What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[Romão 2,274]

King Kong is ridiculously pretentious film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I still do not believe a movie about a big ape climbing a skyscraper should last 3 + hours.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

King Kong is ridiculously pretentious film.

It takes itself seriously, which is a good thing. JP didn't, and that's one of its problems.

[tpigeon 3]

Any movie about any subject matter can be great. That's the beauty of cinema.

Ted

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

King Kong is ridiculously pretentious film.

It takes itself seriously, which is a good thing. JP didn't, and that's one of its problems.

It's actually the other way round on these two for me.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

Hm.

That I just can't see.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I have a huge nostalgic liking for Jurassic Park, though.

I thought King Kong was trying to be too epic for its own good.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I love both films.

As good as JNH's score for KK is, John Williams Lost World score would work better in all the action sequeces.

Still both films have moments of sheer wonder.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

I have a huge nostalgic liking for Jurassic Park, though.

Well, I also like it. Mostly for nostalgic reasons, but also because it certainly has its moments. It's just that overall, I really find it less good I watch it, particularly when thinking about the excellent novel.

The one thing where the Kong score is truly outstanding is the love theme. Though I also love that primal Kong motif. And of course, the rest of the score is fine as well, particularly the Gershwin-like urban stuff and the Goldsmithy action music. But as I said, pretty much all of that seems to be on the CD. And what I forgot to mention: The score mix isn't loud enough in the movie.

[Red 75]

Film wise I'd have to give it to Kong, but score wise, well, you probably know the answer to that.

[Ollie 1,059]

I was somewhat perplexed that Kong would run 3+ hours but after watching it I had no problems with the length. In the other two Kong films it takes about 45 to 50 mins before Kong appears so there really isn't too much difference between Jackson's film and the previous ones. His Skull Island sequences are longer.

I think the JP T-Rex sequence is the most convincing CGI I have seen and Williams' scores for both films, JP & TLW, easily outshine JNH's Kong score. Howard manged to come up with some good themes and the T-Rex cue is good but the battle on the Empire State building is weakly scored and could have done without music until the end.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

I find King Kong's length to be a huge problem. So much of that film is just unneccesary. I love every minute of Skull Island, but the first and third acts could each have been shortened like 15 minutes. Not to mention the ridiculous Jimmy/Mr. Hayes subplot, which goes . . . nowhere. I don't really know why, but I still really like the film anyways, I just think it's very far from perfect.

Jurassic Park is one of my all-time favorite movies, because I loved it growing up and becuase I still love it today. Regarding these two films, I think JP does not take itself too seriously, which is a benefit, whereas Kong does, which is a big problem. And I must say, Kong's score is rather too good for the movie.

~Sturgis

[Morlock 11]

The other movie I watched was just yesterday: An engaging spy movie with an outstanding lead actor, interesting characters, some exciting action sequences with great stunts and refreshingly few special effects and explosions. Plus a fine score and an amazing title sequence. Refreshingly few Hollywood cliches. Now who would have thought just a short while ago that this description would actually match a new Bond movie.

Craig has been frequently called the best Bond since Connery. I'd go so far and say that he doesn't have to hide behind Connery. He does an outstanding job at portraying an ice cold killer who still displays some dry humour at times. Of course, it helps that he actually has an interesting character to portray. Eva Green is a great Bond girl. The train conversation was just brilliant (and though very different, still reminded me of North by Northwest). And after only hinting at the Bond theme throughout the entire score, Arnold's final moments truly shine. Though before I forget, the movie had one flaw: The final third was merely good, while the first two were really very good. Perhaps seeing it for a second time will change that impression, but after the first two very concentrated and balanced thirds, the finale just seemed to be somewhat unfocused.

Still, a clear recommendation, not just as a Bond movie, but as a movie.

I agree with just about all the above. Saw it last night, love it. I thought it was the best Bond movie after From Russia with Love and Goldfinger. I LOVED the major action scenes. The Madagascar ones is IMO one of the best action scenes ever in a Bond film. He didn't win because he was the strongest, or the fastest, or a superman. He won because he was the smartest. He found the most efficient way to keep up with this guy, as he couldn't counter his acrobatic skills. And I loved the cold-blooded ending in the embassy. Not something I'd imagine any Bond would do. Brosnan might've, but just for show.

