Last Movie you Watched?

I assume you mean Don Davis. But yeah, he does good work on THE MATRIX.

Can't say I rate the film itself too highly, though. It's largely a slapdash, daft compilation of ideas from far greater source material, ala the cyperpunk fiction of the 80s and 90s (NEUROMANCER, SNOW CRASH) and some anime film landmarks (GHOST IN THE SHELL).

Yep, spelling error on my part. It does have some interesting philosophic propositions (like you say, from superior sources), but like INCEPTION, it squanders all of them through it's inability to express them without going into portentous cliches, or reverting to genre formula - action scenes,

I'll give INCEPTION the leg up here because of how enigmatically it handles some of its themes. The thematic throughline isn't perfect--and yes, INCEPTION does too often depend on dull, dreary action cliches that aren't even especially well-executed, as well as an awkward sense of cinematic language--but, by and large, it has more interesting suggestions to make than anything woven into the fabric of THE MATRIX. On the other hand, THE MATRIX serves up some visual sequences that are far beyond anything the like of which INCEPTION serves up. The noted lobby shoot-out, aside from a few moments, is a great bit of kinetic action cinema.

This talk makes me want to pop GHOST IN THE SHELL 2: INNOCENCE into my Blu-Ray player. Better than either film, it serves up a share of philosophy, with ideas that find companion notes in both INCEPTION and THE MATRIX, but does so with a seriously impressive understanding of aesthetic language. Too slow, I imagine, to ever be a super blockbuster, but nevertheless one of the best serious stabs at sci-fi from the last decade, and done on a scale that contemporary Hollywood would never allow for a live action film of this sort.

Arkadin wrote:

The noted lobby shoot-out, aside from a few moments, is a great bit of kinetic action cinema.

I'd say it was outright theft.

ambler wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

The noted lobby shoot-out, aside from a few moments, is a great bit of kinetic action cinema.

I'd say it was outright theft.

Whether theft or homage, that sequence does a lovely job of bringing that style of combat a live action setting and is worthy of admiration if only for being such an impressive technical achievement.

Arkadin wrote:

worthy of admiration if only for being such an impressive technical achievement.

The Wachowskis and Leni Riefenstahl have something in common then.

Arkadin wrote:

I assume you mean Don Davis. But yeah, he does good work on THE MATRIX.

Can't say I rate the film itself too highly, though. It's largely a slapdash, daft compilation of ideas from far greater source material, ala the cyperpunk fiction of the 80s and 90s (NEUROMANCER, SNOW CRASH) and some anime film landmarks (GHOST IN THE SHELL).

I found Ghost in the Shell rather disappointing when I ended up seeing it.

The ideas in the Matrix are almost as old as humanity itself. I'd wager some notions of solipsism have existed for a very, very long time. Though the Matrix mainly rehashed Plato's allegory of the cave. And then they sprinkled some Hong-Kong style wire-fu on top of it. Only the - at the time - groundbreaking effects made that movie stand out. It hasn't aged well, at all.

Salomé wrote:

It hasn't aged well, at all.

The sunglasses are good.

Salomé wrote:

I found Ghost in the Shell rather disappointing when I ended up seeing it.

I think it's a beautiful film. It's not the sort of film that serves as a kind of landmark accomplishment, but it's a very fine footnote in the history of cinema. It has a marvelous sense of rhythm and style. I wish more films were so willing to take their time with action sequences. The ending is a bit of a let-down, but GHOST IN THE SHELL 2 pretty much compensates for that by taking everything the first film teased at so much further.

Re: GHOST IN THE SHELL 2. Yep, major improvement on the first film on many levels. I also really dig the scores by Kenji Kawai.



On the whole, I'd say the Japanese do this kind work of a lot better than the yanks, who are left picking up the leftovers and adapting bits for Western audiences. It comes naturally to them, and I think relates a lot to both their culture and temperament.

Sharky wrote:

On the whole, I'd say the Japanese do this kind work of a lot better than the yanks, who are left picking up the leftovers and adapting bits for Western audiences. It comes naturally to them, and I think relates a lot to both their culture and temperament.

For sure.

Though, in Western fiction, at least, there's plenty of good stuff to go around. But American cinema, aside from a few exceptions, has never dealt well with that literary legacy. Just look at how Hollywood has (mis)treated the work of Philip K. Dick.

Arkadin wrote:

Just look at how Hollywood has (mis)treated the work of Philip K. Dick.

