Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Saw LOOPER. Was massively disappointed. The movie is ridiculous, overwrought, full of itself, meaningless, and abandons a perfectly good premise for a perfectly ridiculous one halfway through.

In short, TERMINATOR 2 meets THE OMEN.

I'm very much reassured that you felt this way. Sometimes it is okay to be the lone voice of dissent, and sometimes I positively welcome the opportunity, but on this one I was really beginning to wonder if I was crazy ...

Harmsway wrote:

I liked the score quite a bit. As a rule, I like early John Williams more than the post-STAR WARS Williams.

His disaster work and his tv work are largely preferable, I agree, though some of his smaller scores in the 90s have appeal. Fred Karlin or whoever scored FUTUREWORLD totally ripped EIGER off, kind of in proto-Horner fashion.

I watch EIGER at least twice a year, even though the real Trevanian hated it passionately.

THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS: PART I (2012, dir. Jay Oliva)

Pretty great, actually. Much better than the other direct-to-DVD DC animated features. Loved that the score by Christopher Drake could have come right out of the 80s.

Can't wait for part 2.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

I liked the score quite a bit. As a rule, I like early John Williams more than the post-STAR WARS Williams.

That's a dumb rule.

Rules are made to be broken.

I saw LOOPER a few days ago as well, and also felt a bit disappointed. After Johnson's brilliant work with BRICK, I had pretty high expectations for this. But, like others have mentioned, the way the telekinesis kid worked into the story just felt so....random. And it wasn't even touched upon in any of the trailers, so it really does come out of nowhere that this goofy kid is somehow the central part of the story. To be fair, however, it did feel to me like large portions of the film were cut out, such as more bits about Joe's drug addiction, his lingering issues with that stripper, and future parts regarding the Rainmaker. So who knows, maybe the studio messed with it too much or something. I feel like Willis was really phoning it it for most of the movie, but Joe Leavitt was really, really good. He makes a great anti-hero. And Emily Blunt.....man, is she a total babe, or what? I think I may have mentioned it here before, but EON really should find a way to get her a role in the next Bond flick (she'd make a good Moneypenny, actually, but it's too late for that).

I liked it and will probably watch it again, but I was just expecting so much more.

Saw TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE, as well. It's pretty much your standard sentimental Hollywood drama. I'm a little surprised that Eastwood decided to star in it, to be honest.

One big problem with me was that I didn't even recognize the hooker with the kid was the girl at the beginning. She was totally recognizable as an actress when she turned up in the later scene, but I didn't realize it was her from earlier till my wife mentioned it on the drive home. I can't say I was distracted by her naked body either, because there wasn't much of one.

Maybe this guy is just going through a learning curve as a storyteller, and it'll take a few films. I always think back to VIDEODROME, where Cronenberg cut it so tight that on previews, you apparently didn't realize James Woods ran a cable station till 5min before the end (no, I don't know how much had to get cut to lose that info.) He just couldn't get back from the material to realize the lack of clarity till it was pointed out at length in preview cards.

Speaking of Cronenberg, ANTIVIRAL is pretty decent. I don't think it's a movie I'd watch twice, but it's at least interesting the first go round.

Loopers
I thought it was very good, the trailer put me off initially, making me think it might be just another morally bankrupt "cold blooded killers who place no value on human life and the consequencs of murder are somehow cool" movie
however after I read some reviews my interest was rekindled
as they mentioned a couple of times during the movie itself, if you start thinking about the ramifications of time travel too much it will do your head in, and you are bound to find inconsistencies, so you need to make allowance for that to some extent, but in the case of this movie, not that much, I think it's actually pretty well thought out from that perspective
this years Source Code? why not? don't forget "Source Code" itself had a ridiculous, nonsensical happy ending tacked onto the end of it (after the "freeze on the kiss shot" which would have been a more "realistic" and poignant note to finish)
yes, there is a jarring change in pace half way through, the second half drags at times and the telekinetic aspect of the film is far less satisfying than the time travel
and yes, the director does not choreograph or edit the action sequences very well and all these pro gatmen are very poor shots with their oversize guns (although there is an attempt to explain this away at one point early in the film)
but over all the pluses far out weigh the minuses in my opinion

dr. strangelove wrote:

I saw LOOPER a few days ago as well, and also felt a bit disappointed. After Johnson's brilliant work with BRICK, I had pretty high expectations for this. But, like others have mentioned, the way the telekinesis kid worked into the story just felt so....random. And it wasn't even touched upon in any of the trailers, so it really does come out of nowhere that this goofy kid is somehow the central part of the story. To be fair, however, it did feel to me like large portions of the film were cut out, such as more bits about Joe's drug addiction, his lingering issues with that stripper, and future parts regarding the Rainmaker. So who knows, maybe the studio messed with it too much or something. I feel like Willis was really phoning it it for most of the movie, but Joe Leavitt was really, really good. He makes a great anti-hero. And Emily Blunt.....man, is she a total babe, or what? I think I may have mentioned it here before, but EON really should find a way to get her a role in the next Bond flick (she'd make a good Moneypenny, actually, but it's too late for that).
I liked it and will probably watch it again, but I was just expecting so much more.

