What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[Morlock 11]

Gattaca. An intelligent film. Performances are great. Score is quite good. In some places it looked kind of cheap but overall Niccol does a good job of making it look strange. Surpisingly compelling backstory for the main character. I found myself totally on the edge of my seat on their final swim. 4 out of 5.

Loved it, as I said.

The Godfather. My first time seeing this classic. Since the law prohibits me from saying anything bad about this film....I won't. Then again I'm not sure what I would say. 5 out of 5.

Today, you are a man. Mind detailing the experience....just the idea of someone watching for the first time is thrilling to me.

[robthehand 3]

Today, you are a man. Mind detailing the experience....just the idea of someone watching for the first time is thrilling to me.

I agree - I want to see that film for the first time again.

[crocodile 8,006]

Yes, sometimes I almost envy Leonard Shelby from Memento.

(Almost, becuase his memory lasted only for ten minutes or so.)

Karol, who has yet to see Taxi Driver for the first time.

[Morlock 11]

I dunno, Taxi Driver was not a film that struck me with it's brilliance the first time I saw it. The second time did it for me. The Godfather just sucks you in and wows you from the word go....The opening of Nino Rota's waltz over the simple main titles, fading out to a black screen, and then- "I believe in America." I get the chills from that opening.

[Ollie 1,059]

Weren't we talking about a theme from The Da Vinci Code?

You, of all people, should know better.

I remember the first time I saw The Godfather and The Godfather II. I watched them back to back and could not pull myself away from the films.

Sadly I wish I could say the same about Godfather III. It just felt wrong.

[QMM 4]

I had gotten the Godfather boxset for Christmas like 3 years ago, and apart from the acclaim it had gotten I hadn't known much about it. Didn't watch it for a few months but I remember really enjoying them when I did, especially Robert Duvall for some reason.

[Morlock 11]

Saw Flushed Away. Meh. CGI film that is no unpleasant, but unremarkable and rather forgettable. I did like the voice acting (though Iam McKellen I felt was wasted), and there were several good jokes, but, still, an unispired effort. I did like the singing slugs, though. **/****.

[Morlock 11]

Stalag 17. Wonderful movie. It is a bit more dated than other Billy Wilder pics, but only a bit, and still a wonderful movie. William Holden in one of the best performances ever as a POW suspected by his fellow POWs of being an informer for the Nazis. The movie is taut, exciting, entertaining, and very satisfying. A true classic. ****/****.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is this better then The Great escape?

[robthehand 3]

I thought you didn't like The Great Escape??

But anyway, yes it's better.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Great Escape is not what it should have been.

[tpigeon 3]

I watched Miami Vice again the other night and, much as I did in the theater, I enjoyed it immensely. Mann's visual style is second to none and I find the fusion of visuals and sounds in this film to be hypnotic. The film is an exploration of character far more than it has been given credit for, not nearly as much as it should be. Nevertheless, the film is intoxicating to watch and is a fascinating bit of hyperrealism exploring the drug world. The plot elements are mostly familiar, but Mann imbues the film with a sense of authenticity and dreamlike fantasy that makes it distinct. It's a genre movie that is familiar enough to call a genre movie but fresh enough to be considered a unique entry in the genre.

Ted

[Ollie 1,059]

Is this better then The Great escape?

Yes.

Kinda hard to believe that it's one of the inspirations for Hogan's Heroes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I watched Miami Vice again the other night and, much as I did in the theater, I enjoyed it immensely. Mann's visual style is second to none and I find the fusion of visuals and sounds in this film to be hypnotic. The film is an exploration of character far more than it has been given credit for, not nearly as much as it should be. Nevertheless, the film is intoxicating to watch and is a fascinating bit of hyperrealism exploring the drug world. The plot elements are mostly familiar, but Mann imbues the film with a sense of authenticity and dreamlike fantasy that makes it distinct. It's a genre movie that is familiar enough to call a genre movie but fresh enough to be considered a unique entry in the genre.

