rate the last movie you saw

[esteban miranda]

RE: CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

I do agree the ending was kind of a whimper, more like just the latest episode instead of a stand alone movie.
I believe the others of these Marvel superhero installments share this in common, though they all seem so interchangeable and forgettable to me that I don't clearly recall.
This movie did exhibit an abundance, in it's chase and fight scenes, of what I refer to as hyper-editing. It's often so hard for me to clearly tell what's going on that I soon lose interest. Since I expect that that was not the filmmaker's intention, I will assume instead that I am just not the target audience...

[AndyDursin]

I agree Esteban. I think at this point I'm not the target audience either lol

[mkaroly]

Quick hits:

X-MEN: APOCALYPSE - 7/10. It was not as bad as I thought based on what I had heard. I think it is pretty consistent in tone with the other films (generally speaking), and I liked that it took its time to tell the story. I also liked how they linked the timing of this story with some happenings from the "older" films. However, I feel like it's time for a START TREK IV type direction in which the films lighten up a bit; there is a pattern of dourness that is getting a bit too heavy for me. Lighten things up, put some humor in it, and let the cast have some fun. And while I could really feel the 70s in DOFP, I barely felt the 80s in this film.

START TREK INTO DARKNESS - 7/10. It is not as bad as I remember it being; the musical score is weak though, and while it was interesting to do an alternate universe/timeline Khan story, they really missed an opportunity to do something original. You have a whole galaxy of planets out there...go explore them for Pete's sake! I am not a fan of the whole Spock-Uhura romance; it doesn't feel right even in an alternate universe/timeline.

THE END OF SUMMER - 6/10. Ozu's penultimate film is a quiet reflection once again on life cycles that focuses more on the younger, more modern generation dealing with the older more traditional generation. This was Setsuko Hara's last Ozu film; the one "shocking" thing that stood out in the picture was the inclusion of two American men as dating interests. I was actually taken aback when I saw them...lol...not used to seeing that in an Ozu film! I will never get tired of seeing his balance and symmetry in scenic constructions. Even toward the end of his life and career Ozu was still a master filmmaker.

[AndyDursin]

JURASSIC WORLD
6.5/10

Gave this another spin -- all the problems I initially had with it are still there, but at least I could really, honest-to-goodness SEE it this time (the drive-in I watched it at must have had a bulb out!), so it was in some regards like seeing it for the first time.

Giacchino's score, though, is still a failure on a number of levels; the main one being that his music is so simplistic that it clashes with the more elegant, and complicated, themes of John Williams. For whatever reason Giacchino started writing themes on a piano with just a handful of notes on LOST, and much of his scores since have fallen back on that. His main "JURASSIC WORLD" theme, as it were, is right out of that playbook, and when it segues into Williams and then back again, the difference in their compositional styles is utterly jarring.

Dramatically the music fails to raise the material up as well. It's nearly like a cartoon in how it underscores the material ("the evil military music," "the happy park music," etc.). By far the worst cue of all is when the Indian owner of the park takes off in his helicopter with Bryce, and Giacchino brings in a full, almost hysterical quote from Williams' JP theme -- it's so badly handled, orchestrated and utilized in that moment, that you wonder what anyone was thinking.

As for the movie, I think Bryce did a lot with a hackneyed "harried female" role, and she has good chemistry with Pratt even if he comes off as lightweight. D'Onofrio, though, is just terrible, chortling around and mugging constantly, and the kids were also unlikeable. Why they had to bring up their parents getting divorced -- when the 3rd movie had that component in a bickering, nearly-estranged adult couple also -- was very curious and ineffective. I get why they're there, but neither of them were appealing.

On the plus side, John Schwartzman's colorful cinematography (which I couldn't get a really strong read on before) is strong, a couple of the set pieces are fairly effective, and at least it wasn't a total recycling like THE FORCE AWAKENS, which on 2nd viewing, isn't as far removed from JURASSIC WORLD as I initially thought.

