rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9744
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2476 Post by Monterey Jack »

Eric Paddon wrote: Maybe we should compare anger charts MJ to see if yours for DAD exceeds mine for LTK! :)
Licence To Kill is terribly underrated, as is Dalton's sadly-brief tenure in the role was as a whole.

Anyways, on another note....Happy Shue Year! :D

Image

-The Karate Kid (1984): 9.5/10

Image

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34280
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2477 Post by AndyDursin »

Yay! I really, really don't want to rehash the same DIE ANOTHER DAY and LEGEND arguments in 2015 if it can be helped. lol 8)

On the other Bonds -- I'm not a huge fan of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, but it's fun. Connery is puffy but at least he seems more engaged than he did in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, where he looked like he had checked out. The film has some weirdness to it and it's excessive, but I do find it mostly entertaining. Keep in mind there are also fans who think the film is actually great -- Lukas being one of them -- and critical analysis of the picture has always been very positive. I've never really subscribed to that theory myself, but I do like the film. (Personally, on a different note, I think the most overrated Connery is FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE -- perfectly good, but kind of boring, and comes across as a bit of a slog on repeat viewing).

And I certainly don't like A VIEW TO A KILL, but when forced to choose between it and the boring-as-sin MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, I'll take it, because Barry's score is superior, the song is (obviously) way superior, and Walken is good for a few laughs (but not many, as even he was a disappointment). The picture is lethargic and a waste of time otherwise and rightfully ranks at the bottom of the series, but if I'm comparing levels of ineptitude, I'll take the better Barry score of the duo, plus the song is one of the series' best (whereas Lulu's contribution is among the worst, and certainly among all the Barry-written songs it's an embarrassment). I mean, sure, Tanya Roberts is bad, but Britt Ekland gives her a run for the money in MWTGG too. I've always disliked MWTGG -- worst of the 60s/70s Bond movies by far and to me was the worst Bond film until QUANTUM OF SOLACE came along and displaced it.

mkaroly
Posts: 6218
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2478 Post by mkaroly »

Yeah, I'd also take AVTAK over TMWTGG. I think I gave the latter 1/10 or less and AVTAK 2/10. I think the score for AVTAK is much better than TMWTGG as well...and I agree Andy, the title song is tons better than Lulu's contribution.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9744
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2479 Post by Monterey Jack »

Shue times two... 8)

Image

-Link (1986): 3.5/10

Aside from the huggable appeal of 80's-era Elisabeth Shue (too bad her "nude" bath scene is an obvious butt double :cry: ), this is one weird, chintzy movie, made even weirder by one of Jerry Goldsmith's strangest scores from deep within his "drum machine" mid-80's period I detest so much. With a electronic main theme that's kind of like the "Gremlins Rag" re-orchestrated as OOMPA-OOMPA circus music(?!), it ranks with Extreme Prejudice and Mr. Baseball as some of the most obnoxious music he's ever written. There are some classic orchestral Goldsmith action licks towards the end, but ugh, that main there is dated in the worst way. :? And as for the movie, if I want to watch an 80's primate thriller, I'll stick with George Romero's underrated Monkey Shines (wonderful new Scream Factory Blu release for that recently).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34280
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2480 Post by AndyDursin »

While I do like the score for MR BASEBALL, which has a lot of orchestral material in it (including a really nice love theme), I totally agree on LINK -- the music and the movie. Apparently some of the film was cut down in post-production, but no matter what, it's a bizarre, off-kilter film (not in a good way either). Don't think it ever received much in the way of theatrical distribution --with good reason!

