What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Its one of the worst things about the movie, IMHO, absolutely dreadful, but some like it, oh well.

[HPFAN_2 0]

I saw a screening of Valkyrie, Bryan Singer was supposed to come and do a Q&A afterword. Bastard flaked out because "he was tired from doing Charlie Rose" Anyways the movie was quite good. If you don't try and take it too seriously.

P.S. OTTMAN IS A FREAKING THIEF, HE STOLE ENCOUNTER IN LONDON FROM MUNICH

[indy4 155]

How The Grinch Stole Christmas (Cartoon)

[RenOldman 0]

I finally got around to watching Bullet in th Head again. It has been a few years since I viewed it but, since we brought up the whole John Woo and the debate of whether or not he has made a masterpiece, I had to watch it to get my thoughts in order.

Anyway, I will try to compare the Windtalkers and Bullet in th Head. Both of these films deal with people in a situation of war; however, what these people are within the film are very different.

Firstly, in Windtalkers, we are told that the main character will do anything that will lead to good. However, we are given no story on which to base his actions on. We need to feel a sense of amazement, but we are never given a legitimate connection to Cage's character. In Bullet in the Head we are given a lightning paced introduction to the characters, and then thrown into the conflict in Vietnam.

Secondly, in Windtalkers, the action has no impact. Basically, we are told that the main character does not care about anything. How can the audience build a connection when the main character has no emotion? Not the acting, the character itself. In comparison, Bullet in the Head has action that affects us, as the main characters are human, they don't want to die. The characters may ultimately have different reasons to live but, they at least have a reason for their actions.

Thirdly, there are some characters that go nowhere in Windtalkers. People may think so what? Trust me, being introduced to characters that have no purpose bogs the audience down and ultimately leads to further disconnnection. Bullet in the Head has a number of characters but, at least they aren't just introduced and tossed away.

Lastly, Bullet in the Head reaches its audience by humanizing its characters at the beginning. It shows that the characters care about each other from the beginning and that they grew up together. Windtalkers on the other hand, attempts to create a connection at the end of the film.

Basically, Windtalkers is trying to get us to understand the actions of those in war, unless you have been in a war you can't understand it. As someone who has never lived through a war, I can tell you that I probably don't have the right understanding of it. But I can tell you that John Woo attempted to get someone like me - and others who LOVE action movies - to have an appreciation of those that fought. So the film starts off as a dumb action movie, that ultimately leads somewhere. But, if you like action movies you probably want just an escape.

Bullet in the Head is similar, but it immediately shows its humanity immediately and we are not tricked into watching. We are shown that war can destroy everything you have, especially friendship. The action is not glorified. The past affects the decisions and feelings of people, just as in real life. Because most of us have never dealt with chaos on a national level, we can still connect because the people are real and the violence is too. That is what makes it a great film.

Now, where is a legitimate region 1 DVD of Bullet in the Head?

-Eric

[Jay 37,364]

Pineapple Express

Certainly the worst of the recent Apatow/Rogen comedies (Knocked Up, Superbad, Sarah Marshall, Zack and Miri), but still funny. Well, the first 2/3s where really funny. The last 1/3 was just a long silly shootout, and the ending was lame. What happened to the girlfriend?

[Lurker 5]

I rarely post in this thread, but tonight was special. I saw 70mm prints of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (no "II" on the 70mm prints!) and ALIEN. Both looked and sounded the absolute best I have ever experienced them. It was a lot of fun tonight. I had to pay separate admissions for them, (that kind of sucked) but in the end I guess it was worth it.

And if you fall asleep during Blade Runner, "The Final Cut" isn't going to wake you up or change your opinion.

Neil

[A24 4,336]

And if you fall asleep during Blade Runner, "The Final Cut" isn't going to wake you up or change your opinion.

Just rewatching it might change one's opinion. Yes, there are no really big changes between the DC and the FC but while the film doesn't change, there's always a good chance that the viewer might.

I saw 70mm prints of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (no "II" on the 70mm prints!) and ALIEN. Both looked and sounded the absolute best I have ever experienced them.

Blow-ups sure can look good, don't they?

Alex

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Blow ups? I thought a movie had to be shot in 70mm to be shown in that size! Perhaps I've been spoiled by Ben-Hur and My Fair Lady.