Ted

So you are the one guy that liked it?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The director's cut reportedly improves the film, although it still has its flaws.

[Neimoidian 14]

So you are the one guy that liked it?

I am probably the second one 8O While it is one of Mann's worst (or rather most-flawed) movies, it is still good enough to enjoy it. The cinematography is so stunning that it alone makes MV worth seeing.

[Morlock 11]

Is this better then The Great escape?

Yes, I think it is. Although The Great Escape is better as pure entertainment (which, ironically is it's main flaw, even after just about everybody dies, we should cheer because Steve McQueen gets his baseball glove back).

Saw Running Scared. What a ridicules movie. And not in a good way, like some critics have said. Bad, baaaaad script. Only well-written thing in it was Karel Roden's speech about John Wayne. Dumb-du-dumb-dumb. Only decent performances in it are by Chazz Palminteri (criminally underused) and Vera Farminga, who also had a fantastic turn this year in The Departed.

So you are the one guy that liked it?

I am probably the second one 8O While it is one of Mann's worst (or rather most-flawed) movies, it is still good enough to enjoy it.

Worse than Ali?

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Casino Royale.

I'll start with saying that I'm in love with Eva Green (Vesper). She was beautiful in a very real way (even before she wears the stunning dresses) in stark contrast to the completely god-like Caterina Murino. Not only that, she was the first half-decent female character in the series since Elektra King and Xenia Onatopp, but her motives were far more realistic. The dialogue between her and James when they first meet and later in the hotel bathroom are a long, long, long way away from the cheesy double-entendres uttered by Halle Berry and Rosamund Pike in Die Another Day.

As for Bond himself, I was never opposed to the idea of Daniel Craig as him. But as I grew up watching Pierce Brosnan in the role I was hardly for it either. Simply put, this movie wouldn't have worked with Brosnan. It would have been completely different. Craig brings the gritty and, to quote M, "blunt" edge to Bond that Connery hinted at, but was all but gone by the time Roger Moore was in the role (let's not mention Dalton's episodes).

I did miss Q, but even though John Cleese was far more restrained in DAD than he was in TWINE the character was redundant in the context of the film. M was certainly interesting enough though. I'm still deciding whether I like seeing her so vulnerable - I'd been used to the steely, head-strong woman in the last four movies, so to see her lose control more than once was something. Despite the gigantic continuity flaw in having the female M before Bond is a 007, it never really matters. Especially as it's a "reboot", so such things are probably required.

I really liked the song for the film. It has some really great moments, and the title sequence is stunning for it to accompany. Arnold's score didn't jump out as much as the past - which was good as it seemed by the time DAD came around all he was doing was requoting the Bond theme over and over. It's used minimally here and to great effect (I particularly liked the segue into the end credits), thought the absence of a truely heroic statement of the fanfare was missed (but understandable, considering its overuse in the past). The best parts were easily the statements of "You Know My Name" interwoven into the score, particularly in the trademark "exotic locale" camera sweeps with swirling violins and brass. It was also nice to hear a love theme that wasn't an extremely obvious variation on Barry's themes (i.e. "You Only Live Twice"), even if it wasn't as memorable.

All in all, the more I think about it, the more I liked it.

[QMM 4]

Casino Royale

First Bond movie I've seen the whole way through, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. I had no qualms at all when Craig was cast, hell I applauded it.

[King Mark 3,631]

Miami vice.The first 30 minutes are a bit confusing and the jagged camera movements annoying,but then it turns into a pretty good movie.

I'll start with saying that I'm in love with Eva Green (Vesper)

then you have to rent The Dreamers.You'll see her naked in several scenes.

K.M.

[Neimoidian 14]

"Pan's Labirynth" by Gulliermo del Toro

A stunning movie. I haven't seen so imaginative picture for years. It tells the story of a young girl Ofelia living in Franco's Spain (in 1944). Her father is dead, her mother marries sadistic captain Vidal (great performance from Sergi Lopez). So to escape from the harsh reality, Ofelia moves to the world of a fairy tale where she is long-lost princess...