MONKEY SHINES is, agreed, far superior. 8)

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9744
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2481 Post by Monterey Jack »

AndyDursin wrote:While I do like the score for MR BASEBALL, which has a lot of orchestral material in it (including a really nice love theme), I totally agree on LINK -- the music and the movie.
To this day, I find it bizarre that pretty much the ONLY Goldsmith score singled out for praise by Siskel & Ebert on their show was Mr. Baseball. :shock: As for Link, when Intrada re-issued it a few years back, I listened to the samples, and basically said in the FSM thread devoted to the release, "Have at it, bottle-cap collectors". :lol:
Apparently some of the film was cut down in post-production, but no matter what, it's a bizarre, off-kilter film (not in a good way either). Don't think it ever received much in the way of theatrical distribution --with good reason!
Other than Elisabeth and her rockin' 80's hair (which always looked good enough to eat back then), the movie is a total mess...shame, as Richard Franklin did a great job generating suspense with Psycho II a few years earlier. The "Top o' the woild, Ma!" ending with the titular orangutan plunging to his death from the top of the burning house in an awful greenscreen shot (after lighting his cigar with a piece of flaming wood!) is sort of good for a laugh, though. :)
MONKEY SHINES is, agreed, far superior. 8)
It's one of Romero's better films...and surprisingly light on his trademark gore. Take away the language and the paraplegic sex scene, and it'd earn a PG-13 easily today. Of course, were it made today, Ella the monkey would be computer-generated for the entire movie, and the film would lose a lot of its remarkable verisimilitude in the process. Also neat to see so many familiar actors in some of their earliest screen roles, like Stanley Tucci, Stephen Root and a young, gorgeous Janine Turner. :D

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2482 Post by Paul MacLean »

Monterey Jack wrote: To this day, I find it bizarre that pretty much the ONLY Goldsmith score singled out for praise by Siskel & Ebert on their show was Mr. Baseball. :shock: As for Link, when Intrada re-issued it a few years back, I listened to the samples, and basically said in the FSM thread devoted to the release, "Have at it, bottle-cap collectors". :lol:
I never took much stock in Siskel & Ebert's assessment of film scoring. Ebert mocked Goldsmith's music for Night Crossing as "cornball", while Siskel singled-out Mike Oldfield's score for The Killing Fields as effectively understated compared to what most composers would have done. :?

As far as Goldsmith's music for Link, I actually found it a fairly enjoyable album, which was fun and offbeat. The cue for Shue's journey to Terrence Stamp's home is also quite lovely.

Gotta stick up for Extreme Prejudice. It's no Total Recall, and is very drenched in Simmons drums (and I certainly don't like every cue!), but has its moments. For me, cues like "Dust", "The Plan", "To Mexico", "No Friendlies" and the "End Credits" honestly better capture the elegiac, mournful, Americana-infused aspects of the original First Blood better than the actual scores for the Rambo sequels.

Andy Dursin wrote:Apparently some of the film was cut down in post-production, but no matter what, it's a bizarre, off-kilter film (not in a good way either). Don't think it ever received much in the way of theatrical distribution --with good reason!
Apparently Richard Franklin's directors cut had much more background on who Link was exactly and that he and the other apes were part of some dark experiment which Terrence Stamp had been conducting. Franklin dismissed the released version as "Gremlins with fur".

jkholm
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:24 pm
Location: Texas

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2483 Post by jkholm »

American Sniper
9/10

American Sniper tells the story of Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL who became one of the military’s top snipers during his four combat tours in Iraq. Clint Eastwood’s film is tense and harrowing with numerous battle scenes that show Kyle’s skill as a sniper and his desire to keep his fellow soldiers safe. Bradley Cooper is completely convincing in the lead role. While the supporting cast is mostly male, Sienna Miller is quite good as Kyle’s wife, giving emotional weight to the scenes when Kyle is home and showing signs of PTSD. There are also some great scenes where Miller and Cooper are on the phone during a firefight. I did not think the movie was overly political and Eastwood wisely makes Kyle the centerpiece. The final scenes are moving and the audience I saw it with walked out in complete silence (which I judged to be a sign of respect for a fallen hero). The silence was made deeper by the utter lack of music during the end credits.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2484 Post by Paul MacLean »

Exodus: Gods and Kings (spoilers)

Excellent, one of Ridley Scott's better films. Exodus does at times have a bit of a "been there, done that" feel, with the story of Moses having been adapted so many times previously. But Scott's film more than holds its own against prior adaptations, and brings a fair degree of freshness to the narrative.

