Without Warning (1994) 3 of 10
I'm going to upgrade my earlier ratings of "Special Bulletin" and "Countdown to Looking Glass" to a full 6 points simply because compared to this "fake newscast" drama from 1994, they are a lot better in terms of the basic gimmick of putting some credibility in the fake newscast. This doesn't happen here, notwithstanding the presence of a number of real-life ex-newsmen mixed in. In fact, this hurts it because they choose to have ex-NBC, ABC correspondent Sander Vanocur as the lead anchor. I think when recalling Ed Flanders in "Special Bulletin" it was better to have an actor who could credibly be an anchorman but who could show some more emotion at the key moments. John DeLancie has a small part as correspondent "Harry Steinbrenner."
The story is just utterly absurd. We have an alien attack that comes because let's see now, first they drop a bunch of giant asteroids on the Earth that end up killing people (albeit in non-populated areas) and wreak some industrial havoc and when a second one is about to hit, we destroy it. But guess what? These aliens were just responding to a message on our old space probes so therefore when we shot down these asteroids which we have to assume had *no life on them* (it is never made clear that we ended up killing any aliens) we therefore (according to our sanctimonious, noble SETI scientist) declared war on the aliens proving why we are the most hostile race in the galaxy and so the aliens then drop a million big rocks on us and destroy the Earth.
Now gee, just try and think if Kirk had decided to destroy a planet because they shot down an unmanned probe. Kirk would be a barbarian/murderer of the highest order if he did that, so why in this case is it the aliens who are supposedly in the right to murder billions of people and destroy a planet just because what was in effect an incomprehensible probe of theirs that could have inflicted a lot of damage was shot down? The mind just staggers that someone actually got paid for writing this kind of tripe.
I was already familiar with this plot from before and my real reason for revisiting it was to compare the "fake newscast" style of this to the other films in closer detail. On that level, while "Special Bulletin" and "Countdown to Looking Glass" have undercurrents I disagree quite strongly with, I give them more props for better presentation and doing better in creating a mood of authenticity that isn't present here.
rate the last movie you saw
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34253
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
AIRPORT
8.5/10
The original disaster movie is a film that, as Paul and I discussed the other night on the phone, seems to have been 20 years out of step with its era: the movie looks, feels and comes across as a product of the 1950s in every way save its aggressively machisimo male leads (both of whom seem to have no problem cheating on their respective spouses!). The use of split-screen feels like something out of a Rock Hudson/Doris Day comedy but the film itself is rock-solid and highly repeatable -- even if it's crazy to think the film somehow earned 11 (!!!) Oscar nominations. Great looking Blu-Ray by Universal as well. It is also amazing, though, how AIRPORT 1975 (its own, more severe shortcomings aside) looks like a film made decades later by comparison.
LOST SOUL: THE DOOMED JOURNEY OF RICHARD STANLEY'S "ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU"
8/10
One of Hollywood's juiciest and unfathomable behind-the-scenes stories makes for a tasty, fast-moving documentary. Its one failing is that, in recounting the amazing production history of the film, it never really makes the case that Stanley's film actually would've been a masterpiece -- or how the finished film deviated from his concept (unlike, say, JODOROWSKY'S DUNE)...yet the tales of bad behavior on the part of both Val Kilmer (who comes off as an unfathomable DB) and Marlon Brando (no surprise) are so compelling it's impossible not to be entertained. Very recommended whether you care about the film or not.
CREATOR
7/10
Pretty much forgotten Peter O'Toole vehicle from the mid '80s offers the star a solid leading role as a college professor/scientist trying to reanimate his dead wife; Vincent Spano is one of his graduate students, Virginia Madsen the object of his infatuation, and Mariel Hemingway as the unlikely muse who spurs O'Toole to question his project. Jeremy Leven -- who later wrote/directed DON JUAN DEMARCO -- wrote this adaptation of his novel, which was a Kings Road production released by Universal in 1985. The movie has some moments of effectiveness and a subtle, mostly positive, portrayal of religion but is undone nearly by an awful Sylvester Levay synthesizer score that's repetitive and all wrong (and nearly as bad as Dave Grusin's score for LUCAS). Still an interesting if not altogether successful film that's been curiously released on Blu-Ray in Japan. David Ogden Stiers is also fun as the stock, obnoxoious antagonist who prefers science over hope and faith -- and in 2015, would likely be the GOOD guy if this film were ever remade!
8.5/10
The original disaster movie is a film that, as Paul and I discussed the other night on the phone, seems to have been 20 years out of step with its era: the movie looks, feels and comes across as a product of the 1950s in every way save its aggressively machisimo male leads (both of whom seem to have no problem cheating on their respective spouses!). The use of split-screen feels like something out of a Rock Hudson/Doris Day comedy but the film itself is rock-solid and highly repeatable -- even if it's crazy to think the film somehow earned 11 (!!!) Oscar nominations. Great looking Blu-Ray by Universal as well. It is also amazing, though, how AIRPORT 1975 (its own, more severe shortcomings aside) looks like a film made decades later by comparison.
LOST SOUL: THE DOOMED JOURNEY OF RICHARD STANLEY'S "ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU"
8/10
One of Hollywood's juiciest and unfathomable behind-the-scenes stories makes for a tasty, fast-moving documentary. Its one failing is that, in recounting the amazing production history of the film, it never really makes the case that Stanley's film actually would've been a masterpiece -- or how the finished film deviated from his concept (unlike, say, JODOROWSKY'S DUNE)...yet the tales of bad behavior on the part of both Val Kilmer (who comes off as an unfathomable DB) and Marlon Brando (no surprise) are so compelling it's impossible not to be entertained. Very recommended whether you care about the film or not.
