What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well apparently this wasn't done right. Terrible dialogue, no plot, and it has every cliche in the book.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'LL be the judge of that.

If you're proven right, you will be the first to know

[Nick Parker 3,040]

If the film is indeed terrible, I would not be surprised: we are talking about Herr Luhrmann ( or however you spell it) after all. Though, I must say that I am rather fond of "Moulin Rouge"....

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I see Silence of the Lambs as being the ONLY movie in the so-called 'quadrilogy'. The sequels are garbage and don't exist, in my mind.

Manhunter is another entity entirely. A good film albeit devoid of personality. Forget the laughable argument that Brian Cox is the proper Lecktor; he is no match for Hopkins; in the world of grandiose memorable villains. The latter's Lecktor is up there with Darth Vader when it comes to splendidly fun bad guys, which I'll take over any other (serious) movie killer any day of the week.

That's exactly why I prefer Cox. Hopkins is fun, but Cox frightens me a lot more, and I prefer that kind of performance to Hopkins' campy wonder.

[Quintus 5,399]

That is of course entirely fair enough, to a point. I don't see Hopkins' Lecktor as being particularly camp, but I admittedly don't find him scary either. Again, fun is the word I prefer. Fun counts for a hell of a lot.

Incidentally, I don't find Cox's incarnation in the least bit scary either.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Fair point, but I don't see SILENCE as a fun picture, which is why it loses points through Hopkins for me. But, horses for courses and all that jazz.

On the same vein, I find Cox scary because he isn't scary. If that makes sense. He's completely normal, and that makes scenes like when he obtains Graham's home address chilling, at least to me.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

If the film is indeed terrible, I would not be surprised: we are talking about Herr Luhrmann ( or however you spell it) after all. Though, I must say that I am rather fond of "Moulin Rouge"....

I liked Moulin Rogue as well. I was excited for Australia, but my brother was angered by how bad it was. We pretty much have the same taste in movies, so I'm gonna trust his word. His entire theater was laughing at how bad it was, similarly to how our theaters were laughing at The Happening. At one point a guy just yelled out this movie is awful.

[Red 75]

I'm a big fan of MANHUNTER. I like SILENCE, but I'm not always in the mood to see Hopkins channelling Lugosi. HANNIBAL is hysterical, though. In a good way. Haven't seen RED DRAGON, don't really want to.

Red Dragon is Brett Ratner's best movie, but that might not be saying an awful lot.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Bend It Like Beckham

Delightfull in every way.

**** out of ****

[Quintus 5,399]

Fair point, but I don't see SILENCE as a fun picture, which is why it loses points through Hopkins for me. But, horses for courses and all that jazz.

Indeed. But funnily enough, I do honestly view SOTL as a great bit of entertainment. I'll quote it in the same daft way I will Star Wars or Indiana Jones - its that good. It is an icon of its genre and thus comes with it the fandom attached to such a thing.

On the same vein, I find Cox scary because he isn't scary. If that makes sense.

Yes it absolutely does. You're not the first to suggest such a thing and I appreciate the viewpoint even if I don't quite feel it myself. To me, Cox is just some bloke in a white t-shirt behind bars. The bars are important, in that I know I'm safe on the other side. Hopkins on the other hand gets into the head of Clarice, dividing bars intact.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

If the film is indeed terrible, I would not be surprised: we are talking about Herr Luhrmann ( or however you spell it) after all. Though, I must say that I am rather fond of "Moulin Rouge"....

I liked Moulin Rogue as well. I was excited for Australia, but my brother was angered by how bad it was. We pretty much have the same taste in movies, so I'm gonna trust his word. His entire theater was laughing at how bad it was, similarly to how our theaters were laughing at The Happening. At one point a guy just yelled out this movie is awful.

That makes want me want to see it, now. So, it seems that "The Producers" was more realistic than I realized....

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (**)

Probably one of the lesser films that I've seen this year. I really enjoyed it. It had some pretty funny moments, but as a whole it just wasn't as great as the first. Zimmer's score is heard a lot more in the film than on that lame excuse for a score release. However, it's all just a rehash of the first.

I also have a problem with the title. I'd be perfectly happy if they left it as Madagascar 2, but they just had to try and be clever. Madagascar is a country in Africa, so they're not escaping to Africa if they're already in Africa. That's like saying: Hawaii: Escape 2 North America.

