Last Movie you Watched?

Loomis wrote:

Meaning cannot exist without someone's interpretation of what it is.

I'd rather say that meaning cannot be understood without someone apprehending it. I believe that meaning exists regardless of whether or not it is understood or acknowledged.

My penis is popular with primates.

Ambler invented AIDS.

Just for the hell of it.

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Slightness of story is one thing, and is neither inherently good or bad. Slightness of meaning, however, is a bit more problematic.

But isn't "meaning" something that's very often in the eye of the beholder, whether we're talking about great films, good films, so-so films or poor films?

As my old saying goes, that's relativist bollocks. Meaning is universal, interpretation however, is not.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Meaning is interpretation. Meaning cannot exist without someone's interpretation of what it is.

Yes, but who defines the meaning? In my book, that's the person who demonstrates the most cogency of thought of and insight. That will almost always be Armond White.

Well, my own movie guru is Leonard Maltin, and he gives LOST IN TRANSLATION three-and-a-half stars out of four, so there.

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Slightness of story is one thing, and is neither inherently good or bad. Slightness of meaning, however, is a bit more problematic.

But isn't "meaning" something that's very often in the eye of the beholder, whether we're talking about great films, good films, so-so films or poor films?

As my old saying goes, that's relativist bollocks. Meaning is universal, interpretation however, is not.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Meaning is interpretation. Meaning cannot exist without someone's interpretation of what it is.

Yes, but who defines the meaning? In my book, that's the person who demonstrates the most cogency of thought of and insight. That will almost always be Armond White.

Well, my own movie guru is Leonard Maltin, and he gives LOST IN TRANSLATION three-and-a-half stars out of four, so there.

Leonard Maltin is the Chris de Burgh of film critics.

Don't get Sharky started on Maltin. We have to put up with enough "Armond White is the greatest critic ever" shtick as is.

How come you lot need other people to tell you what to like? Can't you just decide for yourselves?

:affraid:

Santa wrote:

How come you lot need other people to tell you what to like? Can't you just decide for yourselves?

Everybody ultimately does.

But critics, or critics at their best, can help shape our thinking, point out things that otherwise might not have occurred to us, open us up to new joys and pleasures. Film criticism can help us develop into sharper, more intelligent, more observant, more appreciative film-watchers.

I don't have that much spare time.

We all have our own priorities and interests.

Santa wrote:

How come you lot need other people to tell you what to like? Can't you just decide for yourselves?

:affraid:

No. What an extraordinary idea.

Santa as the voice of reason. Whoda thunk it?

A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS. This Shane Meadows-directed slice of life from the kitchen sinks of the council estate is a very Mike Leigh-ish blend of humour, whimsy and harrowing drama, as hardhitting as it's heartwarming. It feels a little unfocused at times, as well as somewhat contrived, and thus doesn't quite hit the heights of the maestro Leigh, although it's often not too far off. The performances are excellent and all told it's a flick that's impossible to dislike.

Sharky wrote:

Leonard Maltin is the Chris de Burgh of film critics.

Maltin is like Bosley Crowther's illegitimate son.

Hell, I like Ebert fine, but Maltin is for grandma.

The Black Swan (1942)
contender for the best pirate movie ever, why?
for a start there's a bravura performance by Laird Cregar as Henry Morgan, IMO he is Henry Morgan
and not far behind him is George Sanders, enjoying himself as the red bearded villain
Thomas Mitchell gets to play something other than the town drunk for a change, although that's not to say he's become an abstainer
Maureen O'Hara is in fine form and Anthony Quinn also has a small role
secondly there is another technically superior sword duel between the proficient Tyrone Power and whoever they got to don the red beard and take George Sanders place for the action scenes
and thirdly there is a plot which hangs together better than most pirate movies
as usual Tyrone Power is athletic, but lacks the easy charm of Errol Flynn
overall it's right up there among swashbucklings best

THE MUPPETS (2011)

An absolute joy to watch. To quote chud.com, anyone who doesn't like this is an asshole.

Santa wrote:

How come you lot need other people to tell you what to like? Can't you just decide for yourselves?

:affraid:

Wasn't it you who told me it was compulsory to love Star Wars? :)

Ok...don't laugh...

Pride and Predjudice (2005)

Actually I really enjoyed the light and much simplified take on Jane Austen's classic tale. Kiera Knightly is ok if a bit too pouty and Kiera Knightlyish, Mathew Macfadden is a decent Darcy and the delicious Rosamund Pike is on hand to make my day. Some great cinematography, lush location work at some of the finest stately Homes (Chatsworth Hall is close by so nice to see a place you know so well on screen). The traditions and general awkwardness of romance in that era makes for both humour and pathos...even to the degree a cynical emo hating bloke like me has to give in ^^

7/10

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Leonard Maltin is the Chris de Burgh of film critics.

Maltin is like Bosley Crowther's illegitimate son.

Hell, I like Ebert fine, but Maltin is for grandma.

Make that 'illiterate son.'

Guy gave GOODBAR a BOMB.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Santa wrote:

How come you lot need other people to tell you what to like? Can't you just decide for yourselves?

:affraid:

Wasn't it you who told me it was compulsory to love Star Wars? :)

That's different. If you know what's good for you, you'll love Star Wars.

BIUTIFUL. Alejandro González Iñárritu's first effort since the the superb BABEL is something of a disappointment, although hardly a dead loss. It's as well-acted and well-shot as one would expect, but it's also heavyhanded and obvious, and ultimately adds up to little more than almost two and a half hours of handwringing kitchen sink drama that certainly has its share of harrowing and engaging moments but also its share of phoney ones. It rumbles and rambles on for far too long, but it's always watchable, thanks largely to Iñárritu's visual flair and to Javier Bardem's performance.

In Cold Blood

5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061809/

a riveting study of 2 killers, based on real events

they don't make thrillers like this anymore

May be because I haven't watched a film in a month and a half, but I watched WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS last night and loved it. The first thirty minutes is the strongest, since the procedural stuff afterwards has a much weaker pulse, but as a whole it was entertaining. Dana Andrews plays a nutter quite well.