rate the last movie you saw
THE BURMESE HARP (1957) - 5/10. I didn't find this film by Kon Ichikawa to be as well made as FIRES ON THE PLAIN. However, it still has some great cinematic moments; the scenes where the Japanese POWs leave the British camp to be taken back home actually made me cry a little. However, the film gets too melodramatic for me and loses steam whenever it pushes the sentimental aspects of the film. Still worth watching though.
LOVE AT FIRST BITE (1979) - 0.5/10. I remember really liking this movie back when I was a kid...thought it was hilarious. Watching it again now that I'm older, I have to say this is a terribly bad comedy. I would rank it up there with VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN as one of the dumbest movies I have ever seen. The one Geroge Hamilton comedy I still like is ZORRO THE GAY BLADE just because the Alcalde cracks me up. Anyway, the high point with LaFB for me was seeing George and Wheezy from The Jeffersons have cameos...I can't remember their names right now. Otherwise, not funny.
HOT SHOTS (1991) - 5/10. Again, not as funny as I remember the first time, but props to Lloyd Bridges who was given the best dialogue in the whole movie. I found myself laughing at his bits and pretty much no one else's...except the "Ain't no man gonna take that route with me!" line. Charlie Sheen was pretty good though playing it straight. I have MAJOR LEAGUE and HOT SHOTS PART DEUX on the movie list to watch soon.
HOT SHOTS (1991) - 5/10. Again, not as funny as I remember the first time, but props to Lloyd Bridges who was given the best dialogue in the whole movie. I found myself laughing at his bits and pretty much no one else's...except the "Ain't no man gonna take that route with me!" line. Charlie Sheen was pretty good though playing it straight. I have MAJOR LEAGUE and HOT SHOTS PART DEUX on the movie list to watch soon.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
THE BLUE MAX (1966) - 5/10. The flight scenes were incredibly well done, and I liked Goldsmith's sparse score. However, I found the story to be a bit lacking, and Peppard's performance was not what it could have been. He seemed really "dull" and uninspired for the role. It also irritated me that the commander of the air corps had a German accent but some of the pilots had British accents...and Peppard had an American accent. Mason's accent didn't fit either. Andress was a throw-away and the story just never grabbed me. I guess there is anti-Vietnam context in the film or something, but in the end I didn't care. If someone more charasmatic than Peppard was in the lead role, it might have been better. They also didn't develop the social class warfare between the pilots well enough in my opinion.
HOT SHOTS PART DEUX! - 6/10. I think I like this one better than the original because I like the RAMBO films much more than the spoofing of TOP GUN in the first one. I especially like the girl-girl confrontation and the look on Crenna's face when they deliver the punch line...lol...still, the movie is a second rate NAKED GUN.
BLACULA (1972) - 5/10. I am unfamiliar with blaxploitation films, having only seen SHAFT. This was an enteratining film but very goofy and silly. Marshall's deep voice and hulking figure were definitely assets in this film; Elisha Cook's cameo was weird. Not great but not bad either. If I was more familiar with the genre I would probably find more to appreciate about it.
BLACULA (1972) - 5/10. I am unfamiliar with blaxploitation films, having only seen SHAFT. This was an enteratining film but very goofy and silly. Marshall's deep voice and hulking figure were definitely assets in this film; Elisha Cook's cameo was weird. Not great but not bad either. If I was more familiar with the genre I would probably find more to appreciate about it.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Cast Away (2000) 7 of 10.
As a story I think it still holds up very well. My one real gripe though is that this film, being as it is a product of modern Hollywood, tells a story that in an earlier age would not have blithely ignored having the character ponder a bit more the spiritual questions his experience raised. I don't care if a person is religious or not beforehand, I just don't see how anyone goes through an experience like that without once mentioning the name of God and perhaps pondering the role of some kind of Divine Fate controlling things, *especially* when you then seemingly set up a device at the end regarding Chuck perhaps becoming more than casually acquainted with the recipient of the unopened package. And yet, it's as if the film doesn't want to do the obvious that would lend things in that direction by just having Chuck still at the crossroads at the end, whereas a film made with the mindset of old Hollywood wouldn't have made things so needlessly complex.
As a story I think it still holds up very well. My one real gripe though is that this film, being as it is a product of modern Hollywood, tells a story that in an earlier age would not have blithely ignored having the character ponder a bit more the spiritual questions his experience raised. I don't care if a person is religious or not beforehand, I just don't see how anyone goes through an experience like that without once mentioning the name of God and perhaps pondering the role of some kind of Divine Fate controlling things, *especially* when you then seemingly set up a device at the end regarding Chuck perhaps becoming more than casually acquainted with the recipient of the unopened package. And yet, it's as if the film doesn't want to do the obvious that would lend things in that direction by just having Chuck still at the crossroads at the end, whereas a film made with the mindset of old Hollywood wouldn't have made things so needlessly complex.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I still remember when I saw CASTAWAY at the local theater, that the framing drifted so astray in the concluding minutes that when Hanks met Helen Hunt at the end, all you could see was from their necks down. And nobody in the theater batted an eye -- I had to run out and tell someone to call the projectionist and wake them the hell up!
