rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7533
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3496 Post by Paul MacLean »

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 (9/10)

This is the one Harry Potter film I’d seen only seen once before — and I must say it is better than I remembered, and proves a spectacular finale to the series. Perhaps David Yates was “saving it up” for the grand finale (taking Hitchcock’s advice that “If you want to scare an audience you must first bore them to death”). Whatever the reasons, Yates acquits himself admirably. This film is “the gift that keeps on giving” — a quintessential example of how to fashion a story (and film) in which every scene trumps the previous one. Admittedly (like Yates’ previous installments) The Deathly Hallows Part II may not be not as visually-arresting as parts I-IV, but as a narrative, it is, propulsive, imaginative, persistently thrilling — and often deeply moving.

Although The Deathly Hallows has a “happy ending”, it is hard-won. Many significant characters we’ve come to know throughout these stories are killed in the final battle against the deatheaters. The actions of Professor Snape — an enigma throughout the previous adventures — are also finally made clear, and his private tragedy revealed.

Apart from Harry, Hermione and Ron, the student supporting characters prove just as interesting as the leads — with distinctive personalities, and given more to do than just look on as the principals exhibit all the heroics. Neville Longbottom arguably has the most interesting character arc, having gone from timid klutz to brave young man — who ultimately plays a vital role in Voldemort’s downfall. The casting of Matthew Lewis as Neville also proved quite serendipitous, as the actor matured over the course of the series from a short, chubby kid to a dashing, handsome fellow — perfectly mirroring the development of character himself.

Helena Bonham-Carter doesn’t get enough credit for her work in this movie. Not only is she searingly convincing as the sadistic, deranged Beltrax Lestrange, she is equally convincing in the role of Hermione Grainger disguised as Belatrix Lestrange (via polyjuice potion), and captures Emma Watson’s mannerisms with detailed perfection. (Hermione’s difficulty walking in Lestrange’s high heels is also a clever and amusing touch.)

However, this is not a perfect film -- owing mostly to Alexandre Desplat’s lackluster score. Desplat's music is a step-up from his work on the previous film (and at times somewhat effective) but it never really “seizes the moment”, and is for the most part simplistic and too subdued. That John Williams was unable to score The Deathly Hallows is the single greatest disappointment to me as a film (and film music) fan ever. Happily, the filmmakers did at least track the final scene with Williams’ “Leaving Hogwarts” — which was the proper thing to do, as it brings the story full-circle, and ends the film on an emotional and musical high (which I doubt Desplat could have delivered). It also acknowledges (whether the filmmakers are aware of it or not) Williams’ important contribution to the series. If John Williams had scored this movie, I might have given it a 10/10.

All the same, I'd say Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 is the strongest single film in the franchise, and delivers a more than satisfying conclusion to the story arc. This is in contrast to most other franchises, which tend to run out of steam toward the end (or come to an end because they’ve run out of steam). The Potter stories consistently surprise and enthrall the audience with new ideas and an engrossing, complex narrative (with wonderfully believable, three-dimensional characters). It is also quite an experience to “binge watch” the series and see these characters — and performers — grow-up before our very eyes (thank Heaven Warner Bros. abandoned their misguided idea of recasting the kids). It is also amazing to consider that in a series of eight films, no major character — other than Professor Dumbledore — had to be re-cast.

Then you have the character of Harry himself — an orphan, and victim of child abuse, who discovers he has magical powers and an extraordinary destiny -- yet he remains humble and altruistic. The fame thrust upon him is unwanted, and he wishes only to have a normal life (to the extent a wizard can at least). He is slandered, at times unfairly treated, he loses his godfather Sirius Black, and his most important mentor, Professor Dumbledore -- but never grows bitter. He is heroic, and forgiving — he even risks his life to save Draco Malfoy, when leaving him to die would not have been unjustified. Harry truly is one of the best role models for young people that literature (and now popular culture) has to offer.

Attempts to imitate / compete with the Harry Potter films — i.e. Narnia, Peter Pan, The Golden Compass, The Spiderwick Chronicles, even the Chris Columbus-helmed Percy Jackson and Rowling’s own Fantastic Beasts efforts -- came-off with mixed results. Harry Potter really is is a unique phenomenon in cinema history, and appears destined, rightly, to take its place among the classics.


