rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

I liked The Jungle Book and really liked Kenneth Branagh's glowing Cinderella

I was talking about the 3 remakes from 2019 -- those two were definitely much better than Aladdin and Dumbo, though I wasn't that crazy about either to be honest (Jungle Book was pretty overpraised IMO)

[Eric Paddon]

The Brinks Job (1978) 5.5 of 10
=William Friedkin turns the story of the 1950 Boston Brinks heist into a comical satiric piece that unfortunately runs off the rails in its final act in order to preserve the image of the robbers as working-class anti-heroes. Peter Falk as Tony Pino the mastermind of the heist basically shows us what might have happened had Lieutenant Columbo turned to crime. The first act showing his earlier criminal heists are done to light comic effect (a bubble gum company heist that yields only $13 is treated entirely for laughs) and then it shifts to dramatic caper as Falk realizes how cheap and inept the security standards are at Brinks.

=In the final act, post-robbery things run off the rails. The FBI (as potrayed by Sheldon Leonard as J. Edgar Hoover) and the cops are shown overblowing the meaning of the heist and unethically leaning on accomplice Specs O'Keefe (Warren Oates) with an excessive jail sentence to get him to talk. The film gets purposefully dramatic when we see O'Keefe surrounded by these hostile Feds in jail and tearfully refusing to buckle but then a cut to headlines showing he's broken, which leads to the arrest of Falk and company (but the money is never recovered because none of them will say where it is). The film ends with Falk's Pino hauled to jail and being cheered as a hero by the working-class of Boston.

=Like all Hollywood tellings that like to create anti-heroes out of real-life criminals, something important usually gets left out. In this case, it's the fact that the reason O'Keefe talked was because after being released from jail, Tony Pino ordered a hit on him which was botched and resulted in O'Keefe finally cooperating from a hospital bed. So much for the anti-hero image in which we're shown more than once that these guys would never kill!

[AndyDursin]

IT CHAPTER TWO
7.5/10

“It”’s still good.

The much-anticipated concluding chapter to Andy Muschietti’s 2017 box-office hit continues Stephen King’s story – this time 27 years later with the Derry, Maine kids replaced by their adult counterparts, who answer the call once Pennywise begins another rampage directed towards the kids in their hometown. Though there’s a sense of blandness in some of the casting (James McAvoy and Jay Ryan especially), Bill Hader scores with plenty of laughs as the grown-up Richie and Jessica Chastain provides a convincing portrayal of an adult Bev. Helping matters is Muschietti’s reprisal of the original’s teen cast via extensive flashback sequences – albeit some with (not always convincing) “de-aging” digital effects work.

“It”’s first half was certainly more focused than this overlong second helping, yet as a “funhouse horror movie” goes, the picture still hums along. Much lighter in tone overall – not just through Hader’s character but much of the set-pieces themselves, which grow increasingly outlandish – Muschietti and screenwriter Gary Dauberman let loose and have fun paying homage to movies like “The Thing” (a decapitated head serves a similar purpose to Carpenter’s classic) and throwing in weird cameos (King himself and Peter Bogdanovich!) along the way.

The frights are mostly of the “boo!” variety – as they were in the original – but it’s possible some hardcore horror fans may be turned off by the self-referential, occasionally comedic nature of this sequel: McAvoy’s character receives the repeated criticism (often reserved for King’s works) that he can’t write a satisfying ending, while Hader’s riffs poke a bit of fun at the material, including Bill Skarsgard’s Pennywise performance.

Still, the cumulative mix of scares and laughs work here, and I struggle to come up with many studio-produced horror films in recent memory that have been as satisfying as this ambitious adaptation of “It.” Capped with a terrific climax that nails what the 1990 TV mini-series was trying to get across and you have a sequel that – even with its silly and overstuffed portions -- eventually delivers all the goods. (R, 169 mins.)

[AndyDursin]

DARK PHOENIX
6/10

Much troubled, apparently final entry in Fox’s X-Men series underwent extensive reshoots then a studio switch once Disney bought out Fox’s film/TV division. Unceremoniously released to franchise-low box-office this past June, “Dark Phoenix” is an unremarkable (though far from embarrassing) adaptation of one of the Marvel Comic’s most popular story lines, with previously good-natured mutant Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) here becoming the apocalyptic Dark Phoenix at the behest of an alien villainess played by Jessica Chastain.

