What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[Brónach 1,302]

I will always wonder what my reaction to the Watchmen film would have been if I hadn't read the book. But then I would be wondering the opposite. What happened is that I saw the teaser trailer, wondered what the hell was going on in the trailer, remembered it was a comic book, and decided to read the first chapter. But I couldn't stop reading, finished it the next day...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Stock criticism of Watchmen seems to be that it is too faithful to the comic.

Both in the back-and forward narrative and the actual plot, the movie stays very close to the comic, but I don't see that as a point of criticism.

The other Alan Moore based movie, V For Vendetta was bashed for taking liberties with it's source material. (which it did)

Being fateful to it's source material is only an issue IMO if that means that it includes aspects or scenes that work in a comic, novel or play, but not on film. This isn't really the case on Watchmen. It's a very fine adaptation, that sticks close to it';s source, but does allow it's director to do it's own thing with it.

Yeah, a rare occurrence. Jackson's LotR is surely the most accomplished example.

Possibly, but Jackson has been frequently taken to task regarding the many, many changes he did make. Sometimes with valid critique, sometimes with anal fanboy twaddle.

Both Jackson and Tyler seem to approach adaptations the same way though.

300 stuck very close to the look of the Frank Miller Comic. Watchmen has a more attractive colour palette, but still makes sure that some key characters and scenes greatly resemble the comic visually.

PJ did the same with LOTR. Instead of making it his own thing visually, he hired Alan Lee and and John Howe, two leading Tolkien artists. The maps, look of the written languages etc etc are all taken verbatim from Tolkien's books.

[A24 4,333]

The Bourne Legacy: The film is entertaining enough, it doesn't need Matt Damon, but the last big scene in Korea almost detroys it. 6/10

Ghostrider: It's bad, of course, but it's kind of enjoyable bad. I wonder if that was the idea. 5/10

Alex

[KK 3,307]

The Bourne Legacy: The film is entertaining enough, it doesn't need Matt Damon, but the last big scene in Korea almost detroys it. 6/10

When the film ended, I was like "that was it?"

The whole film was an extended chase sequence for his meds. Seemed like a stupid premise.

[A24 4,333]

Ah, yes, the blue and green pills ... that was quite ridiculous too. Still, the scenes in nature (minus the wolf scene), the cabin scene, the old house/FBI scene were all good.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah I thought the end was very abrupt too. It didn't really have a sense of pacing in terms of rising action and resolution.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Les Misérables (or Lay Miseraab, as they kept calling it at the Oscars). Anne Hathaway's Oscar was absolutely deserved. A cinematography award would also have been appropriate.

[Quintus 5,399]

And yet I've heard elsewhere that the photography - specifically the direction - is the biggest problem with the movie on a fundamental level. Regardless, I'm gonna watch it this week and see.

[KK 3,307]

The photography was good, but there were some poorly or what others have dubbed as "over-directed" shots. All the shaky-ish handheld camera swoops can really get to you.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Les Misérables (or Lay Miseraab, as they kept calling it at the Oscars). Anne Hathaway's Oscar was absolutely deserved. A cinematography award would also have been appropriate.

did M get a little verklempt?

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

The photography was good, but there were some poorly or what others have dubbed as "over-directed" shots. All the shaky-ish handheld camera swoops can really get to you.

It's a big musical. I don't think it can be "over-over-directed". It's biggest problems are Crowe's and Jackman's singing. I expected Jackman to be better.

did M get a little verklempt?

Huh?

[Matt C 454]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie

Watching it with the Truncated Power Rangers dub, and it is hilarious. Not as gut-busting hilarious as the Charlie Brown viral videos, but lots of funny one-liners. Alpha 5's lines in particular had me howling with laughter.

The music editing could use some work though.

[Uni 306]

Oz The Great and Powerful.

A few impressions:

- It's official: James Franco is one terrible actor. Seriously. It's hard to see the merits of a film whose lead performs like he's in a high school play.

