Last Movie you Watched?

Mr. Brown wrote:

Avarice wrote:

Thinking about TTSS again I think I did it a disservice in saying it was unexciting.

It is exciting. Visually exciting.

Which is the last thing I'd expect from such a cerebral film. Every shot is beautifully composed, with a lot of eye-catching foregrounding. BTW, I'd be very interested to know how the aircraft landing shot was achieved.

That's surprising. I often assume that films like that lack quality visuals and solely rely on dialogue. Might catch it next weekend.

I thought the US release was in December.

I hear the US version will have a motorcycle chase, and the dialogue will be dubbed over with bleches.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

Donner's material is wonderful. Pity we never got his full version. What he did was so buoyant and fun, and funnier than the shit Lester threw in. This cut is interesting, but problematic. It just doesn't work as a movie. I don't think it's put together all that well, especially the first part before the titles. That's bloody awful. I'd be curious to see a hybrid cut. Now, what would I do?

-Begin with the trial of Zod, with Brando. Cut out the little part before they're put into the hula hoops. And end it like Lester's version, with, "YOUR HEIRS!!!" Cue music.

-Come up with a montage title sequence that has Brando.

-Now things get tricky. Keep the original Daily Planet opening, or the Paris sequence? Not only will it determine how Zod is freed, but it will have repercussions with the Lois subplot. Donner's Daily Planet is so much more alive than Lesters, which feels like a boring Sunday afternoon at the office.

-After this I'd keep a lot of what was cut out of the Donner Cut. The DC just doesn't flow well and it has too much missing. I'd of course have Brando instead of York. Sadly, the screen test has to go.

Fcuking Salkinds. Those petty, vindictive bastards ruined this series.

Super-O-Meter

1. SUPERMAN
2. SUPERMAN II
3. SUPERMAN II: THE RICHARD DONNER CUT
4. SUPERMAN III
5. SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE
6. SUPERGIRL

Because the DC is sloppy and incomplete. Like this post.

I agree the Donner Cut is more of an interesting experiment but it's not a movie, nor should it be treated as such. I rather had Donner back in the late 70s finish II as it would have turned out much differently than either cut.

You should check out the Mankiewicz script, really the closest thing to what II could have actually been. Instead of Zod declaring himself as ruler to a bunch of southern hicks he's standing in top of the Washington Monument. Plus spinning time backwards after armageddon makes more sense than doing it for one girl, I would have had III show that there were consequences for him doing that act, hence the "IT IS FORBIDDEN!" rants from Jor-El. Having him turn back time with no consequence was a big mistake. Heck I think that would have been one of the changes he would have made on II, having Jor El strip him of his powers because of his abuse of it rather than because he just wants to bang Lois. But then that would have meant there be more changes to fit it.

Ah, it's all a clusterfuck.

I think the whole turning back time thing is a mistake anyway. It doesn't even make any sense.

I've watched the first half of WATCHMEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT, and I'll try to watch a little more before going to bed. I need sleep but I'm too damn captivated by this flick. I understand the criticisms, but the film works for me. I guess some people think it's cold, but to me it's pretty engrossing because of the cast and the performances. And the story, or rather just what's going on from scene to scene, is above and beyond the usual superhero movie.

I've never read the comic. I don't really read comics. May seek it out. I respect the medium, but as with animation it doesn't really do much for me personally. I like film, moving images, the spontaneous moment that can only come from live action.

Whatever else this film is, it's absolutely fascinating to me.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Avarice wrote:

Thinking about TTSS again I think I did it a disservice in saying it was unexciting.

It is exciting. Visually exciting.

Which is the last thing I'd expect from such a cerebral film. Every shot is beautifully composed, with a lot of eye-catching foregrounding. BTW, I'd be very interested to know how the aircraft landing shot was achieved.

That's surprising. I often assume that films like that lack quality visuals and solely rely on dialogue. Might catch it next weekend.

I thought the US release was in December.

I hear the US version will have a motorcycle chase, and the dialogue will be dubbed over with bleches.

Yeah, I thought it was out in the States already. I guess I'll see it next weekend, in about 3 months.

I also heard Kanye West will star in the US version. Alongside 50cents.

Loomis wrote:

Your comments chime with a well-argued and fairly negative review on AICN which points out that TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY "should be crazily exciting. But it isn't. The film never seems to pick up and take you anywhere, it just sort of plays out in front of you." I felt the same way about its director's overrated LET THE RIGHT ONE IN.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51324

I've never read the novel, but I recall trying to watch the Alec Guinness TV version on DVD a few years ago and giving up after a couple of episodes because it all seemed rather.... well, boring. I gather that the new film adaptation is more streamlined than that TV version but also far less coherent - in any case, it does seem as though one needs to read the book simply in order to understand the film (which is unforgivable - the film adaptation ought to stand alone and be perfectly comprehensible by itself), so I imagine that cutting out these TV and film middlemen and going straight to the novel would be the best course of action.

