What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[Red 75]

Did no one take offense to M. Night casting himself as a writer who will "change the world" while being completely unnecessary to the plot and film? It seemed like the man needed to stroke his ego.

[Morlock 11]

That was one of the most painful things about the movie, certainly. He suffers from Tarantino syndrom- director who thinks he can act.

[Quintus 5,399]

Saw the full length cut of Planet Terror and I absolutely loved it, in an Evil Dead 2 kind of way. Fantastic movie with a great cheesy script and horrible gory special fx. A perfect movie to watch after the pub with a pizza and a few drunken buddies. Leave your brain outside and lap it up. 5/5, in terms of sheer entertainment value.

Gonna watch Cronenberg's Eastern Promises tonight starring Viggo Mortenson.

[tpigeon 3]

Eastern Promises may be the best film of 2007 that I've seen. Though Ratatouille, Away From Her, and No Country For Old Men give it some competition.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

I liked Planet Terror a great deal. Far better than Tarantino's film.

And I liked Eastern Promises a lot. I felt it ended a bit too quickly and abruptly....the movie told it's story very well, but I would have liked more of it, more meat.

[tpigeon 3]

I thought it was perfect, just perfect. Cronenberg's streak of brilliance continues...

Ted

[QMM 4]

Haven't really written in for a while but I saw No Country for Old Men which I really enjoyed.

It's in my best of the year lists but I still need to see There Will Be Blood

[Morlock 11]

I've got to see No Country, There Will Be Blood, Atonement, Juno, Sweeny Todd, Margot at the Wedding, Diving Bell and The Butterfly and Away from Her. They're all taking their time coming here (although I should be seeing Juno, which I am eagerly awaiting, next week).

[Red 75]

There Will Be Blood is being called the best film of the year, with Daniel Day-Lewis as best actor. Not surprising to me, really.

[indy4 155]

Big Fish: Nice but it doesn't really move me. I prefer Tim Burton's Ed Wood endlessly more.

That's my favorite Tim Burton film.

Eragon - Worse than I thought it would be (and I was prepared for a bad movie). Amateurish filmmaking, sub par special effects, terrible acting and a plot lifted directly from Star Wars (even has an almost identical sunset scene). A dismal film, one of the worst I've watched in the past year.

It was absolutley awful! The storyline may have been somewhat Star Warsish, but the movie was a TOTAL LOTR rip-off. The part where you see the bad of Durza's head as he give the army his pep talk was JUST like Sauraman's talk to the Uruk-hai in TTT.

Time to quote good old David Bordwell. And no, this is not meant to change anyone's opinion or stand as the final authority. And yes, it may differ from others' opinions. But that is not the purpose of criticism, everyone.

"Lady in the Water was mocked by reviewers and lured virtually no one into theaters. The film seems to be trying for the sort of spiritual sublimity that Spielberg sought in Close Encounters. But it’s hurt by a rather static situation, names that are easy to make fun of (narfs, scrunts, etc.), some outright silliness (Cleveland curling up like a toddler to hear the folktale), and a rushed finale. As a thriller, it fails; the scrunts are scary, but that stems largely from the spikes on the soundtrack. It was bold of Shyamalan to confine the film to the apartment complex, creating a closed milieu consisting of fairy-tale types, but often they come across as forced (most notably, the film critic Farber). And it’s easy to hate a movie that has its characters omit contractions: “I do not understand.” “Where is the justice?”

For all that, the film displays stylistic ambitions that we almost never see on American screens. Critics have made fun of the plot’s clumsiness, but as usual, they’re oblivious to anything about visual texture that isn’t in the press release. (Who would have commented on the look of Miami Vice if the publicity hadn’t spotlighted its cutting-edge HD technique?) It’s a pity that Bamberger’s book doesn’t go into such matters either, but as a sportswriter at least he has an excuse.

