rate the last movie you saw

[jkholm]

MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (1947)
9/10

I hadn't seen this classic in a while and was glad to see that it holds up. Terrific performances all around from both the leads and the supporting cast. I had forgotten that Natalie Wood played the little girl. A very charming film that is very nicely paced. (I recall that the 90's remake was much too long.) I love the scene where Kris Kringle sings to the Dutch girl.

[Monterey Jack]

-The Silver Linings Playbook: 9/10

Fresh, charming and thoroughly entertaining comedy with excellent performances by Bradley Cooper (who knew...?) and especially the fetching Jennifer Lawrence, who manages to bully her way through the Manic Pixie Dream Girl cliche with a ferocity and tenderness that's something to see. Defintely one of the best films I've seen this year.

-The Expendables 2: 6.5/10

Moderately better than the first film, mainly because Simon West knows how to shoot an action scene without the cameraman having a seizure fit. Still agressively schtoooooooooooooooopid, but it's mildly fun to see Stallone, Willis and Scwarzenegger shamelessly swipe each other's taglines. But why the Morricone music whenever Chuck Norris shows up?

[AndyDursin]

Loved Silver Linings Playbook. DeNiro was excellent also!

Agreed on both of those MJ.

[Monterey Jack]

Loved Silver Linings Playbook. DeNiro was excellent also!

It was SO nice to see De Niro not cashing the check for once...this is his best work in fifteen years, at least.

[jkholm]

Has anyone seen Hitchcock yet? I'm thinking about going this weekend.
Thanks.

John

UPDATE: saw the movie today

HITCHCOCK 7.5/10

"Hitchcock" is an entertaining story both about the making of Psycho as well as the sometimes strained relationship between the famous director and his lesser known wife and collaborator Alma. Helen Mirren is outstanding as the woman who stayed with him for several decades and helped him to create his movies. When I first saw the images of Anthony Hopkins in full makeup as Hitchcock I thought it wouldn't work. He looked too much like someone trying to look like Hitchcock. After seeing the movie, I think his performance is actually very good. He's obviously still Anthony Hopkins but he gets the mannerisms and style of speech just right. The supporting cast is very good as well including Scarlett Johannson as Janet Leigh and Toni Collette as Hitch's assistant.

We get to see a lot of what goes on behind the scenes of making a movie. Some of the stories about how Psycho was made are familiar but most were new to me. For us film music fans there is a very brief scene in which Bernard Herrmann makes the case for using music in the murder scene. (Interesting note: whenever Herrmann's score is used, it is the Joel McNeely re-recording.)

One element that didn't work so well is the fantasy sequences in which Hitch sees himself talking to Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for Psycho. The one exception to this is the opening scene which pays tribute to the way Hitch often broke the fourth wall and spoke directly to the audience.

[Monterey Jack]

Moonrise Kingdom (2012): 5/10

The latest enervating piece of leaden whimsy from director Wes Anderson, this is chock full of all of his well-worn stylistic tics (wide-angle lenses! characters looking right into the camera! Unnecessary narration! Wacky title card fonts! Are you laughing yet?!) and offers not a thing that you haven't seen in his previous movies, over and over and OVER. There are a pair of charming performances by young leads Jared Gillman and Kara Hayward (who resembles a sullen Amy Adams), and, as always, Anderson has an ear for catchy soundtrack selections, but he's become hopelessly trapped in his own auteurist bubble by this point, riffing on his little obsessions to to point of self-parody. For all the people who pillory Tim Burton for the same, I wonder why Anderson is consistently given a pass for making the same goddamn movie for the last 20 years. His wonderful stop-motion feature Fantastic Mr. Fox remains the only one of his films I've authentically enjoyed, mainly because his fussy, over-storyboarded style that reduces his talented casts to manipulated puppets only finally worked when he turned them into literal puppets. As for Moonrise Kingdom, like most of his films, it's more funny/peculiar than funny/ha-ha, and I've had my fill. Feh.