I think that article is a very fair reflection of my experiences watching the film.

I'm certainly a lot more interested in reading the novel after reading my main man Peter Hitchens' piece 'Tinker Tailor Solider Travesty'. While some of his criticisms seem a tad childish (such as the assertion that Colin Firth can't play a certain character because he never lived through austerity), the rest makes me believe that not only is this a generally lousy film, but also a very bad adaptation of a seemingly good novel.

Santa wrote:

If it were light and fluffy and could be watched with only half a mind then I would say justice would not have been done to the source material.

I don't think my disappointment came from a lack of effort - I certainly wanted to like the film and gave it a great deal of attention for much of its running time - it is simply that I don't understand how someone who is not already familiar with le Carré's novel could possibly have any understanding of what is occuring on screen until the very end (and even then I assume their understanding of the film would be vague at best). If you've read the book I'm sure you'll find something to like, but largely because the film's failing as a piece of storytelling won't be colouring your experience.

Avarice wrote:

It is exciting. Visually exciting.

I'd disagree there. I think the period detail is very well accomplished and the colour palette serves well to give a feel for the general period in which the film is set, but nothing else it does was either visually exciting or even particularly functional. There are probably a few striking images from the film, but not enough that I'd have to use a second hand to count them.

I don't understand how anyone could find TTSS's plot hard to follow. It's really very simple.

One of four men at senior level of MI6 is a Soviet agent. George Smiley is brought out of enforced retirement to find out who it is. That's it.

Re visual excitement, I think it depends on definition. There are no big explosions or fuck scenes, but I don't need that. Just seeing an everyday item shot from an unusual angle or with an unusual colour palette can do it for me. Tomas Alfredson excels at that minutiae, as anyone who saw the swimming bath massacre in Let the Right One In will remember: he shot it from the bottom of the pool. I think it takes an outsider to see London with new eyes and Alfredson paints a picture of a dirty decayed city quite removed from the shiny financial centre London is today.

Anyway, on a related subject I see that the mad cows are out in force again, with Helen Mirren protesting that TTSS has no significant roles for women. Reminds me of Whoopi complaining about the lack of roles for blacks in Tolkien. Thank God the people in control of Bond have addressed both problems. It's such a relief and the films are so much better for their incessant tinkering.

The Frightened City (1961)
Dir. John Lemont

Another cracking British crime noir, unfairly slated simply because of it's stance alongside it's American and Italian genre counterparts. In a brutal tale of a London-based protection racket, Sean Connery, giving one of the most commanding and impressive performances of his career (at least from what I've seen), plays Irish tough-guy Paddy Damion, drafted in by syndicate leader Harry Foulcher (a brilliant Alfred Marks) to keep order amongst his new pub and club chains - with financial advice from sly mobster, Herbet Lom (ever dependable). It all goes arse over head when the syndicate splits, murder and gang warfare becomes rife, Connery struggles to look after his old mate (Kenneth Griffith) and his girlfriend (Olive McFarland) whilst banging a smouldering Yvonne Romain, and John Gregson's beat-out cop(per) (old cliché but nevermind) is soon out to regain control of the streets. It's exciting, complex and provided a hit song for The Shadows. And as a tidbit, Hitchcock regular Frederick Piper makes an appearance. Good, thrilling stuff.

:4*:

G section wrote:

a smouldering Yvonne Romain

Loved her in Circus of Horrors, one of my favourite British B-movies. The writer's brief was 'Tits and blood. As much as you can.'



"I must say, she's even better at soliciting applause than she was at soliciting men."

HJackson wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Your comments chime with a well-argued and fairly negative review on AICN which points out that TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY "should be crazily exciting. But it isn't. The film never seems to pick up and take you anywhere, it just sort of plays out in front of you." I felt the same way about its director's overrated LET THE RIGHT ONE IN.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51324

I've never read the novel, but I recall trying to watch the Alec Guinness TV version on DVD a few years ago and giving up after a couple of episodes because it all seemed rather.... well, boring. I gather that the new film adaptation is more streamlined than that TV version but also far less coherent - in any case, it does seem as though one needs to read the book simply in order to understand the film (which is unforgivable - the film adaptation ought to stand alone and be perfectly comprehensible by itself), so I imagine that cutting out these TV and film middlemen and going straight to the novel would be the best course of action.

I think that article is a very fair reflection of my experiences watching the film.

