SANTA CLAUS THE MOVIE - 7/10

Been a while since I actually watched this from start to finish, but I guess I was in the proper holiday spirit because I found the film quite entertaining -- for the kids fantasy it was intended to be. Seen in widescreen and in stereo it's downright festive, beautifully designed in a quality (expensive) Salkind production with numerous Bond veterans in back of the camera, and with a great Henry Mancini score (even the Sheena Easton pop song over the end credits is nice). The young kids in the movie are actually terrific -- not obnoxious movie moppets -- while David Huddleston looks the part as Santa, the reindeer animatronics are superb, and Dudley Moore and John Lithgow serve up ample mugging in the second half (the first hour is the better portion however).

Certainly a much better effort than "Supergirl" from director Jeannot Swarzc, and well worth seeing on Blu-Ray with some nice extras (several minutes of deleted scenes, the full hour long Making Of and the trailers) and a trailer.

Not a classic, but cheerful and pleasant.

The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn: 7.5/10

It takes about half the movie to get over the eerie mocap technique, but I actually found this to be a good deal of fun (and a far better Spielberg adventure movie than Crystal Skull). Great action scenes and John Williams music.

-Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol: 9/10

Wow...this is a PHENOMENAL movie, easilly the best of the series. Incredible tension, perfectly-pitched humor, great team dynamics, and set to a terrific Michael Giacchino score. One of the most purely fun movies I've seen this year.

Anastasia (1997): 8.5/10

Underrated animated musical was unfairly dismissed as a Disney knockoff when it was first released, and, well...it kinda is. But that doesn't mean it's not a charming, tuneful, beautifully-animated piece of family entertainment. Terrific voice cast, lovely song score (the haunting, waltzlike "Once Upon A December" is the highlight) and superb animation crafted in the best "old-fashioned" pen & ink tradition (although the blend of hand-drawn and CGI elements looked somewhat shaky even 14 years ago, and haven't aged very well). The Blu-Ray transfer sparkles, although it's one of those 20th Century Fox titles where the making-of documentaries are crammed into the top-left corner of the screen on my player. Anyways, a perfect way to cap off a Merry Christmas.

Monterey Jack wrote:Anastasia (1997): 8.5/10

Underrated animated musical was unfairly dismissed as a Disney knockoff when it was first released, and, well...it kinda is. But that doesn't mean it's not a charming, tuneful, beautifully-animated piece of family entertainment. Terrific voice cast, lovely song score (the haunting, waltzlike "Once Upon A December" is the highlight) and superb animation crafted in the best "old-fashioned" pen & ink tradition (although the blend of hand-drawn and CGI elements looked somewhat shaky even 14 years ago, and haven't aged very well). The Blu-Ray transfer sparkles, although it's one of those 20th Century Fox titles where the making-of documentaries are crammed into the top-left corner of the screen on my player. Anyways, a perfect way to cap off a Merry Christmas.

I seem to remember Roy Disney being very dismissive of the film at the time. A lovely score by David Newman. A complete score would make a nice reissue.

John Johnson wrote:I seem to remember Roy Disney being very dismissive of the film at the time.

Well, Disney cravenly reissued The Little Mermaid to theaters the very same day Anastasia was released in an effort to crush the competition, so I'm not surprised.

A lovely score by David Newman. A complete score would make a nice reissue.

Yes, the score is one of Newman's better efforts, and melds with the songs perfectly.

Memento

What a piece of crap. The premise is tremendously intriguing, and the film does initially hold one's interest -- mainly because the viewer is keen to know how it will all play-out.

Unfortunately, the film doesn't deliver on the premise, nor does it resolve the story on any satisfactory level. When the credits started rolling I thought "That's it?" We never really learn who Guy Pierce's character is (or was). And who is the girl? What is her relationship to Joe Pantoliano (if any)? Who was the thug that Guy Pierce tied-up in the closet? None of it is ever explained.