- Ditto Mila Kunis. Only worse.

- I found it painfully ironic that a movie, about a man who's so entrenched in illusion that he doesn't know how to be real, is so entrenched in CGI illusion that it doesn't feel real. It's even more ironic that in the original movie, the land of Oz somehow felt more lifelike and tangible than Kansas. The opposite is true in this picture.

- Having said that, the china doll was a spectacular effect.

- I swear, this movie telegraphs its "twists" so far ahead of time they might as well have put them in the trailers.

- And yet . . . it's such a splendid concept, dammit. Ultimately that does come through, though it's barely enough to redeem the movie. An idea like this should've been a slam dunk, and it's frustrating having to ignore so much of what's going on in front of you in order to try to see what it could've been in better hands. (And Sam Raimi's no rank amateur. What happened here?)

Not a horrible experience, but not what it should've been. Disappointing. More like Oz The Middling and Overhyped.

** out of ****

- Uni

[A24 4,333]

Into The Blue: I wanted to see it because I'm fascinated by the sea, especially the blue ones. 5/10

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

nice ass!

[publicist 4,643]

Oz The Great and Powerful.

A few impressions:

- It's official: James Franco is one terrible actor. Seriously. It's hard to see the merits of a film whose lead performs like he's in a high school play.

- Ditto Mila Kunis. Only worse.

I see this repeated ad nauseum, but in truth he totally adequately performs the role the script demands. It's an overstuffed effects turkey like ALICE IN WONDERLAND and Franco's here just a stand-in for a wide-eyed 12-year old girl named Dorothy and how can a flim flam man like Oz replace her convincingly?

[A24 4,333]

The only James Franco movie that I wanna see is this little art house film:

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I used to hate Franco, but ever since Pineapple Express he's been more or less consistently good. He was excellent in 127 Hours.

[KK 3,307]

He was great in 127 Hours. He wasn't awful in Oz, but as publicist said, he was adequate. I think he has a bit of a limited range as an actor.

Milan Kunis is worse imho.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Milan Kunis is worse imho.

I agree that Milan ain't really good. I prefer Naples, or even Venice.

[Quintus 5,399]

Franco won me over in Pineapple Express.

[Wojo 2,453]

He was excellent in 127 Hours.

I wouldn't consider that a complete performance, would you?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

What do you mean by complete?

[Jay 37,363]

*whoosh*

(That's the sound of Wojo's joke going over Koray's head)

[Wojo 2,453]

His autobiography is excellent, btw.

[Jay 37,363]

You see Koray, it wasn't a complete performance because he had to cut off his own arm

[Wojo 2,453]

Spoilers!

[Uni 306]

I see this repeated ad nauseum, but in truth he totally adequately performs the role the script demands. It's an overstuffed effects turkey like ALICE IN WONDERLAND and Franco's here just a stand-in for a wide-eyed 12-year old girl named Dorothy and how can a flim flam man like Oz replace her convincingly?

By playing a convincing flim-flam man, that's how. We didn't need another Dorothy; that story's already been told. This could've been a really good, interesting bit of moral irony if actor, director, and screenwriter had collaborated effectively with the potential material that was begging to be used here. Instead they went for the after-school angle (and audience)—an easy-peasy, predictable, aw-shucks tale about a below-average man who struggles to reach above-average heights.

I would agree with you, though, that it wasn't all on Franco. It certainly could've used better writing and directing.

- Uni

[Matt C 454]

Your Highness

A truly uneven mixture of lowbrow comedy and homage to 1980s fantasy. I see why people hate this movie, it's not hilarious enough to be a comedy and not serious enough to work as fantasy. Ultimately, some good one-liners prevail (even with co-star/co-writer Danny McBride's constant ad libbing), and the film itself is very well-budgeted. Even when she's just cashing a paycheck here, Natalie Portman does a good job here as Isabelle. As for James Franco... well, he's slumming it here. But I can't bring myself to hate it... it's just wildly uneven.

