Jump to content

What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II


Lurker

Recommended Posts

Indeed.

I find it worrying that so many people were upset they didn't get a formulaic Bond film.

And then there are those who were upset and claimed they did get to see a formulaic Bond film. Gits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And then there are those who were upset and claimed they did get to see a formulaic Bond film. Gits.

Very worrying indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, as Bond films are historically not good movies.

I saw Richard Liklater's remake of The Bad News Bears. Man, was it bad. Such an utterly unnecessary film in every way. Totally unentertaining, has every cliche in the book. Even Billy-Bob, who I always love to see, was just a boring rehash of his Bad Santa (albeit toned down).

Linklater has been very unimpressive recetly. Fast Food Nation was a terrible movie as well. Now that I think of it, out of the nine films of his that I've seen, I've only liked three- School of Rock (which was fun), Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, the former is one of the best romantic films ever, the latter is very, very good.

And Shearmur's use of Carmen was just boring.

*1/2/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not they're meant to be campy, I don't think they worked at all. It implies that the filmmakers had such a high opinion of what they were doing that they felt they could get away with such "tongue in cheek" things. In my opinion, they couldn't.

Ray Barnsbury

Spider-Man is not something that should be taken very seriously. Many of the comic writers understand this. But yeah, some of the those moments in the film didn't work.

Hulk is a film that (while still good) suffers because it takes itself too seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the 'Raindrops keep fallin' o nmy head bit'. But some of the dialogue scenes are so excuriciatingly bad....like the one between him and his Aunt when she's packing of the house, and with the kid asking him...so, so bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poseidon. The Wolfgang Petersen version. I never read the book, but I also doubt anyone on the crew did either, so I'll just assume that this is a remake of the original film. This is pretty mindless entertainment, there is absolutely no character development, or grace to the proceedings, but it's also a decent popcorn flick. It's not a great movie, but I wouldn't go out of my way to bash it or brand it as terrible. The thing is only about 90 minutes (the feature, not including credits), and goes down fairly easy. But there's really nothing to it.

Let me put it this way. If you can watch something else, please do, but I can list a few dozen worst things to do than watch Poseidon. This, I realize, is neither an endorsing review, nor a scathing one.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It implies that the filmmakers had such a high opinion of what they were doing

:lol: What a strange comment! It means the opposite. Not to take things all the time so seriously is Raimi's style and it always has been. Ah, kids these days!

:blink: You interpreted my comment incorrectly. I never said they were trying to be taken seriously, just that they were overly confident that they could pull off such "campy" moments. When, in my opinion, those aspects didn't work very well and just seemed awkward. Sheesh, old people these days!

Ray Barnsbury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I understood you very well but you're just not making any sense. Since when is trying to put things into perspective a sign of pretentiousness? Those light-hearted, comical, campy moments contribute to what makes the Spider-Man and the Superman films human (a million times as human as that cardboard character named Harry Potter). The "don't take it so seriously" attitude is precisely what saves the Spider-Man films (or any superhero film for that matter) and why they reach such a wide and diverse audience. Then comes along a kid and says, "Wow, Raimi is so self-confident that he even has the balls to insert a few campy moments! :lol:

Alex - not even a Spidey fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretentious because they didn't pull it off and thought they could. Simple! More often than not, those moments come across as awkward and embarrassing, not comical. You obviously enjoyed those parts of the film for some reason, so chalk it up to difference of opinion.

Ray Barnsbury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why Spider-man 3 doesn't work is not because of the camp. I accepted it as it is from the start. The problem filmn has is that it tries to juggle to many elements at once. They skip to switch between the characters I tend to forget about the other ones. I say: Sandman? What Sandman? Besides the plays EXACTLY the way you would picture it from the very beginning. No surprises at all. It sucks when the movie is 2,5 h long and you know the ending right from the beginning. Previous one gave us at least some minor twists on the characters (like Peter confessing to May) and you didn't know were it's gonna go (even if it was obvious).

But certainly it is the most anticipated abridged script from Rod Hilton's Editing Room website. :) It has some of the lamest plotting ever in a summer blockbuster. I could accept the fact that it is a part of its campy nature, but then again Femme Fatale by DePalma was also cheesy and yet the story was told with surgical precision and because of that one could accept even the most ridiculous plot twists. It could be done, and it should be done. After all "lighthearted" doesn't necessairlly mean "dumb".