It honestly feels like a movie in which the director ran out of money before he got everything shot, and was forced to try and make sense of it when editing.

Apart from that, it is preposterous that someone unable to recall anything prior to ten minutes ago would be able to function in society. Altzheimer's patients -- even at the outset of their affliction -- need constant supervision owing to dangers of forgetfulness and repeating actions.

Even with all his notes and files and tattoos, Pierce's character would still be eating breakfast multiple times, paying the same bill twice, wandering around parking lots because he can't remember where his car is, and constantly reading and re-reading all his notes and tattoos in order to remind himself what's going on. In fact he'd never have time to do anything but re-read his notes and tattoos if he forgot them every ten minutes.

Also, someone with such a condition would be at the very least in therapy, and likely have a home health aid (and even more likely be institutionalized). But no, Guy Pierce is driving around Los Angeles, implausibly trusting people he doesn't remember and pretty much doing whatever they tell him to.

I hate Christopher Nolan. All his movies fall back on hackneyed "smoke and mirrors" storytelling, and then try to hide their copious narrative holes with "style".

I hate Christopher Nolan. All his movies fall back on hackneyed "smoke and mirrors" storytelling, and then try to hide their copious narrative holes with "style".

You nailed it Paul. MEMENTO to me is very much like THE PRESTIGE -- a load of BS wrapped up in a tricky visual style. I agree with you on Nolan, I'm just not a fan. The only two films of his that I did truly enjoy were BATMAN BEGINS, which I did like, and INSOMNIA, but that's about it -- INCEPTION was massively overpraised and convoluted, I didn't care for the glum (and ludicrous) THE PRESTIGE at all, MEMENTO is overrated, and you know how I feel about THE DARK KNIGHT as well.

He clearly has a strong visual style but his films are cold, heartless, humorless and illogical -- the defense "oh, it's just that YOU don't understand the plot" to excuse the amount of holes in his narratives (especially Memento, which IMO didn't even play by its own rules, and the ridiculously overstuffed Inception) doesn't wash with me at all. He is who he is -- an academic who thinks he's smarter than the audience, and his films come off that way as well, but there are more critics and viewers who worship at his altar than any other filmmaker working today...which says it all.

Major Dundee (1965) 6.5 of 10

-As a result of the harsh exchange I got drawn into at HTF over the issue of the score replacement (I'd note that it was a case of my being ambushed by someone who took umbrage to the fact that I'd expressed a dissenting view about what Nick Redman had said), I figured I should look at the film again with the most critical eye possible.

-First off, the song is inappropriate and too up tempo especially when placed over a credit sequence that shows the carnage of the Apache massacre at the Rostes Ranch. And I think all the browbeating Amfitheatrof's score has gotten over the years stems entirely from that inappropriateness of song/images, and was probably reinforced by some of the bizarre touches on the soundtrack LP that are not part of the film itself. The *theme* is okay though, and the opening instrumental part I felt was fine if it had just been set to some different images and the song could have just been dispensed with until the end cast credits if they felt there was a burning need for it.

