rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2011 Post by AndyDursin »

Image

REWIND THIS
7/10

Fun documentary from director Josh Johnson recounts the development, rise and fall of the VHS medium, as well as the various exploitation producers – from Lloyd Kaufman to Frank Henenlotter and Richard Band – who found success marketing their shlock horrors to a hungry market of cassette-loving genre fans. “Rewind This!” is less successful when it profiles VHS-obsessed fans and is a bit all over the place at times in terms of focus (one moment it's interviewing a guy who thinks watching 4:3 pan-and-scan transfers is better than seeing the full widescreen aspect ratio; the next it’s detailing the creation of Magnetic Video Corporation), but it’s certainly entertaining and will prove nostalgic for those of us old enough to remember the golden rule of “Be Kind Rewind.” MPI’s Filmbuff DVD includes a commentary, additional animations, and over an hour of bonus content remembering laserdisc and more. The 16:9 transfer and 5.1 soundtrack are both perfectly fine.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2012 Post by Eric Paddon »

Reversal Of Fortune (1990) 7 of 10

-Hadn't seen this one in years. With the passage of time and the fading from memory of the whole Von Bulow saga (I was surprised to discover he's still alive) what seemed tasteless at the time with the framing device of a comatose Sunny narrating things, now doesn't seem quite as bothersome. Irons' performance remains spellbinding with the one thing ringing false being Dershowitz's hotshot group of student researchers.

Jedbu
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Western Michigan
Contact:

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2013 Post by Jedbu »

COME AND GET IT: 8/10

Well paced epic drama from Sam Goldwyn dramatizes Edna Ferber's novel about loggers, lost love and big appetites for both. Rarely seen in a leading man role, Edward Arnold is his usual great self as Barney, the foreman of a logging camp in Northern Wisconsin who has his eyes set on bigger things, and he will not even let his attraction to a singing waitress (the incredible Frances Farmer, who should have been Oscar nominated for her performance) get in the way of his ambitions-marriage to the daughter of the owner of vast forests that will lead to his owning the company. He is good friends with Swan (Walter Brennan, in his first of three Oscar wins for Supporting Actor), who marries the girl on the rebound and fathers a daughter who, grown up and a virtual twin of her now deceased mother, catches the eye of the married Barney and his son, Richard (Joel McCrea), and things get complicated.

Co-directed by Howard Hawks (who reportedly left the film with the last 1/4 needing to be shot) and William Wyler (Goldwyn's best contract director), this takes one of Edna Ferber's recurring themes from her novels: man conquering some part of the world and living for the here-and-now without regarding his actions and the future and does a great job with it. One of the best character actors of the 20th century, Arnold had one of his rare top-billed parts here and he shines in it. Farmer shows what great potential she truly had, had it not been for mental illness, some other problems in her personal life and a home studio that really did not appreciate her gifts. Brennan-who always looked 10-15 years older than he was, is charming as Swann-the conscience of the film.

The DVD transfer of the film (from MGM/UA) is just gorgeous; too bad there are no real extras, aside from a trailer.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2014 Post by AndyDursin »

LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER
6/10

Well-acted but rambling socio-political account of Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker), a White House butler who witnesses decades of African-American oppression – and American evolution – in the Jim Crow South, through the Civil Rights movement, the assassination of JFK, the turbulent Nixon administration, and onto the present day and the election of Barack Obama.

It’s an ambitious but flawed effort from writer Danny Strong and director Lee Daniels, not so much based on fact but rather “inspired” by a true story. Subsequently, Strong and Daniels employ a good deal of creative license in taking viewers on a tour of the black experience, with Whitaker’s title character coming off less as a developed human being and more a figure for the film’s various historical events to revolve around (shades of “Forest Gump” to a degree). It’s a tactic that doesn’t always work, particularly in soap-opera ish scenes between Gaines and his wife (Oprah Winfrey) and, especially, in other sequences involving his troubled family, including an older, combative son who becomes a part of the Black Panther movement.