Acting-wise the film was unspectacular, as expected, but somehow I liked Dunst more in this film. The character of Harry Osborn doesn't work for me at all. In the comic books he wasn't this poster boy with some pretty childish motivation. Instead, he was creepy and schizophrenic and knew exactly who his father was. I lughed at the whole amnesia thing in the film. It makes this character even more flat than it already is. Venom is also wasted and not intimidating at all. Where is all this "we wanna eat Spider-man's brains"-character from the comic book that everyone knows (and loves, I believe)?

If there's is a thing that I really liked is the fact that the final near-apocalyptic showdown took place only because of Peter. He brought a lot of shit on himself (not literally, of course). It was good.

The effects were a mixed bag. A lot of cartoony Spider-man doing cartoony things. I liked the introduction of Sandman a lot though (even if plot-wise it was pretty lame).

I actually liked Young's parts of the score, especially the black-Spidey motif. It is more memorable than anything from Elfman's. The score itself is probably too over the top, moreso than previous two and there were some really cheesy moments, but I didn't care. I has been a long time since we had as ballsy and purely fun music in such film. No so-called "restarint".

Overall, the cinema was full of kids and I noticed that the movie dragged a bit in certain parts, even for them. And children were laughing at and loudly commenting on certain things (some mentioned above), which is telling.

Karol, who saw it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watership Down. A 1978 animation feature with John Hurt and Zero Mostel in the voice cast. Based on the novel of the same title, the film follows a bunch of bunnies in their trip to a warren of their own, and what dangers they stumble into to get there, and then once they get there. it was wonderful. A faithful adaptation of a lenghty book (even though the film is just 90 mins long), which keeps the original's spirit very much alive. Too bad the sound was mixed poorly. Good score, too.

I really need to re-read this book. Maybe once I'm done with re-re-re-re-re-reading All The President's Men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see them bring Carnage's character to the film.

If they did, the film would turn into a horror show. That is, if they did it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, the cinema was full of kids and I noticed that the movie dragged a bit in certain parts, even for them. And children were laughing at and loudly commenting on certain things (some mentioned above), which is telling.

It is, it's called ADHD. The kids in my theatre were quiet only during the most action-packed, spectacular moments.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, the cinema was full of kids and I noticed that the movie dragged a bit in certain parts, even for them. And children were laughing at and loudly commenting on certain things (some mentioned above), which is telling.

It is, it's called ADHD. The kids in my theatre were quiet only during the most action-packed, spectacular moments.

Alex

Here they weren't. They were really bored. I didn't see any quite like this on the last two, or a LOTR or HP films.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could imagine that a youngster would be bored to tears at a LOTR movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could imagine an oldster being bored to tears by an LoTR movie (the first one, namely). I know many of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corpse Bride

The story wasn't very interesting. The only thing that amazed me in the film was the artistry in the puppets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men in Black-I hadn't seen it before. I enjoyed it a great deal, actually, and was surprised at some of the humorous aspects. A lot of the humor lay in the delivery of the lines, which I thought Tommy Lee Jones nailed. It was nice watching Will Smith back when he was somewhat likable. I don't find him so pleasant now as then. I can't put my finger on it. Danny Elfman's score was a great help to the story and the visuals and really helped push the film along. Overall it was a positive experience.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-I know this film is a point of some contention due to the books and their popularity and beloved nature. I am a fan of the books too, but I am able to enjoy the film on its own merits. It's the only film I saw in a theater in 2005 that I have enjoyed on repeated viewings or wanted to see again since then. Their are many spot-on performances by the cast; Alan Rickman and Bill Nighy in particular were inspired choices for their roles, and I actually enjoyed Mos Def in the role of Ford Prefect-sure he didn't match the character in the novel, but I thought he played the part well. The score was something that had annoyed me before, but watching the film again I noticed that there are several wonderful cues and for the most part the score definitely enhances the picture. Definitely a film I don't see myself tiring of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Week 18:

70. Mario Puzo's The Godather Part III (1990)

An effort in redundancy. It adds hardly anything new to the series. I even thought its connection to the other two movies hurt the film. It might have been a decent crime film, if it wasn't trying so hard to live up to two classics. Not a horrible film, but not a particularly excelling one either.

71. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

A wonderful children's story, with awesome directing by Steven Spielberg. Still, I don't click with this film the way I apparently should. There's a number of Spielberg films I'd rather watch than this one, and that I get more emotion out of too.

I also felt the score might be a tad too big for this film. I love the music, and I really enjoy listening to it, but in the film, it sounds HUGE, while the film doesn't always communicate that. Now I know you can use music to make a film seem much bigger and more important than it really is (see Back to the Future for a perfect example of this), but on E.T. it almost feels like Williams overshot that goal.

Blasphemy? Perhaps. But it's the sense I got when watching the film, and I remember having a similar feeling about the finale last time I watched it. The score hits all the right beats, but it might have just hit them a little too hard for my taste.

72. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

It's still hard for me to see this as a visual effects extravaganza. There's shots in this with dozens of different elements, and all done optically. And yet you never once think about it. The mark of great directing, and a great effects team (of course the fact that there's no reference for an animated character walking around in real life helps, but still). Excellent movie. It sucks you in, and you buy it from the start. Also, many kudos to Bob Hoskins, for taking us with him into this world and making us believe all the way through.

73. Cars (2006)

The story of this film isn't really special. We've seen it before. But the film is clearly a labor of love. You can tell from its pacing that they took their time to showcase this world. And what a gorgeous world it is. The animation is great as usual, and the environments and all the little technical doohickies look gorgeous. There's stuff in here you might mistake for real life, if there weren't giant eyes on every windshield. Not much of a story, but gorgeous to look at for sure.

74. Alien (1979)

I love this film. I was a bit underwhelmed when I first saw it a few years back, but now I think it's great. The production design is awesome, and I love the slow build-up throughout the entire film. It breathes. It doesn't rush towards things in the first part. This makes the second half all the more scary. There's a great group of actors in it too, that totally make you believe you're in a real environment with real people. Sound design is very effective, too. Classic.

76. The Rock (1996)

It can be a spectacular film, but it suffers from its ADD style. There's a dolly-in on every other line it seems, and it features a host of oh so important pompous characters. Count on Sean Connery to still be fecking awesome in the middle of all of this, all on his own right. The film is well paced, though. It's quite an achievement to introduce a threat, then go away for about 45 minutes to other stuff, and still keep the audience on your side. Still, it's popcorn fare that is really only enjoyed as such, if you can heave yourself over its pompousness.

76. Aliens (1986)

Even though it's 7 years younger than its predecessor, it hasn't aged nearly as well as the original. Paul Reiser's character (and costumes) are straight from the eighties, and there's some other elements of age in there as well. I also never got the whole "this sequel may be better than the original" discussion. It clearly isn't. Alien gets under your skin far more than this film, which is much more focused on action (and very good action at that), and succeeds on more aspects than its sequel. Aliens is a good movie, but it doesn't feel timeless the way Alien does.

77. Alien³ (1992)

A very different film from the other two, and it has some issues. There's a plothole in the first few minutes, that if you think about it, really renders the whole film senseless. It also has some pacing problems, making it feel like a much longer film. It's only three minutes longer than the original (which may probably all three consist of end credits), but that one seemed to fly by. This one does not. At least the look of the film is spectacular, and Sigourney Weaver anchors this film quite well. Decent, but not one I'd tell people they have to see (again, unlike the original).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Week 18:

71. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

A wonderful children's story, with awesome directing by Steven Spielberg. Still, I don't click with this film the way I apparently should. There's a number of Spielberg films I'd rather watch than this one, and that I get more emotion out of too.

I also felt the score might be a tad too big for this film. I love the music, and I really enjoy listening to it, but in the film, it sounds HUGE, while the film doesn't always communicate that. Now I know you can use music to make a film seem much bigger and more important than it really is (see Back to the Future for a perfect example of this), but on E.T. it almost feels like Williams overshot that goal.

Blasphemy? Perhaps. But it's the sense I got when watching the film, and I remember having a similar feeling about the finale last time I watched it. The score hits all the right beats, but it might have just hit them a little too hard for my taste.

