Last Movie you Watched?

My wife has been trying to get me to see EL CID for ages.

HJackson wrote:

Are Mann's The Fall of the Roman Empire and Quo Vadis in the same league?

No, not really.

Out of the Past

I have the same "problem" with this as I do with Carter (having to rely on subtitles), but I get most of it and what I see is a really good noir. Next time I will like it even more, I am sure. Makes me think why the deaf boy tells Ann that Jeff was about to go away with Kathie. I like how the narrative unfolds, the acting is good, and the atmosphere is adequately noirish.

Harmsway wrote:

My wife has been trying to get me to see EL CID for ages.

I don't think it's close to attaining the same level of brilliance as some of Mann's work, like The Man from Laramie, but I had a lot of fun with it.

Sharky wrote:

HJackson wrote:

Are Mann's The Fall of the Roman Empire and Quo Vadis in the same league?

No, not really.

That's a shame. I may pick them up if I can find them cheap, but I guess I'll probably wait until I get the Ben-Hur Blu before I catch my next historical epic.

HJackson wrote:

EL CID Anthony Mann, 1961

I'm a big fan of the Mann. Love his Westerns, and I want to see his noir films from the 40's. I want to see EL CID, but as I recall it's only available on some shit Korean DVD or something. At least to rent from Netflix. I'm gonna have to check out my local video store that actually has movies like this. You've got me interested in finally seeing it. :)

Manhunter wrote:

Out of the Past

I have the same "problem" with this as I do with Carter (having to rely on subtitles), but I get most of it and what I see is a really good noir. Next time I will like it even more, I am sure. Makes me think why the deaf boy tells Ann that Jeff was about to go away with Kathie. I like how the narrative unfolds, the acting is good, and the atmosphere is adequately noirish.

I love OUT OF THE PAST. It simply sweeps me away. I love the ending too. The Kid, as he's credited, is telling Ann what she needs to hear to let go of Jeff. He was coming back for her, but got killed in the process.

I love everything about this movie. The dialogue, the cinematography, the music. It's dark and romantic at the same time, which I like. So many great lines.

"How big a chump can you get to be? I was finding out. And then she'd come along like school was out, and everything else was just a stone which sailed at the sea."

CASINO ROYALE(2006)
Martin Campbell, director

Most of my disappointment with the film stems from it's deviation from the source material, although that's not to say that there aren't other problems. Cambpell and Phil Meheux did a great job with the photography in GOLDENEYE, but their work here is disappointing. The low-light scenes are way too dark and fuzzy, and most of the shot compositions are muddy and unfocused. In general, it's just not a great looking film. The middle portion of the film, the card game, is without a doubt the highlight. The first act is mostly action and unnecessary exposition, and the third act feels like it could be in any Brosnan Bond movie, filled with terrible dialogue and stupid action scenes.

On the other hand, Campell finds success where he needs to. The film is humorous, the action is exciting, Bond and Vesper's relationship is mostly convincing and compelling, and there are some really good "Bond-ish" moments. In general, it's a highly enjoyable flick and I like the film for what it is, I just wish it was something...else. More quiet, pensive, and less stupid Brosnan crap.
8/10

dr. strangelove wrote:

CASINO ROYALE(2006)
Martin Campbell, director

less stupid Brosnan crap.
8/10

:shock: When I watch it I feel my mind is cleansed of stupid Brosnan crap.

dr. strangelove wrote:

CASINO ROYALE(2006)
Martin Campbell, director

Most of my disappointment with the film stems from it's deviation from the source material, although that's not to say that there aren't other problems. Cambpell and Phil Meheux did a great job with the photography in GOLDENEYE, but their work here is disappointing. The low-light scenes are way too dark and fuzzy, and most of the shot compositions are muddy and unfocused. In general, it's just not a great looking film. The middle portion of the film, the card game, is without a doubt the highlight. The first act is mostly action and unnecessary exposition, and the third act feels like it could be in any Brosnan Bond movie, filled with terrible dialogue and stupid action scenes.

On the other hand, Campell finds success where he needs to. The film is humorous, the action is exciting, Bond and Vesper's relationship is mostly convincing and compelling, and there are some really good "Bond-ish" moments. In general, it's a highly enjoyable flick and I like the film for what it is, I just wish it was something...else. More quiet, pensive, and less stupid Brosnan crap.
8/10

Agreed entirely, except for the bit about it being highly enjoyable, the 8/10 rating, and Bond and Vesper's relationship being convincing.

Santa wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

CASINO ROYALE(2006)
Martin Campbell, director

less stupid Brosnan crap.
8/10

:shock: When I watch it I feel my mind is cleansed of stupid Brosnan crap.

Generic David Arnold score.
Judy Dench psychobabble
"You know what I can do with my little finger."
"Does everybody have a tell?"
Sinking house fight scene (where Bond electrocutes a guy, and shoots another guy with a nailgun)

There's a lot of Bronsnan era hangover in the film, just like there's Moore era hangover in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Sharky wrote:

Agreed entirely, except for the bit about it
being highly enjoyable, the 8/10 rating, and Bond and Vesper's
relationship being convincing.

