rate the last movie you saw

[Mike Rhonemus]

Lincoln

Eh...

Not a bad movie by any means. Some fine performances, from Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field in particular, but also Joseph Gorden Levitt, Hal Holbrook, David Strathearn and Tommy Lee Jones.

But, it's not an especially good movie either. For me it just had an emotional flatline. It's a sincere effort, but it just doesn't have any passion. Spielberg better examined slavery and racial inequality in Amistad (the best of his "serious" films IMO), while Michael Apted's underrated Amazing Grace told a similar story (England's eradication of slavery) with far-more dramatic resonance. One thing I did like was the scene near the end when Tommy Lee Jones arrives home and we learn that he and his black housekeeper are lovers. It's a touching scene, and a hint of what the rest of the film could have been.

Some of the casting of the smaller roles also made me chuckle a bit, like Jackie Earl-Haley, and Lukas Haas' brief appearance as a union soldier .

I didn't care for the look of the film either. The art direction was excellent, but again Januz Kaminski compromises everyone else's efforts with his genuinely bizarre photographic style. I actually started laughing during the scene near the end where Lincoln and Grant are conversing, and that bright light shines against the house and all those conspicuous "dramatic shadows" are cast on them from the people passing by.

Okay, I have liked everything that Spielberg and Williams have collaborated on and I did not see this in the movie theater. It came to our like town and only lasted a week. Well, I received it in my Easter basket, yes with children all in high school and college, my wife still wanted to do the baskets. I need help trying to get through this movie! I have started this movie 7 times now, 3 times from the beginning, the rest from where I last remember. I keep falling asleep!! This has to be the dullest movie I have ever seen! Do I just give up or is it really worth it? I did pick up the score CD (which is still sealed). My wife got the DVD for me because she wanted to see it, but she too feel asleep before it was over and had to finish it the next night. I hope this in not going to be the type of movies that Spielberg wants to keep doing. I have watched enough history films like this in my life and this is the worst one to hold my attention. Am I the only one that thought the Flying Nun was the wrong actress to play Mary Lincoln?

I am going to try it like a mini-series, take it half an hour at a time.

[AndyDursin]

It doesn't get better. I admired the film for the performances but it is a really tough slog of a film. I think the worst defense I've heard of the movie, which I've gotten from a couple of friends of ours, is that "you needed to read the book." Well, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. A film is a film -- it's not a "visualized companion" to a book. If the screenwriter and director do such a terrible job making the material accessible to viewers who didn't read the book that they can't follow the material, then it's on them. In the case of LINCOLN I believe that to be the case.

I don't think I'm a dumb person, but I had trouble following the film and felt I needed a scorecard at times to figure it out.

[Paul MacLean]

I have started this movie 7 times now, 3 times from the beginning, the rest from where I last remember. I keep falling asleep!! This has to be the dullest movie I have ever seen!

Mike, have you seen Amistad? I think that is one of Spielberg's best films, and deals with slavery in a much more effective way.

[AndyDursin]

ZULU DAWN
8/10

It’s amazing how far a proper presentation of a widescreen film can go to restoring its reputation. The 1979 prequel to Cy Enfield’s “Zulu,” ZULU DAWN, has been, for years, relegated to truly awful home video releases around the world that mostly cropped the movie’s Panavision cinematography to a degree that severely diminished its sense of scale. Severin Films’ Blu-Ray/DVD edition not only restores the picture’s scope, but its overall entertainment value in the process.

Set before Enfield’s ‘60s classic, “Zulu Dawn” chronicles the Battle of Isandhlwana in January 1879, wherein British colonials were ultimately decimated by the Zulu Nation – after the latter found the soldiers advancing onto their lands – and lost nearly 1500 soldiers in the process. The movie, scripted by Enfield (who died prior to production) and Anthony Story, divulges the poor judgments on the part of British military personnel (most notably Peter O’Toole’s Lord Chelmsford), who split up the garrison into separate groups, thereby making the Zulu attack all the more effective. The geographical split and all the ingredients that lead to the British defeat are laid out in an accessible manner by director Douglas Hickox, with a matter-of-fact tone and efficient pace that includes numerous memorable vignettes. Among the latter are a group of rattled soldiers pleading desperately for additional ammunition, only to be told to “get in line” from a Quartermaster (Peter Vaughn) more interested in adhering to the British code of conduct; a tough Sargent (Bob Hoskins) in charge of a younger brigade of newcomers; and the veteran Col. Durnford (Burt Lancaster), whose advice to Chelmsford about the ill-advised British advance falls on deaf ears.

