rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

DREDD
5/10

At first I had a hard time wrapping my head around this movie. On the one hand, it's stylishly made, opens well, and has some exciting moments in its early stages. On the other, it basically ends up following Dredd and his psychic female rookie partner down dark corridors for nearly 80 minutes thereafter, with no story or dramatic tension or character development. It's like it went from being a strong treatment of the comic book to a typically low-brow Lionsgate shlocker with Lena Headey's "edgy" villainness (look, she's got tattoos and a facial scar!) serving drugs to the residents of a futuristic tenement. The editing and camerawork from this point on are completely routine -- and after you've seen bullets piercing the flesh in slow-motion a dozen times, I felt like I had seen everything "Dredd" had to offer. (3D added nothing as well outside of some colorful "effects" during the drug-hallucination sequences).

While the much maligned Stallone movie may not have been a "proper" treatment of the comic book, at least it was a lot more fun with a human component in its colorful performances (not to mention Alan Silvestri's score). It also felt a lot more "sci-fi" in scale and tone than this film, which pays scant attention to time and place outside of the gun Dredd uses. This film is soulless, relentlessly brooding and ultimately unsatisfying -- and no surprise, in spite of positive notices it received from fans, that it was a colossal bomb around the world at the box-office.

[Paul MacLean]

My friends and I continue our sojourn through the Star Wars saga...

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

It's only been a little over seven years but I dare say this film will stand the test of time. I still think it has some problems -- Hayden Christiansen's performance being one of them, as well as a few silly sequences -- like the rescue of Palpatine (how could a ship in orbit be subject Coruscant's gravity?) and Ian McDiarmid's hammy "No...NO...NOOOO! YOu will die!!!".

Nevertheless, this is a powerful film -- a tragic tale of a young man who chooses the path of selfishness rather than altruism, and and winds-up destroying the world around him (as well as those he most cares about). Lucas references the best sources -- the fall of the Roman republic for the broader picture, and Shakespeare's Macbeth for Anikin's personal downfall.

The action sequences are also phenomenal. Anikin's and Obi Wan's lightsabre duel is an amazing blend of choreography and imaginative effects work, as is the epic battle between Yoda and Palpatine. But equally impressive are the more understated character scenes, in particular Palpatine's seduction of Anikin, and the former's tale of Darth Plaguas, which is at first a seemingly innocuous anecdote, but one that plays to the young Jedi's fears -- and ambitions -- and plants the seeds of his doom.

Ian McDiarmid doesn't get enough credit for his work in this film, which (except for his "No...NO!!!" moment) is very disturbing in its subtle and sadistic black-heartedness. There's an almost "pervy" quality to Palpatine's interest in "Young Skywalker", as he describes the dark Side as a path to things "unnatural". Palpatine is easily one of the best -- and creepiest --villains in any film of the past decade.

Obi Wan's ardent monolog after defeating Anikin is powerful and affecting, as he laments the demise of his "brother" who has joined the Dark Side rather than to fulfill his destiny, and is perhaps the most achingly emotional moment of the entire series.

And the near-complete absence of Jar-Jar Binks from this movie is also one of its more positive attributes.

I liked Revenge of the Sith better this time than when I first saw it, and to me there is no question it is the best of the prequels.


Star Wars -- the original (or "A New Hope" as SW nerds insist it be called).

I must have seen this film twenty times over the years (mostly on the big screen too), but hadn't given it a look since its 1997 re-release. I honestly expected to find it tedious, having completely memorized it as a kid, and moreover it being a relic of my childhood. It's a movie we've all seen numerous times, which we all now take for granted. "Old hat".

But I was knocked-over. This is an indisputable classic, as exciting today as when it was first made, and it hasn't dated at all.

Certainly the effects sequences are not as fancy as those in the prequels, but the effects are still very impressive 35 years on -- and the opening shot of the rebel ship pursued by the Star Destroyer is still the most potent image of the entire series.

Also, this film really moves. It is a beautifully edited movie, with nary a wasted moment in its entire running time -- and yet it never once feels frenetic. Star Wars really is one of the best edited movies ever made, and its balance of narrative form and kinetic excitement is virtually perfect.