76. Aliens (1986)

Even though it's 7 years younger than its predecessor, it hasn't aged nearly as well as the original. Paul Reiser's character (and costumes) are straight from the eighties, and there's some other elements of age in there as well. I also never got the whole "this sequel may be better than the original" discussion. It clearly isn't. Alien gets under your skin far more than this film, which is much more focused on action (and very good action at that), and succeeds on more aspects than its sequel. Aliens is a good movie, but it doesn't feel timeless the way Alien does.

You're becoming are irrelevant as Morlock, as your credibilty rating has reached zero. Extra points are taken for the utterly silly costume comment about Aliens, as Eric Cartman says in SP, whatevah

I do admire how you do you "today I'm watching..." however.

Back to bed after a horrific nightmare......more interesting than my post or Marc's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

71. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

A wonderful children's story, with awesome directing by Steven Spielberg. Still, I don't click with this film the way I apparently should. There's a number of Spielberg films I'd rather watch than this one, and that I get more emotion out of too.

I also felt the score might be a tad too big for this film. I love the music, and I really enjoy listening to it, but in the film, it sounds HUGE, while the film doesn't always communicate that. Now I know you can use music to make a film seem much bigger and more important than it really is (see Back to the Future for a perfect example of this), but on E.T. it almost feels like Williams overshot that goal.

Blasphemy? Perhaps. But it's the sense I got when watching the film, and I remember having a similar feeling about the finale last time I watched it. The score hits all the right beats, but it might have just hit them a little too hard for my taste.

The music is too big during the last 10 minutes. And yet, it gets to me.

74. Alien (1979)

I love this film. I was a bit underwhelmed when I first saw it a few years back, but now I think it's great. The production design is awesome, and I love the slow build-up throughout the entire film. It breathes. It doesn't rush towards things in the first part. This makes the second half all the more scary. There's a great group of actors in it too, that totally make you believe you're in a real environment with real people. Sound design is very effective, too. Classic.

True on all counts. The only drawback is that it's just a thriller and not so much sci-fi. There's not so much in it for me to discuss.

76. Aliens (1986)

Even though it's 7 years younger than its predecessor, it hasn't aged nearly as well as the original. Paul Reiser's character (and costumes) are straight from the eighties, and there's some other elements of age in there as well. I also never got the whole "this sequel may be better than the original" discussion. It clearly isn't. Alien gets under your skin far more than this film, which is much more focused on action (and very good action at that), and succeeds on more aspects than its sequel. Aliens is a good movie, but it doesn't feel timeless the way Alien does.

True on all counts. The more I see it, the more dated it becomes.

77. Alien³ (1992)

A very different film from the other two, and it has some issues. There's a plothole in the first few minutes, that if you think about it, really renders the whole film senseless. It also has some pacing problems, making it feel like a much longer film. It's only three minutes longer than the original (which may probably all three consist of end credits), but that one seemed to fly by. This one does not. At least the look of the film is spectacular, and Sigourney Weaver anchors this film quite well. Decent, but not one I'd tell people they have to see (again, unlike the original).

It is Alien3 that suffers from pompousness. It's in my top 10 worst movies ever.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

71. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

A wonderful children's story, with awesome directing by Steven Spielberg. Still, I don't click with this film the way I apparently should. There's a number of Spielberg films I'd rather watch than this one, and that I get more emotion out of too.

I also felt the score might be a tad too big for this film. I love the music, and I really enjoy listening to it, but in the film, it sounds HUGE, while the film doesn't always communicate that. Now I know you can use music to make a film seem much bigger and more important than it really is (see Back to the Future for a perfect example of this), but on E.T. it almost feels like Williams overshot that goal.

Blasphemy? Perhaps. But it's the sense I got when watching the film, and I remember having a similar feeling about the finale last time I watched it. The score hits all the right beats, but it might have just hit them a little too hard for my taste.

It is only the last minutes in the film when the music is too loud. And I LOVE IT.

I have suffered so many times(prequels , POA) when the music is too quiet.

This is just the right way for this fabulous film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't just have it with the finale. I thought Bait for E.T. was a lot bigger than the scene it was playing over as well.

