rate the last movie you saw

[Jedbu]

Agree with you, Paul-AGE OF INNOCENCE was beautiful to look at but it felt more like Scorsese trying to show that he could do something without violence or characters like Nicholson's in THE DEPARTED or Cage in BRINGING OUT THE DEAD but instead having characters with no juice in them. Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer tried their best but it just never felt right.

As for the two films bookending that one, you are so right, Monterey Jack-we seem to forget that Scorsese made ALICE....and that Burstyn gave not only a wonderful performance but there was a pretty good love story there between her and Kristofferson. As for HUGO, that it was about one of the pioneers of cinema was probably one of the elements that drew Scorsese to make it, but it is also one of his most moving, warm (maybe not fuzzy, though) and even FUN films and my all-time favorite use of 3D in movies, and perhaps my favorite of his films, as well.

Occasionally a filmmaker will surprise us and make something that, at first glimpse you just do not imagine them attempting such a project because of what they made before-David Lynch with THE STRAIGHT STORY (and G-rated, no less), Joss Whedon with MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, Wes Craven with MUSIC OF THE HEART, Jon Favreau-IRON MAN and its sequel, Spielberg with SCHINDLER'S LIST, and you have to at least give a director credit for trying something different, even when it goes off the rails, like when John Huston and Richard Attenborough tried to make musicals and Preston Sturges made his bio-pic THE GREAT MOMENT and had the studio take it away from him and try to make it into what people expected from him and it flopped. Even Lubitsch tried to make a "serious" drama with BROKEN LULLABY (AKA THE MAN I KILLED), which did not succeed either critically or financially. I think every really good director has a bit of the title character from SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS in them-that wants to go out there without a net, and perhaps Scorsese attempting WINTER'S TALE would not have worked, but when you consider that many critics really disliked what Goldsman made and how really difficult it is to pull of a romantic fantasy film even for the most talented of directors, that YOU liked most of it, Andy, shows that while Goldsman might have taken a tumble with this, viewers like you helped break the fall a bit.

Now if you want an example of someone working without a net, you need look no further than Angelina Jolie directing the WWII epic UNBROKEN, and whether or not she succeeded is a question I am really curious about.

[AndyDursin]

Personally I thought Scorsese was totally out of his element in Age of Innocence, and his attempt to do the "Merchant-Ivory" thing resulted in a stilted, turgid bore.

I couldn't agree more Paul. I put it into the category of Scorsese films I either find overpraised and/or boring (and frankly, that would be most of his filmography for me, outside Goodfellas, Hugo, King of Comedy, Mean Streets, Color of Money and Gangs of New York).

I definitely didn't forget HUGO -- still I wouldn't say the tone of that movie fits what "Winter's Tale" was doing. It's certainly the "warmest" movie Scorsese ever produced, absolutely, though I wouldn't say it was this purely romantic, fuzzy type of picture. That leaves ALICE, which is a gritty slice of life comedy-drama, not a romantic one really. But even if I give you that, that's 1 film out of how many going back 40 years?

Let's face it -- in a filmography that spans decades, positive romantic relationships are in very short supply in his films. Extremely short supply. That's just not what he does. The vast majority of his films are about highly dysfunctional couples and/or people in general.

[AndyDursin]

22 JUMP STREET

8/10

I second MJ on this, as I found this sequel even more relaxed and downright jovial than its predecessor. Eschewing any attempt at really taking itself seriously (to any degree), this smart follow-up offers a hilarious commentary on sequels themselves -- in fact, while Joanne and I laughed at most of the jokes in the first 15 minutes, I believe they went over the heads of most of the audience (comprised of teens accompanied by their parents!). The film isn't saturated with lengthy action scenes, and relies on the comic tandem of Jonah and Channing Tatum, who are terrific together, to carry it through, and it works.

Good to see Amber Stevens from one of my favorite series, GREEK, getting a nice role as Ice Cube's daughter -- speaking of the latter, he's also better utilized here, particularly in one of the picture's funniest moments.

