Last Movie you Watched?

G - I can agree that I watched ALCATRAZ mainly for the McGoohan involvement, and appreciated the calculated irony in casting him as a prison warden.

And as for SHAWSHANK - man needs a film to make his spirit soar high and above, and SHAWSHANK does that well and truly for me. And its superb.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Today you can count me as a Dana Andrews fan. I used to say that I found him dull. No more. I'll need to give LAURA another spin for sure. He's excellent. Everyone here is excellent.

Excellent to hear.

Quote :

Every moment, every beat, is captured so well. And Toland's deep focus is wow..

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

I've spent the weekend watching...



Ike (1979) TV Mini Series

As a student of 20th century American history, and primarily the period from Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy assassination, Dwight Eisenhower is one of my greatest heroes. As President he tread a fairly central road as the Re[ublican candidate, which not only prevented isolationists from grabbing too much power but also meant he wasnt beholden to the far left - and was such a beloved figure that he was re-elected President with a Democratic senate majority. He maintained a largely peaveful and comfortable America and went out largely a hero. I knew a decent amount about his war deeds, but they never inspired a film like PATTON or even MACARTHUR, who of course were both absolute sons-of-bitches in their own awesome ways. But Ike's certainly the man.

As for the mini-series, its rather fun and enjoyable. It stars Robert Duvall as Ike, small time officer on the staff of General Marshall (played by an old Dana Andrews) who's never served in combat. In the face of American interests pushing over to the Pacific, Ike speaks up that Europe matters a lot. A whole lot. And one impassioned speech later, he;s Commander of the Europe based forces. I'll deal with the parts focussing on the war first.

We get appearances from all kinds of world figures - Monty's a loathsome primadonna with barely a redeeming feature, Churchill's a schemer who throws his weight around (including a rather ludicrous scene in which he's in the bathtub) before backing Ike all the way, Roosevelt's a jolly old man who occasionally schemes, Omar Bradley gets played by a Karl Malden lookalike and is rtaher useless, De Gaulle's a prissy pain in the ass, and then there's Patton. Played by Darren McGavin, he's a more friendly son-of-a-bitch than George C. Scott. He even cries at one point after Ike humbles him with dignity. These inter-relationships are all rather humorous and enjoyable, and they are background to the battle scenes, which are mostly played by archive footage but achieve a good stirring effect, kind of a low rent version of PATTON.

The other half of the story concerns one Kay Summersby - fiery Irish lass who serves as Eisenhower's driver, then secretary and if you believe this film, an unrequited romance, over the years of the war. Whether there was any real romance we'll never truly know - Summersby wrote a biography in 1948 that mentioned no such thing, but another one after Ike's death apparently spilled some beans. Either way, the "romance" scenes bog it down in a decent amount of corn from time to time. Thankfully, Kay's played by one of my favourite actresses of all in Lee Remick - any less of an actress and it all may have become very tiring.

All in all - good fun. :)

Sharky wrote:

My favourite superhero flick of the year:

DOG BOND: FIRST CLASS ASS.

A franchise reboot-y.

Duran Duran, gratuitous sadism, porn and arse clenching jeans, Fun for all the family.

Certainly one of the best ever.

ALI

A vibrant film that catches the atmosphere of its time very well. Writing, acting, cinematography and music are all excellent. All of the elements are perfectly mixed and orchestrated.
An insanely underrated film, truly fantastic.

THE PLEDGE

Second time, a mostly decent film which is closer to the excellent Dürrenmatt novel than the 50s Rühmann/Fröbe film with its bog-standard happy ending.

FESTEN

This too, second time. I liked it more than the first time. Had to get used to the shaky cam which is used almost as skillful as in a Michael Mann film. One of the better attempts at realism in a movie.

SOLARIS

Magnificent, involving, intelligent film. It's already a couple of weeks ago that I watched it, so no more words from me than a general praise.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

This also, second time. I can't say anything as to its copying older films, but I really enjoy it. I am still clueless as to who Chigur works for. I am also not really fond of the Harrelson character, nor Harrelson himself (but he is mildly amusing). Pretty tense and well-shot film.

