rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

MOONRISE KINGDOM 8/10

Wes Anderson's films are an acquired taste and it's been a while since one of his films connected beyond his core group of fans. "Moonrise Kingdom", however, is easily one of his sweetest and more accessible pictures, a visually captivating tale of two teens from a fictional coastal New England community in the '60s who seek to break free of their environmental confines (the girl from a pair of bickering parents played by Frances McDormand and Bill Murray; the boy from a foster home that's already said they won't be taking him back). As the two depart on their adventure, the townspeople -- including her parents, a police chief played by Bruce Willis and the boy's camp scout master (Ed Norton) -- go off in search of them.

As always, Anderson brings his idiosyncratic touches to "Moonrise Kingdom," which was almost entirely shot here in Rhode Island (some of it within walking distance of the Aisle Seat offices!) in a movie with some evocative cinematography, offbeat touches (plenty of Benjamin Britten, on-camera narration by Bob Balaban, even some old school miniature effects from Fantasy II), terrific performances from the young cast, and a magical tone that's hard to dislike. Not all of it works -- the story of the adults isn't nearly as interesting as the kids, there's no payoff to McDormand and Murray's thinly drawn characters, and portions of Alexandre Desplat's score are irritatingly reptitive -- but it's enchanting at times, and thankfully not as impenetrable as some of Anderson's other works.

[Paul MacLean]

BRAZIL (directors cut)

Haven't watched this film in years, though I saw it at least four times in the 80s. At the time it was something of an "it" movie for us young cineastes.

It remains visually stunning, with resourceful use of locations and some of the most convincing miniature effects I've ever seen. As fan of British movies (and actors) I love the fundamentally Anglocentric style of film to begin with, but on top of that you have Terry Gilliam, who is a near-peerless director when it comes to sheer visual imagination (Ridley Scott is arguably his only equal) and Brazil is rife with indelible images. Roger Pratt's photography is stunning, and Michael Kaman's score is one of his best.

But as a narrative, the film doesn't hold together well. It has some great moments -- particularly those which lampoon society's useless, wasteful bureaucracies (and their accompanying paperwork). The comedic elements are deliciously ludicrous -- so-much-so that the film's darker elements often don't fit-in. Some of Brazil's violence is very satirical and cartoon-like (the repairmen drowning in sewage), while some of it is disturbingly real (the arrest of Mr. Buttle, and the police officer burning to death) making for a very awkward, incongruous blend (or non-blend).

There also isn't a single likable character in the film. Jonathan Pryce's Sam Lowry doesn't care about anything except finding the girl of his dreams, and is for the most part a bumbling, negligent, apathetic douchebag. Kim Greist (as Jill, the girl in question) is off-puttingly caustic and hard-edged, and I found it impossible to believe her character could fall for Pryce's. The rest are more caricatures than characters -- unquestionably entertaining, but not believable people (and therefor ineffective in helping to convincingly depict the film's dystopia).

I remember at the time of Brazil's release it was hailed as a brilliant satire of totalitarianism and bureaucracy run amok, but looking at it today, for me the film's inconsistent tone prevents it from being able to make a serious point. Despite some (genuinely clever) jabs at government institutions, Brazil just isn't focused or consistent enough to be "about" anything, and the script could have used a few more re-writes.

It isn't too surprising that Universal exec Sydney Sheinberg felt the film "needed work" and set about recutting it. However there was simply no way to to clarify (much less commercialize) what Gilliam had shot. Also, I don't see how Sheinberg could think that the whole bizarre, surreal climax of the film would make any sense if he cut-off the final scene (which reveals the previous ten minutes were a dream sequence).

Brazil was unquestionably an influential film, and really the first movie to create a fictitious, indeterminate setting, using elements of past and future and surreal art direction (an idea which Tim Burton would later seize upon). It is often-entertaining and watchable, with some great moments, but uneven as well, and does not in my estimation entirely work. I think the well-publicized battle between studio and director (and the way it paralleled the screenplay -- a lone man battling "the system") imbued Brazil with a "mystique", and created an illusion of "cultural relevance" that wasn't really there.

