Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

BECKET (1964, dir. by Peter Glenville)

Very fine film.

THE BOURNE LEGACY. This sequel-slash-reboot makes some laudable attempts to take the franchise in new directions yet tends to be at its most involving when it's either directly referencing events in the Damon films or evoking their memory (there's something extremely rousing about hearing "Extreme Ways" at the end of a Bourne outing - I suppose it's this series' equivalent of the gunbarrel moment in a Bond flick).

As good an actor as Jeremy Renner is, he seems somewhat miscast here. His Aaron Cross never seems particularly cool or dangerous, and Renner displays none of the intensity or inner conflict of Damon's Bourne. Cross just comes across as too, well, nice. (Ryan Gosling in DRIVE mode would have been my choice for the LEGACY lead.) And he doesn't really have an interesting goal. He doesn't want to find out who he is, or even to bring down the bad guys - this is essentially just a film about a guy in search of his meds (speaking of which, the genetic engineering subplot seems silly and tacked-on, and divorces LEGACY even further from the predecessors it's supposed to chime with).

Renner and Rachel Weisz have none of the chemistry of Damon and Franka Potente, which makes their romance appear all the more contrived. Edward Norton and Stacy Keach make fine villains, but their lack of direct interaction with our hero dilutes the dramatic tension - they might as well be in different films. Albert Finney makes a welcome return from THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, although his one great scene was dropped from the final cut (it's one of the deleted scenes among the Blu-ray bonus material, as is another moment that sadly didn't make it to the finished film, namely a tense encounter between Cross and a highway patrolman).

There are also some confusing touches, a couple of wince-inducing lines of atrocious dialogue, and the pacing is all over the place. There are many problems with THE BOURNE LEGACY, yet it still adds up to a couple of hours of fairly solid entertainment if one is in an indulgent mood. Director Tony Gilroy wisely refrains from trying to copy Paul Greengrass' frenetic and action-heavy style, and instead conjures some of the atmosphere of a 1970s conspiracy thriller like THE CONVERSATION. The music of John Powell (who scored the first three Bournes) is much missed (with it, LEGACY would seem a much better film, for Powell is to Bourne as Barry is to Bond), but Robert Elswit, in his first assignment for this series, comes up with some characteristically fine cinematography.

LEGACY is just good enough to make one look forward to another BOURNE adventure - but hopefully it'll be one that follows Jason Bourne and not Aaron Cross.

Superman/Superman II

unbridled awesomeness...ness. From the John Williams score to Gene Hackman ("Superman, thank God...I...get him!"), on to Christopher Reeve and Jackie Cooper. Much of the thoughts and feelings aimed at the first film. The second was off Channel 5 and thereby not the Donner Cut which I've not seen since it came out in '06. Never twigged, until reading up on it, how the likes of Kidder changes between the Donner/Lester footage (slender/gaunt, fine/pale etc) though much of it is noticable, body doubles, stands in or whatever...nothing to do with the cuts but EG Marshall's hairpiece is distracting.
That and how shockingly good looking the late Susannah York was in the first film's Krypton scenes.

Films always hark my mind back to when I first watched Superman as a six year-old and that age of apparent innocence of old Superman cartoons on TV and all the rest.

Superman II does get a thumbs up, if anything, for the sighting of John Ratzenberger and Shane Rimmer early on.

THE EXPENDABLES (EXTENDED DIRECTOR'S CUT). While it hardly turns THE EXPENDABLES into a masterpiece, this is quite an improvement on the original theatrical version. It's not the sort of director's cut that features much in the way of previously unseen scenes (in fact I can't think of any new scenes off the top of my head) - instead, it makes numerous tweaks which most people who've seen the film only once would probably not even notice. However, these tweaks work wonders, injecting much better dialogue and some nice little touches of characterisation. The action scenes, which used to seem mediocre, have been recut (and, in one memorable case, rescored) and are now far more exciting. It seems baffling that this cut wasn't the one that was released in the first place, although I guess these things can take time to come together. Even the sluggish pace of the original seems to have somehow been sorted out (albeit without any appreciable tightening of the story), although there's still the sense that Stallone and co. couldn't quite decide whether to make a lighthearted sendup of the action hero genre or something rather more hard-edged - the quipping sometimes sits awkwardly alongside some pretty nasty moments (e.g. scenes of torture).

THE EXPENDABLES 2. The boys are back for what must surely be the highest body count of any flick in recent memory (by comparison, THE EXPENDABLES looks like A ROOM WITH A VIEW). The script is somewhat sharper this time round, the performances more engaging, and boy oh boy does this movie do what it says on the tin. While he lacks Stallone's visual flair and his handling of the action is occasionally somewhat by-the-numbers, director Simon West does a better job of blending thrills and humour, and in many ways THE EXPENDABLES 2 seems the movie that the first one should have been, rejoicing in the sort of everything-but-the-kitchen-sink absurdity that the first one never quite gets to grips with.

Felt like watching Network (1976).


"I F***IN' love this movie."