James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence and the gang all return, but with Turner just basically having inhabited the role, there’s not enough dramatic pull to this rendition. Meanwhile, the film feels as if it’s been worked over in post-production, from Hans Zimmer’s cliched scoring (itself giving the movie a different tone than its predecessors) to a general lack of character interaction. It’s not a total dud as many of the reviews would lead you to believe – and is more watchable than the overstuffed last outing, “X-Men: Apocalypse” – but it still ends up a mediocre swan song to a mostly successful series.

“Dark Phoenix” makes a fast track to home video this week from Disney and Fox. The 1080p (2.39) transfer and 7.1 DTS MA sound are expectedly robust with extras including deleted scenes, a five-part documentary and commentary from writer-director Simon Kinberg and producer Hutch Parker, a DVD and Digital HD copy.

[jkholm]

AD ASTRA

5/10

In the near future, mysterious "surges" coming from the edge of the solar system are wreaking havoc not just on Earth but also civilian and military installations on the moon and Mars. Brad Pitt plays an astronaut sent to find the source of the surges which may be tied to the disappearance of his father who commanded an earlier mission to deep space. Pitt encounters several obstacles on the way including space pirates, a space monkey (!) and a conspiratorial military that Isn't Telling The Whole Story.

It sounds like an exciting plot but director James Gray is unfortunately more interested in telling a moody depressing story about absent fathers. The script is full of interior monologues in which Pitt constantly psychoanalyzes himself. There are echoes of 2001, Interstellar and even Apocalypse Now but Ad Astra lacks the visual style of those movies. The cinematography aims for "realism" with lots of blacks, whites and reds (for Mars) but it comes across as drab. The score is one of those droning minimalist jobs that adds to the dreary tone. It is nice though to see old pros Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland in supporting performances.

I went into this cold without seeing a trailer. I'm not sure how this is being marketed but if audiences are expecting something like The Martian, they will be disappointed.

[Paul MacLean]

I heard one critic describe Ad Astra as "so slow it makes Solaris look like Mad Max".

[AndyDursin]

CRAWL
6/10

A swimmer at the University of Florida (Kaya Scodelario) finds herself trying to save her injured father (Barry Pepper) from the clutches of actual gators during a Category 5 hurricane in Alexandre Aja’s latest. Unlike Aja’s free-wheeling remake of “Piranha,” though, “Crawl” is a repetitious, one-note affair that struggles to even reach the 90-minute mark with its slender story. Michael and Shawn Rasmussen’s script focuses entirely on the two main characters, pausing ever so briefly to introduce a few characters who pop up as sacrificial lambs, while our protagonists endure a brutal fight for survival. These “we’re here to help!” scenes are utterly predictable – if you have a speaking line in the film and you aren’t the two leads, you’re a goner – and the formula of the duo getting into close scrapes, then getting away, only to repeat the same process, becomes tiresome – even if both Scodelario and Pepper form a tandem that’s easy to root for.

The Serbian-shot (!) “Crawl” managed to net a surprising amount of positive reviews but received only a lukewarm reaction at the box-office. Frankly it’s not hard to see why, as Aja had a lot more fun with the man-eating fish than the hurricane-juiced gators he elicits only moderate thrills from here.

[Paul MacLean]

三匹の侍 (Three Outlaw Samurai) (8/10)

Solid, better-than-average "chambara", and also the debut effort of director Hideo Gosha.

Starring Tetsurō Tamba (best known as Tiger Tanaka in You Only Live Twice) the story cribs a bit from Seven Samurai and Sanjuro -- Tamba plays a wandering ronin who happens upon some peasants who have kidnapped the local magistrate's daughter to bargain for better treatment. Tamba is drawn into their plight, as are two other ronin (Isamu Nagato and Mikijirō Hira) who are initially hired by the magistrate to kill the peasants and Tamba.

While I wouldn't rate this movie as highly as Kurosawa's or Kobayashi's work in the genre, it remains a very good picture. The influence of Kurosawa is (not surprisingly) all over the movie, not just in terms of story but the photography, art direction -- and fight choreography (which is spectacular). Well-worth a look.

[Paul MacLean]

First Knight (6/10)

This is the first time I've watched this movie since its release in 1995. I didn't care for it then and it hasn't improved with age.

