Jurassic World
I went into this movie not expecting much...but was still disappointed. Okay, I understand a studio wanting to make more money by rebooting a popular franchise, and I accepted this movie would be more of a remake than a sequel, and that it wouldn't be the work of Michael Chrichton and Steven Spielberg (or John Williams). But come on, this is the best they could do? I don't even blame the writers or director, because I'm sure Universal was dictating every minuscule aspect of production.
My biggest problem with film is the forced "emotional payoffs" (which don't pay off). The film directs us to cry, or feel a flush of sentiment at the appointed, calculated moments -- but we don't because the film never develops the characters or their relationships beyond the most superficial level. The bond between the two brothers isn't developed, so there's no emotional resonance when the older brother tries to comfort the scared younger brother. Bryce Dallas Howard has no use for kids and is completely self-absorbed throughout the film, until the clumsy, heavy-handed "epiphany" near the end when she realizes "I DO like kids after all!". Compare this to Sam Neill's character arc in the original film, where it's made clear early-on he never wants kids, but when forced to protect Hammond's grandchildren he has a change of heart (and that touching final scene -- where Laura Dern looks at Neill, with the two kids asleep on either side of him -- reveals more about the character than any dialog ever could, because Neill's change of heart has been believably developed).
But characterization is nil in this movie, because it's clear Universal thinks characters matter less than cool special effects. And this brings me to another point -- another big difference between this film and Jurassic Park is that when the original film came-out, audiences were treated to a quantum leap in effects technology. As they had been with 2001 and Star Wars, audiences were bowled-over by a whole new level of special effects trickery we had never seen before. I saw Jurassic park on opening night -- and it was amazing.
But CGI has featured in so many movies since then, that there's nothing, well, special about Jurassic World's special effects. Any good creative work is hard to pull-off, and I'm not trying to criticize to use of CGI, or the talented people who work in that field. But CGI effects are so commonplace today, that this film is bereft of any "wow factor". The effects are impressively complex, but in all honesty, they're not any more convincing than the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park -- 24 years ago. So whereas Jurassic Park blew us away with something new, Jurassic World drives home the fact that GCI has hit a wall, and seems unlikely look any better than it currently does.
The park itself isn't very plausible either. Seriously, they allow people to canoe down a river flanked by stegosauruses? And no one has died or been stepped on? There's a "petting zoo", after what happened to that little girl in the beginning of The Lost World? How do they pen-in that that sea dinosaur? You would need a barrier the size and density of the Hoover Dam to contain a creature that size, not to mention a good a square mile of water to house it (and don't get me started on the film's tiresome, preachy references to Sea World). The film is also painfully predictable -- it's obvious from the moment he appears that Vincent D'Onofrio is going to get eaten, and we know Howard and Chris Pratt are going to get together.
And what was the point of the grisly demise of Howard's assistant? Her death is almost playfully sadistic, like something better-suited to a villain, the way she is torn at by pterodactyls, dragged under the water and eaten by the big sea monster. What did she do to deserve that death? And why does Howard run around throughout the whole movie in high heels? (She doesn't have a pair of sneakers to change into?)
I liked one scene -- the one between the geneticist and the billionaire where they argue the moral ramifications of "creating a monster". I wish the film had explored that angle a little more. But at the end of the day Jurassic World is just a run-of-the-mill popcorn flick, aimed at kids whose idea of a good movie is "bigger, louder, more". Spielberg made some of the greatest "popcorn" movies, but his pictures had heart, and balanced thrills and effects against characters that drew us into their plight and were believable, and resulted in a satisfying flick. And all of that was lifted to higher level by John Williams' scores which were rife with memorable themes -- and again this is another realm in which Jurassic World seriously falters, with an essentially themeless score, that adds almost nothing to the movie.
Jurassic World is emblematic of summer movies today, in which scripts in need of more rewrites (particularly in the character department) are rushed into production, and effects and ostentatious action sequences troweled indiscriminately onto the screen. In all seriousness, I thought the velociraptors were the most interesting characters!
rate the last movie you saw
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9734
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
-The 33 (2015): 7.5/10
Moving dramatization of the trapped Chilean miner story from 2010 is well-performed by a strangely multicultural but effective cast (Lou Diamond Philips? Gabriel Byrne? Juliete Binoche?) and earns its lump-in-the-throat climax, and juicing it all along is -- *SIGH* -- James Horner's final completed score. Compared to the synth-heavy ensemble of Southpaw and the epic orchestral sweep of Wolf Totem, The 33 lands somewhere in the middle, a skillfully-manipulated chamber score mixing Spanish guitar with Horner's trademark pan pipes and ethnic woodwinds, with sweetening from strings where appropriate. It's akin to something like Field Of Dreams (or Goldsmith's Under Fire), only disappointing in that Horner is not allowed to write his usual lengthy, developed cues, sneaking in around crunchy surround rumblings and quiet dialogue scenes. There are also Horner's usual "borrowings", from Field Of Dreams and Zorro and whatever, but there's nothing egregious, and, as always, you're immediately aware that is is Horner's trademarked "sound", which is something that today's Zimmer Clones never develop...an actual, personal style. There's also a dedication to him in the end credits, which is simple but moving. God, to think we'll never again see the words "Music by James Horner" in the opening credits on a movie...
