rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

I have to revisit "Topaz" soon, but I tended to think it was okay even as I acknowledge that post-"The Birds" Hitchcock really declined in his output. But I can enjoy "Torn Curtain," "Topaz" and "Family Plot" pretty much. "Frenzy" though is too disturbing for my tastes and seeing Hitchock for the one and only time cross into post-Production Code R-rated fare just is too much for me.

And yes, Karin Dor was the best thing in "Topaz" from the cast standpoint!

[AndyDursin]

MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER
6/10

Robert Altman’s McCABE AND MRS MILLER (121 mins., 1971, R; Criterion) is something of an acquired taste: while held in high esteem by some critics as one of the defining cinematic works of the 1970s, this undeniably gorgeous looking picture doesn’t always serve up a compelling narrative, with star Warren Beatty muttering some at-times incomprehensible dialogue as an Old West gambler trying to stake his claim in a fledgling Pacific Northwest mining town. He soon strikes a deal with a madam (Julie Christie) to oversee a brothel which promptly becomes popular – too much so, as the corporate owners of the mine ultimately come looking to put an end to Beatty’s American dream.

Vilmos Zsigmond’s spectacular cinematography and Altman’s portrait of an Old West still very much “new” to the American landscape are the elements which help “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” retain its cinematic currency, so to speak. The harsh weather elements and sense of a still-evolving frontier are memorably portrayed visually, making this an achievement on that scale alone. However, I’ve never been sold on the dramatic element of this “revisionist western” as being nearly as substantial – between Altman’s patented “overlapping” dialogue (hard to make out at times in a cramped mono soundtrack here) and Christie’s not-entirely satisfying casting, “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” feels like less like a masterpiece and something that’s become entrenched as a partially overrated product of its era. You never really care about Beatty’s mission and there’s not much chemistry between him and Christie, leaving that element of the film as chilly as its Vancouver shooting locales.

Nevertheless, Criterion enables viewers to be the judge thanks to their new 4K UHD (2.40) presentation of “McCabe and Mrs. Miller,” which features an impressively detailed restoration minus HDR. Extras are reprieved from Criterion’s previous Blu-Ray: a 2002 commentary with Altman and producer David Foster; Making Of doc; historians Carl Beauchamp and Rick Jewell discussing the film; an archival 1970 featurette; a 1999 festival Q&A with production designer Leon Ericksen; archival interview excerpts with Zsigmond; and “Dick Cavett Show” extracts featuring Altman and critic Pauline Kael.

[Paul MacLean]

^^ I've never seen this film, but I can't say I was exceedingly wowed or moved over any Robert Altman movies. He seems to have been a favorite of cineastes and critics, and emblematic of "great American cinema" in the 1970s -- by all those people who blamed Lucas and Spielberg for "ruining movies".

I remember everyone going gaga over The Player -- something I found particularly annoying as I had just moved back east from LA, where I'd been working Hollywood and all these people were talking like they knew all about the film business because they'd seen Altman's film.

[Paul MacLean]

Highlander: Endgame -- in glorious DVD! (6.5/10)

Yeah, I know, "why did you watch this?" I bought the DVD to send to a friend of mine who loved the Highlander TV series (and also enjoyed the original film), and I figured it's a used disc anyway, why not just "make sure it isn't defective". Uh...yeah, that's why I watched it.

The Highlander series may well have the worst sequels of any franchise. A friend of mine, after sitting through Highlander 2, lamented "There should have been only one" -- a remark that proved prophetic.

Still, Highlander Endgame is actually a step up from Highlander 2 (which I turned off after 15 minutes) and Highlander 3. Having both Christopher Lambert and the TV series' Adrian Paul team-up for this adventure seemed a promising idea, but the script is underwhelming. A (newly invented) "old enemy" of Connor MacLeod seeks to destroy Connor and Duncan, aided by a coterie of evil immortals -- including Duncan's ex-wife, Kate (whose character makes for the most interesting element of the story).

But it's a pretty simplistic plot, bogged-down with tangents and l sub-plots and superfluous supporting characters. Actions sequences are pretty good (though not great). Set mainly in New York and London, but shot in Romania, the viewer never really feels he is in either place. Adrian Paul however is terrific, as is Lisa Barbuscia in the role of Kate. Christopher Lambert again brings his "unique" style to the role of Connor, but in this film he is more of a supporting character.

Most impressive is Doug Milsome's cinematography, which bathes this movie in a nostalgically "80s" look (and the love scene between Duncan and Kate is gorgeously shot). It's too bad Michael Kamen couldn't have provided the music, though the score by Stephen Graziano and an uncredited Nick Glennie-Smith and is pretty good.

In any case, I hope my friend likes it!