I remember being very excited about First Knight prior to its release. I've always loved the King Arthur legend (and medieval movies in general) and this movie looked like it might be an impressive spectacle -- plus Jerry Goldsmith would be doing the score (and this project -- naturally -- would be the one to lift him out of the creative rut he'd been in for the past few years).

But from top to bottom, this is a movie that just doesn't work. The legend of King Arthur has had an enduring appeal for centuries, being a story rife with adventure, romance and magic -- but the film captures none of those elements. For starters, the script jettisons all of the supernatural elements of the legend (Merlin, Morgan LeFay, the sword Excalibur, the Holy Grail, etc., etc.) and all we're left with is the love triangle of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot -- the final result being little more than a "Harlequin Romance".

Beyond that, the film is horribly miscast. Sean Connery is much to old to be playing a still-unmarried King Arthur. Connery is awesome, and a legend of course -- but it is unlikely a king would still be unmarried by the age of 18, let alone by the time he is wrinkled and grey. I understand the filmmakers wanting to play-up the contrast between an older, "seasoned monarch" and a younger "loverboy", but the Arthur role would better have gone to someone like Kenneth Branagh or Liam Neeson -- actors who could play a king who is mature, but not yet in his twilight years.

Richard Gere's casting is the film's biggest blunder -- like Connery, Gere is also way-too old (he was in his mid-40s at the time) to be playing a "brash young buck". Again, this is a role that should have gone to someone else, like Depp, Reeves or Pitt. In fairness, both Connery and Gere give their all in their respective parts -- but they're just wrong for them.

Guinevere however is the one character who is both well-written and performed. Julia Armond (whatever happened to her?) is just wonderful, and the character strikes just the right balance between independent and vulnerable.

It's difficult to assess this film without making comparisons to Excalibur (still the definitive King Arthur picture). It's astonishing to consider that the lower-budgeted Excalibur actually felt more epic in scope than this film. First Knight generally has larger sets and more extras, but John Boorman stretched Excalibur's budget to the max, resourcefully designing and framing his sets (and selecting epic landscapes) to give it a real sense of scale. Ironically, the "Round Table" set in Excalibur was about five times the size of the Round Table set in First Knight -- despite the fact that First Knight had more than twice the budget of Excalibur! In some ways, Excalibur's modest budget helped that film, as Boorman could not afford "name actors", and had to make due with Shakespearean performers (who ultimately came-off as more earthy and real than the "glamorous" stars of First Knight).

The script feels unfinished, as far as the motivation of the film's antagonist, Maligant (Ben Cross -- who is a terrific actor, but saddled with a one-dimensional character). Maligant would appear to be a substitute for Mordred, Arthur's bastard son. But Mordred's motivation was believable -- he was bitter that his father banished him for being an embarrassment (having been the product of an incestuous union -- through no fault of his own). In First Knight, Maligant's agenda is never really made clear. He is just a stock "bad guy", whipped-up to provide the requisite villainy (and give Lancelot a reason to be heroic). Ludicrous implausibilities abound -- such as Maligant's henchmen being able to abduct Guinevere from a fortified city guarded by a lake. At the film's climax, Maligant catches Arthur by surprise, by somehow managing to march his whole army into the center of Camelot before anyone notices.

As far as Jerry Goldsmith's score, well, it's a masterpiece compared to most anything you'd hear today, but at the time (and held-up against Goldsmith's overall body of work) it is one of his least interesting -- which is still shocking, considering the subject matter he had to play off of. Goldsmith -- the purveyor of complex harmonies, tricky meters, inventive timbres -- delivers a pretty generic and often-simplistic score. The "Lancelot" theme is terrific, and the love theme very attractive, but his action cues are simplistic and repetitive, and the "Arthur / Camelot" theme not much more interesting. It's astonishing to compare this score to the infinitely superior (and more complex) 13th Warrior, written just four years later (and even Timeline -- composed when Goldsmith was in very poor health).

Another thing which bugs me a bit about this movie is the way it is completely devoid of humor. Not that it is relentlessly dour, but it is very serious, and could have used some mirth here and there.

It's quite remarkable that a talent pool that included William Nicholson, John Box, Jerry Goldsmith, et al, could have come-up with such a snoozer. And it's not that First Knight is a deplorable piece of crap, it just isn't very good -- and it should have been, given the source material and creative team who made it.

