What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[Red 75]

If you're a Del Toro fan, then you need to see The Devil's Backbone. Prior to Labyrinth, it was his favorite film of his own.

[A24 4,346]

Yep, he's back!

If you're a Del Toro fan, then you need to see The Devil's Backbone. Prior to Labyrinth, it was his favorite film of his own.

I have the DVD but I haven't seen it yet. I will soon.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Titanic.

I first saw this in 1997, liked it back then. Pretty much forgot about it for a long time after I got it on DVD in 1999, but I just saw it on cable and really got into it. It was pretty fun watching the class systems of the time and I couldn't help but cheer for Billy Zane's character because Rose would have been better off with his power, money and wealth. Plus, I can completely relate to him picking the kid up to get into a lifeboat, exactly what I would have done!

And Kate Winslet has one hell of a naked body!

10/10!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Plus, I can completely relate to him picking the kid up to get into a lifeboat, exactly what I would have done!

Yes....

And Kate Winslet has one hell of a naked body!

Hell YES!

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Hm, I'm behind again.

Week 20:

84. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Wow. This thing is huge. It seems like there's one giant scene after another, with horses and camels and extras as far as you can see. Very impressive. I can only imagine what it must be like to see an actual 70mm print of this projected on a huge screen. The film was made for that, as you can tell by its scale and the way it's shot. It's not a movie. It's an experience. Awesome.

85. Enemy of the State - Extended Edition (1998/2006)

Entertaining action thriller. Smith is quite good in it. The directing and editing is rather flashy (as can be expected from Tony Scott), but it's a fun ride. I don't know which scenes exactly are new, although there are a few that could have been trimmed. The whole extended edition business is likely a marketing thing anyway. Oh well. It's still a fun movie.

86. I, Robot (2004)

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Again, one that offers a lot of spectacle and fun, but at least it tries to offer something more than that. It has some predictable elements to it, and some not so predictable ones.

The visual effects work is very impressive in scale, although even 3 years later not everything has aged as well, and you can clearly see the difference between actors walking around on a greenscreen stage and on a physical set.

The many slow-motion action moments got a little on my nerve, but I still enjoyed the film a great deal.

87. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Tim Burton creates a fun little universe, and Johnny Depp is a joy to watch (as he mostly is), but the film's unnecessary stretched ending and rather episodic structure (although well-paced once they get into the factory) bog the film down. Other than Depp's performance, which doesn't get into the foreground about halfway through the film anyway, it offers very little that makes me want to come back to this movie time and time again. It's all nice and bright and colorful, but that's about it, really. Pity.

88. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - Special Extended Edition (2001/2002)

I hadn't seen any LotR in a while, but when I popped this in, it wasn't about getting a LotR fix, but watching it as a movie on its own. I've always really liked this version, because it adds a lot of little things from the book, and breathes a little bit more, but at the same time, the pacing gets slowed down quite a bit - particularly in the first act - and you can tell some of these things were rightly cut to get the film down to a decent length and pace. It's still good to watch, though, and I'll probably be revisiting the EEs of the other two as well in the coming weeks.

[Red 75]

I liked Burton's Charlie, but I think the 70's Willy Wonka is much better.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Somehow I've always felt that the only thing mistakenly cut from FOTR was the Galadriel gifts scene. I've always prefered the pace of the theatrical release. Its feels like a Terminator movie...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Spiderman 3

Didn't have much interest in seeing this, but I was on a date, so I dhad little choice.

To be honest, it was not half bad, there was some stuff that didn't work. (MJ breaks up with Peter because Harry threatened her, and afterwards she doesn't let Peter know that it was because of that???), and some stuff that was a but to coincidental. (Eddie Brock going to church at the same time Spidey's trying to get rid of that alien suit...yeah right).

The Peter Parker behaving as an asshole part was well done though, and I liked the chemistry between Maguire (who's now far to old to be a student) and Dunst.

The problem was that there was just too much stuff cramped into the film.

The special effects were mostly pretty good, though I would not have minded it if the CGI camera did a few less 360 rotations per minute. The sand effects were the best ones, especially during the Sandman Rises scene.

The score was effective, I don't know Elfman's 2 previous scores at all, so the cut and paste job passed me by for the most part. I rather liked Young's nice and thick gothic chords.

All in all, not a bad film, but I don't think I need to see it a second time.

**1/2 out of ****

P.S.

Tonight did remind me why I don't like going to the cinema. sticky floors, people talking through the picture, a mobile phone going off (the girl I was with, of all people )

DVD Rules!

[Trent B 337]

Since when are you too old to be in college (Peter was in college not high school BTW)?

