rate the last movie you saw

[Monterey Jack]

Yeah, Ambulance is Bay's best - and only good - film since 13 Hours. It has a twinge of his usual excesses (camera shots jittery and cut too fast, some moderately goofy comic bits), but I loved the usage of drone shots (if only the shots weren't cut so fast...! ), and it was kind of remarkable that an attractive female lead like the charismatic Gonzalez wasn't grossly fetishized like most women in Bay's ouvre. It would have also worked better if it were about 20 minutes shorter. One of the more pleasant surprises of the year, so of course it tanked in theaters, because it wasn't a "recognizable IP".

[Paul MacLean]

Top Gun: Maverick (8.5/10)

A movie whose praise -- and popularity -- is rightly earned. More impressive than the original, this sequel boasts a superior screenplay, with a more engaging story and better character development. Although nearly 60 years of age, Tom Cruise has lost none of his charisma, and clearly gave his all in both performance and maintenance of his physique. Kudos also to the filmmakers for casting 50-something Jennifer Connelly as Maverick's love interest instead of some 28-year-old. Also nice to see Val Kilmer, whose cameo is bittersweet and one of the film's most touching moments.

Admittedly, the attempt to replicate the arresting visual style of the original movie (with its almost expressionistic photography and use of filters, locations and set decoration), falls a bit short. It's just not as good-looking as the 1986 movie (then again, Tony Scott's visual faculty was unique -- and one only matched by his older brother). Hans Zimmer's score is satisfactory, and surprisingly the use of Harold Faltermeyer's themes and cues from the first film does not feel at all anachronistic.

Admittedly, the final twenty minutes are a bit far-fetched -- but they also take the movie in an unexpected direction. All said and done, Top Gun: Maverick proves one of the most entertaining and immersive cinema experiences I've had in some time. The scope of this movie is a reminder why the "big screen experience" is something worth preserving -- and for me that is saying a lot, as these days I generally find going to the movies to be a huge inconvenience.

This movie has also given me a bit of a kick in the pants about improving my physique. If Cruise can look this good at 60, I have no excuse!

[jkholm]

Elvis
7/10

Take the cinematic styles of Oliver Stone (different film stocks), Quentin Tarantino (retro techniques) and Robert Altman (overlapping dialogue), throw them into a blender, play at double speed (and occasionally half-speed) and you’ll be close to describing what it’s like to watch Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis. To say this movie is overstuffed is an understatement. There are times when not only are there multiple images on screen at the same time, whether through split screens, montage and other devices, but there are also scenes with multiple audio tracks playing at the same time. It’s off-putting at first but eventually Luhrmann settles into a more or less conventional biopic. The recreations of Elvis’s many live performances are exhilarating, especially the scenes set in Las Vegas. My parents once went to an Elvis concert and I envy them now. But here’s the paradox at the heart of Elvis. All those crazy edits and barrages of sound can be overwhelming and you want them to stop, but when the movie does slow down, it becomes tedious. Still, Austin Butler does a great job as Elvis. As far as Tom Hanks’ performance of Colonel Parker goes, I thought it was fine. I know next to nothing about the Colonel so I assume the accent and weird mannerisms are an accurate representation of the real man.

[Paul MacLean]

The Northman (5/10)

A generally unremarkable Hamlet adaptation, whose main problem is that it is basically a shallow exploitation film, directed by someone convinced he is making an art film. It's a pretty good-looking movie (well-shot, nice art direction and costumes), but on the other hand its visual style is not very original -- the early scenes look like the first half hour of Gladiator (blue-tinted winter scenes full of wispy fake snow) and CGI effects that look like those of every other movie. The big climactic sword fight, set in a volcano, looks just like the fight between Anakin and Obi Wan in Revenge of the Sith. Overall The Northman has the style and feel of an episode of Vikings -- only cheaper-looking. Outside of that, the "protagonist" is a bloodthirsty brigand with no redeeming qualities to differentiate him from the villains. And finally here's just too much bloodletting and not enough dramatic tension.

It was a lot better than The Lighthouse though, I'll give it that.

[AndyDursin]

That was basically my reaction Paul. Very simplistic drama.

Quick thoughts on several things I've watched this week:

THE BROWNING VERSION (1951) 7/10
THE BROWNING VERSION (1994) 4/10

This isn't exactly "Goodbye Mr. Chips" despite hailing from the same author, Terence Rattigan.

The 1951 version stays reportedly close to its source play and works because of Michael Redgrave's devastating performance as a timid school teacher, forced into resigning from his current post due to his health -- but really pushed into it by his shrewish wife, who's having an affair with one of Redgrave's younger colleagues. The movie is straightforward and packs a strong emotional current, though its relentlessly downbeat nature makes it difficult to get through at times.

Still, its conclusion ironically manages to be more moving and upbeat than the misguided 1994 remake from director Mike Figgis and producer Ridley Scott. This contemporary version manages to bungle the entire point of the material by softening both of its leads: the wife, played by Greta Scacchi, is not nearly as wretched; the school teacher himself, a cast-against-type turn from Albert Finney, is reserved but somehow less pathetic. Figgis opens up the material for widescreen as well and lays on a positively dreadful score by Mark Isham -- all of which dilute the material and, combined with the story alterations, render it nearly pointless. Even a worthless, single "f bomb" looks to have been added to simply get the film an 'edgy' R rating, when in fact the movie is a toothless reworking of its predecessor.