[Morlock 11]

I'm drooling at the thought of seeing that film.....hasn't gotten here yet.

Saw the original Sabrina. Wonderful romantic movie. The movie sports three fantastic performances ricocheting off each other. Humphry Bogart and William Holden are so much fun to watch together. I was surprised, I've never seen Bogart in anything this light. But he was terrific, him and Holden really give a brothely vibe. And, naturally Audrey Hepburn is the epitome of elegance, really stunning. Another winner from the master. ****/****.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The dialogue between her and James when they first meet and later in the hotel bathroom are a long, long, long way away from the cheesy double-entendres uttered by Halle Berry and Rosamund Pike in Die Another Day.

That was a great scene, no silly jokes, no pick-up attempts. James Bond interacted with a women in a way that is actually...realistic.

As for Bond himself, I was never opposed to the idea of Daniel Craig as him. But as I grew up watching Pierce Brosnan in the role I was hardly for it either. Simply put, this movie wouldn't have worked with Brosnan. It would have been completely different.

If this film was made 11 years ago, as Brosnan's first Bond film, he would have been brilliant.

Craig brings the gritty and, to quote M, "blunt" edge to Bond that Connery hinted at, but was all but gone by the time Roger Moore was in the role (let's not mention Dalton's episodes).

Both Timothy Dalton films are good, And I liked his take on the role, even if most people were used to the Roger Moore silliness.

I did miss Q, but even though John Cleese was far more restrained in DAD than he was in TWINE the character was redundant in the context of the film.

I didn't miss Q, the last thing this film needed was a 3 minute scene were John Cleese in a foul mood explains Bond how to operate the TEXT function on the latest Moterola or Nokia. While gadgets are exploding all around them.

One of the big problems of License To Kill is that even though it tried to be a harder, tougher Bonbd film and break from the mold, they still had Q as a sort of side-kick for 007. Casino Royale cuts of all the fat it doesn't need, It finally sheds the weight of old fan favorites Q and Moneypenny, because the story doesn't need them.

M was certainly interesting enough though. I'm still deciding whether I like seeing her so vulnerable - I'd been used to the steely, head-strong woman in the last four movies, so to see her lose control more than once was something. Despite the gigantic continuity flaw in having the female M before Bond is a 007, it never really matters. Especially as it's a "reboot", so such things are probably required.

If you are looking for continuity, ignore every Bond film, because they are not good at it.

M's relationship with 007 was intersting, she clearly loaths him and what he is becoming, but she also encourages him to become that, because that is the only way Bond will survive, and be of any use to her. Judi Dench played that very well.

All in all, the more I think about it, the more I liked it.

As do i.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Not only that, she was the first half-decent female character in the series since Elektra King and Xenia Onatopp, but her motives were far more realistic.

I was more partial to Natalya Simonova from GoldenEye.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I was more partial to Natalya Simonova from GoldenEye.

She was a good, believable, strong character. But I could not believe she would get into a kissing scene with James Bond who she had only known for a few hours and after she had just nearly been blown up, shot and stabbed.

She didn't seem like that kind of girl.

[Morlock 11]

I wasn't a big fan of hers. For me, the only ones I really, really, liked were Tatiana Romanova, Pussy Galore, and now, Vesper Lynd. Xenia Onatopp was great just for the energy she brought.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I was more partial to Natalya Simonova from GoldenEye.

She was a good, believable, strong character. But I could not believe she would get into a kissing scene with James Bond who she had only known for a few hours and after she had just nearly been blown up, shot and stabbed.

She didn't seem like that kind of girl.

I never found James Bond movies all that believable anyway. And Natalya was naturally hot.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But Goldeneye was in many ways trying to be more believable, certainly in the was the relationship between the characters were forged.

Casino Royale could have gone wrong by having Daniel Graig pick up Eve Green out of the shower, ripped her wet clothing off and made mad, frantic love with her.