Moving dramatization of the trapped Chilean miner story from 2010 is well-performed by a strangely multicultural but effective cast (Lou Diamond Philips? Gabriel Byrne? Juliete Binoche?) and earns its lump-in-the-throat climax, and juicing it all along is -- *SIGH* -- James Horner's final completed score. Compared to the synth-heavy ensemble of Southpaw and the epic orchestral sweep of Wolf Totem, The 33 lands somewhere in the middle, a skillfully-manipulated chamber score mixing Spanish guitar with Horner's trademark pan pipes and ethnic woodwinds, with sweetening from strings where appropriate. It's akin to something like Field Of Dreams (or Goldsmith's Under Fire), only disappointing in that Horner is not allowed to write his usual lengthy, developed cues, sneaking in around crunchy surround rumblings and quiet dialogue scenes. There are also Horner's usual "borrowings", from Field Of Dreams and Zorro and whatever, but there's nothing egregious, and, as always, you're immediately aware that is is Horner's trademarked "sound", which is something that today's Zimmer Clones never develop...an actual, personal style. There's also a dedication to him in the end credits, which is simple but moving. God, to think we'll never again see the words "Music by James Horner" in the opening credits on a movie...
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34254
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
CREED
8/10
A smart, exciting variation on the "Rocky" formula stars Michael B. Jordan as the illegitimate son of Philly's champion boxer -- and Rocky Balboa's chief rival -- Apollo Creed. Despite having been sent to the best schools and anchoring a financial job, something continues to eat away at Jordan's "Adonis Johnson", leading him to quit his desk job and head to Philly to train full-time. There, he meets none other than Sylvester Stallone's Rocky, still managing Adrian's restaurant but reluctant to return to the sport on even a managerial level. Eventually, Rocky is worn down after realizing Adonis is indeed the son Apollo never knew he had, and agrees to tutor the talented young Creed, whose brashness is matched by his sheer athleticism -- and also inexperience -- in the ring.
Director Ryan Coogler and his co-writer Andrew Covington take the same blueprint that served Stallone so well for six "Rocky" installments and have applied it to a new film that feels as fresh as it is familiar. Coogler captures the Philly street locales in a way that recalls Stallone and John G. Avildsen's 1976 original classic, while Ludwig Goransson's surprisingly impressive score gives the film a muscular, at times thundering orchestral presence with occasional flourishes of Bill Conti's original "Rocky" themes flowing in and out of the movie. Johnson is strong as the young Creed, Tessa Thompson (from Veronica Mars) is likeable as the requisite love interest, and Phylicia Rashad is perfect, making the most of her scenes as Apollo's widow, who took in a troubled Adonis when he was a teenager. However, it's Stallone himself who steals the show, giving an appealing, nuanced and downright touching performance that has some talking about an unlikely Oscar candidacy in a film he produced but left the writing and directing chores up to others -- a smart tactic that's enabled the star to give one of the warmest performances of his career.
"Creed" isn't entirely perfect -- its main drawback is that the "Rocky" formula relied so much on the underdog element that it's difficult to position the young, privileged Creed as a kid with all the odds stacked against him like the elder Balboa. Maybe that's part of the point, but because Adonis' journey is more personal and internally driven, it creates a bit of a distance between the viewer and the character that didn't exist with Rocky.
Nevertheless, once Coogler introduces some emotional elements into the film's final third, it's hard not to find yourself rooting for the upstart boxer -- and when Conti's majestic theme is brought in after being held back in the shadows, "Creed" delivers the knockout.
8/10
A smart, exciting variation on the "Rocky" formula stars Michael B. Jordan as the illegitimate son of Philly's champion boxer -- and Rocky Balboa's chief rival -- Apollo Creed. Despite having been sent to the best schools and anchoring a financial job, something continues to eat away at Jordan's "Adonis Johnson", leading him to quit his desk job and head to Philly to train full-time. There, he meets none other than Sylvester Stallone's Rocky, still managing Adrian's restaurant but reluctant to return to the sport on even a managerial level. Eventually, Rocky is worn down after realizing Adonis is indeed the son Apollo never knew he had, and agrees to tutor the talented young Creed, whose brashness is matched by his sheer athleticism -- and also inexperience -- in the ring.
