rate the last movie you saw

[Monterey Jack]

Even though Herrmann could have written a terrific, jarring score to The Birds, the movie, much like No Country For Old Men, actually works brilliantly sans music. Although that maddening "RIG-eldy, RAG-eldy, MEOW-MEOW-MEOW...!" source music while Tippi Hedren is waiting outside the schoolhouse is weirdly effective as we see the birds touching down on the jungle gym in the baclground while Hedren obliviously smokes a cigarette.

[AndyDursin]

Even though Herrmann could have written a terrific, jarring score to The Birds, the movie, much like No Country For Old Men, actually works brilliantly sans music. Although that maddening "RIG-eldy, RAG-eldy, MEOW-MEOW-MEOW...!" source music while Tippi Hedren is waiting outside the schoolhouse is weirdly effective as we see the birds touching down on the jungle gym in the baclground while Hedren obliviously smokes a cigarette.

That's a good point, the sound design works as a soundtrack onto itself with that movie.

[Monterey Jack]

-The Usual Suspects (1995): 9/10

Maybe a little less mind-blowing than it was when I first watched it on laserdisc back in 1995 (when I was 21 ), but still a first-rate mystery/thriller with a boatload of terrific performances.

And hey, that's Louis "Edgar" Lombardi from 24 as one of the crooked cops that the Suspects carjack ("You know who the F-Bomb I am...!?").

[Paul MacLean]

Even though Herrmann could have written a terrific, jarring score to The Birds, the movie, much like No Country For Old Men, actually works brilliantly sans music.

I think the film "works", but not brilliantly. Its pretty slow and padded, and I think a score would have helped.

Although Herrmann obviously supported the absence of music in The Birds, I'm sure he would have written a remarkably innovative score had he been asked (and one which would have added another dimension to the film).

[AndyDursin]

-The Usual Suspects (1995): 9/10

Maybe a little less mind-blowing than it was when I first watched it on laserdisc back in 1995 (when I was 21 ), but still a first-rate mystery/thriller with a boatload of terrific performances.

And hey, that's Louis "Edgar" Lombardi from 24 as one of the crooked cops that the Suspects carjack ("You know who the F-Bomb I am...!?").

I've always found that film overrated. For all the talk about how brilliant the twist was, it made no sense because in the narrative framework Singer employed, the character wouldn't have been referring to scenes he didn't appear in. Logically it bothered me and still does...but I know some people love it!

[Paul MacLean]

Wow, mine is the first new post on this thread in over a month. Guess not many people are watching movies these days?

Anyway, I watched Vicky Christina Barcelona last night. Entertaining but not one of Woody Allen's best. It was amusing, but I never really laughed out loud. Excellent performances however, and Allen again displays his penchant for creating an intimate character drama against an epic background.

Its sad tho, that Allen is about the only guy left who makes "foreign" films -- i.e. the kind of intimate character studies we used to get from European directors (before they died or defected to Hollywood).

[mkaroly]

Nothing worth reviewing! Lol....I did not like VCB very much...like most of Allen's post-Mia Farrow debacle works I found this film uninspired and "tired". However, I absolutely loathed Whatever Works, so VCB was better than WW to me!

[AndyDursin]

I found it good -- but very overpraised. And dull.

[Eric Paddon]

I was inspired to watch "Alien" last night for the silly reason that as part of my revisiting video of Disney World attractions, I noticed the "Alien" sequence in the "Great Movie Ride" at Disney-MGM Studios. I had the 1999 DVD issue and made use of that one.

Final rating 6.5 of 10. My view of the film I have to say dropped from the last time I saw it way back when for the simple reason that analyzing the film on a structural level and with no view of any of the sequels (and I've only seen "Aliens" anyway) in mind, it occurred to me that the whole subplot involving Ash really dragged the film down completely in making him a "company robot" and all the stuff about the company wanting an alien for undefined reasons. That really kind of dampens part of the terror if there is something about this that's already *known* to the sinister corporate powers that be. Frankly, the story construction would have been a lot better if Ash had simply been a retread of the well-meaning but misguided scientist from the original "Thing" whose fascination with discovering a new life form ultimately proves damaging to the rest of the crew. But then again, that wouldn't have fit with the prevailing new thinking in vogue by the 70s which was to always look for comments about evil corporations whereas the well-meaning foolish man of science that was prevalent in 50s sci-fi movies was no longer in fashion by then (even though as a story conceit it would have made more sense in this instance).

And I have often wondered if the reason why the "Dallas cocoon" sequence got cut might have had something to do with an ongoing legal dispute between Fox and Universal at the time over "Battlestar Galactica" allegedly plagiarizing from "Star Wars." The "Dallas cocoon" scene actually bears more than a slight similarity (albeit in a more grotesque way) to a key moment of the Galactica pilot where Apollo and Starbuck discover that the insectoid Ovions are using humans for food and yes, "cocooning" them in the process in chambers not too unlike what we see with Dallas and Brett. And I am quite sure that the Fox lawyers might have realized that including a scene like this in their biggest sci-fi movie since the suit was initiated would not have helped their case much (weak as it was to begin with, eventually getting dismissed as without merit).

