rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

Alien Romulus (8.5/10)

Let me qualify my rating of 8.5/10 - this would be 8.5/10 by the standards of today's paltry cinema offerings. Still, had this exact same movie been made in 1989, I might have given it a solid 8.

I thought it was terrific. Yes, it cribs from previous Alien movies, and it doesn't match the artistry of Ridley Scott's original, nor the adrenal edge of Cameron's follow-up -- but it is a lot more entertaining that Alien 3, Prometheus or Alien Resurrection (and in fact Prometheus was a no-less derivative than Alien Romulus). This new movie is also more emotionally-resonant than any of the post-Aliens sequels. I cared more about the fate of this "no name cast" than I did about Charles S. Dutton or Noomi Rapace. Cailee Spaeney and David Jonsson have a believable chemistry, and their relationship is genuinely touching. Spaeny is an incredibly promising talent, who (if she makes the rights choices) could easily become a major star.

Director Fede Álvarez adheres to the aesthetic and style pioneered by Ridley Scott in 1979, yet this doesn't feel like an "old movie" -- a testament to the invention and timelessness of Scott's original (the opening scenes come across as a reference to Peter Hyams' Outland as well). Álvarez also expands on the "untrustworthy robot" motif of the first two films, and puts a nice twist on it.

Benjamin Walfish's music also feels like a real score, with a very resourceful use of the orchestra, and welcome nods to Goldsmith's and Horner's efforts. Walfish may not "reinvent the wheel" with this one -- but at least he resurrects the wheel.

[Eric W.]

I've liked a number of Wallfisch's scores. I didn't expect much from this movie but after reading that kind of feedback I will keep it mind.

[mkaroly]

Thanks Paul...looking forward to seeing this when it comes out on DVD. In the meantime I am playing Alien:Isolation on my PS5 to get my fix...lol...

[AndyDursin]

Well said Paul, I had the same reaction to ROMULUS and wrote about it a few weeks back:

https://andyfilm.com/2024/08/22/8-27-24 ... y-edition/

Rewatching the other night, the movie really delivers the goods, and it's no surprise the box-office was likewise positive, outpacing COVENANT both here and worldwide. It's an audience movie and people really got into it when I saw it.

Wallfisch has an interesting way of referencing the scores of the movies he's "inherited", like providing a Blade Runner-type of sound in 2049 and doing the same here. But I agree, his score is pretty good -- the use of choir gives the movie a distinctively different sound to go along with quotes from Goldsmith and Horner (and Gregson-Williams' Prometheus theme also).

Spaeny is a major talent -- she was really good in that Priscilla Presley movie. If you see her interviewed she has a heavy southern accent, kind of reminds me of a young (and more talented) Ashley Judd.

[Paul MacLean]

From Russia With Love (7.5/10)

Maybe it was my mood (I hope I'm not becoming jaded), but I really couldn't get to into this movie on my latest viewing (last time I screened it was in 2012). It is certainly a watchable film, and isn't without some impressive sequences (the fight between Bond and Red Grant really stands out). Grant and Rosa Klebb are two of the series' better henchmen (henchpersons?) and it also serves as a wonderful "time capsule" that preserves the look of 1963 Istanbul. Pedro Armendáriz's Karim Bey is also one of the series better supporting characters. Connery is great, coming off as badass even during throwaway lines like "Breakfast for one. Green figs, yogurt, coffee -- very black".

This is one of those respected "serious" Bond movies -- but "serious" doesn't necessarily translate into "entertaining" (as the Daniel Craig era proved in spades). Despite its reputation as one of the "classic" Bond films, I've never felt From Russia With Love to be among the series' best (or ever better) pictures. There are tangents -- what does Soviet assassin Krilencu have to do with the story overall? His character, the gypsy encampment sequence and Karim Bey's assassination of Krilencu are irrelevant to the main story (that of SPECTRE using the Lektor -- and Tatiana -- to ensnare Bond). Although the confrontation between Bond and Grant is impressive and intense, the film lacks a really strong climax. And overall, there isn't a lot of dramatic tension (until the scenes between Bond and Grant on the train).

From Russia With Love is noteworthy, if for no reason other than it heralds John Barry's official arrival as the official James Bond composer. On the other hand, Barry doesn't really get to do much here -- Lionel Bart was given the song (and thus main theme), and the climactic helicopter and powerboat sequences are tracked with Monty Norman's music from Dr. No.

It's a solid film, but in my opinion, the Bond films wouldn't hit their stride until Goldfinger the following year.