Director Ryan Coogler and his co-writer Andrew Covington take the same blueprint that served Stallone so well for six "Rocky" installments and have applied it to a new film that feels as fresh as it is familiar. Coogler captures the Philly street locales in a way that recalls Stallone and John G. Avildsen's 1976 original classic, while Ludwig Goransson's surprisingly impressive score gives the film a muscular, at times thundering orchestral presence with occasional flourishes of Bill Conti's original "Rocky" themes flowing in and out of the movie. Johnson is strong as the young Creed, Tessa Thompson (from Veronica Mars) is likeable as the requisite love interest, and Phylicia Rashad is perfect, making the most of her scenes as Apollo's widow, who took in a troubled Adonis when he was a teenager. However, it's Stallone himself who steals the show, giving an appealing, nuanced and downright touching performance that has some talking about an unlikely Oscar candidacy in a film he produced but left the writing and directing chores up to others -- a smart tactic that's enabled the star to give one of the warmest performances of his career.
"Creed" isn't entirely perfect -- its main drawback is that the "Rocky" formula relied so much on the underdog element that it's difficult to position the young, privileged Creed as a kid with all the odds stacked against him like the elder Balboa. Maybe that's part of the point, but because Adonis' journey is more personal and internally driven, it creates a bit of a distance between the viewer and the character that didn't exist with Rocky.
Nevertheless, once Coogler introduces some emotional elements into the film's final third, it's hard not to find yourself rooting for the upstart boxer -- and when Conti's majestic theme is brought in after being held back in the shadows, "Creed" delivers the knockout.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Dragonslayer
Decided to take an imprumptu stroll down 80s memory lane and pull this out for another viewing. Although I've owned it for years, I've actually never watched it on a big screen TV till now (my last screening was probably six or seven years ago on a friend's 32" standard definition CRT screen).
This is certainly a handsome-looking production, with wonderful sets and costumes, and superb photography by Darek Vanlint (who, after shooting Alien, this movie and then resigning from Excalibur, abandoned films and went back to shooting commercials -- our loss).
Dragonslayer also makes use of some amazing locations -- nearly all of them in the mountains of North Wales, whose mossy forests and gnarled trees look like something out of a fairy tale, while the Welsh peaks effectively suggest the look of a dragon, with their jagged rock formations prodruding from the alpine slopes like monstrous scales. And best of all, these locations actually all look real -- because they are. (This is so refreshing to behold after looking at actors on fake green-screen composites for the past 15 years.)
The filmmakers may not have had fancy CGI at their disposal in 1981, but the "go-motion" dragon holds-up pretty well even today, and is at times more convincing than a lot of CGI I've seen. (Some of the matte paintings and composites near the climax leave a bit to be desired though.)
Alex North's score is one of his best in my estimation, and those angry, piercing trombones and tubas that accompany the title sequence are what really establish (and even create) the character of dragon itself (remember the days when scores actually used melody to help establish character, and were more than just themeless white sound?).
Unfortunately, the film is less-rewarding in the human realm. Peter MacNicol and Caitlin Clarke are fine actors, but they are surrounded by a cast of extraordinary actors -- chief among them Ralph Richardson, who is easily the best performer in the film. MacNicol's and Clarke's acting styles are also very American (and they are the only characters in the film with US accents -- the rest all speak like Brits -- including Albert Salmi, who was American!). MacNicol also looks to have been cast because he was an older actor who "seemed younger" -- mainly due to his high-pitched voice (which gets a bit annoying after a while). A younger (and British) actor might better have suited the part. I suspect the filmmakers were influenced by "Star Wars" casting -- i.e. established, "Old Vic" veterans supporting more "accessible" American newcomers. It does't work here though.
The film is also uneven, with the opening scenes (which, significantly, are dominated by Richardson) making for an enticing set-up, but an often-slow second act, which lacks energy at times. Still, it's a likable (and great-looking) film, with genuine heart (unlike many genre movies today) but one that falls short of its potential to be a truly terrific adventure.
Decided to take an imprumptu stroll down 80s memory lane and pull this out for another viewing. Although I've owned it for years, I've actually never watched it on a big screen TV till now (my last screening was probably six or seven years ago on a friend's 32" standard definition CRT screen).
This is certainly a handsome-looking production, with wonderful sets and costumes, and superb photography by Darek Vanlint (who, after shooting Alien, this movie and then resigning from Excalibur, abandoned films and went back to shooting commercials -- our loss).