Ice Station Zebra (1968)

Decent fun. Some cool effects.

Hugo

As charming as the film was, something was lost on me. Listen, I know I am not the films intended audience, but it doesn't mean I can't sit and enjoy a lighter affair (Toy Story 3 still pulls at the heart strings). Instead, Scorsese's emphasis on the the magic of film bit itself in the ass. By reminding the audience that films are a way to live our dreams, Scorsese seemed to forget that our dreams must not only be fantastical but engaging to truly be worth living. The film moves at an incredibly awkward pace and had me looking at my watch a couple times thinking "this can't be the end already" only to realize the film had another hour left. Some of the characters are underdeveloped and left dangling by the end. There were pluses however. Sasha Baron Cohen injected a little bit of livelihood into the film and Scorsese makes a particularly smart decision and gives the train station a life of its own. And as for this Asa Butterfield actor playing Hugo, he looked uncomfortable the entire film, like he had to pee or something. I am now concerned for Ender's Game, another childhood favorite. The hype machine failed me again.

Grade (if I had to with a gun to my head): B-

The Desperate Hours (1955, dir. William Wyler)

Another Wyler film I've seen that is really good.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Ice Station Zebra (1968)

Decent fun. Some cool effects.

What's the big Pat moment?

"Put a torpedo up the spout and GET ME THERE!"

When I was 7, I saw this in the theater and really liked it up until the weather clears up and it becomes winter on GREEN ACRES-looking. Also, I got all teary-eyed when Tony Bill got shot.

La pianiste (2001, dir. Michael Haneke)

I am not sure if I can follow all of the film. At its centre is a very twisted character. It's the first Haneke film that does not convince me (though I don't remember anything about Funny Games). Still can't see nihilsm at work in his films. But it's a disturbing film. I remember the book and its author being questioned in their value (to put it mildly).
Definitely not a film to watch on Christmas.



Le souffle au coeur (1971, dir. Louis Malle)

One of the better coming-of-age films I've seen.

I went very English this weekend.

Lindsay Anderson's If.... (1969) with Malcolm MacDowell. I like to lump this film in with his biggest hit, Kubrick's Clockwork Orange and his follow-up with Lindsay Anderson, O Lucky Man, as the trio of films with MacDowell at his brash young best. Re If...;those English boarding schools sure were tough. The ending is certainly surreal. I think If... is the film that cinched his being chosen for Clockwork. It's the perfect audition.

Kenneth Branagh's Henry V (1989) starring Branagh, naturally as Harry.

"Once more into the breech, dear friends." Features a boy Christian Bale, as well as Bond actors Robbie Coltrane and Judy Dench, and a bunch of other top thespians reveling in their Shakespearan dialogue.

tiffanywint wrote:

I went very English this weekend.

Lindsay Anderson's If.... (1969) with Malcolm MacDowell. I like to lump this film in with his biggest hit, Kubrick's Clockwork Orange and his follow-up with Lindsay Anderson, O Lucky Man, as the trio of films with MacDowell at his brash young best.

Absolutely. IF.... is excellent. I also like O LUCKY MAN!, and I think McDowell would have made a superb and very Craigian Bond in the early 1970s.

Loomis wrote:

Absolutely. IF.... is excellent. I also like O LUCKY MAN!, and I think McDowell would have made a superb and very Craigian Bond in the early 1970s.

Yes, you could see the menace simmering below the surface in McDowell's Mick Travis. Kubrick brought it to full bloom in Clockwork.

O' Lucky Man is a hoot. It's a lighter/bizarro affair that McDowell conceived himself and conscripted Anderson to direct.

Superman III

can't say I'm mad on it, as a kid probably but not so much now. The comedy/campy element is much too much. Even the appearance of Shane Rimmer and Robert Beatty aren't enough. The films best bits are that in which Superman goes dark, Reeves' appearance if anything concretes it as he descends further, to his defeat by Clark and 'Good' Superman's fixing of Pisa/the tanker etc. The face-off between Evil Superman and Clark clinches what good there is in the film which is capped off by Clark having defeated Evil Superman and the theme flaring up. On that note the music itself is largely unremarkable.
Channel 5 in their wisdom chose not to show Superman IV after, a film I've not seen since 1994 and remains associated for the moment Opal Fruits caused great agony to an absess.

Oh, what makes up for disappointment is Annette O'Toole, someone who was quite something even in Smallville...

Superman IV is painful even without an abscess/Opal Fruit interface, Hilly.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Superman IV is painful even without an abscess/Opal Fruit interface, Hilly.

Ha, I'll say.

Not exactly itching to see it.