[Paul MacLean]

Maleficent

An occasionally enjoyable but (as usual) visually formulaic Hollywood fantasy, which puts a feminist spin on the "Sleeping Beauty" tale. The "villain" Maleficent is introduced to us as an innocent fairy child, who falls in love with a human boy who later spurns her -- and then amputates her fairy wings and presents them to the king to gain favor.

As such, the character of Maleficent is not so much "evil" as "misunderstood". Men are depicted as either opportunistic and bloodthirsty (Maleficent's back-stabbing suitor) or ineffectual and superfluous (the handsome prince). It's an irritating interpetation, and not helped by the fact that the character Maleficant is from the start very evil-looking, with demonic-looking horns growing out of her head (even as a child). There are also some credibility gaps, such as the fact the Maleficent can command the elements and transform animals into people (or other animals), yet hasn't the ability to grow new wings?

Visually the film is the same-old, same-old. Maleficent's fairy realm looks a lot like Avatar (and the title character soars about its forests and mountains with the same camera shots from James Cameron's film), while the evil king lives in the same castle and employs he same army we saw in Snow White and the Huntsman. Maleficent's fairy realm is populated by Harry Potter's Cornish Pixies and funny swamp creatures which look a lot like Watto from Phantom Menace. Maleficent does battle against the evil army of male chauvinists with the help of LOTR's ents. The special effects are complex and detailed, just like in every other fantasy -- and thus not very "special".

That said, Elle Fanning is likably bubbly and innocent as the princess, and Imelda Staunton (a favorite of mine) is a hoot as the leader of a "Three Stooges"-like trio of pixies. Angelina Jolie does a good job, but is more convincing when her character is doing evil than when doing good. James Newton Howard's score is bold, lush and melodic, and seems a refreshing effort to return to traditional orchestral scoring (though it does get a little loud and "Zimmer-eque" at times).

Despite some good elements, the film is sunk by its preachy, man-hating tone, and its total lack of visual originality. Say what you like about 80s fantasies like Clash of the Titans, Excalibur, The Dark Crystal or Legend -- at least they were stylistically original and visually distinctive. This seems quite beyond the ability of people making fantasy films today.

[Monterey Jack]

Despite some good elements, the film is sunk by its preachy, man-hating tone...

This seems to be an odd trend in Disney's fantasy/Princess films as of late...men are depicted as either useless, evil, or both, and it's Go Girl sisterhood that's the real love to strive for! Tangled, Frozen and now Maleficent have all followed this template, with the latter treating men with particular venom. Yes, it's not the 1950's anymore, and women shouldn't be dainty love interests who do nothing but pine away for a handsome prince all day, blah-blah-blah, but can't we have a bit of balance? Back in the 90's Disney renaissance, both the female and male leads were treated with equal care in terms of characterization, and the movies benefitted for that...both Aladdin and Jasmine, for example, were well-rounded, compelling characters. Looking at something like Frozen, enjoyable enough as it was, I can't even remember the NAME of the blandly hunky male lead, and the writers gave him nothing of any real substance to accomplish in the narrative, besides just being there to romantically pair off with one of the Princesses at the end.

[Jedbu]

My stepdaughter and her boyfriend just came back from seeing Michael Bay's latest reason to bring back nitrate, the new TRANSFORMERS whatever. They enjoyed it but no ringing endorsement, and so far my favorite review is from Leonard Maltin, who begins with "Well, there's 3 hours shot to hell..."

[Eric Paddon]

City Of Fear (1959) 7 of 10

-Solid obscure late entry in the noir genre, notable also for being Goldsmith's second feature film and the earliest one that's on CD (Intrada). Lots of foreshadowing of "Satan Bug" with the plot device of escaped con Vince Edwards (two years away from TV stardom as Ben Casey) handling what he thinks is a container of heroin, but is really a container of radioactive material. The MacGuffin plot device stretches credibility when you think about it too much (why is something so lethal being kept at the prison for experimenting in the first place???) but it works only because the film opts for a straight-ahead "Dragnet" style of investigation juxtaposed with the container taking its toll on Edwards and those he comes in contact with. Patricia Blair, who would also become a TV star several years later as Fess Parker's wife on "Daniel Boone" gets to be seen in a different role as Edwards' sexy girlfriend.