You'd be surprised how many people Maguire's age and older are in college...

Edit: I checked out Pirates Of The Caribbean: At Worlds End.

I've enjoyed the series thus far and I really enjoyed "At Worlds End". To me it's easily the best one and for those of you who don't like the Pirate films all I can say is... your loss.

I thought "At Worlds End" was a fun and adventurous film. The way how it ended too could easily make way for a fourth film.

Also too... it kind of amazes me how well Zimmer's music works in the film but outside of the film on it's own his music is just meh to me.

[HPFAN_2 0]

Children of Men. Cuaron.....again.........hmmm.

[A24 4,346]

86. I, Robot (2004)

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Again, one that offers a lot of spectacle and fun, but at least it tries to offer something more than that. It has some predictable elements to it, and some not so predictable ones.

The visual effects work is very impressive in scale, although even 3 years later not everything has aged as well, and you can clearly see the difference between actors walking around on a greenscreen stage and on a physical set.

The many slow-motion action moments got a little on my nerve, but I still enjoyed the film a great deal.

Wow, I thought this film, and especially its main character, was a subtle as a sledgehammer. Yuck!

Alex

[Morlock 11]

Saw The King and I. Man, 20th Century Fox just made the WORST musicals! Generally not very good music, script and performances pitched to 5 year olds.....Brynner is believable enough to make this one better than Oklahoma!, but that's not much of a complement. Rodgers and Hammerstein are two very unimpressive musical writers to me.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

86. I, Robot (2004)

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Again, one that offers a lot of spectacle and fun, but at least it tries to offer something more than that. It has some predictable elements to it, and some not so predictable ones.

The visual effects work is very impressive in scale, although even 3 years later not everything has aged as well, and you can clearly see the difference between actors walking around on a greenscreen stage and on a physical set.

The many slow-motion action moments got a little on my nerve, but I still enjoyed the film a great deal.

Wow, I thought this film, and especially its main character, was a subtle as a sledgehammer. Yuck!

Perhaps, but it wasn't nearly as blunt as I had expected it to be, and I had a great time watching it.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Children of Men. Cuaron.....again.........hmmm.

Indeed, it's a great film, just like PoA is.

Ray Barnsbury

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I concur.

[Morlock 11]

What? it is not a great film, merely a great-looking good one with a very weak ending.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Children of Men or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban?

[Morlock 11]

Children of Men.

Morlock- who just saw the The Big Sleep for the first time, is totally and entirely lost by it, and loves the feeling.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Which version, the Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall or the Robert Mitchum and Joan Collins film?

[Morlock 11]

The real one.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That film has some great lines.

Carmen Sternwood: You're not very tall are you?

Marlowe: Well, I, uh, I try to be.

[Morlock 11]

Definately a film I'll need to view again to get a feel for. I must say, it was a relief seeing a film that had no pretenses of being cohesive story-wise, as opposed to films that act as if they do, when they're really a mess. The story of Chandler telling the screenwriter, William Faulkner, that he is as confused as anyone regarding how the cheuffer died is classic.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well here's another film that that has no pretenses of being cohesive story-wise:

The Big Lebowski.

A radical reworking of Raymond Chander (it even has some elements from The Big Sleep).

Like the above mentioned film, the plot threads are all connected and do unravel in the end, but ultimatly it's totally unimportant, and and the action of our main heroes (The Dude and Walter Sobchak) have hardly any influence on the outcome.

After creating the unforgetable character of Marge Gunderson in their previous film, the Coen brothers do it again with the Dude. Who is put to a lot of crap in this film, he really only wants to get his rug back, after it had been pissed upon by some Chinaman.

Jeff Bridges is fantastic in one of his best roles. I really love The Dude, that unkept harmless slacker with a mind contstantly befuddled due though decades of inebriation. Every day blurts into the next for him, yet he is somehow able to rise above himself, slightly and figure out this thing. I do hope he got a nive new carpet out of it, and that he made the semi's.

John Goodman is the perfect counterpart to the laid-back and easy Dude.

Walter, a deranged version of director/screenwriter John Millius, has some of the best scenes in the film.

The scene were The Dude and Walter scatters the ashes of their mate Donny is hilarious.

Although this is not considered to be a special effects film, the visuals in the dream/knock-out sequences are very well done.

As it the music, Carter Burwell did a little bit of score, but most of it are songs, littered throughout the film, really helping to set the tone and feel of The Dude and his world.

Not a significant film in any way, yet brilliant, hilarious and endlessly quoteable.

**** out of ****

[Morlock 11]

One great movie. The dialogue is so perfect, yet it sounds so natural coming from the characters. Whenever I think of the film, I think of that hillarious shot of the spreading of the ashes. I don't know, the two of them standing getting covered with ashes is as funny as the dialogue.

