What is it now with Spielberg and the "dryness". I have to be honest -- LINCOLN bored me to tears. Yes it is well acted, yes I respected it, but I did not love it, and I felt it kept me at arm's length. I also felt like I needed to have a text book on-hand to understand what they were talking about at various points. It was very, very, very "dry".
BRIDGE OF SPIES looks very good...but once again looks like something I'll be just as content to watch at home. Especially when it comes to "talky" movies like this, I don't need to have it ruined by some idiot mouthing off (WAR HORSE was ruined enough when I saw it by a whole bunch of idiots).
rate the last movie you saw
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Never had any trouble whatsoever understanding anything that was going on-perhaps the Coens were able to keep the dialogue sharp with their touches. In no way would I characterize this film as "dry." I think so many of us have become so used to fast paced cutting and dialogue in the past 20 years that normal conversation and letting dialogue "sink in" like it used to might seem boring to some, but I rejoice in it.
And LINCOLN is one of my all-time favorite Spielberg films.
And LINCOLN is one of my all-time favorite Spielberg films.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
We part company on LINCOLN Jeff yet I still look forward to seeing BRIDGE OF SPIES. Just hard for me to get out to the theater at the moment!
I also wish he stopped working with Kaminski a long time ago, but that will always be a hang-up for me with his SCHINDLER's-and-later era of his filmography.
I also wish he stopped working with Kaminski a long time ago, but that will always be a hang-up for me with his SCHINDLER's-and-later era of his filmography.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Avengers (1998) 3 of 10
-A cheap Blu-Ray upgrade of the old DVD that was in a snapper case (that's how far back it goes) made me revisit this. It's amazing what an incomprehensible mess this film is because of the massive re-edit done after the disastrous preview screening. Nothing of the plot makes any sense whatsoever and it has to be stressed that even the most outlandish of Avengers plots in the TV series were ones that you could follow without too much difficulty. I have on my shelf the paperback novelization that came out at the time which followed the original cut of the film and will be interested to see if it was any more coherent (though I doubt that would have helped the poor performances all around, especially Uma Thurman who is totally wrong on all levels).
One interesting thing. The part of the older woman agent played by Eileen Atkins was clearly written with Diana Rigg in mind. I have read they sent the script to her offering the part and she turned it down. Frankly, once she turned it down, they might as well have dispensed with the part altogether (though that would only have been another small step forward in fixing it).
-A cheap Blu-Ray upgrade of the old DVD that was in a snapper case (that's how far back it goes) made me revisit this. It's amazing what an incomprehensible mess this film is because of the massive re-edit done after the disastrous preview screening. Nothing of the plot makes any sense whatsoever and it has to be stressed that even the most outlandish of Avengers plots in the TV series were ones that you could follow without too much difficulty. I have on my shelf the paperback novelization that came out at the time which followed the original cut of the film and will be interested to see if it was any more coherent (though I doubt that would have helped the poor performances all around, especially Uma Thurman who is totally wrong on all levels).
One interesting thing. The part of the older woman agent played by Eileen Atkins was clearly written with Diana Rigg in mind. I have read they sent the script to her offering the part and she turned it down. Frankly, once she turned it down, they might as well have dispensed with the part altogether (though that would only have been another small step forward in fixing it).
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7059
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
American Beauty
A watchable but uneven film, which pushes the envelope of good taste with a grotesque enthusiasm. Part Lolita, part The Great Santini, part Afterschool Special, the film is a satirical condemnation of Middle America's materialistic hypocrisy (from the perspective of Hollywood -- which of course is not a materialistic culture at all
).
The film has its moments -- Kevin Spacey is particularly amusing as his character descends into a childish middle age crisis (and the scene where he drives down the street singing along to "American Woman" had me in stitches). Unfortunately the filmmakers ruin things with heavy-handed "statements" about American life (or rather Hollywood's impression of it -- which bears no resemblance to reality). Spacey's and Annette Benning's marriage is disintegrating because she's a materialistic shrew and he is souring on their "fulfilled" lifestyle (and lusts after his teenage daughter's friends). The boy next door is a drug dealer, but that's ok, because he's just misunderstood and cares about Spacey's daughter. The boy's father is a Marine, so of course like all "evil" serviceman, he is controlling, abusive and hates gays -- the reason of course being because he is latently gay himself (yawn).