The gentle material, however, is gorgeous, and says so much about the story and the characters.

What's your opinion on Aliens, Joe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

72. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

It's still hard for me to see this as a visual effects extravaganza. There's shots in this with dozens of different elements, and all done optically. And yet you never once think about it. The mark of great directing, and a great effects team (of course the fact that there's no reference for an animated character walking around in real life helps, but still). Excellent movie. It sucks you in, and you buy it from the start. Also, many kudos to Bob Hoskins, for taking us with him into this world and making us believe all the way through.

Yup on all counts. I am in awe of Zemeckis for this film.

For Your Concideration. Christopher Guest comedy about Oscar buzz. No real bite to it, it is amusing, but rarely much more. **/****.

Silent Movie. Messy and entertaining Mel Brooks film. Some gags are better than others, many of them get old very quickly, like the chase after Paul Newman in wheelchair. I did like the 'Engulf and Devour' bits, those also had the only particularly good music in the film. Rather entertaining film. ***/****.

Babel. Still very affecting the second time around. Excellent performances, particularly by Rinko Kikuchi and Adriana Baraza. I think the film looks and feels marvelous...kudos to the DP. ***1/2/****.

West Side Story. I've seen this several times before, but it was never one of my favorite musicals. Until now. I don't know what happened, but it clicked last night when I saw it.

Man, is this one marvelous movie! It just sucked me in this time around. Just about everything about it is fantastic. And, in general, it has a real vibe of trying to make something new, really trying to make it special. It shows everywhere- from the very begining, with the image you see under the Overture becoming the Big Apple. Just stuff like that- the end titles are fatnastic as well. I will say that some of the visual shtick in there doesn't work so successfully, but when it works, it works.

And the dancing....nothing I've seen in a film comes comes close to this. All the musical numbers are at least good, but three of the set pieces- the Prologue, The Dance at the Gym, and 'America' are just amazing.

The singing. The star of the picture in this aspect is without a doubt Rita Moreno, who belts out her songs with such conviction. The Jets and Sharks are fine. Tony is not bad, although lacking a bit charisma. And then there's Mariah. The only serious falw in the film, a really painful flaw- Marnie Nixon's voice. Her voice is totally out of place, and you never believe that it is Natalie Wood. I don't like Nixon's voice in general, and I think that here she ruined another character in a musical, just like she did with My Fair Lady (although, to be fair- I am biased in that case, as I grew up on Julie Andrews, and no one can possibly compare).

The sets always look very much like sets....but, then again, I've never seen gang members break out in choreographed dance or walking around snapping their fingers, so it works.

It is rather amazing to me that the film was made at this level. Robbins and Wise did an amazing job.

****/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Alien3 that suffers from pompousness. It's in my top 10 worst movies ever.

Oh, you haven't seen Alien Resurrection then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Alien3 that suffers from pompousness. It's in my top 10 worst movies ever.

Oh, you haven't seen Alien Resurrection then?

OK, perhaps that one is also in my top 10 worst of them all. I haven't still seen Alien vs. Predator but I'm sure there is room enough in my top 10 all- time crappiest of all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 Angry Men

I never tire of watching this film. Great performances all around. No studio or audience today would settle for a film that mostly takes place in one single room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The French Connection: The film has never been my cup of tea but the street scenes are gorgeously vivid and the famous car chase is still impressive.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't just have it with the finale. I thought Bait for E.T. was a lot bigger than the scene it was playing over as well.

The gentle material, however, is gorgeous, and says so much about the story and the characters.

What's your opinion on Aliens, Joe?

I prefer Aliens, to Alien, which I find dated somewhat in its performances. I never liked the effects(STTMP should have won the Oscar), in Alien. I do like the art direction in both films, think both films have fine scores, despite the Horner jokes, and technically both films are top notch.

I think Sig. Weaver is the centerpiece of both films, however her performance in Aliens is superior, one of the 2 finest female action roles ever. The characters in Aliens are more interesting to me than in Alien, which I wanted them to die, while most in Aliens I wanted to survive.

The big difference to me, and most will disagree is that I think Ridley Scott is a shit director, and I think Cameron is better.

But in most cases this is apples and oranges.

Alien is a horror film

Aliens is an action film, two different genre's.