[Eric Paddon]

Murder By Contract (1958) 2 of 10

-Sheesh, what a difference a year made. The same star, much of the supporting cast, same director, same cinematographer from "City Of Fear" did this film a year earlier and it's a boring, pointless snooze that makes 80 minutes seem to last forever. And there's also an insight into how Goldsmith could make a film so much better because in this film we got a dull, monotonous jazz thing for a couple instruments by Perry Botkin that makes the film even more dull. This film needed a gripping suspenseful score to sell it and the team wisely learned its lesson a year later when they hired Goldsmith.

[Eric Paddon]

Sunset Boulevard (1950) 8 of 10

-Picked up the Blu-Ray yesterday and had fun going through it. I have never seen "Born Yesterday" but I doubt I could ever believe that Judy Holliday deserved the Oscar over Swanson. I certainly think "Sunset" is better than its other main competitor of that year, "All About Eve".

-The DVD commentary from Ed Sikov, the author of a Wilder bio, is pretty good, but he IMO is off-base when he gives a harsh assessment of DeMille's role in the film, saying he comes off as sour and terrible. In fact, DeMille comes off as anything but. Yes, he has to show his tyrannical side when he orders the spotlight turned back, but he certainly shows more than his share of kindness to Nora, recognizing the sad irony of how he, her former director, is still at the peak of his power, while she's been reduced to nothing. I suspect that since Sikov also gets in a couple of barbs at DeMille the filmmaker, his analysis says more about his opinion of DeMille in general.

-Probably the biggest surprise in the film is seeing Jack Webb, who had just created and started "Dragnet" at the time the film was in production, looking so youthful and as un-Joe Friday like in anything he ever did.

[Jedbu]

According to DeMille's biographer Scott Eyman, DeMille was given carte blanche by Wilder to alter his dialogue, change a line or two and even protest to the writer/director about the "Lindbergh/Paris" line, which originally had both DeMille and Norma dancing on a table together. DeMille told Wilder that he didn't go to nightclubs, did not dance on tables and if he did dance with a woman it would be his own wife, so Wilder let him change those lines, as well, and considering how much like a lioness watching her cubs the director could be, it shows not only how much he liked and respected DeMille but how much he trusted the man to let him change his words. According to Eyman, DeMille is the conscience of SUNSET BLVD., and as you watch that scene, you get the impression that he is also the heart of the industry at that time. After reading Eyman's biography, I came away with both a greater respect for the man and his films-true, some of them are pure corn and a lot of the dialogue in his films is of the "gee whiz" variety (I wonder if the man ever found himself wincing at a line like "Oh, Dusty-you're an angel in leather!" uttered in NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE), but they are never boring or a waste of time, and I still think THE TEN COMMANDMENTS remake is one of the greatest epics ever made.

[AndyDursin]

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
8/10

Full review:
http://andyfilm.com/2014/07/11/7-15-14- ... olive-pbs/

Sturdy and entertaining, DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES finds ape and man – what’s left of it in a post-plague San Francisco – existing tenuously in this worthy sequel to 2011′s surprising “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.”

Caesar (Andy Serkis), the leader of the advanced primates, has established an evolving ape colony in the forests outside Frisco – when director Matt Reeves’ film opens, humans haven’t been seen in a few years, enabling the apes to set family roots and lay the groundwork for their own world. Eventually, humans do cross their paths – led by the understanding Malcolm (Jason Clarke), his wife (Keri Russell) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Part of a dwindling society holed up inside the city, Malcolm tells Caesar that the humans need access to a dam that will generate power for the surviving populace. Despite hesitation on the part of suspicious apes that recall their imprisonment and scientific experimentation in “Rise,” Caesar sets a truce that enables the humans to carry out their work – but both sides find peace difficult to attain.