I had also forgotten how funny this movie is. The tension between Luke's altruistic temerity and Han's venal self-interest (as they argue over whether to rescue the princess) is an absolute hoot, as is the bickering between all three, when that rescue later goes awry. This film is as much a spoof of old-fashioned heroism as a celebration of it, and again the two approaches are in perfect harmony.

As far as Lucas' alterations in the Special Edition, I'd say many of the new effects do help. Mos Eisly is improved with addition of more buildings (though the CGI creatures were probably unnecessary, and don't look especially real). The new effects in the Death Star battle look terrific, and make an already great sequence even greater. But I still think Lucas ruined the scene where Han shoots Greedo. We KNOW Greedo is going to kill him -- we didn't need to see Greedo shoot. Besides, Greedo could never miss at that range, so the scene looks hopelessly fake.

However, my greatest misgiving about the Special Edition is the utterly AWFUL music dub. Williams' score is buried under sound effects in most of the action scenes, and it is virtually inaudible during the Death Star battle. This is a MAJOR strike against this version of the film.

Inevitably the prequels alter context in which one views this film. After Ewen McGreggor's and Hayden's Christiansen's spectacular duel in Revenge of the Sith, the duel between Alec Guiness and David Prowse seems a rather mundane (I'm surprised Lucas did not add some CGI choreography to it, and wouldn't have minded if he did).

On the other hand, Luke's first appearance has more resonance, as we see Anikin's son is now a young adult, and poised to become a warrior himself -- but of what kind? (That whiney complaint about going to Tocci station sounds an awful lot like someone else!) Obi Wan's appearance likewise has more weight, now that we have seen his greener days as a skilled Jedi knight (and the only one of two who survived the Empire's purge).

The difference in tone between the prequels and later episodes is also striking. The prequels are epics which play-out against the backdrop of Coruscant, in the center of galactic politics, and depict the twilight "of a more civilized age". Star Wars is more about guerilla warfare and its ragged, motley revolutionaries.

The prequels give us elegantly-mannered Jedi knights who adhere to a code (and training) going back thousands of years. The characters in Star Wars are more raw -- three young strangers with nothing on common, who are thrown together and bond (and bicker) as they fight to survive. This is one of the main reason why the later episodes are more satisfying -- there's more character conflict (which generates more humor), whereas everyone in the prequels was so polite. And as Andy has pointed-out, the prequels had no wildly exciting Han Solo-like character (I was hoping Mace Windu would serve such a role, but alas no).

In any case, the original Star Wars certainly deserves its "classic" status, and while stuffy cineastes can pillory it for being "vapid", "ruining movies" and other sins against culture and civilization, it is nevertheless one of the great films of all time. (It also is refreshingly free of the preachy socio-political "messages" which mar so many genre films today.)

[jkholm]

I expect DeNiro to win however no matter what. Tarantino's blood bath isn't going to play among Oscar voters (not that it would either).

As for Silver Linings Playbook overall, Adapted Screenplay seems like it's best chance for a win. Jennifer Lawrence will get nominated for Best Actress, but will lose because A.) she's already been nominated, and B.) she's only 22 and will have many more chances. Best Picture, not a chance, because the film hasn't taken off at the box office despite expanding into nearly 2,000 theaters.

I don't think the movie goes wide until Jan. 18. It's still in only around 750 theaters. My wife and I saw it on New Year's Day at an art-house theater in Dallas with a packed house. Our audience seemed to love it and laughed quite a bit (except for perhaps the scene where Deniro makes a bet against the Dallas Cowboys ) so I hope it reaches a wider audience after the Oscar nominations are announced. I thought it was terrific and loved Lawrence's performance.

[AndyDursin]

You're right John, SILVER LININGS isn't in 2000 theaters. It's still in 745 according to the numbers I'm looking at. If it generates a number of nomintions that could help it when it expands out like you said.

Paul: great STAR WARS reviews! The '77 film is one of the greatest movies ever made, and SITH is the best of the prequels no doubt...and a fine film on its own merits.