[AndyDursin]

I assume it has the Producer's Cut (101 mins.) since that was the only version released on DVD (along with a workprint version on another disc).

I have the Blu-Ray which likewise only has the longer -- and most people consider considerably improved -- "Producer's Cut" (101 mins).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Highlander-End ... ROKL5A1OLE

The 101-minute "producers' cut" which features improved visual effects, sound mixing, and color-timing, and restores numerous scenes of exposition intended to make the story more easily understandable for audiences unfamiliar with the Highlander franchise. The "producers' cut" includes the "Kate lives" ending and removes the line of dialogue in which Methos refers to the Sanctuary as holy ground, which was criticized by fans

The producers of the film disagreed with Dimension Films over the running length and story structure of the film. They were unsatisfied with the theatrical cut, and upon its DVD release, they re-edited the film and added twelve minutes of new footage, which included:

A new opening sequence, in which we see Duncan and Connor roaming the streets of New York and Duncan buying a hot dog. Connor tells Duncan that he has an errand to run, and leaves a concerned Duncan behind after telling him to "watch his back." The scene goes to Rachel walking towards the antiques store.
The shots of the photographs with Rachel and Connor in them are not in the DVD cut. Instead we see Rachel enter the store, go to the loft and find a TV playing a video of herself and Connor at various points of her life. The phone rings and when she answers, the store explodes just as Connor walks up to it.
The DVD cut has Duncan walking past a payphone on his way to Methos. He answers the phone and a woman (later revealed as Faith) tells him, "Whatever you fear about Connor MacLeod, fear the worst." She says that she is a friend and hangs up. As Duncan walks on, we see a watcher named Matthew spying on Duncan from a cafe saying into his cellphone, "He's on the move."
During the scene where Duncan is at Connor's destroyed loft, the posse enter and Winston says, "It's time to show our Immortal brother a thing or two." Cracker Bob has more of an entrance. We see him crash in on his motorcycle swings his bat and says, "Someone order a club sandwich?" Duncan mocks his outfit and Bob complains to Faith.
A Flashback to Kate and Duncan's wedding is re-edited. We see Duncan sitting at the table with Kate, and one of their friends gets drunk and collapses while urging the two to kiss. They do, then we see Duncan, Kate and their wedding guest dancing. From there, we see Connor walking through the door and embracing Duncan.
After Duncan and Faith separate at the studio (the fashion show scene), we see them roaming the streets. Faith goes to Kell's temple, then her apartment. Inside, we see Kell waiting for her. The dialogue makes it clear that they have a sexual relationship and Kell suspects that she may turn over to Duncan's side. We go from this scene to Faith walking about the streets of New York and then entering Duncan's hotel room where they have an intimate moment.
The fight scene between Duncan and Kell is extended.
We see a scene where Duncan is bandaging a leg wound and taking off his coat. The watcher Matthew is pointing a rifle at him. "Just watching," someone says. Matthew turns and Joe is standing behind him. Matthew raises his rifle at Joe, but Joe shoots him with a revolver. Matthew dies.
Duncan's face morphing into Connor's, and back, a few times is reduced in their visibility and intensity.
Among other changes was the edited blurring of a large JVC billboard that was prominently featured during Connor's death scene in the theatrical cut.

[Paul MacLean]

Oppenheimer (8/10)

I wasn't sure I'd like this movie -- I've found Christoper Nolan's films very hit and miss (and his body of work generally overpraised). But with Oppenheimer, Nolan has fashioned an excellent picture that provides insight into a very compelling -- and important -- series of historic events. He's also managed to tell a fairly complex story (with a myriad of different characters) and keep it comprehensible. The cast are first rate, and there isn't a missed note in any single performance.

I do however question the amount of screen time allotted to Oppenheimer's affair with Jean Tatlock -- and in particular the gratuitous (and pointless) nude shots of Florence Pugh, which got the film slapped with na R rating, and thus shut-out a fair number of younger viewers who should see and be aware if this story.

The film's biggest problem however is the score. The music rarely enhances or uplifts the picture -- and in many instances even interferes with the drama on-screen, both by over-scoring the film (with music smeared over scenes where it isn't needed), plus the overly-loud dubbing of the score (which drowns-out the dialog in places).

Overall however, Oppenheimer is a fine film, and a throwback to the kind of impressive "Oscar bait" (historic, well-acted dramas, with impeccable cinematography and art direction) not seen in decades.

[AndyDursin]

This was our theory about Pugh...

viewtopic.php?p=94545#p94545

See I think there was totally a point to those gratuitous scenes!

Completely agreed on the movie also...

https://andyfilm.com/2023/12/06/12-7-23 ... penheimer/

[Paul MacLean]

This was our theory about Pugh...

viewtopic.php?p=94545#p94545

See I think there was totally a point to those gratuitous scenes!

