Last Movie you Watched?

Mr. Brown wrote:

TAXI DRIVERTalking to Women 101, with Travis Bickle...

Brilliant writing.

Schrader wrote that when he was living in the back of a car. I suppose that was the late twentieth century's equivalent of the starving artist's garret.

tiffanywint wrote:

Rise of the Planet of the Apes 5 out of 5 stars, simply because its an Apes movie. That's enough in itself for a 5 star rating.
It ranks along with AVTAK for one of the great Golden Gate bridge finales.
It's a little different from the 6 previous films in that the narrative isn't populated by talking apes. Ceasar doesn't really find his voice until the very end.
Apes lovers though will enjoy all the nods and winks to the original film. Some of them are really well done.
I made a list:
1. The primate-shelter ape-keepers have named their lead orangutan, Maurice - a nod to Maurice Evans who played lead Orangutan Dr. Zeus in the original.
2. One of the apekeepers reprises Heston's famous, "It's a madhouse! It's a madhouse" cry when the caged apes go bananas and start shrieking and rattling their cages.
3. A news report on TV reports a couple of astronauts have gone missing in space - no doubt to return to earth 2000 years in the future to find the planet ruled by monkeys.
4. A caged Ceasar pulls a brat young male hard against his cage and shakes him up. It looks like a simple case of ape violence but Ceasar was really after the guy's penknife. A caged Taylor/Heston in the original pulled the same stunt with one his ape jailers, in order to steal his pen.
5. The famous hose-down of the caged Taylor was done in reverse with the mean human ape-keeper hosing down a caged Caesar.
6. And one of the mean human ape-keepers when first accosted by the escaped Caesar reprises Taylor's famous, "get your stinkin paws off me, you damned dirty ape" which were the first words Taylor spoke to his ape captors after he got his voice back. This scene got a great response from the crowd, which recognized the line immediately, but nothing compares with Heston's original iconic defiant utterance. It's my favourite moment in the history of cinema.
7. James Franco nicknames his first intelligent ape, Bright Eyes, - the same name Cornelius and Zera gave to Taylor before they learned he could speak.
8. Another one of Franco's apes is called Cornelia - a combination of Cornelius and Zera's names from the original.
I'll have to see this movie a couple more times, being the Apes fanatic that I am. There might be some more nods to the classic original.
I hope they continue to make more Apes films based on this re-boot. There is potential to keep things going again and rebuild the ape mythology.

I did like this movie but the films are best when the apes rule and the humans have to fight them which is where we should be for a sequel now that the apes are out of their cages and running amok.

Would you recommend this even if (as is the case with me) the only Apes movie that you'd ever seen was Tim Burton's crappy '01 're-imagining'?

I'm toying with the latest Apes film. I've seen all but the Burton one (well, started it and walked away) . So, maybe.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Rise of the Planet of the Apes 5 out of 5 stars, simply because its an Apes movie. That's enough in itself for a 5 star rating.
It ranks along with AVTAK for one of the great Golden Gate bridge finales.
It's a little different from the 6 previous films in that the narrative isn't populated by talking apes. Ceasar doesn't really find his voice until the very end.
Apes lovers though will enjoy all the nods and winks to the original film. Some of them are really well done.
I made a list:
1. The primate-shelter ape-keepers have named their lead orangutan, Maurice - a nod to Maurice Evans who played lead Orangutan Dr. Zeus in the original.
2. One of the apekeepers reprises Heston's famous, "It's a madhouse! It's a madhouse" cry when the caged apes go bananas and start shrieking and rattling their cages.
3. A news report on TV reports a couple of astronauts have gone missing in space - no doubt to return to earth 2000 years in the future to find the planet ruled by monkeys.
4. A caged Ceasar pulls a brat young male hard against his cage and shakes him up. It looks like a simple case of ape violence but Ceasar was really after the guy's penknife. A caged Taylor/Heston in the original pulled the same stunt with one his ape jailers, in order to steal his pen.
5. The famous hose-down of the caged Taylor was done in reverse with the mean human ape-keeper hosing down a caged Caesar.
6. And one of the mean human ape-keepers when first accosted by the escaped Caesar reprises Taylor's famous, "get your stinkin paws off me, you damned dirty ape" which were the first words Taylor spoke to his ape captors after he got his voice back. This scene got a great response from the crowd, which recognized the line immediately, but nothing compares with Heston's original iconic defiant utterance. It's my favourite moment in the history of cinema.
7. James Franco nicknames his first intelligent ape, Bright Eyes, - the same name Cornelius and Zera gave to Taylor before they learned he could speak.
8. Another one of Franco's apes is called Cornelia - a combination of Cornelius and Zera's names from the original.
I'll have to see this movie a couple more times, being the Apes fanatic that I am. There might be some more nods to the classic original.
I hope they continue to make more Apes films based on this re-boot. There is potential to keep things going again and rebuild the ape mythology.