Also tonight, I caught most of Meet The Parents and Keeping The Faith. So it was a Ben Stiller night for me Now I need to go out and buy Tropic Thunder!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I see Silence of the Lambs as being the ONLY movie in the so-called 'quadrilogy'. The sequels are garbage and don't exist, in my mind.

Manhunter is another entity entirely. A good film albeit devoid of personality. Forget the laughable argument that Brian Cox is the proper Lecktor; he is no match for Hopkins; in the world of grandiose memorable villains. The latter's Lecktor is up there with Darth Vader when it comes to splendidly fun bad guys, which I'll take over any other (serious) movie killer any day of the week.

That's exactly why I prefer Cox. Hopkins is fun, but Cox frightens me a lot more, and I prefer that kind of performance to Hopkins' campy wonder.

are you kidding? Cox is fine, but Hopkins performance is one of the all time greats. Cox's is not even in that league.

Saw Bolt, a very good movie, but pointless in 3D.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Pointless in 3D, my ass.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Pointless in 3D, my ass.

the movie was nice in 3D BB, but it would be just as good flat. The 3D didn't add that much.

[QMM 4]

3D is surround sound for the eyes

[paleo 63]

I watched "House of Sand and Fog" yesterday. Great performances, but definitely nothing for someone suffering a depression

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Pointless in 3D, my ass.

the movie was nice in 3D BB, but it would be just as good flat. The 3D didn't add that much.

Ehh ... I don't think so. Glad you liked the movie, though; Disney looks like they might be on the right track again.

Speaking of Disney, the last movie I watched was The Living Desert, one of the True-Life Adventures that was also one of Disney's many Oscar-winners from this era.

Now, I'm no expert on the subject of nature documentaries, so I don't have any clue as to how the movie stands up in relation to what has been done in the many decades since ... but this is an awesome movie. Just flat-out awesome. I have no idea how the cameramen captured some of the footage. For example: a scene in which javelinas chase a bobcat up an enormous cactus (!); a tortoise fight (!); and an absolutely horrifying sequence in which a pepsis wasp, which is in the process of looking for a tarantula to kill (!), gets attacked by ants.

There is narration, score, and the occasional editing trick that strike the occasional false note -- a sequence in which a mating ritual between scorpions is edited into a faux-squaredance is a little embarrassing -- but for the most part, this is pretty glorious stuff.

[A24 4,348]

3 Women: The first time I've seen it. A difficult and complex film. I liked it but I think I need to see it more than just once. The print and the transfer looked gorgeous.

The Fog: The old Carpenter one. The first 30 or 40 minutes are okay. Then it gets silly.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I watched "House of Sand and Fog" yesterday. Great performances, but definitely nothing for someone suffering a depression

Good movie, from what I remember. And yes, the depressed should not watch it lol

[Bryant Burnette 654]

The Fog: The old Carpenter one. The first 30 or 40 minutes are okay. Then it gets silly.

That one really does fall apart. It happens about the time the fog rolls into town toward the end; there are some great fox effects after that, but little else.

But it's probably worth seeing for the first two acts. And it's a classic compared to the remake.

[Ollie 1,059]

I'm a big fan of MANHUNTER. I like SILENCE, but I'm not always in the mood to see Hopkins channelling Lugosi. HANNIBAL is hysterical, though. In a good way. Haven't seen RED DRAGON, don't really want to.

Manhunter is excellent, gritty, dark and better casting aside from Lector. Red Dragon lacks the atmosphere that Mann's film has and feels more like a Hollywood production loaded with stars.

Tom Noonan is much more effective and chilling as Dollarhyde than Fiennes.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Red Dragon isn't very good aside from Hopkins. Speaking of Hopkins, I forgot to mention that I saw Fracture. It was decent, I enjoyed it and Hopkins was great in the role.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Pointless in 3D, my ass.

the movie was nice in 3D BB, but it would be just as good flat. The 3D didn't add that much.

Ehh ... I don't think so. Glad you liked the movie, though; Disney looks like they might be on the right track again.

there was no immersion into the screen like with Journey. I don't require things to jump out at me, and to me 3D is still a gimmick but this movie stood on its own, I can't remember once being wowed by the 3D.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Jerry Maguire

Fantastic as always.