It does embellish the book of Exodus (but not half as much as The The Commandments did) and alters or eschews certain elements, but the core of the biblical account is there (and compared to Noah or The Last Temptation of Christ, Its deviations from scripture are pretty negligible). Despite Christian Bale's comments to the press that Moses might have been insane or imagining his encounter with God, the film itself depicts the plagues afflicting Egypt, and (more particularly) the parting of the Red Sea as clearly supernatural in origin. Scott's decision to show God as a character on screen -- and a small boy at that -- has been controversial, but I didn't see this as an attempt to challenge the traditions or Judaism or Christianity, so much as an artistic choice. Nor did I find the character's actions out of place with the biblical character of God (particularly in the context of the Old Testament). (And speaking as a religious believer, I didn't find the film sacrilegious.)

All the cast give fine performances, and Bale is particularly good as Moses, and invests the character with admirable qualities of steadfastness, modesty and a subdued passion. Visually the film is exquisitely designed and appropriately colossal in scale, but Scott doesn't allow the story and characters to be swallowed-up by the style of the film.

The climax of Exodus is also enormously impressive. I have become very jaded by all the "elaborate" effects sequences found in every summer blockbuster and epic for the past decade, but I was genuinely blown away by the Red Sea sequence (and the harrowing chase leading up to it), which was tremendously powerful, and realized with a daunting sense of scale (yet without the ostentatious overkill you often see in such effects sequences).

Alberto Iglesias' score is also very good, and while not without a few "Zimmerisms", has a nice, old school symphonic quality. (Still, there were times when I wished Ennio Morricone had scored this film, along the lines of his work for the Burt Lancaster miniseries).

I do wish Scott had included the scenes of the infant Moses being rescued from the pharaoh's infanticidal decree, rather than opening the movie with the character as an adult. But that's a minor quibble. I wouldn't say this is Scott's greatest film, but it is certainly among his better work. It's much better than Kingdom of Heaven, and although not as visually exciting as Gladiator, has more weight in the realm of story and character. Moreover it's a film I need to see again, because I'm not sure one viewing allowed me to sufficiently "digest" its myriad of elements.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8623
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2485 Post by Eric Paddon »

The Caine Mutinty (1954) 8 of 10

Got the Blu-Ray of this with Christmas gift cards and it marked the first time in about 25 years that I'd seen the film, though I'd watched a couple productions of "Caine Mutiny Court Martial" in the interim. The Blu-Ray looks outstanding and it highlights some great performances. More importantly the nuance that gets brought home at the end when Jose Ferrer declares the officers of the Caine equally guilty for what happened and especially Fred MacMurray, is much more clear on this viewing than it was previously. I've seen some who people are inclined to think a little too superficially that Queeg had it coming and that Ferrer's angry speech is unjust but I think overall the script is done perfectly.

The commentary track ported from the old DVD is okay but it gets a little off at times because the two men who do it sometimes seem to be ignorant of the fact that the book came first, then the play, because they act as if the play was first and many details were being "opened up" by the film as if they were newly created for the movie. I also have to admit it amuses me when film buffs who are doing commentaries and talk about certain actors on-screen then end up revealing at the same time how profoundly ignorant they are of television history when they will forget or misremember what an actor was noted for in television later on (it takes them for instance three minutes to remember the name of Whit Bissell when he appears as the psychiatrist in the court-martial scene and then just when I'm ready to go Hallelujah they finally remembered after I've been shouting it, they then say he was the doctor on "I Dream Of Jeannie." WRONG!). I would have really preferred it if the commentary had been done by someone who knew the book, play and film inside out and could have given us some broader sweep on the history of the property as a whole. As it was I was soon realizing there was a lot I knew that they didn't!