it's not mentioned in the trailers because for one thing it's meant to be a surprise, also the makers themselves may have recognised it as a weakness which they didn't want to draw attention to, preferring to stress the more inventive time travel aspect
the telekinteic kid is forshadowed by several mentions and displays of coin hovering earlier in the film, so it's not random, although I agree I would have preferrred they had found some other device to perform that function in the story
Joe's drug addiction and the prozzie /stripper are merely symbols of his empty, morally bankrupt, life and doesn't need to be explored any further than it is
the telekinetic power of the Rainnmaker is also of minor importance, essentially a plot device to help try and wrap up all the loose ends, it's the weak point in the structure of the movie, as it often is in time travel movies, where we have plenty of interesting questions and few, if any, actual answers
I though Willis acting was fine and the others even better

trevanian wrote:

LOOPER
for me it was a misfire (just like most of the shots fired in the movie, which kind of undercuts the smarts by making you think John Woo), but it definitely had some interesting aspects.
The kid in the movie is like Haley Joel Osment possessed -- and then some, he is terrfiic. Can understand some of the raves, but am astonished at how uncritical the praise is. Maybe this is the way a lot of you folks see Nolan movies ...

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Saw LOOPER. Was massively disappointed. The movie is ridiculous, overwrought, full of itself, meaningless, and abandons a perfectly good premise for a perfectly ridiculous one halfway through. In short, TERMINATOR 2 meets THE OMEN.

"Terminator 2" meets "The Omen"? actually Momento is the movie it most reminded me personally of, in terms of making me think about timelines and motivations etc and coincidentally (?) that is a Nolan movie

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

On the big screen. 4k instead of real film (oh gawd would I love to see it in 70mm), but it was still a sight to see. Not sure where to start. Peter O'Toole, phenomenal. Freddie Young's cinematography, dayum. The music. I'm rambling. Safe to say it's one of my favorite screenings in the cinema this year and maybe all time.

And the audience was great, except for one person who was a few seats away from me. She kept laughing everytime somebody spoke, I wanted to execute her Lawrence style. Maybe use a dagger.

Python wrote:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

On the big screen. 4k instead of real film (oh gawd would I love to see it in 70mm), but it was still a sight to see. Not sure where to start. Peter O'Toole, phenomenal. Freddie Young's cinematography, dayum. The music. I'm rambling. Safe to say it's one of my favorite screenings in the cinema this year and maybe all time.

And the audience was great, except for one person who was a few seats away from me. She kept laughing everytime somebody spoke, I wanted to execute her Lawrence style. Maybe use a dagger.

Say to her, "Bitches don't speak in this movie."

Python wrote:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

And the audience was great, except for one person who was a few seats away from me. She kept laughing everytime somebody spoke, I wanted to execute her Lawrence style. Maybe use a dagger.

I had the same problem when I saw OBSESSION for the first time on the big screen. Fucking annoying. Literally obstructs the whole experience.

Those C***S and the mouth-breathers who sit behind you.

The Campaign - too broad to be really satirical and it tails off a bit in its last half-hour, but pretty funny nonetheless.

Pickup on South Street (1953, dir. Samuel Fuller)

Excellent noirish thriller with espionage touches. Really good plot and very well filmed. I greatly enjoyed it (had to watch the English version without having subtitle option, but I think I got most of it). Thelma Ritter is in it, too. Can you complain? Interesting and not too predictable characters and motivations, and it's a generally well shot film, too.


Du skal ære din hustru (1925, dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer)

I found the way the character change came about, and perhaps the moral of the story, a bit simple, but the film is directed with love and always quite pleasant to watch. Acting, set decoration and camera work are really good most of the time. I wish I could get hold of copies of JOAN and VAMPYR (the latter is a bit too expensive for my liking, so I'll wait for a good bargain). I've got GERTRUD in my basket, and ORDET sounds interesting as well. Hopefully I'll be able to watch them some day.

Earthquake (1974)

Wow, that was an explosion of bad.

Robin Hood (Douglas Fairbanks)
very different from the now familiar structure established in the Errol Flynn version
Fairbanks doesn't even don the lincoln green (gray?) until over half way through the movie!
in the first half he's Robert Huntingdon, rather than the now more familiar Loxely, royal favourite of Richard, which allows Doug to indulge in some jousting and spend far too much time developing a coy romance with Marion
in this version Little John is his squire, so the famous staff fight on the log over the stream never happens
he's played by Allan Hale, who was to reprise the role over ten years later with his pal Flynn
ditto there is no back story for Friar Tuck, Will Scarlett, Alan-a-Dale and co, they just appear mid film
as for archery, Robin occasionally demonstrates this skill at random moments, more as an after thought, rather than being woven into the story in a meaningful way
surprisingly disappointing then
:|

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Earthquake (1974)

Wow, that was an explosion of bad.

