Jump to content

What is the last film you watched?


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

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.

Totally agreed. The problem is, in the end if fails to be a movie. It's just a poorly-executed retelling of a story with great character bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem is, in the end if fails to be a movie. It's just a poorly-executed retelling of a story with great character bits.

Bingo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw The Departed last night. God rest their souls. I've seen better camera work done by my 2 year old nephews, Joel and Ethan Coen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was surprised with how pedantic The Departed was as well, especially coming from Scorsese.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His son is playing young Voldemort, apparently.

How old is he? I hope that's not to mean the teenage Voldemort, as I'd hope they'll use the same actor as in CoS for that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Found the answer to this just now (no). And Hero Fiennes-Tiffin is Ralph Fiennes' newphew according to IMDb. I guess this means they're not including the scene where Voldemort tries to get a job at Hogwarts, as I imagine they'd use Fiennes for that.

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.

Dont' forget that the type of character an actor is acting like in a film is really the director's fault--the director should be in charge of telling Fiennes of what type of character Voldemort is, and how to portray him properly. If he saw Fiennes was doing something wrong, he should have told him that. Now, if the person is a bad actor, they're not always able to improve. But if the portrayal just doesn't fit the character, then the director should be responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the director's fault only to a (small) degree. At the end of the day, Fiennes is playing the character himself and can play it however he wants, so long as it fits with the director's vision (which could be a wide one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the director must be satisfied with what Fiennes is doing before he/she is happy. If he/she is not satisfied, it is her/his job to tell that to the actor, and tell him what he should be doing. If he is being very flexible for what excactly his vision is, then I guess it is up to the actor's interpretation, but it still was good for the director, therefore he is most to blame.

If Fiennes was a very bad actor, it might be different. Sometimes even the best director cannot help bad actors. But he acted pretty well, it just didn't totally suit the character he was playing. (And I don't even think it was that off).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Fiennes was a very bad actor, it might be different. Sometimes even the best director cannot help bad actors. But he acted pretty well, it just didn't totally suit the character he was playing. (And I don't even think it was that off).

Ralph Fiennes is a terrific actor. I thoroughly enjoyed him as Voldemort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph Fiennes is a terrific actor. I thoroughly enjoyed him as Voldemort.

That makes two of us.

We just rented Rendition. Very good film. Excellent perspective twist near the end. Ebert called it a perfect film, and he wasn't far wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last film The AI watched is The Brave One.

This could have been just another vigilante flick, but it is elevated by Jodie Fosters' amazing transition from one who is a mild-mannered radio host, into a serial killer. It's a visceral performance, you really believe it.

Transformations AI? You know something about that don't you?

Yes I certainly do.

The AI gives this film a ***/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph Fiennes is a terrific actor. I thoroughly enjoyed him as Voldemort.

I don't think he was bad at all, he just didn't seem to perfectly fit the character Rowling had created in the books. But in the movies, he fit fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this anti-Potter talk is news to me. I thought Fiennes was, uh, fine, and that both Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix were very good movies. I, too, wish that more of the books had been filmed -- if the Lord of the Rings DVDs taught nothing else, it was that there is a HUGE market for expanded cuts of already-popular movies, and there is really no sense in the Potter franchise not having followed that lead -- but I didn't miss any of what was deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiennes was obviously having fun, the problem is that it made Voldemort so not scary...and I always got the impression from the books that Voldemort should have been the second coming of Vader (teen reincarnations not included)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Voldemort's lack of gravitas, we should blame the screenplay writer or the director, not Fiennes. Fiennes can play baddies in a very satisfying manner. In fact, Fiennes was the only good thing about Red Dragon (a Hannibal sequel almost entirely killed by a sleepwalking Ed Norton).

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this anti-Potter talk is news to me. I thought Fiennes was, uh, fine, and that both Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix were very good movies.

I love OotP, and GoF was good too. The latter was, IMO, the weakest of the films, but it was still great (and that may be partly in association with the scores). And like I said, I did like Fiennes, I just felt that he could have been just a tad more subtle in some parts, which is really the brooding menace that is Voldemort.