While the performances of Whitaker and Winfrey are sound, the celebrity casting of the Presidents and their first ladies is more distracting than effective – Robin Williams as Eisenhower, Liev Schrieber as Lyndon Johnson, James Marsden as JFK and Alan Rickman as Reagan are a mixed lot at best, while John Cusack’s terrible portrayal of Nixon feels like it belonged in a Saturday Night Live sketch. The movie wears its politics and preaching on its sleeve, which would’ve been tolerable had “The Butler” found a central focus to emotionally engage the viewer. As it is, the film is likely to play effectively with viewers old enough to have lived through and experienced the Civil Rights era, but feels more artificial than real, particularly in regards to its hackneyed domestic melodrama.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2015 Post by AndyDursin »

IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD
6/10

I've watched the film a few times over the years in full: once when I was a kid, another time when I had to write the Rykodisc soundtrack notes when I was in college, and this time...and I have to say: I think this film is less a comedy than it is an endurance test. However, I do find it mildly entertaining -- if broken into small doses -- just to see the cast working together. But funny? People running around screaming for 3 hours? And as much as I like Ernest Gold's score -- in small doses -- I find it unbearably repetitive over the course of the film (and "funny" music doesn't actually make the film funny). When compared to Spielberg's 1941 -- another overblown comedy spectacle -- at least the latter has Williams' score, some gorgeous cinematography and a few great set-pieces (the Jitterbug dance number being one of them) -- this movie really doesn't offer as much in the way of entertainment...it's just kind of strident, one-note and, well, just isn't funny...but again, I understand why some gravitate towards it.

Criterion's Blu-Ray, which I will have a full review on next week, is lovingly produced (see the Criterion thread for some thoughts on the restored footage), and I wholeheartedly recommend it as a document of a film that -- for better or worse -- holds a strong place in film history. But, as a comedy, this is definitely more for people who grew up in the '50s and '60s and carry a fondness for it -- as well as the cast. Truthfully, it's actually worse than I remember it being, especially in the 197 minute version, which while making more "sense," is really only for the absolutely hardcore -- or masochists in general. ;)

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9754
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2016 Post by Monterey Jack »

How many really good comedies can you think of that exceed two hours, let alone three? Like all of those Judd Apatow comedies (either producing or directing) that have these eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeendless improve sequences that might be amusing by themselves, but just bloat the overall experience into this 135-minute endurance test. All of my favorite comedies tend to get things done by the 100-minute mark, give or take. Think of that awful director's cut of Stripes (which, tragically, is the only version available of Blu-Ray), padded out with rightfully-deleted footage.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2017 Post by Eric Paddon »

I agree to the extent that the "epic comedies" of the 60s for the most part did fall flat with the singular exception of "The Great Race" which I feel does hold up well over the course of the film. "Mad World" and "Hallelujah Trail" are cases of epic comedies that while not sustainable in the laugh department do nonetheless present watchable entertainment over the course of the running time and have that great sense of epic style that only films of this era could have. The one epic comedy of this era that I ended up disliking intensely was "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines" (though I'd sit through that over "1941" any day of the week).

I am looking forward to the Criterion release and at long last for the first time see/hear things I've only read about for twenty plus years like the "police calls" from the Intermission.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2018 Post by AndyDursin »

I like THE GREAT RACE also -- probably the best of that genre. We'll definitely agree to disagree on the merits of 1941 but that is a whole other conversation entirely.

You'll certainly enjoy the package Eric, though I was let down by the 2012 screening featurette where Billy Crystal introduces us to the surviving cast/crew members (including Jonathan Winters)...I'm not even joking: it's a 38-minute featurette, the first 18 MINUTES of which are the introductions of the mostly elderly cast members who take several minutes each to get up on stage. I have no idea why they did not cut this part of the featurette down, because it abruptly cuts off at the 38 minute mark, apparently with more left of the Q&A program left to run!

