rate the last movie you saw
Re: rate the last movie you saw
MATINEE - just got my Blu-Ray. I had not seen this film in years, so I was looking forward to viewing it again. I still love this film and consider it to be Joe Dante's best effort. It is a warm, funny, and endearing film that loses none of its character or charm on repeated viewings. The performances in it are great - John Goodman is fantastic, Cathy Moriarty and her dry humor are perfect, and the kid actors all do a great job (though I would have loved if Stan was a bit more animated). Kellie Martin and Lisa Jakub both add something sweet and energetic to the film; I love Gene and Dennis' relationship as brothers as well - it is poignant and moving without being over-the-top. The MANT film is still a riot - the corny jokes, the bad acting, and the scientist's "dumbing down" of terms still make me laugh.
Finally, there is Jerry Goldsmith's score. I always comment on how much I love the music for this film; his score is light, sweet, and captures the feeling of childhood innocence. It does have a few tender moments as well and, for as short and "simple" as it is, manages to communicate the underlying mood of the film as a whole. Any complaints I might have over bits and pieces of the film are easily forgotten and overlooked as I watch the film. I don't care what its faults and inconsistencies might be. MATINEE will always be a film I enjoy watching and a score I enjoy listening to. Great entertainment (an unapologetic and super-biased 10/10 for me).
Finally, there is Jerry Goldsmith's score. I always comment on how much I love the music for this film; his score is light, sweet, and captures the feeling of childhood innocence. It does have a few tender moments as well and, for as short and "simple" as it is, manages to communicate the underlying mood of the film as a whole. Any complaints I might have over bits and pieces of the film are easily forgotten and overlooked as I watch the film. I don't care what its faults and inconsistencies might be. MATINEE will always be a film I enjoy watching and a score I enjoy listening to. Great entertainment (an unapologetic and super-biased 10/10 for me).
-
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Wonder Woman (2017) 6 of 10
-I caved in and decided to give this a look only because I inadvertently saw more films of recent note than I'd planned on seeing. The best part is Gadot is excellent and makes the part her own. I also was relieved that the film wasn't overloaded with feminist double-talk at every turn and the fact that Diana's love for Steve is ultimately important for her character-wise was nice. The brief homage with the glasses was a nice touch in a film that probably could have used a couple more homages like a Lynda Carter cameo (too old to play Hippolyte as she might have in a film made a couple decades ago but maybe show her as a suffragette demonstrator?).
-But ultimately the decision to set the film in World War I, while not a total disaster is still a basic mistake the film can't overcome even though it does its best to overcome it. Yes, I grant that it fits in the context of this super-grandiose Clash Of The Titans theme in that if you're going to have her pitted against Ares, then doing that in the first war of modern weaponry and the first great war of destruction makes more sense. But the problem is this just isn't what WW should be about. The setting needed to be WW2 to show Diana the lesson that there are some wars that do have to be fought if there is going to be peace. The simple-minded comic book philosophy of the TV series ultimately rings far more true than the weighty speeches I had to listen to in this one (and again this film also shows how as we learn more and more how to recreate a period setting with perfection, our capacity to accurately depict attitudes of those times has evaporated. The bottom line is that most people in WW1 saw it as a patriotic exercise in a "war to end all wars" even as all the destruction was taking place).
-The REALLY annoying thing was this PC conglomeration of Trevor's team, complete with a POINTLESS Indian character whose only purpose is to give us a stupid line about his people being destroyed by Trevor's people etc. Maybe these filmmakers should get it through their thick heads that Native Americans who fought in both World Wars were as patriotic as anyone else and didn't indulge in this kind of rhetoric that is anachronistically out of place as a character like this one is for this scene. Just like in the recent "Murder On The Orient Express" remake where we get ethnicities of characters changed to make them anachronisms in the time the movie takes place in so they can spout things that anachronistically are more suited to a modern day Hollywood political tract and satisfy the PC quota system needed in casting a movie it seems like.
-And finally, I got a reminder of how much I dislike modern CGI in that it becomes a convenient crutch for filmmakers to give us long epic battle scenes that go on and on and on and on and on with no letup and the end result just bores me to death.
So it's not a disgrace but if only they'd put Gadot in a WW2 Wonder Woman film, the results would have been so much better IMO.
-I caved in and decided to give this a look only because I inadvertently saw more films of recent note than I'd planned on seeing. The best part is Gadot is excellent and makes the part her own. I also was relieved that the film wasn't overloaded with feminist double-talk at every turn and the fact that Diana's love for Steve is ultimately important for her character-wise was nice. The brief homage with the glasses was a nice touch in a film that probably could have used a couple more homages like a Lynda Carter cameo (too old to play Hippolyte as she might have in a film made a couple decades ago but maybe show her as a suffragette demonstrator?).
-But ultimately the decision to set the film in World War I, while not a total disaster is still a basic mistake the film can't overcome even though it does its best to overcome it. Yes, I grant that it fits in the context of this super-grandiose Clash Of The Titans theme in that if you're going to have her pitted against Ares, then doing that in the first war of modern weaponry and the first great war of destruction makes more sense. But the problem is this just isn't what WW should be about. The setting needed to be WW2 to show Diana the lesson that there are some wars that do have to be fought if there is going to be peace. The simple-minded comic book philosophy of the TV series ultimately rings far more true than the weighty speeches I had to listen to in this one (and again this film also shows how as we learn more and more how to recreate a period setting with perfection, our capacity to accurately depict attitudes of those times has evaporated. The bottom line is that most people in WW1 saw it as a patriotic exercise in a "war to end all wars" even as all the destruction was taking place).