-Once we remove the issue of the song, I listened with the most objective ear as to whether I could call any part of the score inappropriate to the action taking place on the screen. I heard next to nothing that was inappropriate to what I was seeing. The knock that is made on this score is that it is wrong in general, but I haven't the vaguest idea of what they're getting at. The anvil stinger for the Apache is the kind of experimental touch that it seems to me that Goldsmith got praised for when he introduced similar sounding variants in "Planet Of The Apes" with the mixing bowls etc. And given how the actual menace of the Apache is virtually eliminated in the final cut of the film, this device I think was *needed* to try and at least not let us, the audience forget all about this narrative point. As for the underscore in other parts of the film, I again heard nothing out of place except for one brief moment when there's a too comical sounding use of trumpets for the Dundee theme at the height of his wounded, drunken despair but it only lasts a few seconds. Bottom line, IMO it was absolutely wrong to scapegoat Amfitheatrof as indicative of a giant problem with the film and his reputation didn't deserve what ultimately happened to make him the first victim of something totally unprecedented in the annals of film scoring, in which a score is replaced decades after the fact by a score not composed AT THE TIME. I'll admit I have grown more hostile on this subject of score replacement as a result of what happened on the DVD releases of "The Fugitive" TV series that it has made me more sensitive to the idea that films should ALWAYS be a product of the era they were created in, and that while restorations that involve putting back scenes done at the time are great, tampering with one element of the production in this fashion for the sake of a highly subjective concept of "improvement" (because let's face it, this is basically a fanboy substitution no matter how much you try to dress it up) just strikes me as wrong as making a colorized version of a film is. Given that Peckinpah's conduct throughout the production of this film was not exactly stellar and that he was not making it as his own producer, I think the issue of deference to Peckinpah's sentiments should not be so overblown (I'm told Peckinpah hated the score for "Ride The High Country" so why isn't Redman and company suggesting Bassman's score be thrown out there as well???)

-The film itself, again has that sad case of a great first half that doesn't deliver and I'm not sure the problems can be solely blamed on the editing that was done once Peckinpah was taken off the film. From what I'm told, there was an extended opening showing us the Apache massacre which would have further strengthened the first half, and it also would have sharpened the focus of Bugler Ryan's character as the sole survivor of the original massacre and made more powerful the fact that he is the one at the end who kills the Apache chief. But we'd still be left with the film's three biggest problems which are:

1-Too much "down" time of the troops recuperating and resting, which stems out of the film's peculiar wandering off with the business with the French. The script should have kept these men *constantly* in pursuit of the Apache and had their sniping come while not losing the trail. The French should have only been a problem in the background for them to worry about, but instead it became a front and center problem for them.

2-Senta Berger. I'll say it again, she's breathtaking, but her role is pointless and another distraction. Plus, it is just laughable to think that just after this tense scene of Dundee ordering the execution of Hadley has blown apart all sense of teamsmanship in the disparate unit, that suddenly we've got Dundee enjoying a nude bathing respite with Senta, whose return to the action is *really* implausible, BTW, and they're able to do this with total privacy? This just throws credibility out the window completely.

3-The film has no ending. It just stops, and we don't know what happened when they returned to the fort. Were their consequences for Dundee as a result of the incursion, or does he get hailed as a hero for "mission accomplished?" Add to the fact that as per Ryan's journal entry dates, their return would have meant learning about Lee's surrender to Grant and the end of the war, and surely *that* would have called for some final thoughts and reflections among this disparate band that had been thrust together. And this is one time where you can't blame Jerry Bresler's cutting of the film because the shooting script Peckinpah worked with had no ending either or any scene of return. Peckinpah was the one responsible for the final draft and his failure to consider that this was needed from a story narrative standpoint is something he has to bear some of the blame for (if reports are to be believed, Peckinpah was wasting a lot of time shooting battle scenes that he could do in that ballet-slow-mo style or trying to make things more graphic than they needed to be; a little less focus on that, and a few more days pondering "how the hell do we end this?" would have been in order!)

Heston said it best when he said that if you watch the film, you see a good film underneath trying to get out that never does and never can, and that's the pity of this. In the end, the blame for what happened has to be shared equally among the producer AND the director, and IMO Peckinpah needs to be taken off the pedestal his fans put him up on that tries to view him as a 100% victim in the story.

War Horse: 9/10

Gorgeous, old-fashioned entertainment (even Janusz Kaminski keeps his usual desaturation tricks to a minimum...certain shots have the crisp, painterly glow of a three-strip Technicolor Western from the 50's) is schmaltzy and corny...and deeply, powerfully moving. I was fighting back tears by the time the ending came up, due in no small part to John Williams' masterful, melodic music. If he doesn't win the Oscar this year, there's no frigging justice. A wonderful film.