The begining of the third act, the Bond in love sequence, was a bit ridicules, and not well-paced, but the ending was good, especially the very last scene. I liked the score, though the Barry-esque love theme was too.....Barry-esque. Too loud, too prominant, a bit too ridicules. I loved the introduction of the theme, how every time Bond accepts the staples of the Bond persona, you hear a bit (with the most lavish snippet of it being when he puts on the tuxedo), and then the finale, when he accepts that he is 'Bond, James Bond'. I liked the song, had a nice Barry feel to it, and while the opening credits were a bit ridicules for my taste at times, I loved the feel. ***1/2 out of ****.

And now ends my agreement with Marian for today....

JP is very flawed but fun. Kong has very few flaws.

It is a sloppy, indulgent film. I saw it thrice (which tells you that I did like it), but found the flaws more and more obvious each time. It is slow at times. It is not well paced. Except for Ann and maybe the Captain, it's human characters all leave something to be desired. The Jamie Bell character and his mentor on the ship is painful. The opening scenes on the island, with the natives, are not interesting, and harmed by the terrible double printing effect. The T-Rex's look fine, though not nearly as good as JP (I don't care what the excuses are, JP's still looks better). And that seqeunce crystalizes the over-kill the movie suffers from. It stars with one T-Rex, great. Than a second one comes in, it 'wow, a second one! this is interesting!'. Than a third one comes in. It becomes 'oy, a third one? so we really need a third one?'. The Empire State Building sequence, while being one of the most amazing and thrilling I've ever seen, is too long.

Those are the flaws, off the top of my head, after not having seen the films for several months. I did like a film, admired many things about it, notably Kong, who is absolutely amazing, but the film struck me most forcably as an extremely flawed production, often an unfocused one.

King Kong is ridiculously pretentious film.

It takes itself seriously, which is a good thing. JP didn't, and that's one of its problems.

It's actually the other way round on these two for me.

I totally agree on this. JP was a flawed adventure film because, I feel, it went for a much more serious POV than your average adventure film. Kong is what it is.

Hannah and her Sisters - Fine, so I liked a Woody Allen movie. Let's not make a big deal about it. I only watched it because it had Michael Caine in it. And then there was Princess Leia and Marge Simpson, which always makes the screen time go faster.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.....Woody has some fantastic movies. I think you would love Bullets Over Broadway and The Purple Rose of Cairo in particular. Hannah is one of his best, though.

Princess Bride - I had not seen this movie in my childhood, and I was fearing that, much like The Goonies, it would be dated and I'd feel detached from it. Well, the movie was dated all right, but I was sucked into it within 2 or 3 minutes after hitting the "play" button. Very very good, very honest and innocent movie. We need more like these nowadays. And I mean without Heath Ledger.

I've seen it often, and I am still in awe of it. It's innocence, and it's unparalleled wit. It is just plain hillarious.

Parenthood.  A Ron Howard directed film from the late 80s with a solid ensemble cast.  They work with a great screenplay revolving around a very large, branched family, and how they each deal with the issues of, well....parenthood.  Don't miss this one!

I started a thread once recommending it to all....one of my favorite films. Great screenplay, great cast, great performances, and a great meld of sweetness and reality. I like Randy Newman's score.

Saw a bunch of films:

Amadeus. This used to be among my favorite films, but after seeing it too many times in a short time span, I hadn't watched it in a couple of years. Seeing it again, I am again in awe of it. Wonderful picture about envy, while being so much fun and being filled with so much great music. Practically every scene is fantastic. ****/****.

The Truman Show. Very good prophetic film. Everyone's good, I especialyl like Ed Harris. I like the music a lot, have a lot of respect for Peter Weir and Andrew Niccol for this film. ***1/2 out of ****.

And a couple of Tim Burton films:

Ed Wood. Probably Burton's best film. A rather beautiful look at the world's worst director. Johnny Depp gives one of his landmark performances (yet again), Martin Landau is just tremendous as Lugosi. Great sets, makeup and cinematography, and Shore's score is IMO one of his best. ***1/2 out of ****.

Edward Scissorhands. Second time around, after not liking it the first time around. Well, the waiting paid off. I did like it this time. Not hysterically, mind you, but I did like it. I think it is lacking a bit of wait in it, it's missing a bit of a punch, but still, a very nice fairytale, full of imagination. Trouble is, while I felt pity for Edward, I never particularly liked him. The vagueness of his being bothered me. One of the few films I've liked Winona Ryder in. I liked Alan Arkin a lot. The score is beautiful, but, like the film, I don't feel it's as weighty as many credit it for being. Beautiful theme, but not Elfman's best.