But they didn't go that way, and for that reason Casino Royale works great as a normal film, while Goldeneye only...only works as a Bond film.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I think GoldenEye is a great action film as well. It may not have as much dramatic value as CR, but I could definitely watch it away from all the other Bonds.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well OK I'll grant you that. It's a good action flick.

The music is wrong though.

[Ollie 1,059]

I don't think you'll get too many arguments about GoldenEye's score unless you're a member of the Eric Serra fan club.

[robthehand 3]

I can watch the film and ignore the score, which at least puts it above the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I have to say that the score is not a total flop, some of the orchestral parts are decent, and the synth stuff would probably work well with any other film.

But it's all so anonymous and generic. I'm not the biggest fan of Bond scores like The Spy Who Loved me or For Your Eyes Only, but at least they have character, there are distinctive scores that you either love or hate.

Serra's Goldeneye isn't even bad enough for me to hate it. It's the film score version of a mild drizzle.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Charade, absolutely Brilliant movie, Hitchcock at his best if Hitchcock has made this that is

[Romão 2,274]

I love that movie. Audrey is enchanting. Great supporting cast too, and simply great dialogue.

[Morlock 11]

Charade' date=' absolutely Brilliant movie, Hitchcock at his best if Hitchcock has made this that is

You think of everything, don't you? (I know a Stanley Donen title when I hear one)

It would have been Hitchcock at his best, though. I love the performances by all, Grant is as fun as ever, Hepburn is wonderful (she is great at slightely lost characters), George Kennedy and James Coburn are fun. Good Mancini score, too.

[Morlock 11]

Saw 3 films by three great directors.

First up: Gallipoli. My local Blockbuster has, at my request, been stocking up with more and more older films, and classics (that's how much I go there). And they just got this one. Great film. Very, very powerful. Weir has knocked my socks off once again. He just constantly impresses. So much care have gone into the details of the film, I was totally transported, whether to Australia, Cairo, or, most impressively, to the Dardanells and Gallipoli. The recreation of that battle and the days leading up to are amazing. Beautiful cinematography by Russel Boyd, who later shot Weir's Master and Commander. I mean, really beautiful. Just amazing use of natural light. Very good performances by Mark Lee and Mel Gibson...well, and by everyone else as well. Bill Kerr leaves a strong impression as the uncle, Robert Grubb, Tim McKenzie and David Argue are fantastic as the Australian trio, and Bill Hunter was very touching as the Major. His scene of saying goodbye to his wife is such a touching scene.

So many memorable scenes....but nothing in the film was more powerful than that final freeze frame. Reminded of thatfamous Robert Cappa picture of a soldier being shot during the Spanish revolution. It just captures the tragedy and destruction of war so poetically.

Most importantly about this film, I know my share of Australians and New Zealanders, and whenever they spoke so reverently about Gallipoli and ANZAC day, I kind of shrugged it off. But the film really did a great job of showing the real tragedy, ten of thousands of young men killed for nothing. ****/****.

Moving on to lighter ground...... I had told myself that I was going to rent a Scorsese film. The choices were: Raging Bull (which I saw once and didn't connect with), Age of Innocence (which I saw once and liked a lot), New York, New York (which I've never seen), and Casino (which I've seen a bunch of times and liked). I took the gutless way out, and took Casino.

I love a lot of things in the film. All the scenes of the casino at work, particularly the montages, are as fun as anything Scorsese's done. I love a lot of the mob scenes as well. Trouble is, I did not like the Sharon Stone character. At all. I've never liked Stone, and I think she just brings the movie way down. As a rule, I liked every scene in the film she wasn't in.

So- what kind of rating do you give a film like this? I'm not sure if it *** because of Stone or a ***1/2, because still, I love everything else. Jury's out on this one.

