rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

Did you buy the old disc or the new one? (Which came out two weeks ago)...

I have the previous release. I didn't even know it was reissued!

[Eric Paddon]

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) 8.5 of 10
=In honor of those who lost their lives on a day of infamy that is sadly being remembered less and less with each passing year, I gave this film a look for the first time in a decade. I had forgotten the Blu-Ray has an "extended" Japanese version with slightly different credits and one scene meant for comic relief for Japanese audiences involving a ship's cook who doesn't understand the concept of the International Date Line. The film still holds up incredibly well because it just gives us the events leading up in a straightforward and informative manner. But the one thing that puzzles me is the decision not to depict Franklin Roosevelt in the film, and if not depict him, then why not end the film with a recording of the "Day Of Infamy" speech? That would have been a lot more effective and a bit more palatable for US audiences I think. But it's interesting how the "Big Three" World War II movies that came out in this period, which would be this, "The Battle Of Britain" and "Patton" all have a famous individual who was part of the story and who goes undepicted. In "Tora!" it's FDR (and also one could add Emperor Hirohito). In "Battle Of Britain" Winston Churchill is not depicted. And "Patton" keeps Dwight D. Eisenhower an off-camera presence throughout the entire proceedings. I don't know if this was because the makers of these films felt that to have an actor play these respective parts might have undercut the "authenticity" since their faces and voices were more well-know back then, but long-term they do tend to mar the films just a tiny bit ("Patton" not nearly as much but definitely "Tora" and "Battle of Britain").

After I watched this, I tried, repeat TRIED to see if I could stomach "Pearl Harbor" for the first time in about 20 years. I had a cheap Blu-Ray I got a decade ago in a bargain bin at Best Buy that I had never watched. After 23 minutes I couldn't take it anymore and shut it off. Awful dialogue, awful acting.......just totally insipid on all levels. I'll never look at that one again!

[Paul MacLean]

Barbie (1/10)

I had almost zero interest in this movie, but I decided to watch it, because I wanted to know what kind of film grosses $1.442 billion at the box office.

Having sat through it (and resisted the urge to turn it off several times) I'm no closer to an answer.

The subject is a children's toy, but the humor is not child-friendly (in one scene Barbie quips "I don't have a vagina"). Instead, Barbie seems an attempt at "adult" satire, which tries to address the relationships between men and women, as well as patriarchy, feminism, etc. -- but has neither a consistent nor specific point of view. The movie is much too silly to make a serious statement about these issues, and the humor isn't clever or insightful. The opening scene spoofs the "ape man" sequence of 2001, as Barbie appears -- like the monolith -- to a coterie of little girls, who promptly shatter the heads of their baby dolls (in rebellion against the maternal instinct those dolls represent). But how many audiences today even got the reference to Kubrick's film?

Visually, Barbie looks like a cross between a Nickelodeon TV show and Aqua's "Barbie Girl" music video from the 90s -- especially near the end of the movie when things take a truly bizarre turn, and we're given an extended song and dance sequence featuring Ken. In the final five minutes, the story suddenly becomes Pinocchio, as Barbie decides she wants to be a real girl, and she leaves Barbieland for Los Angeles -- where she makes an appointment with a gynecologist. Then the credits roll.

A lot of people have pontificated in regard to this film's "message", but I don't think there really is one. I suspect director Greta Gerwig was trying to make a satire about sexism and gender, but the studio wanted a straightforward piece of fluff, resulting in a compromise that birthed this pretentious (and unfunny) two hour bore. They would have done better to dial down the sex humor and awkward "messaging", and just made it a children's movie.

My own takeaway is that it is genuinely disturbing that this turd made $1.442 billion. What kind of world has this become?

I wish I'd watched The Monster High movie instead.

[Monterey Jack]

The Sleepy Skunk is back with the latest of his marvelous, annual movie trailer mashup videos...

[AndyDursin]

BLACKHAT (2015)
5/10



2015 box-office wipeout from director Michael Mann is a curiously flat thriller about cyber-hacking, brought to 4K UHD this month by Arrow with no less than three different cuts included.

Chris Hemsworth stars as an imprisoned hacker who’s freed as part of an international investigation into the culprit behind an intentional manipulation of the global soy market – the search of which takes him and a team of Chinese associates and U.S. government agents (including Viola Davis) around the globe.