I saw The Painted Veil. Didn't like it, didn't think it was very good storytelling. I understood why they didn't like each other...I didn't understand why this constituted an idea for a movie. Looks nice enough, both leads as well as the other Capote were good. Score was good, didn't strike me as anything particularly special in the film, aside from the main piano idea. Meh. **/****.

The Guns of Navarone. The perfect commando film. It is melodramatic story-telling at it's finest. And it could have been handled so much worse, so much mroe sensationalist. The characters are likable, and, even though it's your typical group of commandos, the writing (to a certain extent) and especially the acting make these charcters so much more likable, complex, and likable than what you'd expect. Film looks terrific, I love the set of the gun nest itself, those awesome guns...the image of them lives up to the title.

And, to top it all off, one of the best scores ever. My favorite Tiomkin song, where I even like the ballad in it. I'm very greatful for the rerecording...not a perfect performance, but it captures the feel and energy perfectly. The Prologue cue is wonderful, as is the film corresponding it. And just about all of it is based on that versatile main theme......Golden Age scoring at it's best, if you ask me.

One of the best adventure pics ever (I think it takes away from the film when it's grouped with films like Where Eagles Dare or The Dirty Dozen- both good flicks, but far more flawed than this one is)

****/****.

Wag The Dog. Alex, I don't understand how you disliked it so. Yes, the plotting is not good. Yes, it's uneven (Is Levinson capable of making an even film?). But the consistancy of the characters, tone and writing make it one hell of an enjoyable film. The dialogue is superb, many quotable lines, and the group scenes are electric. DeNiro, Hoffman and Dennis Leary playing off each other, with contributions by Willy Nelson, are priceless.

***1/2/****.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

The dialogue is superb, many quotable lines

The latter does not guarantee the first.

If it did, The Wizard of Oz would be the best script ever to grace Hollywood.

[Ollie 1,059]

Shrek The Third.

I can't believe I would watch an animated movie where the cartoon characters mailed it in with a half ass performance, but there it was on screen. What a major disappointment.

Shrek 3 is basically one of those old afterschool specials ABC used to run. It takes what could have been a fun story line and turns it into a lesson on getting along.......yawn.

I guess they wanted to see how many celebrity and current / former Saturday Night Live female voices they could cram into the film. Justin Timberlake's character was one of the blandest and most boring ones yet, I kept praying he'd get killed.

The music, well let's just say it's obvious John Powell was the true voice behind his collaboration with HGW because the music has gotten blander and blander since he left.

I thought the first Shrek was fun, the second one lost some of the charm but the third one was just plain boring. Eddie Murphy's Donkey is more annoying than funny. The only character that has any charm is Antonio Banderas's Puss-n-Boots but he is sadly underused.

[A24 4,346]

Wag The Dog. Alex, I don't understand how you disliked it so. Yes, the plotting is not good. Yes, it's uneven (Is Levinson capable of making an even film?). But the consistancy of the characters, tone and writing make it one hell of an enjoyable film. The dialogue is superb, many quotable lines, and the group scenes are electric. DeNiro, Hoffman and Dennis Leary playing off each other, with contributions by Willy Nelson, are priceless.

***1/2/****.

I can't understand how anyone can sit through this whole movie. The movie is self-indulgent and yet it underestimates its audience. Like I said, I tried two times but couldn't finish it and so I threw it away in the garbage.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

I can't understand how anyone can sit through this whole movie. The movie is self-indulgent and yet it underestimates its audience. Like I said, I tried two times but couldn't finish it and so I threw it away in the garbage.

Self-indulgent is a given, it's Mamet. And I don't know what you mean about it underestimating it's audience. Ah well.

Night At The Museum. A surprisingly entertaining film, although I assume it's helped by the fact that it was viewed with a couple of 6 year olds present. It drew me in. No idea why, can't recall anything really good in it, aside the three old codgers. Silvestri's score was big and mickey-mousey and Silvestri-ish.

As a family film, I think it is a **1/2/****.

Venus. The most delightful dirty old man film I've seen in a long time. Good script, very confident directing, and wonderful performances.

Peter O'Toole is great, it would have been a great and most deserving role for his Oscar. The old Brits are all excellent. Leslie Phillips is very entertaining, with a touch of pathos at the end. Vanessa Redgrave is extremely touching- she creates a whole character with a real impact on the film in just three scenes. Richard Griffiths is only in the film briefly, but he has one funny line. Most surprising was Jodie Whittaker. The confidence she exudes...she holds her ground with O'Toole, particularly in the begining.