For the Voldemort's lack of gravitas, we should blame the screenplay writer or the director, not Fiennes.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he can be a good villain if he wants. Maybe he decided for (or was suggested) a different approach other than "outright evil" in order to make the character more distinct and memorable in the long catalogue of movie villains. And that doesn't really work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the GoF DVD extras, he explains that the idea for Voldemort was that he would be trying out his new body, testing it as soon as he could. That's why he's jumping all over the place.

It just... doesn't really work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why I look to Fiennes himself as the "architect" behind his character's portrayal...I remember an interview (maybe that one from the DVD) where he explained his motivation for playing the character that way. The director always has an influence, but in this case it seemed like Fiennes had a lot of freedom. I don't hate him in the role, and he's a good actor. The character's just off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mainly credit Columbus for establishing a great cast for the HP movies. Basically everybody except for the kids.

I wish John Hurt showed up more as the wand salesman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised how anyone could watch the Cliff's Notes movies which are the last two Harry-Potter-films and get an ounce of cinematic feeling out of them. It may make sense, but i hate movies which only work as movies if you've read the book. There are so many unresolved scenes and ideas and if you have, in fact, not read the books and are forced to sit through these messy films, they penetrate your balance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many unresolved scenes and ideas and if you have, in fact, not read the books and are forced to sit through these messy films, they penetrate your balance...

I agree, I'm sure it's pretty hard to follow what's going on if you haven't read the books. That may be the case to a lesser extent with PoA, but that still stands as an actual good film on its own.

I wish John Hurt showed up more as the wand salesman.

Well, Ollivander may appear in Deathly Hallows (who knows at this point what they'll cut), in which case it'd be great for Hurt to return to the role, which he was great in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how creepy Hurt is. I was dissapointed that he was left out of GoF...I'd rather they'd taken out Skeeter (on top of all other complaints I have against the film).

Been taking my time (last three days) going through the Zodiac Director's Cut DVD. This is a movie that didn't work for me first time I saw it. The time around, it worked for me sensationally (albeit with a few quibbles). I don't know why, but when seeing it the first time, I was looking at the micro, not the macro. I'd seen obsessives before on screen.... but the nature of the obsession in the movie, the reality of it, the understandable and human nature of it- it really got to me this time (the first time, seeing only the small picture, the make-up was one of the biggest distractions. I still think it could have been done better, but it a nit-pick).

Now, all I can do is jump on the bandwagon. Performances range from good to superb. Gyllenhall is, for me, in the former category, but it's not really his fault....when watching the film the first time, I got this distinct vibe of something deeper in his obsession, something more disturbing. I can't really describe it, but it's a feeling I get from the character that is, for me, underdeveloped.But Gyllenhall is good, and I'm not generally a fan. Of course, Downey is god, and there are too many terrific performances in this film to list them all....but Chloe Sevigny (sp) really struck me this time. And Brian Cox is simply the man (I've always loved him....but since last seeing him in a movie, I've met him, which doesn't hurt :blink:).

Of course it looks fantastic. It's still not entirely clear why it takes Fincher an average of 24 shots....but with results like this, it's hard to find fault with his methods. And his attention to detail is felt throughout, and absolutely astonishing once one watched the film again, and, of course, with commentary.

Shire's score is effective, and has some standout moments...but, at times, it feel like it's there for the sound of the music, more than actual scoring. Although either way, it's really cool that he scored this film.

DVD is very good. LOVE the packaging. I started with the behind the scenes stuff. Nice stuff in there, but I prefer a more cohesive documentry....the breakdown of it, according to sequence, rather than chronology of filmmaking process was a bit annoying. The VFX shines a light on the kinds of VFX no one would ever notice (aside from three obviously CG shots).

Fincher's commentary is very good, as usual. He's very personable, clearly conveys his thoughts, and peppers enough humor along with his exhaustive (and, to me, fascinating) technical descriptions to keep from being overly analytical.

I'm now making my way through the second commentary. For a commentary of five people, it is supririsingly slow and easy going...but it's very informative, and quite fun. I love James Ellroy's inclusion in this track.

Sometime tomorrow I'll check out the behind the scenes of the actual killings and suspects.