Cameron's DVD(2disc) is superior to the 2disc Alien, not a reflection on either film. I do own both.

Alien made a mark on cinema because of the chest bursting scene.

Aliens made a mark on cinema because of Sigourney Weaver's groundbreaking performance.

Aliens 3 is a horrible film, but its David Fincher, the worst major director out there.

Alien 4 is a bad film that is a guilty pleasure, made watchable by another solid S.W. performance.

Alien versus Predator is better than 3 and 4 IMHO, still its another guilty pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 Angry Men

I never tire of watching this film. Great performances all around. No studio or audience today would settle for a film that mostly takes place in one single room.

One of the greatest. Probably one of my top ten favorite films.

The French Connection: The film has never been my cup of tea but the street scenes are gorgeously vivid and the famous car chase is still impressive.

It always has been my cup of tea, and I love the feel of the film and the car chase. But my favorite sequence is the one culminating in that fantastic subway station. I just love the way they play around each other.

Also saw Home Alone. Got the DVD mainly for the score, and the behind the scenes stuff. I watched the film with the commentary, which is an inoffensive but not very interesting interplay between Columbus and Culkin, but under the commentary I was struck by how classy the film looks. It really get a wonderful and warm Christmas feel. The cinematography is very good. Score is one of my favorites, JW recieves tons of well-deserved kudos on the doc and the commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your opinion on Aliens, Joe?

I prefer Aliens, to Alien, which I find dated somewhat in its performances. I never liked the effects(STTMP should have won the Oscar), in Alien. I do like the art direction in both films, think both films have fine scores, despite the Horner jokes, and technically both films are top notch.

I think Sig. Weaver is the centerpiece of both films, however her performance in Aliens is superior, one of the 2 finest female action roles ever. The characters in Aliens are more interesting to me than in Alien, which I wanted them to die, while most in Aliens I wanted to survive.

The big difference to me, and most will disagree is that I think Ridley Scott is a shit director, and I think Cameron is better.

But in most cases this is apples and oranges.

Alien is a horror film

Aliens is an action film, two different genre's.

Cameron's DVD(2disc) is superior to the 2disc Alien, not a reflection on either film. I do own both.

Alien made a mark on cinema because of the chest bursting scene.

Aliens made a mark on cinema because of Sigourney Weaver's groundbreaking performance.

I can agree with a lot of what you said (not including the comment about Scott), Joe, but I still find that Alien succeeded better in what it set out to do than Aliens did, even though both movies have a different goal (like you said, one is horror/thriller, the other is action).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alien made a mark on cinema because of the chest bursting scene.

Aliens made a mark on cinema because of Sigourney Weaver's groundbreaking performance.

Alien has put a mark on cinema because of its dark, alienating presention of the "future". For the first time we truly experienced "the unknown". Plus it had a female action hero, which startled the world back then.

Aliens sorta made a mark on cinema because of the typical Cameron action scenes, see also the Terminator films.

I prefer Aliens, to Alien, which I find dated somewhat in its performances.

What you find "dated" is actually being heralded by the rest of the world, namely, the candid and spontaneous acting of the Nostromo crew, which is simply unique, certainly compared to the standard performances we see in Aliens.

Alex - intervening whenever he feels he must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Aliens, to Alien, which I find dated somewhat in its performances.

What you find "dated" is actually being heralded by the rest of the world, namely, the candid and spontaneous acting of the Nostromo crew, which is simply unique, certainly compared to the standard performances we see in Aliens.

Alex is certainly right on that part. Give me the performances from Alien any time over the Aliens ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always has been my cup of tea, and I love the feel of the film and the car chase. But my favorite sequence is the one culminating in that fantastic subway station. I just love the way they play around each other.

The subway scene is very good indeed. But the film is infested with unlikelihoods, such as the sniper scene (passers helping shot people while the sniper without silencer is still shooting like crazy). I've noticed too many "naive" scenes like that. And then there's the fact that it's "just" a chase movie ...

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Alien still works today. Scott did a great job of creating a creepy & suspenseful atmosphere as well as not showing alot of the Alien. The movie is well paced and acted. I love the clausterphobic feel of the ship. I don't like his handling of Goldsmith's music but that's another story.