And, last and least, took a date to see Ridley Scott's A Good Year. After the reviews, I was expecting a really painful couple of hours at the cinema. I was wrong. Now, I'm not saying this was a great movie, nor even a memorable movie. But it was a wonderful couple of hours. It was escapist enough and fun enough for me to enjoy. The location they shot it one was just plain amazing. Such a stunning place, I was happy to escape to that estate. Russel Crowe was fine in a terrifically undemanding role. Albert Finney was a warm, welcome presence as usual. But the "locals" are really the one's that won me over. Didier Bourdon was wonderful, most sympathetic character in the piece. But, more than anyone, the one that made this picture worth watching was Marion Cotillard as "the love interest". I've only seen her once before, in Big Fish, where she had a relatively small role, but even there I was mesmerised. She is absolutely stunning, and she can act (and unlike some other famous French young actresses, she can even act in English).

Cinematography for the film was stunning, as should be expected. Score was nice, though eclipsed by the songs. I've no idea why Zimmer didn't do this one (and what's more- the same anonymous composer is signed on to Scott's next film as well, the very meaty sounding American Gangster)

Overall, I thought it was a rather charming film. You sometimes hear of a director taking some time off, making a light film in between the weighty subjects, and that's exactly what Scott has done. If you're looking for a Scott masterpiece, you won't find it here. Take the film as it is, and it may prove to be a very enjoyable time at the theater.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I saw Casino Royale again today.

Still awesome.

[nightscape94 965]

The Fountain, a film by Darren Aronofsky. I just got back from the theater and I'm still digesting it, but I can say with confidence that it was fantastic. I imagine some people will feel that this movie is simply incomprehensible and a piece of self-indulgent filmmaking on the director's part. It's a visceral experience, but also a film of ideas rather than a film of story. It was extremely interesting to watch, and it was just long enough and didn't overstay its welcome.

Tim

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Saw 3 films by three great directors.

 First up: Gallipoli. My local Blockbuster has, at my request, been stocking up with more and more older films, and classics (that's how much I go there). And they just got this one. Great film. Very, very powerful. Weir has knocked my socks off once again. He just constantly impresses. So much care have gone into the details of the film, I was totally transported, whether to Australia, Cairo, or, most impressively, to the Dardanells and Gallipoli. The recreation of that battle and the days leading up to are amazing. Beautiful cinematography by Russel Boyd, who later shot Weir's Master and Commander. I mean, really beautiful. Just amazing use of natural light. Very good performances by Mark Lee and Mel Gibson...well, and by everyone else as well. Bill Kerr leaves a strong impression as the uncle, Robert Grubb, Tim McKenzie and David Argue are fantastic as the Australian trio, and Bill Hunter was very touching as the Major. His scene of saying goodbye to his wife is such a touching scene.

 So many memorable scenes....but nothing in the film was more powerful than that final freeze frame. Reminded of thatfamous Robert Cappa picture of a soldier being shot during the Spanish revolution. It just captures the tragedy and destruction of war so poetically.  

 Most importantly about this film, I know my share of Australians and New Zealanders, and whenever they spoke so reverently about Gallipoli and ANZAC day, I kind of shrugged it off. But the film really did a great job of showing the real tragedy, ten of thousands of young men killed for nothing. ****/****.

Although I'm not a fan of the nationalistic rhetorical blather that comes with ANZAC Day, Gallipoli is a great war film.

[Morlock 11]

I saw Casino Royale again today.

Still awesome.

Ditto, on my third viewing.

[nightscape94 965]

"Pan's Labirynth" by Gulliermo del Toro

A stunning movie. I haven't seen so imaginative picture for years. It tells the story of a young girl Ofelia living in Franco's Spain (in 1944). Her father is dead, her mother marries sadistic captain Vidal (great performance from Sergi Lopez). So to escape from the harsh reality, Ofelia moves to the world of a fairy tale where she is long-lost princess...

Man, I want to see this film so bad. I've been aware of it for a couple of years, and saw a trailer some time ago and that only increased the temptation to see it. It comes out in the USA in a couple of weeks so I'm stoked to finally realize this desire to see this awesome looking film. I haven't heard one bad thing about it, so I don't doubt that it'll be worth the wait.

