rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

.had no idea they cut out a steamy topless scene of Sean Young ("Oh my!" in Takei voice).

Is a Takei voice really the right one for that kind of scene?

The Bible (1966) 8 of 10
-The genre went out on a high note with this one. There are some flaws, most notably Abraham's ranting after he hears the command to sacrifice Isaac, but I remain impressed at how the basic stories of this part of Genesis were brought to life with appropriate reverence. And the Blu-Ray finally allows it to look great after a past legacy of subpar transfers on LD and DVD. Many details in the Garden of Eden sequence are visible for the first time since the film came out. The Mayuzumi score also delivers an appropriately eerie punch in the Sodom sequence where the terror of impending destruction is perfectly conveyed the instant you get the close-up of O'Toole's eyes and the underlying score.

The Ten Commandments (1923) 7.5 of 10
-DeMille's silent version is of course two films in one with its separate modern parable version that I have to admit ages better with time than it did when I first saw it if only because as I get older I see more signs that characters like the wayward younger son are still very much with us in our present age. The filming in present day San Francisco also captures an image of the city on film that is lost for the most part. Katherine Orrison's commentary track for the film is enthusiastic and informative.

[mkaroly]

And I am in the camp of those who am glad that there is no narration - never liked it. Beautiful film.

The narration is something that I think absolutely helps the film for first-time viewers; as you watch it repeatedly, it's less necessary, though I think it was supposed to give the movie a '40s noir type feel (it just wasn't done very well lol). My problem with any other version of the film outside the theatrical version is that I cannot accept Deckard being a replicant, which renders the dramatic point of the story moot.

For me, I can go either way with Deckard being a replicant or not being a replicant. If he is a replicant I think that adds something disturbing and sinister to the story - that in order to retire replicants humanity created one to seek out and kill its own. That would explain why Deckard never retired a human by mistake, and it adds an uneasy feeling at the end as both replicants are on the run and we don't know what happened to them. There's a vicious cycle there.

But if he is a replicant it kind of takes away the power of Roy's decision to spare Deckard at the end in a way - Roy's compassionate act shows that even though he is a replicant he has transcended it in some way and become more human than humans have shown they could be in that world; if he is human, then Deckard is more of a "hero" in going against the system when he runs away with Rachael, breaking the cycle.

THAT said -- no matter what version you enjoy, it's a classic movie. Even the workprint is fascinating.

Agree fully!

Is a Takei voice really the right one for that kind of scene?

Lol...I suppose not...how about a "HEY NOW!" from Hank Kingsley?? Lol...

[Paul MacLean]

My problem with any other version of the film outside the theatrical version is that I cannot accept Deckard being a replicant, which renders the dramatic point of the story moot.

There's nothing in the film to suggest Deckard is a replicant. And If he is a replicant, it raises questions which can't be plausibly answered...

If he is a replicant, why is he allowed on Earth? Ok, maybe he's there in secret (like Rachel) and is some kind of special assassination model created to terminate the five rogue replicants on the run. But if so, he's not very well designed -- what good is an assassin with the body of a burned-out, middle-aged man, particularly one who is physically much weaker than the Nexus 6 models he's supposed to "retire"?

If Deckard has been created to assassinate Roy Batty and the others, what's he doing loose on the streets of LA and eating at a Chinese restaurant? Wouldn't he be at the Tyrell Corporation ready to be activated?

If they can create replicant Blade Runners, why create just Deckard? Wouldn't a whole squad of assassins be more effective in killing Roy and the others?

Is Bryant "play acting" in the scenes with Deckard and pretending they've known each other for years?

You'd think someone with as sharp and brilliant a mind as Roy Batty would recognize Deckard is a replicant -- yet he never mentions this? Wouldn't Roy reveal Deckard's true identity to him before he dies, or at least cryptically refer to him a "brother" or something along those lines?

