United 93 (2006) 10 of 10
-I had to see this again. And after the events of yesterday, may we see an end to the complacency that too many have tried to encourage in regard to how we look back at that day. Some would prefer to look at 9/11 in the way one recalls a natural disaster and that does all the victims of that day the ultimate disservice.
rate the last movie you saw
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10551
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance (2012): 1.5/10
First off, who was asking for a sequel to Ghost Rider?
Secondly, this makes the first movie look like Superman: The Movie or Spider-Man 2. At least the first film, dull as it was, looked like it had a healthy budget, could afford some real actors (Peter Fonda, Sam Elliot) in supporting roles, had a fine Christopher Young score, and boasted some yummy Eva Mendes eye candy. 
This film, by comparison, looks like 90% of its budget went directly into Nicolas Cage's pockets. Shot on-the-cheap in European loactions for no discernable reason other than financial ones, featuring a supporting cast of virtual nobodies (the first had Peter Fonda as the Devil, this one has Ciaran "Hey, it's that guy!" Hinds), having "special" effects that are only a few degrees better than a SyFy movie-of-the-week, and with a screenplay that has a breathtakingly dull lack of action, suspense or pathos, it amazes me that this didn't go direct-to-Redbox. A few more turkeys like this, and Cage is going to join fellow has-beens like Steven Seagal and Wesley Snipes in direct-to-Redbox hell.
First off, who was asking for a sequel to Ghost Rider?
Secondly, this makes the first movie look like Superman: The Movie or Spider-Man 2. At least the first film, dull as it was, looked like it had a healthy budget, could afford some real actors (Peter Fonda, Sam Elliot) in supporting roles, had a fine Christopher Young score, and boasted some yummy Eva Mendes eye candy. This film, by comparison, looks like 90% of its budget went directly into Nicolas Cage's pockets. Shot on-the-cheap in European loactions for no discernable reason other than financial ones, featuring a supporting cast of virtual nobodies (the first had Peter Fonda as the Devil, this one has Ciaran "Hey, it's that guy!" Hinds), having "special" effects that are only a few degrees better than a SyFy movie-of-the-week, and with a screenplay that has a breathtakingly dull lack of action, suspense or pathos, it amazes me that this didn't go direct-to-Redbox. A few more turkeys like this, and Cage is going to join fellow has-beens like Steven Seagal and Wesley Snipes in direct-to-Redbox hell.-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
LOLA VERSUS 7.5/10
DAMSELS IN DISTRESS 4/10
Greta Gerwig: My new "TV girlfriend" as my wife likes to say, lol.
She's really good in LOLA VERSUS, an indie "relationship movie", which has some disarming laughs throughout. Funny how she can either look really attractive at times or ordinary, but still appealing, in a natural kind of way -- but no matter what, her on-camera personality and delivery is refreshing. It's like she's quirky without being over the top, self consciously wacky like Zooey Deschanel (who I still love, but not on the same level).
Gerwig is also in DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, Whit Stillman's first film in over 14 years, but it's a huge disappointment: awkward, pointless, annoying and bizarre. It's almost as if Whit forgot how to make a film over the years since "The Last Days of Disco" came out...maybe he'll get it back for his next film, but it didn't click with this one.
DAMSELS IN DISTRESS 4/10
Greta Gerwig: My new "TV girlfriend" as my wife likes to say, lol.
She's really good in LOLA VERSUS, an indie "relationship movie", which has some disarming laughs throughout. Funny how she can either look really attractive at times or ordinary, but still appealing, in a natural kind of way -- but no matter what, her on-camera personality and delivery is refreshing. It's like she's quirky without being over the top, self consciously wacky like Zooey Deschanel (who I still love, but not on the same level).