I agree with your analysis Eric, it was good, it wasn't great. Other than WHAT LIES BENEATH, which was pretty underrated I felt, it's been a long time since I've really been a fan of a Robert Zemeckis film. He went into "prestige" mode on FOREST GUMP and while CONTACT was okay, I felt it was too restrained and "important," which is how CASTAWAY came across. And now he's gone crazy with this 3-D motion-cap crap, which has soured me completely on his output.
I agree with your analysis Eric, it was good, it wasn't great. Other than WHAT LIES BENEATH, which was pretty underrated I felt, it's been a long time since I've really been a fan of a Robert Zemeckis film. He went into "prestige" mode on FOREST GUMP and while CONTACT was okay, I felt it was too restrained and "important," which is how CASTAWAY came across. And now he's gone crazy with this 3-D motion-cap crap, which has soured me completely on his output.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Since Directv hooked me up with a free HD-DVR I find it's been a lot easier to record stuff than my other method (which involves my PC and a H264 Hauppuage HD-PVR -- meaning you have to have everything turned on, and I can't always remember to do that!).
A few things I've watched in the last few days --
CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER - John Heard, Peter Riegert, Mary Beth Hurt starred in this late '70s domestic comedy/romantic drama about a bored guy who falls in love with a woman running from her estranged husband. Well acted and written, but the film's problematic post-production showed: originally released as HEAD OVER HEELS, they ended up re-cutting the ending and re-releasing it years later in this current version. The ending is better in the other version (I saw it on Youtube), but the film is worthwhile and plays on MGM-HD all the time. 7 out of 10.
DELIRIOUS - Tom Mankiewicz directed this early '90s John Candy comedy, which is actually pretty funny, about a soap opera writer who improbably ends up living in his own world of fiction. Good ensemble cast (David Rasche, Dylan Baker, Mariel Hemingway, Emma Samms, Jerry Orbach, Raymond Burr) makes this one a good time. Early Cliff Eidelman score and Richard Donner produced it. Again, on MGM-HD. 7 out of 10.
D.A.R.Y.L. - Data Analyzing Robot Youth Lifeform. Yes, I remember!! (Just like CHUD - Canabalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers!). I never saw this 1985 fantasy until years after the fact, but it's OK, nicely shot in widescreen with Marvin Hamlisch music. Not great, not bad, but there were far better genre fantasies aimed at kids during that part of the decade. 5/10.
A few things I've watched in the last few days --
CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER - John Heard, Peter Riegert, Mary Beth Hurt starred in this late '70s domestic comedy/romantic drama about a bored guy who falls in love with a woman running from her estranged husband. Well acted and written, but the film's problematic post-production showed: originally released as HEAD OVER HEELS, they ended up re-cutting the ending and re-releasing it years later in this current version. The ending is better in the other version (I saw it on Youtube), but the film is worthwhile and plays on MGM-HD all the time. 7 out of 10.
DELIRIOUS - Tom Mankiewicz directed this early '90s John Candy comedy, which is actually pretty funny, about a soap opera writer who improbably ends up living in his own world of fiction. Good ensemble cast (David Rasche, Dylan Baker, Mariel Hemingway, Emma Samms, Jerry Orbach, Raymond Burr) makes this one a good time. Early Cliff Eidelman score and Richard Donner produced it. Again, on MGM-HD. 7 out of 10.
D.A.R.Y.L. - Data Analyzing Robot Youth Lifeform. Yes, I remember!! (Just like CHUD - Canabalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers!). I never saw this 1985 fantasy until years after the fact, but it's OK, nicely shot in widescreen with Marvin Hamlisch music. Not great, not bad, but there were far better genre fantasies aimed at kids during that part of the decade. 5/10.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
And the sad thing is, you could have provided more forward momentum without being so overly melodramatic at the end just by having Bettina answer the door and have a little, "I'm Chuck Noland, I wanted to finally deliver this" and she invites him in for a chat. Door closes, fade-out. Maybe that's too "simplistic" for modern Hollywood but it's better storytelling.AndyDursin wrote:I agree with your analysis Eric, it was good, it wasn't great.
Anyway....other films watched.
No Highway In The Sky (1951) (6 of 10)
-An okay little film, made more interesting by virtue of being the very earliest "airplane disaster" type film I know of. Seeing Stewart and Dietrich together again a dozen years after "Destry Rides Again" in such diferent roles is fascinating.
Panic In The Year Zero (1962) (6 of 10)
-Another okay B-level movie. The "juvenile delinquent" baddies was the part I disliked most and I think Baxter's score clashed too much with the subject matter.
500 Days of Summer - 10/10. Honestly, I can't think of anything I really disliked about this movie. It was really funny and nailed the ups and downs of relationships in a way I have never seen before. I actually sat there watching it and felt "pains" from past experiences I've had...lol...at any rate, it was very enjoyable and the acting was excellent. Again, I can't think of anything negative to say about it.