And the whole point of Deckard's character arc is that he is burned-out and "inhuman" at the outset, lacking the passion and ability to love which we see in Roy Batty. Deckard only finds his humanity through his battle with Roy and relationship with Rachel.

He's not a replicant. It simply doesn't jibe with the story.

[Eric Paddon]

The Ten Commandments (1956) 8.5 of 10.

-DeMille's last is perhaps his finest in terms of the outsized spectacle he brings that was never truly duplicated by anyone else. I think of all the performances in the film, the one that stands out weakest is Debra Paget, who is there only to scream, "Joshua!" it seems like.

-The Blu-Ray transfer is beyond stunning. A must-have for anyone who enjoys the format.

-Now come on, whichever label is supposed to give us the expanded CD, get on with it!!!!!

[AndyDursin]

WILLOW
5/10

George Lucas' 1988 fantasy, directed by Ron Howard, stars diminutive Warwick Davis as the title hero, who finds a sacred baby and subsequently sets out on a quest to rid the kingdom of evil Queen “BAHV-MOR-DAH!” (Jean Marsh) with the help of a Han Solo-like rogue (Val Kilmer) and comic relief served up by a pair of "Brownies." Lots of effects, chases, and action ensue, all with a heavy “Star Wars” flavor – but with none of the charm.

Despite being a modest success at the box-office, I’ve always found “Willow” difficult to warm to, thanks to a dour and often uninvolving screenplay that recycles bits and pieces of the Skywalker saga, along with a likewise hackneyed James Horner score that tries too hard to sell the action (I'll take "Krull" any day). What saves the movie are the individual set-pieces and then cutting-edge special effects by ILM, which were groundbreaking at the time ("morphing! cool!") and ushered in a succession of incredible advances in FX over the years thereafter. Still, “Willow” isn’t much fun, and its indifferent cast – Joanne Whalley is throughly unappealing as the heroine, and (future off-screen husband) Kilmer looks as if he’d rather be on a walkabout – further compounds its troubles.

Fox’s 25th Anniversary edition Blu-Ray of “Willow” has a phenomenal transfer, freshly remastered and offering crisp detail. I recall seeing “Willow” theatrically in ‘88 and also on prior laserdisc/DVD renderings, and I called it “dark and depressing” in prior reviews. Given the movie’s new transfer, I owe Adrian Biddle’s cinematography a reassessment – even though the film is still grimy, the shadings and textures in Biddle’s work have been buried in prior releases under a standard-def haze. They’re restored here in a flaweless transfer that appreciably enhances his contribution. Horner’s efforts, meanwhile, receive a robust rendering in the 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack, though I still find it to be a score of entirely contrived emotion.

Extra features aren’t merely a rehash of the prior DVD. Howard speaks affectionately about the picture in two featurettes: a 12-minute assembly of deleted scenes that includes a look at Willow’s run-in with a piranha-like humanoid creature, while “The Making of an Adventure” is a 23-minute vintage retrospective with a brief new set of comments from the director. Other featurettes include a new 10-minute retrospective with Warwick Davis; matte paintings; and a special effects featurette with Dennis Muren. Removed from this release, for whatever reason, are a commentary from Davis and trailers/TV spots which were included on the prior DVD.

[Monterey Jack]

Yeah, I re-visited Willow when it was released on DVD over a decade ago, and it's seriously Lego-brick generic as far as 80's fantasy filmmaking goes. Maybe it worked better in the pre-LOTR/Harry Potter days, but now, it's an artifact of its time, albiet with impressive visual effects. And yet, it's now "retro" enough to have a dedicated fan base...every mention of this Blu-Ray release on other forums has elicted squeals of nostalgic delight from most aging 80's kids. I just wonder how enthusiastic these people will be once they actually sit down and watch it for the first time in two decades.

[mkaroly]

I have never seen WILLOW and still have no urge to watch it, not even for kicks and giggles. I like fantasy films but even back then I didn't really feel motivated to want to watch it.

