rate the last movie you saw

[Monterey Jack]

Kill The Messenger (2014): 8/10

MEW alert!!!



Oh yeah, and the movie is really good, too.

[Monterey Jack]

John Wick (2014): 8.5/10

As far as subtext-free action flicks go, John Wick is one of the sleekest, briskest, and least-pretentious ones in theaters this year. The plot is almost absurdly generic (Russian hoods steal former hitman Keanu Reeves' car and kill his dog in a scene sure to enrage animal lovers, Keanu starts murderdeathkilling his way through an endless sea of disposable goons), but when the action is this well-done, why carp? A blessed lack of shakey-cam, an R rating that is utilized to its fullest extent without wallowing in gratuitous excess, a good sense of humor and not an ounce of fat in its 100-minute running time. If you like this sort of thing, check it out.

[Eric Paddon]

Babe Ruth (1991-TV) 7 of 10

-This is the superior of the two Babe Ruth movies that came out in this era. Goodman's movie was so mind-numbingly awful I saw it once and refuse to ever see it again. This TV version which came out first with Stephen Lang is a more accurate telling of Ruth's career, even if overly streamlined in TV-movie fashion. Stephen Lang despite an awful fake nose that still doesn't make him look much like Ruth gives a good performance and it shows Ruth with a lot more complexity than did the insipid Goodman film. Pete Rose actually cameos as Ty Cobb but MLB forbade him to wear a uniform so they rewrote the scene for him to have him having dinner with Ruth in his apartment.

-This film is one of four baseball history movies I like that have an uncanny ability to connect with each other. First there was "Eight Men Out" and in this TV-movie, John Anderson reprises his role as Judge Landis. Donald Moffat appears in this movie as Yankee owner Jacob Ruppert and in the next great baseball history movie "61" he plays Commissioner Ford Frick trying protect Babe Ruth's reputation (and the character of Claire Ruth appears again). "61" has Christopher McDonald and Joe Grifasi as Mel Allen and Phil Rizzuto and then both of *them* appeared in "The Bronx Is Burning" as Joe DiMaggio and Yogi Berra respectively (and Lang was in that one too)! So all four of these commendable efforts that do a good job of getting the baseball history right and manage to be entertaining, in a way work as a set.

[Paul MacLean]

The Tall Man

Interesting and suspenseful picture that initially appears to be a horror flick, and then reveals itself to be more of an intelligent thriller, with lot of unexpected twists and turns that keep the viewer glued to the screen. Excellent camerawork and editing (though it does have that awful "shot on a Red" look).

Jessica Biel is superb in the lead, though the most striking revelation is the performance of newcomer Jodelle Ferland, who is given the chance to showcase her skills with a more interesting role than she had in Twilight -- even with only one line line of dialog. (It's also nice to see an up-and-coming young performer who isn't anorexic!)

[AndyDursin]

HERCULES
6.5/10

Not half bad treatment of the oft-told legend of Hercules, here shot in a quasi-realistic style by Brett Ratner that eschews the Green Screen look of a Frank Miller/Zack Snyder collaboration. Dwayne Johnson is fine as Herc, and Ian McShane and Rufus Sewell offer strong support as members of Hec's merry mercenaries. Joseph Fiennes also deserves special mention for his scenery-chewing bad guy.

All forgettable -- you wish the story was more interesting and gave the actors more to do -- but offers a surprising and satisfying message just the same.

[Monterey Jack]

-Nightcrawler (2014): 9.5/10

One of the best films I've seen this year, with a riveting performance by Jake Gyllenhall (dude's been killing it lately) and magnificent photography by Robert Elswit. Even the score by James Newton Howard is better than expected. See it.

[AndyDursin]

Interstellar
6/10


Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

Review on the front page:

http://andyfilm.com/2014/11/06/11-11-14 ... -releases/

[jkholm]

Big Hero 6
7.5/10

Entertaining superhero movie aimed at kids that will also satisfy adults. It’s your standard super group origin story with one truly memorable character, the giant marshmallow shaped robot named Baymax who steals every scene he’s in. Like most of today’s comic-book movies, it’s a little too loud and frenetic and also kind of predictable. The identity of the masked villain will surprise nobody. But unlike many similar movies, this one isn’t too violent and has a sense of fun.

[Monterey Jack]

That's about how I'd rank Big Hero 6 (I might be nicer and bump it up to an 8/10)...the characters are fun and engaging, which makes up for a plot that's fairly transparent (yes, it's for kids, but that's no excuse for narrative laziness) and the obligatory Destruction Porn climax. And the post-credits scene is definitely worth the wait.