[Morlock 11]

Red Dragon isn't very good aside from Hopkins.

Actually, Hopkins presence is a toll on the (finely crafted) film.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno. The movie lives in a Apatow-vian universe, yet seems to think that the sweetness it has is revolutionary. It clunks along to a an entirely anti-climactic series of climaxes. Kevin Smith's lowest ebb yet.

[A24 4,348]

It happens about the time the fog rolls into town toward the end ...

That would be about right. At the point the film starts neglecting its first part.

Red Dragon isn't very good aside from Hopkins.

Actually, Hopkins presence is a toll on the (finely crafted) film.

I only remember the parts with Ralph Fiennes, who brought a touch of sadness to his character. Villains don't always have to be one-dimensionally evil.

Norton was miscast. In fact, ever since Red Dragon, I no longer think he's a good actor.

Alex

[Bryant Burnette 654]

there was no immersion into the screen like with Journey. I don't require things to jump out at me, and to me 3D is still a gimmick but this movie stood on its own, I can't remember once being wowed by the 3D.

Well, I'll grant you this: Bolt was only the third feature I've seen in 3D. Maybe more exposure to that format will lessen my opinion of it. But there were a lot of things that stood out to me, many of them subtleties (seems like a contradiction, I know), like the smoke during the big claimactic scene. It seemed to me like the 3D was being used to just sort of nudge you into a different world, rather than shove you into it. It worked for me.

On a whole 'nother train of thought, I finally got around to seeing I'm Not There. I loved it. I'm not sure I would have if I weren't a big Bob Dylan fan, but it's possible. Every once in a while, I'm in a mood to be haunted by a movie, and this might've done the trick. As it is, though, I am a big Bob Dylan fan, and I feel the haunting setting in already.

It shouldn't work at all, what with six different actors playing the same person -- except they're not actually the same person (although, really, they are the same person [wha...?]) -- and one of them being a female and another being a child (who is a completely different race, to boot). The movie jumps around in time, establishes multiple layers of reality, is determined to establish a bond with its audience by keeping it at arm's length ... this should have been a catastrophe, but instead, it's pretty close to being a triumph. I definitely feel like I need a few more viewings before I start to have a firm grasp on it, but that very quality makes it seem all the more like something worth doing.

The performances are more or less great, but I'll tell you who impressed me the most: Bruce Greenwood. He has two roles (or is it really just one?), and he just absolutely commands the screen. Why is this guy not a superstar?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Cat People (1942).

Highly inventive film noir that was a victim of its own advertising campaign promoting it as a standard commercial horror movie, but the film proves to be much more intelligent and symbolic than one might think. The beautiful Simone Simon plays a tormented young woman who believes she can morph into a black leopard when she's aroused or angry, but no-one believes her until it's too late; sort of like the ladies' equivalent to The Wolf Man, which came out the same year. The film is laced with beautiful camerawork and haunting imagery that stamps into your memory long after you've watched it, and the score by Roy Webb is reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann from the time - must be the kind of music RKO really liked. There's a gentle subtlety and surreal quality about this film that leaves a lot to our own interpretation, which allows us to question whether she really is what she says she is, and the more cynical of us could be left to conclude that her ability is the manifestation of her repressed sexuality because of her boring, cheating husband. I'd be looking for an outlet too if the tables were turned.

I was surprised to learn this film has a direct sequel titled The Curse of the Cat People co-directed by Robert Wise, which apparently takes the story in an unexpectedly imaginative direction, and even Simon returns in that one! I really want to see this film!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

On a whole 'nother train of thought, I finally got around to seeing I'm Not There. I loved it. I'm not sure I would have if I weren't a big Bob Dylan fan, but it's possible. Every once in a while, I'm in a mood to be haunted by a movie, and this might've done the trick. As it is, though, I am a big Bob Dylan fan, and I feel the haunting setting in already.

It shouldn't work at all, what with six different actors playing the same person -- except they're not actually the same person (although, really, they are the same person [wha...?]) -- and one of them being a female and another being a child (who is a completely different race, to boot). The movie jumps around in time, establishes multiple layers of reality, is determined to establish a bond with its audience by keeping it at arm's length ... this should have been a catastrophe, but instead, it's pretty close to being a triumph. I definitely feel like I need a few more viewings before I start to have a firm grasp on it, but that very quality makes it seem all the more like something worth doing.

