What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Neimoidian 14]

I rewatched latest Star Trek. Like for the first time, it was quite entertaining, but nothing special overall. The strongest element was the cast - there is a solid chemistry between (most of ) the actors and their respecitve characters, except perhaps Eric Bana, whose Nero is one-dimentional, clished and not menacing at all. Chris Pine is my this year's surprise. Judging by the trailers I had found him wrong for the role and had expected him to suck, but happened to show himself as a good leading actor (for this kind of flick) with proper vis comica. The story was rather bland IMO, but it has never been the strongest side of the Star Trek movies (at least of those I've seen). The score was effective, but I consider it my biggest disappointment. Most of it is typical contemporary underscore, much below the standard Giacchino set himself with his MoH and Pixar scores (I even prefer Speed Racer).

[A24 4,331]

The strongest element was the cast - there is a solid chemistry between (most of ) the actors and their respecitve characters, except perhaps Eric Bana, whose Nero is one-dimentional, clished and not menacing at all.

I did not even recognize him. When the film was over, I wanted to know who the actor was that played the villain because I thought he did an impressive job, despite the one-dimensional writing. I was surprised to learn it was Eric Bana.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Bana was fine in a role that did not give him much to work with.

That means Ricardo Montalban is still the villian to beat!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The cast was the best thing about the new Star Trek movie,

the music and the story were the worst elements.

The music is tolerable, but sadly among the worst Star Trek scores ever.

The story is FUCKING HORRIBLE, ITS TERRIBLE, ITS SO BAD AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY.

The movie is watchable because of the great cast, and their enthusiastic performances. As long as you don't think about the trainwreck of a story its okay.

Bana's character Nero goes from one scene with his ear intact to another with it cropped back to another with it intact again. Oh continuity were for art thou.

[Wojo 2,453]

Joey, tell us how you really feel.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

A Serious Man

The Coen brothers have done it again. If you like them at all, you'll most likely like this one as well. The ending caught me off guard, but it worked really well. One of the few, if any, films this year that really made me think. I still don't fully understand it all. Great performances from the unknown cast (I recognized a lot of faces but don't know any names). Burwell provides the usual type of music, and Deakins continues to prove that he's the best cinematographer working in Hollywood. He was missed, at least to me, with Burn After Reading.

There's another Coen brothers film already?

Yeah, you didn't know? It's been out for about 3 weeks.

[A24 4,331]

Yeah, you didn't know? It's been out for about 3 weeks.

No, but I just went to Rotten Tomatoes to check it out and it looks pretty promising! Some call it their most personal film yet!

Alex

[MSM 126]

Deep Impact.

Shameless ID4 rip-off. Half as good. The only good thing was the 1 minute CGI of the flooding. And McCormack was good too.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Yeah, you didn't know? It's been out for about 3 weeks.

No, but I just went to Rotten Tomatoes to check it out and it looks pretty promising! Some call it their most personal film yet!

Alex

I resent that they are making a movie every year now. It's worked for them so far (one can hardly call No Country For Old Men a regular installment in their career) but I'm afraid they'll fall into the Woody Allen curve.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Deep Impact.

Shameless ID4 rip-off. Half as good. The only good thing was the 1 minute CGI of the flooding. And McCormack was good too.

what the hell are you talking about? How in any universe does Deep Impact rip off ID4, sorry but that's got to be the idiot comment of the day for sure.

[John Crichton 4]

Deep Impact is a much improved Armageddon, it's always been one of the few disaster movies I enjoy. Though it suffers from Generic Horner Score syndrome. Number 7B, I think.

[Wojo 2,453]

The music is tolerable, but sadly among the worst Star Trek scores ever.

How is it "sadly" among the worst? There have only been 11 Star Trek scores. Five of them were written by Goldsmith, and I don't put much of anything by Goldsmith in any "worst of" category. For the two Horners, I feel the same. That moves Michael G's to no better than 8th, and I like the Eidelmann better than this, so we continue to drop.

Once you get the eight scores that are by JG, JH, or Eidelmann out of the way, you've got to rank the Rosenman, Michael G, and the TV guy who wrote Generations, and I'm comfortable putting the Michael G atop that list of three. Not even a sniffle came to my nose.

