Last Movie you Watched?

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans - I haven't seen the one with Keitel, so I can't judge this one as a sequel or remake or whatever it is. As a stand alone film, it's a solid effort from Herzog, whose other Hollywood works I haven't seen yet. Bad Lieutenant is silly, with lots of WTF moments, but also with heart (something most recent Cage flicks have lacked). Strangely, this film was on a national Russian TV network during the day. I assumed that some parts were cut, but the film ran over two hours, so I doubt it was censored. In any case, it was tamer than I anticipated, having read some reviews.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

It may be all to do with the specs, Rave ... I think they may be better now.

In which case, I may risk it if the local flea pit* is doing Thor in 3D. I wouldn't mind seeing him in more perspective.....

*this is not a picturesque phrase - more an accurate description.

'Imself is off for tomorrow to visit his Dad, and not back til Sunday, so I may entertain myself in his absence with a trip.

The Furies (1950; dir. Anthony Mann)

Superb film. It's a bit more dialogue-driven than I typically like my Westerns, but it tells a good story of a father and daughter locked in a titanic struggle over the land that the father forged in his younger days. Barbara Stanwyck and Walter Huston are both outstanding. They can stand up to eachother, and their chemistry is remarkable.

Stanwyck really knows her way around a pair of scissors! If you've seen the film you know the moment. It stands alongside Lee Marvin's serving coffee to Gloria Graham in THE BIG HEAT as one of the most memorable Hollywood facials of the era.

Judith Anderson, who gets the facial, is very good too. Wendell Corey is a little more dull, but it fits. I know him mostly from REAR WINDOW so I've always seen the guy as a bit of a stiff.

The Criterion DVD has a nice interview with Anthony Mann, a director I personally admire as an aspiring filmmaker. It was done for the BBC or whatever in 1967, and it's kinda sad because he died of a heart attack very shortly after it was conducted. But he talks about film being a visual medium, and he talks about his westerns. Stewart being not so much a "hero", but "a man with a purpose".

Here's part of it. EDIT: No, it isn't. Only the first minute or so is.

Love some of those montages on that BBC vid - including the use of THE BIG COUNTRY's theme.

And I really want to see THE FURIES. Along with aq few other Mann's as well, but THE FURIES is probably top of the list.

The BBC vid is only the B&W interview part. It's a shame they didn't just upload that.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)



An interesting little modern western about a border guard, who accidentally shoots a Mexican immigrant whose working at a ranch in Texas and his friend promises to bury him in his hometown with the guard as a hostage. Really gritty story that is surprisingly good from Tommy Lee Jones, who both stars and directs the film. Though it ends on the middle of the road, IMO, it's still a good story about rasism with little taste of satire.

8.5/10



Red (2010)



Mostly enjoyable comic book adaption with a mother of all casts. I mean, look at it: Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox, Richard Dreyfuss and even 93 year old Ernest Borgnine who still kicks major assage. And the cast is pretty much the best part in this film, because the story is ordinary, action is delightfully cheesy and clichéd and there's not much else to say about this. But it's still worth to check out just to see these guys together.

6/10

Went to the movies for the first time this year, because a friend invited me to see...



Thor (2011) Dir. Kenneth Branagh

Despite the fact I ended up surrounded by some stupid loudmouths (some I recognized from my school days) - still a damn fun film. And I saw it in 2D. 8)

Thankfully its a film that doesnt take itself overly seriously, so the emotion doesnt go overboard and the humour in some parts is really quite good - the Thor on Earth scenes are particularly fantastic, and very 50s-scifi. Loved the mood. Great cast too - it seems to be a recurring idea of these films to pack the talent in to support the leading man - and the earth trio of Portman, Skarsgard and Dennings provide plenty of fun. And luckily they struck gold with Chris Hemsworth; who cares if hes not going to change the world of acting with Brando-esque precision. He's just a mighty enjoyable screen presence. And hopefully he gets to keep it up. Either with this, or other films. 8)

Does he nail Natalie?

Cuz he has like a hammer...

Get it? Hammer? Nail? He had sex with her.

Watched five minutes of Indiana Jones and the Shanghai Skull Factory or something.

I've felt dirty ever since. Not in a good way either.

ambler wrote:

Watched five minutes of Indiana Jones and the Shanghai Skull Factory or something.

I've felt dirty ever since. Not in a good way either.

Why did you do that to yourself? I wish I had never seen that pile of horse manure.

I've been trying to pretend it doesn't exist...

Salomé wrote:

Why did you do that to yourself?

So I could talk to you young people. Otherwise my conversational skills are limited to 'Show me you tits.'

I'm not old enough to find it flattering to be referred to as young.

Salomé wrote:

I'm not old enough to find it flattering to be referred to as young.

You're 30, Oppers. Too old for me, though maybe not for Rave.

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I'm not old enough to find it flattering to be referred to as young.

You're 30, Oppers. Too old for me, though maybe not for Rave.