I think Spielberg's the only one who's given his work justice in MINORITY REPORT, though I wager you'll violently disagree.

No one has done Dick right yet except Rave.

I'm hoping to recruit her to adapt Dr Bloodmoney.

ambler wrote:

No one has done Dick right yet except Rave.

It's a gift.

Sharky wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

Just look at how Hollywood has (mis)treated the work of Philip K. Dick.

I think Spielberg's the only one who's given his work justice in MINORITY REPORT, though I wager you'll violently disagree.

Not violently, but no, I don't think MINORITY REPORT is a great film. It's ugly to look at, it pushes its existential concerns to the background, has some surprisingly sluggish action for Spielberg, and has a plot that doesn't hold together if you think about it for more than ten minutes. But MINORITY REPORT was just based on a short story, anyway, so I'm not too protective of the material, and it's not a complete abandonment of Dick's persona in the way that THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is.

Hollywood has generally stayed away from Dick's novels, which, generally, offer serious challenges to cinema. I hope Gondry gets to make UBIK, and that opens up the door for serious, worthy film versions of other works, like THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH and FLOW MY TEARS.

BLADE RUNNER is one of the few attempts to deliver a serious version of Dick's work, but, as visually stunning as it is, it sadly stays in the shallows in terms of thematic development. With a richer screenplay, a little more humor, and a more charismatic lead, BLADE RUNNER would be unbeatable.

Arkadin wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

Just look at how Hollywood has (mis)treated the work of Philip K. Dick.

I think Spielberg's the only one who's given his work justice in MINORITY REPORT, though I wager you'll violently disagree.

Not violently, but no, I don't think MINORITY REPORT is a great film. It's ugly to look at, it pushes its existential concerns to the background, has some surprisingly sluggish action for Spielberg, and has a plot that doesn't hold together if you think about it for more than ten minutes. But MINORITY REPORT was just based on a short story, anyway, so I'm not too protective of the material, and it's not a complete abandonment of Dick's persona in the way that THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is.

I've never thought that MINORITY REPORT is a great film, by any means, at least compared to his other 00s film like MUNICH and AI which I'd argue are.

As for its ugliness, I think it serves the dystopian vision fairly well, and offers a stark contrast between that and the consolation of the Middle American 'new life' that Anderton and Agatha try to find. The both surreal and expressionist look also harkens back to a lot of the film's influences - particularly Lang's METROPOLIS. Kaminski's digitally honed, real-yet-abstract cinematography is a rarity in film today, where most are either one or the other. It achieves a solid middle ground.

It also shifts it the Dick's existential concerns to a spiritual, and ultimately more personal predicament. How modern society is placing flawed, man-made institutions above any sense of spirituality, and is slowly eroding our moral certainty. All through an apotheosis of determinism. Whether that is through the public (police force) or private sector (seedy capitalists out for a quick buck).

I do agree on the action scenes, however. Especially the sequence with the vertical Maglev cars. I heard that he used a different stunt team on this (that also worked on Woo's MI:2).

Arkadin wrote:

Hollywood has generally stayed away from Dick's novels, which, generally, offer serious challenges to cinema. I hope Gondry gets to make UBIK, and that opens up the door for serious, worthy film versions of other works, like THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH and FLOW MY TEARS..

Yeah, Gondy the man's for the job, though how do you think Wong Kar-Wai would tackle Dick?

Arkadin wrote:

BLADE RUNNER is one of the few attempts to deliver a serious version of Dick's work, but, as visually stunning as it is, it sadly stays in the shallows in terms of thematic development. With a richer screenplay and a more charismatic lead, BLADE RUNNER would be unbeatable.

BLADE RUNNER works best as a sound and light show to watch while inebriated or stoned. Other that, it's a hard watch.

What actor do you think should have played Deckard?

I didn't like Minority Report, not simply because I felt it didn't capture the story as Dick wrote it, but also because - to be honest - Tom Cruise gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Seriously - look into that man's eyes. There's something very peculiar going on back there.

Bladerunner - While I enjoy the film, it's not exactly Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep?.

Ravenstone wrote:

I didn't like Minority Report, not simply because I felt it didn't capture the story as Dick wrote it.

To be honest, I prefer to the short story, which was never one of Dick's finer works in the first place. The Spielberger did a good job making it his own.