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

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2486 Post by Jedbu »

SHOW BOAT (1936) 9.5/10

One of my top 5 musicals of all time, I recently picked this up during a WAC "buy 2, get 1 free" sale (along with WHY BE GOOD? on DVD and THE GREAT RACE on Blu-Ray) and am extremely pleased with what they did with it. Of course, being a Warner Archive disc there really are no frills, but someone there figured to spend a little extra time on it, for instead of being indexed to change chapters every 5 or 10 minutes, they are actually indexed to follow the musical numbers, so if you wish to skip ahead to "Make Believe," "Ol' Man River" or "Can't Help Lovin' That Man" you can actually get to the beginning of those numbers rather than having to FF through some parts, but the movie is so good that you really don't want to.

James Whale proves that he was one of Universal's greatest directors with this film-his two FRANKENSTEIN films, THE INVISIBLE MAN and THE OLD DARK HOUSE are masterpieces, but there are little touches in this film that show the difference between a really good director and a great one. My favorite happens during Helen Morgan's incredibly poignant rendition of "Bill"-Whale uses a masterful blend of long shots and medium shots with occasional close-ups and even cutaways to the cast and crew of the show watching in total silence, and while a really good director would build to an extreme close-up at the finale, Whale pulls a fast one with the extreme CU coming earlier when she sings "...and yet to be/upon his knee/so comfy and roomy/seems natural to me..." which is such a sudden cut that not only are you overwhelmed by her face taking up the entire frame, but the emotion in her voice as she sings catches you by the throat and makes the ending even more heartrending. Nothing fancy-just solid direction with that extra something. There are also the obvious Whale touches, especially during Robeson's showcase of "Ol' Man River," (my vote for one of the greatest musical numbers EVER put on film) with tracking shots of field workers that almost look like they are re-using FRANKENSTEIN sets and probably the most expressionist looking saloon since CALIGARI, and of course that stupendous circular tracking shot at the very beginning that does almost a complete circle around Robeson ending with an extreme CU that I have always found jaw dropping, but this appears to be a film where the the material and director were perfect for each other, even if those who are familiar with his earlier forays into the monster genre are still shocked that he made this film, but considering he was Universal's star director at that time, it just figures that he would get the job. According to one audio interview with Allan Jones, he did not like working with Whale, but then his role is so subservient to Dunne's and even some of the supporting characters that Whale probably felt that there probably was not much he could do with Jones' role, so he probably did end up slighting him, sadly.

All of the songs are perfectly done, with the new ones written for the film fitting in pretty seamlessly (evidently Whale loved working with Robeson and was such an admirer that he asked Kern and Hammerstein to come up with a new song for him to do-"Ah Still Suits Me"-and even got Hattie McDaniel to show off her singing voice in it, too, and very nicely), although "Gallavantin' Around," sung by Irene Dunne in blackface is a bit squirm inducing now (you have not lived until you see her shuffle in "Can't Help Lovin' That Man" and even Robeson admires her moves in it) and a there are a few uses of the vernacular that remind us that this film was made in the 1930's. Nitpicks-the story arc would make Dunne's parents (played beautifully by Charles Winninger and Helen Westley) probably in their 90's or even past the century mark by the end and the aging on Jones by the end does not quite come off; the two actresses (Marilyn Knowlden and Sunnie O'Dea) who play Kim, the daughter of Magnolia and Gaylord are just awful, especially Knowlden, who puts about as much feeling into her line readings as someone reading names out of the phone book who really hates doing that; and the last ten minutes feels a bit rushed, as if they had to make sure that the film came in under two hours (there were scenes showing Dunne and Winninger entertaining WWI troops and a late scene with Robeson and McDaniel that were cut).