Tim

[crocodile 8,006]

Pirates of the Carribean 2. Worthless and dumb. And tedious.

Karol

[tpigeon 3]

I too saw Pirates of the Caribbean 2 recently. There were aspects I very much liked about it; I loved that it was more brutal and had some teeth, whereas the first one was more of a two and a half hour cartoon - at no point were any of the characters threatening or in danger. Davey Jones was interesting, and I actually liked the scenes aboard his ship. As for the overly convoluted plot and running time, I didn't mind as much; I'm not a big proponent for mechanically structured plot. The fact that it was kind of all over the place didn't bother me because I enjoyed some of the set pieces, especially the Kraken. The first 45 minutes of the film wre forced, as if the filmmakers were trying too hard. It settled down to a nice rythym after that and I found it an enjoyable action adventure film.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

While it does get tedious at times, I didn't think it was worthless and dumb.

I actually just a few minutes ago finished watching it on DVD (third time around). It does have serious pacing issues. It is far too long. It is at times unclear. I can't stand the Bootstrap Bill character. Jack Sparrow is not as funny or likable as in the first movie. But.....I still like it. I think it has a far more compelling story than the first, mainly because of it's villains.

First, the lesser one. Tom Hollander as the representative of the East India Trading Company is fine (Hollander is often fine), but the idea of how his....villainousness might manifest itself in the third film is very interesting to me.

Anyway, he's nothing compared to the immediate villain- Davy Jones. Davy Jones, by far, is the best thing about the film. Best written character, most notable performance, absolutely amazing CG creation. Especialy impressive after watching the behind the scenes, where they actually compare Bill Nighy's performance on the set to the final result. It's impressive in the way it made a guy with an Octopus for a beard seem real....but it's even more impressive that Bill Nighy's wonderful perfromance shines through. I feared the film couldn't possibly be as entertaining as the first one because it doesn't have the Barbossa character, but Davy Jones is a worthy replacement. I love every single line he says in the film. And, he is really the only character in the film I cared for.

Orlando Bloom was unimpressive, Keira Knightley looked bad for a lot of the film (costume designer f*%&ed up big time there. She needed a much bigger hat. Her face looked huge and unattractive), and Johnny Depp was less likable and less witty than the first film. There are some gems to be found ("The Captain is acting Strange....er"), but, it's nowhere near as funny.

Action scenes were kind of fun in an extremely dumb sort of way.

And I personally still like the score a great deal. Jack's principal themes, both the old one and the new one are used very well, as is Davy Jones's theme. The Kraken motifs may be too harsh for some people, but they worked very well in the movie.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I agree with Ted. I didn't check my watch for the whole running time.

I can think of a lot of much worse ways to spend two hours at the theater.

[Morlock 11]

I agree with Ted. I didn't check my watch for the whole running time.  

I can think of a lot of much worse ways to spend two hours at the theater.

....did you come 15 minutes late? as the movie is exactly 135 minutes long without credits.

Morlock- who is reminded of Johnny Carson's great line at one of the Academy Awards: "Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the Academy Awards. Two hours of sparkling entertainment, spread out over a four hour show."

[QMM 4]

snip

Agree with you on Davy Jones and the music (although I got a bit tired of hearing Sparrow's theme repeated along with the action motif from the first movie). I thought that a lot of it was just exploiting jokes from the first movie and some scenes I just hated, like the whole fight on the mill wheel. Sparrow indeed wasn't as likable as the first movie and Knightley's character was a huge shift from the first and all I hope for the third one is that Bloom beats the hell out of her.

[Romão 2,274]

I agree with Ted. I didn't check my watch for the whole running time.  

I can think of a lot of much worse ways to spend two hours at the theater.

I agree. I had a good time...there isn´t much more to it. And every scene with Davy Jones is worth checking.

[Red 75]

I didn't hate it, in fact, I didn't even dislike it. But, it should have been better.