Dragonslayer also makes use of some amazing locations -- nearly all of them in the mountains of North Wales, whose mossy forests and gnarled trees look like something out of a fairy tale, while the Welsh peaks effectively suggest the look of a dragon, with their jagged rock formations prodruding from the alpine slopes like monstrous scales. And best of all, these locations actually all look real -- because they are. (This is so refreshing to behold after looking at actors on fake green-screen composites for the past 15 years.)
The filmmakers may not have had fancy CGI at their disposal in 1981, but the "go-motion" dragon holds-up pretty well even today, and is at times more convincing than a lot of CGI I've seen. (Some of the matte paintings and composites near the climax leave a bit to be desired though.)
Alex North's score is one of his best in my estimation, and those angry, piercing trombones and tubas that accompany the title sequence are what really establish (and even create) the character of dragon itself (remember the days when scores actually used melody to help establish character, and were more than just themeless white sound?).
Unfortunately, the film is less-rewarding in the human realm. Peter MacNicol and Caitlin Clarke are fine actors, but they are surrounded by a cast of extraordinary actors -- chief among them Ralph Richardson, who is easily the best performer in the film. MacNicol's and Clarke's acting styles are also very American (and they are the only characters in the film with US accents -- the rest all speak like Brits -- including Albert Salmi, who was American!). MacNicol also looks to have been cast because he was an older actor who "seemed younger" -- mainly due to his high-pitched voice (which gets a bit annoying after a while). A younger (and British) actor might better have suited the part. I suspect the filmmakers were influenced by "Star Wars" casting -- i.e. established, "Old Vic" veterans supporting more "accessible" American newcomers. It does't work here though.
The film is also uneven, with the opening scenes (which, significantly, are dominated by Richardson) making for an enticing set-up, but an often-slow second act, which lacks energy at times. Still, it's a likable (and great-looking) film, with genuine heart (unlike many genre movies today) but one that falls short of its potential to be a truly terrific adventure.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I have to be in the right mood to listen to North's DRAGONSLAYER on CD - he wrote some very dense music that is challenging to digest. I don't remember much of the movie from back when I first saw it - I remember loving the dragon material (as I love movie dragons that do not talk and are savage, wild creatures), and it reminded me of a D&D type quest (I have a soft spot for all things D&D...except the movie with Jeremy Irons in it...lol...).
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Star Wars: Episodes IV-VI
I watched the original, non-special editions again (well, almost all of them -- more on that below) from Friday night to Sunday afternoon in preparation for The Force Awakens.
No need to go off on a detailed analysis of movies we've all seen 10-20 times already, but a few things lept-out at me...
The original Star Wars still works beautifully. It has the perfect balance of action and human interaction, and is one of the best-edited films ever. The dominance of Star Wars over our popular culture is something we take for granted today, and it's easy to forget that this movie -- which Fox expected to tank -- was a shockingly unexpected success that galvanized the world, and totally went against every "informed" notion about what audiences wanted to see in the age of disco and leisure suits.
I was struck by how much darker The Empire Strikes Back was than the first film. Star Wars is an homage to old-fashioned adventures, and evokes the same tone of thrilling fun as things like the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Flash Gordon, etc. Empire is strikingly dour in comparison. Gone are swings across chasms and traditional swashbuckling pirates. Luke -- whose longing for adventure is something we all related to in the first film -- is chastised by Yoda for this very same desire the audience shares with him. Han Solo is sold-out to the Empire by an old friend (then tortured and ripped from the arms of Princess Leia and given to a bounty hunter). Luke is beaten to a pulp in a lightsaber duel (and gets his hand cut-off), and the story ends on an unresolved note. Still the action sequences are top-notch and thrilling (and even after 35 years there's nothing in The Force Awakens to match the asteroid chase), the settings are wonderfully imaginative, and the characters (and their relationships) really flourish in this film. It's a genuinely dark picture, but a very exciting one as well.
Also, neither of these films benefitted from "special edition" treatment. The Mos Eisly sequence is actually better without the CGI creatures -- especially the awful scene with Jabba the Hutt, whose appearance in Jedi is actually more effective when he has been an abstract, enigmatic character who is hitherto only spoken of). I don't really have a problem with Ian McDiarmid replacing the composited Emperor in the special edition (and I suppose it does help continuity) but the film still works without it. And Vader merely saying "Bring my shuttle" is more effective than all those pointless, prolonged shots of the shuttle taking off and flying to the star destroyer.
Return of the Jedi lacks the character development of Empire, and has its unsatisfying moments ("What I told you was true, from a certain point of view") and the abrupt revelation that Leia is Luke's sister is terribly awkward. That said, it great to have Han and Luke in action scenes together again (how much screen time did they share in Empire? Five minutes?). The action sequences are charged with adrenal thrills -- the sand barge battle is tremendous, as is the climactic space battle, the battle on Endor and Luke's confrontation with Vader and the Emperor.