I did like this movie but the films are best when the apes rule and the humans have to fight them which is where we should be for a sequel now that the apes are out of their cages and running amok.

Would you recommend this even if (as is the case with me) the only Apes movie that you'd ever seen was Tim Burton's crappy '01 're-imagining'?

See the original.

Me? I've only seen the first one and the Burton one. I want to see the sequels, just for the hell of it. Maybe when this new one comes to DVD I'll see them all. Except for the Burton one.

The Burton film is great for lulz. Well, I only saw the ending but still it was a hoot.

But not as funny as this flick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1CTjrEWX-k

I posted this on that other site. But seeing as I took some time to write this whole thing out, I thought I'd share it here too:

Batman Begins -

So I will probably get a lot of flack on this one, but I thought BB was just ok. While I appreciate Nolan and co-writer David S. Goyer origins story take on the subject matter, I just felt the movie comes across a little flat as a result. The whole section of the movie leading up to when Wayne first dons the Batsuit interestingly enough deals with Bruce Wayne's training and transformation into that which he fears most. I felt all of this went on for a bit long and felt like excessive exposition. It didn't feel like much was happening in the story. Also, this movie has the annoying factor of hitting you over the head left and right with the theme of fear, face your fear, become you fear! Great film-making conveys these feelings with imagery and the actions taking place without spelling it out for you at every turn. The other problem I had with such an exhaustive study of all the discreet details and mechanics of how Batman came to be, from the ninja stars and arm claws, to the tevlar bat suit, made the whole set-up super scientific and serious, that when we actually see Batman in full get-up it feel like a joke. All that technical hoo-hah and build-up, and what we get is a guy in a funny super-hero batsuit and a cape? Stylistically I thought they could have done a little more with the bat-suit; there was nothing anymore interesting about it than the Michael Keaton one from Batman '89 and as I said, it looks a bit campy in this film. Another issue I have is that after all this, the movie basically turns into standard comic-book action movie faire. There's the typical bad guy plan of wreaking havoc on the city and Batman has to come in and save the day, and he does in the usual fashion of kicking the villain's ass and stopping whatever doomsday device there is from unleashing destruction on the people. Raz Al Ghoul is just an average adversary, basically a traitor with martial arts skills (or in a less flattering light: Qui Gon Jin turned to the dark side but without jedi mind tricks or light sabers). For a comic book film, I was expecting a little more, something more memorable. Scarecrow was also a bit underdeveloped as a villain, and was basically reduced to a henchman by the end of the film, who poses no real threat. The cast is all-star strong here no doubt: Morgan Freeman as Luscious playinig up a bit of a Q from James Bond role here, Gary Oldman playing a good-hearted Commisioner Gordon, and of course Michael Caine convincingly playing Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred. Katie Holmes, obviously is the weakest link here, but does a fine enough job. Everything looks great and is well shot. This is a well crafted film, and despite the slow moving plot in the beginning, the direction keeps things tight throughout. I did have a problem with the editing in the action scenes: it was cut to quickly that it was hard to keep up with what was going on in the action. This was especially apparent in the final fight scene. Overall, my impression of this film was that it was well made, well acted, well directed, and moderately successful in re-inventing the franchise. But then again the problem is in the conception of this version of Batman. While, the series could have in no way continued in the Joel Schumacher tradition of travesty, on the contrary taking the Batman series in such a serious direction loses a lot of the fun and fantasy necessary for a comic book story. I suppose the creators here were hoping to transcend the fact that this is a comic book story and make it something that could exist in the real world. The problem is it can't. Batman is a superhero; a human, but one with