[Paul MacLean]

Moonrise Kingdom (2012): 5/10

I only saw the first few minutes of this film. Didn't do much for me. The only interesting about it was the scout camp scenes were actually shot in Andy's neighborhood!

[AndyDursin]

Moonrise Kingdom (2012): 5/10

The latest enervating piece of leaden whimsy from director Wes Anderson, this is chock full of all of his well-worn stylistic tics (wide-angle lenses! characters looking right into the camera! Unnecessary narration! Wacky title card fonts! Are you laughing yet?!) and offers not a thing that you haven't seen in his previous movies, over and over and OVER. There are a pair of charming performances by young leads Jared Gillman and Kara Hayward (who resembles a sullen Amy Adams), and, as always, Anderson has an ear for catchy soundtrack selections, but he's become hopelessly trapped in his own auteurist bubble by this point, riffing on his little obsessions to to point of self-parody. For all the people who pillory Tim Burton for the same, I wonder why Anderson is consistently given a pass for making the same goddamn movie for the last 20 years. His wonderful stop-motion feature Fantastic Mr. Fox remains the only one of his films I've authentically enjoyed, mainly because his fussy, over-storyboarded style that reduces his talented casts to manipulated puppets only finally worked when he turned them into literal puppets. As for Moonrise Kingdom, like most of his films, it's more funny/peculiar than funny/ha-ha, and I've had my fill. Feh.

I know exactly what you're saying -- but I loved the film, and found it so much more engaging, and warmer, than really any one of Anderson's films outside of Rushmore. His stuff IS an acquired taste, I agree, and his point of view will always result it seems in a similarly structured piece....but for me I'd rank Moonrise Kingdom up with the better films I've seen this past year, and I'm no real big fan of his either.

[Paul MacLean]

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

Has anyone else seen this movie?

Some friends of mine and I have decided to go through the whole Star Wars saga again -- in order -- and so we started with episode I the other night.

One of the things that struck me the most is how this film's action sequences have a kinetic, thrilling energy -- without having to fall back on shakeycam or convoluted editing (or 3-D!).

The various worlds all look convincing -- without having to rely on color desaturation or tinting. Some of the CGI creatures have that "rubbery" quality to their movement (but no more so than in any movie made since), and all the CGI landscapes, cities, sets, etc. are perfectly convincing (which is more than I can say for the effects in LOTR, 300, Narnia, King Kong, Avatar, etc.).

John Williams' music really makes this film, and has an almost operatic quality that stirs the viewers emotions (and as such is probably the single more important element of the film). And he accomplishes this without drum loops, and uses not only actual THEMES, but exploits all the expressive possibilities of an orchestra (rather than using the orchestra as a glorified keyboard).

It's not a perfect movie, and is a little unsatisfying -- we all agree Jar-Jar Binks was a huge mistake, and as Andy has pointed-out, there's no Han Solo-type character (which the prequels really needed). The whole plot concerning the trade federation doesn't make much sense, Lucas hasn't Spielberg's gift for directing children, and Darth Maul is a potentially great character who is used as a throwaway "hit man" that should have been better developed (and retained for the next two films).

All the same, thirteen years on, The Phantom Menace holds-up well -- better than most genre films made since. It really is impossible to dislike this movie. It is sincere, unpretentious, fun, exciting, suspenseful, mythic, looks amazing, and has one of the best scores ever.

[Monterey Jack]

Nice to see somone actually being complementary towards Phantom Menace for once, instead of the usual "raped my childhood" boilerplate. Is is flawed, but not nearly as horrible as aging fanboys tend to demonize it as.

[AndyDursin]

Paul gets one of the AISLE SEAT AWARDS for best posts of the year!

I like THE PHANTOM MENACE. I admire the fact it still had some PHYSICAL production quality to it and wasn't just all CGI -- Paul hit the nail on the head on every other front too, starting with the music. This is a spectacular Williams score, his best of the prequel trilogy. I love the editing of the film's climax -- it's alive, it is WELL DIRECTED (sorry Lucas haters), and it delivers the goods over some early rough patches.

