Jump to content

What is the last film you watched?


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe

But that director's (Henry Selick) is making a stop motion adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Coraline and the trailer looks to be in the same style so you can make your own judgements on who influenced what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semi-Pro (**)

A poor effort from Will Ferrell. This is everything an R-rated comedy shouldn't be. It had 1 or 2 really funny parts, but the rest was just poor comedy. It had a great cast, but no one was funny, even Andy Richter (whom I love). Rob Corrdry was the highlight of the film for me, even though he only had around 5 minutes of screen time.

Disturbia (***)

A great and enjoyable film. Last time I saw it was in theaters, so it was nice to catch it from the beginning on TV. Geoff Zanelli's "Poofoot" is the highlight of the score for me :lol: Seriously, though, I thought it was a cool and fun track. Shia LaBeouf is always good, and David Morse did a great job as well. Not to mention Sarah Roemer was insanely attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hard Way-Am I seriously the only person who enjoys this film and gets a laugh out of it? Michael J. Fox has always been one of my favorite actors (Spin City was genius!). Its a shame his illness keeps him from working, but at least he is spending time with his family. Anyway, back to the film. I saw this on TV a few years back, and loved it. It wasn't until after I decided I loved it that I saw that it was recieved horribly by critics and audiences alike when it was released. A lot of people who I talk to hate it. James Woods plays a great cop, and MJF is great playing, believe it or not, an actor wanting a starring role different from all the roles he has played before.

Has anyone else seen this? Do you like it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might as well have directed it. It's basically Burton's mind on film.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

Maybe

But that director's (Henry Selick) is making a stop motion adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Coraline and the trailer looks to be in the same style so you can make your own judgements on who influenced what

It looks to be in Burton's style--I'm sure Burton picked Selick to direct Nightmare because Selick could best create Burton's vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might as well have directed it. It's basically Burton's mind on film.

I think that's overselling Burton's involvement a bit.

I quote now from an interview with Henry Selick in the book Tim Burton: A Child's Garden of Nightmares (the interview originally appeared in the December 1994 issue of Sight and Sound):

"Q: The film has been marketed as tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, but you're the director. What do you think is distinctively your about the film?

A: It's as though he laid the egg, but I sat on it and hatched it, so it came out looking a bit like both of us. He wasn't involved in a hands-on way, but his hand is in it. It was my job in a way to make it look like a 'Tim Burton film', which is not so different from my own films. We can collaborate because we often think of the same solution to a problem. It's why we hit it off at Disney -- we were not having fun drawing cute foxes and little animals. But I would wager that in The Nightmare Before Christmas most of the lines you laugh at are mine. I did most sequences like the battle, or any action sequences -- Tim always gives live action to a second-unit director. Every shot of the movie is something I looked at through a camera and composed. I don't want to take away from Tim, but he was not here in San Francisco when we made it. He came up five times over two years, and spent no more than eight or ten days here in total. It's more like he wrote a children's book and gave it to us and we went from there. But the bottom line was that Tim Burton's name before the title was going to bring in more people than mine would."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must give credit to Selick for that excellent shot of Jack singing the first chorus to Jack Lament, as he walks onto that weird hill thing, I LOVE that. But other than that, I still credit most of The Nightmare Before Christmas to Tim Burton, though I acknowledge Selick's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must give credit to Selick for that excellent shot of Jack singing the first chorus to Jack Lament, as he walks onto that weird hill thing, I LOVE that. But other than that, I still credit most of The Nightmare Before Christmas to Tim Burton, though I acknowledge Selick's part.

To be honest, I give Danny Elfman more credit than I give either Selick or Burton. His music IS that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it does get very good again if one views it every couple of years.

The Cotton Club. After all I'd heard about the ridicules production of this film, I was VERY pleasantly surprised to find that the film works quite well, despite obvious script problems. Even it's muddled form is surprisingly effective, given the fact that over 50 drafts of the film were written before, during, and after the film was shot (whatever is on the screen smells strongly of being 'found' in the editing room).