Imprint's Limited Edition includes both versions of the film. The most interesting supplement is an interview with Mark Isham where he divulges he had to score the movie TWICE -- once for Figgis (whose own score was thrown out), and again for Ridley Scott. Scott was apparently a "hands on" producer and wanted to direct the movie himself. Isham says Scott would give him directions for the score directly opposed to what Figgis wanted, resulting in the composer having to score every scene once "for Figgis" and another "for Ridley". The friction between the producer and director -- which undoubtedly resulted in the film being a misfire as well -- only lessened once Scott departed to make another film. At that point, Figgis got what he wanted -- which is a morose, heavy-handed score that plays in direct opposition to the 1951 picture, which doesn't even have one! (just classical music for the opening and closing credits).

THE PAPER CHASE
8/10

I enjoyed watching this film again in Signal One's region free UK Blu-Ray -- James Bridges' film captures time and place beautifully, even if much of the picture was shot in Toronto and not Harvard itself. Gordon Willis' cinematography in widescreen is outstanding, and both Timothy Bottoms and Lindsay Wagner are superb in the movie, as is, obviously, John Houseman in his Oscar winning turn as the cranky/brilliant law professor Kingsfield.

My only complaint is that the film comes off as ultimately superficial: the picture has that "we've got to get everything in under 2 hours" feel that results in an ending that's not particularly earned...while many supporting characters are given short shrift or fail to register at all. In other words, the film ends not because the story feels finished, but because the filmmakers/studio felt "it's time". The ensuing TV series was able to craft a more developed storyline than the feature, even if it lacks the expert technical skill the movie has going for it which lends itself to repeat viewing.

[Eric Paddon]

THE PAPER CHASE
8/10

I enjoyed watching this film again in Signal One's region free UK Blu-Ray -- James Bridges' film captures time and place beautifully, even if much of the picture was shot in Toronto and not Harvard itself. Gordon Willis' cinematography in widescreen is outstanding, and both Timothy Bottoms and Lindsay Wagner are superb in the movie, as is, obviously, John Houseman in his Oscar winning turn as the cranky/brilliant law professor Kingsfield.

My only complaint is that the film comes off as ultimately superficial: the picture has that "we've got to get everything in under 2 hours" feel that results in an ending that's not particularly earned...while many supporting characters are given short shrift or fail to register at all. In other words, the film ends not because the story feels finished, but because the filmmakers/studio felt "it's time". The ensuing TV series was able to craft a more developed storyline than the feature, even if it lacks the expert technical skill the movie has going for it which lends itself to repeat viewing.

The ending is the same as the book. And it too has that sort of rushed, ambiguous quality that wasn't particularly satisfying to me (though a lot of the book was toned down in terms of sex and language). In the end it worked much better as a TV series and it was interesting how elements from the novel and movie were spread out over a large number of episodes (they even remade the movie's basic plot by having Kingsfield's daughter show up in one episode and Hart getting involved with her though of course not to the same degree as the film since they had to part company at episode's end and naturally she was never referenced again).

[AndyDursin]

The ending is the same as the book. And it too has that sort of rushed, ambiguous quality that wasn't particularly satisfying to me (though a lot of the book was toned down in terms of sex and language). In the end it worked much better as a TV series and it was interesting how elements from the novel and movie were spread out over a large number of episodes (they even remade the movie's basic plot by having Kingsfield's daughter show up in one episode and Hart getting involved with her though of course not to the same degree as the film since they had to part company at episode's end and naturally she was never referenced again).

I've never watched the series all the way but read good things about it even as it wrapped up years later. I know Shout's discs are compromised by some edits and average transfers because Fox didn't care about it, but I mean to pick the whole thing up and watch it sometime.

[Eric Paddon]

Hangar 18 (1980) 3.5 of 10

=I remember seeing this in its theatrical release. Sunn Classic Films, at the time known for their somewhat dubious feature length documentaries about the Bermuda Triangle and Noah's Ark (but I admit, I ate them up at the time as a kid) marketed this film in its trailers like it was some kind of documentary expose on UFO cover-ups by the government. I went to it not expecting a conventional film etc. I remember my mother being mad at the end because the story of how the alien spacecraft being covered up is really from the "missing link" race that spawned humanity (basically we're getting the Von Daniken message in a more obnoxious way in contrast to how it underlies "Battlestar Galactica" unobtrusively) was a total affront to our family religious perspective.