And as much as fanboys hate the prequels, Return of the Jedi is a stronger film because of them. Because of the prequels we have a greater insight into who Palpatine is (and his relationship with Vader,) and thus the climax of Jedi has far-greater resonance.
My screening of the original version of Jedi got cut-off halfway through (I think the disc may have been faulty) so I wound-up finishing the movie by watching the special edition. I have to be honest, I like the special edition finale of Jedi better than the original ending. The shots of the celebrations on Coruscant, Naboo and Mos Eisley add tremendous scope to the sequence (and drive home that the Empire truly is the defeated), and I prefer the re-edited shots of the Ewok celebration. I also much-prefer Williams' re-written cue to the "Yuk-yuk" music from the original release. I have t admit, I genuinely got choked-up during the finale of Jedi, when all the characters embrace, and Luke sees the vision of Yoda, Obi Wan and Akakin.
And I'm not afraid to say it -- the finale works better with Hayden Christensen added. Yes, his performance in the prequels was sometimes awkward, but he -- not Sebastian Shaw -- is the Anakin Skywalker we know from the films. It's only fitting he should be the one in the scene. (Besides, Sebastian Shaw was so covered in make-up prosthetics in his death scene, you could hardly tell it was the same person in the finale.) And Williams new cue just brings it all together beautifully.
Viewing these movies immediately prior to The Force Awakens really drove home how well they have stood the test of time, and how they have an emotional resonance that is somewhat lacking in the new film. Their action sequences also hold-up to the ones in the new movie, and unfold at a more satisfying pace than the overly-frenetic sequences in the Abrams film.
I watched the original, non-special editions again (well, almost all of them -- more on that below) from Friday night to Sunday afternoon in preparation for The Force Awakens.
No need to go off on a detailed analysis of movies we've all seen 10-20 times already, but a few things lept-out at me...
The original Star Wars still works beautifully. It has the perfect balance of action and human interaction, and is one of the best-edited films ever. The dominance of Star Wars over our popular culture is something we take for granted today, and it's easy to forget that this movie -- which Fox expected to tank -- was a shockingly unexpected success that galvanized the world, and totally went against every "informed" notion about what audiences wanted to see in the age of disco and leisure suits.
I was struck by how much darker The Empire Strikes Back was than the first film. Star Wars is an homage to old-fashioned adventures, and evokes the same tone of thrilling fun as things like the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Flash Gordon, etc. Empire is strikingly dour in comparison. Gone are swings across chasms and traditional swashbuckling pirates. Luke -- whose longing for adventure is something we all related to in the first film -- is chastised by Yoda for this very same desire the audience shares with him. Han Solo is sold-out to the Empire by an old friend (then tortured and ripped from the arms of Princess Leia and given to a bounty hunter). Luke is beaten to a pulp in a lightsaber duel (and gets his hand cut-off), and the story ends on an unresolved note. Still the action sequences are top-notch and thrilling (and even after 35 years there's nothing in The Force Awakens to match the asteroid chase), the settings are wonderfully imaginative, and the characters (and their relationships) really flourish in this film. It's a genuinely dark picture, but a very exciting one as well.
Also, neither of these films benefitted from "special edition" treatment. The Mos Eisly sequence is actually better without the CGI creatures -- especially the awful scene with Jabba the Hutt, whose appearance in Jedi is actually more effective when he has been an abstract, enigmatic character who is hitherto only spoken of). I don't really have a problem with Ian McDiarmid replacing the composited Emperor in the special edition (and I suppose it does help continuity) but the film still works without it. And Vader merely saying "Bring my shuttle" is more effective than all those pointless, prolonged shots of the shuttle taking off and flying to the star destroyer.
Return of the Jedi lacks the character development of Empire, and has its unsatisfying moments ("What I told you was true, from a certain point of view") and the abrupt revelation that Leia is Luke's sister is terribly awkward. That said, it great to have Han and Luke in action scenes together again (how much screen time did they share in Empire? Five minutes?). The action sequences are charged with adrenal thrills -- the sand barge battle is tremendous, as is the climactic space battle, the battle on Endor and Luke's confrontation with Vader and the Emperor.
And as much as fanboys hate the prequels, Return of the Jedi is a stronger film because of them. Because of the prequels we have a greater insight into who Palpatine is (and his relationship with Vader,) and thus the climax of Jedi has far-greater resonance.