Steve Jablonsky's score, once you deduct the usual MV/RC action music, is actually quite good. Give me another score in the vein of Your Highness than several Transformers scores, please.

[A24 4,333]

Inception: It was on TV (HD) and I wanted to see if a second viewing would change my mind. It didn't. It's Nolan's worst movie.

Alex: who deliberately picked out a very unflattering photo to express his feelings towards the film

[Koray Savas 2,251]

How is that screencap unflattering?

[A24 4,333]

Because to me it embodies dullness and shallowness. Look at it!

[Brónach 1,302]

This for me:

[Richard Penna 3,688]

And did you enjoy it? Most people who I've seen dislike it either couldn't suspend their disbelief at times, or didn't buy the whole idea of dreams within dreams. My brother and I enjoyed the exploration of the concept.

I just saw The Wildest Dream. I've had the score for a few years but never seen the film - absolutely wonderful. I've said before how I dislike films which focus on the 'life-affirming' details, but this focused more on the danger, and the emotional correspondence between Mallory and Ruth. Also, as someone who is a beginning indoor rock climber, some scenes were frankly terrifying.

Should've come as no surprised that Douek's score is cut to bits, but the film jumps back and forth a bit in time, and it does end a bit suddenly, so I get the impression there was lots of re-editing involved.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Because to me it embodies dullness and shallowness. Look at it!

I guess, I mean I'm not trying to say it's an amazing shot but it's just one quick one from a long action sequence. While there are great shots in all of Nolan's films, if we're discussing his action material in particular, the man is all about set pieces over individual shots.

[crocodile 8,012]

There's no point in arguing with people with inferior tastes, Koray!

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

For a film about dreams, which means you can do and show anything you want, I found Inception to be remarkably dry and devoid of imagination.

Imagine a true visual director with that premise?

[Quintus 5,399]

The end of Inception (depicted in Alex's pic) looked and felt exactly like a Call of Duty game. I remember leaning into my girlfriend during it and joking about it to her. That's how sophisticated that movie is.

[A24 4,333]

There's no point in arguing with people with inferior tastes, Koray!

Karol

Nolanite!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

For a film about dreams, which means you can do and show anything you want, I found Inception to be remarkably dry and devoid of imagination.

Imagine a true visual director with that premise?

This is the same stuff that was being discussed when the film came out. The dreams are supposed to look and feel real. It's a film about dreams, but it's not a film about doing whatever the fuck you want in them. It's called Inception for a reason and not Chris Nolan's Happy Dreamland.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nolan is all about plot first.

[Brónach 1,302]

the man is all about set pieces over individual shots.

He's brilliant at setting up these set pieces

I was quite disappointed at the third Batman but I was seeing it and these typical Nolan sequences with several things going on at the same time came along and I couldn't help thinking heh, the man knows how to do his thing.

I prefer his non-Batman films, though.

Nolan is all about plot first.

The distinction between plot and images is sometimes an artificial one.

I don't know, when I started doing comic books, that thought didn't cross my mind. Was I about plot, was I about images? The question still seems terribly empty to me.

It's funny how one can find Chris Nolan being critiziced as a "non visual filmmaker" (whatever that even means) and then have people praising the scale, execution and striking spectacle of many scenes of his.

I don't remember his films in terms of plot, but as a sucession of moments that take their strength from how they look and from what's going on, because how they look depend of what's going on and the other way around. In a movie, it's not that clear of a distinction.

As for the criticism of Inception that it doesn't have pink flying dolphins, that's an extra filmical criticism. If not, how and why would you insert that in the film?

The film, if you start counting, does have a significant amount of "unrealistic" material, althugh it doesn't revere on it as much as I would like. The decaying city/glacier I like a lot. Also the train. We probably could have seen some crazy architecture along the way. I also would have liked if the folding city idea had relevance to the plot, in a more climatic moment.

