Last Movie you Watched?

Seve wrote:

Drop Zone
I had only read bad things about this, but I found it to be quite good
the story is slightly insane at times, but it moves along and has plenty of decent action sequences
definitely near the top of the list for a Wesley Snipes action flick and better than many of JCVD, Sly Stallone or Bruce Willis' efforts
with Gary Busey as the villain, 'nuff said

There's a similar movie called Terminal Velocity, starring ... Charlie Sheen.

I guess you can make up your own jokes there .

Eraser (1996)



What can you say, it's simple, clichéd but likeable Ahnuld action flick. Just check your brains out and enjoy a wild ride featuring guns, explosions, cheesy 90´s CGI, futuristic techno mumbo jumbo and corny one-liners. And it also has a James C. trio: Caan, Coburn and Cromwell. Overall...well, Arnold. 'Nuff said.

6.5/10

Archangel
classy mystery / espionage / thriller featuring Daniel Craig
Craig invests the charater with a human vulnerability that is beyond many actors in this sort of film

QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008)

I still don't know what side to take on this film.

I watched it again last night and thought about the Bourne comparisons. While it's obvious that QOS is much grittier than pretty much any other Bond film, I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say it's a Bourne knockoff. The Bourne films are much more dreary than QOS, and that's saying quite a bit as QOS is pretty dreary as is.

I think my biggest issue with QOS is that it just feels insignificant. CR introduces us to this sinister organization and QOS kind of falls flat carrying on with their story. I can see how the writers strike would have affected that.

QOS does do some things right. I do really like Craig -- he carries the film. I also think this is David Arnold's best Bond work to date. Nice to see him take some risks for once.

I think the film had potential. It touched on some interesting ideas but just never really fleshed them out. Amalric is underused, as is Wright. And I really wish they wouldn't have killed off Mathis.

I dunno. As much of a disappoint as it was, I'll still take it over almost all of the Moore and Brosnan films.

Jack Wade wrote:

And I really wish they wouldn't have killed off Leiter.

I dunno. As much of a disappoint as it was, I'll still take it over almost all of the Moore and Brosnan films.

You mean Mathis?

And I agree with the latter point. From the Moore and Brosnan flicks, I think only FYEO and GoldenEye are better than QOS.

As much as I consider Arnold's work on QOS superior to anything else he's done, the Moore films have the likes of John Barry, Bill Conti, and George Martin. Even for that alone, they put QOS to shame.

Jack Wade wrote:

QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008)

I still don't know what side to take on this film.

I watched it again last night and thought about the Bourne comparisons. While it's obvious that QOS is much grittier than pretty much any other Bond film, I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say it's a Bourne knockoff. The Bourne films are much more dreary than QOS, and that's saying quite a bit as QOS is pretty dreary as is.

I think my biggest issue with QOS is that it just feels insignificant. CR introduces us to this sinister organization and QOS kind of falls flat carrying on with their story. I can see how the writers strike would have affected that.

QOS does do some things right. I do really like Craig -- he carries the film. I also think this is David Arnold's best Bond work to date. Nice to see him take some risks for once.

I think the film had potential. It touched on some interesting ideas but just never really fleshed them out. Amalric is underused, as is Wright. And I really wish they wouldn't have killed off Mathis.

I dunno. As much of a disappoint as it was, I'll still take it over almost all of the Moore and Brosnan films.

That's why I'm still not so big on the direct-follow up route they took. They should have done the first act differently to set up the same kind of story - Bond hunting down Quantum and trying to find Kabira. Of course, the hunt for Kabira goes totally out of focus. In LTK, we never lost sight of Sanchez. But in QOS, Bond's target isn't clear. That alone would elevate the film IMHO.

That said, I like the look and feel of the film. I like the tone. I actually find it fun, and I don't understand why people say it's dreary.

I don't like the editing, the faux-arty stuff, and cliche liberal Hollywood crap.

Lawrence of Arabia

it might be presumptous to say this is the David Lean movie. I've seen a few and this is my first viewing of Arabia but it quickly dawned that there was something about it that the others just lacked (not that I have seen a Lean film that has left me cold). Perhaps it was the sheer length of the movie or Jack Hawkins or Anthony Quayle or importantly O'Toole and his breathtaking performance OR even the magnificent score...
At times it looked fantastic, it felt great and as an endnote my favourite use of the theme is when in Act II Lawrence slowly marches down the train's roof hands aloft, the music matching his movement until Arthur Kennedy calls his name and gets the big photo.