Image

“To Harry Potter — the boy who lived.”
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:14 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3497 Post by Eric Paddon »

AndyDursin wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:52 am THE PRIZE (1963)
5/10


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I've always found "The Prize" to be a bit of an underrated gem. Newman at least certainly does better in this Hitchcock style knockoff than he would do subsequently in "Torn Curtain" and the location photography and my favorite early Goldsmith score also helps elevate it. I do need to get the Blu Ray upgrade.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3498 Post by AndyDursin »

OVERLORD
5/10


While the trailers for this J.J. Abrams production promised the excitement of Nazi Zombies, kudos go out to the Paramount promotions department for covering that Julius Avery’s film is actually shockingly light on action and long on exposition involving several American soldiers trying to survive behind enemy lines and knock out a German radio tower prior to the invasion of Normandy.

“Overlord” opens with a slam bang sequence wherein the film’s leads (Jovan Adepo and Wyatt Russell) are shot down by Nazi forces, then quickly gets bogged down in boring, clichéd sequences of the U.S. paratroopers and French villagers trying to evade the Germans before the gore finally kicks in. Regrettably, the movie doesn’t even become interesting when that happens, as some bloody Nazi experiments result in a few dismembered corpses running around – but nothing resembling the full-on zombie-pocalypse promised by the movie’s trailers. Billy Ray and Mark L. Smith’s script is also entirely predictable (if you guessed that the film’s minority and female leads make it out alive, you’d be right!), resulting in yet another example of a 2018 film offering a clear disconnect between critics (who generally liked it) and audiences (who mostly, judging from its paltry $20 million gross, could’ve cared less).

Paramount’s 4K UHD, available February 19th, serves up a superb use of High Dynamic Range (especially in the film’s opening, which is graced by excellent ILM effects) and Dolby Atmos audio – this is a superlative technical presentation in terms of both its transfer and soundtrack. Extras include a number of featurettes, the standard Blu-Ray and Digital HD copy.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3499 Post by AndyDursin »

ROBIN HOOD (2018)
4/10

Anachronistic mishmash serves up yet another rendition of the oft-told legend, here with Taron Egerton parading around as Robin of Loxley to Ben Mendelsohn’s Sheriff of Nottingham. Yet, despite the lack of period flair, the story is still well-worn: after being presumed dead in the Crusades, Robin returns to his home as a castoff, with Maid Marian (Eve Hewson) having moved on and only Little John (Jamie Foxx) urging Robin to do his usual ransacking-of-the-rich and combat Nottingham’s political corruption in secret – at least until the Merry Men are assembled in a movie that feels more like any number of comic-book “origin movies” than most Robin Hood adventures.

Leonardo DiCaprio produced this slick and not unwatchable Summit/Lionsgate release, which under the direction of Otto Bathurst rams home that “this is the story you don’t know!” over and over in a prologue meant to excuse the film’s visual style and lack of authentic period atmosphere. However, for this approach to work there needed to be some consistency applied to its world-building – or at least a specific angle, like Brian Helgeland’s rock-song filled medieval favorite “A Knight’s Tale” – but here, the pseudo-contemporary feel just makes “Robin Hood” feel lazy. What’s more, the bland cinematography, robo-scoring and drab production design are so reminiscent of every other major studio tentpole made these days that there are no surprises to be found – right down to the ending that’s just a set-up for a series of future sequels we’ll thankfully never see.

An unsurprising box-office bust, “Robin Hood” debuts on 4K UHD on February 19th from Lionsgate. With the film’s cinematography being so drab and lifeless, HDR and Dolby Vision can only bring the visuals to life every now and then. The Dolby Atmos mix is throbbing and active, with deleted scenes, outtakes, and a seven-part documentary offered on the supplemental side; a Blu-Ray and Digital HD copy round out the release.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3500 Post by AndyDursin »

THE FRONT RUNNER
5.5/10

Image

The saga of Democratic Presidential nominee Gary Hart’s fall from grace while on the ’88 election trail was, and still is, a prime subject for a fascinating, insightful motion picture. While watchable, “The Front Runner,” regrettably, isn’t it.

Director Jason Reitman’s rather chilly film focuses on how the National Inquirer helped to seal Hart’s fate by uncovering his liaison with another woman, thereby marking the moment in which the media changed how they covered political candidates – airing their dirty laundry at a time when many reporters were previously content to stick to the facts, more or less. Hart was a casualty of the shift, his home besieged by reporters while all his prospects of a political future sank like a stone.