[sprocket]

Fringe - season three 7.5/10

Fringe has always been of so-so interest to me. Who needs an X-Files wannabee with the gore of CSI? I've stuck with it because there is damn little drama that's not CSI or Law and Order on TV these days. Certain episodes in the previous seasons have been interesting and some actually quite good but the gory and formulaic opening sequences were always hard to get through.

Thankfully, in season three a little more discretion and imagination has been used than in previous seasons and the show is finally getting a personality of its own. There is still an annoying tendency to gloss over plot points and character motivations but the ambition of the overall story arc is distracting enough for this to be forgiven. Things do seem to be a bit clumsy with the plot flying in all directions sometimes.

The story is original and somewhat convoluted, so I guess allowances should be made. It's funny to me however that J.J Abrams is TV golden boy but his shows can't be as well written as Whedon's Firefly or Dollhouse, or match the burn of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. All these shows have a depth to their characters and a world building which doesn't seem quite there in Fringe.

The cast has become quite comfortable in their (multiple) roles and I have to laugh when I think of how much fun it must be to act in this show. I was getting quite upset that Olivia, who seemed to be very strong in the earlier seasons, was becoming so passive and victimized, first in the alternate 'verse and then with Billy's possession. Funnily enough, Torv was so good at imitating Leonard Nimoy's delivery I got over my initial disgust in the plot twist and thoroughly enjoyed her acting at that point.

I do hate Torv's Folivia hairstyle though!

[AndyDursin]

TED
8.5/10

This surprisingly good summer at the movies continues with Seth Macfarlane's good-natured, raunchy but not excessively profane "teddy bear" comedy. Some big laughs and a surprisingly well crafted story to go along with Wahlberg, Mila Kunis and a surprise supporting turn from Sam J. Jones (yes!).

Any film that ends with Patrick Stewart asking what happened to Brandon Routh and dumping on Superman Returns is tops in my book!

[Eric Paddon]

I have returned from a six day buisness trip in Iowa that forced me to spend evenings in an airport motel trying to keep from going crazy by watching what I could on DVD! The films watched were:

Dark City (1950) 6.5 of 10
-Charlton Heston's first film. I'm not the biggest fan of noir, but it's a decent timekiller, boosted by the "little did they know" novelty of Jack Webb and Harry Morgan appearing together as the worst of enemies. Webb's performance as a sleazy gambler is a reminder of how there was more to him as an actor than just Sergeant Friday. Lizbeth Scott is basically wasted in the film as the love interest and who gets too many dubbed songs to perform.

Crossed Swords (1977) 6 of 10
-I got the FSM CD as part of the clearance special deals from last Christmas, and now I got around to watching the film so I can listen to the CD! Raquel Welch fan that I am, I got a bit impatient waiting for her to finally show up, which doesn't happen until the final reel basically. The comedy-action balance style used before in Three Musketeers is generally repeated to good effect until the final sum-up narration by Rex Harrison that is just too silly. Good job by Heston as Henry VIII. Jarre's score was good too which will make the CD a nice listen.

Double Indemnity (1945) 9.5 of 10.
-This and "The Killers" are my two favorite noir films. A classic that always holds up on repeated viewings. For the first time, my discerning ear appreciated better Rozsa's score than I'd allowed myself to in the past.

[mkaroly]

GRAN TURINO - 9/10. When the film started I was pretty uncomfortable, but I have to hand it to Clint...I didn't think he was going to do what he did at the end. I have been reflecting on why I generally like Eastwood films recently, especially ones he stars in. Ultimately I think it boils down to how much he gets you to like his character; somehow he always gets me sucked in to the mystery of the older characters he plays which becomes the strengths of the films he acts in. Walt, as crusty as he is, is a sympathetic character and I loved his performance.

As with his other films, the slow and purposeful story-telling and direction is laced with humor, character idiosyncracies, unjarring camera movements, interplay between light and shadow, and emotional depth that isn't immediately apparent. The bottom line is that I was thoroughly entertained and genuinely moved by the film; to me he is one of the best directors working today even though not everything he does is as compelling as his best work. Well done.

