|
The previous thread ran 88 pages and lost steam, so it's time to post a younger, hipper Rate the Latest Movie You've Seen. Include the title, year, some kind of rating and comments. Try not to spoil anything you wouldn't know from the trailers! Revanche (2008, 4/5) I hated Revenge, that Tony Scott movie from 1990, because the protagonist fails to get any kind of meaningful revenge. Not that I'm a fan of violence for violence's sake, but I felt the central relationship in Revenge hadn't earned it. Here, in Revanche, it works perfectly because Alex has developed something of a life on his grandfather's farm, he has developed feelings for his target's wife and he understands the incident motivating him to revenge was an accident. The regret the police officer feels is more painful than any pain Alex could inflict. Calling this movie a thriller is like calling Synecdoche, New York a comedy. Yes, there are thriller elements, but they are largely subverted. Besides, I was less interested in those elements than I was the characters and their predicament, than the workings of the farm and how Alex, a former street criminal, changes there. Very few movies anymore depict such a calculable change in a character, and Revanche does; while Alex is by no means despicable at the beginning, he has all but shed his criminal instincts by the end. There's something to admire in that. There's a lot to admire in Revanche. Finally, a thriller that sees its characters not as devices, but as actual people. My Bloody Valentine (2009, 1/5) Rating this movie is like rating Snakes on a Plane. By all measures, it's a terrible movie, but it's so goddamn fun it merits a repeat viewing. The 3-D gimmick goes a long way toward that assessment; even though an eye problem prevents me from seeing the effect in all but the most fleeting moments, the innumerable objects flying toward the screen, the devil-may-care gore and the cheap whodunit at its core all contribute toward making it a blast to watch, even with those paper glasses wearing welts into your nose. The United States of Leland (2009, 1/5) As NeuroticErotica said in his Criticker review, it's like Donnie Darko minus all the good stuff. I'll go a little further, though: The United States of Leland came on the crest of its certain subgenre, the dark, mysterious indie teen drama. Unfortunately, The United States of Leland isn't content to cogently investigate Leland's motives for killing an autistic boy. His provided reason ("Because of the sadness") is such a cheap, hollow Rosebud; if I were his father or his history teacher, who hopes to capitalize with a book based on Leland's crime, I would chalk it up to Leland's insanity rather than spend any meaningful amount of time questioning it. Furthermore, each character has such a laughably over-the-top subplot and a typecast actor to fill the shoes it becomes unwittingly hilarious. Look, there's Jena Malone as a heroin-addicted suburban tween! Look, there's Kevin Spacey as the writer father who abandoned Leland to live in Paris! Look, there's Chris Klein as a dumb jock who...well, to be honest I couldn't finish this insufferable piece of poo poo, which should tell you something: In the same day, I watched My Bloody Valentine from start to finish (and enjoyed it!) and then aborted a viewing of The United States of Leland. Watch The United States of Tara instead. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Aug 10, 2009 |
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Because I was going to ask in the last thread, but it was closed: FFD, on a scale of "definitely yes, yes, maybe, no, definitely no" how highly would you recommend the Roy Andersson shorts? I've wanted to check out his films for a while now (Songs from the Second Floor is currently number 5 in my queue, and I'm pissed You the Living doesn't have a DVD release). That said, I've never been a huge fan of the short collection DVDs from netflix simply because I think shorts should be seen one or two at a time over a long period - hence I don't often netflix them where I have to watch all of them quickly or hold the DVD for a long time. Edit: might as well contribute something. Bloody Sunday (2002): I completely missed this film when it came out, then sort of forgot it existed, which is why I'm very, very happy a friend brought it up again a few weeks ago. Battle of Algiers is one of my favorite films, and is definitely an inspiration for Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday has a few weak areas: I could have used less of the romantic backstory for one of the characters as it gives us way too much information too soon in the movie cliche of anytime a young woman tells a young man to be safe you know something bad will happen to him - that and the "morally challenged" soldier also felt a little to movielike for me in a film striving for documentary realism, but I was blown away by Greengrass's direction of the film. It movies fast, cuts between multiple characters in multiple areas, and completely captures the quick, chaotic nature of the massacre. If I had seen this film I would have had much less trepidation when I heard about United 93, because I think Bloody Sunday is made out of complete respect for the victims of the massacre and in no way trivializes their lives or sacrifices, which is about all I can ask for a movie like this. It is an angry film made for all of the right reasons, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who likes Paul Greengrass, Cinema Verite style, Irish history, or U2. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