It’s a compelling story, but “The Front Runner” doesn’t have nearly enough energy or excitement going for it. Hugh Jackman’s bottled-up turn as Hart is downright weird, the actor stiffly portraying the politician to such a degree that I laughed outloud when he earnestly attempts to calm down a worried reporter frightened by turbulence during their conversation in a plane. In fact, Hart’s “inner-struggle” is so inner that you never have any idea what made him tick beyond the usual campaign platitudes – leaving Reitman’s movie forever skimming the surface and scoring easy points about “the bad media” corrupting “the good media”, lowering our collective bar for political conversation and making politicians’ private lives public (and all the consequences that entailed forever after). The trouble is that the movie never reaches beyond the obvious, coming across as more pretentious than realistic with a disappointing central performance leaving a major void.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3501 Post by AndyDursin »

COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT
6/10

Ehhhhhh....

I do like some of the early 70s "serious" sci-fi efforts that followed in 2001's wake -- THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN in particular -- but frankly I had never sat through this fairly acclaimed Universal release until the other day. And honestly, I found it sterile and boring. Dated, in a bad way. I could snark at the amount of TV actors (William Schallert, Susan Clark, Dolph Sweet, Marion Ross, future soap star Eric Braeden, who just passed away) who spend most of the film staring at an electronic billboard and printing out spreadsheets -- but I won't. In fact, I can even see where this film was suspenseful and different for its time. Still, a movie like WARGAMES -- while firmly rooted in the 1980s -- offers (in addition to its similar plot) a lot more entertainment and human interest than this film, which really isn't very exciting despite its reputation.

Michel Colombier's mediocre, repetitious score is another turnoff.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3502 Post by Eric Paddon »

The Honey Pot (1967) 3 of 10

-Another title from the Kino backlog I got cheap. This is a 132 minute tedious mess of a film that starts out as a confused comedy then halfway changes into a murder mystery and then veers all over the map in tone at the end and then you have to have conceits of dead characters doing explanatory voiceovers just to no doubt make audiences try to keep figuring out where the hell any of this is going. If it seemed overly long at 132 minutes it was even longer to begin with and had a character played by Herschel Bernardi who was cut out of the movie completely but his name remains in the credits and his character is out of left-field referred to at the end as part of the plot wrap-up which doesn't help.

-Rex Harrison, Susan Hayward (getting deference for who she had been in her second billing and not what she was by this point), Cliff Robertson, Edie Adams, Capucine and Maggie Smith all do as well as they can but this is frankly a mess of a stage play concept that doesn't lend itself to the big screen well notwithstanding some great Venice photography to try and open up the maerial. What might have been passable on stage just put me to sleep at various intervals.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3503 Post by AndyDursin »

Never saw that -- and now I don't want to! :lol:

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3504 Post by AndyDursin »

Oscar Corner:

GREEN BOOK
8.5/10


Highly entertaining, and often quite moving, “road trip” movie provides stars Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali with two plum roles in a movie that manages to be message-filled and yet often unpretentious, preferring a humanistic, at-times comic approach to well-traveled material.

Making his first “serious” film, director Peter Farrelly’s “Green Book” charts the relationship between Tony Lip (Mortensen), a Copacabana club bouncer who’s hired in the fall of 1962 to drive pianist Dr. Donald Shirley (Ali) on a tour from the Midwest through the Deep South. Prejudices are, of course, exposed, not only from the general populace the duo often encounter, but also between the two men – though their commonalities, eventually, form a bridge that enables a strong bond to develop between them.

This year’s Best Picture winner was targeted by some critics for being too convenient and inauthentic – and there’s no question the general framework of the movie is familiar, if not a bit contrived. That being said, it’s hard to figure why a film that promotes so many positive messages was dumped on by naysayers, particularly because the work of Ali – winning his second Oscar in three years – is so strong. He and Mortensen – completely playing against type – are marvelous together, raising the material while Farrelly keeps the film moving episodically throughout. In the end, the general decency of the film is matched by the conviction of its performances – and unlike many recent Oscar winners, it’s a “message movie” that never forgets to entertain the audience, promoting its humanity in often subtle ways as opposed to preaching the obvious.

