What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Datameister 2,042]

I won't try to dissuade you from your opinions on whether CGI is legitimate or not. I simply wanted to point out that there's a good reason it costs so much.

[A24 4,333]

But I prefer when director DOES something creatively with the source material. And this is not the case here. Not from the story perspective anyway.

I'm not familiar with the comic book but I know Alan Moore would agree with you*. On the other hand, I can already hear the Watchmen fans complaining if Snyder deviated from their sacred comic book.

*: Alan Moore (Watchmen, V For Vendetta, etc.) talking about the film adaptation of 'From Hell': "What I'm hoping for is a situation like, say, the one with Philip K. Dick's short story, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? It was a very, very good short story, and the film Blade Runner was a very good film which didn't necessarily have a great deal of connection with Dick's story. But both were successful entities in their own right."

Alex

[Charlie Brigden 7]

But I prefer when director DOES something creatively with the source material. And this is not the case here. Not from the story perspective anyway.

I'm not familiar with the comic book but I know Alan Moore would agree with you*. On the other hand, I can already hear the Watchmen fans complaining if Snyder deviated from their sacred comic book.

*: Alan Moore (Watchmen, V For Vendetta, etc.) talking about the film adaptation of 'From Hell': "What I'm hoping for is a situation like, say, the one with Philip K. Dick's short story, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? It was a very, very good short story, and the film Blade Runner was a very good film which didn't necessarily have a great deal of connection with Dick's story. But both were successful entities in their own right."

Alex

Snyder did deviate from the comic book. Funny thing about Alan Moore is that he had his name removed from V FOR VENDETTA and WATCHMEN after the troubles he had with THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN.

Alex, you really need to read Watchmen.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Shadow

Man this was bad. Goldsmith's score was alright though.

[Morlock 11]

But I prefer when director DOES something creatively with the source material. And this is not the case here. Not from the story perspective anyway.

I'm not familiar with the comic book but I know Alan Moore would agree with you*. On the other hand, I can already hear the Watchmen fans complaining if Snyder deviated from their sacred comic book.

*: Alan Moore (Watchmen, V For Vendetta, etc.) talking about the film adaptation of 'From Hell': "What I'm hoping for is a situation like, say, the one with Philip K. Dick's short story, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? It was a very, very good short story, and the film Blade Runner was a very good film which didn't necessarily have a great deal of connection with Dick's story. But both were successful entities in their own right."

Hey, I like From Hell. I agree with Moore, and then some. I actually think that it's essential for film to deviate from their sources in order to create a unique artistic artifact. The problem with Snyder's approach is that there's practically nothing on screen that wasn't in the comic, and a number of the omissions are rather important...it's like they were being faithful, but without really understanding the core of it (the most important part for a faithful adaptation). Thus the meaning of scenes was lost, without them actually replacing it with anything else of value. I personally love it when a unique filmmaker takes a source and does his own thing with it. The Shining is a classic example, of course. It's even better with short stories, where I guess it seems less heretical...A.I. takes only a few specifics from the Aldiss story. The Killers starts with a nearly word for word adaptation of the fantastic story, and then spins its own web around it (The original, that is. The Don Siegel version starts with very little of the story, and spins a story very different from the Siodmack film). I have to be honest though, that for me this is mostly theoretical...I can't say there have been that many cases where I read the book before seing the film (the reverse has been true far more often). Still, I like the theory of it (and I can already imagine my fury at filmmakers adapting a favorite book of mine, particularly the ones I specifically can envision as films).

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I think the point as well is that Watchmen itself was written as an example of what the comic book medium can do. It's so inherently literary in itself, the medium and the various genres (if that makes sense) that the mere fact of adapting it into a film seems to miss the point completely.

[Morlock 11]

After rewatching Manhatten (1979), I did the same with Annie Hall (1977). I don't know what's happened to me this week...but this also dissapointed. It's got wonderful and brilliant scenes (only upon watching these two films now did I realize how much I understand Woody's characters' angst), but I never cared about Alvi's relationship with Annie this time around. At the moment, I think that Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway are my favorite Woody films!

Not dissapointing, however, was my first viewing of Tim Robbins' directorial debut, Bob Roberts (1992). His mockumentary about a conservative singer-songwriter who runs for senator in Pennsylvania. I was really taken by how subtle this was. It seemed prescient and relevant, but not in an annoyingly on-the-nose kind of way. It's pretty funny, a little scary, and really, really smart. Robbins' smugness has pissed me off at times, but this was an impressive little film. Of course, it has Altman written all over it, in a good way.

Morlock- Who will probably never take Richard Schickel seriously again

I think the point as well is that Watchmen itself was written as an example of what the comic book medium can do. It's so inherently literary in itself, the medium and the various genres (if that makes sense) that the mere fact of adapting it into a film seems to miss the point completely.