CREATOR
7/10
Pretty much forgotten Peter O'Toole vehicle from the mid '80s offers the star a solid leading role as a college professor/scientist trying to reanimate his dead wife; Vincent Spano is one of his graduate students, Virginia Madsen the object of his infatuation, and Mariel Hemingway as the unlikely muse who spurs O'Toole to question his project. Jeremy Leven -- who later wrote/directed DON JUAN DEMARCO -- wrote this adaptation of his novel, which was a Kings Road production released by Universal in 1985. The movie has some moments of effectiveness and a subtle, mostly positive, portrayal of religion but is undone nearly by an awful Sylvester Levay synthesizer score that's repetitive and all wrong (and nearly as bad as Dave Grusin's score for LUCAS). Still an interesting if not altogether successful film that's been curiously released on Blu-Ray in Japan. David Ogden Stiers is also fun as the stock, obnoxoious antagonist who prefers science over hope and faith -- and in 2015, would likely be the GOOD guy if this film were ever remade!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8619
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
"Airport" was made just before the debut of the wide-body 747 and DC-10 jets which were responsible for changing air travel forever. Airports, which once exuded an aura of glamour and sometimes even luxury, now had to handle the widebodies and increasing levels of traffic that the focus was now on cramming people in as fast as they could. So you're seeing the last vestiges of the days when air travel had glamour and also the simpler, easier days of security standards that would be unthinkable today (when people could see one off on the plane) preserved on film and that's what makes "Airport" a valuable cultural history document in and of itself.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
This film definitely had its moments, but had its faults as well. I got sick of the f-bombs, which were unnecessary and shattered the otherwise "sweet" tone of the film (especially in the shower scene). Agreed on the score (imagine this film with music by Georges Delerue!), and I was aghast that even in the scene where O'Toole and Hemmingway listen to Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the film uses a synthesized recording of it instead of the actual orchestral version! But I love the setting of the film, which was shot at UC Santa Cruz -- one of the most amazing campuses on Earth (located in the middle of a redwood forest).AndyDursin wrote: The movie has some moments of effectiveness and a subtle, mostly positive, portrayal of religion but is undone nearly by an awful Sylvester Levay synthesizer score that's repetitive and all wrong (and nearly as bad as Dave Grusin's score for LUCAS). Still an interesting if not altogether successful film that's been curiously released on Blu-Ray in Japan.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34253
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
THE HUNGER
5/10
A horror movie forward thinking in its striking visual approach – but dramatically limp on a story and character level – “The Hunger” has nevertheless remains a cult favorite, primarily for its gorgeous female leads and one memorable seduction sequence.
Catherine Deneuve plays a bloodsucker – undead since ancient Egypt – whose current companion, played by David Bowie, dates back several centuries. Bowie, however, is having a hard time keeping up his youthful appearance, even with devouring the blood pouring forth from unsuspecting victims. Hoping to turn back the clock, they seek out a doctor (Susan Sarandon) specializing in genetics – whom Deneuve becomes attracted to and eyes as a potential replacement for Bowie.
As a pure visual piece, “The Hunger” is impressive, marked by director Tony Scott’s use of montages, limited dialogue, Stephen Goldblatt’s cinematography and art direction that often feels like the work of Scott’s brother, Ridley. The movie didn’t do well initially in theaters but comes off as far more contemporary than any of its genre brethren from the era, and its bold opening would be just as striking in a film produced today.
Sadly, the story remains a wet blanket, and its script an underdeveloped outline that no amount of visual sizzle can overcome. Very little actually happens in “The Hunger,” with its threadbare plot – concocted by Ivan Davis and Michael Thomas from Whitley Strieber’s novel – used as an excuse for its flashy murders and attractive portrait of its leading ladies. Speaking of which, Deneuve and Sarandon are in peak physical condition here, and their collective beauty keeps you watching all the way through their big lovemaking sequence – and through to a dumb, unsatisfying ending that was all too obviously shot at the insistence of MGM executives, hoping for sequels that never came.
Warner’s Archive Blu-Ray heightens the movie’s potent Panavision cinematography with a 1080p (2.40) transfer. There are a few sections with some minor print damage, but generally, the wide scope image is finely detailed and strongly rendered here. Surprisingly, “The Hunger” was recorded in mono, and while the DTS MA mono track is passable, this is a film that cries out for an immersive stereophonic mix. The trailer – which hysterically attempts to sell the film on the basis of its stars (“The timeless beauty of Catherine Deneuve! The cool elegance of David Bowie! The open sensuality of Susan Sarandon!”) – is included along with a DVD commentary with Scott and Sarandon, who trashes the movie’s brainless epilogue.
5/10
A horror movie forward thinking in its striking visual approach – but dramatically limp on a story and character level – “The Hunger” has nevertheless remains a cult favorite, primarily for its gorgeous female leads and one memorable seduction sequence.
Catherine Deneuve plays a bloodsucker – undead since ancient Egypt – whose current companion, played by David Bowie, dates back several centuries. Bowie, however, is having a hard time keeping up his youthful appearance, even with devouring the blood pouring forth from unsuspecting victims. Hoping to turn back the clock, they seek out a doctor (Susan Sarandon) specializing in genetics – whom Deneuve becomes attracted to and eyes as a potential replacement for Bowie.