This could have been an enjoyable (and considerably less pretentious) movie had it adhered to its strengths -- Spacey's funny character arc, and the romance that develops between his daughter and the misfit next door. As such it might have been a kind of 90s version of 1978's Serial (which lampooned Bay Area suburbanites -- and was a much better and more entertaining film). But American Beauty alternates light-hearted, funny sequences with scenes of dark brutality (when the marine beats his son to a pulp), then shifts into slapstick mode (Benning's tryst in a cheap motel with Peter Gallagher -- again playing the smooth operator). Towards the end the mood awkwardly turns "reflective" and "meaningful" as Spacey waxes philosophical on his life.
Again, it was watchable, but extremely uneven, and often grotesque. It doesn't completely work as a film. Obviously American Beauty was lauded primarily for its damning portrayal of Middle America. And I'm not defending upper-middle class materialism (which is ripe for lampooning), but there's an insulting irony and hypocrisy about a film that condemns Middle America for its dysfunctional families, married men preying on teenage girls, abusive / apathetic parenting, etc. -- when wealthy entertainers (i.e. the kind of people who financed and produced this film) are more guilty of these things than anyone in our culture.
Watch Serial instead.
A watchable but uneven film, which pushes the envelope of good taste with a grotesque enthusiasm. Part Lolita, part The Great Santini, part Afterschool Special, the film is a satirical condemnation of Middle America's materialistic hypocrisy (from the perspective of Hollywood -- which of course is not a materialistic culture at all
).The film has its moments -- Kevin Spacey is particularly amusing as his character descends into a childish middle age crisis (and the scene where he drives down the street singing along to "American Woman" had me in stitches). Unfortunately the filmmakers ruin things with heavy-handed "statements" about American life (or rather Hollywood's impression of it -- which bears no resemblance to reality). Spacey's and Annette Benning's marriage is disintegrating because she's a materialistic shrew and he is souring on their "fulfilled" lifestyle (and lusts after his teenage daughter's friends). The boy next door is a drug dealer, but that's ok, because he's just misunderstood and cares about Spacey's daughter. The boy's father is a Marine, so of course like all "evil" serviceman, he is controlling, abusive and hates gays -- the reason of course being because he is latently gay himself (yawn).
This could have been an enjoyable (and considerably less pretentious) movie had it adhered to its strengths -- Spacey's funny character arc, and the romance that develops between his daughter and the misfit next door. As such it might have been a kind of 90s version of 1978's Serial (which lampooned Bay Area suburbanites -- and was a much better and more entertaining film). But American Beauty alternates light-hearted, funny sequences with scenes of dark brutality (when the marine beats his son to a pulp), then shifts into slapstick mode (Benning's tryst in a cheap motel with Peter Gallagher -- again playing the smooth operator). Towards the end the mood awkwardly turns "reflective" and "meaningful" as Spacey waxes philosophical on his life.
Again, it was watchable, but extremely uneven, and often grotesque. It doesn't completely work as a film. Obviously American Beauty was lauded primarily for its damning portrayal of Middle America. And I'm not defending upper-middle class materialism (which is ripe for lampooning), but there's an insulting irony and hypocrisy about a film that condemns Middle America for its dysfunctional families, married men preying on teenage girls, abusive / apathetic parenting, etc. -- when wealthy entertainers (i.e. the kind of people who financed and produced this film) are more guilty of these things than anyone in our culture.
Watch Serial instead.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Paul MacLean wrote: there's an insulting irony and hypocrisy about a film that condemns Middle America for its dysfunctional families, married men preying on teenage girls, abusive / apathetic parenting, etc. -- when wealthy entertainers (i.e. the kind of people who financed and produced this film) are more guilty of these things than anyone in our culture.