Universal’s 4K UHD presentation of “Green Book” is out next week, providing viewers with a quality HDR enhanced HVEC transfer in an unusual 2:1 aspect ratio. The Dolby Atmos sound is wonderfully rendered with light extras including three featurettes, a Blu-Ray and Digital HD copy. Warmly recommended!

THE FAVOURITE
4/10


While the health of Queen Anne (Oscar winner Olivia Colman) begins to flag in the early 1700s, a conniving servant girl (Emma Stone) tries to wedge herself into the Queen’s inner-circle, vying for the title of “The Favourite” with Anne’s best friend (and, here, lover), an aristocrat named Lady Sarah Churchill (Rachel Weisz). The historical record shows that little in Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara’s revisionist script is accurate – but that doesn’t stop them or director Yorgos Lanthimos (the auteur of “The Lobster”) from taking a scenario based in fact and turning it into a caustic, unpleasant satire with ridiculous amounts of R-rated unpleasantness and absurd characterizations. Colman, who shocked everyone by upsetting Glenn Close for Best Actress, and Weisz in particular are excellent, but this is a thoroughly unlikeable bitter pill many viewers are likely to have a difficult time getting through. Fox’s Blu-Ray looks fine (1080p, 5.1 DTS MA) with deleted scenes, a featurette, DVD and Digital HD copy.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3505 Post by Eric Paddon »

AndyDursin wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:49 pm Never saw that -- and now I don't want to! :lol:
I'd just add as a postscript that when a film sets out to be a deliberate send-up of a not too well-known piece of literature (in this case the play "Volpone") and then requires the characters to recap the plot of "Volpone" for the benefit of the audience who wouldn't understand the whole point behind Rex Harrison's little stunt that goes somewhat awry, you're also not going to hold the audience.

The only reason I got this is because the score for this film was one of the UA films in that big MGM box set FSM put out years ago.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3506 Post by AndyDursin »

YEAR OF THE DRAGON (1985)
7/10

Image

A movie that sums up the erratic career of auteur Michael Cimino, “Year of the Dragon” is a mostly compelling thriller with irascible New York City detective Mickey Rourke attempting to take down the rising mafia presence in Chinatown. That means infiltrating the Chinese mob and – surprise – it’s an inside job with favored son John Lone doing whatever it takes to keep himself at the top of the food chain – even knocking off his own relatives in his quest for unchecked power.

A Dino DeLaurentiis production mostly shot on his North Carolina soundstages (so convincing they allegedly fooled even Stanley Kubrick), “Year of the Dragon” is at-times very, very good, with dynamic bursts of action and gorgeous anamorphic cinematography carrying the viewer through an expansive story, adapted by Oliver Stone and Cimino from Robert Daley’s novel. At others it’s heavy-handed and clumsy, filled with several moments of “ACTING!” and two terrible female leads vying for the dishonor of the film’s worst performance (my vote ultimately goes to Ariane [Koizumi] as an intrepid TV reporter who’s so ineffective that Janet Maslin of the New York Times mused that she was upstaged in her nude scene by the Brooklyn Bridge). Yet, on the whole, it’s a vividly shot, operatic – if not occasionally hysterical – epic that always manages to entertain while bringing out both the best, and the worst, in its director.

Wanrer Archive’s Blu-Ray offers fine grain, dynamic colors and a fresh remastering of this DeLaurentiis production, released by MGM/UA to mediocre box-office in August 1985. Extras include Cimino’s DVD commentary (note the redubbing of the film’s final line, done at the demand of the studio) and the trailer. The 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack is outstanding with directional effects and a strong stereophonic presence, though the dialogue – mostly recorded on-location – is a bit thinly captured at times.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10544
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3507 Post by Monterey Jack »

Got back from my friend's annual 24-hour Film Fest, where I witnessed the following (cookies to anyone who can I.D. these movies 8)):

1.) Bad 80's metal rockers too stupid to run away from danger and monocular Muppets slathered in KY jelly.

2.) A Japanese zombie movie with an excellent tutorial about self-defense holds and plenty of ACK-SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3.) A pre-Code version of Moby Dick with a happy, romantic ending and a dreamboat Ahab. Seriously.

4.) Making a living by pulling gold coins out of a demon's ass while he's distracted by eating the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

5.) Scatman Crothers getting devoured by dogs playing rats.

6.) TJ Miller playing Johnny Depp in Secret Window.

