TheAisleSeat.com

A Canterbury Tale 8/10

A British Powell/Pressburger film made in 1944, this is a pastoral look at wartime England. There are three very likable characters (including an American serviceman) who, each in their own way, get to Canterbury along the 'Canterbury Road', which pilgrims used to take on their pilgrimage to Canterbury Cathedral.

I really liked the performances and the pastoral atmosphere that was evoked. Most of the film takes place in the English country side and even as a black and white film, the sense of time and place is very strong.
I guess you could call the plot ‘odd’. I really thought the story was well done and deceptively simple.

Fringe (ongoing, 6/10)

I’m trying to get through the second season after suffering through the first. I really wish they would get away from the ‘monster of the week’ stories where someone is brutally and graphically killed in the first five minutes.

I think the series would be much better if they would start the episodes after the titles sequence!

Why do I stick with it? Well, the characters keep me there and the overriding plot about alternate universes is interesting.

I’ve seen about half the episodes in the season so far, and except for two which I thought were excellent (one dealing with an observer falling in love with one of his subjects – no monsters in sight – and another – a monster episode dealing with Walter Bishop’s mental frailty and his fascination with disgusting creatures) most were just filler.

I do wonder if writers on these shows know where they are going!

LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
4/10

Any movie with David Bowie AND Irvin Kershner has to be...well, check that, it's pretty lousy. One more movie of "the moment" that was unworthy of all the attention it received, though unlike the (far, far superior) "Passion of the Christ", critics loved it far more than audiences did. Boring, stilted, awkward, only intermittently interesting, horribly performed by Harvey Keitel (not sure what to make of Dafoe)...honestly I found the ending of LIFE OF BRIAN to be more profound!

This was an enormously dissatisfying film on just about every level. I thought Dafoe did an amazing job (within the parameters of the role as written). But its low budget is obvious in every frame, with no real sets to speak of, and you can tell the Roman legionaries are all the same five guys (Life of Brian actually had more convincing sets, costumes, etc.).

Peter Gabriel's risible score didn't help things, sounding like a blend of some hippie drum circle and 80s pop music tracks, and its heavy use of synthesizers only accentuates the film's low production value.

And what most audiences didn't realize was that the "psychadelic" colors at the end of the movie were not some intentional optical effect, but in fact the camera running out of film! During loading and unloading, the outer layers of roll of film invariably get exposed to light and thus "fogged". Those few feet of film are of course never used (except by Martin Scorsese I guess).

I've also never quite understood why critics attacked The Passion for its excessive violence and gore...when they had praised Last Temptation, which was arguably as violent (and even included a nutty "Temple of Doom"-style moment when "Jesus" reaches into his body and pulls-out his bloody heart to show to his disciples).

This film does get points for showing the crucifixion as it really was (victims were in fact nailed through the wrists, and hung naked on the cross) but that's about all Last Temptation got right.

It baffles me that the filmmakers and Universal were actually "surprised" that people were offended by scenes of "Jesus" making crosses for the Romans and actually helping them crucify people. Can you imagine Ghandi containing a scene where the title character helps the English execute Indian criminals, or Malcolm X depicting its protagonist aiding the KKK?

A Dangerous Method (2011): 7/10

Typically cerebral David Cronenberg movie is superbly acted by all three leads (some have pilloried Keira Knightley's "cuh-RAY-zee" early scenes, but I think she did a fine job) and, as usual, is slickly realized by all of his usual creative collaborators (Howard Shore, Peter Suzschitzky, Denise Cronenberg, ect.), yet it's all a little bit too genteel for the notoriously blunt filmmaker. Aside from some kinky sex play between Knightley and the ubiquitous Michael Fassbinder, it's never as psychologically disturbing as some of Cronenbergs best work, and the stagebound origins of the screenplay are pretty obvious. A fine, intelligent movie, but it didn't really stick to my ribs as much as I'd hoped.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: 10/10. The Blu-Ray looks absolutely fantastic...the colors are so vibrant and alive. The Enterprise looks so much more intense and "energetic", especially when compared to the dullness of the bridge from TMP.

You know, I can't really say anything bad about this film. It really is, IMO, my favorite of the series and from start to finish manages to deliver genuinely moving drama, action, and comedy in a balanced way that makes this film a gem. I was especailly moved this time when Spock told Kirk that he had never taken the KM test and what Kirk thought of his solution. There is an incredible amount of depth of thematic material in the film as well...as I get older I think the themes of life and death and aging hit home more. Outstanding.

Quantum of Solace: 9/10. I really like this film. The one major criticism I would level at it was that there weren't enough dialogue scenes between the action sequences. Everything is very "quippy" and I like longer scenes of dialogue as in previous films where you got to relax and enjoy some character/plot development. Otherwise, the opera sequence still gives me chills, and I love how 007 and Camille are, in a way, cut from the same cloth. She was a stronger character than most Bond women, which I liked. I kind of view this film as Bond finding his way to becoming Bond...at any rate, I know a lot of people don't like it but I think this was an excellent sequel to CR.

THE IMMORTALS

6/10

You know, between Tarsem's stylized direction and the costumes, I felt this was a legit guilty pleasure for about 2/3 until it ran out of gas. The story is woefully under-developed (even by the standards set by 300 and the Clash of the Titans remake) and the ending was lame...but I confess it kept me interested. And Freida Pinto...wow. Just wow. I don't care if her behind-the-back nude scene was a double...she's just phenomenal.

She's definitely ravshing, right up there with the Mask Of Zorro-era Catherine Zeta Jones and the Rocketeer-era Jennifer Connelly. Too bad she hasn't had that big, breakout role yet (she was totally wasted in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes).

The Descendants (9/10)

This a movie about decent people doing the decent thing in difficult times. Its so refreshing to see, as most movies these days are about decent people having to do bad things in difficult situations... or just bad people doing bad things in difficult situations.

Everyone, especially George Clooney and the young actress playing his daughter, and the guy playing the surfer dude boyfriend, are great to watch. The Hawaiian scenery is great to watch. The story has something to say. Finally, there are no car chases or guns. Very good.

Maybe she will play Lt. Ilia when Paramount remakes Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Yes I can see that but no head shaving please

One of the things I liked most about the film too -- it would've been easy to do a story where Clooney was the outsider to his girls, wasn't "the favorite parent", etc., and had to work to earn their respect. We've seen that film a hundred times before. Instead this film was the total reverse of that typical plot: Clooney already had the love of his daughters (even if he needed to spend more time with them), and the film is about him working to reconcile with his wife's actions and get his daughters (especially the older one) to love their mother in spite of what she did. For example, Woodley's rebellion and lashing out wasn't because of Clooney -- it was because she was upset at what her mom was doing to him. It created a very interesting dynamic that I hadn't seen before.

Clooney was great, and I love Shailene Woodley too -- been watching her for years on Secret Life of the American Teenager, which is a guilty pleasure (awfully written show but so bad it's hard not to watch it!).

If Natalie Portman in V For Vendetta is any indication, shaving Freida Pinto's head won't matter.

True, Natalie at least fared better than Sigourney on that end of things (didn't do much for Demi either I still prefer hair though myself lol.

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.