[Eric Paddon]

The weaknesses of the plot you describe I think can be blamed on the fact that the filmmakers, in their zeal to avoid making the Russians the prime baddie changed the novel by bringing in SPECTRE, just as they'd done in "Dr. No." While that didn't hurt the narrative in "Dr. No" it does in the case of FRWL have the effect of making the plot harder to follow,. One other thing that helps "Goldfinger" is the fact that it's the ONLY Connery Bond film in which there is no SPECTRE connection. The filmmakers in that instance felt that it was safe to just have the Red Chinese be Goldfinger's backer in contrast to how they'd avoid doing that with the Russians.

[mkaroly]

There are tangents -- what does Soviet assassin Krilencu have to do with the story overall? His character, the gypsy encampment sequence and Karim Bey's assassination of Krilencu are irrelevant to the main story (that of SPECTRE using the Lektor -- and Tatiana -- to ensnare Bond). Although the confrontation between Bond and Grant is impressive and intense, the film lacks a really strong climax. And overall, there isn't a lot of dramatic tension (until the scenes between Bond and Grant on the train).

In the book, if I recall, Krilencu makes attempts on Kerim's life (including at the gypsy camp during the fight between the girls) and it is a payback killing (kill him before he kills me kind of thing). Bond gets to take part in it and is impressed with Kerim's operation. The gypsy women fight is in the book as well. The train stuff is in there as is the final fight between Klebb and Bond - in the book Bond gets kicked by her with the poison tipped knife because his gun jammed (leading to his being told by M that he needs to use a different gun at the start of Dr. No, the next book in the series). The fight with Klebb in the book is much more intense, and the story ends on a cliffhanger as Bond begins to succumb to the poison and passes out/dies. All in all the film is very faithful to the book (the boat chase scene is not in the book), and I agree that the final climax could have been filmed/staged better. Maybe the reason the filmmakers included the above is because they wanted to be faithful to the adaptation?

[Paul MacLean]

All in all the film is very faithful to the book (the boat chase scene is not in the book), and I agree that the final climax could have been filmed/staged better. Maybe the reason the filmmakers included the above is because they wanted to be faithful to the adaptation?

I understand the desire to be faithful. It's just that a lot of times, things that work on the printed page don't necessarily transfer to the screen effectively (this is why, even tho I loved the Lord of the Rings books, I didn't like the films -- they retained too many things that read well but didn't work as cinema). I think Mike Newell summed it up well, when he argued with Warner Bros. over their suggestion Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire be adapted into two separate films: "There was enough incident for two movies, but not enough story".

I think a lot needs to be changed when adapting from literature to cinema, sometimes even endings, as in the case of The Bridge on the River Kwai and The Natural -- leaving the bridge intact, or Roy Hobbs missing the ball, would make for anticlimactic lead balloons on screen.

Going back to From Russia With Love, Krilencu has nothing to do with the story at large, that of the trap set for Bond and the Lektor used as bait. It just depends on the source I suppose. The film version of Goldfinger is mostly faithful to the book, while Live and Let Die is barely at all. And I think the filmmakers made the right call in both of these cases.

[Paul MacLean]

Music by John Williams (8.5/10)

While not devoid of some imperfections and disappointments, this is a more than solid documentary, and overall very enjoyable.

I also learned a few things I didn't know, even as a hard core Williams fanatic going back to 1977. I won't give away any of the tidbits, but Williams -- a very private man by nature -- opens up about his family and first wife, as well as the bust-up between himself and the Boston Pops. It's fair to say that Williams' work for Spielberg gets the lion's share of attention here (not surprising as Spielberg co-produced the film), but then again, most of the blockbusters Williams has scored have been Spielberg movies. Yes, we are treated to a lot of anecdotes we've previously heard in interviews and home video special features -- but they're still good anecdotes, and certainly not out of place here.

Interviewees include Spielberg and Lucas (of course), and also Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, Anne Sophie Mutter, Branford Marsalis, Chris Columbus, Alan Silvestri, Thomas and David Newman and Lawrence Kasdan among others -- as well as (bafflingly) Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, whose presence is just out of left field. Martin's never worked with John Williams, and would appear to merely be a fan -- albeit a famous one (maybe Laurent Bouzereau thought including a pop star would make Williams seem more "cool", I don't know).

Although Jaws, Star Wars and (of course) Schindler's List get a fair amount of attention, Superman and Harry Potter in comparison get the short shrift. The Potter films are allotted less than two minutes of screen time -- lumped into a brief "Chris Columbus" segment, where Home Alone is also discussed (and receives more screen time than the Potter movies!). Williams' collabortion with Oliver Stone also gets a few minutes' attention -- yet there is no interview with Stone himself. But overall, very few of Williams' scores are discussed in any great depth in this film. Family Plot is not even mentioned -- of course that film is not considered one of Alfred Hitchcock's best, but the fact that Williams was selected by an icon like Hitchcock to score one of his films is a significant feather in the composer's cap.