Superman IV makes a good laugh though. The special effects are unbelievably bad.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Not entirely without entertainment value, but boy does one have to slog through a great deal of chaff to get to the wheat. At 165 minutes, Nolan's third Batman outing is absurdly overlong, not to mention incoherent and excessively talky (and it hardly needs to be noted that much of the dialogue is dreadful). There are some laboured touches of comic relief (Nolan seems to have a curious fondness for quipping cops) yet no real sense of fun, let alone wit. While Gotham now appears to boast more skyscrapers than every other American city put together, there's a surprising lack of visual "wow" factor in this final chapter of the trilogy, making it quite a comedown after the dazzling THE DARK KNIGHT. Another aspect in which RISES falls short is its villain, with Tom Hardy's Bane too often unintentionally laughable and/or just plain dull, and certainly no iconic, engaging baddie like Heath Ledger's Joker.

I think many had your reaction to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Loomis. It's still my favorite of the Nolan Batflicks, though.

Anyway, tonight I'm sitting down with ROMANCING THE STONE. No great shakes, but it's fun.

Something about certain mid80s action movies (ROMANCING and NATE&HAYES comes to mind) where they basically have a great opening sequence, then they drop dead for about 40minutes. Kind of odd, given STONE is one of those things that always got referenced as a great example of scripting.

I'm happy to have N&H on DVD just for that opening and for the last half of the movie (especially the sailing ship vs ironclad sequence, which is very nicely scored by Trevor Jones), but don't think I've revisited STONE In 15 years, maybe it is time.

Harmsway wrote:

I think many had your reaction to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Loomis. It's still my favorite of the Nolan Batflicks, though.

I'm curious to know on what basis.

Harmsway wrote:

Anyway, tonight I'm sitting down with ROMANCING THE STONE. No great shakes, but it's fun.

Agreed. A very entertaining movie.

Python wrote:

Superman IV makes a good laugh though. The special effects are unbelievably bad.

I've often wondered about cut scenes. There is supposedly a whole other movie worth of stuff (kind of like BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS) that got tossed (not that it would have helped, I guess, though I'd love to see more character stuff and more vfx from BATTLE.)

Série noire (1979, dir. Alain Corneau)

Interesting film by the director who also made the POLICE PYTHON film I watched a couple of weeks ago.
At its centre a pretty idiosyncratic character, not a guy one fully sympathizes with, but he has got some human traits to him that prevent him from being on the side of evil. A murder scene (apparently in the heat of passion, but there are indications that allow a different reading); the guy has to carry the dead body of a fat elderly woman up the stairs, and naturally one has to feel some sort of disgust, but the old hag had offered her underage niece to our antihero. No truly likeable person in this film, including our 'hero's' boss and the mentioned underage girl that appears to be a bit nymphomaniacal.
There are many complications for the guy that make this film engaging; Dewaere gives an excellent performance, all I did not like about it probably is attributable to the dubbing process. (Dewaere died at age 35 from committing suicide.) The whole film feels more natural and convincing than your typical Hollywood stuff. I can only recommend French cinema once again.


Frenzy (1972, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)

The whole presentation of the actual murderer as the jovial and seemingly innocent salesman and the contrasting depiction and incrimination of the poor fellow are very well written and directed. Both lead actors are really convincing. Foster in particular. The special Hitchcock touch is brought in by the scenes between the police detective and his wife during dinner. The parallels to the murder case are good and sufficiently subtle.
The film includes macabre scenes of black humour, but the scene in which the murderer has trouble retrieving a stick pin from the dead body on which the postmortem rigidity has already begun, is anything but tasteless. In fact, you do not laugh AT the corpse, but rather WITH her at the panicked killer. The way Hitchcock handles this sequence is admirable. The ending may not be ingeniously conceived, but it definitely is highly ironic and pleasing, there is enough suspense just before it and throughout the movie.
Hadn't seen it in more than 20 years. Really well-made film.

Loomis wrote:

I'm curious to know on what basis.

Bane and Catwoman, mostly. They bring a sense of absurdity and levity to Nolan's Batman.

On reflection, perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. While I stand by my observation that "there's a surprising lack of visual 'wow' factor in this final chapter of the trilogy, making it quite a comedown after the dazzling THE DARK KNIGHT", I must admit that RISES is still pretty stylish stuff when compared to most flicks out there. There is indeed a fair amount of visual flair going on, but in perhaps a quieter, less "showy" manner than that of its predecessor, if you get what I'm trying to say (and that may, after all, be no bad thing, necessarily). I failed to give RISES credit for some moments of striking cinematography, for there are indeed some great shots here and there. Visually, I'd say it's much more impressive fare than INCEPTION, as well as a better and more interesting film across the board.

RISES also boasts Bale's most engaging turn as Bruce Wayne (there's almost no point in even mentioning his performance as Batman, for the Caped Crusader is virtually reduced to a cameo role here - which, again, isn't necessarily a bad thing). Caine is terrific, while Hathaway, Freeman and Tom Conti are good, and it's nice to see Ben Mendelsohn aboard, although it's a pity that the actor who was so chilling in the recent ANIMAL KINGDOM has such a small role here.

The BATMAN BEGINS trilogy is far from flawless, but on the whole it works brilliantly and is unquestionably one of the best trilogies to have emerged from Hollywood since, well, THE GODFATHER, not to mention quite possibly the best action/superhero blockbuster franchise trilogy of all time.