The performances are more or less great, but I'll tell you who impressed me the most: Bruce Greenwood. He has two roles (or is it really just one?), and he just absolutely commands the screen. Why is this guy not a superstar?

Finally! I had the same feelings when I saw a poster for it and discovered that all were playing different people. It was confusing but once I actually saw it I was amazed. I also feel that you have to be a Dylan fan to truly appreciate this film, otherwise it probably won't leave any impact on you. All of the acting was top-notch as well. It's one of my favorite movies of '07.

[Morlock 11]

Norton was miscast. In fact, ever since Red Dragon, I no longer think he's a good actor.

I think he's been consistantly hit and miss since the begining.

Saw My Dinner With Andre, Louis Malle's 1981 film about two people talking over dinner. I could not make it the whole way through in one sitting. I fell asleep during the second sitting. I did finally complete it. Despite that, I got some mild enjoyment out of it. The conversation gets more and more focused, and by the end, I had a real affinity for both Wally Shawn and Andre Gregory (who is a remarkable story teller, even if the stories sometimes leave something to be desires). I'd hoped I'd fall in love with the utter simplicity of the film, but, alas, I cannot recommend the film. To (hopefully) compensate, I got another 1981 Louis Malle film, Atlantic City, which I have some hope for. Ever since seeing The Leopard, I've become a big Burt Lancaster fan.

After Tanner '88, saw the 2004 follow up, Tanner on Tanner. Very weak. Cynthia Nixon's character is quite annoying. I was hoping for more Michael Murphy...but he's practically invisible in this film. I liked Scorsese's cameo, though. My favorite thing from the film is the behind the scenes footage of Altman directing Scorsese (and Steve Buscemi).

I also rented Jonathan Demme's Jimmy Carter Man from the Plains. The character interests me.

[A24 4,348]

Norton was miscast. In fact, ever since Red Dragon, I no longer think he's a good actor.

I think he's been consistantly hit and miss since the begining.

The problem is that Norton's acting range is very limited. He conquered Hollywood with copycatting Robert De Niro, but his shortcomings started to show as soon as he started to play normal blokes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The worst thing is that he often insists of rewriting the scripts of the movies he stars in.

[A24 4,348]

The worst thing is that he often insists of rewriting the scripts of the movies he stars in.

A film starring Edward Norton has become a good reason not to see it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Still, he was great in Just Cause.

[Quintus 5,399]

I like Norton, he was brilliant in Fight Club. Like Anthony Hopkins (and De Niro), he has done his fair share of duds, but I tend to avoid that stuff when possible. From what I've seen of Edward Norton, the good far outweighs the bad.

[Morlock 11]

Still, he was great in Just Cause.

Do you mean Primal Fear? I don't think he was in Just Cause.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I stand corrected, I always confuse these 2 titles

[Quintus 5,399]

Those sort of generic drama/thriller thingys do all seem to meld into one.

[A24 4,348]

I like Norton, he was brilliant in Fight Club. Like Anthony Hopkins (and De Niro), he has done his fair share of duds, but I tend to avoid that stuff when possible. From what I've seen of Edward Norton, the good far outweighs the bad.

Yes, but there again he impersonated an intense De Niro like character, the type that put him on the Hollywood map. Yes, most actors have played in bad movies but at least Anthony Hopkins has countlessly shown that he's able to convincingly and successfully play a wide and diverse range of characters. I wouldn't dare to name Norton and Hopkins in the same breath.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alex, remember how lovable Hopkins was in The World's Fastest Indian, and how far removed that role was from Lector.

He has both range and charisma, something Norton does not have!

[Quintus 5,399]

I like Norton, he was brilliant in Fight Club. Like Anthony Hopkins (and De Niro), he has done his fair share of duds, but I tend to avoid that stuff when possible. From what I've seen of Edward Norton, the good far outweighs the bad.

Yes, but there again he impersonated an intense De Niro like character, the type that put him on the Hollywood map. Yes, most actors have played in bad movies but at least Anthony Hopkins has countlessly shown that he's able to convincingly and successfully play a wide and diverse range of characters. I wouldn't dare to name Norton and Hopkins in the same breath.