[AndyDursin]

I stand by my prediction for DeNiro on SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (DiCaprio's not even nominated) and I think Lawrence has an excellent chance against that field for Best Actress. As I said in the other Oscar thread, the Weinsteins know how to market their Oscar contenders and would not count SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK out at all. LINCOLN to me seems too safe a choice and Spielberg's films frequently don't win a host of Oscars too (not to mention, have you met many people who thought LINCOLN was this fantastic, moving film? I haven't. Even the people who liked it I've met were restrained in their enthusiasm over it).

Oscar thoughts now that the nominations are out:

http://andyfilm.com/mboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3996

[Paul MacLean]

Live and Let Die

The Moore era gets-off to a shaky start with with one. Moore himself brings an almost jarringly different persona to the role (far-more different than Lazenby was to Connery), but he quickly makes it his own and settles comfortably into it (he was, after-all, no stranger to the spy game, having already played Simon Templar and Brett Sinclair). He lacks Connery's lethal edge, but is likable in part, and deftly handles the humorous elements (he's really quite a talented comedian).

LALD isn't a terrible film, but the weakest Bond film up to that point. The camp humor at work in Connery films walked a fine line, but here it frequently topples into ludicrous idiocy (like the airfield chase). I admit I do like the alligator scene, but the big boat chase -- ostensibly the action centerpiece of the movie -- is slow, and its attempt at humor (particularly Sheriff J.W. Pepper -- the worst Bond character of all time) is decrepit. Kananga's death scene -- in which a laughably fake inflatable dummy hurtles to the ceiling and pops like a balloon -- is by far the funniest moment in the film (though probably not intentionally so). There are odd things too -- like why do Solitaire's tarot cards have "007" printed on the back of them?

It also bothers me a little that, except for one CIA agent, every black character is a villain -- and the one chararacter from Kananga's fold who "turns good" is Solitaire -- a white woman. I hesitate to call this film "racist" (which is an overused and often misapplied term in our culture), but it is arguably tactless.

Bond goes back to rescue Solitaire, armed not with his trusted Walther PPK -- but with a .44 Magnum. WRONG. James Bond carries a small handgun because he doesn't need anything larger (he was, remember, a devote of the even smaller Baretta before it was confiscated by M).

And these copious faults are a shame, because they compromise all the good things in the film. The Voodoo-drenched island nation of "San Monique" (which is obviously supposed to be Haiti) makes for a fascinating twist, as it is one of the few locations in a Bond film which isn't a glamorous jet-set destination, but a poor developing nation. In fact the whole Voodoo element is a really interesting spin on the Bond milieu, this being is the only time a "spiritual" element has featured in a 007 film. Geoffrey Holder's Baron Samedi is particularly spooky, and I love the freaky ending where he pops-up on front of the train (leading one to wonder, is he really just a henchman of Kananga -- or is he the actual Voodoo spirit of Baron Samedi in Haitian lore)?

Yaphet Kotto is (as always) superb, and I wish he'd been given a more to do. Julius Harris' Tee-Hee proves one of the best Bond henchmen since Oddjob. George Martin's score isn't very good, and mostly sound like 70s television (or library) music. I did however really like the source music he wrote for Baron Samedi's dance number...





The Man With The Golden Gun

If nothing else, this made me appreciate Live and Let Die a little more. The premise is sound -- Bond meeting-up with the world's most deadly assassin. But with this film a picture starts to emerge of the Bond movies' ebbing originality in the 70s. In the 60s the Bond films were the movies everyone else was imitating. By the 70s the Bond filmmakers were trying to copy the trends begun by other movies -- blaxploitation in Live And let Die, and now Kung Fu actioners in Man With The Golden Gun.

Christopher Lee is excellent as Scaramenga (and I love the scene where he explains why he became a killer -- we're rarely privy to what originally set Bond villains off on their wayward paths). I like the martial arts scene, but there's not enough of it, so it's just a throwaway sequence to cash-in on the Kung Fu vogue, and the script overall is just silly and frivolous. Bond's defeat of Scaramenga -- by impersonating a statue of himself -- is one of the great lead balloons of the entire series. And how did Bond henchmen go from Harold Sakata to Herve Villachaize? Britt Eklind is a peach, but her character is horrible, and one of the worst Bond girls.