It's the usual Hollywood hypocrisy. They believe that because they have no pretensions to being morally upright, then its okay for them to do whatever they want. But Middle America must always be condemned for repressing inside what Hollywood elitists just let hang out. Of course the fact that most people in Middle America are NOT repressive monsters who are really a bunch of closet hedonists and sexually dysfunctional materialists is the area of disconnect and represents nothing more than a bigoted stereotype as bad as any bigoted stereotype they love to rail about based on race or ethnicity.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
SPECTRE
6/10
After the triumph of “Skyfall” one might’ve thought that director Sam Mendes and resident 007 Daniel Craig would have been invigorated with the subject matter of SPECTRE – the 24th James Bond film but the first in several decades to incorporate one of Bond’s chief nemesis from the earliest days of the series. With Bond back in action and taking on the nefarious, secretive organization behind the likes of “Goldfinger” and “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” in an official Eon film for the first time in forever, what could go wrong? Unfortunately, pretty much everything.
This stunningly tedious entry – in fact, the longest in the entire run of the franchise – finds Bond working a lead from his beloved M (one final Judi Dench cameo), who implored him, in the event of her death, to track down and take out a man thought to have died decades before. A trip to Rome here, a dash to Austria there, and Bond finds out Spectre has its tentacles pretty much everywhere – with a man leading its parade whose identity was pretty much revealed when the film’s title and cast were announced some time ago.
If “Skyfall” represented a smart, effective modern updating on the classic Bond formula, “Spectre” is an overplotted bore, complete with an utterly vacant performance from Daniel Craig as Bond. One would’ve imagined after the events of the prior three films – which this picture tries to provide a conclusion of sorts – that Bond might express anger, sadness, frustration or surprise based on the events of this film…but it’s hard to read Craig’s persona, not even when Christoph Waltz’s bad guy (yeah, we all know who he is) relays not only his “true identity” but the supposedly shocking details of their shared personal connection. If Bond doesn’t care about what’s going on, why should we?
Compounding the trouble is a notable lack of exciting set-pieces. The opening teaser is fun, but the rest of the picture plays out by the numbers, from an uninspired Italian car chase to a dumb pursuit sequence with Bond tailing the movie’s resident damsel in distress (the attractive Léa Seydoux, who regrettably doesn’t strike up much chemistry with Craig) in a plane. There’s no snap or excitement really here at any time, and the big lead-in to Bond’s confrontation with Waltz’s character proves to be anything but worth the wait. Waltz does his bad guy shtick again here, but there’s not enough wit or surprise in the script (credited to four different writers, including series veterans Neil Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan) to support him, and there’s no zest when the duo do, eventually, confront one another – and what fun is that?
“Spectre” does try to incorporate more humor than the prior Craig pictures, but the brief one-liners seem ill at ease with the movie’s dreary tone and a running time that goes on forever (a subplot where M and company try to justify their existence to younger British bureaucrats looking to wipe them out is particularly uninteresting). One could also carp about Thomas Newman’s over-used, percussion-heavy underscore (or Sam Smith’s leaden title song), but the bottom line is that, with “Spectre,” Mendes and especially Craig stayed too long at the party.
6/10
After the triumph of “Skyfall” one might’ve thought that director Sam Mendes and resident 007 Daniel Craig would have been invigorated with the subject matter of SPECTRE – the 24th James Bond film but the first in several decades to incorporate one of Bond’s chief nemesis from the earliest days of the series. With Bond back in action and taking on the nefarious, secretive organization behind the likes of “Goldfinger” and “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” in an official Eon film for the first time in forever, what could go wrong? Unfortunately, pretty much everything.
This stunningly tedious entry – in fact, the longest in the entire run of the franchise – finds Bond working a lead from his beloved M (one final Judi Dench cameo), who implored him, in the event of her death, to track down and take out a man thought to have died decades before. A trip to Rome here, a dash to Austria there, and Bond finds out Spectre has its tentacles pretty much everywhere – with a man leading its parade whose identity was pretty much revealed when the film’s title and cast were announced some time ago.