Alex

That is absolutely true, Norton is not even in the same realm as Hopkins when it comes to balls-to-the-wall acting chops, but he's still a good actor nonetheless. To be quite honest, I've never made the De Niro comparison before. I think its possibly valid, but not exactly scientific. Norton can't help it that he reminds some people of De Niro and I doubt it it is intended on his part anyway, since the man is clearly intelligent and pretty serious about his career. I think his integrity as an actor is about as respected as it ought to be.

[Morlock 11]

I'm not quite sure where the concept of that 'integrity' came from, nor that immense respect. It seems to have stemmed from him having been in both American History X and Fight Club, both hugely popular amongst teenagers. Everyone else jumped on that bandwagon after that, with The Score placing him on the pantheon with DeNiro and Brando.

[Quintus 5,399]

So only teenagers like those movies then? That is what you suggest and it sort of an ignorant assumption. I think he is respected because he takes his work very seriously and usually delivers the goods. That is enough in most peoples book.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sounds boring to me....

[Quintus 5,399]

Probably is too.

Lee - NOT Edward Norton's biggest fan. Just cutting him some slack, here.

[Morlock 11]

So only teenagers like those movies then? That is what you suggest and it sort of an ignorant assumption.

That is not what I suggest, and it would be an ignorant assumption. I am a fan of both movies, and a big fan of his performances there. I suggested that many other actors have delivered the goods, but that Norton was singled out because he was in two movies that were immensly popular with younger people. Those are two of the biggest movies ever amongst certain age groups, and Norton is probably the only actor to star in two films of such overwhelming popularity in such a brief period of time. And that that attention garnered was solidified by him sharing the screen with probably the greatest acting icons of the past 60 years. I never suggested that only teenagers liked them. But I do believe that the younger audiences of those films are key to Norton's popularity.

I think he is respected because he takes his work very seriously and usually delivers the goods. That is enough in most peoples book.

The same could be said of other actors who aren't nearly as glorified. And for some reason, he alone is singled out as taking his work very seriously. I don't dislike him. But his credits don't support his reputation.

[A24 4,348]

Alex, remember how lovable Hopkins was in The World's Fastest Indian, and how far removed that role was from Lector.

He has both range and charisma, something Norton does not have!

Indeed! As a matter of fact, I had precisely the same examples in mind. Or how about the butler in Remains Of The Day? Or the bullying captain in The Bounty? All very diverse, all very accomplished, all very believable, all very memorable. He's great in War and Peace too. You can buy this old but utterly fantastic BBC series in your local MediaMarkt, Steef. I highly recommend it.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

So only teenagers like those movies then? That is what you suggest and it sort of an ignorant assumption.

That is not what I suggest, and it would be an ignorant assumption. I am a fan of both movies, and a big fan of his performances there. I suggested that many other actors have delivered the goods, but that Norton was singled out because he was in two movies that were immensly popular with younger people. Those are two of the biggest movies ever amongst certain age groups, and Norton is probably the only actor to star in two films of such overwhelming popularity in such a brief period of time. And that that attention garnered was solidified by him sharing the screen with probably the greatest acting icons of the past 60 years. I never suggested that only teenagers liked them. But I do believe that the younger audiences of those films are key to Norton's popularity.

I think he is respected because he takes his work very seriously and usually delivers the goods. That is enough in most peoples book.

The same could be said of other actors who aren't nearly as glorified. And for some reason, he alone is singled out as taking his work very seriously. I don't dislike him. But his credits don't support his reputation.

Fair enough for the most part, but I disagree that younger (defined as teen?) audiences are largely responsible for his popularity and that his credits don't support his reputation. Norton has done enough to prove himself, stinkers included. Heck, Fight Club alone is enough to solidify his position as a serious, talented and respected actor.

Remains Of The Day

For me this is probably Hopkins' best and most accomplished role. I am in awe of that performance.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed! As a matter of fact, I had precisely the same examples in mind. Or how about the butler in Remains Of The Day?

Yes, he does not even seem to be doing anything, yet you edge closer to the TV screen to draw it all in.

He's great in War and Peace too. You can buy this old but utterly fantastic BBC series in your local MediaMarkt, Steef. I highly recommend it.

Alex

I actually saw that a few weeks ago right next to the DVD of I Claudius that I did purchase.

Must check it out.