It may not be ideally suited for adaptation, but god knows that something fascinating could have been made of it. I think as long as it's a question of form, I'm happy for a film to tackle it, as long as it tries something...cinematic. That was my biggest problem with Atonement (2007)...it's climactic scenes are entirely literary in nature, and the filmmakers didn't even try to translate it. It lost just about all meaning on film.

[crocodile 8,012]

What do you mean by your remark on the ending of Atonement? I'm not familiar with the book, but liked the film.

Karol

[Morlock 11]

About the ending of Atonement:

I thought that the ending didn't work on film, because of the nature of it. It was a literary lie transposed onto film, not translated. It lost all impact, because, in book form, Briony is a writer, and the lie we saw was in writing. In the film, Briony is still a writer, but the lie we saw was not in writing- we actually saw the lie she told being acted out and shot and scored and edited. It wasn't something that one person created. The feeling I got is that a lot of people got together to trick me. In book form, it would be just one person, and that's the whole point of the story. In film, it was a literary conceit that could only work as long as it remained literary. Once they filmed it, most of the power evaporates, as it only works on one level (story), and even on that level feels forced. I haven't read the book, but I can imagine that reading the ending of that book would be a troubling and shocking thing. In adapting, you better come up with a way to make the literary cinematic, or it loses most of its meaning.

I had other problems with the film, major (the war imagery that felt to me out of place, including the beautiful but mostly pointless famous unbroken take), minor (plot points that didn't make sense, including at least one that the director himself admitted in the commentary didn't make sense), and incidental (I personally thought that a lot of the drama was drained by the fact that it felt to me like McAvoy was sent to prison for writing a dirty word, as opposed to rape...this one is less defensible than the others, though)but the ending really felt off to me, in an absolutely critical way.

[John Crichton 4]

The Shadow

Man this was bad. Goldsmith's score was alright though.

I think that sums up a lot of Goldsmith's movies, though "alright" is lowballing it.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

New: Frost/Nixon. Langella (one of my favorite and most underrated actors in Hollywood) seemed to create his own thing with the Nixon character rather than emulate him. I liked it.

Old: Apollo 13, Ron Howard's best movie.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Old: Apollo 13, Ron Howard's best movie.

That would be Parenthood.

[Wojo 2,453]

You can't seriously favor that over the movie about the greatest swordsman who ever lived.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Its a fricking cartoon, it might be CGI but its still a cartoon.

If it really costs that then they should go back to using just humans and make a real movie.

A second of live action movie takes everyone involved one second (disregarding non-used material and pre/post production, obviously). A second of "cartoon" takes a lot of people a lot of work.

Without ranking one higher than the other, your logic just doesn't make sense.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Of course it doesn't, it's Joey.

[Red 75]

It may not be ideally suited for adaptation, but god knows that something fascinating could have been made of it.

Most definitely, it just needed a more capable director.

[Romão 2,274]

I think the point as well is that Watchmen itself was written as an example of what the comic book medium can do. It's so inherently literary in itself, the medium and the various genres (if that makes sense) that the mere fact of adapting it into a film seems to miss the point completely.

That's a very interesting observation.

[Wojo 2,453]

Its a fricking cartoon

If it really costs that then they should go back to using just humans and make a real movie.

Well it's a little known fact that "The Rescuers Down Under" started out as a live action movie.

But after the eagle had eaten the little boy and the mice gave George C Scott rabies, Disney decided it would be better to just make a cartoon.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

[QMM 4]

I haven't liked Zemeckis' CGI efforts that much, but I'm fine with his reasons for doing so.

You see, I think that one of the great things that we can do in the digital cinema is we can represent the classics in a way that is more accessible to a modern audience. For example, I consider this to be a graphic novel version of CHRISTMAS CAROL.

My goal here is to present this art form to tell stories that we never had a way to do before and I use the graphic novel as an example, because animation is a magnificent art form that I’m a big fan of and that I’ve been a fan of my entire life. Live action… We are never going to replace actors, we actually liberate actors. All of the fears that you are hearing about this new art form is the same fear we heard about sound, color, wide screen, and everything. My feeling is we now have this new art form to present stories that shouldn’t be animated and are impossible to make live action.

... the point is to do something that you couldn’t do in any other form and you are absolutely right and that’s the fun of it. I’ll tell you the other thing that I think is really the great bonus about having what I call “The virtual cinema” or “The digital cinema” and I’m really excited that The Walt Disney company is so dedicated to digital cinema. When you think about it, it’s amazing how they are behind this. When you think of their commitment to Pixar and their commitment to 3D and their commitment to what I’m doing, it’s huge. It’s gigantic! What I love about it is the cinema is so liberated. Your ability as a filmmaker to do things that are absolutely only restricted by your imagination. You don’t have any physical restrictions on what it is that you have to do. I think if they were alive today, guys like Hitchcock and Kubrick, they would love this art form. They would love to be able to work with this art form and that’s why, by the way, the guys who are on the train are Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, you know Jim, this isn’t happening by accident.