So let me point out that Lady in the Water is rather daringly directed. Shyamalan is a genuine filmmaker; he thinks in shots. Unlike the filmmakers who believe in interrupting every shot by another one, Shyamalan tries for a natural curve of interest as the image unfolds to its point of maximal interest. In this film, his characteristic longish takes—on average, twelve seconds—are allied to his most oblique visual design yet. The first dozen minutes are engagingly elliptical, quite unlike anything in normal American cinema. The partial framings, offscreen characters, incomplete shot/ reverse-shots, to-camera address, and teasing layers of focus throughout the film echo late Godard and create a pervasive unease reminiscent of the domestic passages in Unbreakable (for me, the director’s best film). In his commentary on deleted scenes in the DVD version of The Village, Shyamalan explains that a shot that decapitated Bryce Howard was too “aggressive” for the naturalistic tone he wanted, but Lady makes fragmentary framings, often sustained for many seconds, more prominent. Some compositions, especially that showing the Smokers and others split up by the shower curtains in Cleveland’s bathroom, are quite inventive.

As Cleveland Heep, Giamatti carries the principal burden of interest, and his conviction saves a good deal of the film from feyness. Shyamalan’s technique sustains the actor’s portrayal. Full shots acknowledge the tentative moves of this awkward, lumpy body (Giamatti’s performance includes the placement of his feet), cropped mid-shots don’t hide the paunch, and prolonged close-ups carry the climax. “I should’ve been there to protect you,” he murmurs, not just to Story but to his dead wife and children, while the hands of his witnesses clutch his shoulders. Here as elsewhere, Cleveland is in focus while other characters dissolve into blobs of light. In the film’s final image, though, he is similarly decomposed, as he’s seen standing on the pool’s edge, watched from below—the point of view of a submerged narf, but also the image of a man redeemed by water. Who has conversations in the rain? Farber asks. Only characters in movies, he answers. It’s left for Cleveland to suggest that maybe it’s a metaphor for purification.

If Lady in the Water had been made by an obscure East European director, reviewers might have praised it as magical realism and tolerated its fuzzy message of multicultural hope. (The constant playing of TV battle footage from Iraq would doubtless have earned points too.) It was Shyamalan’s misfortune to make a somewhat goofy fantasy at a moment when critics were poised to puncture his reputation."

I agree with that, almost entirley.

Did no one take offense to M. Night casting himself as a writer who will "change the world" while being completely unnecessary to the plot and film? It seemed like the man needed to stroke his ego.

I didn't think that had anything to do with ego, at least not the role. Shymalan seems like a smart man, and smart men know that casting oneself in a role of a brilliant person does not make oneself brilliant. Tom Cruise was a hero in the Mission Impossibles, but he endures tons of criticism, despite his roles as the hero. At the same time, Johhny Depp is playing a criminal in Sweeney Todd (which I still need to see!!), but he's incredibly popular.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I liked Planet Terror a great deal. Far better than Tarantino's film.

Planet Terror is excellent and lives up to what it sets out to do. It's funny and over-the-top, a great homage to grindhouse films. Death Proof lacks this, but it delivers on such a higher level. Yes, it isn't very grindhouse-esque, but it's brilliant as a stand alone film. I recommend you watch the extended cut, I enjoyed it so much more than the original edit and thought it was superb. There's probably about 30 minutes of extra footage that makes the film more fluent and entertaining.

Did no one take offense to M. Night casting himself as a writer who will "change the world" while being completely unnecessary to the plot and film? It seemed like the man needed to stroke his ego.

His role was very necessary to the film. I was surprised he gave himself such a big part because he usually does cameos, but he acted it well.

[Quintus 5,399]

There's probably about 30 minutes of extra footage that makes the film more fluent and entertaining.

30mins too much. Long uninteresting conversations which do nothing if only allow Tarantino to indulge in his primary filmic interest - dialogue. But this time he failed - the chat is slow and ponderous and lacks that all important wit he normally flavours so precisely.

I wish I'd have seen the original Grindhouse cut. I can only imagine that that version of the story would've been far more user friendly, especially to people who prefer their movies to move forward when required, instead of lingering on unfunny chit-chat which serves no purpose whatsoever. But that's just me.