My screening of the original version of Jedi got cut-off halfway through (I think the disc may have been faulty) so I wound-up finishing the movie by watching the special edition. I have to be honest, I like the special edition finale of Jedi better than the original ending. The shots of the celebrations on Coruscant, Naboo and Mos Eisley add tremendous scope to the sequence (and drive home that the Empire truly is the defeated), and I prefer the re-edited shots of the Ewok celebration. I also much-prefer Williams' re-written cue to the "Yuk-yuk" music from the original release. I have t admit, I genuinely got choked-up during the finale of Jedi, when all the characters embrace, and Luke sees the vision of Yoda, Obi Wan and Akakin.
And I'm not afraid to say it -- the finale works better with Hayden Christensen added. Yes, his performance in the prequels was sometimes awkward, but he -- not Sebastian Shaw -- is the Anakin Skywalker we know from the films. It's only fitting he should be the one in the scene. (Besides, Sebastian Shaw was so covered in make-up prosthetics in his death scene, you could hardly tell it was the same person in the finale.) And Williams new cue just brings it all together beautifully.
Viewing these movies immediately prior to The Force Awakens really drove home how well they have stood the test of time, and how they have an emotional resonance that is somewhat lacking in the new film. Their action sequences also hold-up to the ones in the new movie, and unfold at a more satisfying pace than the overly-frenetic sequences in the Abrams film.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Clash of the Titans (the real version)
Still loads of fun after more than three decades, Clash of the Titans is a wonderful adventure, with more than enough valor, romance and thrills to enthrall (to use a hackneyed expression) "children of all ages". While one could label the effects work in this this film "dated", the truth of the matter is Ray Harryhausen's way of doing things was already arguably "obsolete" when the film premiered (having been released the same summer as Raiders, and one year after The Empire Strikes Back). And yet Harryhausen's work nevertheless boasts great artistry, complexity and elegance -- attributes which are missing from most CGI trickery from the past twenty years. It really doesn't matter if Harryhausen's effects look "less real", because they are simply gorgeous to behold (and CGI looks fake a lot of the time anyway). The sight of actors performing in real locations in Greece and Italy is also refreshing to see compared to the green screen composites of today.
A well-plotted script (drawn from various Greek myths) provides a strong narrative backbone, ably performed by a fantastic cast, headed-up by then-newcomers Harry Hamlin (years before his stint on LA Law) and Judi Bowker. The very cream of 20th century Britain's Shakespearian talent is equally terrific in the supporting roles, featuring Maggie Smith, Claire Bloom, Sian Phillips, and no less than Laurence Olivier as Zeus. (Seriously, does it get any better than Olivier playing Zeus?)
Laurence Rosenthal's scores is his best in my estimation, bursting with stalwart heroism and romantic allure, and performed to perfection by the London Symphony. This is one of the great fantasy scores of all time, right up their with The Thief of Bagdad, The Dark Crystal and Williams' Harry Potter scores.
Still loads of fun after more than three decades, Clash of the Titans is a wonderful adventure, with more than enough valor, romance and thrills to enthrall (to use a hackneyed expression) "children of all ages". While one could label the effects work in this this film "dated", the truth of the matter is Ray Harryhausen's way of doing things was already arguably "obsolete" when the film premiered (having been released the same summer as Raiders, and one year after The Empire Strikes Back). And yet Harryhausen's work nevertheless boasts great artistry, complexity and elegance -- attributes which are missing from most CGI trickery from the past twenty years. It really doesn't matter if Harryhausen's effects look "less real", because they are simply gorgeous to behold (and CGI looks fake a lot of the time anyway). The sight of actors performing in real locations in Greece and Italy is also refreshing to see compared to the green screen composites of today.
A well-plotted script (drawn from various Greek myths) provides a strong narrative backbone, ably performed by a fantastic cast, headed-up by then-newcomers Harry Hamlin (years before his stint on LA Law) and Judi Bowker. The very cream of 20th century Britain's Shakespearian talent is equally terrific in the supporting roles, featuring Maggie Smith, Claire Bloom, Sian Phillips, and no less than Laurence Olivier as Zeus. (Seriously, does it get any better than Olivier playing Zeus?)
Laurence Rosenthal's scores is his best in my estimation, bursting with stalwart heroism and romantic allure, and performed to perfection by the London Symphony. This is one of the great fantasy scores of all time, right up their with The Thief of Bagdad, The Dark Crystal and Williams' Harry Potter scores.