COLLATERAL

Apart from the fact that the Vincent character is not a fully believable hitman representation, and some of the slightly humorous bits that add to his sentiment, I cannot find anything wrong with the film. Surely, also the Max-the-taxi-driver character is not 100% believable as the "working class" nice guy who turns into a guy fighting an experienced hitman. But the writer and director go some way to make the character interactions and changes at least somewhat plausible. Even the mentioned humour is subtle and, well, just funny. In those humorous bits Cruise manages to not fall out of character and be a jokey guy. When he's in serious scenes, he is perfectly believable as the merciless hitman. Only Mann can make mediocre and weak actors act well.
I enjoyed COLLATERAL on its perhaps sixth viewing once again, so it has to be a really good film, just not the league of Mann's masterpieces (of which there are four). A highly enjoyable, compact and tense thriller.

MIAMI VICE

I had to turn it off after the first two thirds which, on my now third viewing, I found uninspiring and quite tedious. The love story is unconvincing in my book.
The only good bits were some of the atmosphere - cinematography and music mostly responsible for this effect. The scene in which the two meet the informant who - SPOILER! - commits suicide - is very well done, very subtle and it works out fine therefore. Also, the look of Yero's eyes when he watches Sonny and Isabella dance is one more such a well-acted and subtle moment that works. I think there was another bit I liked, but I don't remember it.
I had to stop, because my DVD player went gaga as soon as the third part began. The picture jumped up and down, in lack for better words. It seems the player has these problems only with the Mann films from HEAT onwards, but until now, the jumping was reduced to bits of the films (to Max' glasses, for instance).
I ordered a Blu-Ray player. It got excellent reviews and is very cheap (reduced 53% in price, 70 €). I think in combination with the HD-TV - I inaugurated it with HEAT in Octobre 8) - it will increase viewing pleasure.

Overall, I enjoyed COLLATERAL much more. But I expect the last third to be much better than the first two. Maybe it's depending on mood. I will give the whole film - because I usually only watch them without a break, obviously - another chance. I listened to the score on the net and have to say, in this department Mann still maintains his usual high quality.

Crazy, Stupid, Love

Got dragged to go see this by the girlfriend. It's basically one of those rom-coms that have become popular as of late where we follow the stories of multiple different characters, some who seem completely unrelated to the story, only to find out in the end how they're all connected to one another. It's kind of a tired concept, and here in this film, the "twists" are completely predictable. There are some good laughs along the way, mostly coming from the duo of Steve Carrell and Ryan Gosling. There are also a few genuinely touching moments, especially a nice scene between Gosling and Emma Stone where he picks her up a a bar and they go home to get it on, and they end up getting drunk and talking all night. So, despite the tired concept, the film actually moves along quite well until the ending. Suffice to say, the conclusion is so amateurishly written it's astonishing, and basically amounts to one of the characters standing up in front of hundreds of people and blurting out his feelings while everyone else just passively listens. It's absolutely dreadful. Screenwriting 101: Never have your characters say exactly what they're feeling out-loud. It's implausible and ridiculous,

6/10

---------------------------------

Midnight in Paris

What a wonderful and magical film. I must say, when I found out that Owen Wilson is the star of this film, I was immediately worried. But for the first time in my life, I'm going to say that he actually does a remarkable job here. Far and away the best performance I've ever seen him give. However, the real star of this film is Marion Collitard, who absolutely steals every scene she is in. The woman just radiates pure sexual energy and magnetism, and the great part is...she knows it. Using this to her advantage allows her to exude the confidence and swagger that simply won't allow you to take your eyes off of her the entire film.

The film definitely has a lot of laughs, most of them coming from literary references as Wilson's character (a Hollywood screenwriter) meets his idols throughout the story. Hemingway, Piccaso, Cole Porter, Scott Fitzgerald...they're all there. Even Adrien Brody makes a humorous little cameo as Salvador Dahli. Now, I have pretty standard high school level literature/art history education, and I understood about 70% of the references in the film, so I was laughing quite often. If you're really savvy in that area, you'll probably catch them all. However, I'm afraid most of the films humor will be lost to audiences that know little or nothing about classic literature of art. But, if you're going to see this film, the chances are that you already are pretty familiar with these subjects anyway.