7.) Cackling, ambulatory mannequins, Chuck Connors in overalls, and Donna's mom from That 70's Show rocking some serious Daisy Dukes.

8.) Would you rather watch a Jeffrey Combs movie at Fest, or stick a needle in your eye? You have fifteen seconds to choose. [cocks gun]

9.) A Full Retard serial-killer thriller fifteen years in the making, starring Young Indiana Jones and Dizzy from Starship Troopers (also featuring excellent pricing on a three-scoop ice cream cone).

10.) A girl with husky eyes vs. vampires -- uh, zombies? -- in a French precursor to Don't Breathe.

11.) Sgt. Hulka and the Easy Rider vs. Texan Satanists, with a pretty good Mad Max-lite chase climax.

12.) A mother convincing her teenage daughter not to go all the way by pretending she sets fires with her hormones? INCONCEIVABLE...! [flicks Bic]

As always, even after 13 hours' worth of sleep, I'm still feeling like crap, but I crave these crazy Fests every year. :)

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7533
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3508 Post by Paul MacLean »

Cat People (1983) 7/10

A sometimes-slow, and frankly not-that-great movie -- which is yet somehow very watchable. Paul Schrader adapts what is essentially a B movie horror idea (basically an erotic werewolf story with leopards) in the guise of an "art film" -- with mixed results. As usual, Schrader indulges his obsession with sexual perversions, with a premise which is disturbing and funny at the same time -- a "race" of people who transform into black leopards after having sex, but can't transform back into humans until they kill someone. There is a "loophole" however, in that they can have sex and avoid transforming into a leopard -- but only if it is incestuous sex. :shock:

The visual influence of Altered States and American Werewolf in London is very pervasive (though Cat People's "transformation" effects pale in comparison to the latter). As the villain, Malcolm McDowell phones-in one of his worst performances ever. The character isn't well-written either (and as this is a Paul Schrader film, McDowell's bloodthirsy antagonist is -- of course -- a clergyman). The two leads however -- John Heard and Nastassja Kinski -- save the picture. They have a genuine chemistry together, and Heard is effectively understated (and seems almost intentionally bland) as the zoologist who falls for Kinski, who herself convincingly transforms from innocent, frightened girl to cold-hearted predator over the course of the film. That Kinski is incredibly easy on the eyes doesn't hurt either...

Image

Giorgio Moroder's score has tuneful moments -- thanks to his talents as a songwriter -- but at the end of the day he is really just a tunesmith, not a music dramatist. The horror and suspense cues come-off like a bad John Carpenter score (and moreover, the music was realized on early 1980s synthesizers, which dates the score -- and film -- immensely). The David Bowie end credits song is kind of fun in that nostalgic 80s way (remember when movies used to have title songs?).
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Sat Aug 17, 2024 11:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35760
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3509 Post by AndyDursin »

That's a great summation of the film Paul. It is problematic but is curiously compelling -- mostly because of Kinski. The Universal TV version was, understandably, heavily cut but added some deleted scenes back in to get the running time back to speed (one where Kinski visits her mother in a dream sequence that was also shown in the trailer).

I agree on the score also. It's not great, but that's at least an example of a (then) modern synth approach (with that fun Bowie song) working a lot better than the dreck Tangerine Dream composed for LEGEND with its unappealing thematic material and terrible songs. :lol:

Interesting to note one of the movie's producers had bought the RKO library remake rights, producing this and THE THING for Universal both in 1982. They both bombed and that was promptly the end of any subsequent remakes!

mkaroly
Posts: 6365
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3510 Post by mkaroly »

AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR (4/10). I watched this with my niece and nephew while on vacation. It was okay...I don't have a lot to say about it because I am just not into these movies anymore. I did feel it went on a bit long, and the epic battle at the end was very PHANTOM MENACE-ish/LOTR/HOBBIT-ish. There is one thing that really bothered the crap out of me though, and I feel stupid for saying it but will do so anyway. The soul stone sacrifice of the one thing you love most....dumb. Anyone who is that greedy for power loves the power itself more than anything else (or the entity loves itself more than anything else). I am not buying that Thanos loved Gamara (whatever her name is) more than anything else. Am I overthinking that? I get why the narrative went the way it did, but I thought it was incredibly stupid. Just didn't really like it.

And I have not seen BLACK PANTHER and don't plan to...lol...

Post Reply