[Red 75]

Did no one take offense to M. Night casting himself as a writer who will "change the world" while being completely unnecessary to the plot and film? It seemed like the man needed to stroke his ego.

I didn't think that had anything to do with ego, at least not the role. Shymalan seems like a smart man, and smart men know that casting oneself in a role of a brilliant person does not make oneself brilliant. Tom Cruise was a hero in the Mission Impossibles, but he endures tons of criticism, despite his roles as the hero. At the same time, Johhny Depp is playing a criminal in Sweeney Todd (which I still need to see!!), but he's incredibly popular.

You're missing the point. Acting is acting, but Night cast himself in his own movie as a completely unnecessary character, which just so happened to be a revolutionary martyr. He should have cut the character out completely, but left it in and made the wrong assumption that he can act. He did a similar thing in Signs, but his role wasn't near as large as this. It was probably the worst aspect in the film.

[indy4 155]

Did no one take offense to M. Night casting himself as a writer who will "change the world" while being completely unnecessary to the plot and film? It seemed like the man needed to stroke his ego.

I didn't think that had anything to do with ego, at least not the role. Shymalan seems like a smart man, and smart men know that casting oneself in a role of a brilliant person does not make oneself brilliant. Tom Cruise was a hero in the Mission Impossibles, but he endures tons of criticism, despite his roles as the hero. At the same time, Johhny Depp is playing a criminal in Sweeney Todd (which I still need to see!!), but he's incredibly popular.

You're missing the point. Acting is acting, but Night cast himself in his own movie as a completely unnecessary character, which just so happened to be a revolutionary martyr. He should have cut the character out completely, but left it in and made the wrong assumption that he can act. He did a similar thing in Signs, but his role wasn't near as large as this. It was probably the worst aspect in the film.

Perhaps you're right, but it never bothered me that much.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

It was absolutley awful! The storyline may have been somewhat Star Warsish, but the movie was a TOTAL LOTR rip-off. The part where you see the bad of Durza's head as he give the army his pep talk was JUST like Sauraman's talk to the Uruk-hai in TTT.

Somewhat Star Wars-ish? Farm boy comes into possession of egg, bad guys come looking for egg, farm boy's cousin leaves village because he is old enough, farm boy stares into the sunset with score swelling behind him while pondering his future, baddies come looking for dragon and kills farm boy's uncle, farm boy runs off with old crazy dude who turns out to be the last Dragon Rider, farm boy and old crazy dude go rescue princess from baddies fortress, crazy old dude dies, farm boy and princess escape to rebel stronghold, baddies track them and....

all that and its only somewhat Star Wars-ish? Not to mention Durza kills off his underlings just like Vader does in ESB...

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Well, they all come from the mono-myth anyway. But yes, I heard that Eragon was particularly blatant in that regard.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

There's probably about 30 minutes of extra footage that makes the film more fluent and entertaining.

30mins too much. Long uninteresting conversations which do nothing if only allow Tarantino to indulge in his primary filmic interest - dialogue. But this time he failed - the chat is slow and ponderous and lacks that all important wit he normally flavours so precisely.

But that's what he's so perfect at, dialogue, and he delivers just as usual with Death Proof. This extended cut is much better because it shows the parallels with both halves of the story.

I wish I'd have seen the original Grindhouse cut. I can only imagine that that version of the story would've been far more user friendly, especially to people who prefer their movies to move forward when required, instead of lingering on unfunny chit-chat which serves no purpose whatsoever. But that's just me.

Lingering on unfunny chit-chat? Is the dialogue supposed to funny? This is a serious movie, which I noted that it isn't very grindhouse-esque and more of an actual well-made film. Serves no purpose? I guess all that talk about a royale with cheese, or maybe about starring on a pilot called Fox Force Five, or even rambling on about coffee all serves no purpose to the actual story of Pulp Fiction.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Well, they all come from the mono-myth anyway. But yes, I heard that Eragon was particularly blatant in that regard.

Indeed.

[indy4 155]

It was absolutley awful! The storyline may have been somewhat Star Warsish, but the movie was a TOTAL LOTR rip-off. The part where you see the bad of Durza's head as he give the army his pep talk was JUST like Sauraman's talk to the Uruk-hai in TTT.