Gerwig is also in DAMSELS IN DISTRESS, Whit Stillman's first film in over 14 years, but it's a huge disappointment: awkward, pointless, annoying and bizarre. It's almost as if Whit forgot how to make a film over the years since "The Last Days of Disco" came out...maybe he'll get it back for his next film, but it didn't click with this one.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
CHILD'S PLAY (1972)
4/10
Sidney Lumet directed this almost-forgotten early 70s adaptation of Robert Marasco's play, wherein a group of students cause all kinds of disgusting horror at a New York City catholic school. James Mason and Robert Preston play the bickering teachers at odds with each other; Beau Bridges is the idealistic gym teacher caught in their path. While this Paramount release (now available on BD and DVD for the first time) offers an intriguing premise -- it was released before The Exorcist revolutionized the genre -- the film is close to a total misfire, with a confusing story line and an absolutely dreadful score by Michael Small that feels the need to punctuate every moment with obnoxious, foreboding "horror" music. Mason and Preston are fine, but Bridges seems out of his league; one can only imagine that the Broadway play worked much better in its original context.
4/10
Sidney Lumet directed this almost-forgotten early 70s adaptation of Robert Marasco's play, wherein a group of students cause all kinds of disgusting horror at a New York City catholic school. James Mason and Robert Preston play the bickering teachers at odds with each other; Beau Bridges is the idealistic gym teacher caught in their path. While this Paramount release (now available on BD and DVD for the first time) offers an intriguing premise -- it was released before The Exorcist revolutionized the genre -- the film is close to a total misfire, with a confusing story line and an absolutely dreadful score by Michael Small that feels the need to punctuate every moment with obnoxious, foreboding "horror" music. Mason and Preston are fine, but Bridges seems out of his league; one can only imagine that the Broadway play worked much better in its original context.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
When Worlds Collide (1951) 7 of 10
-The underlying subtext of this film reveals a lot of things that make this an enduring classic in ways that "2012" or other films of more recent vintage with similar themes will never have. The religious symbolism that opens and closes the film offers a hopeful note and is not, IMO a "dated" aspect of the film except to those who hold such religious feeling with instinctive contempt and would rather give us the out-of-step junk of "2012". And I also have to confess to getting a kick out of the fact that the effort that save mankind is the result not of the collective bureaucratic action of government, but of......the private sector (starting with the two humanitarian businessmen who provide the site and early funding. Yes, Mr. Stanton is evil and heartless, but remember the bureaucratic wheels of government did not act!)
-The flaw of the film? Well, it could have benefited from a stronger cast. Richard Derr I swear looks like he could win a Danny Kaye lookalike contest and is not a credible lead IMO (years later he'd be reduced to bit parts like playing a Starfleet admiral on "Star Trek"). And when you have actors who later became famous for TV sitcom roles peppering other major parts from Mr. Drucker (Frank Cady) to Dr. Bellows (Hayden Rorke) to Harry Morton/Roger Addison of "Burns and Allen" and "Mister Ed" respectively (Larry Keating) it also requires a little adjustment.
-There's also an unintentionally funny line no one could have anticipated at the time. "Tony, this is Mr. Randall!" But all-in-all, still a good film to revisit and I'm glad the score is now available.
-The underlying subtext of this film reveals a lot of things that make this an enduring classic in ways that "2012" or other films of more recent vintage with similar themes will never have. The religious symbolism that opens and closes the film offers a hopeful note and is not, IMO a "dated" aspect of the film except to those who hold such religious feeling with instinctive contempt and would rather give us the out-of-step junk of "2012". And I also have to confess to getting a kick out of the fact that the effort that save mankind is the result not of the collective bureaucratic action of government, but of......the private sector (starting with the two humanitarian businessmen who provide the site and early funding. Yes, Mr. Stanton is evil and heartless, but remember the bureaucratic wheels of government did not act!)