"Florence Pugh – a special effect of her own"

Well...I can't argue with that!

[Paul MacLean]

Napoleon (6/10)

I keep hoping for one final masterpiece from the director of Blade Runner, (or at least one more really outstanding effort on the level of The Duelists, or Alien). Well, Napoleon isn't that film.

The picture for the most part looks terrific, but the script is under par. It might better have been titled Napoleon and Josephine, since it focuses more on the relationship of those two than the epic spectacle of Napoleon Bonaparte's reign and military conquests. The film primarily consists of scenes where Napoleon and Josephine get lovey-dovey, then have a tiff, and then Napoleon rides off to the next campaign, with voice over readings of his latest love letter. Rinse, repeat.

Battles are given the short shrift. This is mainly an interior domestic drama (albeit filmed in capacious sets). The battle sequences are well-staged, but they are also brief, perfunctory, and nothing we haven't seen before (they look just like the battles in Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven). The CGI effects (even the static embellishments to the various landscapes) don't look especially convincing. The big climax at Waterloo (a battle which had a whole film devoted to it in Sergei Bondarchuk's underrated 1970 Waterloo) -- is allotted maybe 15 minutes of screen time at most by Ridley Scott.

The score is stylistically all over the place, and probably based around the temp music (the Waterloo sequence was obviously temp tracked with John Corigliano's Revolution). But finally there is nothing compelling about the story or the characters. They all come off as very dispassionate and dull. Joaquin Phoenix was not a good casting choice either. He honestly looks hung-over in most scenes, plus his heavy American drawl clashes with a cast of otherwise British and European thespians.

Napoleon of course brings Scott full circle to his debut film, The Duelists, but while his latest picture has probably 20 times the production value of that first effort, it's not as good-looking or artistically satisfying (much less as well-written), and that's really disappointing.


P.S. -- I subscribed to AppleTV+ in order to watch this. I promptly cancelled my subscription afterward, because I was irked that Apple (like everyone else) cuts out at the start of the end credits and takes you to another movie (which you don't care about but which they are trying to push). It took I think four tries of restarting and skipping to the end of the film before I was able to actually view the credits. On principle I won't pay for a service that does that.

[Eric Paddon]

I saw it in the theater last Thanksgiving night (my first post-COVID theater experience) and I was struck by how this movie's obsession over showing Josephine's inability to have an heir meant that the film never explains just WHY is Napoleon invading other countries? What's his reason? What was his vision? (You never hear a word about putting his brother on the Spanish throne for instance). All we're told is he invaded them and that's that. If I hadn't taught a class on this I would have been confused.

Phoenix's performance might have been more suited to this old Pepto commercial from 1980.

[AndyDursin]

I have no interest in NAPOLEON, I'll take Eric and Paul's word for it! (unless I end up with a review copy)

Scott has made a lot of boring to downright bad films since the 21st century got cranking:

ALIEN COVENANT
THE COUNSELOR
ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD
EXODUS
ROBIN HOOD
THE LAST DUEL
A GOOD YEAR
BODY OF LIES
HANNIBAL
AMERICAN GANGSTER

He's clearly one of the great visualists of all-time with several classics under his belt but for every good movie there are 3-4 lousy ones. And it really extends all the way back to 2000 or thereabouts when he started making movies "on top of one another" with scarcely a break in between them.

[Monterey Jack]

-Love Lies Bleeding (2024): 10/10



This is the most twisted and galvanizing pretzel-logic lesbian noir since Bound, and the first authentically great movie of the year. Even a sharp skewing into metaphorical surreality in the closing moments don't mar the film's gripping narrative and superb performances. Disney should have cast Katy O'Brian as She-Hulk and saved $100 million dollars, because she's truly a special effect all of her own. I'm sure the more eccentric moments will turn off some (and the blunt-force violence and gore might turn off others, including the most wince-inducing incidence of facial trauma this side of a Guillermo Del Toro film), but I found this to be truly engrossing, stylish and darkly funny, worthy of the Coen Bros. at their peak.

[Eric Paddon]

Well, I'm working my way into Holy Week viewings once again (it's hard to prepare when its happening so early this year!). I have already taken care of the only OT movies I intend to watch this year.

The Bible (1966)
The Ten Commandments (1923)
The Ten Commandments (1956)

"The Bible" just keeps improving with every viewing, notwithstanding my quibbles with Scott's performance as Abraham in the final segment. I really enjoy the refreshing simplicity of textual fidelity that we see for the most part and it's amazing how the five minutes of the Sodom sequence evoke a genuine underlying sense of terror that Divine judgment is about to come down on this city that is totally absent in the wretched "Sodom and Gomorrah" movie of a few years earlier.