As a pure visual piece, “The Hunger” is impressive, marked by director Tony Scott’s use of montages, limited dialogue, Stephen Goldblatt’s cinematography and art direction that often feels like the work of Scott’s brother, Ridley. The movie didn’t do well initially in theaters but comes off as far more contemporary than any of its genre brethren from the era, and its bold opening would be just as striking in a film produced today.
Sadly, the story remains a wet blanket, and its script an underdeveloped outline that no amount of visual sizzle can overcome. Very little actually happens in “The Hunger,” with its threadbare plot – concocted by Ivan Davis and Michael Thomas from Whitley Strieber’s novel – used as an excuse for its flashy murders and attractive portrait of its leading ladies. Speaking of which, Deneuve and Sarandon are in peak physical condition here, and their collective beauty keeps you watching all the way through their big lovemaking sequence – and through to a dumb, unsatisfying ending that was all too obviously shot at the insistence of MGM executives, hoping for sequels that never came.
Warner’s Archive Blu-Ray heightens the movie’s potent Panavision cinematography with a 1080p (2.40) transfer. There are a few sections with some minor print damage, but generally, the wide scope image is finely detailed and strongly rendered here. Surprisingly, “The Hunger” was recorded in mono, and while the DTS MA mono track is passable, this is a film that cries out for an immersive stereophonic mix. The trailer – which hysterically attempts to sell the film on the basis of its stars (“The timeless beauty of Catherine Deneuve! The cool elegance of David Bowie! The open sensuality of Susan Sarandon!”) – is included along with a DVD commentary with Scott and Sarandon, who trashes the movie’s brainless epilogue.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Bride
I hadn't seen this since the 80s, and had forgotten what a good movie it is. In fact I think it is fair to say it is the best Frankenstein movie since James Whale's original Bride of Frankenstein -- certainly it's better than any of those schlocky Hammer movies (and infinitely superior to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein).
Despite its title, this really isn't a remake of Bride of Frankenstein at all -- it is more a macabre adaptation of Pygmalion, with Dr. Frankenstein as a kind of evil, twisted "Henry Higgins", who creates his idea of the "ideal woman". The parallel storyline, of the runaway monster and his friend Rinaldo (who teaches him how to get along in the world) is funny, bittersweet and touching, in a way no other Frankenstein movie has come close to.
The Bride is a slightly weird narrative, being essentially a "sequel" with no predecessor. The viewer must therefor have a familiarity with the original story of Frankenstein in order for The Bride to make any sense (but then again, who doesn't know the story?). Still, I think this film could have benefitted from maybe a few flashbacks, to fill-in some background on who Frankenstein and the monster actually are (if only to make the movie better self-contained).
The casting is certainly eclectic -- with Sting, Jennifer Beals, Clancy Brown and David Rappaport in the primary roles and Geraldine Page, Cary Elwes and Quentin Crisp (!) in smaller, supporting parts. Sting and Beals were almost certainly cast for their popularity, but they both work just fine in their respective roles -- Sting is particularly good as the plotting, sinister mad scientist with a God complex. Clancy Brown is just wonderful as the monster, and ironically this is one of the few roles in which Brown has not played a scary guy!
The Bride is also sumptuous to behold (as were so many genre pictures of the 80s) with striking art direction and colorful photography by Stephen Burum, ASC. Maurice Jarre's score is sensitive, romantic and heroic, composed when he was arguably at the apex of his inspiration (Witness, Mad Max III and Enemy Mine were also written within the same year). And there is considerably more music than was included on the original album (this is one that could use an expansion -- hopefully James Fitzpatrick has this in the pipeline!).
I hadn't seen this since the 80s, and had forgotten what a good movie it is. In fact I think it is fair to say it is the best Frankenstein movie since James Whale's original Bride of Frankenstein -- certainly it's better than any of those schlocky Hammer movies (and infinitely superior to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein).
Despite its title, this really isn't a remake of Bride of Frankenstein at all -- it is more a macabre adaptation of Pygmalion, with Dr. Frankenstein as a kind of evil, twisted "Henry Higgins", who creates his idea of the "ideal woman". The parallel storyline, of the runaway monster and his friend Rinaldo (who teaches him how to get along in the world) is funny, bittersweet and touching, in a way no other Frankenstein movie has come close to.
The Bride is a slightly weird narrative, being essentially a "sequel" with no predecessor. The viewer must therefor have a familiarity with the original story of Frankenstein in order for The Bride to make any sense (but then again, who doesn't know the story?). Still, I think this film could have benefitted from maybe a few flashbacks, to fill-in some background on who Frankenstein and the monster actually are (if only to make the movie better self-contained).
The casting is certainly eclectic -- with Sting, Jennifer Beals, Clancy Brown and David Rappaport in the primary roles and Geraldine Page, Cary Elwes and Quentin Crisp (!) in smaller, supporting parts. Sting and Beals were almost certainly cast for their popularity, but they both work just fine in their respective roles -- Sting is particularly good as the plotting, sinister mad scientist with a God complex. Clancy Brown is just wonderful as the monster, and ironically this is one of the few roles in which Brown has not played a scary guy!
The Bride is also sumptuous to behold (as were so many genre pictures of the 80s) with striking art direction and colorful photography by Stephen Burum, ASC. Maurice Jarre's score is sensitive, romantic and heroic, composed when he was arguably at the apex of his inspiration (Witness, Mad Max III and Enemy Mine were also written within the same year). And there is considerably more music than was included on the original album (this is one that could use an expansion -- hopefully James Fitzpatrick has this in the pipeline!).
