Jump to content

What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II


Lurker
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pan's Labyrint: Guillermo Del Toro's new movie didn't enchant me as much as I hoped it would. It was a good story but perhaps too streamlined? Too simple? Too weak on human interest? Still, the film contains 'fantasy' scenes that are greater, more compelling than anything seen in the Potter films.

Red Eye: Wes Craven starts okay but soon the story takes us to overfamiliar territory. Watchable but nothing more.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally saw it as as a look at the role of fantasy/fairy tales in our lives. I loved that it was not a fantasy movie.

Saw Airplane!. I don't know, it's just not very funny anymore. Sure, it has some great jokes, but very few and very far between. Still, it works as nostalgia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like 'Air Israel'? Oy.

I personally enjoy the Naked Gun movies more, they have the same pace, same kind of characters, just they overload you with 5 times as many jokes, so even if a bunch of them don't work, you're still laughing pretty consistantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pan's Labyrint: Guillermo Del Toro's new movie didn't enchant me as much as I hoped it would. It was a good story but perhaps too streamlined? Too simple? Too weak on human interest? Still, the film contains 'fantasy' scenes that are greater, more compelling than anything seen in the Potter films.

Alex

The story is anything but too weak on human interest. Having said alkl that, it made me really depressed. Grat film, but not one I would revisit very often.

Grindhous: Death Proof. It's a bit too slow in the first part, but after that it's a thrill ride. Probably the most trashy film Tarantino has ever made, but that's the fun, isn't it? The audience was cheering at the end. I haven't seen such a response for quite a while.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pan's Labyrint: Guillermo Del Toro's new movie didn't enchant me as much as I hoped it would. It was a good story but perhaps too streamlined? Too simple? Too weak on human interest? Still, the film contains 'fantasy' scenes that are greater, more compelling than anything seen in the Potter films.

Alex

The story is anything but too weak on human interest. Having said alkl that, it made me really depressed. Grat film, but not one I would revisit very often.

But it has a happy ending...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Not that it was a bad thing, but I wasn't prepared for something quite as dark when I first saw it. Still, it will probably end in my collection, since the film looks gorgeous and is far more daring than anything I've seen in the genre. I can respect that, even if I don't quite enjoy it (the way wanted).

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story is anything but too weak on human interest.

I thought the characters were nothing more than the ones you find in fairy tales. They do only that what the story expects from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem, isn't it? I thought about it also, but then accepted it the way it is. It IS a fairy tale after all. I only wish they made capt. Vidal character more... human.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Black Sanke Moan. A hard movie to evaluate. Overall, I guess I liked it. A bit too strong on the unusual stuff for the down to earth ending 'moral', but a very unusual, and, yes, rather daring story. Sam Jackson is terrific. Christina Ricci is as well (naked, too). Loved the Priest.

Good, blusey soundtrack.

I do know that both the trailer and the poster misrepresented the movie.

**1/2/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was human, not everyone has to have a good side.

A story like this needs a character for you to hate, a big bad wolf, an evil witch, a wicked stepmother.

He was the monster. He was the one we should be afraid of, not the real "monsters".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was human, not everyone has to have a good side.

A story like this needs a character for you to hate, a big bad wolf, an evil witch, a wicked stepmother.

He was the monster. He was the one we should be afraid of, not the real "monsters".

Yes, but I found that interesting in the movie. The kind of balance achieved. The big bad guy was the bad guy in both the fantasy and real worlds. I don't think the movie worked for me as a whole. But it had so many interesting concepts in there, that I loved it. I thought a long time about the opening shot alone, the blood going back into her. It just captures that fragile emotion I got out of the film, the role of fantasy in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem, isn't it? I thought about it also, but then accepted it the way it is. It IS a fairy tale after all. I only wish they made capt. Vidal character more... human.

Karol

He cared about his wife a little... And his son. But in his peculiar point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did not care about his wife at all! In his eyes she was only the carrier of his son. A son whom he anticipated like a demon waiting for the Antichrist.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He cared about his wife a little... And his son. But in his peculiar point of view.

I dont think he would have 'loved' his son either.