-The REALLY annoying thing was this PC conglomeration of Trevor's team, complete with a POINTLESS Indian character whose only purpose is to give us a stupid line about his people being destroyed by Trevor's people etc. Maybe these filmmakers should get it through their thick heads that Native Americans who fought in both World Wars were as patriotic as anyone else and didn't indulge in this kind of rhetoric that is anachronistically out of place as a character like this one is for this scene. Just like in the recent "Murder On The Orient Express" remake where we get ethnicities of characters changed to make them anachronisms in the time the movie takes place in so they can spout things that anachronistically are more suited to a modern day Hollywood political tract and satisfy the PC quota system needed in casting a movie it seems like.
-And finally, I got a reminder of how much I dislike modern CGI in that it becomes a convenient crutch for filmmakers to give us long epic battle scenes that go on and on and on and on and on with no letup and the end result just bores me to death.
So it's not a disgrace but if only they'd put Gadot in a WW2 Wonder Woman film, the results would have been so much better IMO.
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 34339
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
THE AVIATOR
4/10
![Image](http://img.moviepostershop.com/aviator-movie-poster-1985-1020209522.jpg)
Somewhere along the line I avoided seeing this Christopher Reeve flop, a movie that some may confuse with Tom Selleck’s similarly-themed period disappointment “High Road to China” from two years prior. As uneven as the latter is, though, it looks like a masterwork of cinematic excellence compared to “The Aviator,” an entirely unconvincing adventure that’s DOA right from its opening minutes.
Giving one of his weakest performances, Reeve plays a WWI aviation instructor who’s disfigured in an accident that claims the life of one of his students. Flash ahead several years and Reeve’s Edgar Anscombe is a mail pilot who hasn’t flown with a passenger since, until he’s coerced into taking a rebellious young lass (Rosanna Arquette) who’s father (Sam Wanamaker) wants her sent off to her Aunt to be straightened out. En route, the duo crash and have to make it through the tough Pacific Northwest mountains (really Yugoslavia) together.
If you dropped in on a couple of minutes of “The Aviator” you might actually think you’re watching a spoof. Reeve’s intensity tries (but fails) to make amends for an anemic script adapted from a book by Ernest Gann, whose novels formed the basis for far better movies like “Fate Is The Hunter” and “The High and the Mighty.” The stilted dramatics, handled in a flavorless manner by George Miller (the “Man From Snowy River” George Miller, to be exact), make for a weirdly disconnected film, while Reeve’s persona clashes with Arquette’s oddball, contemporary sensibilities in a pairing that doesn’t come off at all. Supporting turns from the likes of Jack Warden, Scott Wilson, and Tyne Daly seem to indicate there had to have been more to the film at some point, leading only Dominic Frontiere’s sweeping romantic score to leave a lasting positive impression.
Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray (out in February) debuts a fine 1080p (1.85) AVC encoded transfer from the barely-released United Artists production. The Dolby Stereo audio is housed in a 2.0 DTS MA track that’s surprisingly robust, providing a full stage for Frontiere’s music, whose only liability is that it easily overpowers the film’s meager (and at times unintentionally funny) drama. The trailer is the sole extra.
4/10
![Image](http://img.moviepostershop.com/aviator-movie-poster-1985-1020209522.jpg)
Somewhere along the line I avoided seeing this Christopher Reeve flop, a movie that some may confuse with Tom Selleck’s similarly-themed period disappointment “High Road to China” from two years prior. As uneven as the latter is, though, it looks like a masterwork of cinematic excellence compared to “The Aviator,” an entirely unconvincing adventure that’s DOA right from its opening minutes.
Giving one of his weakest performances, Reeve plays a WWI aviation instructor who’s disfigured in an accident that claims the life of one of his students. Flash ahead several years and Reeve’s Edgar Anscombe is a mail pilot who hasn’t flown with a passenger since, until he’s coerced into taking a rebellious young lass (Rosanna Arquette) who’s father (Sam Wanamaker) wants her sent off to her Aunt to be straightened out. En route, the duo crash and have to make it through the tough Pacific Northwest mountains (really Yugoslavia) together.
If you dropped in on a couple of minutes of “The Aviator” you might actually think you’re watching a spoof. Reeve’s intensity tries (but fails) to make amends for an anemic script adapted from a book by Ernest Gann, whose novels formed the basis for far better movies like “Fate Is The Hunter” and “The High and the Mighty.” The stilted dramatics, handled in a flavorless manner by George Miller (the “Man From Snowy River” George Miller, to be exact), make for a weirdly disconnected film, while Reeve’s persona clashes with Arquette’s oddball, contemporary sensibilities in a pairing that doesn’t come off at all. Supporting turns from the likes of Jack Warden, Scott Wilson, and Tyne Daly seem to indicate there had to have been more to the film at some point, leading only Dominic Frontiere’s sweeping romantic score to leave a lasting positive impression.
Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray (out in February) debuts a fine 1080p (1.85) AVC encoded transfer from the barely-released United Artists production. The Dolby Stereo audio is housed in a 2.0 DTS MA track that’s surprisingly robust, providing a full stage for Frontiere’s music, whose only liability is that it easily overpowers the film’s meager (and at times unintentionally funny) drama. The trailer is the sole extra.
- Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9764
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
-Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone (1983): 3/10
![Image](http://see-aych.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/spacehunter-adventures-in-the-forbidden-zone-1983.jpg)
Watched this for the first time today on demand, and it's a seriously silly piece of nostalgic 80's sci-fi cheese, the kind of low-budget Star Wars/Mad Max ripoff that's not at all far off from the fake movie being thrown together as a CIA smokescreen in Argo.
Sadly, it isn't quite bad/inept enough to be the kind of fodder frequently mocked by MST3K, and yet not well-made enough to be any sort of satisfying experience. It's sort of fun to see a very young-looking Molly Ringwald (at least until she opens her mouth and delivers some of the most obnoxiously stilted "spunky" sidekick dialogue imaginable), and Elmer Bernstein's score -- while far from the best of his early-80's sci-fi/fantasy efforts -- handily outclasses anything else on display. The kind of movie best enjoyed with alcoholic beverages and/or a pack of friends to sit next to you on the couch and mock it with.
![Image](http://see-aych.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/spacehunter-adventures-in-the-forbidden-zone-1983.jpg)
Watched this for the first time today on demand, and it's a seriously silly piece of nostalgic 80's sci-fi cheese, the kind of low-budget Star Wars/Mad Max ripoff that's not at all far off from the fake movie being thrown together as a CIA smokescreen in Argo.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 34339
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
GROUNDHOG DAY
8/10
It has been a few years since I sat through all of this film, which has become something of an (overpraised) hailed film classic in some quarters since its original release. I picked up the 4K disc from Best Buy and gave it a look last night -- both Joanne and I felt it was not quite as great as either of us remember. Yes, Murray is terrific. Yes, there are some wonderful supporting performances (Stephen Tobolowsky) and the script manages several clever touches. Still, I'm not sure the film is as brilliant as it thinks it is, and what's more, it's not that funny -- I think a lot of the humor at the time of its release was praised because of Murray's persona being in something "different" than a joke machine. With that novelty having worn off in the years since, the picture is really no more than lightly humorous with a few chuckles here and there, but no real laugh out loud moments, and what's more, not a ton of chemistry between Murray and Andie MacDowell.
Also strange is how Ramis dwells on the 6:01 clock at the end, as if the minute advancing means time hasn't frozen -- the problem isn't that time has frozen at 6am, it's that the 24 hour cycle doesn't advance for Bill (there's been a 6:01 for him on the same day for many days! lol). George Fenton's score seems to aim for an Elmer-like approach and has a few nice passages, and I liked the Delbert McClinton "Weatherman" track he and Ramis wrote for the film. Overall I liked it -- but it's kind of a quasi-Christmas Carol fantasy that isn't as rapturous as its fans thinks it is (and I admit I always liked it more on prior views than here). It just didn't hold up for me as well as its reputation suggests.
The real big surprise for me on this viewing? MICHAEL SHANNON is in this film! Somehow I managed to either never hear that fact, or forget it totally, but I knew it was him...lol
8/10
It has been a few years since I sat through all of this film, which has become something of an (overpraised) hailed film classic in some quarters since its original release. I picked up the 4K disc from Best Buy and gave it a look last night -- both Joanne and I felt it was not quite as great as either of us remember. Yes, Murray is terrific. Yes, there are some wonderful supporting performances (Stephen Tobolowsky) and the script manages several clever touches. Still, I'm not sure the film is as brilliant as it thinks it is, and what's more, it's not that funny -- I think a lot of the humor at the time of its release was praised because of Murray's persona being in something "different" than a joke machine. With that novelty having worn off in the years since, the picture is really no more than lightly humorous with a few chuckles here and there, but no real laugh out loud moments, and what's more, not a ton of chemistry between Murray and Andie MacDowell.
Also strange is how Ramis dwells on the 6:01 clock at the end, as if the minute advancing means time hasn't frozen -- the problem isn't that time has frozen at 6am, it's that the 24 hour cycle doesn't advance for Bill (there's been a 6:01 for him on the same day for many days! lol). George Fenton's score seems to aim for an Elmer-like approach and has a few nice passages, and I liked the Delbert McClinton "Weatherman" track he and Ramis wrote for the film. Overall I liked it -- but it's kind of a quasi-Christmas Carol fantasy that isn't as rapturous as its fans thinks it is (and I admit I always liked it more on prior views than here). It just didn't hold up for me as well as its reputation suggests.
The real big surprise for me on this viewing? MICHAEL SHANNON is in this film! Somehow I managed to either never hear that fact, or forget it totally, but I knew it was him...lol
- Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Baby Driver (6/10)
An interest-holding two hours (with well-staged stunt work) but otherwise a generally unoriginal pastiche of Drive and The Italian Job, with a pinch of Rebel Without A Cause thrown in. Baby Driver does have some definite strengths -- excellent performances from the entire cast, and some emotionally touching elements, like the romance which buds between the protagonist and a young waitress, as well as his relationship with his deaf paraplegic step-father (and the latter actually does not come off as contrived).