Several touching moments, a few hard ones to watch, but any fan of O'Tolle should see it (And I can't imagine how one doesn't like O'Toole).

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

More catching up, because the board was down!

Week 21:

89. Mission: Impossible III (2006)

I enjoyed this. And that's really all this film tries to achieve, and at that, it succeeds. The bit where Hunt goes rogue still seems unnecessary and forced, but for the most, it's a fun film. It does tend to feel like a double bill TV-episode with a massively inflated budget, but again, it's fun enough for me not to care and just enjoy it (I've been having more fun watching TV shows than movies for the last year or so anyway so personally, I'm not complaining). The bridge assault is the spectacular highlight of the film, and I still get a laugh at how Abrams basically gives his audience the finger in the end by never revealing what the hell that Rabbit's Foot thing was anyway.

Not a great film by any means, but a good one, one that comes across as unpretentious, and is an enjoyable movie all the way.

90. X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

The third movie shifts focus towards action. Like M:i-III, it's spectacular and fun, but for an X-Men movie, that's a bit of a letdown. I enjoyed this a lot on its own, but after two films that handled the drama and questions that come from the stories' premise so well, it feels like Rattner just didn't want to bother with any of the ethics involved, and just cut straight to the action. The two teaser endings also feel like a bit of a cheat. If this is the final chapter in the trilogy, why o why, do they still have to force open a new door for more movies (I'm sure the answer has something to do with a large amount of green bits of paper, but still)?

Also, because of all the action the characters in this film - and there's about two dozen of them at this point - get very little time. Luckily the main cast has two movies' worth of development to rely on, but the newcomers remain flat and largely uninteresting, defined only by their abilities. Another problem of this film. How it is that this thing turned out the shortest of the three, despite having the biggest setpieces and the most characters of them all remains something of a question.

Final kudos to John Powell, who continues to impress with a score that seems even bigger than this already huge film is. Listening to it is like eating a big cake with sugar frosting, doused in popcorn, with melted butter and caramel poured over it. It's big, it's brassy, it's bold, it's orchestral music the fun way. I love it.

91. The Iron Giant (1999)

Already the second time I've watched this movie this year, and it's still great. I'm going to let it sit on my shelve for a while now, though, and come back to it sometime much later. Brad Bird is an animation genius, and in his first feature he already shows great potential as a filmmaker and storyteller. I love this movie, and The Incredibles, and I'm looking forward to seeing Ratatouille this summer.

92. Das Boot - The Original Extended Version (1981/1985)

This version of Das Boot is basically the miniseries that aired on German television, but with the episodic structure removed. Stitched together into a 4hour, 40 minute behemoth of a film, it becomes a marathon viewing, and one that tries your butt - and, admittedly, your bladder - in a whole new way (although there luckily is a disc change that can be used as an intermission when viewing the DVD).

Still, with its 281 minute running time (and that's on PAL, mind you), it's still a tense experience, and the submarine life has probably never come home better. They're constantly in cramped, dark, and sweaty environments, and you can almost imagine the foul air that must hang in these places. When they dock with another ship about two-thirds into it and board, the bigger rooms feel twice as large after two-and-a-half hours of submarine quarters.

Wolfgang Petersen wisely avoids any big red flags with swastikas on them, making us identify with these guys as people and sailors, and not as ze evil Nazi folk from Germany. Of course this is also helped by having a captain that isn't exactly the most sympathetic to the Führer. Anyway, you never see these guys as ze Germans, the way you would normally think of (I know as much can be expected from a German production, but still).

The whole thing is really quite an achievement, although some might feel a little cheated by the ending. It's all very poignant and ironic, but to spend four-and-a-half hours to arrive at this ending may leave some viewers unsatisfied. I didn't really have a big beef with it, and I think that if you are upset about what lies in store for these characters at film's end, that must mean you cared for these guys even more than you might have expected.

93. Collateral (2004)

Michael Mann paints another nice portrait of Los Angeles, and does it while pitting two fine actors against one another. Jamie Foxx is excellent as can be expected and it's astounding what just the grey hair did for Tom Cruise. He becomes a different person, I accept him easier as a character, rather than Tom Cruise playing a character, and his performance is very good as well. I really quite like this film, but it never reaches the height of, say, Heat, that other great LA-based crime movie from Michael Mann (although that is quite a movie to beat).

The majority of this film was shot in hi-def, but unfortunately, it does not come off to well. Whether some of it is due to the video transfer I don't know, but many scenes just look like they've been shot on video. You can see the difference when they move to plain old film, and I think the film scenes just look better. Most of this was taken into consideration, though, when Panavision continued to develop their Genesis system, and I expect newer films look much better (I believe Superman Returns was shot with the Genesis cam, and it looked fine to me on IMAX - although I've yet to see it on DVD).