[Monterey Jack]

-Howard The Duck (1986): 7/10



Dammit, I like this movie, warts and all. Granted, there's a lot of adolescent nostalgia packed into it (Lea Thompson's Beverly made a BIG impression on me at the time ), and it is a prime example of overproduced 80's fantasy cinema (as someone on Twitter said recently, the 80's were the era when CARTOON LIGHTNING BOLTS were the height of F/X razzle-dazzle ), but the film is a lot more enjoyable and amusing than its unfairly toxic reputation would lead you to believe. I'd bet a lot of people who have cracked "Howard The Duck laid an egg" jokes over the past three decades have never even seen the movie, aside from clips on episodes of Nostalgia Critic or whatever. Sure, the movie is weird and has wild swings in tone (is it for kids? Is it for cult audiences?) and the limitations of animatronics of the era mean that the title character (nicely voiced by Chip Zein) isn't as expressive as he could have been, but the production values are top-notch (especially John Barry's lush score, which deserves a definitive CD release one of these days), the acting is as good as a broad farce could hope for (Jeffrey Jones scared the heck out of me back in the day), and the film is kind of the perfect "lazy afternoon" time-waster for those hoping to bliss out on mid-80's nostalgia. Compared to the same year's dreary Eddie Murphy vehicle The Golden Child (which was equally overproduced and nonsensical, but also colossally boring), Howard delivers enough modest chuckles and impressive eye candy to make it a "terrible" film that's actually pretty damn watchable.

[AndyDursin]

Great review MJ! Agreed on all fronts.

[AndyDursin]

HAIL CAESAR!
6/10

The Coen Brothers’ latest is one of their more minor outings, in spite of its major cast.

In this salute to the studio films of the 1950s (kinda), Josh Brolin plays Eddie Mannix, head of physical production at a Hollywood studio and a “fixer” whose job veers from private-eye to cutting room floor advisor. In a single day on the job, Mannix tries to navigate scandals involving his stars – and the kidnapping of a Kirk Douglas-esque leading man (George Clooney) by Southern California communists – as well as roving reporters (Tilda Swinton in a dual role) and a singing cowboy (Alden Ehrenreich) who’s been miscast in a period drama.

“Hail Caesar!” has all the ingredients for a typical Coen brew, and the movie does have some very funny moments, plus impressive turns from both Brolin and especially Ehrenreich, who’s since been cast as a young Han Solo in one of Disney’s upcoming “Star Wars” movies. Yet, those elements just don’t gel in “Hail Caesar!,” with a muddled message and fragmented plot elements never mixing to a satisfying level. Just when it seems like the film is going to wrap it all up in a satisfying third act, the film abruptly ends, and what’s more, gives some of its heavily-touted all-star cast members (including Jonah Hill and Frances McDormand) nothing more than glorified cameos with literally one or two scenes between them.

Still worth a look for Coen devotees, “Hail Caesar!” will not be remembered as one of the duo’s superior offerings when it hits Blu-Ray June 7th from Universal following a tepid theatrical run. Several featurettes grace the disc, which comes with a DVD, Digital HD copy, 1080p (1.85) transfer and 5.1 DTS MA sound.

[Monterey Jack]

-The Conjuring (2013): 9.5/10



One of the most effectively unnerving haunted house thrillers since Poltergeist, and due in large part to the fact that -- like that classic Spielberg production -- director James Wan does such a good job in setting up the soon-to-be-imperiled family unit as a loving brood that to see them gradually torn asunder by the film's vengeful specters becomes truly upsetting. Kudos, also, to Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga's equally-relatable Warrens, the kind of kindly, emphatic ghost hunters you'd actually want to feed a pancake breakfast to. Due to this strong base of fine characterization, the movie's thrills, when they do arrive (and paced and delivered with crackerjack skill), are all the more jolting, not simply the kind of cheap jump-scare nonsense that make so many modern-day horror movies such a chore to sit through. I'm pulling for the movie's sequel to provide some thrills at least in the same neighborhood, but we'll always have this one regardless.

[AndyDursin]

MIDNIGHT SPECIAL
5/10

Yet another sci-fi thriller – sold as being “influenced” by ‘80s genre films – that doesn’t have a handle on what made those pictures so satisfying, writer-director Jeff Nichols’ “Midnight Special” is about as much fun as having your teeth pulled.

Though technically well-executed, this emotionally muted – if not downright joyless – film doesn’t resemble the likes of, say, “E.T.” or “Starman” in its execution, despite a similar plot that grafts together elements from those movies and the likes of Stephen King’s “Firestarter.”