Super 8

I finally sat down and watched this one. I enjoyed it overall. The kids were all great characters (and actors), and the love story was sweet and touching without becoming cloying. The science fiction elements were good, but not particularly original however. Obviously this is an homage to CE3K and ET (there was also some Cloak & Dagger in there, and quite a bit of Explorers as well), but it reminded me as much of more recent pictures like War of the Worlds and (more especially) District 9 (particularly at the climax).

The evocation of the 70s didn't completely come-off -- it really leapt-out at me how all the cars were new 70s cars, with no cars from the 60s in sight (of which there were a lot on the roads back then). And they were all BIG cars too. No VWs, or AMC Pacers (and nothing says "70s" like a Pacer!).



Michael Giacchino's score was okay, and I really liked one his themes (though he never did much with it). But overall it did not conjure the soaring inspiration of Williams, Goldsmith and Horner in their "suburbanites meet aliens" scores (on which Giacchino's music was obviously modeled).

One thing which did get on my nerves was the sound mix. At the outset I had the volume adjusted so I could comfortably hear the dialog. Then comes the train-crash scene and the sound effects are suddenly boosted three-thousand decibels higher! I kept having to adjust the volume throughout this film in order to hear the dialog and not go deaf (or wake-up people upstairs)!

Very entertaining and I'd recommend it, but it could have been better.

Anyway, I gotta go turn off the TV -- I left the disc menu on screen and that looped music is driving me crazy!!!

Paul MacLean wrote: One thing which did get on my nerves was the sound mix. At the outset I had the volume adjusted so I could comfortably hear the dialog. Then comes the train-crash scene and the sound effects are suddenly boosted three-thousand decibels higher! I kept having to adjust the volume throughout this film in order to hear the dialog and not go deaf (or wake-up people upstairs)!

I find this a common problem as I get older (and my tinnitus gets worse)...I always crank the volume during dialogue scenes to hear better (especially when my damn fridge turns on...always at the most distracting time possible ), only to nearly blow out my speakers and eardrums when the action scenes kick in. Movies of the 70's and 80's never had this problem...5.1 sound is great and all, but some surround mixes are just too damn agressive.

I always have this problem and mention it frequently in my reviews, but one of the benefits of 5.1 is at least you can raise the center channel for dialogue, turn down the bass and rework the sound mix (of course then you have to reset everything afterwards!). In general these mixes are always too aggressive and lean on the effects as MJ says, but I think it's one spot where 5.1 can help...not to mention you're getting the actual sound and not a "downmixed" stereo track in 2-channel, where there's no way to raise the dialogue.

War Horse.

Outstanding, one of Spielberg's best! One can spot the influence of Paths of Glory and Lawrence of Arabia, though this is very much Spielberg's film.

John Williams' score is his finest in years, and is not "insistent and pushy" despite what Variety's reviewer says. Januz Kaminski's photography is hit and miss -- some scene are gorgeous to behold, yet others feature Kaminski's milky diffusion filters, and (as always) there are shots with weird lighting (particularly in some of the early exteriors). But overall War Horse is a near-flawless film, and while very emotionally charged, to describe it as a "tearjerker" would be to demean its artistry.

It's also a testament to the power of this film that I was able to absorb the full experience, given a less-than-optimal screening experience (a small theater with a virtually flat floor, craning my neck to see over the head of the person in front of me, lousy and overloud sound, and a less-than-great-looking print).

Warning though -- this is a very difficult movie for animal (particularly horse) lovers to watch.

