rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34184
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1141 Post by AndyDursin »

sprocket wrote:Andy, I just read you latest Aisle Seat. Can you recommend which version of a movie to watch when there are multiple versions (the theatrical cut, the director's cut, the special edition...).

I always get confused as to which to watch. :?
Sprocket it depends on the film. When I review a film I'm unfamiliar with, it's usually the theatrical cut (unless I've read otherwise) because that's the film that the public by and large saw and either accepted or didn't. These days we get too many "Unrated Extended Versions" of films where they throw a few seconds or minutes of material in, just as a selling point to get people to buy it.

Of course, there ARE some Director's Cuts that are better than the theatrical versions -- and sometimes they're not radical "rethinkings" but rather the original version of the film before the studio got involved and meddled with it (like Ridley Scott's LEGEND). On something like I AM LEGEND, the ending of the Director's Cut (or extended cut, whicheever they called it) was hugely different and it sounds like the sequel they're planning is going to use that as a base for its concept (which would be a first!).

It really just depends on the film, but 90% of the time when faced with a choice, and especially if it's a first-time viewing, I choose the theatrical version. I mean, I still prefer the theatrical cut of BLADE RUNNER because that's the one I grew up with and am most familiar with, but it's all up to the individual viewer.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9712
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1142 Post by Monterey Jack »

AndyDursin wrote:On something like I AM LEGEND, the ending of the Director's Cut (or extended cut, whicheever they called it) was hugely different and it sounds like the sequel they're planning is going to use that as a base for its concept (which would be a first!).
Actually, The Descent 2 was a sequel that only works if you're going by the truncated ending of the original film as it was released in the U.S. The original UK cut has an ending that makes a sequel literally impossible (at least with the same cast).

sprocket
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1143 Post by sprocket »

Monterey Jack wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:On something like I AM LEGEND, the ending of the Director's Cut (or extended cut, whicheever they called it) was hugely different and it sounds like the sequel they're planning is going to use that as a base for its concept (which would be a first!).
Actually, The Descent 2 was a sequel that only works if you're going by the truncated ending of the original film as it was released in the U.S. The original UK cut has an ending that makes a sequel literally impossible (at least with the same cast).
^^^ :lol: at the end of the day, I forget movies are really just entertainment; not to be taken too seriously.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1144 Post by Paul MacLean »

The Scalphunters

A terrific, hugely underrated 60s western/comedy, directed by Sydney Pollack. An excellent script, which explores serious topics like racism and slavery with a deft wit, all performed by a first-rate cast -- Ozzie Davis, Burt Lancaster, Telly Savalas and Shelley Winters. And if that weren't enough it's all capped with a fabulous Elmer Bernstein score. Great stuff!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34184
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1145 Post by AndyDursin »

HUGO
9/10

Seeing as I watched HUGO a little too late at night, and in 2-D, a few weeks ago, I felt like I needed to give it another chance in its native 3-D format (and with a fresher set of eyes): turns out I enjoyed the picture much more, and Scorsese’s enchanting visuals become all the more impressive when viewed in 3-D. This is definitely one of the best films of last year.

Scorsese’s first attempt at making a children’s movie after a career spent turning out adult fare, “Hugo” likely could’ve benefitted from a more nuanced actor than Sacha Baron Cohen playing the train inspector (you wonder if producer Johnny Depp originally eyed that role), yet there are countless magical moments in its chronicle of a Parisian orphan (Asa Butterfield) trying to find his place in the world during the early ‘30s after losing his father (Jude Law) in a fire. It’s a paean to movie making, Méliès, the city of Paris and the magic of the everyday world all at once, and Scorsese brings viewers some beautiful sights of Paris, and of the early days of cinema, the latter repurposed for 3-D (and looking all the more impressive because of it). Although the leisurely pacing may put off certain younger viewers for whom the film was intended (something that would explain the film’s mediocre box-office receipts), I didn’t find there to be a wasted moment on my second view of the film, with Scorsese unfolding the story with one surprise after another.

