Last Movie you Watched?

They Live

Maybe the last classic b-movie, They Live manages to be both thoughtful and moronic. Meg Foster brings her eyes to the party.

Arkadin wrote:

Sharky wrote:

The only thing I things I genuinely like in that flick are Pam Grier and the soundtrack. Everything else is bog standard adolescent Tarantino dross.

Robert Forster's Max Cherry owns JACKIE BROWN.

Yep. The Grier/Forster relationship alone elevates the film into believable human relationship territory which reveals Tarantino for perhaps the first time as a director of more than just style, crime stories and people talking "cool". And it's exactly why Tarantino would have made a better Casino Royale, IMO; When it came to the crunch romantic stuff, he'd have had adults behaving and conversing like adults, developed the relationship, make us really want the pair of them to be together and pretty much pull all of it off. He'd also have given us a far more impactful Vesper suicide, I'm sure... though that wouldn't be too difficult, granted.

Sharky wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

JACKIE BROWN is absolutely the best of Tarantino's career.

That ain't saying much, really.
The only thing I things I genuinely like in that flick are Pam Grier and the soundtrack. Everything else is bog standard adolescent Tarantino dross.

pure 'bog standard' Elmore Leonard genius actually
although unusually, given Tarantino's penchant for lurid violence, most of the opportunities for portraying all out action scenes found in "Rum Punch", the original book, are omitted from the film
from that perspective "Jackie Browne" is Tarantino's most understated film
he plays up the "heist" movie aspects of the story at the expense of the "action" aspects
why he chose to go that route I'm not sure, I like to think it was because he was doing the movie as a homage to Pam Grier and he didn't want anything to distract from giving her a long overdue chance to garner some award nominations
he wanted her to have all the limelight

Arkadin wrote:

Robert Forster's Max Cherry owns JACKIE BROWN.

yeah, but he should get the girl in the end, like Max Cherry in the book

Lazenby. wrote:

Yep. The Grier/Forster relationship alone elevates the film into believable human relationship territory which reveals Tarantino for perhaps the first time as a director of more than just style, crime stories and people talking "cool". And it's exactly why Tarantino would have made a better Casino Royale, IMO; When it came to the crunch romantic stuff, he'd have had adults behaving and conversing like adults, developed the relationship, make us really want the pair of them to be together and pretty much pull all of it off. He'd also have given us a far more impactful Vesper suicide, I'm sure... though that wouldn't be too difficult, granted.

or would he?
first and only?
one movie of his out of seven (?) where you can say that?

a better idea would be to get Elmore Leonard on board to write the dialogue for Bond 23
;)

Anyone but P&W.

Lazenby. wrote:

And it's exactly why Tarantino would have made a better Casino Royale, IMO; When it came to the crunch romantic stuff, he'd have had adults behaving and conversing like adults.

I severely doubt that, unless he stuck slavishly close to Fleming's own dialogue. Otherwise, it would have just been Mathis, Le Chiffre playing versions of Quentin Tarantino - by proxy. Spouting the same smug, smart arsed, pinhead geekery.

Certain redeeming qualities of JACKIE BROWN aside (even the, most of it revolves rather from what Tarantino didn't do, than what he did) - we dodged a huge bullet with CASINO ROYALE. Thankfully it would have been unlikely, since the producers never would have given him enough leeway.

Sharky wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

Sharky wrote:

The only thing I things I genuinely like in that flick are Pam Grier and the soundtrack. Everything else is bog standard adolescent Tarantino dross.

Robert Forster's Max Cherry owns JACKIE BROWN.

Yep. The Grier/Forster relationship alone elevates the film into believable human relationship territory which reveals Tarantino for perhaps the first time as a director of more than just style, crime stories and people talking "cool". And it's exactly why Tarantino would have made a better Casino Royale, IMO; When it came to the crunch romantic stuff, he'd have had adults behaving and conversing like adults.

I severely doubt that, unless he stuck very close to Fleming's own. Otherwise, it would just be Mathis, Le Chiffre playing versions of Quentin Tarantino - by proxy. Spouting the same smug, smart arsed, pinhead geekery.