But seeing the wife as a vessel, and wanting a male son, to continue the heritage is more of less the 'love' a man gave in the old times ( i hope you understand what i'm saying). It really goes with the character, no fantasy at all...

BTW i got the idea that he had been in love for her in his youth, but she married another man. When this one died he took the opportunity and married her. She couldnt say no to a powerful captain of the winning side of the war, and specially when i got the impresion the deceased husband may have been a republican.

Wow, this talking about the movie just reminded me that i have still to watch it in Spanish :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Jane Campion's The Piano yesterday for the first time in years. Wow... This has to be one of the most exquisite films ever made. Intelligent, daring, perfectly acted, brilliantly scored... A masterpiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally saw it once, and expected something very different....I hated it. I have the feeling that I still won't like it after another viewing, but time will tell. Score is great, certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix

Overall an improvement over the last one in that it had an actual plot line that was followed though throughout the film.

Imelda Staunton was superb as the Uber-bitch with her annoying giggle hiding (barely) a dark and misguided mind.

Daniel Radcliffe has slowly overtime grown into a proper actor, who can hold his own with the huge amount of British acting talent seen on screen.

The ending was a bit weak though, Sirius' death happens much to sudden, he just...dissapears, and the all important phophecy that CANNOT fall into the wrong hands is just spelling out the bleeding obvious. Harry and Voldemort have to fight each other to the death, like we didn't know this was gonna happen when they did the first film.

Acting of the rest of the cast was once again very strong, but as ever you wish you had seen more of certain actors (David Thewlis comes to mind).

The score by Hooper was a very effective one, purposefully shying away from the lighter, mafical music by John Williams and the orchestral powerhouse of Doyle to provide something more sparse and focused, especially during the latter part of the film.

I don't know yet how it will play as an album, but this is very good filmmusic.

Despite some flaws, I was entertained hugely, so:

*** out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ending was a bit weak though, Sirius' death happens much to sudden, he just...dissapears,

I agree about the ending (this applies to the entire finale of the movie), though...

and the all important phophecy that CANNOT fall into the wrong hands is just spelling out the bleeding obvious. Harry and Voldemort have to fight each other to the death, like we didn't know this was gonna happen when they did the first film.

...having read the book, I didn't realise the prophecy comes across as this simple and devoid of impact in the movie. But then, they managed to remove most of the impact from the finale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the prophecy any better in the book?

And why did Voldemort need this bit of info anyway?

Just sounds like an unnecessary set up to the next book.

Liked Jason Isaacs getting a more substantial role then last time though, and the lessons Harry had with Snape. No wonder he's so miserable, bullied like that... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full Prophecy was longer in the book:

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ...

It is significant, because a) this description actually fits two boys: Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom, and b) Voldemort would decide which one of these two would be the Chosen One himself by attempting to kill either of them. This connection between Harry and Voldemort and Voldemort's choices are made a big deal out of in later parts of the last books.

It was just reduced to a mere plot device and place holder for something that could be interesting in the movie - like so many other things that were reduced to nothing, rather than axed altogether to make room for more important stuff to get more development time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Momentarily breaking away from Potter (which I saw Saturday - best movie so far IMO), just come back from The Simpsons, and well, Groening & co have partially restored my faith in the show in light of some pretty awful recent episodes. Probably the best movie I've seen in a long time, and the music worked very well, in fact I hardly noticed it much of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter & the Philosophers Stone.

After seeing the 5th one last night I thought it might be nice to go back to the previous ones and see how much things changed. And oh my did they. The first film now feels much more like a childrens adventure film then ever, Roald Dahl meets Scooby Doo. It is however a superbly entertaining mystery film.

The direction by Columbus is at times a bit slow and dwells on the needless, but the look of the film is outstanding, and it is very well cast.

The veteran British actors are all great in their roles and our 3 heroes, while still having occasional teething problems will turn out to be better with every installment.

This film is based on a shorter book, so it feels less densly packed then most of the others and there is more room for character development, I especially loved the budding friendship between the young Harry and Hagdrid, something that became rather lost in the mix in later films.

And Alan Rickman is of course the perfect red herring.