[Neimoidian 14]

The music is tolerable, but sadly among the worst Star Trek scores ever.

How is it "sadly" among the worst? There have only been 11 Star Trek scores. Five of them were written by Goldsmith, and I don't put much of anything by Goldsmith in any "worst of" category. For the two Horners, I feel the same. That moves Michael G's to no better than 8th, and I like the Eidelmann better than this, so we continue to drop.

Once you get the eight scores that are by JG, JH, or Eidelmann out of the way, you've got to rank the Rosenman, Michael G, and the TV guy who wrote Generations, and I'm comfortable putting the Michael G atop that list of three. Not even a sniffle came to my nose.

"Among worst ST scores" it's a very vague category. It can mean 2, 3 or 10 scores. However, I agree that this score is nothing particularly special. It falls short compared with most of other ST scores, other notable s-f scores and Giacchino's previous output.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The music is tolerable, but sadly among the worst Star Trek scores ever.

How is it "sadly" among the worst? There have only been 11 Star Trek scores. Five of them were written by Goldsmith, and I don't put much of anything by Goldsmith in any "worst of" category. For the two Horners, I feel the same. That moves Michael G's to no better than 8th, and I like the Eidelmann better than this, so we continue to drop.

Once you get the eight scores that are by JG, JH, or Eidelmann out of the way, you've got to rank the Rosenman, Michael G, and the TV guy who wrote Generations, and I'm comfortable putting the Michael G atop that list of three. Not even a sniffle came to my nose.

you must have tin ear if you think this giacchino score is better than Eidelmann or Rosenmans score, the latter being an Oscar worthy score indeed. Mikies score is not.

I should say its really sad this board doesn't appreciate Rosenman's score but its really not considering the makeup.

Deep Impact is a much improved Armageddon, it's always been one of the few disaster movies I enjoy. Though it suffers from Generic Horner Score syndrome. Number 7B, I think.

I take it back, JC your comment is the idiot comment of the day, Deep Impact came before Armageddon.

[John Crichton 4]

If getting the order of release mixed up of two movies that came out about less than 2 months apart over 10 years ago is the idiot comment of the day then saying that Star Trek IV's score is Oscar worthy is at least the idiot quote of the month.

Giacchino's Trek is in the bottom half of Trek scores, but it's still damn good. Joe's anti-Giacchino complex keeps him from enjoying it no matter what.

[Wojo 2,453]

The music is tolerable, but sadly among the worst Star Trek scores ever.

How is it "sadly" among the worst? There have only been 11 Star Trek scores. Five of them were written by Goldsmith, and I don't put much of anything by Goldsmith in any "worst of" category. For the two Horners, I feel the same. That moves Michael G's to no better than 8th, and I like the Eidelmann better than this, so we continue to drop.

Once you get the eight scores that are by JG, JH, or Eidelmann out of the way, you've got to rank the Rosenman, Michael G, and the TV guy who wrote Generations, and I'm comfortable putting the Michael G atop that list of three. Not even a sniffle came to my nose.

you must have tin ear if you think this giacchino score is better than Eidelmann or Rosenmans score, the latter being an Oscar worthy score indeed. Mikies score is not.

I should say its really sad this board doesn't appreciate Rosenman's score but its really not considering the makeup.

Deep Impact is a much improved Armageddon, it's always been one of the few disaster movies I enjoy. Though it suffers from Generic Horner Score syndrome. Number 7B, I think.

I take it back, JC your comment is the idiot comment of the day, Deep Impact came before Armageddon.

I can live with my tin ear because my ability to both read and count will serve me better in the long run. I did write that I prefer the Eidelmann over the Michael G, which belongs squarely in the bottom three of the Star Trek film scores. The Generations score is crap. ST IV won was nominated for the Oscar in 1986, a year which saw no other Star Trek score, so I don't find that Oscar nomination to be all that impressive. IV has a nifty main title, but very little else.

You find it sad that the board doesn't respect a crap Star Trek score. I find it sad that I don't care what you think. I try and try and try...nothing.