"Alien" has a lot going for it, but on this new look, I see a film that could have been better in the end with a tightening of story structure. The Ash thing in the end is a giant distraction from the more important focus of the story that drives its terror.

[AndyDursin]

I think once you've seen ALIEN you can never really regain the mood and suspense from the first time you watched it. At least it's that way with me.

What I still appreciate is the art direction, the cinematography and production design. I would think seeing it in high-definition will go a long, long way to enhancing that element of the picture and I look forward to that.

But...it is a slow burn, so to speak. Little happens. It's all build up. And once you've seen it, you just can't ever recapture the surprise and excitement of a first viewing, because the movie doesn't work on a lot of other levels. And I think Ridley Scott himself has said as much.

[Eric Paddon]

I've always taken the view that while yes, you can never duplicate completely the suspense of a first viewing, if the film is structurally brilliant on all the other levels, then it is possible to keep coming back for more and feel the same excitement. "Jaws" still does that every time I see it.

[AndyDursin]

I've always taken the view that while yes, you can never duplicate completely the suspense of a first viewing, if the film is structurally brilliant on all the other levels, then it is possible to keep coming back for more and feel the same excitement. "Jaws" still does that every time I see it.

JAWS is a true cinematic classic of any kind -- a different beast than ALIEN. I look at ALIEN as being great for what it was, even a classic amongst its genre, but it's still a very one-dimensional film that was basically built as a one-time viewing experience. Not that different than a 1950s monster-in-space B-movie, just with A-grade production attributes and a very unique monster design. I find ALIENS, by comparison, to have more interest from a sheer character-development/dramatic angle -- there's a lot more to it, and on repeat viewings, I find that it holds up better than ALIEN. But that's just my opinion, there are some who find the artistic element of Scott's film to be more compelling than Cameron's picture, and keep going back to the original instead.

No doubt JAWS has a lot more going for it than either -- namely the characters. I love spending time, as a viewer, with Brody, Hooper, Quint, etc. It's a testament to that movie that it works for the performances and I keep coming back to it for that reason alone, as so many other viewers have. It could have been dreadful, but it's a masterwork for a number of reasons, from the authentic locales and naturalistic cinematography (something Spielberg has completely thrown away since building his relationship with Janusz Kaminski) to the editing and basically everything about the movie. It's a perfect engine, that film, in so many words.

Anyway JAWS is probably my all-time favorite film so I won't go on any further.

[Monterey Jack]

City Of Fear (1959): 7/10

Decent little noir picture (with Vince Edwards as an escaped con toting around a container he thinks holds a fortune in cocaine but instead holds a deadly dose of radioactive isotopes) is mainly notheworthy for featuring Jerry Goldsmith's second feature score, which already bubbles over with his trademark piano ostinatoes and jangly percussion effects. It'd be nice if this could be dug up and preserved on CD someday...it's very much in line with the Twilight Zone scores he was writing at the time.

[Eric Paddon]

The Wizard Of Oz. 9 of 10.

A genuine classic for all time. The only point I remove is for the cuts made after preview screenings that I think would have made for a fuller narrative and better balance in the music (the fact that we have no songs after "King Of The Forest" because of the cuts is a complaint I have).

The big 70th DVD set finally restored in full all the great audio outtakes that I enjoyed in the old Ultimate Oz Laser Disc set from the early 90s but I need to dig out the old insert that identified each of the takes with a detailed description. I'm still annoyed though that they didn't restore the full John Fricke commentary from the LD and instead kept the truncated one interspersed with cast interview clips.

[John Johnson]

And I have often wondered if the reason why the "Dallas cocoon" sequence got cut might have had something to do with an ongoing legal dispute between Fox and Universal at the time over "Battlestar Galactica" allegedly plagiarizing from "Star Wars." The "Dallas cocoon" scene actually bears more than a slight similarity (albeit in a more grotesque way) to a key moment of the Galactica pilot where Apollo and Starbuck discover that the insectoid Ovions are using humans for food and yes, "cocooning" them in the process in chambers not too unlike what we see with Dallas and Brett. And I am quite sure that the Fox lawyers might have realized that including a scene like this in their biggest sci-fi movie since the suit was initiated would not have helped their case much (weak as it was to begin with, eventually getting dismissed as without merit).

Have you been smoking plant vapour again? LOL

Among the new material in this special edition of Alien is a scene Scott calls "The Nest," in which Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, finds the remains of Brett (Harry Dean Stanton) and Dallas (Tom Skerritt).

Scott has always liked the scene, but in 1979 he opted not to include it because he had thought it interrupted the breakneck pace of the film's final 17 minutes.

"It was a matter of dynamics," he says. "I thought that the nest scene might interrupt the tension as Ripley races for the escape vehicle. But when I reexamined the scene, it seemed to work very well, so it's back in."

http://www.indielondon.co.uk/film/alien_feature.html