The performances are quite effective. Only early Richard Gere performance that doesn't annoy me, Diane Lane is radiant and beautiful (although she always is). Gregory Hines is as likable as he always is, although his character is given to unconvincing sincerity at some points. Nicolas Cage is as annoying as he can be (which is VERY annoying, especially in his 80's movies (Raising Arizona excepted, of course)). But my favorite performances come from Bob Hoskins and Fred Gwynne. Hoskins playing a gang boss- obviously sounds like he would ham it up, especially in a disfunctional production like this one.....but he is very good, and him and Gwynne (as his right-arm man) are the only ones who give the impression of being on top of the situation. And, without a doubt, the best scene in the movie, is won between the two of them, after Gwynne is ransomed by Hoskins. The scene is so unexpectadly funny and touching.

Production design is fantastic. Does a credible job of recreating an idealized period and also, admirably, has many actors making 'cameos' as celebrities of the time, but without seeming like painfully obvious name-dropping. And the actor playing Cab Calloway is terrific, and is presented in a way that does not call attention to the mimickry, but feels real.

I would have liked the musical sectionsto be better mounted....but they are photgraphed so lovingly, that it almost makes up it. Didn't particularly notice Barry's score.

The ending almost works, the spirit of the Fellini-esque breaking of physical barriers...it is not too jarring, and the loving concept of it almost makes up for it feeling out place.

Overall, I liked it almost the entire time, despite it's simultaneous over- and under- plotting (no real plot, but many plots). ***/****.

P.S. The movie is also admirable (to me, at any rate) in it's presentation of the gangsters and using real occurances. I happen to know quite a bit about the New York gangs of the period, and they get it right at almost every turn, both in characterization and historical accuracy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cotton Club

This movie is forgotten by now and for a reason. It has no significance. It's one of those heartless "who cares!" movies. Amadeus (a movie from the same year) survived, The Cotton Club died. Let's keep it that way, Morlock.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 Days of Night

Not good.

I saw it this weekend too and totally agree with you! Terrible movie! Although I did like the look of some of the vampires; their heads reminded me of sharks and their faces full of blood all the time was pretty disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cotton Club

This movie is forgotten by now and for a reason. It has no significance. It's one of those heartless "who cares!" movies. Amadeus (a movie from the same year) survived, The Cotton Club died. Let's keep it that way, Morlock.

Significance has nothing to do with it. There is good in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spiderwick Chronicles-I loved it! The acting was great, the creatures were great. The music was "OK" (I couldn't help but feel slightly annoyed everytime the theme from Casper came up during the emotional parts of the film.). I thought that Freddie Highmore nailed his role(s), and David Strathairn and Joan Plowright were perfect for their roles. Joan Plowright brings a smile to my face due to the loving grandmother feeling that emanates from her person. Brilliant film. Reminded me of an 80's or 90's childrens film because of the fact that it was intense and downright scary at times, and there were a few moments of profanity!

Jumper-They could have done SO much with this movie, but instead they decided to concentrate their large budget on overdone and overused special effects and some poor acting from all save Jamie Bell and Hayden Christensen (yes, I'm one of those who thinks that Hayden Christensen can act). Where was the plot? There wasn't one. The movie went by quickly, and by the end, I was wondering where the story was. It never developed.

Charlie Bartlett, 2nd viewing-Charlie Bartlett is the next Ferris Bueller. He is hands-down the new FB of the 2000's! He is great in this movie, as is Robert Downey, Jr.! This movie is filled with so many funny moments (one of my favorites being the audition scene with the monolouge), but it is also very serious as well, as Ferris Bueller tended to be at a few points during the movie (but not as much). Anton Yelchin proves to me that he can act well, and I will be seeing his next movie as soon as it comes out. Another thing I found interesting...how much of a stretch it wasn't for Robert Downey, Jr. to play a person dealing with substance abuse. I think that it shows that he is comfortable with the choices that he made in his life, and he will not let the opinions of the public rule what film roles he may take on. Maybe "comfortable" is not the right word. I can't quite think of the word, but you probably know what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 Days of Night

Not good.

I saw it this weekend too and totally agree with you! Terrible movie! Although I did like the look of some of the vampires; their heads reminded me of sharks and their faces full of blood all the time was pretty disturbing.

Yep, I thought it was just an almost-total waste of time. I also disliked the vampires in I Am Legend (a movie I otherwise loved), but the vampires in 30 Days of Night make them look like creations of genius. Their visual look is mildly disturbing, at first; but once you get the sense that they're just doing the same old things vampires have always been doing, they lose all their menace.

Worse than that, the characters are thinner than thin, and the actors aren't good enough to overcome that deficiency. Worse than THAT, the entire concept -- being stuck under siege by vampires during a month-long night -- is incredibly poorly-handled. We don't get any sense of what these people are doing for food the whole time, nor we we really get any kind of sense that that much time is passing.