-The flaw of the film? Well, it could have benefited from a stronger cast. Richard Derr I swear looks like he could win a Danny Kaye lookalike contest and is not a credible lead IMO (years later he'd be reduced to bit parts like playing a Starfleet admiral on "Star Trek"). And when you have actors who later became famous for TV sitcom roles peppering other major parts from Mr. Drucker (Frank Cady) to Dr. Bellows (Hayden Rorke) to Harry Morton/Roger Addison of "Burns and Allen" and "Mister Ed" respectively (Larry Keating) it also requires a little adjustment.
-There's also an unintentionally funny line no one could have anticipated at the time. "Tony, this is Mr. Randall!" But all-in-all, still a good film to revisit and I'm glad the score is now available.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10551
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Mirror Mirror: 2/10
Smug, charmless, and surprisingly cheap-looking (it's like a made-for-ABC "family" movie from the mid 90's), I never would have guessed that the turkey of 2012's two duelling Snow White movies would be made by Tarsem. Julia Roberts' performance is particularly grating.
Breakheart Pass (1975): 8/10
Now this is more like it...an exciting, beautifully filmed Western/mystery with Charles Bronson as a federal agent sniffing out corruption and murder aboard a train barreling towards a military outpost gripped by disease. Great action sequences, twist-filled screenplay and a terrific Jerry Goldsmith score.
Smug, charmless, and surprisingly cheap-looking (it's like a made-for-ABC "family" movie from the mid 90's), I never would have guessed that the turkey of 2012's two duelling Snow White movies would be made by Tarsem. Julia Roberts' performance is particularly grating.
Breakheart Pass (1975): 8/10
Now this is more like it...an exciting, beautifully filmed Western/mystery with Charles Bronson as a federal agent sniffing out corruption and murder aboard a train barreling towards a military outpost gripped by disease. Great action sequences, twist-filled screenplay and a terrific Jerry Goldsmith score.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7538
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Sorcerer
Not as well-made as The Exorcist, but a very underrated film. Although it feels a bit padded in the first third (too much time is spent showing the four protagonist mulling about the village), once things get going it is a taut, suspenseful thriller with some phenomenal sequences (Friedkin deserved an oscar nomination for the bridge sequence alone). Incredibly-well photographed, with much hand-held, "documentary"-like camera work, which only adds to the stark realism of the film. The DVD transfer unfortunately is lousy, having been mastered from a very grainy print -- at 4:3!
Tangerine Dream's score is not particularly good, being mostly repetitive, minimalist patterns (in which the keyboard is doing most of the work) and sounds like a John Carpenter horror score. Fortunately the film is so strong in every other area that the music does little to compromise its overall effect.
Friedkin's use of Keith Jarrett's "Spheres" is more effective, though he mostly repeats the same excerpt from the piece (and ignores some its most impressive -- and dramatic -- passages).
I'm surprised Sorcerer did not do better business on it initial release, though coming just a few weeks after Star Wars, audiences probably no longer wanted to see the kind of nihilistic realism which was common to early to mid-70s cinema.
One thing that did strike me about this film though -- it actually reminded me a lot of the Top Gear "Great Adventure" specials -- particularly the South America special. Of course Top Gear is much more recent production, and their road trips unscripted (and frequently comical). Yet, the various squabbles, unreliable vehicles, obstructions and treacherous roads endured by the Top Gear trio are not dissimilar to a lot of what you see in Sorcerer.
Not as well-made as The Exorcist, but a very underrated film. Although it feels a bit padded in the first third (too much time is spent showing the four protagonist mulling about the village), once things get going it is a taut, suspenseful thriller with some phenomenal sequences (Friedkin deserved an oscar nomination for the bridge sequence alone). Incredibly-well photographed, with much hand-held, "documentary"-like camera work, which only adds to the stark realism of the film. The DVD transfer unfortunately is lousy, having been mastered from a very grainy print -- at 4:3!
Tangerine Dream's score is not particularly good, being mostly repetitive, minimalist patterns (in which the keyboard is doing most of the work) and sounds like a John Carpenter horror score. Fortunately the film is so strong in every other area that the music does little to compromise its overall effect.