That's a film I intend to watch again when I get a widescreen TV. I know, I know. It HAS to be seen on the big screen. I don't own one!

Personally, I'm not so much taken by it anymore. And it's not simply because I haven't seen it on the big screen. The first half still wows me in a lot of places. But the second half leaves me restless.

I do wanna see the intro of Omar on the big screen.

As spectacular as LAWRENCE looks and sounds, and it IS Lean's masterwork, it's easy to get carried away with its widescreen aesthetics..To use a much abused cliche, 'it's a film of ideas.' Real ideas, not half-witted, navel-gazing, spiritually destitute abstractions the likes of Alfonso Cuarón, Christopher Nolan, and Alejandro González Iñárritu make their careers off.

More relevant now than ever.

Sharky wrote:

As spectacular as LAWRENCE looks and sounds, and it IS Lean's masterwork, it's easy to get carried away with its widescreen aesthetics..To use a much abused cliche, 'it's a film of ideas.' Real ideas, not half-witted, navel-gazing, spiritually destitute abstractions the likes of Alfonso Cuarón, Christopher Nolan, and Alejandro González Iñárritu make their careers off.

More relevant now than ever.

read "Seven Pillars Of Wisdom" it's even better

Sharky wrote:

As spectacular as LAWRENCE looks and sounds, and it IS Lean's masterwork, it's easy to get carried away with its widescreen aesthetics..To use a much abused cliche, 'it's a film of ideas.' Real ideas, not half-witted, navel-gazing, spiritually destitute abstractions the likes of Alfonso Cuarón, Christopher Nolan, and Alejandro González Iñárritu make their careers off.

More relevant now than ever.

I love phrases like "spiritually destitute". I love that you judge films like that. Also, not to argue the film's merits because I agree, but I like how you make blanket statements about its relevance or its ideas without specifically naming what in the film you find intelligent or relevant -- which is interesting given that what you see as worthwhile in a film can oftentimes be very different than what others do.

Also, in your "pariah list" of destitute directors above, I will say I agree about Alejandro González Iñárritu. The other two, well, you know where I stand. Although the complaint I would lay against him would not be one of spiritual destitution or navel-gazing, more just one of over-sentimentality, cliche irrationalist drivel, and not having much of any significance to say at the end of his winding and emotionally manipulative narratives. A sense of "aren't I artistic and clever?" but without any actual substance to the work. I know you'll come right back at me for that as an opinion of Nolan as well, but as you can expect I would disagree.

Does the real Armond White have a blog or something where we could send him an invite to this place? That would be a f*cking awesome coup, and besides, I think the guy (if he had the time) would love to pitch in on some film debates here.

At the very least, someone should just "puppet" him, so that it at least looks like he's on board here. I know what Bobby Bowfinger would do.

Lazenby. wrote:

At the very least, someone should just "puppet" him, so that it at least looks like he's on board here.

Isn't that what Sharky does? ;)

Saw The Young Victoria last night.

I LOVED it. I'm not sure if I was just in a romantic mood or what, but this movie made me incredibly emotional! It was a good one to watch with my mom on mother's day.

I'm pretty much in love with Prince Albert now, which is not good seeing as he's long dead...

And it's annoying that they really sensationalized the assassination attempt. He certainly wasn't injured and they don't even know if a bullet was fired, but such is Hollywood.

This movie really featured a great supporting cast...All of the characters seem very nuanced, which seems surprisingly difficult to do when making a movie about actual people.

As far as the way it's filmed and the cinematography...I was impressed. The editing was really well done, too. The way it cut from one scene to another back and forth fairly rapidly in a way that brought the story together seemed really less than ordinary to what you see in many films. I have to wonder whose vision it was...If it was written in as such or directed as such...either way, I liked it.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

As spectacular as LAWRENCE looks and sounds, and it IS Lean's masterwork, it's easy to get carried away with its widescreen aesthetics..To use a much abused cliche, 'it's a film of ideas.' Real ideas, not half-witted, navel-gazing, spiritually destitute abstractions the likes of Alfonso Cuarón, Christopher Nolan, and Alejandro González Iñárritu make their careers off.

More relevant now than ever.

I love phrases like "spiritually destitute". I love that you judge films like that. Also, not to argue the film's merits because I agree, but I like how you make blanket statements about its relevance or its ideas without specifically naming what in the film you find intelligent or relevant -- which is interesting given that what you see as worthwhile in a film can oftentimes be very different than what others do.