[Jedbu]

Eric, I would probably give THE TEN COMMANDMENTS a solid 9/10, myself, for the following reasons:

-for the Exodus sequence alone, that gives it a 4;

-Yul Brynner, Edward G. Robinson, Cedric Hardwicke-they elevate it to 8 on their performances;

-Heston, Bernstein's score, the visual effects, DeMille's use of color and that dissolve from Brynner and Baxter to Mt. Sinai bring it to 10;

-Baxter's, Derek's (his presence alone leaves a dramatic black hole in the film) and Paget's performances (although Paget has such a thinly written part that I'm not sure what anyone could have done to elevate it) drop it down to 9.

Paramount's Blu-Ray is astounding, and I am glad they decided to include the 1923 version in HD instead of merely making it a DVD supplement. The deluxe box set is one of the best special edition packages I own. And I also hope that someone finally brings the score out with all the bells and whistles ala La-La Land or FSM.

[AndyDursin]

I have never seen WILLOW and still have no urge to watch it, not even for kicks and giggles. I like fantasy films but even back then I didn't really feel motivated to want to watch it.

It's so DREARY that it's hard to enjoy -- and it certainly doesn't generate unintentional comedy. It's just very dark and glum.

And I like fantasy films as you know. LEGEND's story has its shortcomings but the cinematography, art direction and scoring as so outstanding it's one of my favorites. DRAGONSLAYER is a bit of a slog but, again, the atmosphere, score and effects in that film are easy to respect. KRULL is gorgeously shot by Peter Suschitzky and the Horner score is marvelous....but there's nothing in WILLOW to grab you.

The other part of it is that the performances are terrible. Kilmer looks disinterested, Joanne Whaley is totally unappealing, Jean Marsh isn't compelling, even Warwick Davis' acting -- let's face it -- isn't particularly good. Kevin Pollak in one of the two the Jar Jar Binks comic relief roles doesn't help either!

[Eric Paddon]

Ben Hur (1959) 10 of 10.

-Still the most perfect movie ever made IMO. And tonight, I had the added bonus of for the first time realizing that the one plot hole that always annoyed me just a little is not really a plot hole after all. The plot hole was how did Judah not learn from Messala before the race that his mother and sister were still alive? The answer I finally realized is that when he storms out at the Intermission after getting the lie that they're dead, he never goes back to confront Messala, he just goes off to the Sheik to train for the race and thus there was never any opportunity for Messala to reveal the truth to him before his deathbed scene.

[AndyDursin]

KILLING THEM SOFTLY
7.5/10

Andrew Dominik’s KILLING THEM SOFTLY is a nasty, beautifully shot piece of pulp fiction – so stylishly made and well-performed that one can overlook the familiarity of its simple plot and heavy-handed elements in Dominik’s direction.

In the director’s adaptation of a novel by George V. Higgins, two losers (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) knock over one of local mobster Ray Liotta’s card games in the hopes that – since Liotta looted one of own games himself – they’ll escape the blame. Naturally, their plan doesn’t quite pan out, with enforcer Brad Pitt called into the scene by a local higher-up (Richard Jenkins) who wants the criminals apprehended and the situation “taken care of” – even if it means the recruiting a hit man (James Gandolfini) preoccupied with booze, broads and other problems.

Shot on location in Louisiana, “Killing Them Softly” is spellbinding in terms of its visuals: Dominik, who previously helmed “The Assassination of Jesse James” with Pitt, makes brilliant use of the widescreen format and shows an eye for expert composition throughout. Even merely routine shots of cars sitting under highway overpasses and characters drinking at a hotel bar have a vivid cinematic texture to them, and Greig Fraser’s cinematography adds to the movie’s memorable look and feel.