Here, distraught father Michael Shannon (switching away from his ice-cold killer routine) and friend Joel Edgerton flee the American south from the authorities and a religious sect that believes Shannon’s son (Jaeden Lieberher) is a savior. He may not be a messiah, but he does have supernatural, extraterrestrial abilities that involve light beams shooting from his eyes and the knowing sense that the bad guys are out to get him – these include a group of government types and a possibly sympathetic scientist (Adam Driver) as well as a religious order presided over by Sam Shepard, who disappears from the movie completely after its first half.

Nichols previously helmed the acclaimed, if somewhat overpraised, Matthew McConaughey drama “Mud,” and brings that film’s same, leisurely pace to “Midnight Special.” This time, though, Nichols’ directorial attributes fail to serve this material well, as the morose, one-note tone never gives you a reason to care about Shannon’s plight, nor does it lead to a satisfying emotional release at the conclusion. It’s no wonder, then, why Warner Bros. seemingly didn’t believe in the picture, as they platformed “Midnight Special” in limited release and then gave up on it when it didn’t perform well in those markets.

While not a bad film, “Midnight Special” feels less like an “E.T.” and more like what M. Night Shyamalan might have done with the same material on a bad day – the result is unsatisfying and dreary, despite all the talented people involved in its construction.

[Monterey Jack]

I too found Midnight Special to be fairly mundane and surprisingly unengaging...it's like Starman or any other "magical creature on the run from evil Government agents" 80's fantasy shorn of any likable characters or a narrative that came to any sort of satisfying or even logical conclusion. Maybe casting the perpetually creepy Michael Shannon as the father wasn't the most inspired idea. Nicely made on a technical level, but I'm wondering what 80's Amblin movies the critics were thinking of when making comparisons to this. A movie like Super 8 or Earth To Echo, yeah, I get what they were going for, and appreciated those film for evoking the movies I grew up on, but this was just odd and left me completely flat by the end.

[sprocket]

EVA (2011) 7/10

Set in the near future, a cyberneticist goes home to do some work for his alma mater only to find things more difficult than he thought when trying to model a robot on his niece, a girl named Eva.

This Spanish film may have too slight a plot and not enough gravitas to achieve all its goals, but it almost gets there, due to the creativity of its special effects and a tight focus on its characters.

I imagine that the budget of this film was quite small, but the effects that they were able to create were consistently a delight to watch.

Unfortunately, the movie can't quite bring home it's potential, rushing through later, more emotional sections to a slightly unsatisfying, if demonstratively creative, ending.

I have to say, I prefer the alternate, more straightforward ending included in the extras on the blu-ray although it suffered, as did the ending used, from being poorly 'blocked' - the dialogue and acting was fine, but the setting seemed all wrong.

[Monterey Jack]

-De Palma (2016): 9/10

Wonderful documentary about one of the most polarizing filmmakers of the past 40+ years, from his early 60's counterculture comedies (which introduced the world to a young Robert De Niro) to the Hitchcockian suspense thrillers that have been his bread & butter. De Palma comes across as a tremendously witty -- if understandably somewhat grouchy -- camera subject, dishing on a lot of great set lore, his place in the 70's "Movie Brat" generation along with Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola and Scorsese (there's a great home movie clip of Spielberg calling De Palma from his high-tech 1976-era car phone, with then-girlfriend and Carrie star Amy Irving in the backseat). It doesn't matter if you're a big fan (as I am) or find his films to be nothing more than a pastiche, this is a terrific look at how the studio system had fundamentally changed over the last few decades, and how iconoclastic suspense veterans like De Palma have managed to keep afloat by either adapting to the current zeitgeist or else retreating from it (as De Palma has not made a Hollywood production since the expensive sci-fi flop Mission To Mars sixteen years ago, a project he inherited from Gore Verbinski at the last moment and left him adrift and dissatisfied by working with elaborate visual effects that were too expensive to cut in any way different from the preview animatics). It's a treat to finally see the insane "tidal wave" ending from Snake Eyes (albeit in terrible workprint quality) and to hear De Palma openly bagging on every wan, misguided attempt to sequelize and remake Carrie (one of the greatest horror films ever) over the last two decades. Definitely worth a look, even if you're not especially a fan of the man or his movies.

[AndyDursin]

THE CONJURING 2

8.5/10

James Wan’s arguably even more confident follow-up to his 2013 horror smash, THE CONJURING 2 isn’t just a superior sequel: it’s one of the creepiest, and all around most-satisfying, supernatural thrillers since the original “Poltergeist.” Bucking the trend of disastrous horror follow-ups like “The Exorcist II” and “Poltergeist III,” Wan here tackles the controversial “Enfield Haunting” of the 1970s, wherein a working class British family was allegedly attacked by a poltergeist, garnering considerable media attention in the process.