I'm certainly a lot more interested in reading the novel after reading my main man Peter Hitchens' piece 'Tinker Tailor Solider Travesty'.

Where's the text?

Actually, here's a link that works::

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2040118/Tinker-Tailor-Soldier-Spy-review-John-le-Carres-classic-thriller-film-unforgivably-awful.html

I've a soft spot for Peter but that piece is rubbish. I know what it's like when someone pisses all over a novel that you love (look what EON did to Casino Royale), but the changes Hitchen's complains about are all minor. I stand by my opinion that this version of TTSS is a fantastic adaptation.

Oh, and Sachs doesn't complain of being unfucked, she says she's underfucked. Big difference.

Avarice wrote:

Anyway, on a related subject I see that the mad cows are out in force again, with Helen Mirren protesting that TTSS has no significant roles for women. Reminds me of Whoopi complaining about the lack of roles for blacks in Tolkien. Thank God the people in control of Bond have addressed both problems. It's such a relief and the films are so much better for their incessant tinkering.

But there is a significant role for women in TTSS, two actually. Irina who warns Tarr about things with the Circus. An of course Ann Smiley who falls for the traitor. If that's not significant I don't know. What does she want, play Smiley? Or Haydon?

They should be complaning that many of the roles that are available for women are crap. I'm all for women getting good roles, but if TTSS doesn't have any naturally, well... What's to complain about?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

They should be complaning that many of the roles that are available for women are crap. I'm all for women getting good roles, but if TTSS doesn't have any naturally, well... What's to complain about?

I think it's only fair that exactly half of the roles in any film go to female actors. If you disagree, well, you're just a misogynist bigot (and probably a bit of a racist too).

Quote :

They should be complaning that many of the roles that are available for women are crap. I'm all for women getting good roles, but if TTSS doesn't have any naturally, well... What's to complain about?

Exactly. Why pick on this film in particular? Back in the day, did Mirren complain about the even more severe lack of women in RESERVOIR DOGS?

She's also calling for Judi Dench's M to be given her own movie:

http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=665505&vId=

"That would be cool! Sort of - what's Dame Judi's character in Bond? M! - yes sort of a movie all about M would be great."

What's with this awful British trend of injecting "sort of" at random points in every other sentence? I think Mirren's sort of idea about an M spinoff is sort of one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. I'm glad she's sort of not in charge at Eon.

Loomis wrote:

Quote :

They should be complaning that many of the roles that are available for women are crap. I'm all for women getting good roles, but if TTSS doesn't have any naturally, well... What's to complain about?

Exactly. Why pick on this film in particular? Back in the day, did Mirren complain about the even more severe lack of women in RESERVOIR DOGS?

She's also calling for Judi Dench's M to be given her own movie:

http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=665505&vId=

"That would be cool! Sort of - what's Dame Judi's character in Bond? M! - yes sort of a movie all about M would be great."

What's with this awful British trend of injecting "sort of" at random points in every other sentence? I think Mirren's sort of idea about an M spinoff is sort of one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. I'm glad she's sort of not in charge at Eon.

To be fair to Mirren on the point about M, I think she's just saying, "That would be cool." It doesn't seem like she's championing it.

I think TTSS is the wrong target for this. Let stories be what they are. You're not gonna put a motorcycle chase in a story about Ghandi are you, just because "stories need action".

She should complain about the bad roles for females (and I say that rather than "women", because it's mostly "girls" that I'm talking about) in plenty of films. Especially ones coming out of Hollywood. Most of them seem to be there to be stabbed for fucked, or both, in either order.

The western Sean Connery and Brigitte Bardot chose to make instead of OHMSS. Bond veteran Bob Simmons did the stuntwork while Honor Blackman appeared as the ill-fated Lady Daggett. I believe Charles Gray dubbed the voice of Jack Hawkins, reunited with fellow "Ben-Hur" veteran Stephen Boyd. One critic called it "Bond in Buckskin" and that's a pretty accurate description of it. Connery and western veteran Woody Strode have a good battle at the end.

Hell, what's there to complain about? TTSS just doesn't have major female characters and that's it. Women play an important role FOR the characters - Guillam's girlfriend, Smiley's cheating wife - but they don't feature prominently IN the story if we forget Connie Sachs. So what? I get this is more about the general lack of quality roles for - what are they called now? best agers? - 'mature' female leads. But TTSS just isn't the film to demand them.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Quote :

They should be complaning that many of the roles that are available for women are crap. I'm all for women getting good roles, but if TTSS doesn't have any naturally, well... What's to complain about?

Exactly. Why pick on this film in particular? Back in the day, did Mirren complain about the even more severe lack of women in RESERVOIR DOGS?