But otherwise it is typically formulaic action fair -- car chases, lots of shooting and blood squibs splattering everywhere, and a climax which lasts too long and goes overboard with pyrotechnics. Definitely better than Hot Fuzz though (at least Baby Driver didn't put me to sleep).
An interest-holding two hours (with well-staged stunt work) but otherwise a generally unoriginal pastiche of Drive and The Italian Job, with a pinch of Rebel Without A Cause thrown in. Baby Driver does have some definite strengths -- excellent performances from the entire cast, and some emotionally touching elements, like the romance which buds between the protagonist and a young waitress, as well as his relationship with his deaf paraplegic step-father (and the latter actually does not come off as contrived).
But otherwise it is typically formulaic action fair -- car chases, lots of shooting and blood squibs splattering everywhere, and a climax which lasts too long and goes overboard with pyrotechnics. Definitely better than Hot Fuzz though (at least Baby Driver didn't put me to sleep).
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 34339
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
THE WILBY CONSPIRACY
7/10
![Image](http://img.moviepostershop.com/the-wilby-conspiracy-movie-poster-1975-1010710046.jpg)
Not a title that rolls off the tongue – or is well remembered (if at all) in the filmographies of stars Sidney Poitier and Michael Caine – Kino Lorber dusts off the 1975 UA release “The Wilby Conspiracy” this month for Blu-Ray. It’s a welcome presentation at that, for even though this somewhat perfunctory adventure-thriller is a bit too “by the book” for its own good, the cast and flavorful locations make it a worthwhile view.
Reuniting with his “Lilies of the Field” director, Ralph Nelson, Poitier here plays a South African political activist, just released from prison, when he’s thrown on the run along with his lawyer’s boyfriend (Caine), an engineer who hopes Poitier’s connections in Johannesburg can get them out of the country. A dogged detective (Nicol Williamson) is on their trail, but there’s something else involved in Poitier’s escape plans which Caine soon becomes keenly aware of.
Scripted by Rod Amateau (who’s also credited with directing “Action Scenes”) and Harold Nebenzal, “The Wilby Conspiracy” is pretty much a strict pursuit thriller that doesn’t always make great use of its leading men’s abilities. That said, Caine still looks engaged while Poitier delivers his usual intensity as the duo escape through South Africa – actually Kenya, which is photographed quite vividly here by Nelson and his director of photography, John Coquillon, who worked on a number of later Peckinpah films. The cast is also fascinating, with Rutger Hauer and Persis Khambatta appearing in very early roles, making for a movie that’s more satisfying as a travelogue, and opportunity to watch the cast in-action, than it is a “contemporary thriller with a social statement.”
Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray debuts “The Wilby Conspiracy” on Blu-Ray in an MGM-licensed 1080p (1.66) transfer with DTS MA mono audio. Stanley Myers’ sporadic score is passable when called upon, though this being a “70s film,” the end credits unspool in dead silence. The trailer is the disc’s sole extra.
7/10
![Image](http://img.moviepostershop.com/the-wilby-conspiracy-movie-poster-1975-1010710046.jpg)
Not a title that rolls off the tongue – or is well remembered (if at all) in the filmographies of stars Sidney Poitier and Michael Caine – Kino Lorber dusts off the 1975 UA release “The Wilby Conspiracy” this month for Blu-Ray. It’s a welcome presentation at that, for even though this somewhat perfunctory adventure-thriller is a bit too “by the book” for its own good, the cast and flavorful locations make it a worthwhile view.
Reuniting with his “Lilies of the Field” director, Ralph Nelson, Poitier here plays a South African political activist, just released from prison, when he’s thrown on the run along with his lawyer’s boyfriend (Caine), an engineer who hopes Poitier’s connections in Johannesburg can get them out of the country. A dogged detective (Nicol Williamson) is on their trail, but there’s something else involved in Poitier’s escape plans which Caine soon becomes keenly aware of.
Scripted by Rod Amateau (who’s also credited with directing “Action Scenes”) and Harold Nebenzal, “The Wilby Conspiracy” is pretty much a strict pursuit thriller that doesn’t always make great use of its leading men’s abilities. That said, Caine still looks engaged while Poitier delivers his usual intensity as the duo escape through South Africa – actually Kenya, which is photographed quite vividly here by Nelson and his director of photography, John Coquillon, who worked on a number of later Peckinpah films. The cast is also fascinating, with Rutger Hauer and Persis Khambatta appearing in very early roles, making for a movie that’s more satisfying as a travelogue, and opportunity to watch the cast in-action, than it is a “contemporary thriller with a social statement.”
Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray debuts “The Wilby Conspiracy” on Blu-Ray in an MGM-licensed 1080p (1.66) transfer with DTS MA mono audio. Stanley Myers’ sporadic score is passable when called upon, though this being a “70s film,” the end credits unspool in dead silence. The trailer is the disc’s sole extra.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA
7.5/10
I’ve decided to take a break from Netflix and Hulu and get caught up on some of my unwatched DVDs and blu-rays. I broke up my viewing of Nicholas and Alexandra into three one-hour chunks. (It’s hard to watch three-hour movies on a school night.) I don’t know a whole lot about the Russian Revolution so can’t comment on the historical accuracy of the movie, but as a piece of cinema I really enjoyed it. Yes, it’s long and talky at times but the performances are great and the movie is well made. The score was very good too.