Somewhat Star Wars-ish? Farm boy comes into possession of egg, bad guys come looking for egg, farm boy's cousin leaves village because he is old enough, farm boy stares into the sunset with score swelling behind him while pondering his future, baddies come looking for dragon and kills farm boy's uncle, farm boy runs off with old crazy dude who turns out to be the last Dragon Rider, farm boy and old crazy dude go rescue princess from baddies fortress, crazy old dude dies, farm boy and princess escape to rebel stronghold, baddies track them and....

all that and its only somewhat Star Wars-ish? Not to mention Durza kills off his underlings just like Vader does in ESB...

The storyline is, I admit, incredibly Star Warsish. The book was less so.

The theme of the movie however, and the mood, are much more LOTRish. And I'm not just saying this just because it takes place in medival-like times, the whole movie would never have happened were it not for LOTR (the films). But it also would have never happened without Star Wars.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

There's a lot that wouldn't have happened without Star Wars...

[A24 4,333]

There's a lot that wouldn't have happened without Star Wars...

Stories like these are all based on mythology and the classic story of myth decribes what Joseph Campbell calls The Hero's Journey. Star Wars only modernized it.

Alex

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Ironically, in the Star Wars saga, Luke had to go through it twice. Possibly the only saga where the protagonist had to become a hero two times in a row? And he still didn't achieve by the end.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I was mainly referring to Star Wars' technological renovations.

But yes, plotwise, there wasn't much new in Star Wars. It merely found a way to tell an old story in a fantastic new and exciting way.

[Sandor 797]

But yes, plotwise, there wasn't much new in Star Wars. It merely found a way to tell an old story in a fantastic new and exciting way.

And it did so at the exact right time.

[Morlock 11]

I liked Planet Terror a great deal. Far better than Tarantino's film.

Planet Terror is excellent and lives up to what it sets out to do. It's funny and over-the-top, a great homage to grindhouse films. Death Proof lacks this, but it delivers on such a higher level. Yes, it isn't very grindhouse-esque, but it's brilliant as a stand alone film. I recommend you watch the extended cut, I enjoyed it so much more than the original edit and thought it was superb. There's probably about 30 minutes of extra footage that makes the film more fluent and entertaining.

I've onlt seen the extended cut of Death Proof. And I thought it was quite bad. The dialogue is not good, except for a couple of one-liners. The actors are only partially convincing. And the version I saw felt unbelievably long.

[Quintus 5,399]

That pretty much sums up my feelings for the movie too, although I wouldn't go as far as saying it was a bad movie. Kurt Russel was as fun as ever and there are some interesting moments - the final act in particular is great fun, but the movie is waaaaaay too long. The overall flow of the movie is badly damaged by it's excessive length.

[Morlock 11]

Kurt Russell is fantastic. But he's barely in it. The last chase was fun, but it was a little too little too late. I didn't like the first set of girls at all. The second was much better, but also there, Uma Thurman's stunt double stuck out like a soar thumb. It felt like she was so greatful to be there, and did not come off as convincing.

[tpigeon 3]

I'm not sure which cut of "Death Proof" I saw, but it didn't feel terribly long to me. And, contrary to popular opinion, I actually quite enjoyed the first half of the film much more than the second half. The first set of girls were more interesting to me, and the scenes at the bar were so evocative. Maybe I'm a masculinist at heart, but I liked it when Stuntman Mike was the predator rather than the prey.

As for "Planet Terror," no movie in recent memory -- except perhaps "Slither" -- so perfectly captures a sense of sci-fi/horror fun the way that movie does.

Ted

[tpigeon 3]

Last night I watched the gripping documentary, "Manufactured Landscapes," which featured the work of Edward Burtynsky. It was an outstanding movie. Up next: "Broken English," "Paprika," and this weekend, probably "Juno."

Ted

[Morlock 11]

Lemme know how you found Paprika. A friend of mine has been wanting me to rent it, but it didn't look all that good.