Pitt, McNairy and Mendelsohn are all superb here, and Dominick’s script manages to be darkly comic and compelling, in spite of the obvious nature of the plot (like most crime dramas in this genre, when things go wrong, it’s a good bet few are going to make it out alive). Gandolfini is equally magnetic in his few scenes as the washed-up “Mickey,” while Pitt glides effortlessly through the film as the world-weary mob fixer who’s seen it all before.

Where the film stumbles is in Dominick’s constant quoting from the 2008 Presidential election – whether it’s in then-candidate Barack Obama’s pleading about unity and togetherness, or President Bush’s talk about the bail out, Dominick incessantly peppers the soundtrack with soundbytes meant to underscore the irony of the film’s grimy setting and general hopelessness among its characters. The trouble is that we get the point after a couple of minutes – and the director keeps hammering us with this concept throughout the entire movie. Less, in this instance, would’ve been more.

Nevertheless, for a tidy, 90-minute slice of noir, “Killing Them Softly” is worth seeing, and Anchor Bay’s Blu-Ray includes a terrific 1080p transfer with a well-engineered DTS MA soundtrack that’s mixed surprisingly at a low volume. Extras include ten minutes of deleted scenes, a featurette, digital copy/Ultraviolet and DVD.

[Eric Paddon]

The viewing choices for Easter Week continue. Some of these I've reviewed previously here a year ago and won't rehash.

The Robe (1953) 6.5 of 10
-A year later and I still can't figure out how to navigate the special features on the Blu-Ray!

The Prodigal (1955) 5.5 of 10
-I think of all the "exploitative" Biblical movies of the 1950s, this one is surpassed only by "Salome" for sheer badness (and ties "Solomon And Sheba"). I really can't help but think there is an underlying subversive element in making Lana Turner's priestess so overly noble and in the end depict her stoning by the escaped Hebrew slaves as some sign of "Fundamentalist intolerance".

Demetrius And The Gladiators (1954) 6.5 of 10
-I'll admit that Delmer Daves does an overall better job of direction than Henry Koster did on "The Robe". Strange though that Caligula is so mad he doesn't remember Demetrius as the slave he had personally imprisoned in the previous film, but what the heck, neither of these films were about authenticity! Debra Paget's small role is identical basically to what she did in "Ten Commandments" a couple years later and she shouts "Demetrius!" the same way she kept shouting "Joshua!" all through that film.

Charlton Heston Presents The Bible (1992) 10 of 10
-I revisited this wonderful documentary for the first time since Heston's passing and it is magnificent with his carefully chosen redactions of Genesis, Moses, and the NT Gospels in the Holy Land settings set to great works of art for visual reference as well (a device also used in the 1960s "Coming Of Christ" documentary). Heston's readings are a powerful reminder of how right he was for all the epic films he did, and the documentary does serve as an indicator of how much his involvement with the great Biblical epic films had to have made a personal impact on his life as well, which isn't something you can usually say of actors who were associated with these kinds of films.

King Of Kings (1961) 7 of 10
-Nothing too much to add to what I said a year ago. The film basically in its zeal to come up with what it thinks is the best possible through-story narrative, is compelled to jettison many of the important aspects of the Gospel accounts and give us some sequences that become muddled. Is John The Baptist arrested in Jerusalem or Galilee? If the former, that's not correct, and if it were in Jerusalem, Herod Antipas wouldn't have had the authority to arrest him let alone behead him!

GSET, Jesus Of Nazareth and POTC will be in the "best for last" categories. There are some other documentaries and other projects I need to give a look such as the independent productions of the Gospels of Matthew and John from the late 90s (Richard Kiley is in the former as Matthew narrating; it's just a dramatization using only the scriptural text).

[Paul MacLean]

Hopscotch (1980)



Fun, likable spy comedy about a rogue CIA field man (Walter Matthau) who decides to disappear and write a defamatory memoir of his tenure in the secret service (to the chagrin of his former superiors). I will say that the execution doesn't quite live up to the premise, and sometimes the film feels like it ought to be more funny and suspenseful than it is. Director Ronald Neame is of course more of an "actors director" than an action or comedy filmmaker, which is probably the reason. This could have been an ideal vehicle for someone like Peter Hunt.