That's the problem with the film for me- I feel that once the premise is set up, it goes along in a rather breezy fashion...I didn't feel all the heart that is said to have gone into it show up in hard work on the screen. I didn't feel the performances got deep, nor the cinematography, nor the direction....it felt cold. Overall, to me, it's a good, but slight fairytale. ***/****.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

Amadeus. This used to be among my favorite films, but after seeing it too many times in a short time span, I hadn't watched it in a couple of years. Seeing it again, I am again in awe of it. Wonderful picture about envy, while being so much fun and being filled with so much great music. Practically every scene is fantastic. ****/****.

The Confutatis sequence is pure genius, nothing less.

The Truman Show. Very good prophetic film. Everyone's good, I especialyl like Ed Harris. I like the music a lot, have a lot of respect for Peter Weir and Andrew Niccol for this film. ***1/2 out of ****.

Agreed. And if you like Glass' Truman Sleeps, I recommend his Tirol Concerto, which has a second movement in a very similar vein.

Ed Wood. Probably Burton's best film. A rather beautiful look at the world's worst director. Johnny Depp gives one of his landmark performances (yet again), Martin Landau is just tremendous as Lugosi. Great sets, makeup and cinematography, and Shore's score is IMO one of his best. ***1/2 out of ****.

I need the DVD - from what I remember (it's been years), I pretty much agree. Landau was outstanding.

[Romão 2,274]

Ed Wood is a very honest movie and by far Burton´s best and most balanced movie. It´s pretty hilarious too.

[tpigeon 3]

I saw three films at the theater over the weekend: Casino Royale, The Fountain, and Happy Feet. All of them were very interesting in their own right. Something dawned on me while I was watching Casino Royale; I realized that mature action films/thrillers are just so rare these days, which is why I loved the experience of watching an intelligent action film that didn't come off an assembly line, appealing to the box office demographics. It was a straight-up well-made movie from all angles and was a pleasure to watch. Though it was not quite great (due to its excessive length and weaker third act), the experience of being in a theater and watching a good action film is something I've missed the last few years.

The Fountain was extremely evocative and thought-provoking, but my main criticism of it (unlike Bond) was that it was too short! It doesn't spend enough time with its characters to garner emotion from the spectator. The movie is visually brilliant and dares to think big and act big on its ambition, but, ultimately, it was too short and underdeveloped for it to have the impact Aranofsky certainly thinks it does. It is definitely worth seeing and has a unique creative vision, but I can't quite call it a good film.

Happy Feet was the biggest surprise, I think, because it actually believes in its message (staying true to oneself) and explores the things only superficially explored in the likes of Disney and DreamWorks. George Miller was unafraid to be different and allow the themes of his film to develop naturally without much conflict until the last act. For about an hour, the film is solely about one character's struggle to be acccepted by his parents and those around him. I admire Miller for being unafraid to really go for it, especially in the last act. There is a real sadness and darkness about the film that took be by surprise. And I'm convinced that it's supposedly happy ending is actually a stroke of brilliance.

Tonight, I watch the second half of An Inconvenient Truth, which is decent so far, and as a tribute to Robert Altman, McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

Ted

[Elmo Lewis 6]

My roommates won out again and we watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games last night. Surprisingly, this movie was not at all bad. It was, in fact, a virtuoso masterpiece. This is as M. Night Shamalayan wishes he could be!

As a reward for the effort of me sitting and watching a non-Hollywood movie, they all agree we'd watch Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Which, of course, felt way too theatrical after the previous film. This time around, I was shocked at how the structure in the script has been copied to death in mystery TV shows (the first half hour was practically a pilot, if you could see that way), and I was really reminded of stuff like Lost and Heroes all the time. Anyway, the ending of this movie was powerful enough to remove all the hours of television in my head. Another true masterpiece.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

My roommates won out again and we watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games last night. Surprisingly, this movie was not at all bad. It was, in fact, a virtuoso masterpiece.

If course it's not bad. I'm just not sure I'd want to watch it again.

This is as M. Night Shamalayan wishes he could be!

I don't see the connection?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (...) Another true masterpiece.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yes

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I've been very tempted to pick up the Columbia Classics DVD every time I see it in stores here (and they always seem to have a stack at our local DVD retailer), but there's apparently another edition (haven't heard any details) coming December 7th. Depending on how it compares to the Classics set, I'm going to get either one of these two editions on that day.