Patton (1970) - 9.5/10. I am not really into war movies, which is one of the things that has prevented me from watching this film all these years. But after seeing it I was really impressed. Scott's performance was excellent, and I loved the flow of the movie. It never got boring and never "stalled" at any point. The battle scenes were really cool and I thought the ending was pretty good. At times I thought the movie was a bit too "cute" (when the Nazi soldier was writing casualties on a board that had Patton's name on the enemy's side, for example...maybe the Nazi's did that, but I don't know), but any minor complaint I have about the film doesn't change its entertainment value.
Patton (1970) - 9.5/10. I am not really into war movies, which is one of the things that has prevented me from watching this film all these years. But after seeing it I was really impressed. Scott's performance was excellent, and I loved the flow of the movie. It never got boring and never "stalled" at any point. The battle scenes were really cool and I thought the ending was pretty good. At times I thought the movie was a bit too "cute" (when the Nazi soldier was writing casualties on a board that had Patton's name on the enemy's side, for example...maybe the Nazi's did that, but I don't know), but any minor complaint I have about the film doesn't change its entertainment value.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Best movie of last year? I can't think of another film I'd want to see again, at least, more than 500 DAYS.500 Days of Summer - 10/10. Honestly, I can't think of anything I really disliked about this movie. It was really funny and nailed the ups and downs of relationships in a way I have never seen before. I actually sat there watching it and felt "pains" from past experiences I've had...lol...at any rate, it was very enjoyable and the acting was excellent. Again, I can't think of anything negative to say about it.
One reason I think they hired the right guy for Spider-Man. If you're going to go young with a new cast, why not hire a director who did such a solid job with 500 DAYS.
I couldn't argue with it being best film last year...even if I could think of something I didn't like it would be a minor quibble and nothing that ruined the film or the viewing experience for me. It was really good.AndyDursin wrote:Best movie of last year? I can't think of another film I'd want to see again, at least, more than 500 DAYS.500 Days of Summer - 10/10. Honestly, I can't think of anything I really disliked about this movie. It was really funny and nailed the ups and downs of relationships in a way I have never seen before. I actually sat there watching it and felt "pains" from past experiences I've had...lol...at any rate, it was very enjoyable and the acting was excellent. Again, I can't think of anything negative to say about it.
One reason I think they hired the right guy for Spider-Man. If you're going to go young with a new cast, why not hire a director who did such a solid job with 500 DAYS.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7536
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
I watched The Birds again the other night. First time I'd seen it since I went to screening of it shortly after graduating high school.
Not one of Hitchcock's best efforts. There's a lot of interesting scenes and effects in the film, and the Northern California scenery is nice, but the movie mostly feels padded (not surprising, seeing as it was based on a short story). It grows a bit tedious in its attempt to weave a story between the bird attacks.
The absence of a score is a curious touch, though I imagine had Bernard Herrmann been invited to actually write a score it probably would have been one of his most interesting.
Not one of Hitchcock's best efforts. There's a lot of interesting scenes and effects in the film, and the Northern California scenery is nice, but the movie mostly feels padded (not surprising, seeing as it was based on a short story). It grows a bit tedious in its attempt to weave a story between the bird attacks.
The absence of a score is a curious touch, though I imagine had Bernard Herrmann been invited to actually write a score it probably would have been one of his most interesting.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I haven't seen it in a long time either. I think THE BIRDS is one of those movies that probably belongs to a certain time and place -- back when it came out it was probably downright terrifying to audiences since it felt so different and was innovative in a few ways. But as the years have gone on, I think its technical elements have become dated and the movie's flaws have probably magnified.Paul MacLean wrote:I watched The Birds again the other night. First time I'd seen it since I went to screening of it shortly after graduating high school.
Not one of Hitchcock's best efforts. There's a lot of interesting scenes and effects in the film, and the Northern California scenery is nice, but the movie mostly feels padded (not surprising, seeing as it was based on a short story). It grows a bit tedious in its attempt to weave a story between the bird attacks.
The absence of a score is a curious touch, though I imagine had Bernard Herrmann been invited to actually write a score it probably would have been one of his most interesting.
I need to see it again but that's just what I thought the last time I watched it.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
I'm probably by instinct more charitable to the FX of the era simply because I don't have much regard for modern CGI FX, but what I like about the film is how it takes its time getting to the chilling parts. And the absence of a score creates that sense of dead calm quiet before an approaching tornado, especially the scene where the lone gull just crashes into the door of Annie's house and they comment on how there's a full moon and it shouldn't have just gotten lost in the dark.
One time I did synch up Herrmann's shower stabbing cue from "Psycho" to the moment when Jessica Tandy discovers the body of the dead farmer with his eyes missing, and I think that offers the best insight to what a score for the film could have been like.
One time I did synch up Herrmann's shower stabbing cue from "Psycho" to the moment when Jessica Tandy discovers the body of the dead farmer with his eyes missing, and I think that offers the best insight to what a score for the film could have been like.