The absence of an original score is disappointing; instead the film just uses classical music (mostly Mozart) which doesn't do anything to enhance character, suspense or comedy. Would love to have heard what Henry Mancini or John Williams might have done for this film.

That said, Matthau is (as always terrific), and surrounded by an excellent cast -- Glenda Jackson, Sam Waterston, Ned Beatty and George Baker. Very nice use of a variety of locations as well, as the story takes place in Strasbourg, Georgia, London and Dover. Lots of good plots twists and turns too. Worth a look.


Billion Dollar Brain (1967)



Third in the "Harry Palmer" trilogy of spy movies based on Len Deighton's books. I thought Deighton wrote "relaistic" espianage thrillers, but this movie (which is apparently closely based on Deighton's book) is as bizarre and ludicrous as any Derek Flint or Matt Helm movie.

Palmer uncovers a plot to destroy Russia -- hatched by a reactionary American oil billionaire (Ed Begley) who intends to drive a private army (hidden in oil trunks) across the frozen Baltic Sea and attack Leningrad.

The film was actually directed by Ken Russell (in one of his few "hired gun" jobs), who brings an interesting visual panache to the story. I also admire cast and crew's willingness to shoot the film in Finland during winter, which has to have been a major pain, given the bitter Scandinavian cold and notoriously short days.

I did take exception to the the way the film depicted the KGB as rational and committed to peace, happily collaborating with MI6 agent Palmer (albeit in secret) to thwart the "American madman". Even the most cursory glance at the Cold War era confirms the Soviets were always a bigger threat to Europe and world peace than the US ever was (in addition to being a rigid police state).

But Caine is (as always) great, and completely carries the film. Richard Rodney Bennett's score is terrific, and uncharacteristically quirky and strident for the usually lyrical composer. It almost reminds me of something Maurice Jarre might have done, with its lack of strings, and emphasis on percussion and Ondes Martinot.

[Eric Paddon]

Palmer uncovers a plot to destroy Russia -- hatched by a reactionary American oil billionaire (Ed Begley) who intends to drive a private army (hidden in oil trunks) across the frozen Baltic Sea and attack Leningrad.

I did take exception to the the way the film depicted the KGB as rational and committed to peace, happily collaborating with MI6 agent Palmer (albeit in secret) to thwart the "American madman". Even the most cursory glance at the Cold War era confirms the Soviets were always a bigger threat to Europe and world peace than the US ever was (in addition to being a rigid police state).

This film may in fact be the most grotesque example of whitewashing the Soviet Union and its brutality since "Mission To Moscow." The obsession with evil reactionary uber-anti-communists as the real threat to world peace was a theme Hollywood became obsessed with in the early 1960s as typified in films like "Dr. Strangelove", "Seven Days In May", "Fail Safe" (with Walter Matthau's coldly cynical Professor Groteschele) etc. and also replicated in many episodes of TV series of the day like "The Defenders", "Arrest And Trial", "Route 66", "Slattery's People" etc. It stemmed from a hysterical paranoia in the ranks of Hollywood liberals and liberal academia that the rise of Barry Goldwater and the conservative movement in the early 1960s represented some horrific threat to peace greater than any danger (if at all) posed by communism. The people that supported the idea that our leadership was not tough enough in what should have been regarded as a moral struggle were seen as simple-minded idiots easily swayed by dangerous voices from the sensible path (think of Rod Serling's pretentiously written lines in "Seven Days In May" where President Lyman rails about the evils of the "Nuclear Age" and invokes the flash-in-the-pan fifteen seconds of fame enjoyed by General Edwin Walker, who long-term achieved better notoriety as the first man a fanatical communist named Lee Harvey Oswald tried to murder) who would lead us into nuclear armageddon.