I was going to ask why Goldsmith didn’t score this, but I did a quick search on the Aisle Seat archives and saw a post from Paul who said the film’s producer wanted to hire Bennett.
7.5/10
I’ve decided to take a break from Netflix and Hulu and get caught up on some of my unwatched DVDs and blu-rays. I broke up my viewing of Nicholas and Alexandra into three one-hour chunks. (It’s hard to watch three-hour movies on a school night.) I don’t know a whole lot about the Russian Revolution so can’t comment on the historical accuracy of the movie, but as a piece of cinema I really enjoyed it. Yes, it’s long and talky at times but the performances are great and the movie is well made. The score was very good too.
I was going to ask why Goldsmith didn’t score this, but I did a quick search on the Aisle Seat archives and saw a post from Paul who said the film’s producer wanted to hire Bennett.
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 34339
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
TOM JONES
8/10
![Image](http://www.impawards.com/1963/posters/tom_jones.jpg)
A movie that’s often cited as being both boldly influential as well as dated and overpraised, Tony Richardson’s TOM JONES is a picture that’s hard to classify. Is it a legitimate classic that served as a springboard to a renaissance of British cinema during the 1960s – or is it a silly, overlong confection that holds more relevance to its era than it does today? Criterion’s painstakingly restored Blu-Ray conveys that it’s a little bit of both, though its legitimacy is certainly enhanced by a transfer that does this Best Picture Oscar winner justice on home video at last.
Freewheeling and unquestionably entertaining, “Tom Jones” undoubtedly broke the mold for its genre, spinning a dizzying adaptation of Henry Fielding’s novel about a foundling (Albert Finney) who can’t quite seem to connect with his true yearning, the lovely Sophie Western (Susannah York). After being thrown out by his surrogate father, the Squire Allworthy (George Divine), Tom Jones’ misadventures take him across the picaresque English countryside and into mostly comic confrontations with an assortment of colorful characters.
Richardson’s direction was unique for its time, embracing silent film homages and fourth-wall breaking nods to the audience – as well as a bawdy tone that may have been risqué for its era but seems as benign as an episode of Benny Hill does today. In fact, it may be difficult for contemporary viewers to understand what’s so special about “Tom Jones,” requiring the audience to take a trip back in time to the early ‘60s and compare the film with other, more stately and restrained costume dramas from that period. Viewers had seldom seen a cinematic world so realistically depicted and also vibrantly alive in terms of its filmmaking – the much-celebrated sequence in which Tom and Mrs. Walters wolf down a tavern meal is both overtly sexual and hilariously funny at the same time, and Richardson maneuvers his way through the material with a similarly freewheeling approach throughout.
There is, admittedly, a certain one-note component to the film that makes it hard to completely embrace, while dramatically, the picture doesn’t amount to much of anything. Once you get past Richardson’s approach, “Tom Jones” is a fairly superficial piece as far as character development and emotional investment goes. What it is, though, is a film that’s enjoyable for its cinematic inventiveness, enthusiastic spirit, and its performances – Finney doesn’t have to do much but wink and look dashing, but he does it so well it kickstarted his career, while York and both British veterans and newcomers (David Warner, Julian Glover) alike provide ample support. It’s all graced by Walter Lassally’s naturalistic cinematography and John Addison’s energetic score.
Long awaited by fans, “Tom Jones” has been fully restored in Criterion’s new double-disc Blu-Ray release. With the rights to the film licensed through Richardson’s Woodfall Films, Criterion scoured a number of sources to produce a 4K restored transfer that’s absolutely stunning compared to past home video releases. The lush greens and rolling hillsides boast a texture and vividness absent from any release of the film I’ve seen over the years – that especially includes dim looking transfers both HBO (laserdisc) and MGM (DVD) produced in the past. Watching the film in this Criterion transfer (1.66) enables those of us who never saw the film theatrically to savor its visual design in a way never before possible, and it immeasurably enhances the picture as a result. The transfer also has a bountiful amount of film grain present, with only some sections marred by less than pristine source elements (as Criterion noted, a myriad of sources had to be used to reconstruct the film, followed by extensive work in matching those disparate elements together).
Both the original, Oscar-winning 128-minute theatrical cut of “Tom Jones” as well as Richardson’s 121-minute Director’s Cut are included on their own Blu-Ray platters – the latter of which was widely dismissed by both critics and fans, as it attempted to improve the film’s pacing while tossing out some comedic asides. That 1989 re-issue also included a new stereo soundtrack that was intended to enhance the film’s overall sound design – but between Criterion’s restoration of the theatrical mono audio and the 1989 track’s inherently hollow-sounding music “rechanneling,” whatever advantage it may have once held over the original mono has basically been negated here.
Criterion’s supplements are split between the two discs. New interviews are included with Walter Lassally in a pair of conversations, one of which was conducted prior to his death last year. Another talk features editor Robert Lambert discussing his work on Richardson’s controversial 1989 edit, while there are also conversations with historian Duncan Petrie on the film’s place in British cinema and Vanessa Redgrave discussing her marriage to Richardson. Archival pieces include an audio interview with Addison, and a brief Dick Cavett Show excerpt featuring Finney.