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2019 Post by Eric Paddon »

Sounds like the kind of "bonus" I never would have bothered with anyway. Would have been better for them to have just ported over the old MGM/UA documentary.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2020 Post by AndyDursin »

Eric Paddon wrote:Sounds like the kind of "bonus" I never would have bothered with anyway. Would have been better for them to have just ported over the old MGM/UA documentary.
You can get it on the MGM Blu-Ray that's out there, probably why it's not on here. There are several other good extras though...and this is nice to have, it's just odd why they kept the lengthy minutes of the old folks in wheelchairs and walkers getting up on stage and not more of the interview segments.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2021 Post by AndyDursin »

IN A WORLD...
8/10

Charmingly off-kilter directorial debut from actress Lake Bell chronicles the life of Carol, a Hollywood vocal coach (Bell) who’s also the daughter of a well-known voice over artist (Fred Melamed). The industry has reeled since the death of the great Don LaFontaine, though the prospects of a new “quadrilogy” dubbed “The Amazon Games” has the town’s voice-over artists vying for the opportunity to bring back the iconic trailer line “In a World...” – and seething with ire once Carol herself ends up improbably getting the gig.

Bell also wrote “In a World...,” which isn’t so filled with inside jokes that it’s not accessible to outsiders, and is sprinkled with offbeat comedy and wry human observations throughout. Like a lot of indie comedies, it’s uneven, but the characters – from Bell’s heroine to her sister (Michaela Watkins) and husband (Rob Corddry), and co-worker (Demetri Martin) who shares an affection for her – are thoroughly likeable and the film itself highly appealing. At a tidy 90 minutes, this is an effervescent comedy-drama that’s one of the more surprising sleepers of last year.

Sony’s Blu-Ray, out January 21st, includes a commentary with Bell, an alternate opening sequence, deleted scenes, a gag reel and promo trailers, plus a 1080p transfer and 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2022 Post by Paul MacLean »

The Book Thief

I can't believe this film hasn't been a bigger hit, though I partly blame the awful trailer, which misleadingly sells the movie as a shallow, "feel good" cross between A Little Princess and Fahrenheit 451. In fact The Book Thief is considerably darker, more sophisticated and more deep. It hits all the right notes -- it's touching but never cloying, tragic but never overwrought, poignant but never preachy.

Sophie Nelisse gives an utterly luminous performance in the role of Leisel (the main character) and is surrounded by an equally amazing cast, chief among them Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson. The photography by Florian Balhaus (Michael's son) is also excellent, but never calls attention to itself nor strives to be self-consciously "beautiful" (incidentally, the cliched "teal/orange" color grading of the trailer does not appear in the film itself).

John Williams' score is (predictably) superb, and while I enjoy the CD, the full effect of his music is best appreciated in the film itself. It enhances, uplifts and contributes that special, intangible "extra something" which hard to articulate (and which no other composer does quite as well as he).

High marks for this film on every level.


User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34306
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2023 Post by AndyDursin »

Great review Paul. I wonder if the mixed reviews hurt the film as well.
A lot of critics didn't care for it, for whatever reason.

esteban miranda
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:21 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2024 Post by esteban miranda »

Eric Paddon wrote:Rear Window 7.5 of 10

-The two plot holes that have never satisfied me though are (1) why does Jeff never mention the scream he heard in the dead of night which we know was the murder being committed? Wendell Corey would have likely had a pat answer for it, but it should have been mentioned and (2) I still find it amazing that Jeff is living in an apartment where the front door and his door are left unlocked!

-Giant thumbs down for that awful commentary track though. One of those arrogant film school lectures that gives us zero in production history information and instead over analyzes the plot and also has to veer in the tasteless discussion of sexual and phallic imagery that frankly I think 99.5% of the people who like to watch these movies don't want to know about or don't give a sxxx about.
I recently watched this Blu-ray also, and I would give it 10, a classic.

-I hadn't noticed the unlocked door but it may have been because it was inconvenient for him to get to the door to unlock it for visitors. I usually don't lock the door of my car in the store parking lot, my parents didn't lock the front door of their house during the day time. Some may think that very naïve, I guess it's just a mind-set...

-I don't think I listened to this commentary track but I wouldn't be surprised if it was worthless, they often are...

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2025 Post by Eric Paddon »

On further reflection I should have given it an 8 at least. On the point about him not mentioning the scream, I wonder if this was something done in post-production.

I remember how "Spellbound" was also a worthless commentary with it similar obsession with sexual imagery in each shot.

Post Reply