rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

Pretty Maids All In A Row.

Completely warped...but very entertaining!

[AndyDursin]

Did you get out to see Potter yet Paul? Eagerly anticipating your review! Though...I think I know what you think of the music already. lol.

[mkaroly]

ALIEN (Blu-Ray): 9.99/10. I came late to the BR party but I have to admit that the cost of all this stuff was worth just seeing the 1979 theatrical cut with such a clear picture....oh my GOSH! Lol...I do not have a surround sound system for the TV yet, so I'm sure I'm missing out on some nice effects, but for the first time in my life I realized that when the Alien was about to strike there was a heartbeat sound effect in the background....never noticed that before even though I've seen the movie at least 20-30 times.

This movie holds up so well....honestly, this and BLADE RUNNER are Scott's two best film (IMO). He built suspense and tension well; a first time viewer would be shocked at the egg scene, chest-burster scene, the "search for the face hugger" scene, and Ash's revelation. Brilliantly staged, acted, and edited...what an amazing movie.

Now for my 0.01 point complaint: The crack/bush shot of Ripley at the end just really, IMO, subverts her character and objectifies her unnecessarily. I understand the sexual imagery in the film, from the openings in the derelict spacecraft to Alien's phallic mouth...I get it. But why do you sepnd an entire film building up Ripley as a character only to make her become a sexual object like the naked girls on the wall and in the magazine Ash tries to suffocate her with??? Her undressing and stepping into the spacesuit with bush in view and high beams on has always bothered me. Completely unnecessary for character development or plot.

Despite that complaint, I chalk it up as minor and ALIEN continues to be one of the best in its class. I'm still flabbergasted by how clear the picture was....lol...geez!

[Monterey Jack]

Now for my 0.01 point complaint: The crack/bush shot of Ripley at the end just really, IMO, subverts her character and objectifies her unnecessarily. I understand the sexual imagery in the film, from the openings in the derelict spacecraft to Alien's phallic mouth...I get it. But why do you sepnd an entire film building up Ripley as a character only to make her become a sexual object like the naked girls on the wall and in the magazine Ash tries to suffocate her with??? Her undressing and stepping into the spacesuit with bush in view and high beams on has always bothered me. Completely unnecessary for character development or plot.

Ripley was getting ready for a long slumber in hypersleep. Don't you get undressed before going to bed?

I don't think Scott was really objectifying Weaver in this scene, despite all of the perverse sexual conontations of H.R. Giger's creature and production design. As attractive as Weaver was back in her prime, she's not especially well, um, "endowed" (Galaxy Quest excepted, and that was pretty much all Wonderbra), so I never took that scene as a "headlights" shot.

[mkaroly]

Now for my 0.01 point complaint: The crack/bush shot of Ripley at the end just really, IMO, subverts her character and objectifies her unnecessarily. I understand the sexual imagery in the film, from the openings in the derelict spacecraft to Alien's phallic mouth...I get it. But why do you sepnd an entire film building up Ripley as a character only to make her become a sexual object like the naked girls on the wall and in the magazine Ash tries to suffocate her with??? Her undressing and stepping into the spacesuit with bush in view and high beams on has always bothered me. Completely unnecessary for character development or plot.

Ripley was getting ready for a long slumber in hypersleep. Don't you get undressed before going to bed?

I don't think Scott was really objectifying Weaver in this scene, despite all of the perverse sexual conontations of H.R. Giger's creature and production design. As attractive as Weaver was back in her prime, she's not especially well, um, "endowed" (Galaxy Quest excepted, and that was pretty much all Wonderbra), so I never took that scene as a "headlights" shot.

Yes, I do get undressed before I go to bed. But as I said, seeing her get undressed, showing her a** crack, and then positioning the camera upwards so we can see the "goods" as she slips into her spacesuit IMO undermined her character by objectifying her AND it was unnecessary to the plot or the conclusion of the picture. A straight on shot of her getting into the spacesuit would have been less "weird" to me, and she could have checked out the instruments in less skimpy garb. You could show that Ripley was "vulnerable" in other ways. I just felt that after taking Ripley through all that, to remind the audience that Ripley is a "woman" with those gratuitous shots was unnecessary IMO. I'm not a Puritan but within the context of the movie I felt it was unnecessary. But again, it was a minor complaint, but it frustrates me.

[AndyDursin]

I know what you're saying Michael, though I think it's the one place in the movie where you're aware that Ripley really is a woman and IMO I think it makes her more vulnerable, not to mention it's one of the more "iconic" shots of '70s cinema. People remember it to this day. So I think it's a mix of intents there. Besides, if it were a guy getting into his space suit and he had his shirt off, would it be that big of a deal? I mean, how many times did producers find a way to get Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis shirtless at times, etc.?

n. As attractive as Weaver was back in her prime, she's not especially well, um, "endowed" (Galaxy Quest excepted, and that was pretty much all Wonderbra), so I never took that scene as a "headlights" shot.

I do disagree there MJ. Just because a woman isn't that "well endowed" doesn't mean the intent is any different. Sigourney was hot in the '70s and '80s, and was in good shape. The scene gets that across.

[Paul MacLean]

I mean, how many times did producers find a way to get Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis shirtless at times, etc.?

Don't forget the shots of Gibson's posterior in Lethal Weapon!

The shots of Ripley are somewhat sexual, but not in terms of "objectifying" her.

Alien is rife with sexual and reproductive symbols -- the computer called "Mother", the orifices which line the outside of the derelict, the eggs and Kane's "impregnation", the alien's erection-like oral proboscis, Ash's semen-like "blood", even the the crew awakening from hypersleep is a birth image. The sexual undertones of Ripley undressed and threatened by the alien are therefor certainly in line with this recurrent motif.