[mkaroly]

Triple Feature: THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939)/THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939)/SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) - for the first time in a very long time I sat down to begin going through the complete Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Holmes movies, and these were the first three I watched. I found BASKERVILLES to be a little less scary that the book; I remember reading the book as a kid and being scared to death of this monstrous demon dog - I guess back then it wasn't really possible to do that without being hokey (though to the filmmakers' credit, the dog they had towards the end was good and mean enough). Although the movie was entertaining, I think I like the book better. 6/10

ADVENTURES is my favorite so far - it is creepy and builds tension pretty well IMO. The haunting Inca melody that is played before a killing, the schemes of Moriarty (and the suspenseful "chase" towards the end), and the juxtaposition of shadows and light in this film really make it the fun film that it is. Although Bruce is a bit buffoonish as Watson, I still found him funny, and the chemistry he has with Rathbone is solid. Bits and pieces of hte film brought back memories of me seeing this as a kid on TV, so I have a soft spot in my heart for this film. 9/10

VOICE OF TERROR kind of took me aback at first; I am used to thinking of Holmes and Watson in turn of the century surroundings (and moreso in the late 19th century), so it was a shock to see them pop up in 1940s London during World War II. At first the film seemed like it was making Holmes out to be a super-hero of sorts as the Council discussed what they should do in the face of all the sabotage that was going on, and that was kind of a turn off (I thought of how Pierce Brosnan started to become Bond the larger-than-life super-hero during his tenure). I am sure that this film at the time in GB did the same thing for them as what films in America did for us during WW II, and that aspect of the film was more front and center than the characters themselves. For that reason I found the film less entertaining but still watchable. 5/10

I am not a Holmes expert and have not seen everyone play the roles of Holmes and Watson through the years. I can't say whether or not Rathbone and Bruce were the "definitive" Holmes and Watson, but nonetheless they are, at least for me, an entertaining pair. I do like Rathbone's hyper-Holmes - whenever I read the books I end up thinking of Rathbone's Holmes as opposed to, say, Peter Cushing or Robert Stephens (I really like THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES). At any rate, I look forward to watching the rest of the films that Rathbone and Bruce did together.

[AndyDursin]

ST. VINCENT
8/10

Lifted by one of Bill Murray’s more engaging and believable performances, Theodore Melfi’s ST. VINCENT might be formulaic and predictable, but its earnest and warmhearted story makes it a refreshing change of pace for viewers disappointed with the likes of Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” and other, recent assaults on the senses coming out of Hollywood.

Perhaps because I had just sat through “Interstellar,” I was more than ready for a character-driven piece like “St. Vincent,” wherein Oliver, the precocious 10-year-old son (Jaeden Lieberher) of a newly-single mom (Melissa McCarthy), ends up being babysat – quite unexpectedly – by new neighbor Vincent MacKenna (Murray). Vincent is a hard-drinking, cantankerous louse, one who’s lost at the track too many times and barely has enough funds to scrape up for his Russian hooker girlfriend (Naomi Watts), who’s also carrying his child. Vincent looks at babysitting young Oliver as a means of generating some income at a time when he desperately needs it, particularly because of his ailing, Alheizmers-afflicted wife, whose care he’s barely able to afford. After Oliver has a hard time in the new Catholic school he’s attending, Vincent is able to – of course – tutor the boy in defending himself and providing an education in life while Oliver’s mother – facing a custody battle with her ex – works away at a hospital job in order to support them both.

Melfi wrote and directed “St. Vincent,” which sounds predictable – and is, really – but works because of the sincerity of the film’s performances and its all-around good nature. Murray refrains from showboating too much here and delivers a credible turn that ranks with some of his finest screen work; there are times when the star seems to slip in and out of a New York accent, but otherwise, this is one of Murray’s more memorable cinematic creations. McCarthy is quite appealing in a more dramatic role than she’s ever played on-screen, harkening back to her work on “Gilmore Girls” years ago, while Watts delivers a surprisingly funny, on-target turn as Vincent’s unrefined “lady of the night.” It helps that Leiberher is also a natural on-screen, and that all of the actors are able to handle the more dramatic – if not contrived – elements of the story’s final act with ease.

“St. Vincent” may not be a great film – and one wishes the story didn’t resolve itself quite as quickly and neatly as it does, with Melfi throwing one plot device after another at the viewer – but it’s nevertheless a heartwarming picture, and one that seems particularly welcome given the year we’ve had at the movies.

[Paul MacLean]

I'm going through the Bond films again, this time in a more random order...