I think the film is great fun. Not perfect (and Liam Neeson's sleepy performance seems like he was already thinking along the lines of Terence Stamp and his whole "where's Natalie? there's only a stick figure there" anecdote) but with a lot of rewarding elements. For me ATTACK OF THE CLONES is the real "problem child" of the prequels and the one that has the most problems -- and it's unfortunate because it's really the one film in the series that NEEDED to BE good since it charts the beginning of Annakin's downfall, plus his relationship with Padme. Those elements fizzled out, and the film was boring and indifferent on top of it.

But the "he raped my childhood" morons need to get over it and realize, at least 2/3 of the prequels were worthwhile IMO, and parts of SITH were potent and superb also. Overall I didn't think the movies did nearly the disservice to their legacy as KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL TURD did to Indiana Jones.

TAKE THAT HATERS!!!

[mkaroly]

I would agree that AOTC is the worst of the prequels and the most laughably ridiculous. While I will admit that I have softened on TPM since it originally came out, I still do not find it to be a very good film. Visually it is quite an accomplishment, but I still feel that it is a less than stellar directing effort from Lucas (though I will credit Lucas on the lightsabre battle between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and DM which I found to be well done). His direction is better for the CGI characters, who seem to be the only ones in the film aside from Obi-Wan who give a performance that's consistently "animated", and that bothers me. It is a shame that he decided to get rid of Darth Maul as well, as he was one of the more animated human characters in the film.

Of the three prequels, the one I felt was the best was SITH (though I still have issues in the character arc of Amadala in going from a strong leader of a planet to a wimpy, pregnant, helpless non-factor, but that was discussed in a different thread a while back). I also prefer Williams' score for SITH over the other two. His worst of the prequels would be AOTC, but even his abilities couldn't save that turkey. SITH had the best performances, the best acting (for the most part), and the most compelling story which gave Williams to opportunity to go full throttle with the orchestra. So in everything prequel-related, I would rank them as follows:

SITH (best)
TPM (okay but not great)
AOTC (putrid)

[Paul MacLean]

I also prefer Williams' score for SITH over the other two. His worst of the prequels would be AOTC, but even his abilities couldn't save that turkey. SITH had the best performances, the best acting (for the most part), and the most compelling story which gave Williams to opportunity to go full throttle with the orchestra.

My favorite is still Phantom Menace. I thought Williams came-up with some of his most inspired material for that film, such as "The Flag Race", "Anikin's Theme" and one of the crowning glories of his career, "Duel of the Fates".

I wish he had resurrected "Duel of the Fates" for Episode III, rather than penning the new (but less inspired) "Battle of the Heros".

Anyway, next week we'll be watching Attack of the Clones, which should be interesting, as it is the only Star Wars film I've only seen once.

[AndyDursin]

It's not any better the second time Paul. LOL

I think PHANTOM MENACE is also Williams' best prequel score as well. SITH is very good, but it's on the level of TPM overall.

Cinematically, I agree with Michael that I'd rank them 3/1/2 (with AOTC distant third, not even close).

[mkaroly]

THE HOBBIT: I did thoroughly enjoy LOTR and I watch the films once every year or two, so I went in to TH with an expectation that I would enjoy it. I did not like the 48fps speed...it made the battle scenes blurry and awkward. I honestly don't see the big deal, so maybe my theater wasn't showing it at 48fps. I went to the 2D showing so I can't comment on the 3D.

I know that Jackson et al added a lot of stuff to the film from the appendices and such to make the film longer, but for the life of me I don't remember a Necromancer being part of either The Hobbit or LOTR. Guess I have to go back and review it.

The movie looks familiar in appearance and structure to LOTR, and it has the same kind of dramatic moments and humor in it as LOTR did. The action is typical...but TH for me is like a video game series (a la Elder Scrolls). There is enough different scenery and CGI stuff mixed in with the familiar that makes it entertaining.

I guess the bottom line is this: if you liked LOTR then there's a good chance you'll like TH (and the films coming out next). If you didn't like LOTR, you most likely will find the same faults in TH. I did enjoy it and am looking forward to the next installments.