Aliens is still enjoyable and was probably the right way to take the sequel. I seriously doubt having the alien stalk another crew would work. I think it's hard to scare an audience twice so I have no problem with the direction Cameron took the film. It's a fun ride.

Alot of people have mentioned that Alien 3 is one of the best looking bad films made. I mentioned that once here and got some "huh?" reactions. What I mean by that is that the film is beautifully shot but the script is crap. I don't like what they did to all the hold over characters from Aliens and the creature effects are poor most of the time. The story is full of holes but I do love the ending, even though Ripley dies. Goldenthal's music is very effective.

Alien Resurrection is just plain awful and I really have nothing else to say about it.

Alien vs Predator may have been an interesting idea for the comic book but it's given a crappy movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alien made a mark on cinema because of the chest bursting scene.

Aliens made a mark on cinema because of Sigourney Weaver's groundbreaking performance.

Alien has put a mark on cinema because of its dark, alienating presention of the "future". For the first time we truly experienced "the unknown". Plus it had a female action hero, which startled the world back then.

Aliens sorta made a mark on cinema because of the typical Cameron action scenes, see also the Terminator films.

I prefer Aliens, to Alien, which I find dated somewhat in its performances.

What you find "dated" is actually being heralded by the rest of the world, namely, the candid and spontaneous acting of the Nostromo crew, which is simply unique, certainly compared to the standard performances we see in Aliens.

Alex - intervening whenever he feels he must.

sorry Alex, you are wrong, as usual, no surprise, there are no standard performances in either film.

Nothing is standard in the action sequences as Cameron is at the top of the game in all of cinema, only Spielberg can match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry Alex, you are wrong, as usual, no surprise, there are no standard performances in either film.

You really don't think the acting in Aliens is more custom to what we usually see in films? That doesn't mean the acting is bad, of course, all I'm saying is that it's less unique. Personally I think the difference between the two styles is enormous. In Alien, the acting is unposed, as if the actors aren't aware that they're being filmed, while Aliens is more conform to the Hollywood style of acting.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unposed" - that's the key, Alex. You nailed the difference between both ways of acting.

-Ross, who'll take Alien over any sequel any day of the week. And twice on Sundays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Mighty Wind. It's cute, the songs are good, but there just isn't enough meat in it. Not funny or scathing enough. But the performances are amiable, I love the concept of not just having a few favorite actors like Kevin Smith or The Coen Brothers, but actually having an entire ensemble of 15-20 people who are in every movie. It's very endearing seeing the same 15 people in every Guest movie, with maybe one or two additions (And, if it's Ricky Gervais, as was the case with For Your Concideration, you can't really complain). Plus, the songs are really pretty good. **1/2/****.

Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures. A decent doc. A lot of talking heads, but a lot of footage of Kubrick that help paint a fuller portrait of the man, without white-washing it too much. Really makes me want to have a marathon (unfortunatley, I only have 3 of his films- Strangelove, Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

71. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

A wonderful children's story, with awesome directing by Steven Spielberg. Still, I don't click with this film the way I apparently should. There's a number of Spielberg films I'd rather watch than this one, and that I get more emotion out of too.

I also felt the score might be a tad too big for this film. I love the music, and I really enjoy listening to it, but in the film, it sounds HUGE, while the film doesn't always communicate that. Now I know you can use music to make a film seem much bigger and more important than it really is (see Back to the Future for a perfect example of this), but on E.T. it almost feels like Williams overshot that goal.

Blasphemy? Perhaps. But it's the sense I got when watching the film, and I remember having a similar feeling about the finale last time I watched it. The score hits all the right beats, but it might have just hit them a little too hard for my taste.

I like the film, but I think that it is overrated. Probably the most overrated Spielberg film. Close Encounters is Steven's best movie about aliens.

I don't think that is is entirely fair to compare Alien to Aliens because they are just so different. Which is good, because every sequel should be good but different than its predecessor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is is entirely fair to compare Alien to Aliens because they are just so different. Which is good, because every sequel should be good but different than its predecessor.

That is true, but you can still say which succeeds better in its goals and is the better film, regardless of its genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both succeed in their goals. Aliens is exciting action, and Alien is suspensful horror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.