94. Jaws (1975)

What a wonderful, wonderful movie this is. Every time I see it I enjoy it more. I love the whole style of the thing. It's a cliché thing to say, but it's true: they just don't make 'em like they used to. But that way of shooting and directing works so well for the film. I love it.

Chief Brody is an odd hero, though. He's a bit naive at times, he's not in his element in Amity, and he's almost the pussy among the three heroes in the third act. But Scheider gives a fine performance (as does the rest of the cast), and we have plenty of time to identify with this guy. And it all works very well.

It's also one of the best-spotted films, with the music coming in in just the right moments. There's hardly any music in the first hour, making it all the more effective when it does come in, and moves more to the foreground in the sea chases.

I could ramble on incoherently about all the things I like about this film more and more, but I'll just leave it at this. One of the best and simultaneously most basically enjoyable films you're likely to come across. Awesome.

95. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Extended Edition (2002/2003)

The Two Towers is the movie that benefits most from its extended form. It breathes a lot more, feels more like a novel than a summary, and allows for more detailed subplots and development. Most of it fits very well, but I must say that as much as I enjoy seeing Sean Bean, John Noble, Osgiliath, and hearing Shore's Gondor theme in this, the Faramir flashback does bring do movie to a screeching halt, taking time to set up something that really has no place in this installment. It's a very nice sequence on its own, and I like seeing it back into the film, tieing the trilogy further together, but for this film on its own, it was wisely cut.

Ah, it's good to be posting again!

[robthehand 3]

Quick thoughts on a few films I saw recently...

Star Trek - The Motion Picture - The Director's Edition. I enjoyed it. To say that it's the best version of the film is sadly not saying very much - but now it moves along at an agreeable pace. The script however, particularly the dialogue, is dreadful. But that score... words can't describe it. One of the best ever written, both as standalone music and in terms of how well it suits the film. Enjoyable film, but much less than the sum of its parts.

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan. That's more like it! Great performances, great script, better than TMP in pretty much every way - except the score (which is still absolutely superb, but inevitably pales in comparison to Goldsmith's original), and special effects (which are nevertheless perfectly acceptable). That scene doesn't disappoint, but just as good was the scene where the Enterprise crew prepares for battle. And I just love the look of Khan's face earlier in the film when he finds out that the shields are dropping.

Just a quick thought about Star Trek in general: I really think it was Nimoy who made it work. Shatner has that star power, but Nimoy gives it a real class, and as a result Spock is frequently the most interesting part of the episode or film.

Manhattan. Not as good as Annie Hall, but very close. Funny, sad, beautifully shot, great music, everything about it just works.

The Time Machine (1960 version, of course). Great fun, and a clever and thought-provoking plot, despite being quite drastically dumbed down from the source material. I haven't seen Rod Taylor in many films, but he was better here than in The Birds. Great score, I should get the CD.

The Exorcist. Fantastic film, my favourite horror film along with Carrie. Technically no movie is perfect, but I really just can't think of anything wrong with this one.

The Untouchables. I've always loved this film, but I've come to appreciate it more, recently. Great script, great performances from pretty much everyone, and of course great, stylish direction from the master of great, stylish direction. Only thing that didn't quite work for me were the scenes with Ness' family. Nothing bad about them, they just weren't particularly interesting.

The Adventures of Robin Hood. Watched it with my dad, who hadn't seen it in years. We both enjoyed it a lot, it's a perfect adventure film.

Die Hard. If Robin Hood is the perfect adventure film, this is the perfect action film. The casting is spot-on, the dialogue wonderfully witty, and extremely well directed and photographed by John McTiernan and Jan de Bont. I think this film would really suffer in pan-and-scan. Kamen's score was good, I loved the use of "Ode to Joy".

Three Days of the Condor. Overall, not very impressive. And I generally like this sort of film. Max von Sydow was great, as usual. Redford's character didn't seem at all convincing, to me. Nor did Dunaway's. I'm not exactly sure what I didn't like about it, but overall I just felt underwhelmed and disappointed.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Die Hard. If Robin Hood is the perfect adventure film, this is the perfect action film. The casting is spot-on, the dialogue wonderfully witty, and extremely well directed and photographed by John McTiernan and Jan de Bont. I think this film would really suffer in pan-and-scan. Kamen's score was good, I loved the use of "Ode to Joy".

It is the perfect action film, and it does suffer heavily when seen in fullscreen.

The Special Edition DVD even includes a short feature demonstrating why letterbox is better.