Interviews here, here, and here

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I still think he should drop it and go back to live action.

[QMM 4]

Up in the Air

I got to go to an advance screening, and I liked it, even more than Thank You for Smoking. Clooney's solid, if doing nothing new, and he's great with Vera Farmiga. I was also excited to see the lead actress from Rocket Science in here as she's pretty good. It begins very much like Thank You for Smoking, clever protagonist narrating about his life, but it finds its own way. Love the message it leaves on and I liked that I didn't know where the last 20 minutes or so were going. Jason Reitman will be stopping by my Uni tomorrow so that'll be interesting.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That's one of my most anticipated for the year. Absolutely loved the teaser, superb writing. So superb I stole it for my creative writing class

[QMM 4]

The trailer makes it seem more serious than it actually is.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the main oddity about A Christmas Carol was Jim Carrey, who I think it generally unfunny, and is not funny here except when Dickens is funny. Whats the point of getting an him. His physical comedy is not needed.

I liked it, I enjoyed it, but I'd rather watch Scrooged and A Christmas Carol with Alistair Sims over the Holidays.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The trailer makes it seem more serious than it actually is.

Yeah I know. The full trailer takes away all that intense drama that the teaser had, but I love that teaser so much. The images matched with Clooney's narration and the music... Perfect!

How was the music, by the way? Rofle Kent scored 2 Clooney films this year, the other one being The Men Who Stare At Goats.

[QMM 4]

I liked the music more than TYFS, more interesting palette.. Haven't seen TMWSAT yet.

[Morlock 11]

Old: Apollo 13, Ron Howard's best movie.

That would be Parenthood.

Indeed!

[A24 4,333]

After rewatching Manhatten (1979), I did the same with Annie Hall (1977). I don't know what's happened to me this week...but this also dissapointed. It's got wonderful and brilliant scenes (only upon watching these two films now did I realize how much I understand Woody's characters' angst), but I never cared about Alvi's relationship with Annie this time around. At the moment, I think that Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway are my favorite Woody films!

Manhattan is my favorite Woody Allen movie. I wouldn't be surprised if history already regards it his best as well. Annie Hall, which I also saw immediately after Manhattan, is simply not in the same league. I felt Annie Hall was trying to go in two directions at once. But, as you know, Morlock, movies can be different things at different days. I somehow still have fond memories of Match Point, which is actually the only recent Allen film I have seen.

Alex

[mahler3 478]

Old: Apollo 13, Ron Howard's best movie.

That would be Parenthood.

Indeed!

What? Not Gung-Ho?!

After rewatching Manhatten (1979), I did the same with Annie Hall (1977). I don't know what's happened to me this week...but this also dissapointed. It's got wonderful and brilliant scenes (only upon watching these two films now did I realize how much I understand Woody's characters' angst), but I never cared about Alvi's relationship with Annie this time around. At the moment, I think that Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway are my favorite Woody films!

Manhattan is my favorite Woody Allen movie. I wouldn't be surprised if history already regards it his best as well. Annie Hall, which I also saw immediately after Manhattan, is simply not in the same league. I felt Annie Hall was trying to go in two directions at once. But, as you know, Morlock, movies can be different things at different days. I somehow still have fond memories of Match Point, which is actually the only recent Allen film I have seen.

Alex

You know what I did re-watch recently is Manhattan Murder History - brilliant film and for me one of Woody's best comical scenes whenever he and his friends phone their suspect from the hotel lobby - hilarious!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

"Quantum Of Bloody Solace". What on Earth can I say about this film that is printable? Well, not much. It is nasty, it is cold, it treats its audience with as much disdain as Bond wears his suits. Editorially, it is a complete mess (where is Stuart Baird when you need him?). Someone should tell Marc Forter that there is a reason that shots have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and not just a beginning. Some shots were just 2 frames long, which is not enough for the eye to register. It jumped from action sequence to action sequence, without any thought of any plot developement, or characterisation. On the (small) plus side, it was good to see both Giancarlo Giannini, and Jeffery Wright reprising their roles. Rory Kinnear's Tanner is a good "new" character, but he not a patch on Michael Kitchen, or, indeed, Colin Salmon. All-in-all, a film that can't be bothered to tell a story, or to do anything except showing Bond killing people. The worst Bond film since "For Your Eyes Only" and at least that had General Veers!

[Neimoidian 14]

The worst Bond film since "Die Another Day"

fixed

I completely agree about the editing and the actors.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I thought it was very good. To say it's worse than OCTOPUSSY, or A VIEW TO A KILL, or indeed, DIE ANOTHER DAY is retarded.