How this film did not get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture in 1936 while the elephantine and almost unwatchable THE GREAT ZIEGFELD won is still one of the most grievous mistakes in Oscar history. Granted, MGM had so much influence in the Academy while Universal felt lucky just to be invited (it also did not help that the studio was changing ownership just as it was released and the new owners were not that thrilled to be promoting an expensive production from the old regime-it did well but not as good as it would have with more studio backing ) but anyone watching the two films can easily see which is the superior film within ten minutes. That the '36 version has only in the last couple of decades seen the light of day is mainly due to home video (MGM pretty much buried this version when they did their remake in 1951, which while good, doesn't have Dunne, Robeson or Morgan)-a gorgeous laserdisc release from Criterion in the 90's was one of my treasured discs at that time, and the reconstruction of the original stage show on CD soon after really made people re-examine this musical which took Broadway out of the revue years, shook it up and brought a solid story with even a daring plot thread dealing with a mixed race person to audiences who were blown away in 1927.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34280
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2487 Post by AndyDursin »

WORKING GIRL
8.5/10

Image

The passing of Mike Nichols late last year makes Fox’s new Blu-Ray release of one of his most satisfying films, WORKING GIRL, an especially bittersweet affair. This beautifully performed late ‘80s comedy launched Melanie Griffith’s career in her Oscar-nominated turn as Tess McGill, a Staten Island secretary trying to work her way up Wall Street.

Kevin Wade’s original script utilizes late ‘80s stereotypes – workaholic yuppies, backstabbing female bosses and aspiring secretaries stuck in the lower levels of corporate living – and crafts a truly entertaining picture that manages to avoid both a broad farcical tone and an obvious “Cinderella” parallel. Instead, “Working Girl” grounds itself in a believable reality as Tess tries to push a stock deal through her new boss (a delicious Sigourney Weaver performance), only to see her take credit for the impending deal. With Weaver’s duplicitous Katharine Parker sidelined with a skiing injury, Tess takes matters into her own hands and negotiates her plan with an executive (Harrison Ford) who just happens to be Parker’s boyfriend.

While some of the characterizations feel slight (especially in regards to Tess’ back story and her colleagues, one of whom is played by Joan Cusack in a role that also generated an Oscar nomination), “Working Girl” is one of director Nichols’ best films. Certainly it’s one of his most entertaining, with a marvelous cast finding just the right note for the material. Griffith shines in what was a star-making performance, though equally fine are Weaver, in a part that could’ve been played with a much broader or heavier hand (see Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada” for comparison’s sake), and particularly Ford. Looking spry and thrilled to be in a movie that was neither part of the Spielberg/Lucas cycle or the heavier dramatic pictures (i.e. “The Mosquito Coast”) he was starring in at the time, Ford is right at home in a genre one wishes he worked more often in.

The supporting cast, meanwhile, is chock full of familiar faces – a few just on the cusp of stardom – including Kevin Spacey as a coke-snorting yuppie who Tess has a “job interview” with, and Alec Baldwin, who makes the most of a limited role as Tess’ boyfriend from the old neigborhood. Oliver Platt, Nora Dunn and Philip Bosco fill other roles in a film that never veers into outright comedy, thanks to the grounded performances of a cast working with superior material, and the pitch-perfect direction of Nichols.

Making his second film of 1988 (following the fairly well-received adaptation of Neil Simon’s “Biloxi Blues”), Nichols opens and closes the picture with sweeping shots of the New York City skyline, bookending the film with the notion that Tess’ story is just one in a million in the greatest city on earth. “Working Girl” may not be viewed as Nichols’ best film, but in a decidedly uneven filmmaking career that would see several misfires in its wake, it’s a picture that’s an exemplary example of Nichols’ work with actors and his understanding of how to play a comedy with a basis in reality, avoiding slapstick and excessive gags. “Working Girl” is ‘80s studio fillmaking at its highest level, and has aged particularly well beyond being just a mere product of its time.