That's how it has always struck me, his dialogue. All I remember are the pop culture references.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

Sharky wrote:

The only thing I things I genuinely like in that flick are Pam Grier and the soundtrack. Everything else is bog standard adolescent Tarantino dross.

Robert Forster's Max Cherry owns JACKIE BROWN.

Yep. The Grier/Forster relationship alone elevates the film into believable human relationship territory which reveals Tarantino for perhaps the first time as a director of more than just style, crime stories and people talking "cool". And it's exactly why Tarantino would have made a better Casino Royale, IMO; When it came to the crunch romantic stuff, he'd have had adults behaving and conversing like adults.

I severely doubt that, unless he stuck very close to Fleming's own. Otherwise, it would just be Mathis, Le Chiffre playing versions of Quentin Tarantino - by proxy. Spouting the same smug, smart arsed, pinhead geekery.

That's how it has always struck me, his dialogue. All I remember are the pop culture references.

Yeah, and none of its particularly insightful either. It's just a way of slowly trivialising movies. Removing politics, culture and religion from them, replacing them with a teenage vacuum.

True film is not about words, how one manipulates the moving image. Framing, mise en scène, set design, lighting, in-camera effects etc... That's the magic of cinema. Music, dialogue and sound effects are all secondary.

Watched a couple today:

HAWKS


I frankly thought the acting was rather abysmal, aside from Timothy Dalton, of course. He made it worth watching. His character really goes through a full range of emotions, and only Dalton could pull it off so well. The story is certainly an interesting one as well. I thought the film started strong, but seems to lose it's way in the second half...

THE HEIRESS


This movie takes a while to build, but it is well worth the wait. I just stumbled upon this movie when I saw a picture of Montgomery Clift (who I love in From Here to Eternity) and Olivia de Havilland (who I love in Gone With the Wind). Nearly 10 years after Gone With the Wind, I thought I was seeing de Havilland play the same type once more, the meek, quiet, unassuming, innocent girl, and it's true, at first. What you see, however, is a girl to whom it is clearly obvious that she is plain, an generally unattractive to the opposite sex. She has the misfortune of being compared to her deceased mother, who her father has no doubt idealized, by her father in every way, and coming up short in all areas. When a man seems to want to marry her, her father can think of no other reason than for her money, and sets out to ruin things.

That's when the film truly gets interesting. You find yourself questioning every characters motivations. Does the father really care for his daughter and looking out for her best interest, or is he a cruel man with nothing but insults for his own daughter? Is Clift's character truly a mercenary, or does he care for de Havilland and finds himself at an impasse do to her father's cruelty? None can tell, but the result is clear - de Havilland's character changes from the innocent, naive girl, to a cold, spiteful woman, who suspects every kind word or deed. The transformation is artfully portrayed by de Havilland, and I came away wanting to see more of her. Clift brings no less the passion that I expected from him. Something about his presence lights up the screen, even in a black and white movie.

Two Guys From Milwaukee (1946) Dir. David Butler

Sure its a bit silly. Sure its one of those "America's going A-OK!" films that sprouted out of the post-war years. But my god, its a terrifcally fun picture.

Dennis Morgan (who I'd never noticed before from some small roles in Cagney films) is a Balkan prince who yearns to see what the American people are really like. So he slips his minder (S.Z. Sakall) and hops off his train incognito, ending up standing next to cab driver Jack Carson. So they end up getting extremely wasted and wake up the next morning, only for Carson and his family to discover who he really is. They dont really mind, only when Morgan cataches the eye of Carson's girl in Joan Leslie - leading to all kinds of shenanigans. Carson and Morgan are a delight, and having finally turned 20, Joan's starting to look like a woman. So alls good.

L'Illusionniste


Probably the best, most beautiful traditional animation I've seen in a long time, mirrored with a brilliantly poignant (and devastatingly sad) story. Animation and Tati make great companions, and this is a fitting homage to the master's work and life. Far superior to Chomet's earlier film.