Friedkin's use of Keith Jarrett's "Spheres" is more effective, though he mostly repeats the same excerpt from the piece (and ignores some its most impressive -- and dramatic -- passages).
I'm surprised Sorcerer did not do better business on it initial release, though coming just a few weeks after Star Wars, audiences probably no longer wanted to see the kind of nihilistic realism which was common to early to mid-70s cinema.
One thing that did strike me about this film though -- it actually reminded me a lot of the Top Gear "Great Adventure" specials -- particularly the South America special. Of course Top Gear is much more recent production, and their road trips unscripted (and frequently comical). Yet, the various squabbles, unreliable vehicles, obstructions and treacherous roads endured by the Top Gear trio are not dissimilar to a lot of what you see in Sorcerer.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
END OF WATCH
5/10
My candidate for the most overpraised film of the year, David Ayer (screenwriter of "Training Day") returns to the cop genre for this shockingly pedestrian, if slickly made, handheld-camera account of two hotshot young cops (Jake Gylenhaal and Michael Pena) who unwittingly get crossed up in a Mexican drug cartel moving into southern California. There's almost nothing to this movie's story -- the film is all point of view, often self-contained vignettes of Gylenhaal and Pena running into tough situations, working together to serve the greater good, and spending their down time with understanding significant others. Eventually the cartel catches up with them, and...well, that's pretty much it.
About midway through "End of Watch" I started thinking -- if this film didn't employ handheld camera and rapid-fire editing, what would you have? Basically an empty, formless story that rehashes endless cliches from cop-centric movies and TV shows, leaving the viewer without any significant message -- aside from the fact that life on the streets is tough on police officers (now there's something I've never seen before!). There are no developed supporting characters of any kind, and more over, plenty of over-the-top gore (one officer gets his eye gouged out; there are enough mutilated corpses and body parts in one scene to entice Hannibal Lecter) that feels shoehorned in, almost as if to differentiate it from the myriad of other takes on this subject matter.
Gylenhaal and Pena put in some fine work here, and they're believable together -- but by about the 4th or 5th "buddy" conversation they share about girls, kids and family, I started wondering when their inevitable downfall would be taking place...and how much longer I had to sit through before we could go home.
5/10
My candidate for the most overpraised film of the year, David Ayer (screenwriter of "Training Day") returns to the cop genre for this shockingly pedestrian, if slickly made, handheld-camera account of two hotshot young cops (Jake Gylenhaal and Michael Pena) who unwittingly get crossed up in a Mexican drug cartel moving into southern California. There's almost nothing to this movie's story -- the film is all point of view, often self-contained vignettes of Gylenhaal and Pena running into tough situations, working together to serve the greater good, and spending their down time with understanding significant others. Eventually the cartel catches up with them, and...well, that's pretty much it.
About midway through "End of Watch" I started thinking -- if this film didn't employ handheld camera and rapid-fire editing, what would you have? Basically an empty, formless story that rehashes endless cliches from cop-centric movies and TV shows, leaving the viewer without any significant message -- aside from the fact that life on the streets is tough on police officers (now there's something I've never seen before!). There are no developed supporting characters of any kind, and more over, plenty of over-the-top gore (one officer gets his eye gouged out; there are enough mutilated corpses and body parts in one scene to entice Hannibal Lecter) that feels shoehorned in, almost as if to differentiate it from the myriad of other takes on this subject matter.