[AndyDursin]

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
7/10

This is a tough one -- because it's well-acted across the board, well-scored by Horner, and does a lot of things I liked -- but at the same time, the film never answered the main question as to why they needed to reboot a series that started only a decade ago. Marc Webb manages to make NYC look like a real city in this picture for the most part -- it's not a cartoony CGI world like Raimi's films -- and Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have a lot of chemistry together. What doesn't work so well is the limp story and the Lizard itself, which is awkwardly animated, plus an origin retelling that takes too long to get to its point. Overall it's entertaining -- but it's not "great." And it's not in a league with the Raimi films (yes that includes 3, which I actually liked, and which IMO is better than this film too). The strangest thing is that it's from many of the same writers (Alvin Sargent and James Vanderbilt, who wrote the abandoned Spider-Man 4 script), so it has this weird feel that's similar to the Raimi films -- ultimately, it's not different enough to really have warranted this kind of "reboot" treatment, and a lot of it feels overly familiar as a result.

I can also tell you my wife HATED this film. She liked the Raimi films, especially the first two, and didn't think she was going to mind the "reboot" element -- but it turns out it irritated her quite a bit! Like she said on the way out, why didn't they just put new actors in and keep the prior series going -- something I do agree with her on. So what are we going to get in Part 2 -- him going to the Daily Bugle, meeting the Green Goblin, etc.? Haven't we seen this already?

[Monterey Jack]

I can also tell you my wife HATED this film. She liked the Raimi films, especially the first two, and didn't think she was going to mind the "reboot" element -- but it turns out it irritated her quite a bit! Like she said on the way out, why didn't they just put new actors in and keep the prior series going -- something I do agree with her on.

I agree totally. Batman Begins was a good idea for a top-to-bottom reboot not only because the Joel Schumacher films were horrendous, but also eight years passed between Batman & Robin and the first Nolan film (plus, the Batman's complete origin story was never really told in any of the previous movies, only alluded to via flashback in the first Tim Burton film). It's only been five years since Raimi's lst Spidey film, and while it had it's share of flaws, the vitriolic hatred of the film by fanboys (who equate it with the likes of B&R, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace and Howard The Duck as one of The Worst Movies Of All Time ) continues to baffle me. I wish they had taken the "soft reboot" idea used by The Incredible Hulk, where the slightly-tweaked "origin story" is told entirely within the opening credits, allowing the viewer to make up their own mind as to whether or not it's a straight sequel to the weird Ang Lee version and allowing the story to get on with it instead of wasting half the film re-telling a story everyone is already familiar with. I have yet to see the new Spidey movie, and while I'm sure it'll be fine and entertaining enough, there was no goddamn reason to wipe the slate clean completely. Re-cast the leads, fine (and Emma Stone should have been cast as MJ, dammit), but no one needs to be told how Peter Parker became Spider-Man again. Everyone knows how the big superheroes became who they are, even if they don't read comic books. For lesser-known heroes, sure, do the origin, but Spider-Man, Batman, Superman...? Even five-year-olds know the origin stories for them.

[Paul MacLean]

Close To Home (2006)

An Israeli film about young women in the IDF assigned to patrol the streets of Jerusalem. I went into it expecting (albeit hoping against) some kind of preachy, anti-Israel message. Instead the film proves mostly apolitical, and opts for an objective, sober depiction of what these young women have to endure, day after day.

The story centers on two girls -- Marit, a shy "good girl" hesitant to make waves, and the undisciplined, negligent Smadar -- who are assigned patrol duty together (and unsurprisingly don't get-on famously at the outset). It is a very touching film, in which these two very different young women increasingly look to each other for support as they struggle to be normal girls, when placed in the very abnormal situation of mandatory military service, and having to keep constant vigilance in a city where terrorist bombings are an omnipresent threat.

Nor is this an anti-Palestinian film, as the girls are clearly shown how much they detest having to search old women and treat the entire Arab population with suspicion, owing to a regrettable (but sadly necessary) paranoia.

As opposed to pretentious, unbelievable dreck like The Hurt Locker, Close To Home offers realistic scenarios and believable characters -- not surprising, given that Israel's mandatory service means that most (if not all) the people who worked on the film are ex-IDF personnel themselves. Two leads, Naama Schendar (Marit) and Smadar Sayar (Smadar) give wonderful, empathetic performances too. The film also really drives-home the sobering fact that much of the front line of Israel's war on terror is "manned" by teenage girls. These young conscripts face responsibilities -- and perils -- that teenagers in most other nations can't begin to imagine.