Essentially, the criticism that Inception doesn't have the trippy stuff you want to see is a criticism about plot, not about imagery.

[crocodile 8,012]

For a film about dreams, which means you can do and show anything you want, I found Inception to be remarkably dry and devoid of imagination.

Imagine a true visual director with that premise?

Yes, sure. But that would have been also a typical (and even cliché!) thing to do, wouldn't you agree?

Karol

[Delorean90 42]

This article really helped to pull together some thoughts I'd had myself, as well as bringing some others in. My respect for the film went way up.

http://www.chud.com/24477/never-wake-up-the-meaning-and-secret-of-inception/

I don't necessarily think this is THE entirety of what to get out of it, but I think it's a valid layer of interpretation that works quite cohesively.

Also, I think the film looks great. It's a great a very certain atmosphere about it. I love the Paris scenes, and the shot of behind and above Dom when he's sitting in the empty lecture hall with Miles is one shot that's not a big deal, no money shot, but one example in the film of a feeling that I very much appreciate. It struck me in the theater, "Hey, this looks like a MOVIE." In a good way.

[Brónach 1,302]

For a film about dreams, which means you can do and show anything you want, I found Inception to be remarkably dry and devoid of imagination.

Imagine a true visual director with that premise?

Yes, sure. But that would have been also a typical (and even cliché!) thing to do, wouldn't you agree?

Karol

Well, it depends exactly of what they do.

[crocodile 8,012]

Yeah but if they have random and weird things happening just because it is a dream is hardly original. That's what I meant.

Karol

[Delorean90 42]

Right. And there's a very good reason for things to not be going crazy: these are dream thieves. They're trying to not draw attention to themselves or the fact that it's a dream. Some of the most overt dream stuff is when Cobb is introducing Ariadne to the dream world, and even then it's limited to some extent because she's just getting into it.

[crocodile 8,012]

Yeah those people are trained to construct (remember) the world in a certain way. Besides, they are for the most part aware of it. So the nature of normal dreams and how they unfold is completely irrelevant to this story.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

Yeah but if they have random and weird things happening just because it is a dream is hardly original. That's what I meant.

Karol

I think it's not so much a question of originality than a question of having a narrative that makes sense and relies on its own fantasy rules consistently.

Right. And there's a very good reason for things to not be going crazy: these are dream thieves. They're trying to not draw attention to themselves or the fact that it's a dream.

There are some interesting moments built upon this. For example, when Cobb in the hotel tries to make Fischer realize he is dreaming, it's extremely creepy, and it's used to increase the tension.

The trick of the film is that dreams feel normal when you're dreaming (unless it's a lucid dream), and it builts drama over not knowing if they're dreams or not anymore (Cobb's wife). So it doesn't work if there's a stark contrast between dreams and the real world.

And finally, yes, these are designed dreams shared by lucid dreamers. Such a thing doesn't exist, so the convenient fantasy rules apply.

I'm thinking the film applier Chandler's Law in a rather fun way, imo.

[Red 75]

This article really helped to pull together some thoughts I'd had myself, as well as bringing some others in. My respect for the film went way up.

http://www.chud.com/24477/never-wake-up-the-meaning-and-secret-of-inception/

I don't necessarily think this is THE entirety of what to get out of it, but I think it's a valid layer of interpretation that works quite cohesively.

Also, I think the film looks great. It's a great a very certain atmosphere about it. I love the Paris scenes, and the shot of behind and above Dom when he's sitting in the empty lecture hall with Miles is one shot that's not a big deal, no money shot, but one example in the film of a feeling that I very much appreciate. It struck me in the theater, "Hey, this looks like a MOVIE." In a good way.

I don't think the whole movie is a dream as Faraci does, but it is definitely a statement about movie making or in a larger sense, about manufacturing emotion out of thin air. It's a nice companion piece to The Prestige because that film was also about cinema (in a meta way).