Gylenhaal and Pena put in some fine work here, and they're believable together -- but by about the 4th or 5th "buddy" conversation they share about girls, kids and family, I started wondering when their inevitable downfall would be taking place...and how much longer I had to sit through before we could go home.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
ED WOOD - 10/10. Just watched this on Blu-Ray. This is one of my all-time favorite Burton films (hence the very high marks), and it still holds up. The BR looks great; I love the very dry humor in the film and Landau's performance is amazing. Also, I like that Burton's sets (especially the typical artistic look in his films) are toned down so that the characters provide the "color" and art (hope that makes sense in some way). I think the film is also moving in how it pays homage to Legosi and the B-movie type of filmmaker. Howard Shore's score has an effective love theme for Ed and Kathy and I think overall the score works really well in the film. I have seen this film at least 20 times since it came out in theaters and I will continue to enjoy it in the years to come.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Anne Of The Indies (1951) 6 of 10
-An old Fox Movie Channel recording of mine that helped me to the buy the limited edition Varese CD. Jean Peters throws herself into the title role big time as the woman pirate in what is a decent enough studio effort of the day. Great Waxman score, and when I see Louis Jourdan in a leading role during this peak period of Hollywood's Golden Age, I'm amazed by how unaged he seemed 30 years later when he did "Octopussy".
Niagara (1953) 9 of 10
-This is a terrific film on many levels, as both a noirish suspense film done in color, and best of all the beautiful location photography that had to be groundbreaking for the day. When I watch this, it's like being able to step in time and go to the Falls in 1953. And while this did help boost Monroe's status as an icon, I confess to finding Jean Peters (in as big a change from her "Anne Of Indies" role as you can get!) more attractive.
Diamonds Are Forever (1971) 8 of 10
-Popped in the Blu-Ray today as I mentioned when I got the set. The film is a transitional moment in the history of 007 not just in terms of being Connnery's final aloha to the official series, but in that stylistically it is a cross between the older larger than life Bonds of the 60s and the style that emerged in the 70s. It's probably Barry's weakest Bond score overall which is one strike and Charles Gray's foppish Blofeld is not right either. I've long made peace with the fact that the film was not going to build off the end of OHMSS except in as muted a way a possible (Bond's rampage in the pre-credits sequence is really the only hint that finding Blofeld is personal) and just tried to enjoy the film as a standalone. Jill St. John IMO has her best film role ever, coming after a long period of being in knockoff projects like "The Liquidator" although I still think Raquel Welch could have done this part well.
-An old Fox Movie Channel recording of mine that helped me to the buy the limited edition Varese CD. Jean Peters throws herself into the title role big time as the woman pirate in what is a decent enough studio effort of the day. Great Waxman score, and when I see Louis Jourdan in a leading role during this peak period of Hollywood's Golden Age, I'm amazed by how unaged he seemed 30 years later when he did "Octopussy".
Niagara (1953) 9 of 10
-This is a terrific film on many levels, as both a noirish suspense film done in color, and best of all the beautiful location photography that had to be groundbreaking for the day. When I watch this, it's like being able to step in time and go to the Falls in 1953. And while this did help boost Monroe's status as an icon, I confess to finding Jean Peters (in as big a change from her "Anne Of Indies" role as you can get!) more attractive.
Diamonds Are Forever (1971) 8 of 10
-Popped in the Blu-Ray today as I mentioned when I got the set. The film is a transitional moment in the history of 007 not just in terms of being Connnery's final aloha to the official series, but in that stylistically it is a cross between the older larger than life Bonds of the 60s and the style that emerged in the 70s. It's probably Barry's weakest Bond score overall which is one strike and Charles Gray's foppish Blofeld is not right either. I've long made peace with the fact that the film was not going to build off the end of OHMSS except in as muted a way a possible (Bond's rampage in the pre-credits sequence is really the only hint that finding Blofeld is personal) and just tried to enjoy the film as a standalone. Jill St. John IMO has her best film role ever, coming after a long period of being in knockoff projects like "The Liquidator" although I still think Raquel Welch could have done this part well.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers (1948) 7 of 10
=Intense drama that I looked at for the first time suffers IMO from a bloated running time at 114 minutes. That said, Stanwyck is terrific in a multi-layered performance that keeps one guessing in terms of where one's sympathies should lie ultimately right up to the end. Also, a nice way to get introduced to the Rozsa score for the first time and have reason for the CD!