[A24 4,346]

90. X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

The third movie shifts focus towards action. Like M:i-III, it's spectacular and fun, but for an X-Men movie, that's a bit of a letdown. I enjoyed this a lot on its own, but after two films that handled the drama and questions that come from the stories' premise so well, it feels like Rattner just didn't want to bother with any of the ethics involved, and just cut straight to the action. The two teaser endings also feel like a bit of a cheat. If this is the final chapter in the trilogy, why o why, do they still have to force open a new door for more movies (I'm sure the answer has something to do with a large amount of green bits of paper, but still)?

Also, because of all the action the characters in this film - and there's about two dozen of them at this point - get very little time. Luckily the main cast has two movies' worth of development to rely on, but the newcomers remain flat and largely uninteresting, defined only by their abilities. Another problem of this film. How it is that this thing turned out the shortest of the three, despite having the biggest setpieces and the most characters of them all remains something of a question.

The action scenes are dumb. The whole movie played out like a typical Jean Claude Van Damme film. The superior freaks were constantly standing on the side to see how two lesser talented freaks are doing their tricks. It's about the dumbest comic film I've ever seen. Singer also focused mainly on the action but with much more class and inventiveness. He knew how to give the action and the characters momentum, all at the same time. Compared to Singer's work, Rattner's film feels like a grotesque joke with badly dressed clowns.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

The bridge assault is the spectacular highlight of the film, and I still get a laugh at how Abrams basically gives his audience the finger in the end by never revealing what the hell that Rabbit's Foot thing was anyway.

Not a great film by any means, but a good one, one that comes across as unpretentious, and is an enjoyable movie all the way.

I disagree with both these comments. I thought the film was very pretentious, and very forgettable. Pretty boring, too. Of course, it's miles better than Woo's film, but as I think that is one of the worst films I've ever seen, that's saying very little.

And as for never revealing it...it's just a McGuffin, I don't see how he could have possibly revealed what it is. I felt that John Frankheimer did a good job of giving the audience a finger with the suitcase in Ronin.

90. X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

A missed opportunity. It had good stuff in it, but it felt like they were trying so hard to kill off the series, I can't imagine why. And, to top it off, a director who seemed totally disinteresting in the project. McKellen is fun, though, and Powell's score is terrific.

91. The Iron Giant (1999)

I love this movie, and The Incredibles, and I'm looking forward to seeing Ratatouille this summer.

I love Iron Giant, and The Incredibles, but Ratatouille just doesn't good at all. But, than again, I guess neither did the first two (to me).

92. Das Boot - The Original Extended Version (1985)

Great. Sub movie. Ever. By a mile.

93. Collateral (2004)

Michael Mann paints another nice portrait of Los Angeles, and does it while pitting two fine actors against one another. Jamie Foxx is excellent as can be expected and it's astounding what just the grey hair did for Tom Cruise. He becomes a different person, I accept him easier as a character, rather than Tom Cruise playing a character, and his performance is very good as well. I really quite like this film, but it never reaches the height of, say, Heat, that other great LA-based crime movie from Michael Mann (although that is quite a movie to beat).

The majority of this film was shot in hi-def, but unfortunately, it does not come off to well. Whether some of it is due to the video transfer I don't know, but many scenes just look like they've been shot on video. You can see the difference when they move to plain old film, and I think the film scenes just look better. Most of this was taken into consideration, though, when Panavision continued to develop their Genesis system, and I expect newer films look much better (I believe Superman Returns was shot with the Genesis cam, and it looked fine to me on IMAX - although I've yet to see it on DVD).

I love the film. It's all handled so well, even the ending, which could have been a much bigger cop-out. The hi-def is destracting in the begining, but it worked for me as the picture progressed. It did feel like I was seeing a more "real" LA than usual.

Manhattan. Not as good as Annie Hall, but very close. Funny, sad, beautifully shot, great music, everything about it just works.

I actually like it more. It feels less forced to me than Annie Hall. The second sentence is entirely accurate.

The Exorcist. Fantastic film, my favourite horror film along with Carrie. Technically no movie is perfect, but I really just can't think of anything wrong with this one.

Never liked this one. I think that Friedken is one of the least impressive directors out there.

The Untouchables. I've always loved this film, but I've come to appreciate it more, recently. Great script, great performances from pretty much everyone, and of course great, stylish direction from the master of great, stylish direction. Only thing that didn't quite work for me were the scenes with Ness' family. Nothing bad about them, they just weren't particularly interesting.

