rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Very good -- exciting, suspenseful, even touching. Very well-acted too. It does have an excess of that "CGI look" (not just the apes, but many of the scenes overall) though I suppose that's to be expected these days. The CGI is certainly impressive in its complexity, but there's nary a moment where those apes don't look what thay are: computer animations. It's a shame they couldn't have called on Rick Baker to provide "real" apes (for the close-ups at least). The score is "serviceable" but simplistic, with little melodic or harmonic interest (more like orchestrations in search of a score than an actual score).

Overall though, if one accepts this as a summer popcorn flick in the style of "how we do it now" it is a rewarding, even thrilling couple of hours.

[AndyDursin]

Following through on your point Paul, the one thing that I take objection to when people go berserk about Andy Serkis: I knew Roddy McDowall was "in there" playing Caesar in the original APES movies. He was underneath the make-up, it was clearly him, and you could see that to be the case. With CGI rendering and mo-cap, honestly, I don't know if it's Serkis, because I can't see him. It's all rendered with animation, and yes I understand he's apparently articulating and gesturing the role-- but the fact is that, we don't know exactly what he was doing on the set. It could be any actor. And more over, you have no idea whether a certain gesture or expression may not have been "enhanced". Is it the actor responsible solely for "that look" or that smile, or is it the effects artist?

It's why I don't know if any actor performing Mo-Cap is going to be honored for an Oscar. It's like you have to "take their word for it" that's what's up there is their performance and their ability alone, when the reality is -- unless you were on-set or saw the raw footage, you don't know who specifically IS responsible for the "performance" on-screen.

[Edmund Kattak]

COP AND A HALF 2/10

I figure that I'd let the movie poster do the talking. I like Henry Winkler and feel sorry for Burt Reynolds for not holding it together all these years, but this one tries my patience. Watch only if it's on a bad cable channel and if you are totally working on your ninth glass of Coppola Pino Noir.

[Paul MacLean]

Following through on your point Paul, the one thing that I take objection to when people go berserk about Andy Serkis: I knew Roddy McDowall was "in there" playing Caesar in the original APES movies. He was underneath the make-up, it was clearly him, and you could see that to be the case. With CGI rendering and mo-cap, honestly, I don't know if it's Serkis, because I can't see him. It's all rendered with animation, and yes I understand he's apparently articulating and gesturing the role-- but the fact is that, we don't know exactly what he was doing on the set.

Ceaser's face was effectively "emotive" -- but you're right, who is to be thanked for that? The CGI Yoda was emotive too, as was Dobby the house elf (and even Buzz Lightyear!).

Further on my review, I am so disgusted at the way Hollywood has abandoned make-up and animatronics and just falls back on CGI for everything these days. CGI is great for certain things -- obviously there was no other way to do Jurassic Park or the dragons in Harry Potter. But come-on, Rick Baker's work on the Burton Planet of the Apes was phenomenal -- and better than the CGI apes in these new films.

[AndyDursin]

I figure that I'd let the movie poster do the talking.

I am not kidding -- I had a full-size poster of this outside my door freshman year at college. LOL. I was writing for a Canadian laserdisc mag at the time and he would send me laserdisc review copies (mostly all Universal titles) plus one-sheet posters like COP AND A HALF.

I figured it would be good for some laughs. Eventually someone sprayed shaving cream on it (I hope that's what it was) and I threw it out.

BTW Ed thanks for the package!!

[Edmund Kattak]

I figure that I'd let the movie poster do the talking.

I am not kidding -- I had a full-size poster of this outside my door freshman year at college. LOL. I was writing for a Canadian laserdisc mag at the time and he would send me laserdisc review copies (mostly all Universal titles) plus one-sheet posters like COP AND A HALF.

I figured it would be good for some laughs. Eventually someone sprayed shaving cream on it (I hope that's what it was) and I threw it out.

BTW Ed thanks for the package!!

Perhaps the shaving cream enhanced its value? You're welcome, by the way. I am happy it (hopefully) arrived in one piece.

[Edmund Kattak]

Is this one even available as cheap DVD. My guess is that it sucks, but the movie poster is priceless:

[Eric Paddon]

Not even the presence of Stephanie Beacham could make me watch that one!

[AndyDursin]

Indeed, it truly does suck -- DVD from '99 is still available...and isn't a Collector's Item it seems!

[Jedbu]

You actually posted the COP AND A HALF poster on the outside of your dorm room door, Andy? You truly had some cojones, my friend-surprised the door wasn't torched, let alone doused with shaving cream....just finished watching the Siskel & Ebert rundown of years worst films for that year and Gene HATED it and Roger LOVED it.

[AndyDursin]

You actually posted the COP AND A HALF poster on the outside of your dorm room door, Andy? You truly had some cojones, my friend-surprised the door wasn't torched, let alone doused with shaving cream....just finished watching the Siskel & Ebert rundown of years worst films for that year and Gene HATED it and Roger LOVED it.