8/10
![Image](http://www.impawards.com/1963/posters/tom_jones.jpg)
A movie that’s often cited as being both boldly influential as well as dated and overpraised, Tony Richardson’s TOM JONES is a picture that’s hard to classify. Is it a legitimate classic that served as a springboard to a renaissance of British cinema during the 1960s – or is it a silly, overlong confection that holds more relevance to its era than it does today? Criterion’s painstakingly restored Blu-Ray conveys that it’s a little bit of both, though its legitimacy is certainly enhanced by a transfer that does this Best Picture Oscar winner justice on home video at last.
Freewheeling and unquestionably entertaining, “Tom Jones” undoubtedly broke the mold for its genre, spinning a dizzying adaptation of Henry Fielding’s novel about a foundling (Albert Finney) who can’t quite seem to connect with his true yearning, the lovely Sophie Western (Susannah York). After being thrown out by his surrogate father, the Squire Allworthy (George Divine), Tom Jones’ misadventures take him across the picaresque English countryside and into mostly comic confrontations with an assortment of colorful characters.
Richardson’s direction was unique for its time, embracing silent film homages and fourth-wall breaking nods to the audience – as well as a bawdy tone that may have been risqué for its era but seems as benign as an episode of Benny Hill does today. In fact, it may be difficult for contemporary viewers to understand what’s so special about “Tom Jones,” requiring the audience to take a trip back in time to the early ‘60s and compare the film with other, more stately and restrained costume dramas from that period. Viewers had seldom seen a cinematic world so realistically depicted and also vibrantly alive in terms of its filmmaking – the much-celebrated sequence in which Tom and Mrs. Walters wolf down a tavern meal is both overtly sexual and hilariously funny at the same time, and Richardson maneuvers his way through the material with a similarly freewheeling approach throughout.
There is, admittedly, a certain one-note component to the film that makes it hard to completely embrace, while dramatically, the picture doesn’t amount to much of anything. Once you get past Richardson’s approach, “Tom Jones” is a fairly superficial piece as far as character development and emotional investment goes. What it is, though, is a film that’s enjoyable for its cinematic inventiveness, enthusiastic spirit, and its performances – Finney doesn’t have to do much but wink and look dashing, but he does it so well it kickstarted his career, while York and both British veterans and newcomers (David Warner, Julian Glover) alike provide ample support. It’s all graced by Walter Lassally’s naturalistic cinematography and John Addison’s energetic score.
Long awaited by fans, “Tom Jones” has been fully restored in Criterion’s new double-disc Blu-Ray release. With the rights to the film licensed through Richardson’s Woodfall Films, Criterion scoured a number of sources to produce a 4K restored transfer that’s absolutely stunning compared to past home video releases. The lush greens and rolling hillsides boast a texture and vividness absent from any release of the film I’ve seen over the years – that especially includes dim looking transfers both HBO (laserdisc) and MGM (DVD) produced in the past. Watching the film in this Criterion transfer (1.66) enables those of us who never saw the film theatrically to savor its visual design in a way never before possible, and it immeasurably enhances the picture as a result. The transfer also has a bountiful amount of film grain present, with only some sections marred by less than pristine source elements (as Criterion noted, a myriad of sources had to be used to reconstruct the film, followed by extensive work in matching those disparate elements together).
Both the original, Oscar-winning 128-minute theatrical cut of “Tom Jones” as well as Richardson’s 121-minute Director’s Cut are included on their own Blu-Ray platters – the latter of which was widely dismissed by both critics and fans, as it attempted to improve the film’s pacing while tossing out some comedic asides. That 1989 re-issue also included a new stereo soundtrack that was intended to enhance the film’s overall sound design – but between Criterion’s restoration of the theatrical mono audio and the 1989 track’s inherently hollow-sounding music “rechanneling,” whatever advantage it may have once held over the original mono has basically been negated here.
Criterion’s supplements are split between the two discs. New interviews are included with Walter Lassally in a pair of conversations, one of which was conducted prior to his death last year. Another talk features editor Robert Lambert discussing his work on Richardson’s controversial 1989 edit, while there are also conversations with historian Duncan Petrie on the film’s place in British cinema and Vanessa Redgrave discussing her marriage to Richardson. Archival pieces include an audio interview with Addison, and a brief Dick Cavett Show excerpt featuring Finney.
- Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Nicholas & Alexandra is a favorite film of mine, and is (for me) a worthy companion piece to Doctor Zhivago. I've actually long-suspected that Sam Spiegel produced this picture because he was annoyed David Lean made Zhivago with a different producer, and wanted to prove he could make as great a Russian epic without Lean. Significantly, three of N&A's key production team were veterans of Lean's films -- production designer John Box, cinematographer Freddie Young and prop master Eddie Fowley.
From what I understand this film was stringently researched and strove for the utmost accuracy. In some instances, dialog exchanges are even drawn from actual transcripts (albeit translated into English).
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Fri Dec 22, 2023 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 34339
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
DARKEST HOUR
7/10
I’m not sure if Gary Oldman is going to win the Best Actor Oscar but he certainly deserves it for his portrayal of Winston Churchill in Joe Wright’s “Darkest Hour.” This somewhat predictably-drawn story relays how Churchill took over for Neville Chamberlain while dealing with the evacuation of Dunkirk and the “War Cabinet Crisis” which also involved Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane), the ailing Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn).