Return from Witch Mountain (1978, 1/5) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078158/ Due to ADD or Blockbuster being jerks my buddy inadvertently grabbed the worst of the three movies I know of in this fictional story line. For a late 70's Disney movie it follows the cookie cutter live action plot they pioneered 2 decades earlier. The dialog is so cliched, before the title credits finished my party guessed 100% the 1st 5 opening lines of dialog. A stand out quote is Count Dooku commenting on the protagonists use of "the force". He is a deranged physicist funded by a crazy old lady with an inept son in law who looks like Timothy Dalton's ugly stunt double. Counting VW's, panel wagons & cars often was more interesting than the dialog. 1/5 starring Christopher Lee and Count Dooku and there is no third thing cause this movie was so bad. If you've seen "Gus", Herbie movies, any other Disney live action 70's movie, this is one too, only it sucked. At least Gus had Don Knotts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Because I was going to ask in the last thread, but it was closed: Basically his early work (pre-80's) is all in the maybe/no area, and everything from the 80's is an emphatic "definitely yes". The only thing I haven't seen yet is Giliap (1975) but the ratings I've seen for it are all terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:11
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:I'm pissed You the Living doesn't have a DVD release). I bet you it will in the next year. It only just opened at Film Forum in NYC. Why it took so long up till now, I don't know. Voodoofly posted:That said, I've never been a huge fan of the short collection DVDs from netflix simply because I think shorts should be seen one or two at a time over a long period - hence I don't often netflix them where I have to watch all of them quickly or hold the DVD for a long time. You can always Netflix it, temporarily rip it, watch them at your leisure, and then delete it, if you have the hard drive space. If that's not fair use it's gotta be very close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 19:13
|
|
|
I decided out of nowhere to re-watch this the other night. Minority Report (2002, 4/5) I saw this movie a couple of times in the theater but haven't sat down to watch the entire film since then. The weakest aspect of the film is definitely the script, which lags at times, and the end of the movie kind of devolves into a generic whodunit, but visually the entire film is stunning. I love to near-future look of the whole world Spielberg creates, where fashion and culture look largely the same as today but slightly more polished so as not to seem too 'future-y.' All the performances are great, especially a young Colin Farrell and Samantha Morton as Agatha. The scene in Anderton's house where she describes what his son would be like today then ends up screaming "RUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!!" still gives me chills, and to this day I can't see her in a film without remembering Minority Report; Synecdoche, New York comes to mind. I always wished the movie delved more deeply in the inherent problems with the notion of "Pre-crime," but the film does a good job and discussing them and making them accessible to the average movie-goer. Overall it's a very enjoyable movie that gives you a little something to think about, along with some great action and some random moments of humor (Anderton waking up from his surgery and 'having a snack' and chasing after his own eyeballs) that may or may not work, but it stays interesting. I would definitely put it towards the bottom of my Top 10 Spielberg films, right near War of the Worlds. EDIT: It should also be noted that this film as more product placement than most, featuring Lexus, Reebok, Nokia, Guinness, Bulgari, Aquafina, Gap and American Express. Much like Demolition Man, Back to the Future: Part II and I, Robot, the placement is in a lot of advertisements and signs surrounding characters, but honestly it never bothered me. It seemed to fit with the story and the world more than most movies with such overt product placement, but I know many disagree with that sentiment. In the near future there will definitely be ads that somehow target YOU specifically and try to cater to what they think you need. EDIT 2: Very interesting article on the film's product placement from a digital marketing website: http://www.clickz.com/1369861 Rick Sanchez fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 20:47
|
|
|
"Blood Car" - (2007) - IMDB.com - 4/5 First off, it should be acknowledged that when watching "bad" movies, you're grading on a different scale. I don't go into a movie like "The Dead Pit" or "Blood Hook" expecting quality like "The Godfather" and it would be unfair to rate the trash I watch on the same scale as everything would get a 1/5. "Blood Car" is a movie about a Vegan that is trying to build a car that runs on an alternate fuel source. I'm sure you can figure out by the title what this leads to. In the future (2 weeks from now, according to the movie) gas prices are at an astronomical rate ($36/gal.) so no one drives anymore. There are a lot of laughs along the way, which is a quality in "bad" movies as it makes it a lot less painful to sit though and, in this case (and a few rare other cases like "Murder Party" and "The Kung Fu Mummy") enjoyable. When watching "bad" movies, there's really just one rule that you have to follow: Don't ask questions. The reasoning is simple either no one can answer the question, or because if someone can answer it, you don't want to know the answer. "Why is there a mannequin head in the toilet?" "Blood Car" really only had a few moments where I wanted to ask a question, which is pretty much the scale that I use when rating a "bad" movie. Continuity is most "bad" movies is usually a problem and it was in this one too, especially at the end. Still, there were quite a few laughs and since the movie is only an hour and ten minutes long, it was a quick watch that wasn't too bad. Anna Chlumsky is in this. You might recognize her at the little girl from "My Girl."  She also has a crush on the main character, "Archie", which she expresses in this drawing:  NWS Image(If reviews of "bad" movies are frowned upon, let me know).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:28