One thing that couldn't have been improved on was Rachel McAdams charater, whom Wilson is engaged to. She does a fine job with what is there, but the character is underwritten. It would have been nice to see some more substance there, instead of just writing her as a stock character. Nonetheless, Midnight in Paris is practically the perfect summer film. It's humorous, fun, romantic, magical, and sufficiently thought-provoking without being too overwhelming. Oh...and I love Wilson's line where he asks the tour guide "Ma'am...is it possible for a man to love two women at the same time?"

9/10

Of Mice and Men (1939)



A solid film adaption. Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney have great chemistry that pretty much makes the whole film for me, although everything else is quite fine.

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Tough, effective noir thriller with an edgy Andrews. Gene Tierney looks amazing, and so do the New York locations. Wish Karl Malden had a bigger part in the film.

colly wrote:

Ike (1979) TV Mini Series
I knew a decent amount about his war deeds, but they never inspired a film like PATTON or even MACARTHUR, who of course were both absolute sons-of-bitches in their own awesome ways. But Ike's certainly the man.

Ike, small time officer on the staff of General Marshall (played by an old Dana Andrews) who's never served in combat. In the face of American interests pushing over to the Pacific, Ike speaks up that Europe matters a lot. A whole lot. And one impassioned speech later, he;s Commander of the Europe based forces.

We get appearances from all kinds of world figures - Monty's a loathsome primadonna with barely a redeeming feature, Churchill's a schemer who throws his weight around (including a rather ludicrous scene in which he's in the bathtub) before backing Ike all the way, Roosevelt's a jolly old man who occasionally schemes, Omar Bradley gets played by a Karl Malden lookalike and is rtaher useless, De Gaulle's a prissy pain in the ass, and then there's Patton. Played by Darren McGavin, he's a more friendly son-of-a-bitch than George C. Scott. He even cries at one point after Ike humbles him with dignity. These inter-relationships are all rather humorous and enjoyable, and they are background to the battle scenes, which are mostly played by archive footage but achieve a good stirring effect, kind of a low rent version of PATTON.

All in all - good fun. :)

I'm reading Montgomery's autobiography at the moment, he gets an undeserved bad rap from the American's

Ike was a great leader of men on a political and logistical level, which is why he also made a great statesman, however he had little grasp of field tactics

Montgomery and Patton were both excellent tactical field commanders but also both somewhat excentric and undiplomatic and therfore poor political leaders

because of the nature of the politics between the allies, Montgomery was given command of the more relevant tactical position in the field and his ideas should have been backed more strongly, however this wasn't acceptable politicaly, as the Americans were the ones funding the whole show, providing much of the equiptment and going out of their way to help, so they also wanted a front row seat

Patton was allocated a supporting role which he wasn't prepared to accept for purely selfish reasons

and there a couple of other generals commanding armies in the field as well

"too many cooks spoiled the broth"

guys like Napoleon, Wellington, Julius Caesar, Alexander etc never had to share the stage with another general, they called all the shots without having to put up with any second guessing

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

Cowboys & Aliens

My 3rd Daniel Craig film. Not nearly as good as CR but highly superior to QOS. Now Harrison Ford can say he shared the screen with 2 James Bonds. Movie had a great premise but lacked a compelling narrative drive to make it truly satisfying. Watchable enough for a summer popcorn flick. **1/2 our of ****.

only your 3rd?
after seeing someone as Bond I usually try to dig up some of their other stuff

I really enjoyed his performance in "Defiance"
"Archangel" was solid
and of course there's "Layer Cake"

how to make Action Comedy 101 (IMO)