[Lurker 5]

Many films were shot on 35mm and released with 70mm engagements. The appeal, besides the bigger, brighter picture was the 6-track magnetic soundtrack. Before 3 competing digital soundtracks could be placed on one piece of 35mm film, 70mm prints with six-track audio were the best way to get true discrete multi-channel sound in a movie theater. Tonight's showings proved that. And the blow-ups looked great. There may not be an actual resolution increase, but the fact that more light is passing through a bigger piece of film means things can be more apparent on screen.

Neil

[Koray Savas 2,251]

And if you fall asleep during Blade Runner, "The Final Cut" isn't going to wake you up or change your opinion.

Just rewatching it might change one's opinion. Yes, there are no really big changes between the DC and the FC but while the film doesn't change, there's always a good chance that the viewer might.

Exactly. It was more of me being really tired than the actual movie putting me to sleep. I fell asleep towards the end, but pretty much don't remember anything from the film.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Spider-Man 2

I have no idea why I felt compelled to see it, but ah well. I used to have sub-par memories of it, but I now think that it is rather good. One of the strengths of these films (yes, even the third one), I think, would be the casting. Nobody was miscast, and Alfred Molina made an absolutely superb Doctor Octavius (and J.K. Simmons is awesome as always). The film had a certain warmth to it that I really liked, and the characters were nicely developed. The worst part of the film would probably be the score.

What Danny Elfman wrote was fantastic, an excellent score, but that was before Sam Raimi had his say. Multiple cues were deleted, only to be replaced by tracked music from the first film, or replaced by John Debney and Christopher Young, who produced their usual fare (John Debney wrote his typical no-personality bombast, while Christopher Young wrote what sounded like "Hellraiser"). I would love to see a cut of the film with Danny Elfman's score completely intact, but I doubt that will ever materialize.

With that all said, though, I still found the film very likeable, and the best of the (not-for-long) Spider-Man Trilogy.

And, because I wondered if I had changed...

Spider-Man 3

Where to begin. The film showed so much promise in the first forty minutes or so, naturally continuing where the second left off. And then that black suit entered the fray.... I think one of the flaws of the film was that Sam Raimi tried to cram far too many villains in the film, and thus none of them really had time to develop. Christopher Young's score was rather mediocre, but I do like the music for the "Birth of a Sandman" scene. I now know what most of you feel like when you watched "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull": I wanted to like the film so much, but I could not. I have no idea why Sam Raimi turned Peter Parker into a complete loser, and it just felt so out-of-place. I cannot review this film coherently, which may be a sign of my writing ineptitude, or could be that the film just left me confused. I hope the fourth Spider-Man film can atone for this wasted oppurtunity, and who knows, I might forgive this film if that is the case.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Spider-Man 3 enlightened me to how terrible that franchise really is.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I liked the first two.

[Red 75]

Spider-Man 3 enlightened me to how terrible that franchise really is.

So one bad movie makes the whole franchise bad? I don't follow.

[Trent B 337]

Spider-Man 3 enlightened me to how terrible that franchise really is.

So one bad movie makes the whole franchise bad? I don't follow.

Like I said in another thread, I don't understand Koray's logic most of the time. I agree too that doesn't make much sense.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

for once Koray makes sense. Spiderman is OVERRATED, Spiderman 2 is OVERRATED, and Spiderman 3 is just Inept. Oh sure each have a moment or two, but that doesn't a movie make.

[John Crichton 4]

Joe's dead right on this one. I've never seen the appeal of the recent Spiderman franchise.

[Delorean90 42]

Yes, and aside from the latest Batfilms, the Spider-Man films have had the most consistency with regard to quality of any superhero franchise to date.

The first two are pretty doggone good movies, and even the third still has a decent bit of material to like. I think the church scene (specifically the start of it, with the tower and Spidey jumping down) and Bruce Campbell's turn as the maitre'd justify the film's existence. From there it still holds an enjoyable but flawed movie. Let's also not forget that including Venom was not Raimi's idea--the studio forced him to due to A) the chance of it being the final film, and B) the popularity of the character. It probably would've been a better film if they'd just let him do his thing. But whatever. I'm looking forward to the fourth one and hoping that it'll work out better--and I'm definitely looking forward to Dylan Baker's inevitable turn as the Lizard.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I dig SPIDER-MAN a lot. There were certainly things wrong with it, but it's a really fun movie, and captures the tone well. 2 was great because of Doc Ock, but had a huge flaw in the relationship story, but it had some incredible scenes, and Molina was brilliant. 3 was awful.