It's because I like to leave some work up to the reader i.e. you. I shouldn't have to spell out everything to you, and dot every i and cross every t, in a simple reply.

If you get the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. In other words, I'm a lazy schmuck.

Look directly into the eyes of i-Armond, and you'll learn the truth.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Also, in your "pariah list" of destitute directors above, I will say I agree about Alejandro González Iñárritu. The other two, well, you know where I stand. Although the complaint I would lay against him would not be one of spiritual destitution or navel-gazing, more just one of over-sentimentality, cliche irrationalist drivel, and not having much of any significance to say at the end of his winding and emotionally manipulative narratives. A sense of "aren't I artistic and clever?" but without any actual substance to the work. I know you'll come right back at me for that as an opinion of Nolan as well, but as you can expect I would disagree.

Nolan's problem isn't spewing irrational drivel, in fact he's too rational for his own good. Almost Asperger's-like. Though I do get an 'aren't I clever' posturing from his films. Especially MEMENTO, THE PRESTIGE, and INCEPTION.

Though I guess we won't agree here for some time.

Sharky wrote:

Nolan's problem isn't spewing irrational drivel, in fact he's too rational for his own good.

Which isn't as big a problem for me as it is for you. I'd rather watch the order vs. chaos struggle in THE DARK KNIGHT than the love vs. mortality (or... whatever) struggle in THE FOUNTAIN.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Nolan's problem isn't spewing irrational drivel, in fact he's too rational for his own good.

Which isn't as big a problem for me as it is for you. I'd rather watch the order vs. chaos struggle in THE DARK KNIGHT than the love vs. mortality (or... whatever) struggle in THE FOUNTAIN.

... and I'd rather cap myself in the head.

Ah. Just like old times.

Night Moves (1975; dir. Arthur Penn)

Still dig this film. It's a more quiet great film.

I'll just post this: http://www.avclub.com/articles/new-hollywood-gumshoes-the-long-goodbye-the-late-s,53148/

I do have to say that I wouldn't have been tempted by Melanie Griffith in this film. All that overly innocent girly stuff is not sexy to me. Jennifer Warren is where it's at. She should have been in more films. WTF happened?

Above and Beyond (1952) Dir. Melvin Frank & Norman Panama

Superb MGM piece that doubles as both a terrific star vehicle for both Robert Taylor (who's starting to slowly win me over as an actor) and the classy Eleanor Parker, as a thoughtful tribute to the men who dropped the atom bomb and on the ethics of the bomb itself - it serves a bit of justification in the "kill thousands to save millions" aspect, but thankfully even that parts largely ignored and what couldve been a real propaganda picture is anything but. Which is definitely to be commended. And apart from a few scenes where Parker oversteps her bounds and breaches some base security, the romance isnt overdone either. Excellent stuff.

colly wrote:

... Robert Taylor (who's starting to slowly win me over as an actor) ...

yes, I'm starting to warm to him a little as well, but I never seem to see any Robert Taylor movies in the DVD stores...

That was a TV recording - but yeah, especially in Region 4 Taylor films are hard to get. Not that I'm especially keen to go out of my way to buy his films at the mo, but maybe eventually...



The Moon Is Blue (1953) Dir. Otto Preminger

Famous for being the first film in nearly 20 years to be released without approval from the Code office (a controversy that made it a smash hit), its a comedy that stars William Holden and David Niven as two smooth womanizers who, in one evening, are brought undone by impossibly pure virgin Maggie McNamara - who was Oscar nominated for her role. Its a film that allows the two men at the forefront to have some magnificent fun, and Niven especially has a ball. As for Holden, I havent seen him in much recently apart from ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO and a touch of EXECUTIVE SUITE on the telly, so I'd forgotten how smooth he could be; i must say his strong willed performance in FORT BRAVO is a highlight for me, but he's fun here. Looking at other Holden films to see, maybe I'll track down FOREVER FEMALE - its got Paul Douglas in it as well...

Good fun.

Violent Saturday (1955) Dir. Richard Fleischer

I thought I was in a 50s mood then devolved into a thriller mood, so this was perfect as it solved both my problems. I love this film - its a 90 minute slowburning pocket rocket thats got it all. So many unimportant little stories in a most unglamorous coppermining town (id love to know where they filmed it) all intertwined extremely satisfactorily, all ending in a pretty violent and explosive shootout. Love it. 8)

I wanna see that. You know I love Fleisher's THE NARROW MARGIN.