You've got to admire -- hold on, let me rephrase ... I have got to admire a movie with balls enough (or lack of brains enough) to suggest that Ava Gardner could be Lorne Greene's daughter without serious time travel involved.

I can't watch it w/o remembering how exciting the sensurround effect was in the theater ... in this one instance, I really do have total recall, and so I can watch this (skipping over Marjoe Gortner) every year or two as long as my wife is out of the room (it drives her batshit crazy -- she is 9 years younger than me, so my fondness for this and AIRPORT 1975 eludes her entirely, though she does really like grownup 1970s movies.)

Now that I think of it, seeing EARTHQUAKE on BR might actually destroy the illusion of Whitlock's mattework.

We finally saw AVENGERS last night. I thought the DVD was supposed to be a lot longer, but this was 2:23. I think the last shot after the credits is my favorite bit in the movie, but during the film proper I really dug HULK bigtime. The film doesn't have as many Whedon-liners as I expected, but it was very entertaining in a one-off way.

Marjoe Gortner is about the creepist MF I've ever seen in any movie.

That should be a Bond henchman's name. Played by Gortner himself.

There's a guy who used to always play rapists that really used to freak me out. He was one of the first two romulans in THE NEUTRAL ZONE, and he was the saloonkeeper in UNFORGIVEN. I think he dates all the way back to the Angel Tomkins movie THE TEACHER. He bugged me so much I never even learned his name (didn't know Big Bill Smith's name till CONAN, he creeped me out so bad in RICH MAN POOR MAN.)

The man who made possible one of my favorite lines in the movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG8mvqtWEAw#t=1m4s

It's a good bit in UNFORGIVEN, but it always reminds me of a terrible line (in this case, not one I wrote) in our teen Bond movie YOU ONLY DIE THRICE. M has sent Moneypenny and CoS out to find a new agent, and Moneypenny is going on about teaching him the art of unarmed combat and the CoS says 'but how do you fight without arms?'

The front of the movie containing this exchange got eaten in the projector a few years after we finished it, but I was going through the old reels of Super-8 the other day after picking up a film editor at Goodwill and found that at some point I had shot a replacement scene for the opening, with our M. flipping through the Pamela Sue Martin issue of Playboy while setting up the parameters of the recruitment. It's kind of exciting (the find, not the issue), because I found I still have two guillotine film splicers and a couple rolls of tape. I haven't cut film physically in at least 24 years, but I remember it as the most fun you can have alone (that was before laserdiscs came along for me.) Now if I could just find a working Super8 sound projector, I could get this and a few other movies and partial works cleaned up and transferred to dvd before it all turns to powder.

************************

Watched THE AMERICAN again. Still really like it, just wish we'd bought a version that had the extras, because I'd really like to hear the commentary and see what deleted scenes there are. The minimalist way the movie plays seems right to me, and that if the additional scenes offered exposition they'd probably hurt things a lot. I wonder if Clooney remembered HARD CONTRACT and wanted to do a kind of riff on that.

trevanian wrote:

Watched THE AMERICAN again. Still really like it, just wish we'd bought a version that had the extras, because I'd really like to hear the commentary and see what deleted scenes there are. The minimalist way the movie plays seems right to me, and that if the additional scenes offered exposition they'd probably hurt things a lot. I wonder if Clooney remembered HARD CONTRACT and wanted to do a kind of riff on that.

it would have been better if they'd stuck closer to the book

the hooker becomes girlfriend angle was so lame
:|

De Palmathon...

Carrie (1976)

Superb and affecting. I find psychomom's cruxifixion orgasm to be a lot more f'ed up than anything that happens at the prom. Love that 360 shot with Carrie and Tommy. Spacek and Laurie, first rate. I'm not holding out any hope on the version coming up.

Now if I could get my hands on the best version of the score.

This part gets me every time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW_IztGUCP4#t=6m28s

Funny, I got the blu-ray from Netflix today. Doubtful that I can watch it tonight since I'm working on an essay. On that subject, I shouldn't even be posting now. Oops.

Python wrote:

Funny, I got the blu-ray from Netflix today. Doubtful that I can watch it tonight since I'm working on an essay. On that subject, I shouldn't even be posting now. Oops.

Have you seen it yet?

If not, check out the music It'll help you complete your essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmrEwPFh9k

Python wrote:

Funny, I got the blu-ray from Netflix today. Doubtful that I can watch it tonight since I'm working on an essay. On that subject, I shouldn't even be posting now. Oops.

I think the Internet has killed productivity from young adults more than it has increased it. But that's not news to anyone.

Then again, my choice of writing my paper or watching NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is pretty easy.