I used to love this film...but the last time I saw it, I liked it less. I think the script is good, between Mamet and DePalma it is a bit too stylized, but still, good script. I do not think the performances are all great- Connery and DeNiro are a lot of fun, and Andy Garcia is, too. But I do not like Kevin Costner's performance at all. I think he is boring, and doesn't seem to know what film he's in. Looks fantastic, and it's got that great score. However, when it's cooking, it's really cooking. The scenes that do feel alive are tremendous.

[A24 4,346]

Never liked this one (The Exorcist). I think that Friedken is one of the least impressive directors out there.

This has to be the strangest comment of the week. You wouldn't have said it if you knew how that film has changed the genre and still beats most of its modern incarnations. People at the time thought it was too impressive. That being said, you really should see the Theatrical Cut of The Exorcist for it's much better than the Director's Cut (which I don't like - too much ballast). BTW, you love The French Connection, don't you? That's Friedkin too! Two smashing films in one career! I'll bet there are worse directors out there.

Alex

[robthehand 3]

Never liked this one (The Exorcist). I think that Friedken is one of the least impressive directors out there.

No doubt his recent work isn't up to the standard of The French Connection (or The Exorcist), but I'd have thought those two films would put him above the level of "least impressive". I mean, he's not on the level of this guy, surely?

That being said, you really should see the Theatrical Cut of The Exorcist for it's much better than the Director's Cut (which I don't like - too much ballast).

Not to split hairs, but it's not a "director's cut", Friedkin says that the "director's cut" is what was released in 1973, and the extended version was basically (writer) Blatty's version - Blatty wanted those extra scenes in, especially the happier ending - while Friedkin preferred the more ambigious ending of the theatrical version, and thought the added devil images made the fact that she really was posessed too obvious, too soon. I agree with Friedkin, and I didn't care for the extended version at all.

The spider-walk was startling the first time I saw it, but I do think it was out of place, for the same reason as the devil images were. Also, in the documentary on the theatrical version DVD, Friedkin says that he wasn't satisfied with the way they'd originally had the spider-walk scene since it comes just seconds after Chris finds out about Burke's death, and that neither moment ended up being effective, so they cut it. The way it was added in the extended version basically just proves his point.

[Morlock 11]

I know that is changed the genre. I'm sure it beats most modern incarnation. It's a genre I'm not a big fan or follower. I love The French Connection, yes. I dont' actively disliked The Exorcist, it just never did anything for me. And every other Friedkin film I've seen was bad or worse. So, for me, it's one great film, one uninteresting film, and a bunch of bad ones. Hey, there are these flukes in the biz. A guy has one great movie, and none that come close. Look at Curtis Hanson. He made one of my absolute favorite movies, and a hwole bunch of meh movies (or worse). I feel bad, as I want to like Friedkin- I've been to a Q&A of his, and he came off as such a nice, intelligent guy. But I haven't liked naything of his since French Connection.

BTW- I think Venus is a film that wouldn't offend your sensibilities. And, even if it is, it's worth it for the performances.

[A24 4,346]

I used to love this film (The Untouchables)...but the last time I saw it, I liked it less. I think the script is good, between Mamet and DePalma it is a bit too stylized, but still, good script. I do not think the performances are all great- Connery and DeNiro are a lot of fun, and Andy Garcia is, too. But I do not like Kevin Costner's performance at all. I think he is boring, and doesn't seem to know what film he's in. Looks fantastic, and it's got that great score. However, when it's cooking, it's really cooking. The scenes that do feel alive are tremendous.

I agree with the Kostner notion. Actually, I never liked the film. Is this Mamet? I thought I loved Mamet! What bothered me also is the caricature perfomance of Connery. It's a role he played one too many times, you know, the experienced veteran with an overdose of charisma and who always knows best.

Alex

Not to split hairs, but it's not a "director's cut", Friedkin says that the "director's cut" is what was released in 1973, and the extended version was basically (writer) Blatty's version - Blatty wanted those extra scenes in, especially the happier ending - while Friedkin preferred the more ambigious ending of the theatrical version, and thought the added devil images made the fact that she really was posessed too obvious, too soon. I agree with Friedkin, and I didn't care for the extended version at all.

The spider-walk was startling the first time I saw it, but I do think it was out of place, for the same reason as the devil images were. Also, in the documentary on the theatrical version DVD, Friedkin says that he wasn't satisfied with the way they'd originally had the spider-walk scene since it comes just seconds after Chris finds out about Burke's death, and that neither moment ended up being effective, so they cut it. The way it was added in the extended version basically just proves his point.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't care much for "The Version You've Never Seen". I think I'm going to thow it away, it only diminishes the original.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

No doubt his recent work isn't up to the standard of The French Connection (or The Exorcist), but I'd have thought those two films would put him above the level of "least impressive". I mean, he's not on the level of this guy, surely?