Shot in 3-D, “Hugo” is the first film I’ve seen that truly benefits from exhibition in the third-dimension. It’s not that Scorsese has included all kinds of gimmicky “pop out” effects (though there are a couple of brief instances of those) – more that all of his visuals, and Robert Richardson’s cinematography, utilize 3-D to layer the surroundings. Nearly every shot has depth of some type of depth to it, enhancing its “immersion factor” so to speak, and Paramount’s 3-D BD transfer is absolutely superb (showing some signs of “ghosting” only in close-ups of the actors).

A really wonderful film -- I even liked Howard Shore's score too (go figure!).

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1146 Post by Paul MacLean »

AndyDursin wrote:...Scorsese’s enchanting visuals become all the more impressive when viewed in 3-D....I even liked Howard Shore's score too (go figure!).
Who are you, and what did you do with Andy Dursin? :mrgreen:

John Johnson
Posts: 6087
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1147 Post by John Johnson »

Paul MacLean wrote:The Scalphunters

A terrific, hugely underrated 60s western/comedy, directed by Sydney Pollack. An excellent script, which explores serious topics like racism and slavery with a deft wit, all performed by a first-rate cast -- Ozzie Davis, Burt Lancaster, Telly Savalas and Shelley Winters. And if that weren't enough it's all capped with a fabulous Elmer Bernstein score. Great stuff!
Speaking of the score. I see Varese is down to less than 300 copies. Thought it would have sold out by now.
London. Greatest City in the world.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34184
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1148 Post by AndyDursin »

Paul MacLean wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:...Scorsese’s enchanting visuals become all the more impressive when viewed in 3-D....I even liked Howard Shore's score too (go figure!).
Who are you, and what did you do with Andy Dursin? :mrgreen:
My account was hacked!!!

Actually the score is pleasant. Reminded me of Angelo Badalamenti's COUSINS with a Parisian flair. lol.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9712
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1149 Post by Monterey Jack »

I loved Hugo, like Andy said, one of last year's best. And Howard Shore's music is lovely, almost having an Alexandre Desplat/Benjamin Button feel at times (there's even an Ondes Martenot in spots).

As for today's film:

-John Carter: 7/10

In all of the hand-wringing about the film's bloated budget and ridiculously ineffectual advertising campaign (which will no doubt end with a lot of unemployed Disney employees), there's been surprisingly little discussion about the movie. As it is, it's pretty solid. While the Utah location footage is kind of unimpressive (I dunno where that $250 million went, but it certainly didn't go into any heavy-duty production design and/or world building), the character animation for the alien species is extremely well-done, Michael Giacchino's score is terrific, and there are some exciting action setpieces (a Gladiator/Spartacus colloseum showdown between John Carter and a pair of four-armed space apes is the highlight). Taylor Kitsch is bland in the leading role, but no more so than whatshisname from Avatar, and Willem Dafoe livens things up as the voice/mocap model for his alien buddy. There are moments where the film threatens to become as dense and plotty as Dune or Chronicles Of Riddick or the Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels (there's too much silly-sounding alien gibberish and location/species names tossed around...yes, the big Mars city is literally called "Helium"), but when it sticks to basic derring-do and swashbuckling, it's more fun that I would have anticipated. Even the 3D I was forced to watch it in (albiet thankfully on a $7.00 Tuesday matinee) was well-done. No underrated classic, this, but not the absolute bomb many were anticipating, either.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34184
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1150 Post by AndyDursin »

There are moments where the film threatens to become as dense and plotty as Dune or Chronicles Of Riddick or the Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels (there's too much silly-sounding alien gibberish and location/species names tossed around...yes, the big Mars city is literally called "Helium"), but when it sticks to basic derring-do and swashbuckling, it's more fun that I would have anticipated.
This is what has bugged me about a lot of the "fun escapist" movies of late -- why do they need to be so endlessly complicated and serious? The original STAR WARS has a straight ahead, no frills plot -- and that's part of its charm. Now you can't make one of these films without it becoming this epic, over-written affair with its own "canon" that fanboys can obsess over. It's just a MOVIE -- not everyone who goes to see it is going to treat it as a religion.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9712
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1151 Post by Monterey Jack »