|
|
|
Coffey posted:(If reviews of "bad" movies are frowned upon, let me know). They aren't as far as I can tell. (And if they are, they shouldn't be!) edit: that image is going to last about 5 seconds on photobucket. Maybe try waffleimages or photos.cx?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:33
|
|
|
Coffey posted:There are a lot of laughs along the way, which is a quality in "bad" movies as it makes it a lot less painful to sit though and, in this case (and a few rare other cases like "Murder Party" and "The Kung Fu Mummy") enjoyable. I loved Blood Car and Murder Party, so I'm guessing I should track down Kung Fu Mummy too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:46
|
|
|
Sheldrake posted:I loved Blood Car and Murder Party, so I'm guessing I should track down Kung Fu Mummy too? There's a fight scene in a sex factory where they fight each other with Giant Dongs. Then it leads to a field where one man has to keep pulling weapons out of his pants to defend himself with, which includes a barstool. Also the classic line of "ever had your tits boxed?" I remember it being pretty long though and it really trailed off after about an hour or so. EDIT: Come to think of it, Blood Car might have that topped in the one-liners department: "I want you to put a taco in my mouth and a dick in my rear end." "What kinda tacos you want?" Coffey fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:49
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:The United States of Leland (2009, 1/5) Hahaha. That's really funny esp. considering I don't like Donnie Darko.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 02:35
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Hahaha. That's really funny esp. considering I don't like Donnie Darko. I'm still mad about The United States of Leland, mad that it got made, mad that talented actors signed on to be in this piece of poo poo movie, mad that the writer thought it would connect to audiences on any meaningful level, madder still that it connects with audiences on any meaningful level (it's holding a 7.1/10 on IMDb) and mad that Criticker thought I'd like it. The only good quality of the movie was the cinematography (and the reviews highlight that plus en masse), but even that was bordering on mediocre. In summary, mad mad mad mad mad. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:Well, that's your problem, but it doesn't lessen the impact of your quote. I stand by the quote, but just wanted to give a little bit of context... to how much I, too, hated USoL. You really, really lucked out by switching it off because the ending gets even more retarded than you would believe. Imagine the schmaltziest/writerlyiest ending possible... Now take three steps to the left. Too add some content to the thread Gettin' Any (Takeshi Kitano) - So, I was told this movie was like The 40-Year-Old Virgin as done by Beat Takeshi... and that put me in the wrong mindset, I think. The basic premise is the same - A loser guy needs to get laid - but they go about it in two completely different ways. Apatow's film uses a story and goes on a journey, Kitano's is just a bunch of random skits that may or may not make any sense. It's actually a pretty frustrating film the first time through - Kitano's filmmaking skills were sub-par at best at this time, there's a lot of missing information that you just have to make up on your own. However, watching it a second time - when you know that the film is NOT going anywhere - made it more enjoyable, and allowed me to be "in the moment". Then it was pretty funny. It's still not a great film, though... I'll give it a 6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 06:29
|
|
|
The Hidden Fortress (Kurosawa) 4/5 - Not really the kind of fare I'm looking for when I watch a Kurosawa movie, but it was still good. Light-hearted throughout, The Hidden Fortress includes some bumbling fools (who got on my nerves), a good Mifune performance, and Misa Uehara making exaggerated movements like she was an army commander. There were some well choreographed fight scenes, especially the one between Mifune and the rival commander. Also, the Star Wars thing is nothing to get worked up about (like I've read in some reviews where someone gets bent out of shape about Star Wars having nothing on this) and I wouldn't have even connected the two had I not known beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
Mike_V posted:Also, the Star Wars thing is nothing to get worked up about (like I've read in some reviews where someone gets bent out of shape about Star Wars having nothing on this) and I wouldn't have even connected the two had I not known beforehand. I've got to agree with this. The Hidden Fortress/Star Wars thing gets blown way out of proportion. The Death Star battle rip-off of The Dam Busters is way more blatant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