=The fact that this was a Paramount title that evidently fell into the public domain accounts for the less than stellar DVD presentation, despite claims of having been remastered from 35mm elements. I tried listening to the commentary track on this but shut it off after two minutes as I heard a stammering, stuttering voice that doesn't introduce himself and fishes for words before just restating the obvious on the screen. Memo to film commentators, I do NOT want to hear an "enhanced description for the visually impaired" type of track, and above all be presentable in your delivery!
=Intense drama that I looked at for the first time suffers IMO from a bloated running time at 114 minutes. That said, Stanwyck is terrific in a multi-layered performance that keeps one guessing in terms of where one's sympathies should lie ultimately right up to the end. Also, a nice way to get introduced to the Rozsa score for the first time and have reason for the CD!
=The fact that this was a Paramount title that evidently fell into the public domain accounts for the less than stellar DVD presentation, despite claims of having been remastered from 35mm elements. I tried listening to the commentary track on this but shut it off after two minutes as I heard a stammering, stuttering voice that doesn't introduce himself and fishes for words before just restating the obvious on the screen. Memo to film commentators, I do NOT want to hear an "enhanced description for the visually impaired" type of track, and above all be presentable in your delivery!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7538
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I generally agree about the film, but I find the score to be among Barry's most impressive of the entire series. The song's not one of the best, but the score itself has a visceral energy which certainly is missing from Octopussy (which was tuneful but anaemic) or A View To A Kill (with its irritating "Jimi Hendrix"-like guitar solos). It was also the last time Barry used Vic Flick for the gunbarrel intro (employing strings in lieu of guitar ever after).Eric Paddon wrote:It's probably Barry's weakest Bond score overall which is one strike and Charles Gray's foppish Blofeld is not right either.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
My three favorite Barry Bond scores are Moonraker, Thunderball, and OHMSS (in no particular order). Honorable mention goes to YOLT. I do really, really love Tiffany Case's theme from DAF. The string work on that track (Tiffany Case) just absolutely grabs me and carries me away. Just gorgeous.Paul MacLean wrote:I generally agree about the film, but I find the score to be among Barry's most impressive of the entire series. The song's not one of the best, but the score itself has a visceral energy which certainly is missing from Octopussy (which was tuneful but anaemic) or A View To A Kill (with its irritating "Jimi Hendrix"-like guitar solos). It was also the last time Barry used Vic Flick for the gunbarrel intro (employing strings in lieu of guitar ever after).Eric Paddon wrote:It's probably Barry's weakest Bond score overall which is one strike and Charles Gray's foppish Blofeld is not right either.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10551
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
If I had to pick the weakest Barry 007 score, it'd be The Man With The Golden Gun. Hysterically bad title song (albiet perversely catchy), and the score is like a weak retread of You Only Live Twice. Of course, the movie wasn't exactly inspiring...
Re: rate the last movie you saw
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN - 5/10. There is a lot to say about this movie (which I have only seen once). I tried to think about it from two perspectives: as a kid and as an adult. I think that as a kid (between the ages of maybe 6-12 years old) I would have found this more entertaining than I do as an adult. It has a lot of action, fun visuals, pirates, hidden treasure, suspense, and is kind of funny in a kid way. It reminded me of books I read as a kid (actually, the name that kept popping to mind as I watched it was Encyclopedia Brown). However, I don't know what appeals to kids nowadays so I don't know how well this film worked with current audiences.
As an adult, I feel improper trying to judge the film as an epic Spielberg project because I feel like he's trying to be light and intentionally un-heavy (a la MUNICH, for example). The film doesn't have a lot of depth to it, or character development...and it doesn't try to develop his usual subtextural themes to any great length (or any length at all). It's just a simple adventure story about a boy and his dog who help an old sailor become all that he was destined to be. I suppose you could go so far as to say that Tintin and Snowy help Captain Haddock overcome his past and reunite/live up to his family name (and ancestors), so there is an element of family restoration and family wholeness in the film by the end.