Though not a huge-budgeted film, the low production values are resourcefully allocated and every scene is believable (again unlike the much-bigger budgeted Hurt Locker). Despite a somewhat abrupt and slightly ambiguous ending, this is a first-rate production, which deserves a lot more attention that it got. HIGHLY recommended. And it's only $4.90 from Amazon...

[AndyDursin]

This will run in my column next week --

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (**1/2) -- After three “Spider-Man” blockbusters (even the unfairly maligned third installment took in nearly $900 million worldwide), Sony made the surprising decision in 2009 to pull the plug on a “Spider-Man 4" with the same creative team (director Sam Raimi, stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst). Instead, the powers-at-be opted to not only recast the characters, but to stop the series altogether – and restart it from the very beginning, including a retelling of Spider-Man’s origin. It didn’t matter that all three films were huge hits and the last sequel was released just five years ago – the right move in their mind was wiping the slate clean and pretending that 2002 was the stone age for most viewers.

That very curious decision is one of the core issues of “The Amazing Spider-Man,” a film that ultimately doesn’t have enough of a fresh perspective to justify this reboot’s approach. Despite having a lot of good things in it, the movie – likely due to the participation of writers and production personnel from the prior series – has the strange feeling of the Raimi films without Raimi’s involvement, causing a serious sense of deja vu throughout.

What does work is the central casting of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, who here is – once again – back in high school, and who – once again – gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider while touring Robert Osborn’s high-tech science facility. This Peter is a sensitive sort who stands up for the little guy – even if it means being beaten up – and whose adroitness at science enables him to engineer a high-tech spider suit (designed by Cirque du Soleil!) after his powers kick in. Peter also finds out (I know, you’ve seen this all before) that he has a moral responsibility to do the right thing – a lesson that Parker learns the hard way when beloved Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) is gunned down in an incident involving a petty thief that Peter himself could’ve avoided. Meanwhile, villainy is served up by Curt Connors, aka The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), an Oscorp scientist who tries to regenerate dead human tissue (including his own arm) but only ends up transforming himself into an awkward looking, dinosaur-like humanoid who wants to seek vengeance on all of humankind.

Director Marc Webb, coming off “500 Days of Summer,” brings a fresh visual sense, at least, to “Amazing,” with NYC looking like the real thing and not a CGI-enhanced cartoony city like we’ve seen in so many of these super-hero films. John Schwartzman’s capable cinematography is effective, and James Horner’s sensational score is the best Marvel soundtrack to date, offering a lyrical, heroic theme and plenty of emotional underscoring for Peter’s relationship with Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone), one of Parker’s high school classmates, who serves as this film’s requisite female lead. Alas, other than hair color, there’s not much separating her function to the story from Mary Jane’s part in the prior pictures, though Garfield and Stone – currently a real-life couple – generate sufficient chemistry together.

The script, credited to James Vanderbilt (who wrote the unproduced Raimi “Spider-Man 4"), Steve Kloves and series veteran Alvin Sargent, is much more of an issue. The script fares best with heartfelt, emotional moments between the characters, but can never shake the tedium of the film’s bloated first hour, which essentially hits the same dramatic beats as Raimi’s original Spidey, some more effectively (Uncle Ben’s death) but others not as well (Peter testing out, and adapting to, his new powers). Ultimately, the film doesn’t give viewers any good reason why it had to start over with another “origin movie” – simply recasting the roles and moving forward (as the James Bond and Batman films did for many years) would’ve been a wiser move. Even then, however, the Lizard isn’t very interesting in terms of a villain, and the larger plot element of Peter finding out what happened to his dead parents is completely unfulfilled by the movie’s finish.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” does have several well-executed set-pieces in addition to its fine performances, which rank as the picture’s most satisfying element (Denis Leary is also terrific as Gwen’s father and C. Thomas Howell chips in his most significant supporting turn in years). Ultimately, the picture lays the groundwork down for a new series that hopefully will find its footing the next time out – minus the narrative baggage this installment was unnecessarily saddled with.