After all, last time I watched it I was in tears by the end, and that was from watching a shitty centrescan bootleg VHS.

- Marc, who thinks there cannot be enough praise heaped upon CE3K, a somehow rather overlooked film.

[crocodile 8,020]

KK would be great had it been half as long. There is nothing more tedious than one horrible looking CGI action sequence after the other. There are some nice moments in between. And the King Kong himself is great.

The Departed

This genre is not my cup of tea and the overall plot of the story is predictable, but I to say that this is far better film than I predicted. At last Leo managed to impress me, which is a shock for me. The score was nice, but as with The Aviator there is no room for it to shine. And I have to say that Jack Nicholson is better than ever. Genre cinema at its best.

Good Night and Good Luck

This is probably the most involving dry film that have seen in a long while. Great performance from David Strarhaim is almost worth the price of purchase alone. I would give him Oscar, had I cared about them.

Karol

[Elmo Lewis 6]

- Marc, who thinks there cannot be enough praise heaped upon CE3K, a somehow rather overlooked film.

It is overlooked these days indeed. I think it may be dated for today's younger audience - most people today are used to having redundant expositive lines where everything is explained in their face, and this film is subtler than that. It also not a lush or haunting film - only the last 45 minutes, which are actually as lush as you can get... as long as as you follow the first hour and a half, which not everyone is willing to do nowadays. Also, to have a protagonist that goes against society and is actually perceived as insane for a lot of the footage means a dilemma not all fans are willing to take.

[Morlock 11]

Also, to have a protagonist that goes against society and is actually perceived as insane for a lot of the footage means a dilemma not all fans are willing to take.

But, to be fair, although I love the movie, I do understand the comment made by some people (including Spielberg), that the protagonist running out on his family for this cause, as well as practically substituting his wife with his new-found like-minded colleague is very problematic. He does not seem to care terribly about his family, which, IMO paints him in different light than the film would like him to. He is mad, to an extent, and does not deserve our full sympathies (he certainly does not have mine).

I saw Ken Loach's The Wind that Shakes the Barley, despite it's warm reception at Cannes. Good film, though lacking a bit of umph. It is simple and straightforward, and I've seen many of the emotions shown in the film in other similarly-set films. Still, it works, and has it's powerful moments. It deals with the strife caused by civil war in a very immidiate way. I think it's kind of a companion piece to Michael Collins, showing the effect of the war on the public, not just the leaders. Good, involving, powerful, but, as I said, missing a bit of umph. ***/****.

[Romão 2,274]

For all it's subdued quality, the shot of the mothership turning still is one of the most awe inspiring SFX images of all time.

[tpigeon 3]

For all it's subdued quality, the shot of the mothership turning still is one of the most awe inspiring SFX images of all time.

It really is. And the whole movie is one of the most awe inspiring of all time. The last act of moves into a magical, dream-like, transcendant realm that is just really hard to describe. But few movies can take you there. Close Encounters of the Third Kind is one of Spielberg's most underappreciated films, at least by his fans. Film lovers do not forget it, but Spielberg's fans (I've observed) tend to overlook the utter beauty of this film. Spielberg's ablity to create awe and wonder - bring tears to your eyes, cause your skin to tremble - was originated and still summed up best with Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Ted

[Elmo Lewis 6]

My roommates won out again and we watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games last night. Surprisingly, this movie was not at all bad. It was, in fact, a virtuoso masterpiece.

If course it's not bad. I'm just not sure I'd want to watch it again.

I definetly would. I just need some months to recover from such an intense experience.

This is as M. Night Shamalayan wishes he could be!

I don't see the connection?

Well, what I see is: Long, single shots where the camera is so far away that it removes you from the characters; psychological tension; silence was a means of expression; off-screen actions abound. I'm not saying it's the same thing, it's just that Haneke's style makes (otherwise competent) Shymalan look like a film student.

[Morlock 11]

Saw Gattaca for the second time. The film really speaks to the humanist in me. I love it, and concider it one of the best sci-fi films I've seen (A.I. being one of the others) ****/****.

[QMM 4]

Saw Gattaca for the second time. The film really speaks to the humanist in me. I love it, and concider it one of the best sci-fi films I've seen (A.I. being one of the others) ****/****.

What about 12 Monkeys? I've often heard it spoken in the same breath as Gattaca (which I haven't seen)

[Morlock 11]

Never seen 12 Monkeys. I will soon, though, as my local DVD store just got it.