Quote :

Tom Cruise gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Seriously - look into that man's eyes. There's something very peculiar going on back there.

Nicole Kidman knows the answer.

Sharky wrote:

As for its ugliness, I think it serves the dystopian vision fairly well, and offers a stark contrast between that and the consolation of the Middle American 'new life' that Anderton and Agatha try to find.

Perhaps, but I don't find its brand of ugliness to be of a particularly interesting sort. I'm not saying MINORITY REPORT should have been beautiful in a typically beautiful way, but it's so blue-d out that it drives me crazy.

Sharky wrote:

Yeah, Gondy the man's for the job, though how do you think Wong Kar-Wai would tackle Dick?

Hm. I can't really see it. Wong and Dick's sensibilities are so different, though if Wong did decide to do it, I'd never bet against him.

Sharky wrote:

What actor do you think should have played Deckard?

Maybe Nick Nolte.

Popped this one in again...ouchie....

Sharky wrote:

Ravenstone wrote:

Tom Cruise gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Seriously - look into that man's eyes. There's something very peculiar going on back there.

Nicole Kidman knows the answer.

Mimi Rogers has already delivered her verdict.

Adventureland ... billed as a 'low-fi' comedy, perhaps a more honest description would be a 'low-fi' teen angsty relationship drama with some amusing moments.

Meh, 'twas OK.

And Then There Were None (1945)
Dir. René Clair

Superb adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel, despite a slight deviation from it towards the end, in order to add a little bit of romance. I'm familiar with the story, after seeing an excellent stage version about a year back, but that didn't stop my enjoyment of this cinematic version. The cast are great ; we've got Irish actor Barry Fitzgerald turning in a wonderfully charismatic performance as the Judge, Walter Huston as the decisive but cowardly Doctor, Louis Hayward as the mysterious Philip Lombard and the lovely June Duprez (who I was recently introduced to in The Spy In Black), amongst others. Brilliantly directed by Clair, it’s a fast-moving, atmospheric film with a real sense of paranoia alongside plenty of subtle, black humour and an abrupt ending to rival Hitchcock. Very enjoyable and highly recommended.

5/5

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) Dir: John Frankenheimer

I have to say at times it felt like a surreal film. This is meant, however, on multiple levels. While there are parts of the film (the dream sequences, particularly) where cross-cutting and juxtaposition create an uneven and jarring reality completely intentionally, it is the moments of lucidity that I often found most bizarre (particularly the ones involving Janet Leigh) was she controlling Sinatra or her character just badly wasted?

Laurence Harvey is fine as Raymond Shaw comes off as a stereotypical snobby asshole, complete with a British accent that is never explained, and for the first half of the film, it is hard to feel much but disdain for the guy. However, as the film goes on, his character garners more and more pathos, until, at the climax of the film where you feel sympathetic for him . Frank Sinatra as Ben Marco doesn't give a bad performance, exactly... it just wasn't all that great although his fight with Henry Silva was fun to watch.

Angela Lansbury is meticulously plays one of the most most despicable characters I've yet seen on film (at least, she was to me) we see that through her insatiable political ambition and her manipulative force of will, she had broken down Raymond's will long before the Commies ever got their hands on him. The hypocrisy of the character just makes her loathsome to my tastes, and it doesn't help that Lansbury gives a superb performance.




The Sting (1973) Dir: George Roy Hill

I have to admit I'm not the biggest fan of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid but despite the similarities strangely I enjoyed this more. The image of Chicago is clearly a studio set with cardboard walls, but this adds to the old fashioned feel and the costumes, mannerisms, make-up etc. perfectly resemble the period in question. The heavier topics of murder and revenge don't get a chance to settle in, which is a good thing because the movie is best when it doesn't take itself to seriously. The soundtrack couldn't be better either. Scott Joplin's `The Entertainer' fits in well and doesn't feel ananchronistic like "Raindrops keep Falling on my Head" was in Butch Cassidy.

Redford's more energetic performance is slightly better than Newman's sedated veteran con-man. Robert Shaw is great as usual.The film is given the appropriate light touch so that even the most serious moments have that nostalgic glow to them. Another thing I liked was the episodic division in the movie, so as each part is divided into chapters.

bondfan06 wrote:

The Sting (1973)

I'm a huge fan of Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, Butch And Sundance : The Early Days is a lot of fun too, but I was a little disappointed with The Sting - maybe I ought to watch it again.