=Olive put this low-budget film out on Blu-Ray. The packaging says there's a commentary by the director and story writer but none is to be found. At any rate, it has a cast comprised entirely of TV veterans, some who fare good (Darren McGavin) and then we have the problem of our two leads, Gary Collins (who after this film then realized there was more money to be made hosting a daytime talk show as he did for the next eight years) and F-Troop's James Hampton as two astronauts who see the UFO when a satellite they launch crashes into it and the explosion kills their fellow astronaut. And where the film then goes into total mindless stupidity has to do with its desire to give us Watergate style cover-up and conspiracy without any of the style or flair "Capricorn One" did just two years earlier. You see, sinister Presidential Chief of Staff Robert Vaughn (typecast in this part because of his Emmy winning role as an H.R. Haldeman clone in the miniseries "Washington Behind Closed Doors") is afraid of telling the truth about an alien spacecraft landing in the desert that's being studied because you see, his boss the President pulled ahead in the polls for mocking his opponent's belief in UFO's so ergo, the revelation about a real alien spacecraft would made the President look bad before the election! If that isn't lame enough to justify a cover-up what happens next defies all stupidity. Vaughn decides that rather than keep a tight lid by having astronauts Collins and Hampton locked away at Hangar 18 with McGavin and the scientists, instead he's going to launch a fake news campaign discrediting the two astronauts for the death of their colleague! Of course that means the two bewildered astronauts will on their own try to "find out the truth" and find themselves chased by Vaughn's underlings and you can only ask yourself how dumb can this guy be if he *really* wants to keep the lid on things, since the simplest and obvious solution was there from the start. But of course if that had been done we wouldn't have been able to have the movie padded with requisite scenes of Collins and Hampton digging to find the truth that the audience already knows replete with silly scenes of all-too-obvious baddies in suits engaging them in car chases and taking shots at them etc.

Incidentally, IMDB says that there was an "alternate ending" when the film was shown on NBC in 1983 under the title "Invasion Force." Not true. The ending was the same as the theatrical version because I remember it vividly at the time. It's just a voiceover bit by a radio announcer telling us in effect the attempt to cover-up has failed. If anyone thought there was a "downer" ending originally, they weren't listening carefully.

It's amusing to see McGavin (still wearing his Kolchak tennis shoes) getting a chance to finally expose a conspiracy. But the movie represents a lame entry in the cycle of trying to find ways to knock off Star Wars, Close Encounters etc. and appeal to that audience. That said, I suspect it did have a big influence on the people who later gave us "X-Files" etc.

[Paul MacLean]

Gary Collins (who after this film then realized there was more money to be made hosting a daytime talk show as he did for the next eight years...

I have to be honest -- I never saw a single segment of Hour Magazine. Looks like I really missed-out...

[jkholm]

The Gray Man
1.5/10

Not sure where the $200 million budget went on this stunningly bad Bourne/Bond rip-off from the Russo Brothers. Certainly not for good CGI and definitely not for the lighting crew as every single shot is poorly lit. With a standard issue plot (criminal gets out of prison if he agrees to become a CIA-trained assassin), dialogue that consists mostly of one-liners, one note characterizations and poorly filmed action scenes, this makes me wonder if the directors had help with their Marvel movies. Not that those are master classes in direction but The Gray Man is so bad you have to suspect someone at Disney (Kevin Feige, maybe?) was making sure those movies were watchable.

[AndyDursin]

It's just so depressing that -- in the midst of a creative deathrap from studios unwilling to break from regurgitated IP and brainless FX driven content that sells overseas -- there have arisen alternative entertainment sources in the form of streaming...and yet so much of THAT content is as haphazard or worse like this GRAY MAN Netflix bomb. Which cost $200 million! (Netflix's entire feature is slate is just so weak in general and has been for years).

The Russo Brothers are also one more "wunderkind" Hollywood lavishes money on who simply are not talented. Their whole rise to fame is making Marvel movies. That's pretty much the lane they need to stay in.

[Monterey Jack]

The Russo Brothers are also one more "wunderkind" Hollywood lavishes money on who simply are not talented. Their whole rise to fame is making Marvel movies. That's pretty much the lane they need to stay in.

Prior to their first MCU movie, the Russo's biggest theatrical release was You, Me & Dupree.

[AndyDursin]

LOL that's right I knew they made some crap comedy. I didn't feel like looking it up but that says it all!

[Monterey Jack]

It just proves how arbitrary the choices are when it comes to handing the keys for a major franchise over to some twee indie filmmaker. Before Jurassic World, Colin Trevorrow's only credit was the Aubrey Plaza movie Safety Not Guaranteed (never heard of it? Exactly). Before he made his trilogy of MCU Spider-Man movies? Jon Watts made Clown and Cop Car (total box office for both? Less than $3 million ). Meanwhile, before he made the original Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg had nearly TWENTY YEARS' worth of filmmaking experience, on a variety of F/X-driven blockbusters and stirring dramatic pieces. Before he made his trilogy of Spider-Man movies, Sam Raimi had a similar length of time as a filmmaker, working in genres as diverse as horror, comic-book melodrama, western and psychological thriller (and showcasing a strong, personal vision across all of them). This is probably why Edgar Wright bailed on Ant-Man...he could see that he wouldn't be allowed to make EDGAR WRIGHT's Ant-Man, so he cut ties, and better for him. I'd much rather see him make creative, original features like Baby Driver and Last Night In Soho than prostitute his talents out on a string of sequels.

[AndyDursin]

It's also telling how little it takes to direct one of these Marvel films. I mean...