This description in the FSM liner notes for "Brain" has this amusing bit of unitentional humor written in dead seriousness. "The use of a Russian musical style for Midwinter’s invasion is therefore an allusion not to the army itself, but to the Russian perspective of what it means to be invaded by the West. (In a sense, the story is most sympathetic to the Russian perspective, with Stok and Anya manipulating outside forces, including Harry, in order to protect their homeland, a noble purpose. The film is therefore that most subversive creature: a pro-Soviet Cold War thriller.)" Of course, the rather inconvenient fact that Stalin's Russia was invaded by the man he made a deal with in 1939 that rendered Poland asunder and subjected Eastern Europe to perpetual tyrrany while in return Stalin gaved his private assent to Hitler's war with England and France should be the thing that should not let our heart bleed too much for Russian feelings on this point! The real irony is that as this film tries to draw a parallel between American anti-communists with Nazi fanatics, it lets off the hook the people who made the REAL deals with Hitler to enslave people (not to mention the fact that Midwinter's attempted invasion begins in Latvia, an independent country that lost its freedom in the same pact Stalin made with Hitler!)

That these kinds of films are today not looked back on with the scorn they deserve for their bogus conception of the world and where the real dangers were, whereas anti-communist movies are assailed for their "simplemindedness" despite having been right about the Soviet Union, is for me the ultimate joke.

[mkaroly]

WAR HORSE – 9/10. This is Spielberg on auto-pilot in that I felt WAR HORSE was a nod to earlier Spielberg films in its sentimentality, its thematic material, and in its “magical cinematic moments”. His obsession with the themes of family separation and reunion are all here, except this time around they revolve around a horse, which was the challenge of the story. Instead of having an alien (ET), an android (AI), or a human being (EMPIRE OF THE SUN, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN) as the one experiencing the separation, a horse does, and this type of material is right up Spielberg’s alley.

I thought that Spielberg got good acting from Joey the horse (if you want to call it that) – his difficulty was getting Joey to emote “feelings” in a way that, while we understand narratively what’s going on it, we are still emotionally affected with the horse. And I think Spielberg was successful, at least for me: I felt Joey’s anxiety and anger at being separated from his mother, his sadness at being separated from Albert, his friendship with Topthorn and resultant grief at the loss of his friend, his weariness, happiness, playfulness, sense of accomplishment, etc. He is the central figure around which several families are affected and defined; I weirdly kept thinking back to MUNICH and how Avner was the central figure around whom all sorts of different families were affected and defined.

There were other things I liked as well: loved the landscapes in the film. Spielberg is a pro at shooting battle scenes as well, and Williams’ score really fit the overall appearance and heart of the story. The final moments of the film (from the hospital to the credits) were full of the typical Spielberg “magic moments” which I found very effective. Interesting choice at the end to film it the way they did. But there were also things I didn’t like as much – I felt the German kids just didn’t quite fit in (I know this was based on a stage play and a book, so I don’t know how much of the source material was Spielberg-ized and how much was more true to the original material). I just don’t buy that they would have done what they did. I also felt that the relationship between Albert and his father was not developed enough – I understand the story is really about Joey (and to a slightly lesser degree Joey and Albert, who is sort of a surrogate to Joey), but the emotional impact of the ending isn’t quite what it could have been. The dialogue in the barn between mother and son earlier in the film wasn’t enough.

Ultimately though, I will give the film high marks because it was a return to vintage Spielberg. He will always have a lifetime pass from me because I truly believe he is sincere in his story-telling, and he is best when he stays true to that. Yes, the story is saccharine and dripping with sentimentality (especially for horse lovers…I find them to be graceful and beautiful animals), but that’s what I believe the core of Spielberg’s heart as a filmmaker is, so I am willing to go on that journey each time. WAR HORSE is so much better than TINTIN, CRYSTAL SKULL, and WAR OF THE WORLDS, so as of late this film certainly stands out to me as one of his best late period works.