Having said that, I felt very 'meh' about the film. The animation is nothing new (though very striking in its detail), and because I didn't find the story very engaging as an adult I am not all that enthralled by it as a total package. I think this was Spielberg's attempt to do Disney and Pixar without being Disney or Pixar (or whatever those companies are who do animation). I am very neutral about the movie and maybe with a few more viewings I might find something in there that I really like. I did not like the way they did the back and forth revelation of Haddock's past (between past and present) once they reached the outpost in the desert, and Tintin's was thinking out loud a bit too much for my taste. Also, the Thompson twins, while there for comic relief, really weren't that funny at all (and neither was the whole Mr. Silk episode).
Then there was John Williams' score. I appreciate its complexity; I did watch the featurette on scoring the movie in the supplemental section of the DVD, and I could watch Williams scoring documentaries ad nauseum for the rest of my life. However, one of Williams' greatest abilities is to come up with a couple or a few sweeping themes in bigger movies that make the score as a whole gel. The themes pop up as "landmarks" in between moments of filler underscoring and lead the listener (and the viewer) on a journey from beginning to end that makes the finished product look and sound cohesive. TINTIN has thematic material, but it seems to get lost in the filler underscoring because those themes are not sweeping and epic and don't really stand out...and that makes the listening experience a bit more challenging.
Overall, the feeling I got after watching this film was that the whole product is just...mediocre. I reserve the right to change my mind after watching it a few more times, but there was too much about this film that seemed run-of-the-mill and uninspiring. Maybe I would have liked it more as a kid, but again it really showed me nothing new and I don't think the cutting edge technology helped much. It's not really a bad film, but it's not really a good film either to me...hence the 5/10 or C grade.
As an adult, I feel improper trying to judge the film as an epic Spielberg project because I feel like he's trying to be light and intentionally un-heavy (a la MUNICH, for example). The film doesn't have a lot of depth to it, or character development...and it doesn't try to develop his usual subtextural themes to any great length (or any length at all). It's just a simple adventure story about a boy and his dog who help an old sailor become all that he was destined to be. I suppose you could go so far as to say that Tintin and Snowy help Captain Haddock overcome his past and reunite/live up to his family name (and ancestors), so there is an element of family restoration and family wholeness in the film by the end.
Having said that, I felt very 'meh' about the film. The animation is nothing new (though very striking in its detail), and because I didn't find the story very engaging as an adult I am not all that enthralled by it as a total package. I think this was Spielberg's attempt to do Disney and Pixar without being Disney or Pixar (or whatever those companies are who do animation). I am very neutral about the movie and maybe with a few more viewings I might find something in there that I really like. I did not like the way they did the back and forth revelation of Haddock's past (between past and present) once they reached the outpost in the desert, and Tintin's was thinking out loud a bit too much for my taste. Also, the Thompson twins, while there for comic relief, really weren't that funny at all (and neither was the whole Mr. Silk episode).
Then there was John Williams' score. I appreciate its complexity; I did watch the featurette on scoring the movie in the supplemental section of the DVD, and I could watch Williams scoring documentaries ad nauseum for the rest of my life. However, one of Williams' greatest abilities is to come up with a couple or a few sweeping themes in bigger movies that make the score as a whole gel. The themes pop up as "landmarks" in between moments of filler underscoring and lead the listener (and the viewer) on a journey from beginning to end that makes the finished product look and sound cohesive. TINTIN has thematic material, but it seems to get lost in the filler underscoring because those themes are not sweeping and epic and don't really stand out...and that makes the listening experience a bit more challenging.
Overall, the feeling I got after watching this film was that the whole product is just...mediocre. I reserve the right to change my mind after watching it a few more times, but there was too much about this film that seemed run-of-the-mill and uninspiring. Maybe I would have liked it more as a kid, but again it really showed me nothing new and I don't think the cutting edge technology helped much. It's not really a bad film, but it's not really a good film either to me...hence the 5/10 or C grade.