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Saw four films the previous weekend...
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-ROGUE NATION: 7.5/10
Pretty damn good entry in the Tom Cruise spy series-not quite as good as GHOST PROTOCOL but damn close, with Simon Pegg given a bit more to do in this entry (sadly, Ving Rhames is given less to do) and a pretty good femme fatale in Rebecca Ferguson. Cruise gets to (literally) hang off of a plane in mid-air and there is some pretty good underwater stuff. The main villain-Sean Harris-pales in comparison to the third film's Philip Seymour Hoffman and Alec Baldwin has become incredibly boring but this is easily the best spy film since SKYFALL and it is nice that, along with last year's EDGE OF TOMORROW, Cruise still has it.
SHAUN THE SHEEP MOVIE: 8/10
Quite literally one of the funniest films I have seen in a long time (love that recurring gag in the animal shelter with the dog next door), this is the latest Aardman film about a young sheep who is bored with the routine of the farm and starts a chain of events that leads to the big city, a hair stylist, a fancy restaurant and an animal control officer who would give Wile E. Coyote a run for most obsessive animated character ever. Tati would have loved that the film has virtually no dialogue (although what you do hear sounds remarkably like Denis O'Fell in The Beatles "You Know My Name [Look up the Number])." An absolute blast that I will probably be getting for my granddaughter this Christmas (and myself, too!).
THE MAN FROM U. N. C. L. E.: 4/10
Not having even a cameo appearance by either Robert Vaughn or David McCallum can probably be excused, but not even a hint of Jerry Goldsmith's great theme from the TV series? Really? Armie Hammer actually goes a long way toward redeeming his godawful performance in THE LONE RANGER, and Henry Cavell is an actor that I really like, but why do all reboots of great TV series insist on making the characters who will eventually team up hate each other at the get-go? The 60's settings are passable, as are Cavell's duds, but Alicia Vikander CONSTANTLY looks ticked off throughout the film, to the point where I really did not care much what happened to her by the end, while Elizabeth Debicki was a pretty damn good villain. If they decide to make a sequel, will probably wait for home video.
ANT-MAN: 8.5/10
After the bit of a disappointment of the second AVENGERS film and the disaster that was the latest FANTASTIC FOUR, this was an absolute blast. Paul Rudd in the title role was superb, as were Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Pena, with some of the best effects work that the Marvel films have ever had. Up until now I thought that Rudd had done some OK comedic work, but he brings real gravitas to the part of Scott Lang, a thief who has to pull off another job even though getting caught could mean a long stretch in prison and estrangement from his daughter, but who ends up becoming the tiniest superhero of them all. There were some moments of real feeling in this film, with one in particular involving the fate of one of Lang's ant helpers during the big climax that really gets to you. Corey Stoll was kind of so-so as the villain, but the big fight at the end was well done, and you will never look at Thomas the Tank Engine the same way after watching this film. I would rank this as one of the five best Marvel films (along with the first AVENGER film, IRON MAN 1 & 3 and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY-I am not including the films from Sony and Fox which are not part of the same timeline) and I look forward to seeing them incorporate Ant-Man into the Avengers.
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-ROGUE NATION: 7.5/10
Pretty damn good entry in the Tom Cruise spy series-not quite as good as GHOST PROTOCOL but damn close, with Simon Pegg given a bit more to do in this entry (sadly, Ving Rhames is given less to do) and a pretty good femme fatale in Rebecca Ferguson. Cruise gets to (literally) hang off of a plane in mid-air and there is some pretty good underwater stuff. The main villain-Sean Harris-pales in comparison to the third film's Philip Seymour Hoffman and Alec Baldwin has become incredibly boring but this is easily the best spy film since SKYFALL and it is nice that, along with last year's EDGE OF TOMORROW, Cruise still has it.
SHAUN THE SHEEP MOVIE: 8/10
Quite literally one of the funniest films I have seen in a long time (love that recurring gag in the animal shelter with the dog next door), this is the latest Aardman film about a young sheep who is bored with the routine of the farm and starts a chain of events that leads to the big city, a hair stylist, a fancy restaurant and an animal control officer who would give Wile E. Coyote a run for most obsessive animated character ever. Tati would have loved that the film has virtually no dialogue (although what you do hear sounds remarkably like Denis O'Fell in The Beatles "You Know My Name [Look up the Number])." An absolute blast that I will probably be getting for my granddaughter this Christmas (and myself, too!).
THE MAN FROM U. N. C. L. E.: 4/10
Not having even a cameo appearance by either Robert Vaughn or David McCallum can probably be excused, but not even a hint of Jerry Goldsmith's great theme from the TV series? Really? Armie Hammer actually goes a long way toward redeeming his godawful performance in THE LONE RANGER, and Henry Cavell is an actor that I really like, but why do all reboots of great TV series insist on making the characters who will eventually team up hate each other at the get-go? The 60's settings are passable, as are Cavell's duds, but Alicia Vikander CONSTANTLY looks ticked off throughout the film, to the point where I really did not care much what happened to her by the end, while Elizabeth Debicki was a pretty damn good villain. If they decide to make a sequel, will probably wait for home video.