I did not like Deep Impact one bit. I'd take Armageddon any day. What these have in common with Independence Day, I'm not really sure.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

STAR TREK IV never won an Oscar, just a nomination. But I agree with John, the idea that it would deserve one belongs with the idea that best picture for 2002 should have gone to ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

[Wojo 2,453]

Ok, my bad, I misremembered. I had read that it was nominated so many years ago, that over time I thought it had actually won. It was up against some pretty good competition that year, too.

I never knew Star Trek: The Motion Picture was also nominated for best score Oscar. I really don't care what scores win Oscars. I just listen to the scores that I like.

[Delorean90 42]

I enjoy Rosenman's Star Trek IV score a lot on its own merit, but aside from maybe the finale of that score, I prefer Giacchino's effort as a Star Trek score--and it is a heck of a lot of fun. When I bought it, I was pretty much playing it constantly for a couple weeks. I'm looking forward to the release of the DVD so I can start to work on my own personal assembly.

[Morlock 11]

Saw four new movies in the past few days (though 3 of them were on DVD).

The Damned United: Another Peter Morgan/Michael Sheen collaboration, this one about soccer manager Brian Clough. Not being a huge soccer man and knowing very little about the ins and outs of the English league, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. A lot of it is Sheen...I am not a fan of his David Frost (which is not convincing), but he's marvelous as Clough. Predictaly great support from Colm Meanie, Tim Spall and Jim Broadbent. It was directed by Tom Hooper, of the John Adams miniseries.

Franklyn: First time director Gerald McMorrow makes a low-ish budget two-tiered film, with the real world and a fantasy world. At the end, I was sumewhat confused by what the director wanted me to take away. I was never totally with the film, but I was never totally out of it, either. I guess that's something. Score is a mix, with a thinly orchestrated, utterly bland main theme, contrasted with some interesting scoring of the action stuff.

Bronson: Nicolas Winding Refn directs this film about Britain's most famous inmate. It might be worth watching for Tom Hardy's performance alone. Yes, he's transformed himself from his slightely bland looking general appearance...but there's no sense of it being just physical. Hardy grabs this role by the throat, and is magnificent and terrifying in it. It's a strange movie about a strange character. But it's not timid.

Bad Lieutenant- Port of Call: New Orleans: Not quite the balls-out insanity I hoped it would be, but it does get pretty out there at moments. Thematically, I'm not quite sure what it's doing. But this is one of the good Nick Cage performances, probably up there with his best. I haven't a clue what Herzog was thinking with this one. Must see it again. Decent score by Marc Isham, lots of solo trumpet (shocking, I know).

Also saw one slightely older film- Il Divo, from last year, about Giulio Andreotti, 7 time Italian prime-minister. Scary and funny. The film's got verve, inventiveness, and plenty of energy, as well as some of the most interesting uses of captions that I've seen. Looks phenominal, as well. Pacing is problematic- at times, it felt four hours long. It's been a strange couple of days- because like the previous three films I've mentioned, I'm not really sure what to do with this film as a whole. I don't know, maybe I'm being inattentive.

[MSM 126]

Deep Impact.

Shameless ID4 rip-off. Half as good. The only good thing was the 1 minute CGI of the flooding. And McCormack was good too.

what the hell are you talking about? How in any universe does Deep Impact rip off ID4, sorry but that's got to be the idiot comment of the day for sure.

It tries to thrive on the success of ID4, since the storylines are similar, the intention is similar. To me it felt it wanted to be ID4 thoughout the movie.

The editing is awful as is the script. Really embarrassingly bad at times, even the nice cast cannot save it. Every second of it feels fake.

A much better movie in the same category would be The Core.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Deep Impact.

Shameless ID4 rip-off. Half as good. The only good thing was the 1 minute CGI of the flooding. And McCormack was good too.

what the hell are you talking about? How in any universe does Deep Impact rip off ID4, sorry but that's got to be the idiot comment of the day for sure.

It tries to thrive on the success of ID4, since the storylines are similar, the intention is similar. To me it felt it wanted to be ID4 thoughout the movie.

The editing is awful as is the script. Really embarrassingly bad at times, even the nice cast cannot save it. Every second of it feels fake.