He's the worst you could find? I was sure it was a link to Shitmaker. Now there's a really unimpressive director. I don't even blame him for the Batman movies. They weren't much to begin with. But his incessant way of handling potentialy good material badly is maddening.

And, in all fairness, Friedken's Bug is getting some interesting reviews. We'll see.

What bothered me also is the caricature perfomance of Connery. It's a role he played one too many times, you know, the experienced veteran with an overdose of charisma and who always knows best.

Granted, it's not much of a stretch for him...but it's entertaining enough for the part. And he's got a great death scene (helped immesurably by Morricone's great theme for that).

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

93. Collateral (2004)

Michael Mann paints another nice portrait of Los Angeles, and does it while pitting two fine actors against one another. Jamie Foxx is excellent as can be expected and it's astounding what just the grey hair did for Tom Cruise. He becomes a different person, I accept him easier as a character, rather than Tom Cruise playing a character, and his performance is very good as well. I really quite like this film, but it never reaches the height of, say, Heat, that other great LA-based crime movie from Michael Mann (although that is quite a movie to beat).

The majority of this film was shot in hi-def, but unfortunately, it does not come off to well. Whether some of it is due to the video transfer I don't know, but many scenes just look like they've been shot on video. You can see the difference when they move to plain old film, and I think the film scenes just look better. Most of this was taken into consideration, though, when Panavision continued to develop their Genesis system, and I expect newer films look much better (I believe Superman Returns was shot with the Genesis cam, and it looked fine to me on IMAX - although I've yet to see it on DVD).

I am of the impression that digital was chosen (and its gain upped) to give it that specific look

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yes, I've heard of that too. Perhaps I should then just say I didn't like the look of the film.

- Marc, who prefers his big-ass 2.35:1 films to look like film, not DVCam.

[Morlock 11]

It was given to give LA a harsher look. Mann said he didn't was a 'La-La Land' look to his LA. I think that overall, it was successful. It took a few scenes, though. Same thing happened with Apocalypto. In the begining, I thought the HD made it look terrible. But after a few minutes, I don't know, it clicked.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

In that case, I suppose it works well for the outdoor night stuff. But I'm still not sure on its use in those big white halls. I also don't think the widescreen aspect ratio and the DV look go very well together (it doesn't really feel like a 2.35 film in its framing either).

[A24 4,346]

You really should check out 16 Years Of Alcohol. It looks incredible and it's shot with HD video. Its sharpness is not of this earth. My mouth was wide open the whole time.

BTW, while we're still on the subject, who portrayed the best the "darkness" of L.A.? Mann with Collatoral or Friedkin with To Live And Die In L.A.?

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The action scenes are dumb. The whole movie played out like a typical Jean Claude Van Damme film. The superior freaks were constantly standing on the side to see how two lesser talented freaks are doing their tricks. It's about the dumbest comic film I've ever seen. Singer also focused mainly on the action but with much more class and inventiveness. He knew how to give the action and the characters momentum, all at the same time. Compared to Singer's work, Rattner's film feels like a grotesque joke with badly dressed clowns.

Alex

What I didn't like is that the friendship between Wolverine and Rogue, which was at the center of the first film and very important in the second was reduced to the 2 characters maybe sharing 3 minutes of screentime in the entire film.

Also if you are gonna cast Kelsey Grammar and paint him blue, you may as well give him something to do.....

[Morlock 11]

I didn't like Halle Berry's bigger role. I never liked her as an actress (a sight for sore eyes though she may be), and think she was totally out of place taking over X's position.

Grammer was underused. Although I did recall a couple of good moments with him. The only thing that made the film watchable was McKellen. Almost saves it by pure theatricality.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yes. McKellen is awesome.

But he's awesome in basically everything he does.

[robthehand 3]

The only thing that made the film watchable was McKellen. Almost saves it by pure theatricality.

That makes twice he did exactly that last year.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Same thing happened with Apocalypto. In the begining, I thought the HD made it look terrible. But after a few minutes, I don't know, it clicked.

I thought the motion in the tapir hunt opening, especially the shots where the camera tracks alongside the runner looked kinda weird in the DV kinda way...but apart from that, I wouldnt have known it was shot on digital.

[Morlock 11]

The only thing that made the film watchable was McKellen. Almost saves it by pure theatricality.

That makes twice he did exactly that last year.

Indeed. Although his part in the other one wasn't as big, and it was hard even for him to destract us from uncommonly boring Tom Hanks performance.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Apparently Indiana Jones was a model for the character, according to Dan Brown, unfortunatly Tom Hanks seemed to have been inspired by Harrison Ford as he is today....