I think about it, it makes sense. I am also not sure what to feel about the ending, when the suspect has successfully manipulated Johnson to admit to his demons.
I should rewatch it when I am wide awake. The atmosphere of unease is well created, the allusions and flashbacks/repetitions are a good idea and, I believe, work rather well. Lumet deserves that I watch it again soon. Some problems may result from dubbing issues, I suspect. We'll see. Connery is surprisingly good in most scenes, though you can see his limitations also.

I really need to see this. I rather enjoyed ANDERSON TAPES, and find that Connery's work with Lumet is some of his best-especially THE HILL.

DREDD

Saw it in 3D, and I must say the 3D was really quite spectacular. I had a really great time, it's a fun movie that really does the character justice (no pun intended) and feels a lot like a successful modern update of those kinds of late 80s sci-fi action films like ROBOCOP.

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN? (1971, dir. Curtis Harrington)

A horror thriller that loosely cashes in on the WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? trend with two aging actresses pitted against one another (in this case, Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds, who, it must be said, don't exactly play off of each other all that well, even if Winters does give a strong turn as the unhinged Helen of the title), but it ultimately resembles DAY OF THE LOCUST more than it resembles BABY JANE, with its despairing view of 1930s Hollywood and its very Nathanael West-esque portrait of American religion. Of course, it's nowhere near as good as LOCUST, but it has its pulpy charms, and a few striking (and chilling) moments.

I'm looking forward to seeing WHO SLEW AUNTIE ROO?, which was packaged with WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN?