What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Datameister 2,034]

The spinning wheel sequence was well choreographed, I'll give you that much.

[John Crichton 4]

I don't care what anyone says, Dead Men's Chest is still my favorite of the three, even if it needed a bit more work in the editing suite. Black Pearl is very good too, but At World's End is just an overbloated, incomprehensible, illogical mess.

[Datameister 2,034]

What specifically did you prefer over the first one?

(By the way, I have to give props to ILM for Davy Jones. Easily the most convincing CG organism I've seen...and I'm probably including the Na'vi in that statement.)

[Morlock 11]

I've gone back and forth on the films, but I came to the opinion that they represent one of the more ambitious recent film series. Far from entirely successful, of course. Very far. But in this day and age, sequels that were not merely regurgitations of the original are rare enough, and the second and third films have some terrific things in them. In particular, Verbinski showed a real flare for choreography of action sequences. There is space, and continuity and narrative in his action scenes. The second and third film are decided changes of pace from the first one, which is held together purely by the charisma of the actors. They tried to do something there. It wasn't entirely successful, but along with the Potter trilogy, its the only one that took any bold steps along the way.

[MattyO 62]

I also like Dead Man's Chest the best of the three. I felt this one was the best showcase of Jack Sparrow's character and it also had the best action sequence of the trilogy (Wheel of Fortune). I think this is the problem with At World's End - the overbloated CGI maelstrom fight couldn't compete with the water wheel fight in DMC. Still, I quite enjoy all the films.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Potter trilogy?

[Morlock 11]

Should be series, yeah. Though the bold change of course started with the third film, of course.

And I am also of the opinion that Davey Jones is the greatest CGI character I've seen to date. One a side note, I think one thing that makes all three films interesting to me are the fact that the focal point changes. In the first, it is Johnny Depp. In the second, Bill Nighy. In the third, Geoffery Rush. Kind of like BTTF- Marty and Doc are fine in all three, but only in the third one are they the most interesting characters (Marty's parents dominate the first, biff the second).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I suppose you could call POA, GOF and OOTP the "Sirius Trilogy".

Seriously.

[Datameister 2,034]

I also like Dead Man's Chest the best of the three. I felt this one was the best showcase of Jack Sparrow's character...

Well, it certainly showcases a Jack Sparrow character...too bad it isn't the funny, intriguing, and mysterious Jack from TCOTBP. Instead, it's this...cowardly, unfunny, fundamentally selfish, bumbling, self-conscious impersonation of Jack Sparrow. But different strokes for different folks!

[A24 4,326]

In Cold Blood: Surprisingly good movie based on real events and the novel of Truman Capote. Is this one of the first movies that showed Hollywood was going into a new direction? Quincy Jones' jazz score blends well with the superb B&W cinematography. ***/****

Alex

[Morlock 11]

Never seen it, but I heard it was good. That's the movie with Conrad Hall's famous raindrops/tears shot, right?

[A24 4,326]

Never seen it, but I heard it was good. That's the movie with Conrad Hall's famous raindrops/tears shot, right?

Yes, incredible shot. I never heard of it before but it was like 'wow'. I think you might like this movie. The print looks like the film was shot yesterday.

[Datameister 2,034]

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. It'd been quite a while since I'd seen this, and I was hoping to like it more this time, but I'm afraid it still sits near the bottom of the list for me, as far as the films with the original cast go. It's not a horrible film, but there are too many annoyances and too few things to really like. Among my concerns:

* Having the Enterprise be largely empty makes the film feel largely empty. Even if they're just a bunch of expendable red shirts, an anonymous crew helps bring a starship to life. While I understand the lack of personnel was a necessity in terms of story, there's still no denying that the film feels quieter and lonelier feel. I could get all analytical and suggest it was an intentional effort to make us sympathize with Kirk's emptiness, but at the end of the day, it hurts my enjoyment of the film, and that's what really matters.

* Destroying the Enterprise is like killing off a major character. I still remember how shocked I was when I saw that for the first time. Still hits home. Maybe it's not a bad thing in and of itself, but in a film with relatively few redeeming values, it doesn't do anything to improve my mood.

* The Klingons are annoying. I have nothing against the idea of Klingons, but I just can't take Christopher Lloyd seriously. What's next, Marty McFly hoverboarding through the decks of Starfleet? And they all speak Klingon with such a stilted and unrealistic delivery. I don't care what planet you're from - no language will put that much space between the words. There's simply no point to it.

* The score, which I was REALLY hoping to appreciate more, still strikes me as a serviceable but uninspired TWOK knockoff. The Klingon theme is pretty cool - even though we're still hearing it in Horner scores to this day - but most of it really just doesn't captivate me. I'm constantly hearing either excellent material rehashed from TWOK or mediocre material written for the film.

* I don't like Robin Curtis as Saavik. Christie Allie was much better.

The film's not all bad, though. There's a lot of stylistic unity with TWOK, which can only be a good thing, and at least there's still a lot of focus on the character interactions, which is VERY important to me in anything Star Trek. And heck...at least they got Spock back! The film is worth for that alone!

[Henry B 50]

I thought it was a very good film. Christopher Lloyd was definitely campy, but after a while I got it. I mean, you do have to take him a bit seriously after he

has David killed.

The score was a little rehashed, I guess, but there was some great original material. It was refreshing to me how little music there was, especially during the climax of the film. (I wonder if that's how it was spotted or if there's a mountain of unused music waiting to be heard... We'll find out soon!) Great characters, too. Shatner again does quite well as Kirk, and DeForest Kelley has some great moments in his suffering from the mind meld.

I guess my main criticism is that from the very beginning, the sole destination of the plot was to bring back Spock. Contrived, wasn't it? For what it was, it was done excellently. And it was a bit weird to kill off Spock in the first place, so... I don't know. It's just really hard for one filmmaking crew to bring closure to such a character. Watch all of the original series, then see Spock die for the sake of symbolism. See Kirk die for the sake of ... absolutely nothing. It's anti-climactic.

[Datameister 2,034]

I was thinking about the conspicuous lack of music in the climax, too...it seems to me that there MUST have been material written for at least part of it, even if they were considering omitting it from the beginning.

I do agree about the actors. With the exception of a few less important ones, most of the cast does a pretty fine job.

And yeah, the film really does exist purely to bring back Spock, which turns out to be pretty easy. So they introduced unrelated difficulties that exist purely to impede the characters' progress and make the film more interesting - the Klingons and the failure of the Genesis project really serve no purpose except to turn a short, boring film into a longer, interestingish one. I guess you could say that about a lot of films, but the conflict here really feels like it was just thrown in there.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The Klingon part is total TOS, which is to say a cold war allegory. It makes perfect sense to me. The Federation makes something which is incredibly powerful yet can be incredibly destructive (which also echoes McCoy's concerns in TWOK), so it seems absolutely natural to me that the Klingons would see this as a threat and want to get a hold of it.

I love the tone of the film. I think the emptiness of the Enterprise certainly parallels Kirk (especially with his log at the beginning), and the sacrifice that Kirk finally makes to save his crew is a perfect summation of his character, and is a continuation of his ingenuity in escaping the no-win scenario.

My only real complaint about the film is the pacing.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. It'd been quite a while since I'd seen this, and I was hoping to like it more this time, but I'm afraid it still sits near the bottom of the list for me, as far as the films with the original cast go. It's not a horrible film, but there are too many annoyances and too few things to really like. Among my concerns:

* Having the Enterprise be largely empty makes the film feel largely empty. Even if they're just a bunch of expendable red shirts, an anonymous crew helps bring a starship to life. While I understand the lack of personnel was a necessity in terms of story, there's still no denying that the film feels quieter and lonelier feel. I could get all analytical and suggest it was an intentional effort to make us sympathize with Kirk's emptiness, but at the end of the day, it hurts my enjoyment of the film, and that's what really matters.

* Destroying the Enterprise is like killing off a major character. I still remember how shocked I was when I saw that for the first time. Still hits home. Maybe it's not a bad thing in and of itself, but in a film with relatively few redeeming values, it doesn't do anything to improve my mood.

* The Klingons are annoying. I have nothing against the idea of Klingons, but I just can't take Christopher Lloyd seriously. What's next, Marty McFly hoverboarding through the decks of Starfleet? And they all speak Klingon with such a stilted and unrealistic delivery. I don't care what planet you're from - no language will put that much space between the words. There's simply no point to it.

* The score, which I was REALLY hoping to appreciate more, still strikes me as a serviceable but uninspired TWOK knockoff. The Klingon theme is pretty cool - even though we're still hearing it in Horner scores to this day - but most of it really just doesn't captivate me. I'm constantly hearing either excellent material rehashed from TWOK or mediocre material written for the film.

* I don't like Robin Curtis as Saavik. Christie Allie was much better.

The film's not all bad, though. There's a lot of stylistic unity with TWOK, which can only be a good thing, and at least there's still a lot of focus on the character interactions, which is VERY important to me in anything Star Trek. And heck...at least they got Spock back! The film is worth for that alone!

These are nitpicks. I think the film had guts.

[Andy 4,071]

Same here. You gotta give the movie credit for pretty much establishing the foundation for Klingons in TNG and all other future Trek. Yes, they were in TMP, but these Klingons had the whole warriors with big balls thing going. The performances of the actors, especially Shatner, are top of their game.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

Has anyone noticed the predominately "blue" colour scheme for "S.T.III", as opposed to the predominately "red" colour scheme for "S.T.II"?

Personally, I prefer this film to is immediate predecessor. It is not as bombastic as "S.T.II", and, as such, allows for more character development. I do not have a problem with the pacing, either. After the "in yer face"ness of "S.T.II", "S.T.III", for me, provides respite. It is a far more reflective film, as it has at its core, the effect that the death of Spock has on individual characters. It is an eligaic film, that, I think, can stand proud next to "S.T.II". The SFX speak for themselves...

[Wojo 2,453]

* Having the Enterprise be largely empty makes the film feel largely empty. Even if they're just a bunch of expendable red shirts, an anonymous crew helps bring a starship to life. While I understand the lack of personnel was a necessity in terms of story, there's still no denying that the film feels quieter and lonelier feel. I could get all analytical and suggest it was an intentional effort to make us sympathize with Kirk's emptiness, but at the end of the day, it hurts my enjoyment of the film, and that's what really matters.

* Destroying the Enterprise is like killing off a major character. I still remember how shocked I was when I saw that for the first time. Still hits home. Maybe it's not a bad thing in and of itself, but in a film with relatively few redeeming values, it doesn't do anything to improve my mood.

I disagree. It demonstrates Kirk's tactical mind. The Enterprise had to be mostly empty in Star Trek III. Kirk tried to explain Spock's circumstances to Starfleet but they wouldn't listen. So when legitimacy let him down, he had to improvise: go rogue, steal the ship, and save his friends. He was placing the lives of Spock and Bones above his own, and his career be damned.

Kirk was no stranger to death. People died in TWOK: Spock, Scotty's nephew, Terrell, and countless unseen crew members of both Enterprise and Reliant. Nothing will make experiencing those deaths any easier, but they died in battle against a maniacal, external foe in possession of a superweapon who had to be stopped at all costs. Kirk's new mission was a selfless one, and Starfleet was its first adversary. To bring a full crew complement aboard just to put warm bodies on the ship would make his mission selfish. Kirk risked court martial or worse by stealing Enterprise to take Bones to a restricted planet. A full crew presented a greater risk of mutiny, and he was reluctant to take more than his normal bridge crew because it could be a one-way trip. This demonstrates the NCC-1701 bridge crew's loyalty to their captain, to Spock, and to each other.

Kirk could not know the Klingons would already be at Genesis, waiting to ambush him. He also could not predict that proto-matter in the Genesis matrix would make the planet rip itself apart. The Klingon task force would have been less likely to stage a takeover of a fully manned Enterprise, or they would have subdued the attacking Klingon force. This would make the self-destruction of the ship unnecessary, removing the need to even hijack the bird of prey or beam dozens of crew members to the burning planet.

I will admit that the circumstances in the script really restrict the plot, but the movie permits Kirk and company to truly go where no Star Trek story has gone before. If Starfleet had agreed to Kirk's request to take Bones to Genesis, the movie would have been completely different. It demonstrates that Kirk is willing to defy Starfleet for his friends, and loyalty and friendship to them exceed that to his starship, just a vehicle. They can always make more (and by this point, the filmmakers probably wanted to show a new starship). It demonstrates that a starship can be flown by skeleton crew (maybe even remote control for all we know), as opposed to the full crew we always see. And it permitted the storytellers to acquire an enemy ship with a cloaking device, which proved extremely useful for the next story.

* I don't like Robin Curtis as Saavik. [Kirstie Alley] was much better.

That goes without saying. But Kirstie Alley, half-Romulan and all, wasn't worth the money she wanted.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah, I think most of the complaints about the film are its strengths.

And I really don't think Horner's score is a rehash of TWOK, yes he uses the major themes from the first film, which isn't a problem. There are some wonderful unreleased cues; the sunset over Genesis, destruction of Genesis, the destruction of the Enterprise and even some of the minor Klingon & Genesis cues.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE. Hysterical, loved every minute. Gould is amazing. Great theme by Johnny, too.

[Datameister 2,034]

All that you're saying about TSFS sounds great in theory...but in practice, I still get bored and annoyed watching the movie! Richard, I definitely disagree with your claim that TWOK doesn't allow as much room for character development - while it is more action-based, the chemistry between the characters is never forced to take a back seat. Spock and Kirk's friendship is at its heart, and there are several themes that run through the entire film because of that.

Wojo, it is indeed important that the film shows Kirk's willingness to ignore the rules when it comes to saving his friends. It's nice seeing the crew pull together for a good cause at great personal risk. I just don't care for anything else in the film. And as I said, I know the empty Enterprise was a necessity, but it still makes the film feel even more dreary to me.

Mark, I agree that it's not a problem to reuse themes from past films - I actually really like that, perhaps more than some here. But it becomes problematic when they're just rerecordings of identical or very similar arrangements, as many of the statements in this film are.

[Wojo 2,453]

Well, it's Horner. People criticize him for re-using Braveheart in Titanic or Bicentennial Man, or whatever else. But here's a Horner sequel to an original Horner! Hello!!

Kirk destroys the Enterprise to kill most of the bad Klingons. Picard leaves the ship and lets Will give the keys to a woman, who promptly crashes the ship, then goes back in time to watch her do it again.

Advantage, Kirk.

[Datameister 2,034]

I'm not saying it's a surprise...I'm just saying that I'd prefer to hear more new music, even if that new music is firmly grounded in the themes and tonalities of TWOK.

[John Crichton 4]

III's score is firmly based in the groundwork that II laid down, but it takes it from a whole new perspective and makes it it's own. The best idea the entire score is taking the B part of the main theme, the Enterprise theme according to the FSM liner notes, and making it the main theme in the new movie. It's much more cerebral and reflective, which fits the tone of the new movie perfectly. Just listen to the cue where the Enterprise arrives at drydock. Yes, it's grounded in the II sound, but you could never, ever call it derivative. It's taking the same basic ideas and tackling them from a new direction, and it's brilliant. For any composer III would be a great sequel score, from Horner it's a downright astonishing accomplishment. There was something funny in his water or his Wheaties or something when he wrote his Trek scores.

As for the movie, I agree with pretty much all the above supporting it. It's very brave and highly underrated. The Saavik/David scenes are the only blemish, but it's a huge blemish as they really drag the film down. Getting Kirstie Alley back would have helped immensely.

[Datameister 2,034]

Yes, it's grounded in the II sound, but you could never, ever call it derivative.

It's derivative.

I somewhat agree that using the B theme as sort of a main theme for the film was an appropriate choice for the film. Certainly more appropriate than using the A theme, which would only be appropriate for a more engaging and enthusiastic film like TWOK. But the problem with the B theme is that it's a little too hopeful. The film itself is just...dreary, and probably should have gotten a whole new main theme. I find the new variations on Spock's theme to be more appropriate. That flat sixth after the first two notes conveys more of the emptiness that the film does.

It's not that it's a terrible score. But I'm listening to TWOK right now, and the sheer brilliance of it is astounding. As you said, there must have been something in his water. I can't find anything new on this level in the third film's score. Yes, there are highlights - the return to spacedock is good. So are the other cues mentioned above. But I could never put this score on the level of TWOK.

Also, as far as the film itself goes, I find the visual effects to be a real mixed bag. Many of the shots of the ships are pretty good, though they're plagued by annoying matte lines. Kruge's death gives off a very cheap 80s VFX vibe, too.

Oh, and some of the writing is rather bad. Mixed bag there, too.

EDIT: And the ending is soooooo lame.

[John Crichton 4]

Yes, it's grounded in the II sound, but you could never, ever call it derivative.

It's derivative.

[Datameister 2,034]

[John Crichton 4]

I had to.

[Datameister 2,034]

Better than a THERE IS NO COMPARISON!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Kirk destroys the Enterprise to kill most of the bad Klingons. Picard leaves the ship and lets Will give the keys to a woman, who promptly crashes the ship, then goes back in time to watch her do it again.

You have the bridge... Mr. Troi.

[A24 4,326]

Better than a THERE IS NO COMPARISON!

It does slightly approve of Supes Returns though.

[MattyO 62]

Schindler's List - I watch it every year on Anzac Day, which is Australia's veteran's day. I used to watch Saving Private Ryan every year, but Schindler's List has much more resonance and reminds me of the unfought battle during WWII. Such a powerful, powerful film.

[A24 4,326]

Avatar: Anyone agrees that Sigourney Weaver deserved a Razzie Award for her role? **/****

[Datameister 2,034]

I wouldn't say she was that bad, but I certainly wasn't impressed.

[Morlock 11]

Schindler's List - I watch it every year on Anzac Day, which is Australia's veteran's day. I used to watch Saving Private Ryan every year, but Schindler's List has much more resonance and reminds me of the unfought battle during WWII. Such a powerful, powerful film.

Why not watch Gallipoli? It's a terrific movie.

Morlock- going to see Iron Man 2 tonight

[A24 4,326]

Morlock- going to see Iron Man 2 tonight

Me kid desperately wants to see it so I might go too one of these days.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'll be screening it on Wednesday.

[A24 4,326]

Why not watch Gallipoli? It's a terrific movie.

How fast can you run?

Mel: Like a leopard!

HOW FAST WILL YOU RUN?

Mel: Like a leopard!

It's been ages ago but I still remember that.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I remember having to watch that in history class and everyone was like "But there's no ending!"

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE. Hysterical, loved every minute. Gould is amazing. Great theme by Johnny, too.

"It's o.k. with me".

[Morlock 11]

Great film, one of Altman's very best.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

Great film, one of Altman's very best.

...along with "M*A*S*H", "Nashville", and "Short Cuts".

Has anyone ever seen "Quintet"?

[Morlock 11]

For me, it's Nashville, M*A*S*H, California Split and Gosford Park. Quintet is one of the ones I haven't seen yet.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

For me, it's Nashville, M*A*S*H, California Split and Gosford Park. Quintet is one of the ones I haven't seen yet.

This is most peculiar. Apart from the usual Wiki stuff, and the fact that J.W. mentioning 32 years ago that he might have scored this film, "Quintet", as far as I know, has never has a DVD, or even a video release, and I have never seen it advertised as showing on television (even "Cinderella Liberety" gets taken down, dusted off, and shown on T.V. from time to time).

Aren't we forgeting "McCabe, And Mrs. Miller"? How could we all forget Julie Christie?

[Morlock 11]

I'm pretty sure some sort of DVD of it is available at my DVD place...might be some obscure import, though.

[A24 4,326]

For me, it's Nashville, M*A*S*H, California Split and Gosford Park. Quintet is one of the ones I haven't seen yet.

But you said The Long Goodbye is one of his best!

Alex - further unmasking the Morlock

[Morlock 11]

Richard was mentioning films that are his favorites along with The Long Goodbye. I was doing the same...though I did forget to mention McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

[A24 4,326]

. ..though I did forget to mention McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

That one contains one of the best shots ever. We all know which one I'm talking about, right?

My choice would be the dreamy 3 Women.

Alex