[nightscape94 965]

Saw Gattaca for the second time. The film really speaks to the humanist in me. I love it, and concider it one of the best sci-fi films I've seen (A.I. being one of the others) ****/****.

I watched Double Indemnity last night. Not the first time I've seen it, and certaintly not the last. One of the earlier noirs, and a great flick.

Tim

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Gattaca is wonderful. One of my favorites.

A.I. is not, though.

[Justin 2]

Dark City. A great idea which just seemed poorly executed. Too short, I can't say I liked the lead role, Kiefer Sutherland was hamming it up, and the strangers were about a scary as the coneheads. A thrilling score and some interesting visuals along with a great performance by William Hurt and a fascinating concept grabs it a 3 out of 5.

Justin

[Morlock 11]

I actually thought it was rather impressively exectued, and I liked all the performances.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

Aye.

[Morlock 11]

Saw The Illusionist. Liked it a lot, until the ending. The whole movie looked good, I loved the costumes and the B&W feel to it, even though it wasn't B&W. The performances were fine, but I felt that, except for the Paul Giammatti character (he did a great job, BTW), the characters were too thin, or just not interesting enough. Rufus Sewell was intriging, but rather thin throughout, though in his final scene in the film we catch a glimpse of something that made him far more interesting, but nothing was done with it.

As I said, my main problem with the film was it's ending. Without giving too much away, the ending told me that either the movie was cheating this whole time, or the opposite, and that the ending was just lame. It left me very dissapointed.

The Philip Glass score was fantastic, the best film score I've heard from him. It's just perfect- the main titles transport you to another era, antoher world, and his score for the magic scenes just totally nails it, and really makes you believe something amazing is happening. Ditto for the love scene- he totally sells it, when it could have easliy been pure kitch. One of the best scores I've heard this year.

I guess it's a **1/2. Everything about the film seemed to promise a lot more weight than the film provided. I would nominate it for the costumes, score, supporting actor, and perhaps cinematography.

[Justin 2]

Red Dragon. A good film but it just seemed like the film (the third Lector movie) really should have been about catching Lector and not another random (but interesting) serial killer. All the performances in the film are outstanding especially from Ralph Fienes. The last 15-20 minutes was rather cliched and action oriented for such a philosophical build up. Although it was a good twist. I was really impressed with Brett Ratner's skills. Skills which would have helped X3 if he'd flexed them like he did here. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is also good. Score is great. Better than Hannibal but still is not on par with the original Silence. 4 out of 5.

Justin

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Red Dragon. A good film but it just seemed like the film (the third Lector movie) really should have been about catching Lector and not another random (but interesting) serial killer.

Red Dragon is actually the first Lecter movie.

[Morlock 11]

Red Dragon. A good film but it just seemed like the film (the third Lector movie) really should have been about catching Lector and not another random (but interesting) serial killer.

Red Dragon is actually the first Lecter movie.

No, it is the fourth.

I saw Lord of War again. One of the best movies of last year. Hillarious and thought provoking (generally at the same time). That Andrew Niccol is really something, despite S1mone. And I actually liked parts of the score this time around. ***1/2 out of ****.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No, it is the fourth.

Wrong numbnuts!

in Manhunter he was called Lekter.

[crocodile 8,020]

Red Dragon. A good film but it just seemed like the film (the third Lector movie) really should have been about catching Lector and not another random (but interesting) serial killer.

Umm... I thought that was exactly what happened in the film.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hahaha...he's right you know.

[Morlock 11]

No, it is the fourth.

Wrong numbnuts!

in Manhunter he was called Lekter.

Actually, he was called Lecktor. You were wrong, which must mean that I was right.

[crocodile 8,020]

Wasn't he called LECTER, by any chance?

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Absolutely spot on!

[Romão 2,274]

I can't find a single thing wrong in that movie. As you put it, Steef, absolutely spot on and with one of the best uses of Special Effects I have ever seen.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What special effects?

[tpigeon 3]

Exactly.

Ted

[Ollie 1,059]

Red Dragon is actually the first in the series, Hannibal has already been captured but like Silence Of The Lambs his advice is sought on another serial killer. Only this time it's by the detective who actually caught him.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes like Episode One is actually the first Star Wars film.

Actually, the upcoming Hannibal Rising will be the first part of the Silence Of The Lambs saga.