Dr. No and Goldfinger still hold-up incredibly well, though I do think Goldfinger is a bit slow in the Kentucky sequences and could have used a little more action. But Connery was never better in the role than in this movie, and this is where he really hit his stride as the character.


From Russia With Love

Solid, and more of a "real" espionage story -- but that's not what I look for in a Bond adventure. Some good characters, like Karim Bey and Red Grant, who is a great henchman. I also love the nods to Bond's sense of class and style (like the way his suspicions are aroused when Grant orders red wine with fish). But the film lacks a satisfying climax. I prefer Bond to defy death by confronting the mastermind in his own lair. In FRWL, he merely steals a decoding machine. That said, the boat chase and Rosa Klebb's death are sufficiantly satisfying.


Thunderball

For me, this is most entertaining of the Connery films. Character-wise, Connery was better in Goldfinger, but Thunderball is a lot more fun and an impressive spectacle. They obviously had more money for this one (it's the first Bond film shot in anamorphic) and the teaser is one of the best of the entire series. It has vicious, trecherous villains like Largo and Fiona (Fiona also makes for a nice twist, in that she's a femme fatale whom Bond fails to seduce and "turn good"). Yeah, the underwater battle towards the end is slow and goes on too long, but the climax on the Disco Volante moves at a breakneck pace and is nail-bitingly suspenseful (and what a great moment when Largo is killed by Domino). Barry's score is much more tuneful and expansive than his previous 007 scores as well (and "Thunderball" is my favorite Bond song).


Live and Let Die

I'm going to Haiti in a couple of months, so a screening of this one seemed in order! I must say LALD has grown on me. The airport chase is still a bit silly (and it's implausible that the CIA would allow Bond and Solitaire to be picked-up by a cab instead of sending a government car and driver). The speedboat chase has some great work, but goes on a bit long (and again is a bit silly). But overall the film is highly entertaining, with memorable moments like the crocodile sequence and climax at the voodoo ceremony. I think Moore fit comfortably into the role and made it his own right from start. Yaphet Kotto is one of the better villains, and is impressively proactive toward the end when attacking Bond with the knife (though his demise is, unquestionably, ridiculous). Julius Harris' Tee-Hee is one of the series best henchmen, right up there with Oddjob, and who can fail to love Geoffrey Holder in any role? The whole voodoo angle also puts an a really interesting spin on the film (in particular the twist ending, which leaves us wondering, "Is he truly the real Baron Samedi?").


The World in Not Enough

I enjoyed this more a year and a half ago (maybe it seemed better when viewed so soon after Goldeneye!) but I found it more stilted and lacking this time. The teaser (despite a few goofy moments) is fabulous and one of the better of the series. But the subsequent action scenes lack energy. The ski chase doesn't compare well to those in OHMSS (made thirty years earlier). In the film's favor we have the interesting idea of "M" being kidnapped (inspired I'm sure by the book "Colonel Sun"), and it also has Sophie Marceau (a "real" actress -- unlike the glorified models usually cast as Bond girls). Marceau is terrific, but he role as written seems to lack depth, and I also never felt enough of a connection between her and Bond. It's clear he falls for her a bit, but I never felt the "sparks" between them, nor were his feelings of betrayal or regret (after killing her) sufficiently imparted. Robert Carlysle is an excellent villain, but the whole submarine climax goes on too long and (like most of the action scenes) isn't very exciting visually. Not a snoozer, but a lesser entry in the series.

[mkaroly]

Good reviews Paul - THUNDERBALL is a guilty favorite, and I love Fiona for the same reasons you mention. She was one of the best villianesses. TWINE - I am sure I will comment more on that wehn I get around to watching it (next film up for me is FYEO), but I always felt that Sophie could have beent he stand-alone villain in the movie - no need for the dude with a bullet lodged in his head. And I cannot suspend disbelief in trying to imagine that woman as a physicist (can't remember her name right now for the life of me)...Denise Richards! Lol...just thought of it.

[AndyDursin]

I actually disliked WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH quite a bit. Bloated, dull, totally misfired the whole "M Kidnapping" plot (which they'd re-use again in SKYFALL), lame song. I find TOMORROW NEVER DIES to be the best, by a wide margin, of the Brosnan films, and WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was a stepbackwards.

I also prefer DIE ANOTHER DAY over it also, at least the first half of it (which is quite good) before the silliness sets in.

[Jedbu]

Brosnan uttering "I thought Christmas only came once a year" nearly made me throw my popcorn box at the screen when I saw it, and I would love to ask him if he ever winced at the thought of saying it out loud.