Music by John Williams also features some fabulous, never-before-seen session footage from Close Encounters and E.T. -- some of it shot by Spielberg himself with his old Super8 camera! (In one such shot, Williams tries to laugh it off, but doesn't seem especially keen on being filmed by the director!).

Variety's review of this movie summed it up as more of a tribute that a documentary, which I'd agree with. There is no tabloid sensationalism here -- which would be difficult in the first place, as Williams is a mild-mannered, avuncular fellow, and the very antithesis of flamboyant. Over all it is sincere and heartfelt -- and it's nice that it was made while Williams is still with us, and able to participate. Definitely worth a look.

[AndyDursin]

Great review Paul I hope to get to it this week!

Just fyi: Home Alone made more money than any of the Harry Potter movies and still ranks 43rd on the adjusted highest grossing films of all time list (the highest ranked Potter is 80th):

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top ... ss_to=2019

As a beloved perennial holiday classic I'm not surprised it's more discussed than Potter. Had he scored more than half of that series or the whole thing itd probably be looked at more significantly. But he only scored 3 of them....or 2.5 of them depending on how much Ross did on the second film lol

[Eric Paddon]

Don't Say A Word (2001) 5 of 10
-I checked this out when I found it was based on a novel by Andrew Klavan, whose politics today would make him persona non grata in the movie industry (though he had yet to have his epiphany then). I had too many problems with its absurd plot twists, namely the fact that this band of crooks are going to a lot of trouble to try and recover a jewel that is worth about as much as what they're spending on all this surveillance equipment etc. (so they kidnap psychiatrist Michael Douglas's daughter) And why did they only get ten years in jail for the murder of Brittany Murphy's father when it was so obviously premeditated? Jennifer Esposito seemed to be channeling Mariska Hargitay from "Law And Order SVU" and it seemed like she belonged in another film altogether. Meanwhile, I knew right away that Oliver Platt as Douglas's colleague was the one responsible for getting the baddies onto him, but then amazingly he just disappears from the film entirely after he has served his "necessary plot point" purpose.

-I had never seen any of Murphy's work before. She did a good job. I was familiar with the fact she died young at 32, but it wasn't until I was done watching the film that I learned the child actress who played Douglas's daughter died of a drug overdose at 21.

-Not a bad film but not worth a second look from my standpoint. I got a reminder that this film was released just after 9/11 because the WTC is visible only in one long shot view of the skyline and all other close-ups of it were removed just before release.

[Paul MacLean]

The Creator (7/10)

A watchable, sometimes engaging (and at times genuinely touching) sci-fi yarn -- but one that is compromised by unoriginality. I got the sense from the trailer this would be an edgier, more imaginitive film that deals with the moral and social ramifications of A.I. While it does address some of these questions, it never does so with any real depth. Instead, the A.I. characters are just a garden variety "oppressed minority", and the narrative of The Creator is basically an action-adventure, with heavy-handed statements about bigotry thrown in (ho-hum). The movie falls back on that tiresome old trope -- Americans depicted as genocidal warmongers, perpetrating an ethnic cleansing campaign against more enlightened, altruistic people. The film is also very derivative -- cribbing heavily from Blade Runner, The Golden Child, Terminator 2, A.I., District 9, Avatar and assorted Vietnam war movies.

That said, the production value is impressive, considering The Creator was pulled-off for $85 million. Director Garreth Edwards' stripped-down crew size, and adoption of gear that accelerates the workflow, could prove a game-changer for film production overall.

I also give high points to the cast, in particular John David Washington (son of Denzel) as the protagonist, and newcomer Madeleine Yuna Voyles as Alfie. In addition to being terrific performers they have genuine chemistry together. Hans Zimmer's score isn't especially complex but it works pretty well and has genuine emotional resonance at the climax. The use of Debussy's "Claire de Lune" for the end credits however comes off as a pretentious affectation (this movie isn't good enough to be using classical music).


P.S. -- I have to admit that the primary reason I was interested in this film was because it was mostly shot on a Sony FX3...



...and is one of the reasons Edwards was able to keep productions costs down, so I was curious to see what kind of result they got using a $3200 camera. All things considered it looks exceptionally good.

[Paul MacLean]

안시성 (The Great Battle) (7/10)

This 2018 South Korean epic is one of those frustrating movies that has a terrific script and terrific cast -- but is compromised by other elements.

The film is based on the the siege of Ansi Fortress in 645 A.D., when the Tang Empire invaded Goguryeo (which comprised much of what is now modern-day Korea, as well as Manchuria). Although The Great Battle is apparently fictionalized to some extent, It is a very inspiring story, based an a true incident when Goguryeo forces occupying a fortified village withstood a far-larger force of Tang invaders during an 88-day seige. The film has stalwart, sympathetic characters, excellent character development and terrific action sequences.