[Morlock 11]

About a Boy. Lovely.

Haven't seen many movies in the past few days, as I've finally started watching the third season of Lost.

[Maglorfin 196]

The Man With the Golden Gun. After buying the 42 DVD Ultimate 007 Collection in London last weekend, I'm pretty much 007-obsessed these last (and future) days.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Haven't seen many movies in the past few days, as I've finally started watching the third season of Lost.

Then stop posting and keep watching!

[Morlock 11]

Oh, I am. Episode 11 now. 10 was fun! Who ever thought we'd get such welcome schmaltz from Lost?

[A24 4,333]

Les Diabolique (1955): Damn, this somewhat disappointed me. And I expected so much!

[Morlock 11]

I've never seen it...but I love the tag-line for it:

"See it, be amazed at it, but... BE QUIET ABOUT IT!"

[indy4 155]

Hairspray (2007): Great film. I was expecting a boring chick-flick, but it was very nice! Some parts were hilarious (nice to see John Waters as the flasher), (most of) the dance numbers were spectacular, with catchy tunes and great rythmns. And its message was great. ***3/4/*****

Just rented Unbreakable. Can't wait to see it!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

28 Weeks Later.

Zombie movie with big ambitions, but fails miserably because zombies seem to be smarter than non-zombies as everyone seems to make one dumb decision after another! Rose Byrne is good as usual, but unfortunately not good enough to save this viral pile of blood vomit with Robert Carlyle in a role that demands him to bang his head through glass and scream like a slaughtered pig for the second half of the movie.

[A24 4,333]

I haven't seen it yet but I l hear people are almost unanimously positive about the sequel. I really loved the the first one. Danny Boyle's best one to date.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Better even then The Beach?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I haven't seen the first one. In fact, I didn't even know there was a first one while I was watching the second one!

[A24 4,333]

Eh, what's wrong with you people?!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just kidding, the only Boyle film i have see is A Life Less Ordinary.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Eragon

First feature film I've seen in 2008 didn't do a whole lot for me. I found none of the characters the least bit interesting, the character dynamics were boring, and the visual effects weren't as well-integrated into the live action as one would expect from a film that came out just over a year ago.

John Malkovich and Robert Carlyle did nothing for me as villains, and the young hero was rather boring as well. I didn't really buy the voice-over dialogues either.

The look of the film, mostly in its design and costumes, reminded me of cheesy eighties fantasy, except without the charm of Jim Henson's effect work added to the mix.

Doyle's score was nice, though. It could have used a bit more volume in the final mix, I think. Pity they had to end the movie with two stupid songs, one of them being a popified version of the main theme. Lame.

There's worse ways to spend 100 minutes, but there's a lot better out there too.

[Morlock 11]

I am currently half watching 300 with friends. What a silly movie. And what horrible music!

[Quintus 5,399]

28 Weeks Later is better than the first film which I love, but in all fairness went a bit John Rambo in it's final act. Would've have been fine if the male lead was a war veteran, but unlike Rambo - he wasn't. Sure the sequel has it's flaws, but the excitement and outright terror of the whole thing easily outweighs everything that may be questionable about it. The acting is spot on too, with the two child actors being the rightful standouts. The only thing that 28 Days Later has over the sequel is its heart. The sequel makes you care for its characters, but a fondness doesn't grow for them as it did in the original film, as it did for say Brendan Gleeson's wonderful father figure. But like I said, 28 Weeks Later is essentially an action horror film and its a great one at that.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I was hoping those two kids would die for their utter stupidity.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I am currently half watching 300 with friends. What a silly movie. And what horrible music!

I wouldn't expect anything else from a movie so popular among 16-18 year-old males.

It looked rubbish to me from the first trailer.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

A friend of mine was so enveloped by that movie, that she started to get angry that all men don't have CGI abs.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I haven't seen it yet but I l hear people are almost unanimously positive about the sequel. I really loved the the first one. Danny Boyle's best one to date.

I've hardly heard good things about the sequel. I found Days interesting and well-made, but not overly convincing as a movie. The least good of the Boyles I've seen to date.