“Blackhat”’s premise is interesting but there’s no way around the fact this listless film is one of Mann’s few outright misfires, offering lots of shots of characters looking at screens while ominous music (credited to Harry Gregson-Williams and Atticus Ross) pounds away in the background. Despite the bloated running time, there’s not nearly enough dramatic meat in Morgan Davis Foehl’s script to satisfy, with limp characterizations and posturing actors struggling to connect with the material.

It’s likely no surprise, then, that Universal tried to punch up the action by moving one of the film’s few action set-pieces to the start of the film – thereby placing it in a flashback framework – but all that decision did was serve to further confuse audiences. Arrow’s 4K UHD sports a Dolby Vision HDR (2.39, 5.1 DTS MA) presentation of both the U.S. and “International” release versions plus, on a bonus Blu-Ray, the little-seen Director’s Cut first broadcast on cable outlet FX. This edit moves the story around, back to a more manageable chronological order (it also seems to have some dubbed-over profanity), but the movie’s central dramatic shortcomings naturally remain.

Extra features include a commentary by Bryan Reesman and Max Evry; a video interview with cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh; another interview with production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas; and three archival featurettes on the production.

[AndyDursin]

A couple of flicks "for the kids"...

MIGRATION
5.5/10



Wan kids movie from the Illumination crew is a "B" effort that's essentially one long chase film, wherein a family of ducks decides to fly beyond their pond to points south. They get mixed up in a series of episodic adventures, some more amusing than others, but with a minimum of character development and dramatic engagement. It's colorful and inoffensive with a minimum of licensed pop music (a nice change from Illumination), but the funniest moments are non-sequitors (a cat playing in an empty playground in the middle of the night) that adults will wish that there were more of. Overall, it was completely fine for a Christmas vacation weekday matinee that Theo enjoyed -- the adult impression was indifferent (my wife ended up taking a nap and I'll be forgetting all about it by next week at this time).

CANDY CANE LANE
6.5/10


Eddie Murphy gets tossed around in Reginald Hudlin's Christmas comic fantasy which is so overwritten it has enough ideas to support 2 or 3 movies never mind this one. The result finds a newly-fired family man trying to win a holiday decorating contest when he meets a banished elf (Jillian Bell) who ends up creating a devilish situation wherein Murphy has to net a series of rings before he becomes stuck in a holiday display with several other trapped figures.

Tim Burton might've played this one up for more gothic effect but it's played on a flat line by Hudlin along with family-oriented messages and set-pieces that are occasionally inspired. The finished product is all over the place with execution that misfires as much as it clicks, but it's hard to totally dislike "Candy Cane Lane" (an Amazon production) when at least it has some imagination. With a little more organization and editorial tightening this could've been a perennial favorite -- at some point someone needed to say "hey guys we've got enough here, let's save some plot elements for a sequel" -- but it's a not-unenjoyable holiday film in a genre packed with banality.

[Paul MacLean]

The Gauntlet (7.5/10)

Not one of Clint Eastwood's best, but a solid thriller with some satisfying action. I was never a fan of Sandra Locke, but she was Eastwood's muse for a long time and you kind of have to take her along if you want to enjoy any of Clint's work from the mid 70 to the 80s. The pair do have good chemistry however, and the film convincingly depicts their growing romance amidst this coarse, gritty "road movie".

Jerry Fielding's score provides the requisite tension when needed, but other cues (particularly the main title) are jazz tunes which don't really connect with the drama or set up the tone of the film (one almost wonders if Fielding even watched the movie before writing the score). This could have been a much better picture had Clint enlisted Jerry Goldsmith to provide something more like Capricorn One or First Blood (which this movie needed to really come alive).

[BobaMike]

Batman (1989) Live in Concert

The Warner Theater in DC had a one night only showing of Tim Burton's Batman with Danny Elfman's score performed live to picture. It was fun time, and the crowd was very excited to see the film. I walked in behind someone in full Batman costume, which had to have been uncomfortable sitting the tiny seats they have there. Warner theater was built in 1924, and is stunningly gorgeous inside, but man the seats are tiny. The film still holds up- and looked great on a big screen.

Thoughts on the concert:

I've been to many live to picture concerts (A Warner bros cartoon one, all the Star Wars films, Jaws, Casino Royale, and a few others- all played by the National Symphony Orchestra). This was the first one that was played by an un-named group, the conductor not introduced, and no mention of the composer (other than the on- screen credit). I guess with Danny Elfman's recent troubles he might be "cancelled" or whatever.
I know the Batman score well- it's been a favorite since 1989, so I knew I would notice any differences.
The orchestra played fairly well. The brass seemed to struggle at times and didn't seem loud enough- the woodwinds were very loud in comparison. The percussion was almost inaudible- I could see the guy playing the timpani but it didn't register. I don't know of i the acoustics in the theater are meant for an orchestra. On the plus, everyone hit all their marks, which is extra important with the amount of action and "mickey-mousing" in the score.