Fox’s no-frills Blu-Ray edition of “Working Girl” looks and sounds fine, with a 5.1 DTS MA mix and 1080p (1.85) transfer doing justice to its cinematic source material. Carly Simon’s score (arranged by Rob Mounsey) is mostly limited to a theme-and-variations treatment on her Oscar-winning song “Let the River Run,” but if you’re going to base a whole score around a single song, at least it’s a good one. Two trailers and TV spots round out a decent catalog release from Fox.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8623
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2488 Post by Eric Paddon »

Detective Story (1951) 6 of 10

-A lot of fascinating and brilliantly done parts that ultimately added up to a somewhat unsatisfying whole for me. It has a brilliant supporting cast. Lee Grant scarcely seems like the perpetually youthful and glamorous woman of decades later that I'm more familiar with, and William Bendix proves he was an actor of considerable range. Also, as one who has seen almost every episode of "Naked City" the television series, it was quite an unexpected surprise to see Horace McMahon as the Lieutenant of the detective squad and I now understand that this role is why he was brought into that series a decade later after John McIntire quit the show, because he was basically being asked to reprise his role from "Detective Story" in all but last name. Joseph Wiseman also reveals just what it was he was noted for long before he became "Dr. No" as the off-kilter thief. Wyler's direction is fine, the seedy squad room atmosphere is probably a lot more realistic than the more neatly dressed environment I'm used to from TV detective shows of this era etc. It is a fascinating movie to watch.

-But in the end, the movie for me is fatally undermined by the leads in Kirk Douglas and Eleanor Parker and a melodramatic plotline that ironically in its zeal to preach a message of how an overly simplistic mindset of black-white thinking is so fatally tragic for one like Douglas, comes off as presenting that message in a too overly simplistic fashion where Douglas's character comes off more as a caricature than someone believable. It also I think overlooks a fundamental point that Douglas has been subjected to a shock of his life regarding the revelation about his wife's past, in which it has to be said, she lied to him about who and what she was from the outset, that to expect him to suddenly in an instant's notice think it shouldn't matter and he should be so overly forgiving is for me asking too much of any man right away, even one who is admittedly as dangerously flawed as Douglas is. That isn't a case of "blaming the woman" it's noting that the script is attacking one straw man concept by creating another rooted in the same problem of not treating the matter with more complexity and believability. Douglas and Parker I think also don't help matters with performances that are more stagy in nature, reflecting the property's origins too much that on film only manage to accentuate the script's weakness on the matter of their relationship.

-I will admit that even though I saw the ending coming the instant Wiseman seized the gun, the finale was powerfully done. And the prayer for absolution touch helped immensely and is the sort of thing I doubt we'd see in a more modern take of the story. Final verdict for me is that it was a must-watch to see what it was like, but again its a film where the parts are greater than the sum.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2489 Post by Paul MacLean »

AndyDursin wrote:Looking spry and thrilled to be in a movie that was neither part of the Spielberg/Lucas cycle or the heavier dramatic pictures (i.e. “The Mosquito Coast”) he was starring in at the time, Ford is right at home in a genre one wishes he worked more often in.
I remember being genuinely flummoxed when this film was released and I saw the credit "Music by Carly Simon". I was so used, so conditioned to Harrison Ford movies being scored the very top composers in the profession, it took me a few minutes to adjust!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34280
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2490 Post by AndyDursin »

Paul MacLean wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:Looking spry and thrilled to be in a movie that was neither part of the Spielberg/Lucas cycle or the heavier dramatic pictures (i.e. “The Mosquito Coast”) he was starring in at the time, Ford is right at home in a genre one wishes he worked more often in.
I remember being genuinely flummoxed when this film was released and I saw the credit "Music by Carly Simon". I was so used, so conditioned to Harrison Ford movies being scored the very top composers in the profession, it took me a few minutes to adjust!
Really the good thing about it is that the movie isn't overscored, so it's not dated in the way that some 80s "pop song" soundtracks are. In this case, there's really only the main song -- at the beginning and end of the film -- and then mostly instrumental (some orchestral) variations of it as underscore. There's hardly much music in the rest of the film, so that "Music by Carly Simon" credit was probably done for commercial purposes...I mean, she wrote the song, what else did she have to do? lol

Post Reply