I thought their dynamic worked well enough during the Montenegro parts, but started to fall apart during the third act, where it turned a little bland and generic. The fact that he actually falls in love makes it more interesting, because it's one of the only times he has any kind of deep or meaningful relationship with a woman in any of the films.

Saw DRIVE on Saturday night. Loved every minute of it. What's striking is how soft the movie is in the first hour, and how extreme it is in the second. All the performances are fantastic, mainly for their subtle qualities of depth and dimension in what are all essentially stock roles. Great cinematography, editing, and music.
Took my girlfriend. She loved it too.

dr. strangelove wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Agreed entirely, except for the bit about it
being highly enjoyable, the 8/10 rating, and Bond and Vesper's
relationship being convincing.

I thought their dynamic worked well enough during the Montenegro parts, but started to fall apart during the third act, where it turned a little bland and generic. The fact that he actually falls in love makes it more interesting, because it's one of the only times he has any kind of deep or meaningful relationship with a woman in any of the films.

I just don't buy it. Eva was miscast. I don't sense any real chemistry between her and Craig, and Haggis's dialogue is horribly contrived ("How was your lamb?" "Skewered. One sympathies" etc.) especially in train and taxi scenes, and she puts on a weird accent. She was at her best acting non-verbally (AKA getting her tits out) in THE DREAMERS.

I wish she'd just stick to that.

I have to agree with that. Eva Green is terrible as Vesper. Completely wrong.

dr. strangelove wrote:

Santa wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

CASINO ROYALE(2006)
Martin Campbell, director

less stupid Brosnan crap.
8/10

:shock: When I watch it I feel my mind is cleansed of stupid Brosnan crap.

Generic David Arnold score.
Judy Dench psychobabble
"You know what I can do with my little finger."
"Does everybody have a tell?"
Sinking house fight scene (where Bond electrocutes a guy, and shoots another guy with a nailgun)

There's a lot of Bronsnan era hangover in the film, just like there's Moore era hangover in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

For me the Brosnan crap was, well, Brosnan. And he's not in it so it feels much better.

There wasn't enough tension or suspense circling the casino/card scenes. No cigarettes, either, and not nearly enough alcohol.

Too bad Eva couldn't have shown us her twins.

Sharky wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Agreed entirely, except for the bit about it
being highly enjoyable, the 8/10 rating, and Bond and Vesper's
relationship being convincing.

I thought their dynamic worked well enough during the Montenegro parts, but started to fall apart during the third act, where it turned a little bland and generic. The fact that he actually falls in love makes it more interesting, because it's one of the only times he has any kind of deep or meaningful relationship with a woman in any of the films.

I just don't buy it. Eva was miscast. I don't sense any real chemistry between her and Craig, and Haggis's dialogue is horribly contrived ("How was your lamb?" "Skewered. One sympathies" etc.) especially in train and taxi scenes, and she puts on a weird accent. She was at her best acting non-verbally (AKA getting her tits out) in THE DREAMERS.

I wish she'd just stick to that.

See, I actually liked that scene on the train. I thought it was kind of playful and fun. I agree, though, that the taxi scene took it a bit too far with that "squabbling older couple" thing.

I'm sure a different actress would have helped, though. Or, they could have just written the character like she is in the book, where she actually takes a liking to Bond from the very beginning and feels a little intimidated by him. It's him that doesn't approve of her being there, not the other way around like in the film. But, I guess that's the pussification of Bond for you (thanks, Haggis and Babs!).

Sharky wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

CASINO ROYALE(2006)
Martin Campbell, director

Most of my disappointment with the film stems from it's deviation from the source material, although that's not to say that there aren't other problems. Cambpell and Phil Meheux did a great job with the photography in GOLDENEYE, but their work here is disappointing. The low-light scenes are way too dark and fuzzy, and most of the shot compositions are muddy and unfocused. In general, it's just not a great looking film. The middle portion of the film, the card game, is without a doubt the highlight. The first act is mostly action and unnecessary exposition, and the third act feels like it could be in any Brosnan Bond movie, filled with terrible dialogue and stupid action scenes.

On the other hand, Campell finds success where he needs to. The film is humorous, the action is exciting, Bond and Vesper's relationship is mostly convincing and compelling, and there are some really good "Bond-ish" moments. In general, it's a highly enjoyable flick and I like the film for what it is, I just wish it was something...else. More quiet, pensive, and less stupid Brosnan crap.
8/10

Agreed entirely, except for the bit about it being highly enjoyable, the 8/10 rating, and Bond and Vesper's relationship being convincing.

Agreed entirely with both posts, except the bit about the card game being the highlight. I'm still waiting for a highlight to arise.

promise to try watching it again in the next 6 months (last time out I actually got all the way through it for the first time), and maybe this time I'll break down and do the whole 5,000 word essay on it afterward.