The audience did not applaud Elfman's name in the credits, but went wild at Prince's...whichwas extra funny later, during the art gallery scene, where Joker comes in with a goon playing Prince on a boombox....except maybe WB didn't pay for rights to that song, because the scene was completely silent. No music- just the grunts and SFX of the actors. Some in the audience laughed, others were upset.
During the parade scene later, they did use Prince's song. I think a lot of people expected there to be more than 2 min of Prince music.

The end credits was the real end credits, but not Prince's song. They did some more action music that I couldn't place (a new arrangement?) and then the Into the Batcave track again.

[Monterey Jack]

[Paul MacLean]

The Sound of Freedom (7.5/10)

A polarizing film, hailed by some as an important exposé of the most heinous criminal industry of all -- yet pilloried by others as right wing propaganda.

Child trafficking is among the lowest, most venal acts imaginable, so I don't understand why a film which spotlights this vile practice should be criticized as "propaganda". In fact the film is entirely apolitical (at most it offers the subtle -- and factual -- inference that trafficking is more easily-enabled by lax border security).

Controversy aside, The Sound of Freedom tells a true story, and that alone makes it credible -- and important. I believe it is worth everyone's time to see it. But as a film, I didn't find it that impressive on an artistic level. It is well-acted, and well-plotted, but one often feels it isn't as engaging as it should be, given the subject matter. It is ultimately more successful as a method for spreading awareness, rather than inherently "great cinema", and that's a bit of a shame.

[AndyDursin]

TOPAZ
4/10



Whenever anyone says "Hitchcock was incapable of making a bad movie," challenge them with this boring misfire which I decided to kick off a view of the 4K sets I've bought (but havent entirely consumed) over the last couple of years (I figured, why not start at the bottom, right?).

This misjudged, stilted waste of time offers a star-free cast and no real rooting interest as it attempts to paint a "realistic" view of espionage during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- but the shocker is how little suspense TOPAZ produces. Few set-pieces of note, lots of talk where there's no easy narrative line to follow, a pokey Maurice Jarre score (that generates some unintended laughs a few times, punctuating flatly delivered lines like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon), and a blah ending -- speaking of that, the 4K houses the "longer cut" but longer doesn't mean better. About the only thing I liked was Karin Dor who was smokin' as the French hero's mistress -- too bad she had to act opposite Dean Wormer himself, John Vernon, as a Cuban general!

Leonard Maltin's old, archival half hour attempt to justify the movie is a tough watch too, and interestingly was produced when Universal was still using the "theatrical cut" of the movie as a baseline (there's all kinds of "Deleted Footage" disclaimers during this featurette, when all of said footage is in the longer version as seen on the UHD). But no matter what ending it has, TOPAZ is a dud.

[Monterey Jack]

Yeah, Topaz sucks. There's maybe one interesting shot in the entire film (where the woman is shot, and we see her crumpling to the floor from a high angle, her dress pooling around her feet like blood), but the rest is catastrophically boring. Hitch's post-Birds 60s work is a slog in general.

[AndyDursin]

Yeah I don't LOVE any of his post-BIRDS movies. MARNIE is stilted and dull. TORN CURTAIN obviously has its issues. FRENZY is okay but suffers from the same "no stars" syndrome as TOPAZ.

FAMILY PLOT is a cut above those, mainly because of Williams' score and the cast (Barbara Harris especially), but I don't think it's "great" by any means and has a lot of the same "fatigue" issues.

[Paul MacLean]

FAMILY PLOT is a cut above those, mainly because of Williams' score and the cast (Barbara Harris especially), but I don't think it's "great" by any means and has a lot of the same "fatigue" issues.

I think once we're past the convoluted "info dump" (that takes-up most the first ten minutes) Family Plot settles into an enjoyable yarn. No, it's not Strangers on a Train or Rear Window, but I has its charms. I also think the abduction of the priest is one of Hitchcock's best sequences. The scene where the car brakes fail is also outstanding.

And I know we'll all agree Williams score is one of the film's best attributes.

[Monterey Jack]

Now, Frenzy is a film I love, easily Hitchcock's one great post-Psycho/The Birds thriller. Looking forward to watching the 4K on that one in particular.