Rave swings both ways? The things you learn...

Salomé wrote:

Rave swings both ways? The things you learn...

I know. I was surprised as well.

Well, that's going to liven up my weekend then. A whole new vista opens up before me.

Forever open.

I know. And here was me thinking that a more rampantly heterosexual woman would be difficult to find.

Obviously I've been overcompensating all these years.

Well, I caught Water For Elephants tonight. Not sure if I was just in an emotional/romantic mood, but I enjoyed it enough to write a glowing review on my blog, which I can recount here:

I didn’t much know what to expect from this movie and I’d read no reviews and heard no opinions. It’s nice to go into a movie like that. I did, however, know Christoph Waltz was in it, but of course he met expectations.

Water For Elephants is a film that was made for someone like me. It’s a period piece that incorporates every significant element of it’s period without being a movie about the period. It just happens naturally and seamlessly, which isn’t easy to do with a very specific year - 1931, yet the film incorporates late nineteenth century European immigration, prohibition, and the depression.

Of course the film itself is about none of those things. They are props in a circus setting, and the characters are so charged with emotion and back stories that the film can hardly contain them - a good problem to have. While Robert Pattinson doesn’t tend to impress me, the role in this film worked for him. He was brooding yet fresh-faced, and filled with compassion, without the passion. Reese Witherspoon’s character never loses her feminine mystique, and you aren’t sure about her true feelings and motivations until the end. Christophe Waltz is an expert (and award winner) at giving antagonistic characters depth - you really feel mental illness more than pure evil from his character, and you can’t decide how you feel about him throughout the film, but you know the feelings aren’t positive.

My biggest complaints with films is often unnecessary dialogue. I don’t want to watch a film to have my intelligence insulted by being told everything I should know and understand. This film didn’t do that. The dialogue was only necessary, and the film truly told a visual story with some very deliberate, yet subtle shots that gave film direction and symbolism to build on the theme of illusion and doubt of reality.

There were many beautiful aspects of the film as well. The contrast of the day with the night scenes were clearly deliberate, and were another element of the film’s central theme. There were some shots I liked enough to hang on my wall and stare at for hours.

All in all, it’s what I like to see in a film. It wasn’t perfect, but I was too focused on the positive aspects of it to say much negative about it. I might have actually preferred more of a tragedy, but you have to give the masses what they want, I suppose…And it was based on a book, although I don’t know if it was at all a faithful adaptation.

I saw that last night with a couple of friends. All I knew was that it had Pattinson and I wasn't too thrilled about being dragged to it, but with Christoph Waltz I figured that would even things.

And then I ended up liking the flick, to my surprise. Until the fourth quarter of the film. The moment Witherspoon decided to jump out of the train with Pattinson is where it lost me. Plus I never really bought their chemistry so it was hard for me to believe she would take such a risk. I literally rolled eyes the moment that happened and the rest was like watching a disaster (oh).

With a few exceptions I did like most of the cinematography a lot, it was a nice looking flick.

That's pretty much my thoughts on it.

Witherspoon/Pattinson is a laughable pairing.

Dracula (1958; dir. Terence Fisher)

'sokay. Didn't do much for me.

Gives me an idea for a thread:

Fantasy/Reality

Basically you take an absurd aspect of a movie and give it a more realistic depiction. For example.


Fantasy (as it happened in the flick)
Pattinson: (Brooding, moody, retarded looking) "Hi, I like animals."
Witherspoon: (Somehow captivated by this Pattinson, acts nervously over him during the whole flick)

Reality (as it would really happen)

Pattinson: (still brooding, moody, retarded looking) "Hi, I like animals."
Witherspoon: (bluntly) "Don't you have some horseshit to scoop?"

Ba-dum-ch!

Viva Las Vegas (1964) Dir. George Sidney

A groovingly awesome ball of fun, sure its fluff, but everyone's having so much fun and it all ends in a continuity-less car race. What more could you ask?

Actually you could ask the real reason why everyone should watch this film, and why I bought it today after seeing a bit of it last night on TV - because Ann Margret is insanely attractive. She is hot with a capital H. O. T. SHe puts Elvis in the shade, baby.



The first minute - ignore the oddly effeminate blokes dancing with her.



Check out this groovin' sequence.



Or her red-hot entrance...

but annoyingly enough, I cant find her dance sequence in the talent show bit. That is amazing.

Colly's Elvis Countdown...
1. VIVA LAS VEGAS (1964)
2. KID GALAHAD (1962)
3. JAILHOUSE ROCK (1957)

Must be said, thanks to a Mad Men episode Anne Margaret is...well...

If only Kyvan were here to see this Colly

You can probably guess where my mind went with Colly using the phrase 'her red-hot entrance'.

I was thinking of Kyvers, but then again he always disapproved of me liking KID GALAHAD... ;)

But yeah, Ann Marget just rocked the house, so to speak.