Speaking of retarded, I watched a bit of THE SPIRIT. Wow.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I thought it was very good. To say it's worse than OCTOPUSSY, or A VIEW TO A KILL, or indeed, DIE ANOTHER DAY is retarded.

Speaking of retarded, I watched a bit of THE SPIRIT. Wow.

Putting Octopussy among the worst ever Bond's is just wrong, very wrong.

[Henry B 50]

"Quantum Of Bloody Solace". What on Earth can I say about this film that is printable? Well, not much. It is nasty, it is cold, it treats its audience with as much disdain as Bond wears his suits. Editorially, it is a complete mess (where is Stuart Baird when you need him?). Someone should tell Marc Forter that there is a reason that shots have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and not just a beginning. Some shots were just 2 frames long, which is not enough for the eye to register.

Exactly. The rough-and-tumble confusion of the editing adds to the film's appeal. Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

It jumped from action sequence to action sequence, without any thought of any plot developement, or characterisation. On the (small) plus side, it was good to see both Giancarlo Giannini, and Jeffery Wright reprising their roles. Rory Kinnear's Tanner is a good "new" character, but he not a patch on Michael Kitchen, or, indeed, Colin Salmon. All-in-all, a film that can't be bothered to tell a story, or to do anything except showing Bond killing people. The worst Bond film since "For Your Eyes Only" and at least that had General Veers!

No story? Try watching a little more carefully... It's Bond's relationships with other characters - M, Leiter, Mathis, etc. - that are at the heart of it all.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

QoS isn't very good, but it isn't bad either. Its somewhere in the middle of the pack.

[Red 75]

Speaking of retarded, I watched a bit of THE SPIRIT. Wow.

Frank Miller has lost it.

[Romão 2,274]

A long time ago...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

"Quantum Of Bloody Solace". What on Earth can I say about this film that is printable? Well, not much. It is nasty, it is cold, it treats its audience with as much disdain as Bond wears his suits. Editorially, it is a complete mess (where is Stuart Baird when you need him?). Someone should tell Marc Forter that there is a reason that shots have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and not just a beginning. Some shots were just 2 frames long, which is not enough for the eye to register.

Exactly. The rough-and-tumble confusion of the editing adds to the film's appeal. Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

It jumped from action sequence to action sequence, without any thought of any plot developement, or characterisation. On the (small) plus side, it was good to see both Giancarlo Giannini, and Jeffery Wright reprising their roles. Rory Kinnear's Tanner is a good "new" character, but he not a patch on Michael Kitchen, or, indeed, Colin Salmon. All-in-all, a film that can't be bothered to tell a story, or to do anything except showing Bond killing people. The worst Bond film since "For Your Eyes Only" and at least that had General Veers!

No story? Try watching a little more carefully... It's Bond's relationships with other characters - M, Leiter, Mathis, etc. - that are at the heart of it all.

And Vesper especially.

[A24 4,333]

Only a huge Bond nut defends a film like QOS.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Only a huge Bond nut defends a film like QOS.

Funny, I'd say the same about OCTOPUSSY.

[Neimoidian 14]

I have survived Diamonds are Forever, (most of) Moore's Bond pictures and Die Another Day, so not only can I name myself a Bond nut, but also find QoS a satysfactory episode in the franchise.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I wouldn't say I'm a Bond nut. I grew up watching the films and loving them, but came to a point where many of them fell apart to me on everything but nostalgia, with only a few of them I can genuinely say are very good movies.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I guess I could be considered a Bond nut. I remember my VHS collection of every film neatly lined up in order on top of my old tube TV. I even had El Mundo No Basta (The World Is Not Enough in Spanish)! I actually think I still have all of them somewhere.

[Quintus 5,399]

Daniel Craig made QoS watchable, not Marc Forster. The latter made a very average, very disjointed action flick. The former added charisma and a bit of believable rough and tumble, qualities which will always raise the mediocre into something slightly more superficially entertaining.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

No story? Try watching a little more carefully... It's Bond's relationships with other characters - M, Leiter, Mathis, etc. - that are at the heart of it all.

That got successfully buried among way too many unfocused action sequences.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

That's not a bad thing.

[Quintus 5,399]

QoS characters had relationships? I didn't notice, what with the random action sequences all over the place.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Saw the Box,

Not a particularly good film but yet I like it to a degree.

One thing is for sure, I won't ever take the money.

The best thing the director did was get the 70's look right, and Frank Langella is terrific and creepy.

[Henry B 50]

Caught the second half of Meet the Parents while I was in the waiting room at Health Services. What a bad movie! I didn't laugh once. Robert DeNiro more or less sleepwalks through his part, Ben Stiller is as unlikable as always, the women are completely generic and Randy Newman's dumb score just makes the film even more unfunny.