There’s considerable debate over whether or not the case was a hoax, but frankly, as a film, reality takes a secondary concern when Wan is in such virtuoso control over a sequel that, in some facets, is even more satisfying than its predecessor.

Vera Fermiga and Patrick Wilson reprise their roles of Lorraine and Ed Warren, the husband-and-wife team of paranormal investigators, who are asked by the Catholic Church to investigate the claims of the Hodgson family. With other investigators both convinced and skeptical of the family, the Warrens arrive to find a group at the least emotionally tormented by the apparent breakdown of the youngest daughter in the single-mother raised clan: an 11-year-old named Janet, who serves as the vessel for the haunting. Plagued by sleepwalking and tormented visions of an old man still living in their home, Janet (a strong, natural performance from young American actress Madison Wolfe) becomes an exhausted, emotionally broken girl at the center of the inexplicable events occurring in their home – moving furniture and frightening conversations chief among them.

For the Warrens, the haunting comes at a time when Lorraine is frightened by visions of her husband’s death, as well as a demonic presence – in the guise of a blasphemous nun apparition – that has been associated with her nightmares since the couple took on the Amityville case. Undaunted, the duo travel to England to lend assistance to a situation that’s becoming increasingly volatile – and disturbing.

“The Conjuring 2" is compelling and creepy from its first frames to its satisfyingly restrained fade-out (no last-second jump-cuts here). Wan takes the proper amount of time setting audiences up for the haunting, unfolding the scenario brilliantly with a running that’s leisurely but never dull. In fact, the mood and atmosphere of the early scenes are every bit as chilling as the more overt scares that eventually follow: even the scene of the youngest Hodgson boy walking down the stairs, late at night, to get a drink of water carries an eerie and disturbing vibe. Wan connects the Hodgsons’ plight with the Warrens’ family situation perfectly, and effectively uses a recurring motif of blindness – or at the least being unable to see clearly – as a metaphor for the Warrens’ eventual solution to the case. The picture also feels slightly less “gimmicky” than its predecessor, which as effective as it was, felt a bit gratuitous when less would’ve been more; here, the R rating is basically for intensity as the picture carries scant violence or gore.

Of course, what truly works in the film are the scares, and there are plenty of them, as well as a number of brilliant directorial touches on Wan’s part. The sequence in which Ed Warren “interviews” Janet for the first time, with her stationed, out of focus, on the right hand side of the frame, is bravura filmmaking, with Janet’s guise transforming into that of an old man and back again – but always softly conveyed, right out of the line of clarity. The sound design and music are also outstandingly rendered, making for not just one of the best films of the summer, but one of the finest ghost stories produced for the screen altogether.

Highly recommended!

[Monterey Jack]

-Big Trouble In Little China (1986): 8/10

Introduced the nephew to John Carpenter's daft blend of Asian mysticism, broad comedy and 80's F/X extravaganza today (he came over for "Movie Night" with his uncle to celebrate my birthday ), and am pleased to report that the movie still works for "kids these days"...he laughed at all the right spots and enjoyed all of Richard Edlund's goofy effects flourishes and rubber-suit monsters. As for me, the film remains an uncategorizable blast of fun, probably the last top-to-bottom satisfying film Carpenter ever made. Shame it did so poorly at the box office back then, but if it were remade today (and I've read that Dwayne Johnson is attached to one), I'm sure audiences wouldn't "get it" all over again. Kurt Russell delivers one of his most droll, self-depricating performances as the cocksure Jack Burton, the nominal "hero" sent onto a quest below the streets of San Francisco's Chinatown to prevent...whatever he has to prevent (to this day, the film's plot makes almost no sense) and generally making a total ass of himself. And the film's blend of martial arts mayhem, impressive special effects and wacky asides makes for terrific "turn off the brain" fun.

[AndyDursin]

I'm with you MJ. My Dad took me to it back in the summer of 86 at the now defunct Warwick Mall General Cinema (current site of the Red Robin/Texas Longhorn steakhouse). He certainly DIDN'T "get it" but at least he took me!

It is a blast of fun, Carpenter with a full studio budget for one of the few times in his career and working at the top of his talents. Shame it didn't connect with the general public, but it was a different era back then.