Excellent movie. One of the really noteworthy films from 2007, which boasted a nice amount of them. ***1/2/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruffalo and Edwards did really outstanding work together and I think Gyllenhall's standout scene was when he talks to Darlene's sister.

I really enjoyed both commentaries but I wished Gyllenhall and Downey were given more talk time on the commentary (if they had any more stuff recorded). Downey's recollection of how Fincher told them to act like Tony Edwards was hilarious though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how creepy Hurt is. I was dissapointed that he was left out of GoF...I'd rather they'd taken out Skeeter (on top of all other complaints I have against the film).

Agreed. He made for one of the best scenes in Stone, if not the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zodiac is one of the very finest movies of last year. It's a real shame that it didn't attract more critical commentary, but it's not surprising. It's too sophisticated and subte for most critics. But in an age of digital information, it is a true standout. In due time, it'll be remembered as one of the greatest movies of its time.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that was absolutely terrible. The ending of the book would have been the best, but the ending in the movie is good, and far, far better than that sucky sentimentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was............... interesting.

I just would never would have settled for anything less than the message, "you ARE alone." That's what this movie could have said, and it would have been amazing. Instead, it's just another action movie with a happy ending (both endings are happy, in different ways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10,000 BC

Bad movie. But fascinatingly bad -- bad in ways that are ponderable. Something will happen and you'll be fascinated by how illogical it is, but then you'll sit in amazement at how brazenly unapologetic the illogic is, and wonder if you aren't witnessing the birth of a whole new kind of storytelling. You aren't, but the gaps in logic are so vast that you might find yourself considering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10,000 BC

Bad movie. But fascinatingly bad -- bad in ways that are ponderable. Something will happen and you'll be fascinated by how illogical it is, but then you'll sit in amazement at how brazenly unapologetic the illogic is, and wonder if you aren't witnessing the birth of a whole new kind of storytelling. You aren't, but the gaps in logic are so vast that you might find yourself considering it.

Roland Emmerich made you think? He's better than I thought!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutthroat Island

Holy hell. :nopity:

While the action scenes were ridiculously long, and it was by no means a great movie, I thought it captured the spirit of the pirates wonderfully (part of this is due to the music). I'm not trying to defend it, but I've seen much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, everytime I read a post by Bryant, I think it's by Hitch.

You mean because of the wit and perverseness of his posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutthroat Island

Holy hell. :nopity:

While the action scenes were ridiculously long, and it was by no means a great movie, I thought it captured the spirit of the pirates wonderfully (part of this is due to the music). I'm not trying to defend it, but I've seen much worse.

My condolences. :(

What enjoyment I might have garnered from the plot-less and the over the top yet somehow dull action was all but completely squashed by the pathetic acting and wretched dialogue.

Exhibit A:

(The villain is known as "Dawg" BTW.)

The absolutely fantastic score was the only enjoyable aspect of this movie for me. It's the main reason I watched it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sea Hawk. I found it to be quite bad, with very few redeeming aspects. Script sucks. Plot is preposterous. Acting is same old, same old. Terrible leading lady, who has no chemistry with Flynn. The sashbuckling feels, like the rest of the movie, to be thrown together at the last minute, and speeding it up doesn't help matters. In concept, it is not that much different from the endless sequels we see now. Good production values- the backlot is surprisingly believable for the water scenes, but nothing to like in the script or acting. The score seems to want to recreate the Korngold touch with a lifeless movie. The continuous score becomes quite tiresome here, especially when scoring the quiet scenes, where we have characters talking who have no chemistry and no good dialogue. The battle cues are fun.....but this one was a dissapointment all around. A good example of a Golden Age movie being overrated because of it's context. **/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What enjoyment I might have garnered from the plot-less and the over the top yet somehow dull action was all but completely squashed by the pathetic acting and wretched dialogue.

Exhibit A:

(The villain is known as "Dawg" BTW.)

The absolutely fantastic score was the only enjoyable aspect of this movie for me. It's the main reason I watched it in the first place.