Taking a cue from its predecessor, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is rich with characterizations, and the Mark Bomback/Rick Jaffa/Amanda Silver script plays out on a refreshing course that’s ultimately unexpected (one hot-headed human character proves to be a red herring for the movie’s main turn of events). It’s a credit to the filmmakers that the movie manages to convey a number of social messages without becoming overly preachy – something that marred the original “Apes” films back in the ’60s and ‘70s.

Reeves integrates the motion-captured primates with his human cast – used here as supporting characters – as effectively as Rupert Wyatt did in “Rise,” once again relying on Serkis’ strengths to create a leading character in Caesar whom audiences can root for and identify with. Most of the apes use sign language instead of speech, and the film’s opening set-piece is rousingly executed with silence and dialogue carrying much of the action. Human performers like Clarke and Russell, meanwhile, fare well with what they have to work with, though the movie feels a bit incomplete with a few of their subplots left unresolved (or simply neglected) by the picture’s end (perhaps Reves’ announced extended cut will alleviate some of those issues).

When the bleep hits the fan in the final third, “Dawn” turns up the special effects and action sequences, and while they’re reasonably well-done, this proves to be the weakest segment of the film. Despite having a larger budget and more elaborate FX, “Dawn”‘s added bombast doesn’t add up to a whole lot emotionally, whereas its predecessor told a more poignant story on a smaller scale. I was also surprised at how little the film’s overall “world” is advanced by the time the movie is over, with “Dawn” ending just a step or two ahead of where it starts – promising even more “war” to follow in the already-announced 2016 sequel. After the finely-crafted characterizations and more intimate drama established in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” – as well as the first two-thirds of this film – I hope the filmmakers don’t give in to the temptation to simply “turn up the apocalypse” in future installments.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” isn’t a great film – in this flaccid summer of soulless Hollywood offerings, it’s all too easy to overrate the picture (I confess I may have liked the film even more had large portions of it not sounded like an episode of “Lost,” with Michael Giacchino doing his usual piano chord progressions to generate an “emotional” effect). And outside of a plot that recycles certain elements from “Battle For the Planet of the Apes,” the film – unlike its predecessor – eschews any references to the original APJAC “Apes” pictures, even in sequences that occur late in the film that would have been a perfectly fitting place to pay homage.

Still, it’s an impressively rendered sequel – and this year, that’s more than enough to make it the top banana at the summer box-office.

Additional thoughts:

I also didn't care at all for Giacchino's score. We get the same, usual piano chord progressions played out over slow-motion footage that makes the film, at times early on, resemble an episode of LOST; some themeless "busy" music; and several downright goofy uses of the xylophone to underscore scenes of the apes running up the Golden Gate bridge. It's his usual shtick -- and is it "better than Zimmer"? I suppose so, but it reminds me of the times when Debney would write large orchestral scores the film music hardcore would gravitate to simply because it was written in the vein of Korngold and company. Giacchino, as I've written before, strikes me as someone who has the tools to work with a large orchestra but not the talent to compose music that stands on its own, or enhances the material on-screen. It's just empty, loud and formless, and inferior to what Patrick Doyle composed for its predecessor.

Still recommended though...and yes, it IS the "best movie of the summer"...but it's NOT the best sci-fi movie since 2001 (lol). The reviews are seriously over the top on this.

[Eric Paddon]

The Great Escape (1963) 8 of 10

I gave this a look for the first time in about five-six years. The rather cheap Blu-Ray which is bereft of a menu screen (you have to let the movie play to access the other features) looked good visually, and this was really the first time I brought a more mature perspective to it. Great as McQueen and Garner (who I have to admit I really do not care for when it comes to most of his movies. In general if Garner isn't playing Bret Maverick, I tend to be left cold by his persona) are, I wish the film had spent a little less time on them after the escape and shown us a little more of the others (okay, maybe more specifically less of Garner/Pleasence as opposed to McQueen). We saw too little of Bronson and the other guy he was with, who ultimately made it to freedom (at least they didn't short-shrift Coburn).