I think the casting has been pretty good, with the exception of Kirsten Dunst. They got that - and her character - totally wrong. I wish the music were better, though. The main theme is fine, but the underscore just never did it for me. Also, Ock's theme also felt like a new arrangement of the Penguin theme from BATMAN RETURNS.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Ock's theme also felt like a new arrangement of the Penguin theme from BATMAN RETURNS.

Sure....

[MSM 126]

Watched OotP on dvd. It's much better at a second watch, actually I really start to like it. Even the music isn't as bad as I have said before.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Wrongfully Accused

One of the funniest films ever made. Pat Proft is a genius. Bill Conti's score is hilariously good as well. I just ripped the end credits music from the DVD.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oh please!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Oh please what?

Wrongfully Accused, Hot Shots! Part Deux, Jane Austen's Mafia, The Naked Gun, Spy Hard... all classics.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Doubt: Excellent movie. Streep and Hoffman will get most of the accolades, but I was the most impressed by Amy Adams, who does a lot with a role that doesn't necessarily encourage a lot.

Valkyrie: I liked it, but not as much as I'd hoped to like it. Definitely good, but not a classic by any means.

The Spirit: Terrible. I quit watching after about an hour and went and worked while the rest of the movie ran through. I expected it to be bad, but I was hoping it'd at least be entertainingly bad. Nope. It's just bad.

[MSM 126]

Valkyrie: I liked it, but not as much as I'd hoped to like it. Definitely good, but not a classic by any means.

What exactly did you like and dislike about this one? Is it too much "hollywood"? Are the actors convincing? Is it historically accurate?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

When you have Brits and Americans portraying Germans, it's not historically accurate.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

When you have Brits and Americans portraying Germans, it's not historically accurate.

I just can't imagine why anybody would give a s--t about that.

What exactly did you like and dislike about this one? Is it too much "hollywood"? Are the actors convincing? Is it historically accurate?

Pros: a great story, and one which needed to be told to a (theoretically) wide audience; good acting.

Cons: the movie can't quite sidestep our knowledge that the plot is a failure, though it tries very, very hard.

Again, a good movie, just not the great movie I'd hoped it would be.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It just doesn't look like a good movie to me. At least we agree that Amy Adams was superb in Doubt. I hope she wins the Oscar.

[Red 75]

The Spirit: Terrible. I quit watching after about an hour and went and worked while the rest of the movie ran through. I expected it to be bad, but I was hoping it'd at least be entertainingly bad. Nope. It's just bad.

I think that's what happens when you give full reigns of a film to an artist/writer who has almost zero experience as a director.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Spirit: Terrible. I quit watching after about an hour and went and worked while the rest of the movie ran through. I expected it to be bad, but I was hoping it'd at least be entertainingly bad. Nope. It's just bad.

I think that's what happens when you give full reigns of a film to an artist/writer who has almost zero experience as a director.

Experience has nothing to do with it. Sin City was superb.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Which was directed by Robert Rodriguez, no matter how much visual influence Frank Miller might have had.

[Red 75]

The Spirit: Terrible. I quit watching after about an hour and went and worked while the rest of the movie ran through. I expected it to be bad, but I was hoping it'd at least be entertainingly bad. Nope. It's just bad.

I think that's what happens when you give full reigns of a film to an artist/writer who has almost zero experience as a director.

Experience has nothing to do with it. Sin City was superb.

And Sin City was directed (almost solely) by Robert Rodriguez.

Edit: What Marc said.

[Henry B 50]

Thank You for Smoking. Pleasant comedy that doesn't amount to a whole lot.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Which was directed by Robert Rodriguez, no matter how much visual influence Frank Miller might have had.

Co-directed by Rodriguez. The film is a literal adaptation of the graphic novels. The dialogue, the set up of the scenes, the style. Miller is responsible for all of that.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

But not for translating it to the screen. Rodriguez is the driving force behind that.