Knight & Day
I liked it
on the plus side, the action is coherently edited and there are intelligent (by the standards of the genre) dialogue scenes of reasonable length that attempt some character development
old fashioned virtues we don't see enough of these days
Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz give restrained performances, which contrast nicely with the comic book action sequences
my main complaint would be an over reliance on unconvincing CGI, cars roll too often and revolve too many times when they roll, the jet that attacks the island flies faster than any plane can fly, that's fine for a "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" but not acceptable in this context
the CGI bull run… a herd of CGI bulls would not make a car roll like it had just run over a land mine
it's un necessary and detracted from my enjoyment
however IMO in general terms it is more acceptable to stretch credulity beyond breaking point in the "comedy / action" genre (e.g. True Lies, Crank, Shoot 'Em Up) than it is in the "pure action" or "thriller / action" genre (e.g. Die Hard, First Blood)
my other disappointment would be that the climactic action scene was rather tame, I think Cruz needed an additional physical confrontation with another kickass henchman in there? in any case something was missing and I found it completely underwhelming
it was neither novel or spectacular (i.e. to draw a parallel to "True Lie" the "Harrier Jet" was missing), but even so it was a more satisfactory ending than say "Mr & Mrs Smith"
however it bombed at the box office, so what do I know…

The A Team
I hated it
on the minus side, the action was incoherently edited, with shaky cam thrown in for good measure, dialogue and character development were perfunctory and broad brush
the only plus side was the casting, an opportunity wasted
however it did better at the box office than "Knight & Day", so what do I know…

I've recently reread Treasure Island, one of my favorite childhood books. I was in the mood for some swashbuckling, so I watched...

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Orlando Bloom is a big problem in this one. The guy looks helpless, pathetic, and quite frankly out-classed when he's side-by-side with the likes of Depp, Rush, Pryce...hell, even Keira Knightly. Even with a pretty generic "nice guy who wants the girl" character, he still has trouble. The plot is also a little convoluted and doesn't hold up all too well when examined closely. And at 2 hours 23 minutes, it all begins to feel a little tiresome towards the end. Depp and Rush are easily the most compelling aspects of the film, playing bitter, eccentric rivals. They seem to be having fun playing opposite each other, especially when they have some witty banter to go back and forth with. Most of the dialogue, actually, is pretty sharp, and the action scenes are generally quite clever and fun. Overall, it's rather enjoyable affair in a genre that could stand to be revived.

Aside: This is the third or fourth time I have seen this film since it's release. Each time I watch it, I can't help but wonder how these films are so INSANELY popular, and each time, I grow more and more convinced that teenage American girls just love it because they think Depp is cute.

6.5/10

The Lonely Guy
Steve Martin in subtle mode, with Charles Grodin very good in a supporting role
not that well received or reviewed, but it made me smile quite a lot
not gut busting laughs but lots of amusing moments and whimsical sequences which appealed to me

dr. strangelove wrote:

I've recently reread Treasure Island, one of my favorite childhood books. I was in the mood for some swashbuckling, so I watched...

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Orlando Bloom is a big problem in this one. The guy looks helpless, pathetic, and quite frankly out-classed when he's side-by-side with the likes of Depp, Rush, Pryce...hell, even Keira Knightly. Even with a pretty generic "nice guy who wants the girl" character, he still has trouble. The plot is also a little convoluted and doesn't hold up all too well when examined closely. And at 2 hours 23 minutes, it all begins to feel a little tiresome towards the end. Depp and Rush are easily the most compelling aspects of the film, playing bitter, eccentric rivals. They seem to be having fun playing opposite each other, especially when they have some witty banter to go back and forth with. Most of the dialogue, actually, is pretty sharp, and the action scenes are generally quite clever and fun. Overall, it's rather enjoyable affair in a genre that could stand to be revived.

Aside: This is the third or fourth time I have seen this film since it's release. Each time I watch it, I can't help but wonder how these films are so INSANELY popular, and each time, I grow more and more convinced that teenage American girls just love it because they think Depp is cute.