Scarface (1932) Dir. Howard Hawks

Its a gangster film chock full of good moments and a smashing ending, but I just dont find it as entertaining as the Warners productions. Theres something about it thats less slick - maybe its the occasional moves into preachyness, maybe its that awful comedic sidekick, maybe its the lack of the Warners players in general besides Ann Dvorak and George Raft - Muni's solid but he doesnt electrify like Cagney or Eddie G. Though I love that ending - theres something so bitterly cynical about it that wouldve been lost had they gone with the alternate, hanging ending.

colly wrote:

Scarface (1932) Dir. Howard Hawks

Its a gangster film chock full of good moments and a smashing ending, but I just dont find it as entertaining as the Warners productions. Theres something about it thats less slick - maybe its the occasional moves into preachyness, maybe its that awful comedic sidekick, maybe its the lack of the Warners players in general besides Ann Dvorak and George Raft - Muni's solid but he doesnt electrify like Cagney or Eddie G. Though I love that ending - theres something so bitterly cynical about it that wouldve been lost had they gone with the alternate, hanging ending.

it's kind of raw and episodic, but then I find "Public Enemy" and "Little Caesar" to be a bit that way too

on the plus side it introduced the world to George Raft flipping a coin
too cool for school!
8)

Oppers finally shamed me into hiring Inception and to my surprise it was worth seeing. Obviously owes a great deal to Dark City but I'm looking forward to watching it again. Just wish I'd caught it on a big screen.

DARK CITY is a far superior work. I'm sure Harms would agree.

ambler wrote:

Oppers finally shamed me into hiring Inception and to my surprise it was worth seeing. Obviously owes a great deal to Dark City but I'm looking forward to watching it again. Just wish I'd caught it on a big screen.

What'd you like about it?

Once automatic weapons were brought into the picture, it lost most of my interest. Ellen Page ruined a lot of scenes for me, too.

I can't stand that t***, Leonardo DiCaprio.

Leonardo di Capri Ghia, as he's known in my household.

Well, it makes me giggle. Which isn't difficult, I'll admit.

I can tolerate him, but I think John Gordon Lovitt, or whatever the fuck his name was, is an annoying little t***. Another scene wrecker.

That scene where he kissed Page was atrocious.

Sharky wrote:

DARK CITY is a far superior work. I'm sure Harms would agree.

I'll still defend DARK CITY as an excellent cinematic curio. It throws a lot of things into a blender and I like the taste that comes out. But I llike science fiction, noir, and expressionism.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Sharky wrote:

DARK CITY is a far superior work. I'm sure Harms would agree.

I'll still defend DARK CITY as an excellent cinematic curio. It throws a lot of things into a blender and I like the taste that comes out. But I llike science fiction, noir, and expressionism.

I agree with Tux, especially in the sci-fi/noir/expressionism combo. But unfortunately DARK CITY is the only thing from the Alex Proyas oeuvre that I like. Read "like" as "don't hate".

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Sharky wrote:

DARK CITY is a far superior work. I'm sure Harms would agree.

I'll still defend DARK CITY as an excellent cinematic curio. It throws a lot of things into a blender and I like the taste that comes out. But I llike science fiction, noir, and expressionism.

I agree with Tux, especially in the sci-fi/noir/expressionism combo. But unfortunately DARK CITY is the only thing from the Alex Proyas oeuvre that I like. Read "like" as "don't hate".

DARK CITY is my personal favorite most recent SF film, if that makes sense. I, ROBOT is the film I look to and say, "That's what I want the SF genre to NOT be."

And it's from the same guy.

Lee Tamahori directed both ONCE WERE WARRIORS and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

Sharky wrote:

Lee Tamahori directed both ONCE WERE WARRIORS and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

Michael Apted did a few good things, one of which was not TWINE.

Roger Spotsonhiswood did TURNER & HOOTCH.

Sharky wrote:

DARK CITY is a far superior work. I'm sure Harms would agree.

Meant sarcastically, I trust, given that my dislike for DARK CITY is pretty "on the record" stuff. Both it and INCEPTION have their clunky aspects. I'm not sure which one is genuinely better than the other.

The Stunt Man (1980)

How have I never seen this before?? Peter O'Tooke is BRILLIANT. I loved every minute! :D :D :D

"If God could do the tricks we do, he'd be a happy man."