It’s not always easy for filmmakers to lay out a historical canvas like “Zulu Dawn” does and make it so that viewers unfamiliar with its background can become engaged easily by it, but that’s happily the case here. Characters are introduced leisurely, while the political and geographical aspects of the scenario are conveyed without making the viewer’s head spin. Eventually, the film turns into a full-scale account of the battle itself, and Hickox, cinematographer Ousama Rawi and their crew capture all of it in such a straightforward, comprehensible manner that it puts most hyperactively edited, modern action sequences to shame.

Released by American Cinema Releasing (best known for their distribution of Chuck Norris’ earliest films) and cut to 98 minutes, “Zulu Dawn” has never gotten a fair shake in North America. Ignored at the time by audiences, the movie has an old-fashioned sense of scale – with literally thousands of extras involved in its battle sequences – that was severely diminished in home video releases that cropped its tremendous scope compositions. Severin’s Blu-Ray restores the 2.35 frame here in a fine 1080p AVC encoded transfer, derived from a full-length print of the film’s original 117-minute version. Visually, only here and there does the age of the print manifest itself; it certainly isn’t as lush and immaculate as Paramount’s international Blu-Ray of “Zulu,” but it’s still a far better representation of the film’s cinematography than we’ve ever seen on video.

The disc also offers a number of terrific, insightful extras – two of which include historian/author Ian Knight talking about the real Zulu Wars, while another featurette offers an interview with historical advisor Midge Carter – along with the trailer. If there’s a disappointment to be found, it’s with the ineffective, and at times muffled, mono soundtrack. “Zulu Dawn” was an early Dolby Stereo film but, since the film was independently produced and seemed to change ownership through the years, the original multi-track audio mixes were regrettably lost (Severin searched but could not locate any stereo prints of the film save a French-dubbed version). It’s quite unfortunate since the movie – along with Elmer Bernstein’s fine score – not only cries out for stereophonic sound, but the mono audio included here (in both Dolby Digital and DTS MA) is quite terrible, rendering some dialogue nearly unintelligible in a few places.

That disappointment aside, this is a superb film well worth tracking down now thanks to Severin’s excellent Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack.

[Eric Paddon]

Major Dundee (1965) (Extended cut with original score) 6.5 of 10

-Yes, I went back to this again this past week after I'd had my harsh comments here and in other venues regarding the upcoming Blu-Ray (which I may get after all only to rip the Amfitheatrof score to mp3 since I can't envision a legit CD release ever coming) just to see yet again, one year after my last viewing, whether my anger over a principle colored my judgment. The answer was no. The only change I would have made to the music in the original production was do an instrumental of the title song over the credits and push the song back to the end credits only over a longer scroll.

-But this time I want to summarize the problems with the film that have nothing to do with the score because the more I watch, the more I'm really realizing how this film was thrown off course because Sam Peckinpah was trying to give us an early version of "The Wild Bunch" instead of the kind of film this should have been. I have always felt that Charlton Heston had the right idea when he took the part that this was a film that could explore the Civil War in a fascinating way, of Union and Confederates who have been friends, now enemies forced into alliance to deal with a butcherer (and one thing that is always clear is that Chariba and the Apache are monsters not entitled to any kind of revisionist thinking sympathy or understanding). The great moments of the film are when we see the tensions of the wartime hatred surface once again to conceivably disrupt the mission. When one Confederate demonstrates his racism toward Brock Peters and orders him to shine his boots, creating a brilliant moment of tension that culminates after a fight with Richard Harris giving a quiet understated apology to Peters without using the words "apology" or "sorry". And the execution of Warren Oates is really the film's high point.

-So why then does the script then suddenly veer off course after this? Because Peckinpah evidently was too obsessed with making sure that Dundee couldn't be pegged as a conventional hero that we expect to see in a movie such as this. We have to see him suddenly letting his guard down after the execution of Oates for a laughably implausible skinny-dip with Senta Berger which allows him to get wounded by an Apache raider (how did he slip in unnoticed???), and then spend more down time in a Mexican town getting drunk while he recovers and whoring with a local. Never was the expression "Was this trip really necessary?" more appropriate!