[Eric Paddon]

1776 (1972) 10 of 10 (Laser Disc cut)

There is no better representation on film of a classic Broadway musical production than this IMO, from the standpoint of documenting a production and its cast in a way that no other musical from the last golden age of Broadway can claim. I can still remember the ecstacy I felt when I got the LD in 1991 and saw the film restored to its full length with the restored production numbers and other pieces that had been cut. It was like discovering a new film and since then it is the ONLY version I will ever watch. The DVD does not exist for me and unless the LD cut is given a place on a proposed Blu-Ray, this will be the only one I keep watching on July 4.

[Monterey Jack]

The Amazing Reboot Man: 7.5/10

Like Andy, I liked this while questioning it's very existance. I'm kind of infuriated at the creative decision to reset at the very beginning...for a previous series that started all of a decade ago and which the final installment hit theaters in half that time. Oh, don't get me wrong...it's a fine-and-dandy superhero saga, with Andrew Garfield a winning Peter Parker, Emma Stone a luminous Gwen Stacey and James Horner providing one of his freshest scores in ages (and the best overall "super-hero" score since his own Mask Of Zorro nearly 15 years ago)...and yet, it's so similar to the previous Raimi films (albiet with minor narrative and stylistic divergences) I can't wrap my mind around why they didn't just pull a 007, recast the lead roles and director, and just keep going. I mean, they had been setting up The Lizard as a future antgonist since the second Raimi film (and I'm sure Dylan Baker was livid that they rebooted the series before he could actually play the role and get top villain billing), so I don't know why they felt the need to rehash the origin story again. With Batman Begins, it was appropriate, not only to wildly differentiate the film from the much-loathed Joel Schumacher camp-fests and because the actual origin of Batman story had never been told in any of the previous live-action films (although the animated Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm did a dandy job), but Raimi, Tobey Maguire and company did an excellent job with the first film a decade ago, so it feels like being fed reheated leftovers in a franchise that should have just kept pushing forward (or like getting 2/3rds of a way through an old-school videogame, losing your last life, and being forced to replay every level you've already beaten just to get back to the spot where you died, seething all the while). All it means is that, despite the fine efforts put in by director Mark Webb, the screenwriters and the cast, I just kind of found myself twirling my index finger around and thinking, "Okay, dead uncle, spider-bite, get on with it..." I had fun watching it, and welcome more sequels with this cast, but I worry they'll just get the bum's rush after three movies, max, before we get yet another rehashed origin story come roughly 2020.

[Paul MacLean]

The Amazing Spiderman

I'm writing this before going back and reading you guys' opinions in-depth.

I liked it -- it was entertaining, engaging, at times touching and beautifully scored (bless you James Horner, and bless you Mark Webb for not making James Horner imitate Hans Zimmer). The whole cast was terrific, and I especially liked Sally Field.

But...did we need another Spiderman film just ten years after the first (and only five years after Spiderman 3?). It wasn't an especially original film, with all the formulaic ingredients of a summer blockbusters (i.e. tons of CGI sequences and creatures). Coming so close to the previous films, and with nothing really new in terms of style it seemed more clone than reboot.

There's nothing really wrong with the film, and I admire all the work that went into it and I was entertained...but it was so similar to the first film it just seemed almost redundant.

That said, I'm very pleased this film was made because it gave James Horner the opportunity to write a great score. Now if they would just remake Gladiator, Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings with James Horner scores...

[Paul MacLean]

Now going back and reading what you guys had to say, it seems we're all on the same page!

[AndyDursin]

Indeed we are Paul!

That said, I'm very pleased this film was made because it gave James Horner the opportunity to write a great score

That is the silver lining. The music is tremendous. Like I told you guys a few weeks back, he really hit the BULLSEYE! with this score. It's just too bad the Raimi movies didn't have this score in them.

It reminded me of how movies used to be scored...and there is literally nobody who could have written this score among the younger generation. Not Desplat, not Giacchino, not Beltrami. None of those guys could write what he delivered to this film -- and that's what's so bittersweet about it. For all the flack Horner takes from some of the film music community, his dramatic scoring sense is almost unchallenged amongst living composers (Williams being the only one above him at this point) and his thematic material here is some of the best he's written in a long, long time.

Now as for the CD....ORDERED!