Kim Kwang-sik both wrote and directed the film -- but unfortunately he is a much better writer than he is a director. In fairness he extracts great performances from his cast, but his directing style is firmly entrenched in worn-out action movie clichés. The CGI battles have that "unreal" look some of the time -- but fair enough, Kim didn't have access to a Hollywood "ten pole" budget, and the effects are pulled-off well for the most part. Kim however resorts to schlocky gimmicks like "ramping" (i.e. the abrupt shift between slow-motion and undercranking) during the battle scenes, which not only looks silly (ramping was already out-of-fashion in the early 2000s) it is here so overused, it eventually sucks the life out of the battle sequences. It's a shame because the actual staging of the combat scenes is otherwise so impressive they didn't need such gimmicks.

For me though, the worst offender is Yoon Il-sang's score, which is just another formulaic Zimmer knock-off. Comprised of mostly long, sustained chords, it is loud, unsubtle and actually compromises the drama, particularly at the climax. The score isn't well-spotted either. It lacks contrast and variety, and by the finale scenes becomes distracting, irritating white sound that interferes with the film instead of uplifting it.

It's too bad, because The Great Battle is a very watchable film with a lot going for it, it's just a shame that director Kim had not realized those "cool" effects had long-since become clichés, and employed a slick, unsubtle music score that suppresses his film's full potential.

[Paul MacLean]

Gladiator II (4/10)

I can understand Ridley Scott wanting to follow-up one of his most artistically-acclaimed successes (to say nothing of commercial possibilities of such a follow-up). Roman history certainly has a plethora or anecdotes and historic events from which Scott could have drawn another epic adventure. Unfortunately, Gladiator II is nothing but (to use Andy's term) a "requel". The script is so similar to the 2000 original, one is left baffled as to why Scott bothered to make this film at all.

The story will be familiar: hardened warrior fights a great battle, sees the woman he loves savagely killed, then is made a slave and gladiator and ultimately taken to Rome to fight in the arena. There are some mild alterations -- the warrior in this case is fighting against Rome at the outset. It also turns out he is Lucius, the son of Lucila from the original film -- and was sent into exile shortly after the events of the original Gladiator.

Rome is now ruled the the twin emperors, Geta and Caracalla, whose characters are a stripped-down version of Commodus from the original film, just times two. Plot elements (and virtually unaltered scenes) from the original film fill-out the remainder of the story -- Drusila visits Lucius' cell but he refuses to speak to her, a plot to overthrow the corrupt emperors is hatched with the intent to use the a legion encamped near Rome to achieve that end, etc. Denzel Washington's character seems to be a rehash of Oliver Reed's Proximo at the outset, but proves much-more sinister and ambitious. However his character never really develops in a clear or interesting way.

At the climax of the film, the legion marches on Rome and is about to be intercepted by the Praetorian Guard -- when Lucius persuades them not to fight, but to help him create a "New Rome" where there is peace and equality. Of course, historically, altruistic change did ultimately come to Rome -- but that was due to Christianity (the existence of which is ignored by Gladiator II).

There are some utterly silly things in the film as well -- as in scenes where characters read from written text, and the text is written in English, but not Latin. But ultimately, beyond the derivative script, the film is slow, tedious and lacking in energy. I honestly had trouble staying awake.

[AndyDursin]

I wasn't able to stay awake Paul, so you one-upped me on this one!

Listen, I know people think it's remarkable Ridley Scott keeps churning out movies at his age, but he was NEVER that prolific a director early in his career -- because, back then, he used to take his time choosing projects, resulting in a level of detail that, if nothing else, always made each picture he produced visually enthralling (even if the scripts sometimes didn't measure up).

Now he's just running through movie after movie, and the last 25 years have been nearly one mediocre thing after another, all of them becoming more and more anonymous as time goes on.

GLADIATOR II I fell asleep on and didn't finish, so I'm going to take Paul's analysis for it that it's a basically beat-for-beat "re-quel" but after all those years -- THAT'S what he came up with for a script? He didn't have enough time to develop something even remotely more ambitious that didn't just regurgitate all the same dramatic beats? How utterly lame.

Why couldn't he make something like DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS, which had its own "flavor" that set it apart from THE ROBE, despite being a sequel and featuring some of the same supporting players?

Instead it's like he just followed THE FORCE AWAKENS blueprint -- meaning he followed the money, which is where his sole driving motivation is these days. And he makes no effort to say otherwise if you watch him interviewed. It's like he's turning product like Poptarts...and it shows.