-
John Johnson
- Posts: 6090
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
My second favourite score for a Harryhausen film, after The Golden Voyage of Sinbad. This was the first Harryhausen film I saw at the cinema and it has stayed with me ever since. I have both releases of Golden Voyage on CD and would love to see a new recording one day.Paul MacLean wrote:Clash of the Titans (the real version)
Still loads of fun after more than three decades, Clash of the Titans is a wonderful adventure, with more than enough valor, romance and thrills to enthrall (to use a hackneyed expression) "children of all ages". While one could label the effects work in this this film "dated", the truth of the matter is Ray Harryhausen's way of doing things was already arguably "obsolete" when the film premiered (having been released the same summer as Raiders, and one year after The Empire Strikes Back). And yet Harryhausen's work nevertheless boasts great artistry, complexity and elegance -- attributes which are missing from most CGI trickery from the past twenty years. It really doesn't matter if Harryhausen's effects look "less real", because they are simply gorgeous to behold (and CGI looks fake a lot of the time anyway). The sight of actors performing in real locations in Greece and Italy is also refreshing to see compared to the green screen composites of today.
A well-plotted script (drawn from various Greek myths) provides a strong narrative backbone, ably performed by a fantastic cast, headed-up by then-newcomers Harry Hamlin (years before his stint on LA Law) and Judi Bowker. The very cream of 20th century Britain's Shakespearian talent is equally terrific in the supporting roles, featuring Maggie Smith, Claire Bloom, Sian Phillips, and no less than Laurence Olivier as Zeus. (Seriously, does it get any better than Olivier playing Zeus?)
Laurence Rosenthal's scores is his best in my estimation, bursting with stalwart heroism and romantic allure, and performed to perfection by the London Symphony. This is one of the great fantasy scores of all time, right up their with The Thief of Bagdad, The Dark Crystal and Williams' Harry Potter scores.
London. Greatest City in the world.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8619
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Poseidon (2006) 3 of 10
-Just a dreary affair from start to finish because of poorly conceived characters (that Richard Dreyfuss wasn't bumped off right away is the ultimate testament to PCness) and way too much action. I'm aware that the film was supposed to be longer and got hacked down but I doubt the characters would have been fleshed out better and we still would have had too much non-stop action. Plus, the CGIness just stands out too much. I don't *believe* what I'm seeing whereas in contrast to the original I can suspend my disbelief and accept what's happening. Lousy score too.
The Poseidon Adventure (1972) 8 of 10
-The original still holds up much better in terms of acting, story construction, score and set realism. No CGI on the interiors, it's all the real thing as they could do it. In Blu-Ray you can study more of the upside down sets and see things I never saw before in years past. For instance, just now I noticed in the upside-down barber shop, there's a poster of the dinos from "The Lost World" another Irwin Allen film!
-One detail I think I've realized after all these years is that I'm pretty sure that the dead kitchen crewman that Hackman throws his coat over after Pamela Sue Martin reacts in horror is supposed to be the one talking with McDowall during Carol Lynley's rehearsal who disdainfully goes, "You even fancy bagpipes!" There was no reason to give us a close-up of this one dead crewman after so many other bodies were lying about unless it was someone we saw before in the film.
-Also, one plot point that I'm surprised isn't discussed enough in articles about the film is that there is a distinct implication that the reason the ship capsized is because the interfering Linarcos kept the ship from taking on ballast. If they'd allowed that character to survive the initial capsizing and get some comeuppance over that fact during the climb out it might have made for one other interesting moment of drama.
-Just a dreary affair from start to finish because of poorly conceived characters (that Richard Dreyfuss wasn't bumped off right away is the ultimate testament to PCness) and way too much action. I'm aware that the film was supposed to be longer and got hacked down but I doubt the characters would have been fleshed out better and we still would have had too much non-stop action. Plus, the CGIness just stands out too much. I don't *believe* what I'm seeing whereas in contrast to the original I can suspend my disbelief and accept what's happening. Lousy score too.
The Poseidon Adventure (1972) 8 of 10
-The original still holds up much better in terms of acting, story construction, score and set realism. No CGI on the interiors, it's all the real thing as they could do it. In Blu-Ray you can study more of the upside down sets and see things I never saw before in years past. For instance, just now I noticed in the upside-down barber shop, there's a poster of the dinos from "The Lost World" another Irwin Allen film!
-One detail I think I've realized after all these years is that I'm pretty sure that the dead kitchen crewman that Hackman throws his coat over after Pamela Sue Martin reacts in horror is supposed to be the one talking with McDowall during Carol Lynley's rehearsal who disdainfully goes, "You even fancy bagpipes!" There was no reason to give us a close-up of this one dead crewman after so many other bodies were lying about unless it was someone we saw before in the film.
-Also, one plot point that I'm surprised isn't discussed enough in articles about the film is that there is a distinct implication that the reason the ship capsized is because the interfering Linarcos kept the ship from taking on ballast. If they'd allowed that character to survive the initial capsizing and get some comeuppance over that fact during the climb out it might have made for one other interesting moment of drama.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9734
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
HAPPY SHUE YEAR!!! 