The two versions of "The Ten Commandments" are fascinating contrasts, as the former of course has its modern story in addition to its depiction of the Exodus. I doubt DeMille could have sustained a full-length Moses narrative in the 20s so it's understandable why he went for that approach. But in the 50s he learned to properly redo the story for the age of wide-screen spectacle and it remains captivating. Frankly, I think "Ten Commandments" deserved the Best Picture more than "Around The World In 80 Days" if the award was going to go to the "popular favorite" that year instead of to a film like "Giant" but obviously DeMille already getting the Best Picture for "Greatest Show On Earth" I think meant he wasn't going to get lucky the second go-round (but his getting snubbed of a Director's nomination though I think was outrageous, as was the snubbing of Bernstein for a Best Score nomination, though I don't quibble with the posthumous Oscar given to Victor Young).

I also watched two fascinating documentaries on this era that try to offer some challenging revisions to the idea that archeological evidence has not found signs of the Exodus as recorded in the OT. The film "Patterns of Evidence" posits that scholars have been starting from the erroneous assumption (reinforced by the DeMille film) that any Exodus took place in the reign of Rameses II during the "New Kingdom" period. But a different approach shows that if one looks to the late Middle Kingdom period of Egyptian history several centuries further back, that's when one finds an archeological record that would line up more with Biblical accounts and its the ingrained bias of scholars who insist that an Exodus (which most of them don't believe in to begin with) had to take place in the time of Rameses that keeps them from accepting this possibility. IMO this makes a good case by pointing out that this erroneous dating of the Egyptian period is likely responsible for why skeptics in the archeological realm keep saying there's little evidence for these OT accounts and that their ingrained bias is what's keeping them from accepting the possibility that their dating is off and not letting them look to other possibilities.

My first Holy Week movie was "The Robe." I keep hoping I'll be able to overcome the misgivings I've developed about this film over the last couple decades but other than the fact that the film is better than bottom of the barrel pieces of tripe like "Salome" and "The Prodigal" the film IMO is more form and little substance to me. Great score, great costumes, great cinematography and a couple great performances but the story's total lack of authenticity for the NT era is my key stumbling block to appreciating it in which there's no such thing evidently as a Jewish Sanhedrin that was angry over Christ's ministry and that Christianity was unknown to Caligula and Rome for another twenty years minimum. Plus, the more I watch Burton, who I know hated the role, the film and the film's religious message, the less enamored I am of his performance. The film could have benefited from more of Jean Simmons than we actually see. (I've decided to pass on seeing "Demetrius And The Gladiators" this year).

Later this week I know I'll be making room for "Barabbas" (which to me just seems to land as a compelling piece of 1st Century fiction in ways "The Robe" never does), "Ben-Hur" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." "Passion Of The Christ" on Good Friday evening and also "Risen". Probably "Jesus of Nazareth" afterwards in concession to the fact that everything is happening so early on the calendar this year.

[Paul MacLean]

....as was the snubbing of Bernstein for a Best Score nomination, though I don't quibble with the posthumous Oscar given to Victor Young).

I suspect it had something to do with Bernstein having been grey-listed in Hollywood for several years (from which he was rescued by DeMille). Of course as values in Hollywood shifted left toward the 1960s, Bernstein's political bent became a virtue rather than a liability (and his career soared in the 60s).

Plus, the more I watch Burton, who I know hated the role, the film and the film's religious message, the less enamored I am of his performance.

I thought Burton was terrible in that film -- completely over the top (tho in fairness he was probably used to stage acting). The Robe to me seems like Fox's attempt to one-up MGM's Quo Vadis (unsuccessfully).

Passion Of The Christ" on Good Friday evening and also "Risen".

I watch The Passion again last year. It's an extraordinary film in a lot of ways, and depicts the Crucifixion in a new and different way while remaining (fundamentally) true to Scripture. But I feel it is really handicapped by the music. John Debney's score is too influenced by Peter Gabriel's The Last Temptation of Christ (perhaps at Mel Gibson's insistence, but whoever steered it in that direction, it doesn't help). This was a film that required a composer of higher musical and dramatic artistry. I'm sure most Hollywood composers didn't want to touch it, but I'll bet Gibson could have gotten someone like Pino Donaggio of even Morricone on board if he'd tried.

[Eric Paddon]

Ironically, Bernstein never did get an Oscar for one of his great scores. His only one came from scoring adaptations and arrangements for "Thoroughly Modern Millie."

I'll agree that it's unfortunate "Passion" doesn't have the kind of memorable score that the epics of an earlier era had. A score more in the tradition of Newman or Rozsa would have been preferable!