AndyDursin wrote:This is what has bugged me about a lot of the "fun escapist" movies of late -- why do they need to be so endlessly complicated and serious? The original STAR WARS has a straight ahead, no frills plot -- and that's part of its charm. Now you can't make one of these films without it becoming this epic, over-written affair with its own "canon" that fanboys can obsess over. It's just a MOVIE -- not everyone who goes to see it is going to treat it as a religion.
Thankfully, John Carter manages to toe the line between "dense" and "totally incomprehensible" much better than dung like Chronicles Of Riddick (although one wonders if the three+ hour cut that Disney forced director Andrew Stanton to truncate might not be more overly complicated), and the basic adventure stuff is what really stuck with me. It's a good film that sadly been hobbled by a combination of it's absurd budget (everyone wants to pick on the ridiculously expensive movies, regardless of how good the finished product turns out to be...remember all of the doom & gloom buzz revolving around Titanic in the months before its release?) and its terrible marketing campaign. I would have loved this movie around the age of 12 or so, and it's mind boggling how Disney fumbled the ball so badly selling it to an audience that would and should have ate it up. The Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels range from medioce to flat-out awful, and yet each one has made money hand over fist. And the first movie was a HUMONGOUS financial risk at the time...a big-screen adaptation of a Disney World attraction starring (then) box office poison Johnny Depp as a mincing, gay pirate? And yet Disney got butts into the seats, and word of mouth did the rest, even carrying over into those lousy-but-profitible sequels. Taking the "Of Mars" portion of the title out was a boneheaded mistake...what does the name "John Carter" say in and of itself to potential audiences? Nothing. People know James Bond. People know Indiana Jones. People know Jack Sparrow. People (outside of a small cadre of literary sci-fi nerds) do not know John Carter, and the ads should have sold the experience more than the (bland) character. If Disney had kept a cap on the budget and marketed this correctly, they might have had a modest, Chronicles Of Narnia franchise on their hands, instead of one of the biggest money losers in recent memory.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1152 Post by Paul MacLean »

Little Big Man

Superior picaresque western, where Dustin Hoffmann convincingly plays the main character from a teenager to a 120-year-old man (helped in no small measure by Dick Smith's phenomenal make-up). Also boasts a superb supporting cast, with first-rate performances from Chief Dan George, Martin Balsam, Faye Dunaway and Aimee Eccles (as Hoffmann's Cheyenne wife).

I was also struck by heavily Forest Gump borrows from this story -- each being the odyssey of a simple man who journeys through every significant cultural strata of the time in which he lives (the main difference is that Little Big Man is about a billion times better).

The score isn't much (basically blues guitar and harmonica) but is in keeping I suppose with Arthur Penn's realist approach to the material. Sets (by Dean Tavalouris) are convincing down to the finest detail and the Montana wilderness (beautifully captured by DP Harry Stradling Jr.) provides a magnificent backdrop to the drama.

The film adroitly balances satirical (and at times absurd) humor with all-too-real historic tragedy. The depiction of the "battle" of Washita River is possibly the most upsetting thing I've ever witnessed on-screen, and the genocidal destruction of the Native Americans has never been depicted with this level of visceral effectiveness before or since. It is a profoundly affecting film, so-much-so that I didn't really want to get up or talk to anyone after it was over.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34184
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1153 Post by AndyDursin »

TINTIN
7/10

Entertaining and fun -- but very much a comic strip come to life, meaning there's no emotion or drama generated either. Essentially one long chase movie, which does no favors for a John Williams score that never gets the opportunity to do anything more than just back up the material on-screen. Kids and Tintin fans will enjoy it most. Good animation; probably the best looking of the CGI motion capture films, since it tries to be more cartoony than realistic (Tintin though still exhibits a bit of the zombie-ness of Zemeckis' characters). Snowy was the best part!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34184
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1154 Post by AndyDursin »

21 JUMP STREET
8/10

Funny stuff and a good mix of outright spoof and action flick. Not a whole lot else to say -- a bit of the gross-out stuff could've been turned down, but it was effective for what it was and a sure-fire audience pleaser.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9712
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1155 Post by Monterey Jack »

Twilight: Breaking The Headboard Part 1: 1.5/10

Wow. Just WOW. :shock: The previous Twilight movies were bad enough, but this one is just loathsome.

Post Reply