If “Skyfall” represented a smart, effective modern updating on the classic Bond formula, “Spectre” is an overplotted bore, complete with an utterly vacant performance from Daniel Craig as Bond. One would’ve imagined after the events of the prior three films – which this picture tries to provide a conclusion of sorts – that Bond might express anger, sadness, frustration or surprise based on the events of this film…but it’s hard to read Craig’s persona, not even when Christoph Waltz’s bad guy (yeah, we all know who he is) relays not only his “true identity” but the supposedly shocking details of their shared personal connection. If Bond doesn’t care about what’s going on, why should we?
Compounding the trouble is a notable lack of exciting set-pieces. The opening teaser is fun, but the rest of the picture plays out by the numbers, from an uninspired Italian car chase to a dumb pursuit sequence with Bond tailing the movie’s resident damsel in distress (the attractive Léa Seydoux, who regrettably doesn’t strike up much chemistry with Craig) in a plane. There’s no snap or excitement really here at any time, and the big lead-in to Bond’s confrontation with Waltz’s character proves to be anything but worth the wait. Waltz does his bad guy shtick again here, but there’s not enough wit or surprise in the script (credited to four different writers, including series veterans Neil Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan) to support him, and there’s no zest when the duo do, eventually, confront one another – and what fun is that?
“Spectre” does try to incorporate more humor than the prior Craig pictures, but the brief one-liners seem ill at ease with the movie’s dreary tone and a running time that goes on forever (a subplot where M and company try to justify their existence to younger British bureaucrats looking to wipe them out is particularly uninteresting). One could also carp about Thomas Newman’s over-used, percussion-heavy underscore (or Sam Smith’s leaden title song), but the bottom line is that, with “Spectre,” Mendes and especially Craig stayed too long at the party.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7059
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Village
Took a while to get 'round to this one, I know!
I wasn't a big fan of The 6th Sense (and even less a fan of Unbreakable), but this film impressed me. Very moody and atmospheric, with some genuinely spooky moments, and unexpected twists in the narrative. I don't scare easily but I was a bit creeped-out during a few scenes (and it doesn't help that I watched this at my parents house -- which has noisy mice below the floor, backs-up against a large woodland, and is furnished with colonial American decor and thus looks a lot like the cottages in the film!). I felt the third act was a bit drawn-out but overall this was an effective thriller, was well-acted and visually arresting (superb photography and art direction).
Took a while to get 'round to this one, I know!
I wasn't a big fan of The 6th Sense (and even less a fan of Unbreakable), but this film impressed me. Very moody and atmospheric, with some genuinely spooky moments, and unexpected twists in the narrative. I don't scare easily but I was a bit creeped-out during a few scenes (and it doesn't help that I watched this at my parents house -- which has noisy mice below the floor, backs-up against a large woodland, and is furnished with colonial American decor and thus looks a lot like the cottages in the film!). I felt the third act was a bit drawn-out but overall this was an effective thriller, was well-acted and visually arresting (superb photography and art direction).
Re: rate the last movie you saw
LATE AUTUMN (1960) - 6/10. A remake of LATE SPRING (one of Ozu's most moving cinematic achievements and my personal favorite), LATE AUTUMN tells the story of a widowed mother Akiko (played be the ever-gorgeous Setsuko Hara) whose daughter Ayako (played by Yoko Tsukasa) does not want to get married. Akiko's dead husband's three male friends try to arrange a marriage for Ayako who does not want to accept for fear of leaving her mother alone. The story is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is Setsuko Hara. In the "Noriko trilogy" (LATE SPRING, TOKYO STORY, and EARLY SUMMER) Hara played the role of daughter; in LATE SPRING she played the daughter of widower Chishu Ryu, so her role is reversed in this film. Hara was such a strong presence on the screen, and this film gives her plenty of opportunity to emote and command the center of attention whenever she is on screen. Normally in Ozu films women are behind the efforts to marry off someone's sibling, but in this story the roles are reversed again as three men attempt to play "matchmaker" for Ayako. They come across as being out of their element and provide some comic relief. The film is typical of Ozu's style - very little action, lots of static shots, and great visual balance contained in the on-screen environments. Despite being a pleasure to watch (especailly as it is in color), it does not end up striking the emotional chord that films like the "Noriko trilogy" were able to strike. It is still worth a viewing if just to lose oneself in Ozu's cinematic eye.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Why have you not seen SIGNS?? His best film IMO.Paul MacLean wrote:The Village
Took a while to get 'round to this one, I know!