[Red 75]

Miller acted as a glorified consultant. The movie (although it is a very literal adaptation) is a Rodriguez movie, except for a single scene where Quentin Tarantino guest-directed.

[Hitch 57]

Batman: Gotham Knight - not bad. Animation was fine. Liked the last segment of the movie best. **/*****

[Koray Savas 2,251]

But not for translating it to the screen. Rodriguez is the driving force behind that.

Okay that was a bad example, but experience is irrelevant to the quality of a film. A better example: Andrew Dominik. Almost zero experience as a director, yet Jesse James was one of the best films of '07 (and one of my personal favorites).

[Jay 37,364]

Miller acted as a glorified consultant. The movie (although it is a very literal adaptation) is a Rodriguez movie, except for a single scene where Quentin Tarantino guest-directed.

Which scene was that?

[Red 75]

Miller acted as a glorified consultant. The movie (although it is a very literal adaptation) is a Rodriguez movie, except for a single scene where Quentin Tarantino guest-directed.

Which scene was that?

The scene with Clive Owen and Benicio Del Toro in the car after Del Toro's character has been killed, and they have a conversation.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Which is the one scene for me that felt out of place.

[Jay 37,364]

Prince Caspian

I missed it in the theaters this summer but finally saw it on DVD. What a strange companion piece to the first one. It was like all action and battle stuff wtih very little story. I don't remember if the book is the same way but it just seemed so different from the first one. And the filmmakers seemed to be trying really hard to ape Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings, especially The Two Towers

[Red 75]

I thought it was better than the first.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Speaking of Prince Caspian, as I predicted back in the summer when its box office tanked, Disney has pulled the plug on Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Boy, there's a franchise that died in a hurry.

Two more movies to round out the Crhsitmas week for me: Marley and Me and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Marley and Me is not the kind of movie that is going to get great reviews, nor is it going to be particularly well-respected by artsy people who think such things as movies about dogs are beneath them. But trust me when I tell you that, for people who have ever had any sort of a meaningful relationship with an animal, this movie is an instant classic. And this might be a spoiler, so allow me to say:

I wept like a f---ing baby. I mean, blurry vision, sore throat, go-to-the-bathroom-and-wash-your-face type weeping.

I can't and won't say objectively that it is the best movie I've seen this year, but it is definitely the most emotionally impactful movie I've seen this year.

Oddly, The Curious Case of Banjamin Button -- which I watched immediately afterward -- is covering much of the same thematic ground, albeit in an entirely different manner. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that I was rather disappointed by this movie. More likely it is due to the fact that the ending simply did not work for me. I rather loved the first two hours and forty five minutes or so; but the last, oh, let's say forty seconds...? Not so much. One of the hardest parts of telling a story is ending it, but it's probably THE most important element, in my opinion. And here, I think the ending lets the rest of the movie down pretty badly. I'm hoping subsequent viewings will change my mind. And there will definitely be subsequent viewings, because there is quite a lot here not to like, but to love.

For one thing, the makeup and the special effects are stunning. If Oscar does not recognize both of those elements of the film, then Oscar is devoid of any credibility. So, probably he won't.

Beyond that, the acting is mostly superb. Pitt is excellent, as (almost) always. Blanchett... Well, she proves again that she's about as good as actors get.

The movie is well worth seeing, but I cannot tell a lie: in terms of my expectations, my initial reaction is one of disappointment.

[A24 4,336]

Love In The Time Of Cholera: This film proves that movies based on good stories don't mean a thing.

Dan In Real Life: This movie redefines the word "corny". Can only be watched during Christmas periods.

The Wire Season 1: HBO did it again! A cop show with a natural, realistic feel. In fact, it's a cop show for people that don't like cop shows. Bravo! I already bought the next three seasons.

Alex

[A24 4,336]

Knocked Up: , even in HD.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

My favorite Apatow-vian production to date (though that may change after I see Pineapple Express tomorrow night).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

My favorite Apatow-vian production to date (though that may change after I see Pineapple Express tomorrow night).

Pineapple Express was disappointing. Have you seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall? That's my favorite to date.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Mine is THE 40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN. It's absolutely hilarious, yet with so much heart. I haven't seen a huge amount of his movies, though.