6.5/10

I've only seen the first one, and only once. When it came out. Tried to watch it a second time on DVD and was bored out of my mind. I think Ebert said "There's a good 90-minute movie in there somewhere". I agree. They should have cut out the fat, and put it on Knightley's skull and bones.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Tough, effective noir thriller with an edgy Andrews. Gene Tierney looks amazing, and so do the New York locations. Wish Karl Malden had a bigger part in the film.

Best bit's when Andrews realizes he's killed a war hero. The man looks like he's had a heart attack.

Quote :

The A Team
I hated it

Honestly, apart from the ending part with the CGI shipping containers, I really enjoyed the A-Team.

Quote :

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

I saw a bit of the second one and was bored, but in all honesty again I loved the first one - a dynamic thrillride of a swashbuckler that had enough charm to overcome guys like Bloom et al.

Sharky wrote:

gratuitous sadism

The Guardian tells me that all sadism is gratuitous, which rather misses the point. I still recall with pleasure the time I made Julie Bindel read the collected works of Norman Mailer. She wasn't born with that beard, y'know.

Avatar

It started as a test of my projection system. Turns out, I ended up watching the entire movie.

Script still isn't much. It's been filtered so many times that some of the complexities I heard about in the earlier drafts are nonexistent in the final cut. Both Jake and Neytiri act like teenagers, which is passable sometimes and downright annoying others. Horner's score might be the laziest he's ever made.

Colonel Quaritch is a reigning badass, though. I still find the movie enjoyable, despite my hangups. I have a soft spot for big epics and Avatar is definitely one of them.

Misery (1990)

One of the better Stephen King adaptations I've seen, especially compared to some trainwrecks like Dreamcatcher. It's pleasant to see James Caan in a leading role. He's not the best actor in the world, but works well opposite Kathy Bates' psycho fangirl. Speaking of Bates, she's frighteningly effective here, but surely not Oscar-worthy? It wasn't exactly a hard role.

Tubes wrote:

Colonel Quaritch is a reigning badass, though.

I thought his character was so poorly written that, by the end of the flick, he's basically turned into a parody of every "tough guy" military man in cinema. His lines during that Transformers/Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots fight near the end were hilarious.

In my opinion, of course.

Agree with you about the script and the score, too.

colly wrote:

Quote :

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

I saw a bit of the second one and was bored, but in all honesty again I loved the first one - a dynamic thrillride of a swashbuckler that had enough charm to overcome guys like Bloom et al.

what he said

I love Pirates of the Caribbean. Sure, the second and third ones suck like a Dyson; and the fourth one had a shabby second half - but it's got pirates. And that's all this girl needs.

And for the record, Johnny Depp is a pretty boy. Doesn't ring my bell, frankly. But dress him up as a pirate, and I start to pay more attention.

The Seventh Seal (1957)

A second viewing was even better than the first. It's one of the most important movies ever made, there's no question about it. However, it's also incredibly beautiful and entertaining. The plot isn't riddled with metaphors, the concepts are dealt out to us in such a blunt and obvious way that it's almost impossible to miss the message. I think that's a great technique and frankly, it's quite humbling of Ingmar Bergman. This questions religion in a way that it never was before and really hasn't been since, maybe because it's so flawless in its attempt.

The character of Antonius Block is asking all the questions, much like Bergman is himself. Also, you can't ask for a more dynamic and completely fascinating person to look at. Most of the time he appears on screen as a tall and dominating character, but at the same time incredibly sympathetic. Von Sydow is excellent as the knight. I think all the actors were great, especially Gunner Bjornstrand as Jons. Visually it is also bewildering: the roaring seas, the stormy skies, and those shots of the knight and his Death playing their chess game at the beach.

The story of The Seventh Seal is dense to say the least. There is more content in its ninety minute running time than a lot of three hour epics. Bergman tries to make every single shot and every single line of dialogue mean something. So much is being told to us through images, sometimes even more than the dialogue. Bergman covers pretty much every medieval topic: plagues, religion, the crusades, feudalism, etc. Antonius Block and his begrudging servant essentially travel through a collage of the time period; something that's just really ingenious.

