rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

I'd have to go along with Andy -- I also judge a movie by how well it succeeds in its own intentions. Krull is a summer popcorn movie with no airs about it, and no agenda other to entertain as an old-fashioned fantasy. Despite some serious faults (like the wrong-headed attempt to shoe-horn raygun-wielding invaders from space into sword and sorcery) the film is entertaining. It may at times be silly, but it's also beautifully-shot and designed, very well-acted, has likable characters and has one of the best scores ever written in the genre. It's not Lawrence of Arabia, but it isn't trying to be.

I personally thought Inception failed in its intentions. It's very derivative (of Dreamscape, The Matrix, Star Trek, etc.), and extremely irritating in its attempt to pass-off ludicrous pseudo-science as plausible. At its core I find Inception to be escapist "popcorn" fare, but Nolan treats the material like it is more profound than it fundamentally is. The result is a dreary, depressing (and to my mind, pretentious) movie.

Krull is not a great film nor one of my favorite movies, but for all its faults, I find myself caring about its pulpy, archetypal characters (the precocious and immature young man who is forced to become a king as a result his ordeal, and the thieves and cutthroats altruistically band together to save their world). The characters in Inception on the other hand are all humorless, self-serving losers whom I couldn't care less about.

On top of that I just found Inception a grinding bore. It's well-shot and designed, and well-acted, though other than a few nifty CGI shots (the bending city blocks) I didn't even think it was that impressive visually.

[mkaroly]

I guess ultimately for me I found KRULL to be no better than a very low-grade B movie, and I wasn't that attached to the characters at all; I agree with Paul as well in that there were some serious flaws in the movie (the laser weapons were too much). I will say this: it was a lot more entertaining than DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS which came out several years later, and although I've never seen AVATAR, I have a feeling based on all the comments on this message board that I too would rather watch KRULL hundreds of times than AVATAR once. I would put KRULL on a lower shelf than DRAGONSLAYER, which is not that much better (maybe 3 or 3.5/10).

And I agree that James Horner's music for KRULL is sweepingly better than Zimmer's INCEPTON score. I cringe every time I see Zimmer's name on something...is that bad?? Lol...

[AndyDursin]

The characters in Inception on the other hand are all humorless, self-serving losers whom I couldn't care less about.

For me, that is symbolic of something that Nolan has never, ever been able to address in any film he's made: a sense of humanism, "heart" or a "soul" as it were. His characters many times feel more like archetypes than actual people. His movies seldom have any humor. They are often anti-septic and romance is typically shunned as well.

For all the visual trickery and style he brings, I find most of Nolan's films depressing and empty. That includes the Dark Knight which is an incredibly, unrelentingly grim film.

But I also find his movies pretentious, as if he's trying to sell them as something more than they are. Dark Knight "isn't just a comic book movie, it's a psychological thriller" -- when in reality it's repetitive and not particularly complex. Memento has this great narrative hook, but so what? What else is in that movie? The Prestige has a lot of style but a group of dislikeable characters and a story which I found bizarre and not engaging. And Inception I found just as Paul said -- a rehash of several other films which some intriguing ideas, but it's bereft of interesting characters. And again, there's just no emotion in it.

I didn't hate it, I respected some of the sequences in it, but it didn't engage me either. And that ending -- the whole "is it a dream? is it real?" -- was a total cop out which I could see coming from miles away.

I just find his movies cold.

[Paul MacLean]

THE KING'S SPEECH.

Excellent! The best film of 2010 (at least of those I saw). A very dramatic, touching story, with Colin Firth as man who holds power and influence but is unable to implement it owing to a crippling speech impediment.

Geoffrey Rush is outstanding as the Australian speech therapist to whom the king turns, and for whom he must overcome fear, pride and an ingrained sense of classism in order to to be cured. The supporting cast is likewise phenomenal, and includes the likes of Helena Bonham-Carter, Guy Pierce, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi and Claire Bloom.

Alas, Alexandre Desplat's score (as usual) does little to enhance the film, but the production does make some very effective use of classical music (particularly at the climax).

[mkaroly]

THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010) - 1/10. I wasn't impressed with anything about it really. I have never seen the cartoon so I suppose I'm missing out on something, but the film career of MNS in my opinion gets worse and worse. I can't believe this film made money at the box office. JNH's score was bad as well, and I'd go so far as to say it was one of the worst of the year that I heard. The film never caught its stride in plot and it never quite balanced the backstory or going back and forth between good guys and bad guys. I think MNS has nothing left to give the film world. He should retire.