ANT-MAN: 8.5/10
After the bit of a disappointment of the second AVENGERS film and the disaster that was the latest FANTASTIC FOUR, this was an absolute blast. Paul Rudd in the title role was superb, as were Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Pena, with some of the best effects work that the Marvel films have ever had. Up until now I thought that Rudd had done some OK comedic work, but he brings real gravitas to the part of Scott Lang, a thief who has to pull off another job even though getting caught could mean a long stretch in prison and estrangement from his daughter, but who ends up becoming the tiniest superhero of them all. There were some moments of real feeling in this film, with one in particular involving the fate of one of Lang's ant helpers during the big climax that really gets to you. Corey Stoll was kind of so-so as the villain, but the big fight at the end was well done, and you will never look at Thomas the Tank Engine the same way after watching this film. I would rank this as one of the five best Marvel films (along with the first AVENGER film, IRON MAN 1 & 3 and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY-I am not including the films from Sony and Fox which are not part of the same timeline) and I look forward to seeing them incorporate Ant-Man into the Avengers.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34253
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
FURIOUS 7
8.5/10
A series that has become one of the most unlikely global franchises in cinematic history, FURIOUS SEVEN represents the wildest, and arguably most hard-working, attempt at entertaining its core audience yet.
Delayed after the much-publicized, tragic death of star Paul Walker, “Fast Seven” continues the franchise’s evolution from street-racing action into “Mission: Impossible”-esque adventure, as a top-secret government agent (the liveliest Kurt Russell performance in eons) enlists Dom (Vin Diesel), Brian (Walker) and company to retrieve a hacker (Nathalie Emmanuel) who’s been kidnapped by an international terrorist (Djimon Hounsou). In return, the group will receive precious intel on the brother (Jason Statham) of the prior installment’s villain, who’s out to exact revenge for his death by picking apart the Torreto crew one by one – a plot element that enables writer Chris Morgan to finally connect the series’ running story line with its one black sheep entry, 2006's “Tokyo Drift.”
With “Conjuring” helmer James Wan settling into the director’s chair, “Fast Seven” has more urgency and excitement than its predecessor, even if there’s a “Trail of the Pink Panther”-like element in how the movie links in footage Walker shot before his death. While Walker is “here,” his scenes tend to run parallel to a different movie that’s going on without him, as there’s little exposition involving his character. That said, thanks to clever editing and FX work, there’s nothing distracting about Walker’s involvement – and the movie’s end is a crowd pleasing, genuinely moving tribute to the star that’s unlikely to leave a dry eye in the house.
As for the remainder of “Fast Seven,” it’s impossible to find a modern movie trying harder to please its fanbase. The action is ridiculously over the top but energetic and fun, with Wan and Morgan mixing in some choice, crowd-pleasing laughs along the way. Dwayne Johnson spends most of the movie laid up in bed, before heading out to participate – hysterically so – in a carnage-laden climax that’s as entertaining as anything I’ve seen this year. So, for that matter, is the movie as a whole, which may not have the discipline of the series’ best entry (“Fast Five”), but compensates for it with ample enthusiasm and entertainment, not to mention a series of stars (Diesel, Statham, Johnson, etc.) with more charisma than any other cast assembled in a blockbuster this year.
Universal’s Blu-Ray combo pack of “Fast Seven” offers the theatrical version of the movie plus a slightly extended (by two minutes) unrated version. A series of behind the scenes featurettes, a DVD, digital copy, strong 1080p (2.40) transfer and frantic DTS MA 7.1 soundtrack comprise a robust a/v presentation and overall technical package – a must, needless to say, for fans.
8.5/10
A series that has become one of the most unlikely global franchises in cinematic history, FURIOUS SEVEN represents the wildest, and arguably most hard-working, attempt at entertaining its core audience yet.
Delayed after the much-publicized, tragic death of star Paul Walker, “Fast Seven” continues the franchise’s evolution from street-racing action into “Mission: Impossible”-esque adventure, as a top-secret government agent (the liveliest Kurt Russell performance in eons) enlists Dom (Vin Diesel), Brian (Walker) and company to retrieve a hacker (Nathalie Emmanuel) who’s been kidnapped by an international terrorist (Djimon Hounsou). In return, the group will receive precious intel on the brother (Jason Statham) of the prior installment’s villain, who’s out to exact revenge for his death by picking apart the Torreto crew one by one – a plot element that enables writer Chris Morgan to finally connect the series’ running story line with its one black sheep entry, 2006's “Tokyo Drift.”
With “Conjuring” helmer James Wan settling into the director’s chair, “Fast Seven” has more urgency and excitement than its predecessor, even if there’s a “Trail of the Pink Panther”-like element in how the movie links in footage Walker shot before his death. While Walker is “here,” his scenes tend to run parallel to a different movie that’s going on without him, as there’s little exposition involving his character. That said, thanks to clever editing and FX work, there’s nothing distracting about Walker’s involvement – and the movie’s end is a crowd pleasing, genuinely moving tribute to the star that’s unlikely to leave a dry eye in the house.
As for the remainder of “Fast Seven,” it’s impossible to find a modern movie trying harder to please its fanbase. The action is ridiculously over the top but energetic and fun, with Wan and Morgan mixing in some choice, crowd-pleasing laughs along the way. Dwayne Johnson spends most of the movie laid up in bed, before heading out to participate – hysterically so – in a carnage-laden climax that’s as entertaining as anything I’ve seen this year. So, for that matter, is the movie as a whole, which may not have the discipline of the series’ best entry (“Fast Five”), but compensates for it with ample enthusiasm and entertainment, not to mention a series of stars (Diesel, Statham, Johnson, etc.) with more charisma than any other cast assembled in a blockbuster this year.