[Eric Paddon]

Thunderball (1965) 7.5 of 10

-Since I've been rereading "Battle For Bond" I had to give this a fresh look. The film's problem compared to "Goldfinger" IMO is that we have the villain's plot established in the first reel, and from that point on the film has to play more like Bond trying to figure out how it'll be done rather than having that great moment at the mid-way or later stage of realizing what the villain is truly up to. It certainly is a timely plot of nuclear terrorism in light of the post-9/11 period and I like the fact that SPECTRE ultimately chose a less obvious target of Miami as their city chosen for destruction, which gives it some more realism (this in contrast to NSNA with its silly off-camera announcement that the first bomb was buried under the White House!).

-The problem is that I find that the narrative really lacks a good deal of cohesion once Bond arrives in Nassau in contrast to "Goldfinger". It just comes off as a series of set-pieces and of course repetitive underwater battle stuff. And I have to admit, I still don't get after all these viewings just how the bombs were being moved back and forth etc. to the yacht and what the game plan for detonating them was. It would have been a LOT simpler to have just had the bombs stored aboard the yacht from the get-go after they were recovered from the plane and have the set piece action being all about Bond figuring out they're aboard. This is just not particularly well-paced overall (and don't get me started on the all but invisible in the film scientist who suddenly has a change of heart and frees Domino and conveniently mentions he threw the arming device for the second bomb into the sea. At least I realize better from the book that this character had more importance in earlier drafts). It's ultimately only the sense of terrific Bond style and the great performances, cinematography and Barry's music that prevents the narrative problems from overwhelming the film later (I've also commented in the past that Bond's forcing himself on Pat Fearing at Shrublands is probably the most disturbing bit of all the early Bond films regarding how he treats women).

-One other note from a trivia standpoint. Older reference books on the series insisted that Joseph Wiseman (Dr. No) did the voice for Blofeld in this film, but then in recent years they've been saying it was Eric Pohlmann again. I have to confess, it still sounds like Wiseman to me and I wish there was some documentation that could settle it. Pohlmann's voice in "From Russia With Love" doesn't sound anything like the voice they use here.

[mkaroly]

One of the things I continue to love about THUNDERBALL is the strength of the villainess, Fiona. She was at least as ruthless and as dangerous as any male villain Bond faced, something not common to the Bond movie universe (I still complain about it, but TWINE should have kept Elektra as the primary villain).

[mkaroly]

Started watching the Roger Moore era Bond films last week:

LIVE AND LET DIE (6/10) - Overall I thought this was a decent entry into the Bond series and a good introduction for Moore as Bond. Moore breathed a bit of new life into the Bond character on the heels of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, which was a Connery phone-in performance for me. However, unlike the Connery films the hand-to-hand combat moments (few as there are) are pretty weak, as Moore was just too slow and wasn't convincing in the fighting scenes. I liked the stunts and that the gadgetry was kept to a minimum, and I enjoyed Yaphett's performance as Kananga - it was almost as if I could see him boiling up beneath the surface while maintaining a controlled exterior. His most powerful scene was with Solitaire and Bond (the serial number on the back of Bond's wrist watch). This would probably be my third favorite Moore film (behind MOONRAKER and FYEO).

THE GODFATHER (10/10) - still a classic and still fun to watch. I don't know how much I could say about it that hasn't already been said over the years; what I enjoyed most about it was watching Pacino's Michael slowly progress from someone outside the business to becoming the Don. He did a lot with his eyes (the scene in Louis' Restaurant, lying to Kay at the end, etc.) which I really enjoyed focusing on this time around. The film itself is very operatic and still a joy to watch after all these years...and the hospital sequence still manages to maintain its suspenseful nature even after seeing it umpteen times.