LOL it was a pretty safe dormitory, though you're right, I'm fortunate it lasted as long as it did! (I was also in a single room right off an elevator so people passed it ALL THE TIME). I think everyone knew it was a joke...I wasn't advocating it as a piece of entertainment

[jkholm]

BOYHOOD

Impressive, unique film traces the life of a Texas boy named Mason from age 6 to 18 using the same actor filmed over the course of twelve years. Director Richard Linklater takes a matter-of-fact approach to telling the story which, at more than two and a half hours long, is never boring. It's almost a stream of consciousness approach as the plot is little more than a series of events, some big, but most of them ordinary. Yet it's the ordinariness that is the movie's strength as most viewers will find themselves remembering what their own childhood was like. I couldn't identify with everything Mason goes through but enough scenes rang true that I didn't mind.

The movie almost could have been called Fatherhood as Mason interacts with several father figures throughout the movie including his birth father played by Ethan Hawke, a series of step-fathers and various bosses and teachers who give him endless lectures on responsibility. Even though boyhood is the focus of the story, it's impossible to watch it as a father and not wonder how my own children see me.

This is easily a three star movie although I might raise my rating if it sticks around in my head long enough.

[mkaroly]

GODFATHER III - I am still thinking about this one. just a few comments. First, this is the first time I have seen the film from start to finish. It is not as good as either I or II, but I thought the ending was very powerful and moving (I cried a little), so even though I felt overall the movie was less focused than the other two, it delivered the emotional impact it needed to so in that sense it was successful. I enjoyed the opera sequence that led to the conclusion - it might have been a bit long, but I liked that Coppola milked that...you KNOW something is going to happen, so by delaying the moment he built tension really well.

Sophia Coppola...yes, she was "wodden" throughout the film and was noticeably uncomfortable during the romantic scenes. But the question I want to ask is who in the world thought of having first cousins become romantically involved with each other???? Bizarre, weird, gross, and just totally out of place in my opinion. In addition, that aspect of the story was never truly believeable - neither she nor Garcia made me feel like I needed to take that aspect of the story seriously. That was the price he had to pay for becoming Don?? I remain convinced that this was the weakest aspect of the story, and it would not have mattered who you put in that role.

As far as the body of the film, Michael is obviously the central character, but I felt as though Coppola was trying to juggle too much at once. He was able to navigate the dense narrative of GODFATHER II well and made that film a beautiful, operatic achievement in film that was thought-provoking and moving. In III, I felt like he needed to focus more on Michael's inner turmoil, his descent, his doubt and regret and less on the other aspects of the story. Maybe that is unfair to say since I have only seen it once, but I came away thinking that Coppola missed an opportunity (I know he was thinking about a GODFATHER IV before Puzo died, so maybe that explains something). I also felt like I had "been there, done that" with moments int he film, from teh family celebration in the beginning to the "purging" sequence at the end. I am afraid I am unable to express exactly where I felt frustrated with the film - maybe if I watch it again and listen to the commentary track I will get more clarity on that.

Overall, I would give it a 5/10 or a 6/10. Not great but better than I expected it to be.

[Jedbu]

THE GODFATHER PART III is not an awful film, but it is one that as you watch it shows that while Coppola had part of his basic framework in place, it feels like it was rushed through production without as much care being taken as with the first two films. Supposedly Coppola promised Paramount the film for Christmas of 1990 and really did not begin production until about a year before that date. Considering how his scripting process was famous for being sloppy and he took a long time in editing his films to make up for that, you would think some suit at Paramount would have thought to give Coppola some slack and perhaps do an Easter '91 release, but I am thinking they felt they had to lock him in to get him to finish and even if watching the rushes and seeing Sofia thrown into the deep end of the pool without a lifeline couldn't convince them, some of the fault has to lie with them. Sofia is universally panned by almost everyone, but I think if there had been some chemistry between her and Garcia that might have been enough to help her slide by, but there is none and both of them look very uncomfortable in any romantic scenes they have together (Garcia and Fonda do have chemistry and that is one reason I wish she and Sofia had switched, along with Coppola's daughter having a small enough part that she could get some experience but not have to carry a big amount of plot on her shoulders). The thing is, I'm not even sure Wynona Ryder being cast as Mary would have made the film a 4-star masterpiece, but I think it might have at least made the scenes with her character ones that don't seem like a collection of screen tests, and if we would have just seen her collapse silently at the end with only a look of sadness or puzzlement on her face would have worked so much better (the two times I saw the film-including the first show opening day-her saying "Daddy?" before dying brought a bunch of laughter to a really packed theater in Westwood). I probably should watch the film one more time after the other two (have not watched it all the way through for a long time-have only scanned through parts to check out the Blu-Ray) and see if 10 years might have changed my mind.

[mkaroly]

Bridget Fonda's hotness is off the chart...lol...yet I don't know if I would have bought her as Michael's daughter. I just wish that aspect of the narrative wasn't in the film (first cousins "madly in love" with each other).