[AndyDursin]

It's always interesting to see what happens when a director has a massive hit -- like Jerry Zucker did with GHOST -- and then a studio is willing to give carte blanche to whatever he wants to make, no matter how ill-suited he might be for the project. FIRST KNIGHT is clearly one of those cases, because Zucker's direction is all wrong and compounds the movie's shortcomings (miscast male leads, poor script). I mean it's not even interesting to look at, even with heavy-hitters like John Box handling the production design.

Zucker would never be given that kind of freedom -- or budget -- ever again. In fact he only directed one other movie period (the trouble-plagued "Mad Mad World" remake RAT RACE), making for one of the weirdest careers ever...he essentially worked on AIRPLANE! and those other comedies with his brother and Jim Abrahams, made GHOST -- one of the biggest hits of the decade -- and then got this movie. And then called it a career!

I had the same reaction when I saw the film. A bunch of people laughed outloud when Zucker dissolved from Connery getting angry to the "ring of fire" -- and I was at one of those "Sneak Previews" that used to be held on the Saturday before a movie would officially open. It was a total dud, you could feel it when it ended.

Gere and Connery had no fire together but I agree about Julia Ormond. She was very pretty but also had a very elegant, and restrained, tone to her performances that was unaffected and classy. After making this, SMILLA'S SENSE OF SNOW (remember that one??) and SABRINA she basically fell out of Hollywood lead roles (she was already 30 when her career took off) but she's worked steadily over the years since. Won an Emmy for an HBO movie in 2010. I am guessing she must have moved to the U.S. because the bulk of her performances have been guest stints in assorted series here (LAW & ORDER SVU, MAD MEN, etc.)

[mkaroly]

I do still pop in the FIRST KNIGHT score every now and then. However, I prefer the full score over the original CD presentation. For whatever reason I always had problems with the original CD release. Haven't listened to it since the year it came out.

[Paul MacLean]

I do still pop in the FIRST KNIGHT score every now and then. However, I prefer the full score over the original CD presentation. For whatever reason I always had problems with the original CD release. Haven't listened to it since the year it came out.

I never could warm to most of the score. I just found it very simplistic -- especially for Jerry Goldsmith.

The original CD is one of Goldsmith's worst-produced in my opinion -- the only cues in the score which I liked were all excluded from that release!

Again, I find it remarkable to compare Goldsmith's battle music from First Knight to that of The 13th Warrior...

[AndyDursin]

THE 13TH WARRIOR is far superior, musically and in terms of energy. So is TIMELINE for that matter. Jerry's last gasp, those two.

[Monterey Jack]

The original CD is one of Goldsmith's worst-produced in my opinion -- the only cues in the score which I liked were all excluded from that release!

Goldsmith was deep into his "I wanna be John Barry" period in the early-to-mid-90's, and thus most of his albums then tended to favor the slower, more "romantic" material (and big, heraldic fanfares) as opposed to the action cues. The initial First Knight CD was a particularly notorious example.

[AndyDursin]

Winter Kills (6/10)

A genuine oddity, Winter Kills stars Jeff Bridges as the younger half-brother of a fictional president who was assassinated in 1960. After receiving information that his brother's murder was the work of wealthy, powerful conspirators, Bridges sets about trying to discover the truth -- but all his sources of information start to mysteriously die or disappear.

Obviously modeled on theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination, the basic idea is interesting, but the film is so convoluted and "out there" (and often over-the-top -- particularly John Huston as Bridges' "Joe Kennedy"-like father) it's hard to take any of it seriously. The tone of the movie is also awkwardly inconsistent, being incongruously serious one moment and satirical the next, so it is difficult to stay engaged. Winter Kills is also just plain boring much of the time, which doesn't help.

I'm watching the Blu-Ray now -- saw it years ago on DVD -- but the behind-the-scenes story of this movie is positively BONKERS:

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/1 ... Kills.html

Shot mostly in 77 by Vilmos Zsigmond. Production shut down 3 times, once with the union literally turning the lights out because nobody had been paid. Producers killed, one of them by the mob, before it was released. Director had to make another movie with Jeff Bridges in order to get enough money to finish it. Rest of the movie was shot in 79 by John Bailey.

I forgot Elizabeth Taylor shows up in it too! Truly one of the weirdest production histories you'll ever read.