Universal’s Blu-Ray combo pack of “Fast Seven” offers the theatrical version of the movie plus a slightly extended (by two minutes) unrated version. A series of behind the scenes featurettes, a DVD, digital copy, strong 1080p (2.40) transfer and frantic DTS MA 7.1 soundtrack comprise a robust a/v presentation and overall technical package – a must, needless to say, for fans.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Star Trek: Into Darkness
I never made it to this one when it was first released, owing to the negative reactions from others (Andy in particular). Well, they weren't wrong.
One of the biggest problems with this film (and there are many) is that it is long on action, but very short on character development. That would be fine were it just aiming to be a brainless actioner, but Into Darkness endeavors (and overreaches in the attempt) to recapture the poignance of the character arc of Kirk and Spock in Star Trek II -- and the results are less-than-successful.
Mr. Spock's sacrifice in Star Trek II was deeply affecting, because Kirk and Spock (as played by Shatner and Nimoy) had been comrades on-screen since 1966. Audiences had grown-up with their adventures, and had a long-standing affection for both.
But the friendship between this new Kirk and Spock has never really been developed. They have a superficial level of comradery, but that's about it. This film preoccupies itself with fist fights and phaser battles, but fails to explore the relationship of Kirk and Spock in any real depth. Thus the attempt to recapture the devastating climax of Star Trek II (and invoke that same sense of of grief in the audience) comes-off as forced, contrived and just falls flat. (It's also hard to keep a straight face when Spock quotes Shatner's "Kaaahhhn!" scream from the original film.)
Beyond that, I watched this film and honestly wondered "Has J.J. Abrams ever seen Star Trek? Any Star Trek? TOS, TNG, Voyager, any of the films at all?" This film never once looks or feels like Star Trek. Abrams' stylistic approach to the material appears mostly influenced by the Star Wars prequels (with what seems like 80% of everything rendered in gauzy CGI) and Battlestar Galactica (with all those "ENG"-style zoom shots when we're in outer space).
Plausibility (scientific and otherwise) is also hurled out the window in this movie. Uh, sorry, but if the the Enterprise were to free fall towards Earth's surface, it would be a fireball before it ever reached the cloud level (I guess J.J. Abrams is unfamiliar with shooting stars). And seriously, the Earth (and Starfleet Headquarters) has no way of deflecting or shooting down a massive out-of-control starship that is hurtling towards downtown San Francisco? The city has no local police force (or spare Starfleet "red shirts") to help Mr. Spock subdue Khan -- even though they are on top of a flying vehicle in plain view of the entire city? The anti-military tone of the film is also contrived, with Peter Weller as the "Jack D. Ripper"-esque admiral trying to preserve "our way of life" through pre-emptive aggression (yawn). I am also really tired of escapist movies trying to create "verisimilitude" by evoking the look and feel of 9/11 (which is in extremely bad taste).
Action scenes in this film are unrelentingly frenetic, and one eventually grows numb and irritated by their incesence. Michael Giacchino's score is themeless, but serviceable...until the big climax, where it becomes clunky and overwrought and renders the whole fight sequence unintentionally funny.
A total disappointment, which just doesn't work.
I never made it to this one when it was first released, owing to the negative reactions from others (Andy in particular). Well, they weren't wrong.
One of the biggest problems with this film (and there are many) is that it is long on action, but very short on character development. That would be fine were it just aiming to be a brainless actioner, but Into Darkness endeavors (and overreaches in the attempt) to recapture the poignance of the character arc of Kirk and Spock in Star Trek II -- and the results are less-than-successful.
Mr. Spock's sacrifice in Star Trek II was deeply affecting, because Kirk and Spock (as played by Shatner and Nimoy) had been comrades on-screen since 1966. Audiences had grown-up with their adventures, and had a long-standing affection for both.
But the friendship between this new Kirk and Spock has never really been developed. They have a superficial level of comradery, but that's about it. This film preoccupies itself with fist fights and phaser battles, but fails to explore the relationship of Kirk and Spock in any real depth. Thus the attempt to recapture the devastating climax of Star Trek II (and invoke that same sense of of grief in the audience) comes-off as forced, contrived and just falls flat. (It's also hard to keep a straight face when Spock quotes Shatner's "Kaaahhhn!" scream from the original film.)
Beyond that, I watched this film and honestly wondered "Has J.J. Abrams ever seen Star Trek? Any Star Trek? TOS, TNG, Voyager, any of the films at all?" This film never once looks or feels like Star Trek. Abrams' stylistic approach to the material appears mostly influenced by the Star Wars prequels (with what seems like 80% of everything rendered in gauzy CGI) and Battlestar Galactica (with all those "ENG"-style zoom shots when we're in outer space).
Plausibility (scientific and otherwise) is also hurled out the window in this movie. Uh, sorry, but if the the Enterprise were to free fall towards Earth's surface, it would be a fireball before it ever reached the cloud level (I guess J.J. Abrams is unfamiliar with shooting stars). And seriously, the Earth (and Starfleet Headquarters) has no way of deflecting or shooting down a massive out-of-control starship that is hurtling towards downtown San Francisco? The city has no local police force (or spare Starfleet "red shirts") to help Mr. Spock subdue Khan -- even though they are on top of a flying vehicle in plain view of the entire city? The anti-military tone of the film is also contrived, with Peter Weller as the "Jack D. Ripper"-esque admiral trying to preserve "our way of life" through pre-emptive aggression (yawn). I am also really tired of escapist movies trying to create "verisimilitude" by evoking the look and feel of 9/11 (which is in extremely bad taste).
