AndyDursin wrote:J. EDGAR 4/10

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The trailer smacked of the worst kind of Oscar-whoring melodrama, and the old-age makeup on DiCaprio looked nothing short of HORRENDOUS. Does it actually look that bad in the movie itself?

AndyDursin wrote:I think your sense of humor is different than mine and others....can't really argue it one way or the other. If people find it funny then there you go, though there is a World of difference between something Ike Anchorman and most of Sandler's fare IMO.

It's funny that I only like one movie, period, from either actor, and in both cases they're quirky dramas with their worst comedic inclinations severely toned down (Stranger Than Fiction for Ferrell, Punch Drunk Love for Sandler). 95% of the time, though, seeing either man attached to a movie is a guarantee that I will never, ever watch it

Of course, everyone in the theater around me starts busting out with uproarious laughter whenever I'm unlucky enough to be subjected to one of their trailers before a movie, so I guess I'm the crazy one... Give me Steve Carell any day...

Give me Steve Carell any day...

Big fan of GET SMART, EVAN ALMIGHTY, DATE NIGHT and CRAZY STUPID LOVE, eh? lol. Forget Ferrell's better comedies -- now THOSE are hilarious! Just kidding MJ (sort of). I do think Carell is a much more talented ACTOR, sure, but as a comedian, it's like Ferrell -- all about the vehicle and the script, and in that instance, Ferrell has turned out much funnier films on balance.

The Cobweb (1955) (5 of 10)
-Since the Rosenmann score was a freebie from SAE in one of my mad Christmas season orders, I got hold of the film from Warner Archive. I find it amazing that (1) this film could run so overlong at 123 minutes in an age when shorter running times were the norm (2) the whole plot is ultimately about DRAPES!!!! and (3) the unbelievably bad casting of Gloria Grahame as Widmark's wife.

-I can see where Rosenmann's approach certainly sounded different to a 1955 audience. It certainly worked for the film, but the film is an overly long affair that certainly didn't justify this kind of a running time.

AndyDursin wrote:
Big fan of GET SMART, EVAN ALMIGHTY, DATE NIGHT and CRAZY STUPID LOVE, eh?

Crazy Stupid Love I actually thought was one of the best romcoms in recent memory, smart and sweet and genuinely romantic. Even in mediocre movies, Carell radiates an essential decency that makes you like him, whereas Ferrell and Sandler specialize in cruelty and sadism and obnoxiousness.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:
Big fan of GET SMART, EVAN ALMIGHTY, DATE NIGHT and CRAZY STUPID LOVE, eh?

Crazy Stupid Love I actually thought was one of the best romcoms in recent memory, smart and sweet and genuinely romantic. Even in mediocre movies, Carell radiates an essential decency that makes you like him, whereas Ferrell and Sandler specialize in cruelty and sadism and obnoxiousness.

I didn't like the movie at all. I do like Carell, and I also think Ferrell has more going for him than Sandler does.

To each his own! lol.

The Winter Bones 8/10

Definitely not a commercial film. I guess you would call it a murder mystery or a thriller on a human scale: not the adrenalin-pumped Hollywood scale. Fine performances from everyone. Low keyed. Serious consequences. And human decency all around.

Am I going to be trashed if I say it's a very un-American film?

I think the last American film this unusual was Lars and the Real Girl.

I liked Winter's Bone a whole lot (loved Jennifer Lawrence in it). I wouldn't necessarily say it's un-American, more like one of the better indie films to come out of here in a while.

Speaking of that, I saw MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE the other day. Now THERE'S an overrated indie film. Slow moving, well acted but not particularly interesting and ultimately dull.

WANDERLUST 6/10

Reteaming of director David Wain, Paul Rudd and a lot of the creative team behind the hilarious "Role Models" doesn't strike comedy gold so much here. In fact, the film feels as if it was written so the comedy could be improvised by the cast, but the laughs are only intermittent and mild as Rudd and Jennifer Aniston (always the same, no matter where or when she is) end up in a hippie colony in Georgia after losing their jobs in New York City. Plenty of talented people are on-screen, but the movie is best suited to a view on the small screen where demands won't be so high.

STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
7.5

Last night was the first time I had sat through all of this in a long time. It basically reaffirmed what I have always thought about it -- that it's the one film in the series that doesn't stand on its own -- though I also noticed this time how "down" the movie was. In terms of its physical production (shot entirely on sets) as well as its story, which is heavy and mostly downbeat -- making it an about-face in terms of Kirk's arc from II, where he feels "young" again at the end of the picture in spite of having lost Spock. From Shatner's rather dour performance to the only-fleeting moments of "fun" (the gang stealing the Enterprise), it's all kind of heavy, down to even Horner's score, which dramatically isn't nearly as impressive as his work on II. The use of the David and Saavik characters is also a huge letdown; obviously not having Kirstie Alley back essentially rendered that character totally useless.

While there are some effective moments and the film is still entertaining, the movie is tellingly "over" before the 90 minute mark and that sequence on Vulcan (probably the best stretch of the film) which concludes it. To his credit, I think Nimoy's direction, on balance, is much stronger than the relatively undercooked screenplay and the confines of having to shoot strictly on soundstages.

From the tone to the set-bound production, I could see more than ever why Nimoy and company felt a switch was desperately needed for STAR TREK IV -- aesthetically, narratively and even in terms of the music. It was a natural break that makes all the more sense after you've sat through III again.

Continuing on the same path, as Spock would say, would not have been logical.

STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK

Never been a huge fan of this film, or its dour tone and abundance of doom and destruction.

It seemed to me that the "price" of dramatically justifying Spock's resurrection necessitated the sacrifice of a lot of other things. So they kill-off Kirk's son, destroy the Enterprise and transform the Genesis planet (hitherto a symbol of rebirth and hope) into a potential weapon. Unfortunately bringing Spock back still ruins his sacrifice in Star Trek II.

I also was always a bit confused by the scene where the scurity guard threatens Sulu when he attempts to make small talk. When I first saw the film I almost wondered "Is Sulu flirting with the guy?", which at the time seemed odd. Of course in retrospect in doesn't seem odd at all (in fact I suspect George Takei had a lot to do with how this scene was played)!

^^"Oh my!" Lol...

LOL, that's funny.

I pretty much agree with you guys about Trek 3. I have a sentimental soft spot for it but the criticisms are spot on.

The Four Feathers (1939) 8/10

Wow, what action. What a story. What a performance from Ralph Richardson as a British Army officer circa 1885 who goes to the Sudan, fights the Fuzzy Wuzzies and Dervishes and loses his sight in the process. He had so many great scenes, but the one where he has lost all hope and wanders around his destroyed camp is amazing.

Oh, and there is a sub-plot about the fellow who is given the feathers as a sign of cowardice by Sir Ralph and two of his comrades, who eventually wanders around the Sudan saving everyone’s' ass in the disguise of a mute Arab.

The logistics of filming this in colour and on location in the late thirties must have been staggering. It would be a challenge to mount such a production today, I’m sure.

I remember seeing this film growing up as a part of Elwy Yost’s Magic Shadows/Saturday Night at the Movies show on TVOntario and it brought back fond memories of the effervescent and overenthusiastic Yost with the goofy grin.

I was a bit disappointed with the transfer. The film is not in the best of condition with a lot of imperfections and scratches, even though Criterion had cleaned it up.

Uncle Boonmee: Who Can Recall His Past Lives 6/10

Talk about watching paint dry. This is one of those films where nothing much happens, but enough odd stuff happens that you're curious enough to want to watch it to the end. Ultimately, I'm watching the scenery more than I'm watching the characters in the movie. Luckily, the film is Thai and is set in farming country, so there is a lot of scenery to see.

I usually appreciate odd-ball, Asian films about reincarnation but was left too long for something interesting to happen. A dying farm owner is visited by his dead wife and lost son ('lost' in more ways than one), while sharing time with his sister and a monk who has come to comfort him and help him with his medical treatments. Amongst all this, a unloved princess stops at a secluded pool and is made love to by an amorous catfish. (Well, that was interesting.)

In all, I guess I could say that the whole movie when right over my head. At least it wasn't as bad as Valhalla Rising (4/10), which it reminded me of. Valhalla was also lacking much of a plot. (It was something about a group of Vikings going to conquer new lands and getting lost in the 'psychological' wilderness.)

I guess Boonmee was a contemplation on death, while Valhalla was a contemplation on violence. Neither seemed to go anywhere, but at least both had nice scenery.