I wasn't a big fan of The 6th Sense (and even less a fan of Unbreakable), but this film impressed me. Very moody and atmospheric, with some genuinely spooky moments, and unexpected twists in the narrative. I don't scare easily but I was a bit creeped-out during a few scenes (and it doesn't help that I watched this at my parents house -- which has noisy mice below the floor, backs-up against a large woodland, and is furnished with colonial American decor and thus looks a lot like the cottages in the film!). I felt the third act was a bit drawn-out but overall this was an effective thriller, was well-acted and visually arresting (superb photography and art direction).
THE VILLAGE iant bad though. I figured out the twist after seeing the trailer but there's enough in it to sustain interest.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7059
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I never saw the trailer, and actually wasn't exposed to much publicity about the film (all I knew was that it took place in a 19th century village and something scary was in the surrounding woods), so I came to it with no preconceived notions. For me the twist was wholly unexpected!AndyDursin wrote: Why have you not seen SIGNS?? His best film IMO.
THE VILLAGE iant bad though. I figured out the twist after seeing the trailer but there's enough in it to sustain interest.
I'll get around to Signs I promise! Maybe I avoided Signs because my brother saw it and hated it (then again he hated Legend and Excalibur too!).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I figured with Mel Signs wouldve been the first film of his you'd watch lol. For me its his best movie with the most humanity and also didn't reply on a late twist. Very good film even if you have to suspend your disbelief. Probably Newton Howard's best score as well.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I also agree that Signs is his best movie, although I do really like Unbreakable (once you realize it is a superhero movie). 6th Sense is good, and the twist really shocked me back in the day!.
All have great scores as well (even Lady in the Water, but skip watching the film)
All have great scores as well (even Lady in the Water, but skip watching the film)
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Agreed - my favorite MNS film. I did like THE VILLAGE however; loved the cue "The Vote" on the film score CD.AndyDursin wrote:I figured with Mel Signs wouldve been the first film of his you'd watch lol. For me its his best movie with the most humanity and also didn't reply on a late twist. Very good film even if you have to suspend your disbelief. Probably Newton Howard's best score as well.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT - 4/10. I cannot talk about the reason why I gave the film low marks without mentioning spoilers, so there you go. Having believed that BLUE JASMINE is Allen's final masterpiece, I am content to watch the rest of his movies without high expectation. I did like that the film moved at a relatively good pace, and I enjoyed watching the film for its locations and environments. But there was plenty I thought fell short - the acting was rather static and dull, especially by Colin Firth, throughout most of the movie. Only at the end did he come alive somewhat. I get that he was a Enlightenment humanist skeptic, but he was just too dry for my tastes. Emma Stone is pretty and did okay but the acting overall from everyone lacked charisma. I think the film could have been a bit more humorous as well. The one thing I really did not like about the film (SPOILERS HERE) is that what I got out of the "lesson" of the film is that in order to have some modicum of happiness it is okay and even encouraged to embrace an irrationality/fantasy (belief in the supernatural, miracles, God, etc.). In the end Firth's character embraces that irrationality, and so the ending is "happy" but I wasn't very satisfied. Maybe I am way off base on that, but that's what I got from the film, fair or not. It is a message he has been preaching for a long time (CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and WHATEVER WORKS come to mind), but oddly enough in the context of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS as a whole I interpreted the ending monologue in a much more positive way whereas in this film I did not. Maybe I'm the one with the issues! Lol...