The Virgin Spring (1960)

It's known as Bergman's most repulsive work and probably one his lesser ones. The story is deceptively simple and yet filled with harrowing imagery. The rape scene is difficult to watch, even in these jaded times, and of course Bergman wrings the maximum tension out of it right from the very beginning. The second half is, perhaps, even more tense, with the expectation of impending violence and the strong, subtle filmmaking techniques (lots of lurking shadow, religious iconography, haunted faces). The excellent use of black and white photography reminded me of Rashomon. Max von Sydow holds it all together as the brusque father and family man, but he heads a cast who can do no wrong.

Wes Craven went for a lurid, contemporary remake in Last House on The Left, but despite the graphic nature of Craven's film I don't think it holds a candle to this one.

The Three Musketeers 1948
Gene Kelly's acting may be far to broad, so that I couldn't help imagining how much better a young Errol Flynn would have been
(I suspect he is trying to pay misguided homage to Doug Fairbanks silent incarnation, just as DFjr did in "Sinbad")
and he may not wield the blade with the technical skill of Tyrone Power, Basil Rathbone or Jose Ferrer
but when it comes to swashbuckling athleticism Kelly is second to none
IMO only Fairbanks himself, Nick Cravat or Jackie Chan can match him
he's supported by an outstanding cast
Van Heflin makes an ideal Athos
Gig Young is also a natural, although I might have made him Aramis rather than Porthos?
by comparison Robert Coote seems a disappointing choice
Lana Turner cannot be faulted as Lady De Winter
Patricia Medina is no slouch either, as "Kitty"
June Allyson does girl next door innocence well as Constance
Angela Lansbury gets to be a good girl for once (well sort of )
Vincent Price is suitably slippery as Richelieu
Keenan Wynn is a colourful Planchet
and The Wizard of Oz himself (Frank Morgan) turns up as the comic relief King of France

as TTM (and it's sequel story "The Man In The Iron Mask") is one of those stories that gets remade every 10 years or so it's interesting to contrast and compare the casts of the various productions
1921 = Douglas Fairbanks / Leon Bary / George Siegman / Eugene Pallette = I haven't seen it
1929 = Douglas Fairbanks / Leon Bary / Tiny Sanford / ? = I haven't seen it
1935 = Don Ameche / Douglas Dumbrille / Russell Hicks / Dusty King = I haven't seen it
1939 = Warren William / Bert Roach / Alan Hale / Miles Mander = I haven't seen it
1948 = Kelly - 8, Heflin - 9, Young - 10, Coote - 7 = 34
1973 = Michael York - 9, Oliver Reed - 10, Richard Chamberlain - 9, Frank Finlay - 10 = 38
1993 = Chris O'Donnell - 0, Kiefer Sutherland - 7, Oliver Platt - 8, Charlie Sheen - 7 = 22
1998 = Gabriel Byrne - 7, John Malkovich - 7, Gerard Depardieux - 10, Jeremy Irons - 9 = 33
2011 = Logan Lerman / Matthew Macfadyen / Ray Stevenson / Luke Evans (??? but Mads Mikkelsen should make a good Rochefort)

as expected the 1973 version remains definitive
Kelly's acting is a bit off in the 1948 version and the action sequences are poorly filmed in the 1998 edition
as for Chris O'Donnell… what were they thinking?

Our Man Flint (1965)

Not as good as one would hope. I found it to be light entertainment, a bit undercooked.

Coburn rocks, of course. Lee J. Cobb is one of my favorites. I hope he got a fat check for this.

But a terrific score.



Galaxy Island is also really cool.

Had a Spielberg double feature.

Jaws (1975)

Still a very well made thriller. Scheider. Shaw. Dreyfuss. Not much else to say.

Jurassic Park (1993)

Grew up watching this through childhood, doesn't engage me as much as it used to but it's still a pretty effective thriller. And it's strange to realize most of the CGI looks better than some of today's (except when the Rex chases a jeep).

I used to think JURASSIC was the cat's ass. The last time I watched it, I don't think I bothered finishing it. That CGI has indeed held up well, though.


Might have needed more tits. I don't know.