She's also calling for Judi Dench's M to be given her own movie:

http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=665505&vId=

"That would be cool! Sort of - what's Dame Judi's character in Bond? M! - yes sort of a movie all about M would be great."

What's with this awful British trend of injecting "sort of" at random points in every other sentence? I think Mirren's sort of idea about an M spinoff is sort of one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. I'm glad she's sort of not in charge at Eon.

To be fair to Mirren on the point about M, I think she's just saying, "That would be cool." It doesn't seem like she's championing it.

Well, we don't know the context of her remarks, but if she did indeed say "That would be cool" and "Yes, sort of a movie all about M would be great", then that is championing it, surely?

HEAT

It turned out to be a great idea to watch it, and an equally great one to see the original (English/American) version. Now I've finally come to terms with Pacino's performance, because with his own voice, while not outstanding as such or in terms of "voice acting", his playing is indeed quite fine.
Not only are the planning and execution of the heists shown in admirable details, but also the whole relations between the characters, be it the interrelations within McCauley's team and the other persons involved in their doings, be it the family affairs of the Shiherlis or those of Hanna, and, of course, the juxtaposition and intertwining of the two main characters, all of this is told with admirable meticulousness and believability. Little scenes like the one in which Hanna realizes that McCauley and his guys were fooling them and watching them, turning the police men from observers into scouted prey, are probably underappreciated in their ability of portraying the characters and creating a palette of feelings such as tension, unease and understanding.
The only thing that isn't near as good as in all other Mann films is the use of music; it is servicable most of the time, but I didn't notice anywhere a bone-nagging effect of it as one knows from his other works.
The cinematography, sets and shots of L. A., conveying subliminal information about the city and its impact on the people being active there, making the dangers and heat palpable, are exquisite.
From the greatly shot and edited shoot-out onwards, HEAT is an impeccable and gripping thriller drama. McCauley's decision to seek revenge, abandoning his own principle of saving himself when he feels the heat around the corner, makes for great moments, particularly when he is just about to get out as a free man with his girl. The subtle acting particularly of the main actors, as in the scene in question, when McCauley is already on the highway promising freedom, is top-rate. Comparable scenes are the conversation in the coffee shop, with natural dialogue revealing all the essentials about the two persons involved, or the scene when McCauley comes back from shooting Waingro who has done unspeakable damage to his mission and his friends, noticeably relieved, and then spots Hanna, the utterly determined look in the cop's eyes, and the ensuing chase near the airport runways, those scenes are of most sublime cinematic quality.
This film is on the whole of outrageously high quality and it is indeed incomparable.

Manhunter wrote:

This film is on the whole of outrageously high quality and it is indeed incomparable.

Well, it's good, if one of his lesser works.

I've said it before, but Mann is the only director still making films that take men seriously. In everything else they're shown to be either buffoons or psychopaths.

Thank God women were around to construct civilization.

HEAT is a Mann's finest film (along with MANHUNTER) - but even then, it's a confused, rather pretentious mess. Neat soundtrack though.

Manhunter wrote:

HEAT
This film is on the whole of outrageously high quality and it is indeed incomparable.

Excellent review. I'm in agreement on pretty much everything you said in your review.

HEAT is perfect in every way and one of my favourite films.

tiffanywint wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

STAR TREK (2009)

As someone with no connection to the TV show or previous films whatsoever, I'll go against the grain around these parts and say I quite liked it.

For a bit of harmless sci-fi, "Star Trek" ain't a bad watch. And for someone like me who has no knowledge of the "Star Trek" world whatsoever, it is indeed quite accessible.

4/5

Agreed. I thought it was a great film. I know the original series pretty well, ( I never bothered with the other Trek series, other than the feature films), so it was nice to see the original gang back and all young again, and looking at lot like their old selves in many ways. Keep this thing going. I like this new gang.
Too bad Bond couldn't have taken a similar cue and re-booted with a Sean look-a-like and act-a-like.
Chris Pine, I thought did a decent job of finding Shatner's Kirk. Same with the others, playing the original-cast characters.

even without the baggage of the frachise the plot was so shot full of huge gaping nonsensical plot holes I could not overlook them

Seve wrote:

Too bad Bond couldn't have taken a similar cue and re-booted with a Sean look-a-like and act-a-like.

It did, more or less. Craig comes closer than any of the other post-Sean Bonds to being a Connery-a-like. He's not an exact clone, of course (but would you really want that?), but he does remind me a lot of Connery - visually, they kinda sorta look alike quite a bit of the time (the hair colour issue excepted, obviously), and there's the same sort of roughness and physicality.

Acting-wise, though, I guess Craig's rather closer to Dalton than to Connery. If you ask me, he combines the best of Sean and Tim.