The Thin Red Line - I fell in love with Malick after watching Days of Heaven, and fell in love again for The New World. So I don't know why it took me so long to get around to this one. Too many movies, too little time, I suppose. It's too bad I waited so long because it's an excellent film. I don't think Malick knows how to make a film that isn't beautiful, and this is no exception. Normally I would have a moral objection to making war beautiful, but like Apocalypse Now, here it's done in such an impressionistic and surreal manner that the beauty actually makes it more horrifying. Malick is not necessarily going for a "realistic" depiction of war. Most likely your average G.I. isn't this poetic and introspective, for instance. But through the characters, he manages to express a great deal about war, fear, death, nature. Despite the intensity of the battle scenes, it somehow ends up being a "quiet" film about war, which is a remarkable thing. While it rambles and meanders a bit, it never feels inappropriate to do so. My only issue is that there's so much "star power" on display that spotting the celebrities (although some weren't celebrities at the time) occasionally gets distracting. But I'm sure this will be less of an issue on subsequent viewings and otherwise the movie completely commands your attention. Rating: 9 Les misérables - When you're getting sick of movies, it's really hard to commit to a 5-hour one. I've never read the book, or seen any other adaptation of it. All I knew going in was that it's about a guy who stole a loaf of bread. It is, of course, much more than that... a Dickensian epic that is one of the best redemption stories I've ever seen. Harry Baur (in a double role, or quadruple role depending how you look at it) is magnificent, anchoring the film with a rich characterization of Jean Valjean. The rest of the cast frankly pales in comparison, but Baur is plenty enough to carry the film. The camera aesthetic is appealing as well, somewhere between German expressionism and Max Ophuls. I wouldn't say the running time passed by quickly, but it was compelling enough to stick with it without a problem. The roughest patch was the beginning of part 3, which gets away from Valjean for far too long to concentrate on the French Revolution. I realize this bit is probably central to Hugo's point, but the narrative diversion threw me off. However, things pick up again and the movie concludes very tenderly on a satisfying note. Rating: 8 Repulsion (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - I've said before that The Tenant was the best of Polanski's "apartment horror" trilogy. I realize now how wrong I was. I don't know what state of mind I was in back in January 2005 when I gave this a 7 rating and said "I didn't really get into it that much." This time I found it to be absolutely riveting, a perfectly realized portrait of a fragile psyche imploding. One difference is that the first time, I saw it on a crappy DVD (whose "bathing beauty" cover is so very, very inappropriate). Criterion's Blu-Ray is a revelation, making the decay of Carole's environment crystal clear in all its decrepit glory. So glad I decided to buy this. Rating: 9
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
Speaking of Kurosawa I watched High and Low last night. It was good but I was surprised to see all the gushing reviews/scores for it on Criticker, because I was having a hell of a time getting through the second half of that movie. I really liked how it started out, framing the ransom around an incredibly tough personal decision on the part of Mifune's character, but then it pretty much ditches that entire strand and turns to the sort of dry, procedural police work that has never been able to excite me. And that ending felt really goofy to me - the culprit busts out this dramatic soliloquy while Mifune meets him before he's sent off to death (for kidnapping? wtf Japan) and all I could think is, why should I care? This guy was on screen for like 10 minutes and didn't talk, all I saw him do was buy some drugs). I enjoyed it, but it could be a chore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:And that ending felt really goofy to me - the culprit busts out this dramatic soliloquy while Mifune meets him before he's sent off to death (for kidnapping? wtf Japan) and all I could think is, why should I care? This guy was on screen for like 10 minutes and didn't talk, all I saw him do was buy some drugs). This seems like a bizarre criticism coming from a guy with an Apocalypse Now avatar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 21:00
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:This seems like a bizarre criticism coming from a guy with an Apocalypse Now avatar. Not really seeing anything but the vaguest similarity there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 21:02
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:My only issue is that there's so much "star power" on display that spotting the celebrities (although some weren't celebrities at the time) occasionally gets distracting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Repulsion (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - I've said before that The Tenant was the best of Polanski's "apartment horror" trilogy. I realize now how wrong I was. I don't know what state of mind I was in back in January 2005 when I gave this a 7 rating and said "I didn't really get into it that much." This time I found it to be absolutely riveting, a perfectly realized portrait of a fragile psyche imploding. One difference is that the first time, I saw it on a crappy DVD (whose "bathing beauty" cover is so very, very inappropriate). Criterion's Blu-Ray is a revelation, making the decay of Carole's environment crystal clear in all its decrepit glory. So glad I decided to buy this. Rating: 9 Does the Blu-Ray have Polanski's commentary track for it? He recorded one for the laserdisc and it's been really really difficult to find. I heard some of it once and it was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:Speaking of Kurosawa I watched High and Low last night. It was good but I was surprised to see all the gushing reviews/scores for it on Criticker, because I was having a hell of a time getting through the second half of that movie. I really liked how it started out, framing the ransom around an incredibly tough personal decision on the part of Mifune's character, but then it pretty much ditches that entire strand and turns to the sort of dry, procedural police work that has never been able to excite me. And that ending felt really goofy to me - the culprit busts out this dramatic soliloquy while Mifune meets him before he's sent off to death (for kidnapping? wtf Japan) and all I could think is, why should I care? This guy was on screen for like 10 minutes and didn't talk, all I saw him do was buy some drugs). I enjoyed it, but it could be a chore. Maybe you should watch it again because I don't think you were paying attention: He was being put to death because he not only kidnapped the kid but he also murdered three people by making them OD on drugs. Why should you care about that guy? He only drove the whole story (though he is not on screen much) the end scene is where we finally find out about him and his motivations