Santa wrote:

For me the Brosnan crap was, well, Brosnan. And he's not in it so it feels much better.

I just went through TWINE and DAD in the last couple of days, and comparing those with THOMAS CROWN and TAILOR OF PANAA, it ain't him at fault, he's just the victim.

With the right directors (Polanski, Boorman, McTiernan, and whoever made MATADOR), Broz is good (PANAMA is a really fierce Bond performance, the way it should have always been.)

Apted really sabotaged Broz on TWINE, it is like he veers from Harrison Ford yells to QuicheBond, and the director should damn well know better.

BIGGER THAN LIFE (1956, dir. Nicholas Ray)

Startling. I'm really quite shaken up by it.

trevanian wrote:

Santa wrote:

For me the Brosnan crap was, well, Brosnan. And he's not in it so it feels much better.

I just went through TWINE and DAD in the last couple of days, and comparing those with THOMAS CROWN and TAILOR OF PANAA, it ain't him at fault, he's just the victim.

With the right directors (Polanski, Boorman, McTiernan, and whoever made MATADOR), Broz is good (PANAMA is a really fierce Bond performance, the way it should have always been.)

Apted really sabotaged Broz on TWINE, it is like he veers from Harrison Ford yells to QuicheBond, and the director should damn well know better.

Agreed, Brosnan actually could have made a really decent Bond but with Bond it's like he was either coasting too much, given bad writing and/or directing. He really should have focused on molding his interpretation but instead ended up playing the role differently each film that he might as well have been playing a different character. Never bought that I was watching the same guy from TND in TWINE.

HJackson wrote:

EL CID Anthony Mann, 1961

Wow. What an epic piece of film-making. Just the spectacle of seeing so many costumed extras on the screen at once made the entire three hours worthwhile. Factor in the extraordinary production design, the very fun fight sequences from the first hour, and a compelling plot involving high politics, invasion, and a simple romance, and you have one hell of an entertaining way to spend three hours.

Are Mann's The Fall of the Roman Empire and Quo Vadis in the same league? They're both on Blu and I fancy getting them. This Blu wasn't perfect, with really no grain visible at all, but was well worth the £6 I paid for it.

re "TFOTRE" yes indeed, the spectacle is of a similar standard...
unfortunately the story structure is too, in both cases I felt certain central characters motivations and actions made no sense to me at all...

but well worth watching for the wonderful spectacle, in particular it has an outstanding chariot race sequence

I haven't seen "Quo Vadis" in ages and the memory has faded, so I can't comment

Makeshift Python wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Santa wrote:

For me the Brosnan crap was, well, Brosnan. And he's not in it so it feels much better.

I just went through TWINE and DAD in the last couple of days, and comparing those with THOMAS CROWN and TAILOR OF PANAA, it ain't him at fault, he's just the victim.

With the right directors (Polanski, Boorman, McTiernan, and whoever made MATADOR), Broz is good (PANAMA is a really fierce Bond performance, the way it should have always been.)

Apted really sabotaged Broz on TWINE, it is like he veers from Harrison Ford yells to QuicheBond, and the director should damn well know better.

Agreed, Brosnan actually could have made a really decent Bond but with Bond it's like he was either coasting too much, given bad writing and/or directing. He really should have focused on molding his interpretation but instead ended up playing the role differently each film that he might as well have been playing a different character. Never bought that I was watching the same guy from TND in TWINE.

I suppose some of it is on him. Brosnan was pushing so hard to get Scorsese or Ang Lee to do Bond, it was like he wanted to legitimize it in some way. And so Eon would throw him a couple moments in a script as a sop to his creative impulse, but since these moments weren't integrated, they usually hurt more than they helped.

I practically jump for joy when Brosnan barks 'Tanner!' early in TWINE, but considering how reactive and reflective he plays the rest of it, I keep thinking the schizophrenia is so high at times he should intro himself as 'Durden - Tyler Durden.'

This whole experiment of watching TWINE and DAD on successive days took a lot out of me. I needed a real distraction from the current writing to start in fresh, but the Bond Millennial 'shock treatment' didn't work, just kind of pissed me off. (Though I was mildly intrigued to see that Brosnan did a commentary track for DAD. Can't imagine what he could possibly have to say about it at length that would be Eon-approved -- not unless he was just reading PR statements to fill his end of things.)

All I remember from his commentary was him laughing at stuff and calling Dr. No the first Bond novel Fleming wrote. I'm surprised EON didn't snip that part off. He also implied a dislike for action sequences, feeling he does more running and jumping than actually acting. Something to that effect.

I want to see THOMAS CROWN and TAILOR OF PANAMA again. THOMAS CROWN is probably my favorite Brosnan movie (discounting THE GHOST WRITER). Well, from what I recall. And PANAMA has Catherine McCormack, who needs to be in more movies. Christ she's hot. Or at least she was in that flick.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Too bad Eva couldn't have shown us her twins.

Didn't Paul Haggis want QoS to feature one of Vesper's children?