A much better movie in the same category would be The Core.

there is nothing similar about the movies, one is about an invasion, the other is a realistic attempt at saving the planet for a comet.

The core is not a better movie, not in any consideration.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree. ID4 is far superiour.

[John Crichton 4]

The Core is like The Day After Tomorrow, it's great comedy.

ID4 is one of the best of the genre, not a great movie but certainly enjoyable. And what a score.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a great "genre" movie.

Of course I know Alex will be shaking his head.

[A24 4,331]

It's a great "genre" movie.

Of course I know Alex will be shaking his head.

What genre is that?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's a great "genre" movie.

Of course I know Alex will be shaking his head.

What genre is that?

Empty entertainment.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a great "genre" movie.

Of course I know Alex will be shaking his head.

What genre is that?

Action Apocolypse

[JoeinAR 1,949]

law abiding citizen.

completely wrong on so many levels and yet very enjoyable.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah, you didn't know? It's been out for about 3 weeks.

No, but I just went to Rotten Tomatoes to check it out and it looks pretty promising! Some call it their most personal film yet!

Alex

I resent that they are making a movie every year now. It's worked for them so far (one can hardly call No Country For Old Men a regular installment in their career) but I'm afraid they'll fall into the Woody Allen curve.

I have yet to see Vicky Christina Barcelona and Whatever Works, but the latter looks promising. Cassandra's Dream wasn't very good, and Scoop was meh. Match Point was very good though. So yes, Woody Allen is declining in quality, but he is continuously making one film every year.

The Coen Brothers, on the other hand, are not. There were 3 years between The Ladykillers and No Country For Old Men. Then they quickly followed the latter with Burn After Reading, and then this year they have A Serious Man. Maybe Burn After Reading was too soon, like you seem to be saying; although I did like it very much. Point is A Serious Man is a very good movie, and they don't have anything lined up for at least 2 years.

[crocodile 8,006]

District 9: It starts very well. However, halfway through turns into Transformers-like action film and looses all its steam. Pity.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Re-Animator

What an awful film, and what's with the Psycho theme being used as this film's main theme?

[Maglorfin 196]

Deep Impact is a much improved Armageddon, it's always been one of the few disaster movies I enjoy.

I agree, I think Mimi Leder, Schell, Leoni, Freeman and Redgrave did a great job.

Yesterday, I saw Eye of the Beholder for the first time (although it's already 10 years old). I loved McGregor's performance.

[Hitch 57]

I was really looking forward to ZOMBIELAND. What a letdown!! Except for a great cameo performance by one of America's greatest comedians, the whole movie was so short (82 minutes), I was just getting comfortable when the credits started to roll. I thought the projectionist missed a reel or two. Damn you, Columbia Studios!!! Oh and what a way to plug other Columbia movies in it as well. Shameful.

Do I get a distinctive smell in the air surrounding a potential Oscar nomination for veteran old-timer Hal Holbrook in "That Evening Sun"?

[John Crichton 4]

District 9: It starts very well. However, halfway through turns into Transformers-like action film and looses all its steam. Pity.

Karol

The second half is still better than anything in Transformers.

[Hitch 57]

I concur.

[Morlock 11]

As do I. Much, much better.

[Henry B 50]

Shaun of the Dead. Really good. Except for a slight lull in the pacing of the middle portion, I don't have any criticisms.

Alien, theatrical edition. Really good. Yeah... wow. I'm glad I finally saw this. Only, why did Ridley Scott mess with the music so much? Maybe my opinion is colored because I was already familiar with the complete score, but every change seemed so arbitrary.

[Wojo 2,453]

law abiding citizen.

completely wrong on so many levels and yet very enjoyable.

Good enough for me. I wanna see that one.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Re-Animator

What an awful film, and what's with the Psycho theme being used as this film's main theme?

awful, its great, a terrific schlocky film.

you dismiss it too easily.

[crocodile 8,006]

District 9: It starts very well. However, halfway through turns into Transformers-like action film and looses all its steam. Pity.

Karol

The second half is still better than anything in Transformers.

Frankly, pretty much everything is. And yes, AOTC included.