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 23:05
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Does the Blu-Ray have Polanski's commentary track for it? He recorded one for the laserdisc and it's been really really difficult to find. I heard some of it once and it was amazing. It does indeed have the Polanski/Deneuve track from the LD. Haven't listened to it yet, will probably do that tonight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 23:31
|
|
|
GonzoIsKing posted:Maybe you should watch it again because I don't think you were paying attention: He was being put to death because he not only kidnapped the kid but he also murdered three people by making them OD on drugs. Why should you care about that guy? He only drove the whole story (though he is not on screen much) the end scene is where we finally find out about him and his motivations D'oh, I wrote that up today and watched last night and forgot about the heroin murders in between, so my bad. That's not really so much a complaint as an aside though. As for the rest: the problem is, he doesn't drive the whole story in the first half - what's compelling at that point is Mifune being between a rock and a hard place. His internal struggle is what drives the movie in the first half. Only once the second half gets going does the identity of the kidnapper itself even come into play, and I thought his motivations were incredibly weak as well. EDIT: Also, I should say, because it might seem otherwise: I did like the movie. I thought it was very good. But for me it really dragged in the second half and didn't maintain the early tension, and I wasn't drawn in to the character of the kidnapper. That's all. Criminal Minded fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 00:02
|
|
|
The Deer Hunter 8/10 Probably the weakest 8 I've given out. It was certainly good but it was very sloppy. The pacing was odd, the character development confused, and the audio very hard to understand. I read that the movie was filmed almost entirely on location and as a result I think it made the film very hard to hear. That being said, there is a very solid narrative to be told in the film and the cast is very good. It was strange seeing a Meryl Streep that was sexually desirable. In 2009 the story of hosed up Vietnam vets is a bit (very) stale but this movie does a good job regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 01:16
|
|
|
The Rocker (2009, 2/5) A comedy with neither heart, brains nor courage. It lacks heart because it sticks to convenient formula: at one point, Wilson's character has given up his dreams due to a manufactured dispute with the teenage lead singer. It lacks brains because the jokes are too easy; the few times I did chuckle were, I suspect, because the actors had strayed from the script, and why hire a gifted cast like this if you never expect them to improv? It lacks courage because it's pitched somewhere between a family underdog yarn and a filthy comedy about the excesses of rock music, like the awkward stepchild of This is Spinal Tap and The Mighty Ducks. Who was this movie designed for? Older teens, who will laugh at nothing short of Superbad these days, won't find any raunchy comedy or unique life lessons here. Adults, who may be interested because of Rainn Wilson's work in The Office, will be disappointed in the lack of intelligence and absurdity. Dwight Schrute, a character in a TV-PG show on primetime television, is more unhinged and inspired than Fish. Furthermore, The Office has less time and budget per episode than a Hollywood film like The Rocker, which no doubt had a year between script approval and post-production. All in all, this is a watery version of School of Rock, no rocks, complete with a Jack Black imitation by Rainn Wilson. Bleh; there are fewer laughs in this bloated 100-minute comedy than there are in a single 20-minute episode of The Office, and The Office is free. Black Hawk Down (2001, 4/5) Comments here. After Hours (1985, 4/5) Rarely has a "comedy" been so short on laughs and so long on despair. It's a black comedy so thoroughly nightmarish that it becomes difficult to laugh after the 15-minute mark. It's been described as Kafkaesque, but unlike Kafka's work, the plot moves logically and involves situations we can recognize even if they're arrived at through absurd coincidences. It occurred to me that this is a predecessor of two films the Coen brothers would go on to make, The Big Lebowski and Burn After Reading, also films propelled by absurdity. After Hours falls somewhere inbetween; it's by no means lightweight or constructed around a single joke like Burn After Reading, but it also never allows us enough breathing time to laugh, as the relatively placid Lebowski did. As his chances of getting home safe and sound dwindle to nil, After Hours becomes less of a comedy and more of a horror film, and a horror film of the most effective kind at that: Neither a slasher flick involving cheap jump scares nor a ghost story we can write off as unreal, After Hours evokes dread and the certainty that, given these coincidences, we too could end up in the same hell as Paul Hackett. And it most assuredly is Hell. I probably did myself a disservice by reading Ebert's Great Films review during the film, but the pointed out that Paul is absent from the final shot. My theory is that Paul is dead or, even more frighteningly, has simply disappeared from existence and, at some unknown point, his reality turned into fantasy. Since it's Scorsese we're talking about, a brimstone Catholic through and through, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole film stood, to him, as an analog to purgatory. I really need to see this again to define a better conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