Even Barry's score feels "phoned-in" much of the time, and he himself admitted this film's title song was his worst (though the melody itself is very nice).


The Spy Who Loved Me

Finally the Moore era picks-up, and this proves one of the better films of the entire series. It has its silly elements (like Richard Kiel's Jaws) but for the most part is a well-plotted, colorful, visually sumptuous adventure with a far-more epic scale than any Bond film to date. Barbara Bach is one of the best Bond girls, and one with a twist -- a beautiful KGB agent who vows to kill her lover's murderer (which she eventually learns was Bond himself).

The Spy Who Loved Me may also have the best teaser of the entire series -- certainly it contains one of the greatest stunts in film history. The action scenes overall are superb, especially the car chase. Ken Adam outdoes his previous design work with some wondrous sets, from the vast, stony office of General Golgol to the massive tanker interior, to the modern (yet strangely cosy) interiors of Karl Stromberg's "Atlantis". Maurice Binder's title sequence is also one of his most imaginative, with its silhouettes of naked women doing gymnastics on gunbarrels.

Yes, there are echoes of Thunderball and You Only Live Twice in the script (hijacked warheads and an attempt to trick world powers into attacking each other) but the twist is Stromberg doesn't want blackmail money -- he simply wants to destroy the world!

Marvin Hamlisch's score deserves special mention. Although I think some of the "disco"-flavored action cues are little dated and silly (astute fans of 70s game shows will recognize the same synthesizer from the old "Tic Tack Dough" theme!) Hamlisch is a master at spotting, and his placement of music is hugely effective. He also gets points for referencing the "Barry style" in several cues (most notably in the "Tanker" cue). And "Nobody Does It Better" is certainly one of the series' best songs, and Hamlisch uses the tune throughout the score in a variety of attractive guises. In particular I love his "Chorus Line"-style arrangement of the song at the end of the film (sadly none of the score's best moments made it to the soundtrack album).

Definitely a high point in the Bond series and a real trip.


Moonraker

Sillier than TSWLM, but still very entertaining. Again Eon Productions was taking a cue from what was trendy (in this case Star Wars), but with better results this time. Locations (Venice, Rio) are well-utilized and beautifully shot. Ken Adam's space station is fabulous, as impressive-looking as anything in 2001 or Star Wars.

Derek Meddings' effects work is excellent, and holds its own in the post-Star Wars era. It's also worth noting that, when this film was made, no space shuttle had yet launched and no one knew what a shuttle launch would look like -- yet Meddings' work accurately predicted it.

Holly Goodhead is decent Bond girl -- a smart CIA agent and not a bimbo. She's well-written but Lios Chiles performance is rather dispassionate. I also found it rather odd that she wears high heels in almost every scene -- even when she's infiltrated Drax's secret base in the Amazon. Speaking of shoes, has anyone noticed the continuity glitch in the scene where the dogs chase-down Corinne? She's wearing heels when she starts running, then suddenly sneakers and blue socks once she's in the woods!

Moonraker is not without its irritiating aspects -- like Bond driving a gondola through downtown Venice, and the cringeworthy subplot of Jaws and his girlfriend. Hugo Drax's motivation is also pretty-much the same "God complex" as as Karl Stromberg's -- to destroy the world in remake it in his image -- yet overall Mooraker is still an enjoyable and great-looking romp. John Barry's score is one of his best, and the most symphonic ever for a Bond film (though what a bitter disappointment to learn he was originally to compose extra music for a 2-record set which never came to be).

[Monterey Jack]

Live and Let Die

It also bothers me a little that, except for one CIA agent, every black character is a villain -- and the one chararacter from Kananga's fold who "turns good" is Solitaire -- a white woman. I hesitate to call this film "racist" (which is an overused and often misapplied term in our culture), but it is arguably tactless.

Hell, if you think the movie is troubling in this respect, try reading Ian Fleming's horribly-dated original novel. Yikes. At least in the film, Yaphet Kotto's Kananga is sophisticated and urbane in the classic Bond villain tradition, but his dialogue in the book is spectacularly offensive.