Action scenes in this film are unrelentingly frenetic, and one eventually grows numb and irritated by their incesence. Michael Giacchino's score is themeless, but serviceable...until the big climax, where it becomes clunky and overwrought and renders the whole fight sequence unintentionally funny.
A total disappointment, which just doesn't work.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34253
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Preaching to the choir Paul. That film was a total dud, and it's why I question whatever JJ Abrams is going to do with STAR WARS. It might be more "in his ballpark" but anyone expecting something visionary or inspired from him is barking up the wrong tree with THE FORCE AWAKENS. At best we'll get a serviceable and entertaining rehash of what we've already seen.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Aviator
Another movie I've not gotten around to seeing until now, Martin Scorsese's much-lauded Howard Hughes biopic doesn't live up to its reputation. It is by no means "bad" -- but it isn't especially good either.
The problem with The Aviator that it is much-too stylized for a movie that is trying to depict real people and events. The result is a film that is often affected and contrived -- particularly in some of the performances. Cate Blanchett is a truly great actress (and there are moments where you'd swear you're looking at the real Kate Hepburn) but her performance is often more like an impression of Kate Hepburn rather than a believable character. Leonardo DeCapprio is also a fine actor, and he nails accents and mannerisms with nuanced perfection. But he looks like a 21-year-old kid (even today) and that doesn't help when he's playing a character who is in his 40s by the end of the film.
The Aviator also has a very eccentric visual style -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, except that (again) in an attempt to tell the story of a real person, the incessantly un-real look of the movie renders it totally unconvincing. The wacky color grading in the early LA scenes (which transforms all the vegetation blue) was an attempt to mimic the "bipack color" process of the early 30s. Fair enough, but the reference is completely lost on anyone who wasn't around in that era (or is not a photography geek) so it just comes off as looking "weird" for its own sake.
The arial sequences are "fancy" but the CGI used to render them isn't particularly believable. The "Spruce Goose" scene comes off as especially unreal, as does the following scene on the Long Beach dock (which was obviously shot on a sound stage in front of a blue screen). The XF11 sequence -- the action centerpiece of the movie -- is frustratingly un-engaging, owing to the unconvincing CGI and the prolonged (and slightly ludicrous) crash scene. Howard Shore's music makes a subtle contribution, while Scorsese peppers the rest of the soundtrack with the requisite period tunes (and endless replays of Artie Shaw's "Nightmare").
The Aviator is not without its moments (Hughes' and Hepburn's flight over LA particularly stands out), but the film is just stilted and emotionally cold for the most part. Ultimately, the production doesn't leave you with much insight into who Howard Hughes really was. He made movies, designed aircraft and was OCD and a germophobe. But those facts are common knowledge. Unlike Coppola's superior Tucker: A Man and His Dreams (on which The Aviator seems partly modeled) Scorsese's film never offers any deep understanding of the man himself. The director seems far-more interested in "style" rather than any satisfying insight into the characters or their story, and this (along with a lead who simply looks too young for the part) results in an ornate but sterile film which never once rings true.
Another movie I've not gotten around to seeing until now, Martin Scorsese's much-lauded Howard Hughes biopic doesn't live up to its reputation. It is by no means "bad" -- but it isn't especially good either.
The problem with The Aviator that it is much-too stylized for a movie that is trying to depict real people and events. The result is a film that is often affected and contrived -- particularly in some of the performances. Cate Blanchett is a truly great actress (and there are moments where you'd swear you're looking at the real Kate Hepburn) but her performance is often more like an impression of Kate Hepburn rather than a believable character. Leonardo DeCapprio is also a fine actor, and he nails accents and mannerisms with nuanced perfection. But he looks like a 21-year-old kid (even today) and that doesn't help when he's playing a character who is in his 40s by the end of the film.
The Aviator also has a very eccentric visual style -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, except that (again) in an attempt to tell the story of a real person, the incessantly un-real look of the movie renders it totally unconvincing. The wacky color grading in the early LA scenes (which transforms all the vegetation blue) was an attempt to mimic the "bipack color" process of the early 30s. Fair enough, but the reference is completely lost on anyone who wasn't around in that era (or is not a photography geek) so it just comes off as looking "weird" for its own sake.
The arial sequences are "fancy" but the CGI used to render them isn't particularly believable. The "Spruce Goose" scene comes off as especially unreal, as does the following scene on the Long Beach dock (which was obviously shot on a sound stage in front of a blue screen). The XF11 sequence -- the action centerpiece of the movie -- is frustratingly un-engaging, owing to the unconvincing CGI and the prolonged (and slightly ludicrous) crash scene. Howard Shore's music makes a subtle contribution, while Scorsese peppers the rest of the soundtrack with the requisite period tunes (and endless replays of Artie Shaw's "Nightmare").