“Darkest Hour” isn’t a biopic, providing instead the political context for a narrow window of time, and also filling in the backdrop of Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk” picture in an oddly complimentary bit of filmmaking. Both Wright and writer Anthony McCarten also adhere to an increasingly formula “history biopic” blueprint as seen in “The King’s Speech” and elsewhere – opening up with a standard, lightly comic first half-hour where Churchill’s eccentric personality is on full display (putting heavy doubt into viewers’ minds about his competence) before moving into headier historical territory. When that time comes, Oldman takes full command and manages to outshine a few unbelievable sequences that come off as contrived, such as when Churchill rides the Underground and tears up after talking to the “common folk” about guiding England’s future against the Nazi threat. Scenes like that keep “Darkest Hour” from being a great movie, but as flawed as it occasionally is, the picture does boast a truly commendable performance from Oldman that’s well worth seeing.
Universal’s combo pack is out February 27th featuring a very strong 1080p (1.85) Blu-Ray transfer with Dolby Atmos audio (alas, Dario Marinelli's score isn't one of his best). Extras include two featurettes and a commentary from Wright, plus a Digital HD copy and DVD.
7/10
I’m not sure if Gary Oldman is going to win the Best Actor Oscar but he certainly deserves it for his portrayal of Winston Churchill in Joe Wright’s “Darkest Hour.” This somewhat predictably-drawn story relays how Churchill took over for Neville Chamberlain while dealing with the evacuation of Dunkirk and the “War Cabinet Crisis” which also involved Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane), the ailing Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn).
“Darkest Hour” isn’t a biopic, providing instead the political context for a narrow window of time, and also filling in the backdrop of Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk” picture in an oddly complimentary bit of filmmaking. Both Wright and writer Anthony McCarten also adhere to an increasingly formula “history biopic” blueprint as seen in “The King’s Speech” and elsewhere – opening up with a standard, lightly comic first half-hour where Churchill’s eccentric personality is on full display (putting heavy doubt into viewers’ minds about his competence) before moving into headier historical territory. When that time comes, Oldman takes full command and manages to outshine a few unbelievable sequences that come off as contrived, such as when Churchill rides the Underground and tears up after talking to the “common folk” about guiding England’s future against the Nazi threat. Scenes like that keep “Darkest Hour” from being a great movie, but as flawed as it occasionally is, the picture does boast a truly commendable performance from Oldman that’s well worth seeing.
Universal’s combo pack is out February 27th featuring a very strong 1080p (1.85) Blu-Ray transfer with Dolby Atmos audio (alas, Dario Marinelli's score isn't one of his best). Extras include two featurettes and a commentary from Wright, plus a Digital HD copy and DVD.
-
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
That was the eye-roll moment of the movie for me where I could tell this was a scene constructed to suit the consciences of PC Hollywood groupthink. Make sure Churchill meets an oh-so-perfect ethnic balance etc. that knows more etc. But as one review I went through noted, if Churchill had REALLY gone on an Underground he might have been more inclined to run into people anxious to settle.AndyDursin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:31 pm When that time comes, Oldman takes full command and manages to outshine a few unbelievable sequences that come off as contrived, such as when Churchill rides the Underground and tears up after talking to the “common folk” about guiding England’s future against the Nazi threat. Scenes like that keep “Darkest Hour” from being a great movie,
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Three quick notes:
-Re Tom Jones, there is some dispute about whether the transfer on the new Criterion release is accurate to the film that won the Oscar. In addition to the picture quality not having been conformed to an actual print with the accurate colors, there is also an issue about the Criterion version unfortunately missing a small amount of footage. For those of us who have never seen the film, or at least never seen the film in a theater, this will probably not make a dent in our interest in picking it up. (I'm getting it anyway, as the more ideal version is unlikely to come now.) But for Criterion fans, and fans of accuracy in these restorations in general, this is an unfortunate bit of information that should not be forgotten. It could easily have been rectified over a year ago, but a decision was clearly made not to do so.
-Re Darkest Hour, as I noted in the Oscars thread, Gary Oldman is pretty much a lock to win Best Actor. Unless something truly bizarre occurs, there's simply nobody else in that category anywhere near him. They're not going to give it to Timothee Chalomet, Denzel Washington or Daniel Kaluuya, none of whom gave performances anywhere near Oldman's range. (Kaluuya's nomination is particularly strange here, frankly. Neither his performance nor that film were all that spectacular - it was simply a clever, low-budget quickie horror comedy - nothing more.) I suppose some voters could decide to throw yet another Oscar to Daniel Day Lewis for what he says is his final performance ever, but I strongly doubt that will occur. Partly because Lewis has already won multiple times for more interesting roles, partly because I don't think anyone actually believes Lewis is permanently retiring, and mostly because Oldman has simply dominated this field. The movie is clearly designed to promote that performance, complete with the blackout entrance for the character. And Oldman really does give a good performance here - he only goes Full Oldman a couple of times. Sadly, one of those times is in the delivering of the famous Churchill speech at the film's close, where his reading of the speech goes a bit over the top, to the point that we stop seeing Churchill as a character and suddenly see Oldman going wild for a moment. The commentary from Joe Wright on the Blu-ray is quite good (he's one of the best DVD commentary providers out there, and he's quietly racked up a bunch of them on his movies) - he discusses the fun moment you can find online where he had the whole parliament singing "Hey Jude" for Oldman's entrance for the final scene.