[Jedbu]

I may have to go back and revisit MOONRAKER-I saw it once when it first came out and when they used the CE3K tones for an access code, the film lost me. That and the whole Jaws/Miss Blonde Bubblehead thing made me almost throw my popcorn box AND soda at the screen.

And I don't recall watching THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, so I will watch that one, as well.

[AndyDursin]

MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN ranks at the bottom of my Bond viewing list. Just awful. But, MOONRAKER I've always been partial to, especially if enjoyed as a sci-fi fantasy of the '70s and less a "Bond movie". The production design, cinematography and scoring are all excellent.

Paul you should group these reviews and put them in your own thread. They deserve a separate thread IMO!!

[Eric Paddon]

I've always found I can take Golden Gun better than Moonraker, because Moonraker at times screams that the franchise is heading for a nadir at this point in terms of silliness.

Lois Chiles also left me quite unimpressed.

[Monterey Jack]

I've always found I can take Golden Gun better than Moonraker, because Moonraker at times screams that the franchise is heading for a nadir at this point in terms of silliness.

Moonraker is 2001 compared to Die Another Day (my personal bottom-of-the-barrel 007 movie).

[mkaroly]

I've always found I can take Golden Gun better than Moonraker, because Moonraker at times screams that the franchise is heading for a nadir at this point in terms of silliness.

Lois Chiles also left me quite unimpressed.

Moonraker is my guilty favorite Bond movie...it isn't great but I thought Chiles' character was much more mature as a Bond woman and close to being Moore's Bond's equal. I also love John Barry's score for this film...it is my favorite Moore-era score. I am in the camp of those who don't like MWTGG - it is a silly movie with a villain who never delivers the good. I also hated the Bond girl in that one and the title song by Lulu is, for me, one of the worst Bond title songs ever and one of the most anti-Bond songs ever...that song doesn't fit his character at all (again, IMO).

[AndyDursin]

Outside of Quantum of Solace, for me there is no other Bond film that has so few pleasures as Golden Gun. Lifelessly directed, indifferently written, even Barry's score as Paul pointed out is on auto pilot...and the theme is terrible on top of it. Just a total Blah effort across the board and undoubtedly the reason they took more time crafting The Spy Who Loved Me...which paid off handsomely.

[Eric Paddon]

Silly as Moonraker was, it's more entertaining for me than the two Dalton films.

It wasn't Chiles' character I had a problem with so much as Chiles herself. Just not a charismatic presence IMO.

[Paul MacLean]

For Your Eyes Only

Although this film starts out with one of the silliest teasers of the series, once we're past the title sequence, FYEO settles into the most realistic Bond adventure in over a decade, whose tone is very uncharacteristic of the Moore era overall.

There are no gadgets this time, forcing Bond to rely on his wits and resourcefulness -- which consequently makes him a more impressive character. The car chase in particular epitomizes this change of pace, as this time 007 has no Aston Martin or submersible Lotus from which to escape the bad guys; instead he must make due with a dumpy old Citroën 2CV! The ski chase is also terrific, boasting a superb -- and risky -- effort from both stuntmen and camera operator. The climbing sequence is also a real nail-biter and paragon of high-risk stuntwork.

The supporting characters/cast are also impressive. Carole Bouquet's Melina is one of the best Bond girls -- brave and stoic, but with a vulnerable side. Julian Glover is likewise superb as Kristatos -- a character so polished and refined he simply must be a good guy, whereas Topo's coarse, unkempt Colombo is "obviously" the heavy. Bernard Lee however is very much much missed, and his absence from this film makes you realize what an important presence he was in the early Bond pictures.

FYEO is the most believable of of the Moore films, with a realistic premise, no billionaire megalomanics threatening to destroy the world, no superhuman henchmen, and with (mostly) plausible action sequences. And yet...for all its refreshing realism, I found it a little less engaging than The Spy Who Loved Me (or even Moonraker). It is very good, but missing that elusive "spark" to make it truly great. Of course it is also missing John Barry, whose absence is keenly felt, as Bill Conti's music is one of the film's weakest elements. The score is "well-written" but it lacks dramatic weight, and the goofy instrumental pop and synth twangs are fundamentally at odds with the more serious tone this film was going for. (Perhaps John Barry was the elusive spark the film needed?)