-What should have happened after this scene? We should have lost the whole business of Dundee wounded, recovering, being rescued and from the execution of Oates proceeded with the final confronation with the Apache (and it is to Peckinpah's discredit that the only two times we see them fight the Apache it takes place in darkness and as a result we lose important details that you have to watch twice to pick up on, like the fact that Chariba is killed by Bugler Ryan, the last survivor of the original raid on the Rostes Ranch) and the final battle with the French crossing back into the country which for both sides in quick order suddenly renders the whole "Until The Apache Are Taken Or Destroyed" sentiment meaningless. It is also criminal for this movie to end with Ryan noting that they have crossed back into the US on April 20, 1865 which is *after* the surrender of Lee to Grant and the end of the War and not acknowledge this in the script because this would have given us the perfect ending. Their mission has taken so long that by the time they return the war is over and there is no longer a need to kill each other now that the Apache have been taken and destroyed. This is always the way I would have envisioned the film ending if it had been written properly but Peckinpah I think it is clear never had the instinct for something too "conventional" if you will. His original shooting script in fact would have had as the last scene, the troops after defeating the French, going by another Apache marker as if to end this film on an existential down note (namely the Apache are still a menace and this has been all for nothing) and with all due respect to the critics who are infatuated with this kind of storytelling, this kind of ending would have been a disgrace. The movie as it is, just stops which is bad enough, but to do that kind of ending would have been the ultimate "why did I waste my time on this?" ending.

-I am at the moment awaiting from e-bay a copy of the paperback novelization of the film that came out at the time (probably one of the first movie tie-in novelizations there ever was) which is credited to the film's original writer Harry Julian Fink who was taken off the project during production with Peckinpah given charge for the last third of the script. This will highlight more what specifically Peckinpah was responsible for and bring more into focus IMO just how much blame/credit Peckinpah deserves overall in terms of the story and narrative which IMO is what the real story of this movie should be about, and not the idea that Peckinpah was a misunderstood artist done wrong by the evil suits of Columbia.

[AndyDursin]

GANGSTER SQUAD
4/10

Singularly depressing film that blows its potentially interesting subject matter and a fine cast in a horribly directed, languid affair from director Ruben Fleischer. Hey Ruben, how about MORE MONTAGES the next time -- your movie doesn't have NEARLY enough of them!

I will say Emma Stone looks so much more attractive as a redhead, it's confounding why anyone wants her to return to her dirty-blonde natural color. On the other hand, when that's the best thing I can say about the film, that's a BAD sign. (Terrible score by Steve Jablonsky on top of it).

[Monterey Jack]

I will say Emma Stone looks so much more attractive as a redhead, it's confounding why anyone wants her to return to her dirty-blonde natural color.

Tell me about it. I've always had a thing for redheads, so it confounds me how so many of them end up going blonde after they hit it big (see also Lindsay Lohan and Laura Prepon post-That 70's Show). Stone is a doll regardless, but as a redhead she really smolders.

(Terrible score by Steve Jablonsky on top of it).

I was crushed when Carter Burwell dropped out of this...he would have knocked a period noir score out of the park. Anyways, did they add the excised movie theater shootout to the deleted scenes menu? It pissed me off something fierce that Warner Bros. buckled under and added a hastilly-reshot Chinatown ending in the wake of the Dark Knight Rises midnight showing massacre. That one scene in the trailer is what made me want to see the movie in the first place!

[Mike Rhonemus]

I have started this movie 7 times now, 3 times from the beginning, the rest from where I last remember. I keep falling asleep!! This has to be the dullest movie I have ever seen!

Mike, have you seen Amistad? I think that is one of Spielberg's best films, and deals with slavery in a much more effective way.

Yes, Paul I have seen Amistad and it is a good movie. I saw that in the theater when it came and own the DVD and never fell asleep watching it.

[AndyDursin]

I was crushed when Carter Burwell dropped out of this...he would have knocked a period noir score out of the park. Anyways, did they add the excised movie theater shootout to the deleted scenes menu? It pissed me off something fierce that Warner Bros. buckled under and added a hastilly-reshot Chinatown ending in the wake of the Dark Knight Rises midnight showing massacre. That one scene in the trailer is what made me want to see the movie in the first place!

I am pretty sure it's not there. Truthfully I didn't bother watching them but it wasn't jumping out at me in the group of deleted scenes that popped up. I'll check again later.