extraordinary skills and resourcefulness. Superheroes are metaphors for different feelings we have and powers we long to have. We won't jump from building to building swooping down with our cape, but we can face our pain and grief and overcome it. We can also relate to the feeling of being alone, misunderstood, a dark knight in this world, always seeking to do the right thing but not always feeling accepted or rewarded by those around us, even our loved ones. This is the story of Batman, a recluse millionaire who everyone only sees the outer surface of. There is a sense of mystery to the outside world and what the audience knows. Super hero stories are modern retellings of the age old myths. By reducing these stories to real-like dramas as Batman Begins does, we lose a sense of that myth.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Rise of the Planet of the Apes 5 out of 5 stars, simply because its an Apes movie. That's enough in itself for a 5 star rating.
It ranks along with AVTAK for one of the great Golden Gate bridge finales.
It's a little different from the 6 previous films in that the narrative isn't populated by talking apes. Ceasar doesn't really find his voice until the very end.
Apes lovers though will enjoy all the nods and winks to the original film. Some of them are really well done.
I made a list:
1. The primate-shelter ape-keepers have named their lead orangutan, Maurice - a nod to Maurice Evans who played lead Orangutan Dr. Zeus in the original.
2. One of the apekeepers reprises Heston's famous, "It's a madhouse! It's a madhouse" cry when the caged apes go bananas and start shrieking and rattling their cages.
3. A news report on TV reports a couple of astronauts have gone missing in space - no doubt to return to earth 2000 years in the future to find the planet ruled by monkeys.
4. A caged Ceasar pulls a brat young male hard against his cage and shakes him up. It looks like a simple case of ape violence but Ceasar was really after the guy's penknife. A caged Taylor/Heston in the original pulled the same stunt with one his ape jailers, in order to steal his pen.
5. The famous hose-down of the caged Taylor was done in reverse with the mean human ape-keeper hosing down a caged Caesar.
6. And one of the mean human ape-keepers when first accosted by the escaped Caesar reprises Taylor's famous, "get your stinkin paws off me, you damned dirty ape" which were the first words Taylor spoke to his ape captors after he got his voice back. This scene got a great response from the crowd, which recognized the line immediately, but nothing compares with Heston's original iconic defiant utterance. It's my favourite moment in the history of cinema.
7. James Franco nicknames his first intelligent ape, Bright Eyes, - the same name Cornelius and Zera gave to Taylor before they learned he could speak.
8. Another one of Franco's apes is called Cornelia - a combination of Cornelius and Zera's names from the original.
I'll have to see this movie a couple more times, being the Apes fanatic that I am. There might be some more nods to the classic original.
I hope they continue to make more Apes films based on this re-boot. There is potential to keep things going again and rebuild the ape mythology.

I did like this movie but the films are best when the apes rule and the humans have to fight them which is where we should be for a sequel now that the apes are out of their cages and running amok.

Would you recommend this even if (as is the case with me) the only Apes movie that you'd ever seen was Tim Burton's crappy '01 're-imagining'?

See the original.

Me? I've only seen the first one and the Burton one. I want to see the sequels, just for the hell of it. Maybe when this new one comes to DVD I'll see them all. Except for the Burton one.

If you want thrills and a quasi venture into the realm of horror, go for BENEATH. If you want a touching, literally down to earth love story, choose ESCAPE. And if you're after the closest parallel to RISE, watch CONQUEST.

The Moon Is Blue

A shining element of this caper is David Niven. Typical Niv but in a vaguely foreign setting, the American movie. Niv is in some condition throughout which is not bad as the object of his and Holden's affections seems to never shut up and is faintly annoying.
Thank God, there was Hardy Kruger's brief cameo (from the German version which apparently Holden and McNamara cameo in). And still, this is only third William Holden movie I've seen. Second if you don't Towering Inferno as purely a Holden movie.