There are a couple of excellent decapitations. Those are literally the only good parts of this movie.

The Spiderwick Chronicles-I loved it! The acting was great, the creatures were great. The music was "OK" (I couldn't help but feel slightly annoyed everytime the theme from Casper came up during the emotional parts of the film.). I thought that Freddie Highmore nailed his role(s), and David Strathairn and Joan Plowright were perfect for their roles. Joan Plowright brings a smile to my face due to the loving grandmother feeling that emanates from her person. Brilliant film. Reminded me of an 80's or 90's childrens film because of the fact that it was intense and downright scary at times, and there were a few moments of profanity!

I'd be a liar if I said I loved this movie, but I did enjoy it. I think it's about on the level of stuff from the '80s that I loved as a kid, like The Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock Holmes, and I don't doubt for a second that it is going to be a childhood favorite for many kids today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last is the best movie of the three.

Morlock- who tried to see it again today....but there was an electrical failure in precisely that movie theater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last is the best movie of the three.

Indeed, but that's hardly saying much.

Among a few other films, I got the chance to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in the cinema last week. It only increased my appreciation of the film, and this is a film that was pretty much my #1 favourite beforehand. Amazing, amazing movie, just about perfect in every way. I can see why it's not to some people's tastes, but I absolutely loved it. Can't really describe it, it's just brilliant.

I also saw the first Harry Potter again. I think I've been a bit harsh on it in the past... it's a fun kid's movie. I enjoyed it. Fantastic score and generally the acting is very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also saw the first Harry Potter again. I think I've been a bit harsh on it in the past... it's a fun kid's movie. I enjoyed it. Fantastic score and generally the acting is very good.

I don't know, I caught some of it on TV the other night, and all the child actors just seem like such...middle school play kids. Hermione's over-the-top style actually works here better than in the later films, but I don't think any of their performances are very noteworthy. I think I'm liking the film over all better than in the past, though. I loved it when it first came out, then I became very cynical about it. Now I guess I'm somewhere in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was mostly talking about the adult actors. Radcliffe and Grint and Watson definitely got better in subsequent films (probably the only element of the films that has been consistently better from film to film).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, then yes, the adults are good of course. Although after getting used Gambon's more intense portrayal of Dumbledore, Harris seems pretty lethargic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I loved the third film, and I really liked the fifth, I'm come to the conclusion that this is not a particularly notable series of films. I thought the fifth was terrific when I saw it....but I forgot about it within a few weeks. They played it too safe, and I don't see the last two saving the series. If only they brought Cuaron back, or give Del-Toro a shot....sigh.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really is no reason why Cuaron shouldn't direct another Potter film, particularly the last one. Williams would be most likely to return with him directing, and it's pretty much unanimous that he made the best entry to the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only are they not special, but Chamber Of Secrets and Order Of The Phoenix are just bad. Goblet Of Fire is decent, but still not that great. Sorcerer's Stone is pretty good overall, and then the series best is of course Prisoner Of Azkaban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The films definately don't capture your attention and imagination the way the books do. In fact, other than the three Williams scores, it's gotten to the point where I have to ask: was it even worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only are they not special, but Chamber Of Secrets and Order Of The Phoenix are just bad. Goblet Of Fire is decent, but still not that great. Sorcerer's Stone is pretty good overall, and then the series best is of course Prisoner Of Azkaban.

At least people can argue over them. Because OOTP is very good, GoF is bad, and PS is so slavish as an adaptation of the least interesting book of the series that it almost entirely lacks interest as a film. Though we agree about the the other two :lol::P.

I'd rank OotP above GoF.

Still, the only one that can really stand on its own two feet as a genuine movie is Prisoner of Azkaban.

It's the only one made by a unique director. I haven't seen any of Yates other work, but while I liked the fifth movie alot, it hardly feels like something like something special out of context. Columbus has made a good movie before, and Newel has made two good ones...but they're hardly note-worthy directors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have with OotP is that I know what's missing from the finale. The film does alright without it and goes more to the point, but having seen it twice now, I still missed some of the kids' adventures at the Ministry.