Karol

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

Over the w/e, I watched "Superman:II-The Richard Donner Cut".

O.k., I'll start with what's wrong with it. My main beef is with the running time. Once the prologue, and main and end titles are removed, the film's length is barely 100 minutes. This is not long enough to tell a good story. That being said, the film did not need to tell much back story, being that most people would have seen Supie I, anyway (a bit like "Quantum Of Solace").

RD removed as much of RL's footage as possible, and that is understandable, but I feel that at least some of the excised footage should have been left in. All that stuff with Lois and the gun in the hotel is exactly what is is-audition footage, and was wisely re-shot by RL. Personally, I really do miss Anthony Sher's seedy bell boy saying "Have a happy...whatever". Too much East Houston footage was also taken out, but RD was very wise to remove all the "comedy" footage of Non. This turns him into a completely different character, one with gravitas, and real pressence. Well done RD!

What I liked about the film was the re-insertion of the Marlon Brando footege. This elevates the film from being a fair-to-middling sequel, to a truely great film in its own right. The MB stuff really adds an emotional dimension to the film that Susanah York (fine actress that she is) could not hope to emulate.

It is this element of the film that makes me think that it is batter than S:II-RLC. The new 5.1 mix is fine, but not absolutely necessary (as was the 5.1 mix for Supie I. I really miss the original mix!).

Can anyone answer me this question-if RD shot all Hackman's footage, why did he remove Luthor's joke about the Kryptonians not being able to use a door knob, as he mutters to himself in The Daily Planet building?

All'n'all, a fine sequel, and a damn good film in its own right. Now, what's going on with the sequel to "Superman Returns"?

[Wojo 2,453]

Are they making a sequel to Superman Returns? Or are they rebooting the franchise entirely, to purge the feeling of trying to stay in the Richard Donner-mode to fit in with Supes I and II? That would mean another origin movie.

[A24 4,331]

Are they making a sequel to Superman Returns? Or are they rebooting the franchise entirely, to purge the feeling of trying to stay in the Richard Donner-mode to fit in with Supes I and II?

No, no, Wojo, the plan is to reboot it entirely. Supes Return was a so-called homage to the original Donner film but that approach didn't pay off. The ol' supes ain't cool enough for today's youth.

[Wojo 2,453]

Right. I wrote that second question two quickly and without thinking so its logic was bent backwards. I knew that SR was in line with Supes I and II, i.e. Donner homage, Williams music, CGI Marlon Brando, Lois' and Superman's one-night-stand having ramifications, etc. I don't think that SR flopped because of those Donner-esque elements, it had other reasons, but the only way for the studio to start completely over is to re-invent Superman in their own image. It worked for Batman, so they're optimistic.

[A24 4,331]

Right. I wrote that second question two quickly and without thinking so its logic was bent backwards. I knew that SR was in line with Supes I and II, i.e. Donner homage, Williams music, CGI Marlon Brando, Lois' and Superman's one-night-stand having ramifications, etc. I don't think that SR flopped because of those Donner-esque elements, it had other reasons, but the only way for the studio to start completely over is to re-invent Superman in their own image. It worked for Batman, so they're optimistic.

The film simply wasn't any good, let's keep it to that.

Alex

[John Crichton 4]

It's too bad the film flopped, continuing the continuity of the Donner movies was a nice idea. I still enjoy it, other than the score, but I can see why others don't.

John- who also really likes the Donner Cut for Supes II

[Wojo 2,453]

The film simply wasn't any good, let's keep it to that.

What, like "worse than Superman III and IV" or "not as good as Superman I which means it's crap" ?

[A24 4,331]

The film simply wasn't any good, let's keep it to that.

What, like "worse than Superman III and IV" or "not as good as Superman I which means it's crap" ?

Crap is crap.

[Wojo 2,453]

The film simply wasn't any good, let's keep it to that.

What, like "worse than Superman III and IV" or "not as good as Superman I which means it's crap" ?

Crap is crap.

Why the hell do you have to requote the entire previous message?

Besides, even if little old you think it's crap, little old me says it's inspired crap. There are far worse films out there bearing the DC license.