@Sharky. I'm gonna watch 'em all.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

@Sharky. I'm gonna watch 'em all.

Check yo' pms.

Avoid BATTLE, and try to watch the blu-ray version of CONQUEST with the original ending.

The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus (2009) Dir: Terry Gilliam

This movie will inevitably be known as Heath Ledger's last rather than as Terry Gilliam's most recent. Too bad, because Ledger died during the filming, and his influence on the final product was severely curtailed, whereas Gilliam's hand are visible everywhere.

Over half the film takes place outside the mirror. While not inside Parnassus' imaginarium, these 'modern' streets are still a product of Gilliam's own imaginarium, shot using his traditional wide-angle lens. Heath Ledger, dressed in a white tux and an A Clockwork Orange-esquire mask, persuades middle-aged and elderly women to jump on stage and partake in the show. The devil still lingers, following the troupe and making bets and playing games with Parnassus over the possession of the doctor's daughter. Parnassus is joined by his very voluptuous 16-year-old offspring, a street kid who loves her, and a little person named Percy. Percy is not a midget, but he is apparently immortal like Parnassus, though unlike with Parnassus, Gilliam does not explain why this is.

A good film to compare it to would be Burton's Alice in Wonderland which was a failure in every conceivable way however this never fails on that level because the visuals in Parnassus, both the bright CGI world of the imaginarium and the modern-baroque Gilliam set design of 'the real world', are undeniably wonderful. I felt the characters and the plot, half-baked as they are, were interesting enough to keep me into it even during the most extravagant of scenes. Gilliam may no longer have anything to say but all he has tried to do here is create a work of surrealist escapism, and at least for me, it worked.

Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind (2004) Dir: Michel Gondry

This film doesn't completely explore what would happen if you had your memories erased but it explores what might happen if they were being erased. The idea of revisiting the memories is one that can be equally ill-treated that I'm sure every other screenwriter could easily mess it up in the end but Kaufman pulled it off flawlessly. In a non-linear film such as this, Gondry proves to be a great companion. Carrey, playing a normal commonplace guy this time without any of his trademark characteristics and antics, reminds us that he is primarily a genius actor regardless of the type of film. Winslet's portrayal of Clementine is perhaps one of her best.

Overall, I like the use of the hand held camera and the disorientating use of jump cuts. This is all there from the starting blocks and the simplistic settings and exchanges of dialogue very early on work with these techniques well. The train is an ideal, romantic first setting and there's enough build up in the first ten minutes to warrant the reaction we'll feel later on when everything starts to go wrong. Interestingly enough, these jump cuts start to get more frequent just as we begin to suspect something here isn't quite right.

As the film wears on, there is a distinct element of eeriness. This is shown through flashbacks, although they're flashbacks with a twist as Carrey's character is apparently 'witnessing his own memories.' What's also good about these eerie moments is that some of them have a comic touch to them, whereas some will genuinely make you shiver. This is a good juxtaposition to have flowing throughout.

As well as this, there are many implications to watch out for. Some examples include the changing colour of Winslet's hair suggesting the different moments in the relationship, the disappearing backgrounds and things that were there before that aren't there now or have changed. This is why the film has such an alluring feel to want to go back and see again, but some other scenes involving other characters seem strangely out of place. Anything that's happening to people in the real world, outside of Joel's mind just seems pointless and the scenes are random and unfunny. Joel and Clementine are the main focus, not Dunst and Wilkinson's characters whom have their own miniature side story twist which wasn't really needed and it seemed contrived and seemed like a last ditch attempt to elevate their characters.

Makeshift Python wrote:

The Burton film is great for lulz. Well, I only saw the ending but still it was a hoot.

I think I've tried sitting through it about 3 or 4 times since it's release.

Just plain-old horrible.