Otherwise, it's a pretty decent movie, although with nowhere near as much of an identity and style as PoA, which I love more each time I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the bottom line with OoTP is this: What's there is terrific, but there's so much that's not there. I wanted more of just about everyone in that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It felt like it was holding back. While I understand the reason for narrowing the book down drastically, I think the film could have shot for a bit more, both in running time and cinematic flair. The score is the biggest reflection and easiest example of this for me. It sounded like a very, very good TV-score instead of a score to a big film like Harry Potter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goblet of Fire... What's wrong with this one, hm? Aside from some annoyingly obvious clues in the Moody mystery and the horrifying Jarvis Cocker songs, I thought it was great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the design was striking.

Goblet of Fire... What's wrong with this one, hm? Aside from some annoyingly obvious clues in the Moody mystery and the horrifying Jarvis Cocker songs, I thought it was great.

I hated it. I remembered liking a couple of moments in it the last time I saw it....but I can't remember them now. I felt no imagination at work, no ambition, very clunky direction...I very much got the sense of 'four down, three to go' from the film. Any film in which I don't love Brendan Gleeson's performance is one that strikes me in a particularly bad way. Such an offensively mediocre film, one droning note, except for the occaisonal actively bad notes. In my book, it is a film that is bad because it so spectacularly not good (as opposed to films that are spectacularly filled with active badness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I liked about Goblet Of Fire were the competition scenes, and Ralph Fiennes. Other than that it was just stupid content that would make kids giggle i.e. the bathroom scene.

Order Of The Phoenix had some bad editing and acting. There was no main focus, too much was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my book, it is a film that is bad because it so spectacularly not good (as opposed to films that are spectacularly filledwith active badness).

That's a good summary that works for the score too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any Potter films are superb films, but none of them is bad, IMO. My favorite is OotP, which I thought was fantastic, followed by PoA, SS, CoS, and GoF. But as I said, they are all good films IMO, though some are a bit weak here and there. And I do wish more was filmed for OotP, but it's still my favorite Potter film so far.

And all the scores are SPECTACULAR, except GoF, which is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prisoner Of Azkaban is superb. You can just see that Potter film without knowing anything about HP or seeing any of the other films and understand and enjoy it equally. It's the most cohesive and well-edited of them all.

After all, it is the only one that is solely about the main plot of the series. Or at least one of the main plots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, it is the only one that is solely about the main plot of the series. Or at least one of the main plots.

SS and CoS were both carbon copies of the first two books (just in terms of plot--they aren't nearly as good). PoA has the best vision in the films, but they left out some major points, such as who Padfoot, Prongs, Wormtail, and Moony really are, and they added a lot, like all those time traveling subplots (which I enjoyed a lot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only remember that it omitted the Firebolt portion of the book and just stuck it on at the end. I'm glad they did this, because it allows the entire film to focus on 1 thing, which is Sirius Black, and it allowed it to end on happy terms.

I missed that other part with all the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The omission of the identities of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail and Prongs was my main complaint with PoA when I first saw it. It has bothered me less and less since, though.

The problem with GoF is that it focuses on the wrong things. It focuses on the relationships between the kids and the hormone-driven part of the story. I should add that it succeeds in expressing those with flying colours, though. None of the other films pulled off the relations and inner workings of the kids as well.

It's just that with all that, there's still three major action setpieces that have to be crammed in (something I knew was going to be a problem from the moment I finished the book) and this whole plot about Crouch Jr. and Voldy coming back. The mystery element that is so present in all the Potter stories is pushed to the background in favor of the characters. While I would normally applaud character over simple story progression, the series' plot is pushed so far into the background it becomes muddied and feels like an afterthought.

On a more personal note I was very disappointed with the depiction of Voldemort's rise and Ralph Fiennes jumping up and down that set like a loony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never get the idea that Voldemort is this cold, calculating, purely evil being in Fiennes' performance. He's more like a pale guy with no nose that happens to chuck spells at the good guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. For instance, I didn't like how overwhelmed Dumbledore looked in the final battle of OotP, as he always seemed to have such confrontations under control, at least apparently. But that's a very minor and personal complaint when compared to the huge gap between the Voldemort in the books and the ones we see in the films. Fiennes' otherwise cute overacting makes him look like everything scares him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree about Fiennes. I'd be really surprised if he's ever read the books; it's as if he wants to create this great character for himself so he can have fun acting extravagantly evil. Kind of a shame.

Is he even going to be in HBP, though? I remember his character wasn't in the book at all, unless maybe in a "scar vision" of Harry's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.