It's a piss-poor movie, but man is that score great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10,000 BC

Bad movie. But fascinatingly bad -- bad in ways that are ponderable. Something will happen and you'll be fascinated by how illogical it is, but then you'll sit in amazement at how brazenly unapologetic the illogic is, and wonder if you aren't witnessing the birth of a whole new kind of storytelling. You aren't, but the gaps in logic are so vast that you might find yourself considering it.

Roland Emmerich made you think? He's better than I thought!

Being so bad that one wonders if it's a new level of bad is hardly an accomplishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutthroat Island

Holy hell. :D

While the action scenes were ridiculously long, and it was by no means a great movie, I thought it captured the spirit of the pirates wonderfully (part of this is due to the music). I'm not trying to defend it, but I've seen much worse.

My condolences. ;)

What enjoyment I might have garnered from the plot-less and the over the top yet somehow dull action was all but completely squashed by the pathetic acting and wretched dialogue.

Exhibit A:

(The villain is known as "Dawg" BTW.)

The absolutely fantastic score was the only enjoyable aspect of this movie for me. It's the main reason I watched it in the first place.

True, the dialouge was awful ("BAD DAWG! ;):lol: :lol:). And yes, so was the acting (Geena Davis was horrible, the only reason she was cast was because her husband directed). And the use of slow motion throughout almost the entire film got both tiring and cheesy. And the plot was okay. And the action was dull. But it had a spirit to it that I admire, however stupid it may be. And the score is wonderful, and it certainly attributed to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last film The AI watched is Lovewrecked.

Now what? why would you go and watch a silly movie like Lovewrecked, AI?

It makes a nice change, it has no violence, no sex, no cursing. It's just a nice sweet film.

And The AI usually watches what kind of film?

Dark ones, films about killers, the underworld, crazy people, unhappy people.

The AI gives Lovewrecked a 2 and 1/4 from 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with CutThroat Island is that it's still much better than all the pirate movies that came after it.

Correction: I'm only assuming that; after watching the first Pirates of the Carribean movie, I couldn't bring myself to watch the other two. But I'm quite confident that my statement still holds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beowulf - While it is Uncanny Valley in parts (most notably the expendable extras), the amount of detail put into the titular hero and Wiglaf is simply amazing. The horses were really crappy though, as was the animation of people running. Silvestri's score, while in Van Helsing mode is still really fun to listen to in the movie. All in all its spectacular entertainment

Across the Universe - This is a difficult movie to comment on. I liked it a lot on my first viewing, though it felt overlong, uneven and gave this feeling that it was trying to cram in as many tunes as it could. However, once you surrender completely to its quirky sensibilities, its an amazing experience. It also feels a lot shorter on repeat viewings for some reason (though the fact that Hey Jude's coda has such a note of finality to it probably pays a part in it feeling overlong the first time around) and the flaws actually become endearing. I love this film more the more I watch it. Two thumbs way way up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Across the Universe. Twice in the theater, twice at home, once wiht commentary....one of my favorites of 2007. Not as intellectually stimulating as most of my other favorites...but just pure bliss.

The biggest problem with CutThroat Island is that it's still much better than all the pirate movies that came after it.

Correction: I'm only assuming that; after watching the first Pirates of the Carribean movie, I couldn't bring myself to watch the other two. But I'm quite confident that my statement still holds.

You are quite wrong, actually. Depp and Rush in the first PoTC make it far, far better. And the third movie has a lot going on despite being ridiculesly over-plotted and at times ineptly scripted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with CutThroat Island is that it's still much better than all the pirate movies that came after it.

Correction: I'm only assuming that; after watching the first Pirates of the Carribean movie, I couldn't bring myself to watch the other two. But I'm quite confident that my statement still holds.

I really enjoyed the first PotC film. It had a good plot, great acting (mainly by Depp), good music (though I know some beg to differ), etc. For the second films, the plot got ridiculously complicated, and in the third it seemed that every scene somebody was making a new deal with a new person on a new ship to betray somebody else. But it was still very entertaining. Depp, Zimmer, and the action scenes saved the last two films.

The second's the worst, but it has its moments. Particularly the "Wheel of Fortune" scene, it is one of the most brilliantly thought out action scenes I've ever seen.

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.