FG Wells wrote:

Batman Begins -

Overall, my impression of this film was that it was well made, well acted, well directed, and moderately successful in re-inventing the franchise. But then again the problem is in the conception of this version of Batman. While, the series could have in no way continued in the Joel Schumacher tradition of travesty, on the contrary taking the Batman series in such a serious direction loses a lot of the fun and fantasy necessary for a comic book story. I suppose the creators here were hoping to transcend the fact that this is a comic book story and make it something that could exist in the real world. The problem is it can't. Batman is a superhero; a human, but one with extraordinary skills and resourcefulness. Superheroes are metaphors for different feelings we have and powers we long to have. We won't jump from building to building swooping down with our cape, but we can face our pain and grief and overcome it. We can also relate to the feeling of being alone, misunderstood, a dark knight in this world, always seeking to do the right thing but not always feeling accepted or rewarded by those around us, even our loved ones. This is the story of Batman, a recluse millionaire who everyone only sees the outer surface of. There is a sense of mystery to the outside world and what the audience knows. Super hero stories are modern retellings of the age old myths. By reducing these stories to real-like dramas as Batman Begins does, we lose a sense of that myth.

nice review

however I like to think there can be a middle ground between the quirky gothic fantasy style of Burton and Nolans "grim reality"

it's the same place where the best of the James Bond films live

FG Wells wrote:

Batman Begins -

So I will probably get a lot of flack on this one, but I thought BB was just ok.

I think you're being generous. ;)

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Would you recommend this even if (as is the case with me) the only Apes movie that you'd ever seen was Tim Burton's crappy '01 're-imagining'?

I would recommend this film, simply because at the very least it works as a popcorn film. Its not terribly profound but it does try to work as a cautionary tale, with some success. It's a good sci-fi film, but grounded for a sci-fi film.
btw what's the term - anyone - for films that are technically sci-fi, but still basically grounded in reality, as opposed to full blown alien populated futuristic sci-fi?
IMO the original Apes is a classic movie, not only for its filmcraft and entertainment value, but also for its smart contemporary social commentary.
None of the original 4 sequels even compare I don't think, nor do the two later entries.
I do like the sequels though simply because they are rooted in the original. All four re-inforce the premise of the original, but none come close to having a similar impact. The second "Beneath" is quite ludicrous but still entertains. The next three are fun little 70's sci-fi films exploring how the apes took over. They work as entertainment and do also delve into some interesting social commentary but the series ran out of gas with "Battle" though.
Shark summed up #'s 3 and 4. Escape does work as a love story. Conquest is kinda dumb but it works as a good revolt against oppression film, while Battle seems like an afterthought.
I did like Burton's film, except for the incomprehensible ending, which Burton freely admits he doesn't claim to understand either. No-one does apparently. It looks like it was a cheap gimmick to copy the impact of the original's Statue of Liberty ending, which packed a real wallop.
But Burton's film at least did a decent job of presenting another scenario whereby an ape-ruled planet could have developed. Wahlberg is no Heston, so that didn't help but I did like the costumes and general escapist vibe of the film even if ultimately the story-telling wasn't terribly interesting
As for the new one, Rise, I like all the homages to the original. It does attempt to be a cautionary tale as well, which gives it some extra depth and makes it more interesting than Burton's film.
And I like that it sets up nicely for a sequel, and not just any old sequel but some smart sci-fi sequels. The sequels if done with thought and imagination could be more interesting than "Rise".
Even if the original film's impact can't be trumped, this new entry could certainly trump the original's sequels.
With humanity apparently dying off as a result of the same virus that caused the ape intelligence to grow, a "Rise" sequel does set up for telling the next story of how the apes gradually form their dominant society and how the surviving humans cope. The possibilties are endless for social commentary,questions of justice,co-exisetence of intelligrent species etc. Will the apes enslave the humans? Probably. Will they learn to co-exist? Who knows? There is lots of interesting material here to work with.
You could even at some point, have the missing astronauts return in the future ala the original.

OK, I'm sold.

A cinema close to my workplace has a showing starting about 20 minutes or so after I'll leave work tomorrow, so I will probably pop along to that :) .