Watching this film made me see why John Williams was interesated in doing it, but also why he probably lost interest in doing all of them, the tone of the films become increasingly more dark, while it was the fanciful magic scenes that Williams apparently loved most of all (apparently Letters From Hogwarts was his favorite scene). The last 2 films, while having it's own superb qualities basically have a mood and storyline not that different as to what Williams has done with The Prequels.

I mean in this film it actually matters who wins the House cup.

Ruminations:

The special effects, while often failing a bit during several important scenes, hold up remarkably well when applied merely in the back ground, the moving paintings, the moving candles, the bricks at Diagon alley...etc..

What's the difference between the troll in this film and Hagrid's half-brother giant? They both seem big and simple.

The centaur in this film seems to prweak coherantly and intelligently, the ones in film 5 act more then gypsy cavemen with 4 legs.

So who did give Harry that invisibility cloak? And why? (apart from obvious plot contrivanceses)

It's kinda nice that this series has not only hold on to many of it's seasons vetreran British tesps, but also to many of the younger actors playing (future) students, Ginny, Longbottom, Fred and George, Sheamus.

John Cleese plays the most useless role in his career.

This film has an honest to god climax, not just a set up for the next film, it actually resesolves the main storyline in an intense and frightening way, yippee!

***1/2 out of **** stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter & the Philosophers Stone.

I really loved this film when it came out, but it hasn't aged well at all. Score's still a masterpiece, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wyatt Earp. Enjoyable if not somewhat flawed Costner flick, based upon the life of the title character. Dennis Quaid was a scene stealer as Doc Holliday.

Now, I've gotta watch Tombstone.

Tombstone is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets.

This film, while certainly not without it's charm and strengths is still a huge step back from the first one.

Ruminations:

The good stuff.

I like the Weasley's, a lot, a complete contrast from Harry's unloving family. Julie Walters has fun playing Mother Weasley.

Jason Isaacs makes for a deliciously vile nazi-like villian

Kenneth Branagh's character has absolutely nothing to do with the plot and is merely there for comic relief, but he plays him so well, that I actually don't mind.

Like the first and third movie, this film has a proper finale. Not just a set up for the next film.

Radcliffe and Grint are a little more seasoned here overall then the first one, and Watson is just right.

The film looks great, the effects are really fabulous in certain scenes, loved the flying car, and the snake.

Robert Hardy as Fudge, I grew up on All Creatures Great and Small, so it's great to see him in anything. :D

The less good stuff.

The entire Aragog red herring took up far to much time, complete with pointless and expensive spider/car chase.

Oh my the sound events level has gone up, hasn't it, this isn';t a bad thing perse, but compared to the first one, my subwoofer was doing a lot more work. (poor neighbors)

The ending were Lucius Malfoy looses his house elf and goes balistic, I don't like it, it's an audience pleasing way for him to get his cumuppence, but I think it would be more in his character to just stride away angrily.

Actually the entire wrap up of this film took a bit to long.

Fawkes The Phoenix, whatever his qualities in the book, here he is nothing more then an obvious plot device. The scene were Harry's life is saved because a Phoenix's tears have healing powers is the most embarresing "Look everyone, it's gonna be OK" moment since 1967 when Spock did not go blind in Operation: Annihilate! because he had an extra set of eyelids....

I didn't like the Cornish Pixies, I prefer Cornish pastries.

The music, although the cut-and paste job was overall fairly well done, at certain points to music just didn't feel like it fitted well enough. I actually understand who it was mixed lower this time, it's to hide it a bit.

Dobby was just a tad to annoying, and he didn't look good enough.

I could go on and on, but despite it's weaknesses this is still a watchable film, it's just not as good as the first, third and fifth.

**1/2 out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only saving grace I could find in that torture that is Chamber of Secrets was Kenneth Branagh having fun.

That, and Neville Longbottom's "Why does it always have to be me?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wyatt Earp. Enjoyable if not somewhat flawed Costner flick, based upon the life of the title character. Dennis Quaid was a scene stealer as Doc Holliday.

Now, I've gotta watch Tombstone.

Tombstone is better.

Gotta agree with red, Tombstone is better. Wyatt Earp from what I remember was fun to watch but not quite up to par with Tombstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the only thing I likied about the Cornish pixies scene, brought me back to my own school days.

Yes, something I'd rather not be reminded of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.