I love After Hours, it hits so close to home about the frantic, worn-out feeling of being up at three in the morning even though you don't want to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:32
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I love After Hours, it hits so close to home about the frantic, worn-out feeling of being up at three in the morning even though you don't want to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:35
|
|
|
I haven't seen it in a while, but isn't it a rebirth? He gets stuck inside that statue and breaks his way out, and I seem to remember thinking that he probably quit his job. I really need to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 05:03
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I haven't seen it in a while, but isn't it a rebirth? He gets stuck inside that statue and breaks his way out, and I seem to remember thinking that he probably quit his job. I really need to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 05:16
|
|
|
Hamlet Put the Kenneth Branagh version on Netflix after the Shakespeare thread was started. I had seen the excellent Zeferelli version, but this is like no other Bard adaptation I've seen. Here, the entire text is preserved nearly word for word - the main difference is a bit of fiddling with narration and flashback, as well as putting this in the 19th century instead of the 15th. It's four hours long, yet it's one long thrilling movie. To complement the flawlessly delivered verse, Branagh adds astonishing long mobile takes reminiscent of Welles. There's shots that go on for 6-7 minutes with the camera going through several rooms, all while lines are delivered. One such long take is a 360 degree dolly shot around characters in a hall of mirrors. Then there's the handsome production design and costumes. This is a visual treat, as well as a faithful adaptation of the original work. Branagh is flawless in his role, but the whole film is peppered with other terrific actors in the supporting or bit parts. Some may scoff at the stunt casting of Billy Crystal and Robin Williams, but if you paid attention to the original verse - they were appropriate. Derek Jacobi one-ups Alan Bates (in the Zeferelli) as Claudius, giving him the right amount of depth rather than being just a slimy bastard. It was also fun to see Julie Christie as Gertrude, plus Kate Winslet as Ophelia. Branagh proves that being a director-actor on a film has its perks. The one scene stealer is Charlton Heston, who could read TV instructions and make it captivating. Overall, this is a one-of-a-kind Shakespeare adaptation. Looking at the IMDB, it wasn't a financial success. Worse, it didn't even get a nomination for best cinematography at the Oscars. I guess shooting long mobile takes in a room full of mirrors isn't technically impressive enough.  (Also, the DVD looks fantastic, but I'm shocked Warner didn't release this as one of their first BluRays since it was shot in 65mm)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
Vinyan - I'd just watched Calvaire, also by Fabrice du Welz, and I've gotta say, he's really taken his dreamlike, scoreless direction and improved upon it dramatically for Vinyan. The film tells a story, yes, in that the plot moves from point to point with meaning, but the real focus of the story is about a parent losing a child and the emotional destruction that wreaks. There's also a blatant thread of contempt for white-people-problems - these rich, white parents are so concerned about finding their own child that they turn a blind eye to everyone else who suffered in the tsunami. Watching Jeanne's sanity drift away to the conclusion of the film was great and I thought that the camerawork was a good demonstration of "shakycam done right." Very atmospheric, very touching, very surreal. Loved it, du Welz is a director to keep an eye on. 9/10.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 17:19
|
|
|
Sonatine (d. Takeshi Kitano - 1993) I found this movie on a bonus disc that came with my copy of Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman, also by Takeshi Kitano. I've apparently owned the movie for years now but for some reason never got around to watching it. This is a really atypical Yakuza movie. It starts off with some action, but the protagonist Murakawa (played by Kitano) and his gang quickly realize they're in over their heads and set up camp at a seaside beach house to wait things out. And for a very long time, nothing happens. The strange part is this: In these scenes of nothing happening, the movie really comes alive. The gangsters talk, they drink, they sit around. They wrestle, play games, and throw a frisbee around. A lot of their idle time-wasting involves shooting their guns, which Murakawa seems to enjoy more than anyone else (you get the sense he's a Yakuza just because it was the job that would allow him to shoot things the most often). The first time we see him smile, about a half hour into the movie, he's pointing a gun at his own head in the most chilling Russian Roulette scene this side of The Deer Hunter. The Yakuza in this film have the same bored, lackadaisical attitude of any group of coworkers on a company retreat, with the difference being that their job is to kill people. Kitano's a guy I first encountered through his scene-stealing supporting roles in cheesy sci-fi action flicks like Battle Royale and