-Adventures In Babysitting (1987): 7.5/10
Still a blast of nostalgic fun, although one wises that crush-worthy Elisabeth Shue weren't so drably-attired for 90% of the movie...if only she had been dressed like "Miss March" instead.
Still, she's at her most wholesomely radiant in this film, and the movie stands as an entertaining time capsule of its era (is that a My Pet Monster in the background of the Thor-worshipping little girl's room...?). The perfect movie to start a new year off with.
-Adventures In Babysitting (1987): 7.5/10
Still a blast of nostalgic fun, although one wises that crush-worthy Elisabeth Shue weren't so drably-attired for 90% of the movie...if only she had been dressed like "Miss March" instead.
Still, she's at her most wholesomely radiant in this film, and the movie stands as an entertaining time capsule of its era (is that a My Pet Monster in the background of the Thor-worshipping little girl's room...?). The perfect movie to start a new year off with.-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34254
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I wish Elisabeth ended up with someone other than the FATHER OF THE BRIDE guy. Never really liked that casting! He's not good enough for her!! lol (Of course nobody was)
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9734
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
You're just jealous 'cause he got to kiss her.AndyDursin wrote:I wish Elisabeth ended up with someone other than the FATHER OF THE BRIDE guy. Never really liked that casting! He's not good enough for her!! lol (Of course nobody was)
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34254
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
LOL that too.Monterey Jack wrote:You're just jealous 'cause he got to kiss her.AndyDursin wrote:I wish Elisabeth ended up with someone other than the FATHER OF THE BRIDE guy. Never really liked that casting! He's not good enough for her!! lol (Of course nobody was)
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9734
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
-Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977): 10/10
R.I.P. to the great Vilmos Zsigmond.
R.I.P. to the great Vilmos Zsigmond.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34254
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
FIGURES IN A LANDSCAPE
7/10
We may be just a few days into 2016 but already there’s a candidate for “Blu-Ray Unknown Movie Discovery of the Year”: FIGURES IN A LANDSCAPE, an altogether weird film that, by my count, has never been released on home video in any format in this country. Joseph Losey’s strikingly shot tale of two prisoners (played by Robert Shaw and Malcolm McDowell) trying to escape a country with a helicopter in endless pursuit has never received wide distribution since its original Cinema Center Films release over 45 years ago, making Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray a stunning visceral experience for first-time viewers.
Shaw himself scripted this adaptation of Barry England’s novel, one which is notable for its stark ambiguity: the time and place is a vague post-WWII foreign country, wherein the hot-tempered MacConnachie (Shaw) and more sensitive Ansell (McDowell) open the film on the run and try to stay one step ahead of captors who are neither seen nor heard from aside from a black chopper whose presence is never more than a few minutes away. Shaw’s dialogue offers scant opportunity for introspection – some undeveloped talk about the shifting nature of war and the duo’s past is all there is – and this, in turn, leads one to never really care about the men or their plight.
Instead, what becomes compelling are the powerful visuals of them on the run, across mountainous plains and small villages, all of it brilliantly captured by Losey and no less than three credited cinematographers (Henri Alekan, Guy Tabary and Peter Suchitzky) in full Panavision widescreen. This is a film where its individual sequences and gorgeously framed images may linger in the mind for days afterwards – many of them juxtaposing the men against sweeping, but barren, backdrops that seem even more alien today when compared with most modern movies. As for Richard Rodney Bennett’s dissonant score, it wouldn’t have surprised me at all if the film had been temped with Jerry Goldsmith’s “Planet of the Apes,” with the score often reaching for that same sort of unsettling feel.
“Figures in a Landscape” was a highly troubled film that was started by director Peter Medak with a script reportedly worked on by Stanley Mann among others. Peter O’Toole had committed to the film but withdrew when Medak departed; Shaw, who replaced O’Toole, rewrote the film, allegedly each day as filming progressed, once Losey took over. The British director was apparently unhappy with the film that resulted, and the movie has seldom, if ever, been screened in the U.S. since its original theatrical release.
Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray is just magnificent. The 1080p (2.35) AVC encoded transfer is striking in its detail and color, with only occasional print damage seen here and there. Given how little distribution this film has received (I’m sure I’m not alone in never having heard of it at all), the presentation is hugely satisfying, and the movie’s aerial photography is incredibly well executed.
Despite its checkered pedigree, “Figures in a Landscape” is certainly worth a view – in spite of its pretentiousness – for interested movie buffs, featuring stunning cinematography of its Spanish locales and several taut action scenes.