[Monterey Jack]

See the cartoon series. It's about a thousand times better than Shyamalan's glum, joyless (albiet not as horrible as advertised) movie.

[Mike Rhonemus]

What am I missing in Inception? It was so highly recommended by so many,
so we picked up the DVD (it was highly reduced Blu-ray DVD set, which I actually
thought it was mis-marked at $12.99!!). But, I have tried to watch it 2 times now
and both times, I feel asleep at about the same spot.
It probably is that great (cough, cough) Zimmer score putting me to sleep!!

[AndyDursin]

You're not missing anything Mike. It's like the ultimate movie for teenage boys. Slick looking and soulless.

[Paul MacLean]

I agree with you, Mike -- check out our Inception discussion a few pages back...

http://andyfilm.com/mboard/viewtopic.ph ... &start=555

[Mike Rhonemus]

I am sorry, I did not go back and read the previous posts before. I just saw the thread
and decided to post my disappointment over the movie. I will be checking out movies in
the future here before a purchase is made. Quite a few people have told us it was a great
movie, but I should have known when my brother-in-law recommended it! I am surprised
he even understood it! He still holds RV with Robin Williams as one of his favorite movies!

[AndyDursin]

I am sorry, I did not go back and read the previous posts before. I just saw the thread
and decided to post my disappointment over the movie. I will be checking out movies in
the future here before a purchase is made. Quite a few people have told us it was a great
movie, but I should have known when my brother-in-law recommended it! I am surprised
he even understood it! He still holds RV with Robin Williams as one of his favorite movies!

Don't forget my review too

http://www.andyfilm.com/12-17-10.html

About halfway down...

[mkaroly]

300 - 3/10. While I admittedly liked some of the visual compositions, the movie lacked decent dialogue and just got too weird for my tastes (what with all the Hellraiser meets The Cell imagery and villains). It was more entertaining than The Last Airbender though.

THE EIGER SANCTION - 5/10. I thought the mountain climbing stuff was really well filmed and executed. I also respect Eastwood for learning how to do it and then going out and taking the risk by doing the stunts himself. Unfortunately, the film suffered from a bad script and an unsatisfying build-up to the climax...or at least it could have been done better. The dialogue is very dated and the plot was pretty goofy. Not Eastwood's best directing effort but it had its moments.

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA - 9/10. This seemed to me to be Eastwood's Saving Private Ryan; I still need to watch FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS though, which I plan on doing today. Anyway, I was impressed with the film and performances. There were touching moments in the film as well as thought-provoking moments, such as what honor and courage meant to different people. I also didn't mind the desaturated colors in the film which gave it a bleakness and a documentary-like feel throughout. It was a poignant movie as well.

[mkaroly]

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS - 9/10. Both this movie and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA were pretty moving...Eastwood's late period work kind of leaves me a little depressed. Anyway, the story was not what I thought it was going to be. Since I saw IWO JIMA first I figured it would be along the same lines but FLAGS is definitely different. He managed to present two perspectives of the same conflict in different ways, both of which were poignant. I liked the acting in both films, and both were sad for different reasons. I'm glad I saw both of these films. FLAGS seemed at times to be a bit more "artsy" in its balancing act between flashbacks and the framing story, but both are worth watching IMO.

[mkaroly]

WATCHMEN - 7/10. There were things I really liked about the movie; I liked the "alternate reality" story line, and I liked that the super-heroes were somewhat anti-heros with selfish motives. There wasn't really one hero that was a black and white good guy/gal. So each character had a really tragic dimension to them, and that was cool. I liked the film noir-ish quality to it as well. The story was interesting but the movie was bogged down with a 162 minute running time....and I didn't care for the sex stuff (unnecessary) and some of the gratuitous violence. Visually it stole from everything: DR. STRANGELOVE, ST:TMP, BLADE RUNNER, DARK CITY, etc. I'm not sure when THE DARK KNIGHT was released, but WATCHMEN took the concept of anti-hero to the extreme. The film was not what I expected.

[AndyDursin]

and I didn't care for the sex stuff (unnecessary) and some of the gratuitous violence

That's one of those movies I really, really despised. I appreciated some of Snyder's visuals but the sexual material and the level of violence were dialed up so much it didn't sit well with me at all. I realize the film might've been trying to make an "artistic expression" but rape and women being beaten -- no thanks.

I will say that I think Snyder could make a good Superman movie from a visceral level but like anything the casting and tone have got to be right. Alas with him and Nolan there probably will be no sense of humor in the film whatsoever.