The Aviator is not without its moments (Hughes' and Hepburn's flight over LA particularly stands out), but the film is just stilted and emotionally cold for the most part. Ultimately, the production doesn't leave you with much insight into who Howard Hughes really was. He made movies, designed aircraft and was OCD and a germophobe. But those facts are common knowledge. Unlike Coppola's superior Tucker: A Man and His Dreams (on which The Aviator seems partly modeled) Scorsese's film never offers any deep understanding of the man himself. The director seems far-more interested in "style" rather than any satisfying insight into the characters or their story, and this (along with a lead who simply looks too young for the part) results in an ornate but sterile film which never once rings true.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Sun May 17, 2020 9:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34253
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Great review Paul. Aviator - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34253
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
MAD MAX FURY ROAD
Second Viewing
Joanne isn't much of a Mad Max fan but she loves Tom Hardy so I showed her Fury Road the other night. She enjoyed the film, as did I, though this second viewing of the movie basically reconfirmed what I felt about the movie the first time:
-The film is incredibly well made and edited. No doubt, though I suspect people who think the film was done "the old way" without heavy CGI are kidding themselves, because while the CGI may be dialed back on purpose, my gut feeling is there a LOT more in the film than some believe. There's a lot more green screen that's obvious on home video than it was theatrically. Speaking of that...
-Visually it is a feast, and IMO it looks even better at home on Blu-Ray than it did theatrically.
-Mad Max remains a poorly drawn cipher. BTW was there any good reason for leaving him in the mask for half the film? What a dumb idea.
Listening to Hardy TALK about what he was supposed to be doing -- in the disc supplements -- really confirms how weakly developed the character was. It is one of the film's central issues. Not enough to detract substantially, but it holds it back from being something more. Again, I blame Miller for this -- it's not Hardy's fault, because reportedly he was as irritated over the characterization as anyone...though if they weren't going to develop the role, Miller should've just stuck with Mel, as he would've fit fine in the picture (and brought his history with the role with him).
-Ultimately, FURY ROAD does exactly what EVERY other film this summer tried to do: take everyone on a "ride" for 2 hours. It does it better than the rest, for the most part, yes. But it also does not give you much more than that, and the human engagement remains fleeting at best, with Miller more invested in the hardware and FX than the people who populate the world (aside from his interest in the grotesque piercing/tattoo culture).
Certainly I'd be up for another ride, and I'll be watching the film again, but it is not "the greatest action film ever made!" or as "richly drawn" as some of its admirers believe. It has more in common with the other "adrenaline" trips of Summer '15 (Terminator, Furious 7, Mission Impossible, etc) than, say, THE ROAD WARRIOR even though it is so well made.
Second Viewing
Joanne isn't much of a Mad Max fan but she loves Tom Hardy so I showed her Fury Road the other night. She enjoyed the film, as did I, though this second viewing of the movie basically reconfirmed what I felt about the movie the first time:
-The film is incredibly well made and edited. No doubt, though I suspect people who think the film was done "the old way" without heavy CGI are kidding themselves, because while the CGI may be dialed back on purpose, my gut feeling is there a LOT more in the film than some believe. There's a lot more green screen that's obvious on home video than it was theatrically. Speaking of that...
-Visually it is a feast, and IMO it looks even better at home on Blu-Ray than it did theatrically.
-Mad Max remains a poorly drawn cipher. BTW was there any good reason for leaving him in the mask for half the film? What a dumb idea.
Listening to Hardy TALK about what he was supposed to be doing -- in the disc supplements -- really confirms how weakly developed the character was. It is one of the film's central issues. Not enough to detract substantially, but it holds it back from being something more. Again, I blame Miller for this -- it's not Hardy's fault, because reportedly he was as irritated over the characterization as anyone...though if they weren't going to develop the role, Miller should've just stuck with Mel, as he would've fit fine in the picture (and brought his history with the role with him).
-Ultimately, FURY ROAD does exactly what EVERY other film this summer tried to do: take everyone on a "ride" for 2 hours. It does it better than the rest, for the most part, yes. But it also does not give you much more than that, and the human engagement remains fleeting at best, with Miller more invested in the hardware and FX than the people who populate the world (aside from his interest in the grotesque piercing/tattoo culture).
Certainly I'd be up for another ride, and I'll be watching the film again, but it is not "the greatest action film ever made!" or as "richly drawn" as some of its admirers believe. It has more in common with the other "adrenaline" trips of Summer '15 (Terminator, Furious 7, Mission Impossible, etc) than, say, THE ROAD WARRIOR even though it is so well made.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Agreed - as a Howard Shore fan, I have to admit this is one of his dullest and most boring scores. And frankly, all the accolades that Scorsese has received in the past couple of decades have been, in my opinion, unwarranted.AndyDursin wrote:Great review Paul. Aviator - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9734
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
-Wolf Totem (2015): 7/10
Visually splendid film (see it in IMAX 3D if you can) is something I mainly saw for James Horner's last "epic" score, and it delivers in spades...this is the kind of bold, stylized, melodic film music that you only get with foreign productions like this these days. The movie itself is...okay. I'm a sucker for this kind of movie about man's relationship with animals and nature, and the footage of real wolves is convincing and filmed against breathtaking locations, but as far as drama goes, it's fairly routine. Still, just to get one last taste of Horner's musical gifts, it's worth seeing on the big screen with a good sound system.
Visually splendid film (see it in IMAX 3D if you can) is something I mainly saw for James Horner's last "epic" score, and it delivers in spades...this is the kind of bold, stylized, melodic film music that you only get with foreign productions like this these days. The movie itself is...okay. I'm a sucker for this kind of movie about man's relationship with animals and nature, and the footage of real wolves is convincing and filmed against breathtaking locations, but as far as drama goes, it's fairly routine. Still, just to get one last taste of Horner's musical gifts, it's worth seeing on the big screen with a good sound system.