Johnny Mnemonic. But it turns out the guy is not just a fantastic actor with a thousand-yard stare that would put Clint Eastwood to shame, he's also an impeccable director with some of the most interesting approaches to cinematic violence that I've ever seen. We get a lot of straight-on face shots when people get killed, maybe to represent how the characters stare death in the eye on a daily basis. When they get shot, they don't even seem particularly upset; a little surprised, maybe, but they just fall over and take it in stride (this is in sharp contrast to Zatoichi, where everyone flails and lets out torrents of computer-generated gore, but equally interesting). From the two movies I've seen by him, this guy is a really fascinating actor and director. I'll have to check out Hana-Bi next. 9/10 Fanny and Alexander: Television Version (d. Ingmar Bergman - 1982) First off, this movie is long. At about five hours in its uncut version, this might actually be the longest movie I've ever seen. But Jesus Christ is it worth it. I don't even know where to start with reviewing the movie, as I kinda feel this film is beyond my grasp. So I guess I'll just list off all the great things about it: The cinematography by Sven Nyquist is unbelievably gorgeous. This is only the second color film I've seen by Bergman (after The Magic Flute, which I was lukewarm on), but there's gotta be enough goddamn color in this movie for several other movies. There's lots of those long, static Bergman shots where he just lets you drink it all in, and the combination of the astounding framing, use of color, and the truly haunting soundtrack (probably the best I've heard in a Bergman movie) draws you in like you wouldn't believe. The acting is also uniformly excellent; there are no weak links in the cast, even in the small supporting roles, although I feel like I should give special notice to Ewa Froling, whose performance as the mother Emilie Ekdahl is undeniably powerful. Bergman goes really deep into his themes of death, family, and human nature here, and on that level, I'm not sure I'm qualified to critique it; it's that well done, and the story has a level of ambiguity to it that's really refreshing for such an epic storyline (there's one late-in-the-film sequence that is still hopelessly confusing to me, but I think it's supposed to be; maybe some of you Bergman experts could help me out). So yeah, this one lives up to the hype. I really can't find anything negative to say about it. 10/10 Alphaville (d. Jean-Luc Godard - 1965) My only experience with Godard up to this point was Breathless, a film that I enjoyed immensely. So when I heard that later, Godard set his unique film style to the dystopian sci-fi genre, I was thrilled. But here's the thing about this movie: It's way more loving boring than it sounds. It took me at least five tries just to make it through to the end. The whole thing is this weird pastiche of film noir and sci-fi, but with no real special effects of any kind. Its set on another planet, but filmed in Paris. There's talk of a death ray, but we never see it in action. Murders are committed by knife and pistol, as in any noir story. In one scene, there's a bizarre method of public execution involving rifles, a swimming pool, and...a bunch of...swimming, pretty, female cannibals? And even that, believe it or not, is way more boring than it sounds. I admire the audacity of Godard to make a sci-fi movie with no effects budget, but he really doesn't seem to understand the genre. You can do sci-fi concepts with no real special effects (I recently saw Primer, which did it really admirably), but you have to at least have an interesting concept. Instead, it feels like he just scanned through Brave New World, 1984, and maybe a few pulpy space opera paperbacks and cut-and-pasted bits onto a pre-existing noir screenplay. And even that sounds more interesting than the movie actually is. I can honestly say this is one of those movies that's all downhill from the opening credits (which are actually kinda cool). I still sort of admire what Godard was going for here, but he fell way, way short. 2/10
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 19:19
|
|
|
Calvaire (2004, 2/4) For a supposedly shocking story of a male singer who is kidnapped, tortured and raped by a gang of backwoods lunatics, I was...well, oddly detached. The film builds a strange sense of dread through the first half, but once Du Welz kicks it up a notch for the finale, it falls apart. Maybe it's the acting, maybe it's the feeling that I've seen this film before, maybe it's because the setup (car broken down, driver heads to a nearby hotel on the advice of a weirdo) is so well-worn, maybe it's because I know the filmmakers are trying to shock me rather than scare me, but the last 45 minutes are really ho-hum. Sure, everything looks nice and a late scene in a pigpen is shot similar to the first 10 minutes of Irreversible (by the guy who shot Irreversible, no less), but it's really an average movie; horror movies that have shown far less have done far more to scare me, and thus, Calvaire feels like a cheapshot more than a kidney punch. The Final Cut (2004, 3/4) This is one of those rare movies that begs for an immediate remake, the kind during which a fascinating premise, lackluster execution and missteps in the plot inspires the viewer to daydream of ways he would make it better. The idea of a microchip recording our memories from day one and the drama of the editor who has to piece it all together for a two-hour film to be played at your funeral is too rich to squander it on such a paint-by-numbers thriller. The editor shouldn't have to run or be chased or be shot at during the course of such a movie; the mystery could be a quiet one, and the intensity would blossom from that. The Final Cut is a great movie trapped in a cocoon of mediocrity, chipping away at the walls but failing to escape before the credits roll. Hellraiser (1987, 3/4) It's fitting that I should review Hellraiser immediately after The Final Cut because it suffers a similar problem. Hellraiser is a good movie despite the acting; that's a rare thing to be said about a film, that even with such wooden dialogue and unconvincing leads, it works. Everything else is in place (aside from the effects, which are a little on the sketchy side) for a great horror film, and a remake by Barker, utilizing the same screenplay and the same locations, could make this a perfect horror film. Alas, c'est la vie! Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 02:37