-Finally, thanks for the nice thoughts on your column about My Cousin Rachel. One of my grandfather's best movies. I picked up the earlier DVD of it from Twilight Time about 7 years ago, and will now upgrade to the Blu-ray.
-Re Tom Jones, there is some dispute about whether the transfer on the new Criterion release is accurate to the film that won the Oscar. In addition to the picture quality not having been conformed to an actual print with the accurate colors, there is also an issue about the Criterion version unfortunately missing a small amount of footage. For those of us who have never seen the film, or at least never seen the film in a theater, this will probably not make a dent in our interest in picking it up. (I'm getting it anyway, as the more ideal version is unlikely to come now.) But for Criterion fans, and fans of accuracy in these restorations in general, this is an unfortunate bit of information that should not be forgotten. It could easily have been rectified over a year ago, but a decision was clearly made not to do so.
-Re Darkest Hour, as I noted in the Oscars thread, Gary Oldman is pretty much a lock to win Best Actor. Unless something truly bizarre occurs, there's simply nobody else in that category anywhere near him. They're not going to give it to Timothee Chalomet, Denzel Washington or Daniel Kaluuya, none of whom gave performances anywhere near Oldman's range. (Kaluuya's nomination is particularly strange here, frankly. Neither his performance nor that film were all that spectacular - it was simply a clever, low-budget quickie horror comedy - nothing more.) I suppose some voters could decide to throw yet another Oscar to Daniel Day Lewis for what he says is his final performance ever, but I strongly doubt that will occur. Partly because Lewis has already won multiple times for more interesting roles, partly because I don't think anyone actually believes Lewis is permanently retiring, and mostly because Oldman has simply dominated this field. The movie is clearly designed to promote that performance, complete with the blackout entrance for the character. And Oldman really does give a good performance here - he only goes Full Oldman a couple of times. Sadly, one of those times is in the delivering of the famous Churchill speech at the film's close, where his reading of the speech goes a bit over the top, to the point that we stop seeing Churchill as a character and suddenly see Oldman going wild for a moment. The commentary from Joe Wright on the Blu-ray is quite good (he's one of the best DVD commentary providers out there, and he's quietly racked up a bunch of them on his movies) - he discusses the fun moment you can find online where he had the whole parliament singing "Hey Jude" for Oldman's entrance for the final scene.
-Finally, thanks for the nice thoughts on your column about My Cousin Rachel. One of my grandfather's best movies. I picked up the earlier DVD of it from Twilight Time about 7 years ago, and will now upgrade to the Blu-ray.
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 34339
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
You got it Kevin, you're quite welcome!
I wasn't aware something was missing from TOM JONES. The DP also signed off on the transfer so I took their word the colors were accurate .At this stage you either compare it to the past video releases or someone's very hazy memories about seeing it in the early/mid 1960s which would not be reliable. Is this "insider info" or is there a discussion of it somewhere?
Either way, it's a good movie but one that more or less belongs to its era.
I wasn't aware something was missing from TOM JONES. The DP also signed off on the transfer so I took their word the colors were accurate .At this stage you either compare it to the past video releases or someone's very hazy memories about seeing it in the early/mid 1960s which would not be reliable. Is this "insider info" or is there a discussion of it somewhere?
Either way, it's a good movie but one that more or less belongs to its era.
- Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Tom Jones is one of my all-time favorites. I suppose I am biased, being a hopeless Anglophile and having a keen interest in the 18th century to begin with. However, Richardson's film is so inventive, and irresistibly effervescent. The movie's entire style must have seemed quite radical at the time, but even nearly 60 (!) years on, it retains a freshness and vibrance. I will admit Tom Jones does in places come across as a series of vignettes rather than an extended narrative arc, and while the script effectively ties those elements together, the third act (where Tom attracts the attention of a well-heeled London socialite) almost feels almost like a separate story. But to me this is a minor nitpick.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
But in all seriousness, while it is a product of its time, I'd say Tom Jones was still far-reaching in its influence, spawning the "period romp" genre, and inspiring a slew of imitations throughout the 60s (Where's Jack, Sinful Davey, Moll Flanders, etc.). Even Richardson himself would attempt to recapture the "Tom Jones magic" by adapting Fielding's "Joseph Andrews" in 1977 (with less than stellar results).
Tom Jones' irreverence and bawdiness was certainly an influence on Richard Lester's Musketeers movies, and even Amadeus bears traces of its style.
On balance I prefer a movie that belongs to 1962 to one that belongs to 2017!AndyDursin wrote: Either way, it's a good movie but one that more or less belongs to its era.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
But in all seriousness, while it is a product of its time, I'd say Tom Jones was still far-reaching in its influence, spawning the "period romp" genre, and inspiring a slew of imitations throughout the 60s (Where's Jack, Sinful Davey, Moll Flanders, etc.). Even Richardson himself would attempt to recapture the "Tom Jones magic" by adapting Fielding's "Joseph Andrews" in 1977 (with less than stellar results).
Tom Jones' irreverence and bawdiness was certainly an influence on Richard Lester's Musketeers movies, and even Amadeus bears traces of its style.