Double Take (2009)
Dir. Johan Grimonprez

A Belgian-made mockumentary cum essay piece, presenting the fictional meeting between Alfred Hitchcock and his double from 1980 (on the set of The Birds in 1963), interspersed between stock footage of major events during the cold war, whilst also studying the influence of television on the masses. How about that for arty-farty? And that's the film's biggest flaw. There's too much going on here for any subject to be dissected individually in depth. It's all a bit shallow and disjointed. The mesh of clips from Alfred Hitchcock Presents..., Psycho and newly-filmed footage featuring real-life Hitchcock lookalike Ron Burrage to create "the meeting" is far from seamless either. Although that's quite possibly intentional, it takes away the aura surrounding Hitchcock and the meeting itself, especially considering after one of the opening lines, "If you meet your double you should kill him", builds up the mystery and suspense so well. Both Kennedy and Krushchev and Nixon and Khrushchev are also paired up and explored as 'doubles' of each other as the film descends into an average cold war documentary. In a post 9/11 world, the images of a falling woman cut between clips of the aftermath of the Empire State Building plane crash in 1945 resonate the most. A fascinating but underbaked film.

3/5

Hot Enough For June (1964)
Dir. Ralph Thomas

Cracking little Bond spoof that's actually much more of a conventional spy thriller than the opening, in which John Le Mesurier returns the belongings of a newly deceased 007, would lead you to believe. Dirk Bogarde is the everyman by the name of Nicholas Whistler, drafted into British Intelligence as a replacement and sent on a mission to receive information regarding a new type of formula used for the production of lightweight bullet-proof glass. Although, it's only upon his arrival in Prague, across the Iron Curtain, that he discovers he is working for British Intelligence. Sylva Koscina is his comrade driver turned lover who must help him escape Czechoslovakia from the clutches of Leo McKern's Soviet Spy boss (and her father!). For those who aren't fans of the rather gung-ho spoofs like the David Niven Casino Royale or the Austin Powers series, this is refreshingly more lightweight in terms of wit and provides a few genuine chuckles, namely thanks to a brilliant Bograde sending up his own image at RANK. Robert Morley once again crops up as the head of MI6. Very enjoyable.

4/5

Ninotchka (1939)

Thought it was terrific. My first Garbo film. Though I've seen some of GRAND HOTEL. My first Melvin Douglas film from earlier in his career. I've seen HUD and BEING THERE, so I didn't know what to expect. I liked him, and Garbo too. And the script by Wilder, Brackett, etc. was ace. Some choice dialogue directed with ease by Lubitsch.

There is a magic to this film.

Seve wrote:

however I like to think there can be a middle ground between the quirky gothic fantasy style of Burton and Nolans "grim reality"

it's the same place where the best of the James Bond films live

Exactly my feeling on the matter. It's like the two series mirror each other, considering the TWINE-->DAD ascent into the absurd, just as we saw with Forever and B & R. Now both series have gone deathly serious, that the charm and fun is lost. I didn't think CR and BB were bad films as I say above, it's just that both series work best in that 'middle ground' as you say. Hopefully we'll arrive at that happy medium for B23.

TAKEN (2008)

Kind of baffled by critical reception to "Taken." I thought it was great. Reminded me of Bourne ... except you could tell what was happening.

Crime In The Streets (1956) Dir. Don Siegel

Solidly tough and gritty story of lower-class 50s punks - it doesnt bring a whole lot new to the table if you've seen other films on teenage delinquency and the generation gap, but its got solid performances and is the first lead role of John Cassavetes, if you needed some recommending.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Ninotchka (1939)

Thought it was terrific. My first Garbo film. Though I've seen some of GRAND HOTEL. My first Melvin Douglas film from earlier in his career. I've seen HUD and BEING THERE, so I didn't know what to expect. I liked him, and Garbo too. And the script by Wilder, Brackett, etc. was ace. Some choice dialogue directed with ease by Lubitsch.

There is a magic to this film.

It's in one of my top ten lists, along with Cash McCall and Inherit the Wind.

One of your top ten lists?