|
|
|
Hellraiser doesn't stand up to the test of time real well. Like you say, the acting is bad. So bad that it's noticeable, which is annoying. The special effects look real corny by today's standards. And still, to this day, I don't understand the point of the hobo-demon that nabs the puzzle box from the fire. Seemed so out of left-field. Actually, come to think of it, the only thing I like about Hellraiser is the way Pinhead looks (which explains why he became a horror icon, I guess) and Frank pre-flesh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:
The TV cut Fanny and Alexander is one of my favorite movies ever :3 The first time I watched the TV version I literally jumped up and shouted in excitement at the start of the added scene where Gustav Adolf (the jolly, womanizing uncle) meets face to face with The Bishop. Anyway, content: Gladiator Gladiator looks pretty as hell and Ridley Scott's known visual creativity thrives. Unfortunately the story feels unoriginal and I found it uninteresting. I sensed a Frankenstein of a story, one sewn together from chunks of Spartacus and Hamlet, not to mention some generic cliches. Scott gets experimental here, and while many of his stylistic touches look great, a lot of things don't seem to work. The sped-up bits in the Germanic battle at the beginning felt so out of place I wonder if perhaps my rental DVD was faulty. Much of the violence seems misappropriated to. The things Scott chooses to not show always feel like the things that would've had a better impact had they been shown. For example: I think the corpses of Maximus' murdered wife and child should have been shown. It would have helped us feel his pain. And yet Scott has no fear showing us limbs being hacked off everywhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
Of Mice and Men We've all heard the references to this film, especially in Tex Avery's cartoons with Lonesome Lenny. Here's a really unique adaptation that's worth seeing. Hal Roach produced this version starring Burgess Meridith as George and Lon Chaney Jr. as Lenny. Lewis Milestone directed this. It even has a music score by Aaron Copland. The cinematography is fantastic, with much of it being shot outdoors or with delicate chiaroscuro lighting. There's not a lull in the plot, either. Meridith and Chaney are flawless. Lenny could easily be a cartoon character, but Chaney plays him as a child. He's completely oblivious to his actions, but he's still likable. I'm impressed with his performance the most, given the temptation to overdo the mental disability. Burgess Meridith gives George the proper authority his character requires, but the warmness he shows Lenny is wonderful. The ending is absolutely heartbreaking. I don't think I'll forget the expression Meridith makes afterward. Extremely highly recommended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Fanny and Alexander: Television Version (d. Ingmar Bergman - 1982) You'd think that a five hour Swedish family drama would be dull, but it really isn't thanks to the astonishingly even pacing. Every scene gets its due, each character is carefully rounded, each plot is told with patience. What's funny is that the three-hour theatrical version is really boring because it takes away all the extra stuff that makes the full film fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 04:50
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:the three-hour theatrical version is really boring Well, that's just not true. The longer version is better, but the theatrical version isn't "boring". The first time I saw the movie was in the theater, and I was anything but bored. Speaking of Bergman: High Tension (rewatch) - I considered skipping over this one for my weekly Bergman, because 1) he didn't want it to be shown and 2) it's loving terrible. But what the hell. Since I ripped on it last time, I'll try to find some nice things to say about it this time. The cinematography isn't bad. Unintentionally funny is still funny. The opening titles look good. Probably the only movie to stage a dramatic political underground meeting while a Donald Duck cartoon plays in the background. Umm... did I mention the unintentional hilarity? Rating: 3 FitFortDanga fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
The Informers (2009, 3/4) Probably the most direct adaptation of an Ellis novel I've seen, for better or for worse. It lacks the editorial flair of The Rules of Attraction or the claustrophobia of American Psycho. Instead, we get a handful of interconnected stories from the book (a few were excised) and competent actors bringing them to life with as little directorial embellishment as possible. I can't agree with the critical panning this film received, but I can understand it; if you expect humor, a message or anything beyond a handful of narcissists living out a few days in Los Angeles, you came to the wrong movie. This is like the Menace II Society of spoiled rich kids and their hosed-up parents, and in that, it's closer to Ellis's original work than the two other recent adaptations. Too bad it worked slightly better on the page (and cutting the vampire subplot was a huge mistake too).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 07:00
|
|