[Paul MacLean]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Let me start by saying I liked this movie. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. I love the books (Deathly Hallows in particular) and it's always great to see these characters again.

But...David Yates didn't manage to satisfactorily express the suspense and excitement of the story. My imagining when reading the book wasn't matched by Yates generally perfunctory approach to the material. The middle of the film is also a bit talky and could have been cut down some, and as a result doesn't have the dramatic tension it ought to. The third act and the climax in the Malfoy's mansion is terrific however.

Deathly Hallows is by far the least attractive-looking of all the films. Stuart Craig's sets are superb, and the UK locations potentially dramatic -- but Yates simply doesn't capture them well. I didn't like the way this film was shot, being generally dreary and colorless with a pale blue tint to it. I had questioned the appropriateness of the consistently moody, CGI-tweaked photography of Yates' previous Potter outings, but at least those had a visual flair. Deathly Hallows is just bland-looking.

Yates' camera moves are often frenetic, and there is too much "shakeycam" with the operator intentionally waving the camera to and fro.

There's actually a "Twilight" feel to the film's style, which makes no sense when Yates should be adhering instead to the style established by the previous Potter movie directors.

But overall the story is very good and there are some genuinely touching (and sad) moments. The performances are, as always, wonderful. It also gets points for not going overboard on effects for the sake of effects. It is a good movie, but one that would have been better in the hands of a superior director. And John Williams absence is keenly felt. In fact both Patrick Doyle and Nicholas Hooper delivered more dramatically effective scores than Desplat has.

[AndyDursin]

See here's my issue with Potter -- is this really a good movie, or is it only because the books are good?

I have found the last two installments tedious, to a degree where I'll see the last installment, but probably when it comes on video.

When I read that there's a whole section of this movie set in a tent, with the leads arguing with one another, I think I can wait. I'm not a big fan of Potter and have lost interest as this series has progressed.

[mkaroly]

Interesting review Paul- you have piqued (is that the right word?)my curiosity about the film. I read the first four books and stopped because to me it seemed to be basically the same story over and over again. I was not impressed with the last two films because they seemed to cut out so much of the books and I just wasn't really impressed with how the stories were told...nothing grabbed me. I was hoping that the penultimate installment of the final book would turn things around; I'm hoping for more character detail and interactions rather than a fast paced story-telling movie. It's too bad Desplat's score is not up to the challenge (from what you guys are writing).

[Paul MacLean]

Interesting review Paul- you have piqued (is that the right word?)my curiosity about the film. I read the first four books and stopped because to me it seemed to be basically the same story over and over again.

With me, I didn't start reading the books until after they started making the films. So after seeing the first three, I started reading book four, five and six. Deathly Hallows was the best the ones I've read.

I thought the previous two books were very good, but a lot was tossed-out for the films -- like a fabulous sequence where Firenze, the centaur (the one who rescued Harry in the first adventure), steps-in as the divination professor and transforms the classroom into a kind of magical planetarium.

As far as Deathly Hallows, the film ends at a point that comes a little after halfway in the book. It was a good chapter to end on, as there's a small sense of completion, though the story at large is unresolved. The climax of Deathly Hallows 1 is very good, but the middle section of the film did feel overlong and at times redundant. So-much-so that I wonder if the film wasn't rushed-out before it was ready.

But I suppose my biggest beef is how thoroughly unattractive this film is, from a visual standpoint. The photography is just so drab and lifeless, and desaturated to the point of being near-monochromatic. And Yates' films all feel...smaller, less epic than the previous directors. I-IV all look and feel like FEATURES -- expensive features. Yates' films all look and feel like TV movies to me.

[AndyDursin]

So-much-so that I wonder if the film wasn't rushed-out before it was ready.

Probably just David Yates' ineffective handling to blame there. I can't imagine these were rushed out...I think this whole series got as much TLC from a major studio as you could anticipate, and I believe they delayed the release of this first installment by six months once they decided they were splitting them into two parts. So they've had as long as any movie to get it "right" as it were.

[Monterey Jack]

Cat People (1982): 6.5/10

The ample nudity involving the young Nastassja Kinski and Annette O'Toole (Clark Kent's mom is HAWT! ) is certainly easy on the eyes, but Paul Schrader's sleek, kinky, very, very 80's remake of the 1942 Val Lewton film simply lacks the neccesary genre shocks. Sure looked great, though (Albert Whitlock's great matte effects especially).

[Paul MacLean]

JAWS

Ever heard of it?

Just watched it for the first time since college. This movie holds-up INCREDIBLY well after 35 years. In fact a lot of movies only 8 to 10 years old are actually more dated (does anyone even remember such "groundbreaking" horror films as Scream or The Blair Witch Project at this point?).

Maybe the shark moves a little slow in a few shots, but otherwise there's not a missed note in this movie. I watched it with a friend of mine, who had seen it years before but didn't remember much of anything about it. He jumped a mile during the film's scary moments -- Ben Gardner's corpse, the shark's appearance when Brody's shoveling the fish into the water, etc.

And John Williams' score is sobering reminder of what GREAT film music is -- how a score can serve a film as a powerful dramatic and interpretive voice, and on top of that actually be musical as well (which is the opposite of today's "conventional wisdom" of what film music should be).

[Eric Paddon]

"At The Earth's Core" (1976). I had to watch this and the two other Doug McClure mid-70s sci-fi cheapies to do some research for a fanfic project and boy, not only is it cheap and cheesy it's just plain dull! Peter Cushing really goes through this knowing he's in a piece of tripe and overdoes his silly bumbling professor character to the max. And while Caroline Munro is always lovely to look at, she gets no more screentime with her high-billed part than she got in "Spy Who Loved Me".

Hopefully "Land That Time Forgot" and its sequel won't try my patience as much.