[Jedbu]

JURASSIC PARK 3D 8/10

Went to see JURASSIC PARK 3-D this evening (was actually going to see OZ-THE GREAT AND POWERFUL but the house in the multiplex that was showing it was closed today for maintenance and I just did not feel like going back home after going all the way there)-had not seen it in a theater since 1994 when it was last reissued and I was still vastly entertained. The CGI work still holds up beautifully, Jeff Goldblum has the best lines (but Sam Neill has the best facial expressions) and I just love that part of Williams' score when we first see the dinosaur with Neill and Dern-so incredibly majestic, especially when the choral part comes in.

As for the 3-D conversion, it was actually pretty good, although in my mind it really did not make the film that much better. The best use of the process was towards the end when the raptor is trying to get our brave little band and at one point jumps up to get one of them and when it comes at you is pretty effective. One thing I did notice and I am not sure if it was the projection equipment in the booth but the image did not seem as bright as a more modern 3D film or one that has been converted. I would love to know if anyone else noticed the same thing.

Having experienced seeing the film when it premiered 20 (erk!) years ago at the Avco in Westwood (sadly, long gone) with a packed house and Spielberg sitting in the back behind a few of my friends (found that out AFTERWARDS, dammit!) enjoying the crowd reactions, it is still a lot of fun and dinosaurs will always be cool. Lastly, the "bloodsucking lawyer" character deserved to die-anyone who comes to a wildlife place in shorts, dark socks, a longsleeve button-down and a tie should just have EDIBLE tattooed on their forehead-so much easier to ID.

[mkaroly]

I recently watched Jurassic Park on Blu-Ray...I still feel it is one of Spielberg's most sloppily-edited films (continuity out the window) despite being extremely entertaining. Maybe it's because I have seen it so many times, but the sloppiness has now begun to bother me. I know he was working on Schindler's List at the time as well, and it's easy to see which film had more of his attention. But JP does have some glaring errors in it that someone should have seen and fixed before it was released. Still, extremely entertaining film.

[AndyDursin]

JP is a fun, highly entertaining movie but it's not in the same league with his classics (JAWS, E.T., RAIDERS, CE3K) in so far as his escapist fare goes. The effects were obviously groundbreaking and I remember going back a couple of times just to check out those visuals -- a true groundbreaking moment in cinema history. However, I found the casting to be weak, and something that has always held the movie back...Attenborough is just a fuddy-duddy old professor (his role in the book was more of a Frankenstein type), and Sam Neill and Laura Dern were just blah in the leads. I mean, Neill even confessed that he gave a much better performance in III. Goldblum obviously stole the show from them -- but admittedly, it didn't take much. Granted William Hurt turned down the Neill role (just one of those "WTF are you thinking" moments, particularly considering he had no reservations about making LOST IN SPACE years later), but they still could've found someone with more charisma for that part. It kind of leaves the movie with the dinosaurs being far more "animated" than the human characters, though the kids were both good.

And Wayne Knight? That's about the only time I remember him in a dramatic performance too.

I agree Michael that Spielberg was so into SCHINDLER'S LIST that he didn't pay as much attention to the film as he ordinarily would have, because the script could've been tightened up among other things. George Lucas supervised post-production and I believe was with John Williams on the scoring stage while Spielberg was over shooting his eventual Oscar winner.

[mkaroly]

I thought Attenborough was weak as well (at least his character was) - the whole Petticoat Lane scene with Ellie just didn't work (one of many scenes that didn't work with him in it). He had no edge, but I think Spielberg wanted him to be radically different from the book. It's too bad because that was a missed opportunity. He certainly didn't make up for it with Roy Nedry and the "bloodsucking lawyer".

[AndyDursin]

I thought Attenborough was weak as well (at least his character was) - the whole Petticoat Lane scene with Ellie just didn't work (one of many scenes that didn't work with him in it). He had no edge, but I think Spielberg wanted him to be radically different from the book. It's too bad because that was a missed opportunity. He certainly didn't make up for it with Roy Nedry and the "bloodsucking lawyer".

Exactly, there's no dramatic fire there and there should've been -- I guess I blame the script more than Attenborough, but either way, he comes off like Santa Claus or something (and he'd play Kris Kringle a few years later, so I guess this was warming him up for the part!). Obviously Spielberg wanted the role softened from what it was in the book, but it's just one more area where the human element of the movie is toothless in comparison to the dinosaurs.

[Eric Paddon]

It's a pity the film couldn't have had the credible nuance in the characters the way "Jaws" did. That to me is what separates a film that is eye candy fun from a true cinema classic.