WAR HORSE

7.5/10

(Spoilers)

From Williams' sublime scoring (the one Zimmer-like PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN cue notwithstanding when Joey stomps through the trenches) to the fine performances, this is Spielberg's best film in some time, no doubt, though I did not think it was without its problems. My main issue was the tone -- based on a children's novel that was intended for young readers, I thought the film was a bit all over the map, starting off as this family film (with a cute, funny goose causing trouble on the farm) before morphing into a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN-lite for WWI with SCHINDLER'S LIST type overtones, a very intense mid-section that was hard to watch at times (for me) and some truly harrowing sections. And yet all of it is essentially a fable, a colorful and broadly played, evocative fantasy of sorts with a storybook type beginning and end...I guess I was confounded as to who the movie was aimed at, being far too intense and violent for children (the execution of the German kids, realistic as it likely was, was horrifying), and yet with fantastical and melodramatic elements that made it extremely emotional. In many ways I felt like Spielberg was trying to have it every way -- bringing the type of childlike wonder of E.T. together with a gritty war movie like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and even a colorful, old-fashioned visual design (the home on the hill, the setting sun, etc.) that evoked classics like THE QUIET MAN, THE SEARCHERS, GONE WITH THE WIND (especially the last shot), etc.

So, it didn't quite ALL come together for me -- and I found the exchange between the German and British soldier to be overly contrived in a "can't we all just get along" type of manner that was wholly unbelievable -- yet I still found every frame compelling, the film beautifully shot (it has to be Kaminski's best work for Spielberg, though Paul's right on target that there were still some distracting uses of diffused light), and the picture sincere in a way I haven't felt from a Spielberg movie in a long time. Not a great film for me, but a very good one, and the director's best in a long while. I also don't find an EMOTIONAL film necessarily "corny" -- there wasn't anything that hadn't been earned IMO in the poetry of the film's conclusion.

I also agree with Paul in the film's power outweighing less than optimal viewing experiences -- once again we were treated to a woman and her daughters clapping at every opportunity and talking out loud, which made us move...twice! We couldn't move forward because someone brought their 3 year old who cried every now and then. We couldn't move back because of the idiots who clapped and talked, so I moved to the right. To make a long story short, Joanne didn't want to move again and once the guy in back of us (in our new seats!) started talking, I had it and moved back a few rows alone. We ended up watching the film separately for the last 90 minutes! Not a great way to go, but the film still worked in spite of the problems.

I am seriously at the point where unless the film is a big blockbuster where some idiot talking isn't going to ruin it (because the sound is so loud), I'm probably waiting for video. An intimate, emotional type of film like THE DESCENDANTS doesn't need a big audience and THE WAR HORSE, though I wanted to see it on the big screen, can be totally WRECKED by some fool who thinks they can act like they're sitting on their couch and make comments outloud. And this was in a huge theater with about 20 people, maybe 10 of whom were talking! ARRRRRRRRRRRGHHH.

AndyDursin wrote:I guess I was confounded as to who the movie was aimed at, being far too intense and violent for children (the execution of the German kids, realistic as it likely was, was horrifying), and yet with fantastical and melodramatic elements that made it extremely emotional.

I took it to be more of a story for teenagers. I haven't read the book though, so I can't comment on the author's original tone. But to me it seemed that Spielberg was going for a tone more along the lines of Empire of the Sun -- a depiction of war from (and for) the perspective of a young person.

I found the exchange between the German and British soldier to be overly contrived in a "can't we all just get along" type of manner that was wholly unbelievable

I actually liked that scene, since that sort of thing did happen from time-to-time during WW I. For instance, during the war there were a number of "Christmas truces", and many soldiers from both armies voluntarily emerged from their respective trenches and celebrated the holiday together (even exchanging gifts!), only to go back to trying to kill each other the next day. In other instances during the war, the close proximity of trenches sometimes led to enemy soldiers becoming familiar and even chummy with each other (to the chagrin of their commanders).

So to me it was historically not incredible to show enemy soldiers brought together through a commonality -- at least in a WW I setting (it wouldn't have been very believable in a WW II setting), and I appreciated it being depicted on screen (as it never has been before, to my knowledge).

I am seriously at the point where unless the film is a big blockbuster where some idiot talking isn't going to ruin it (because the sound is so loud), I'm probably waiting for video.

A good viewing experience seems to be the luck of the draw. The audience was actually ok at the screening I attended. But my local theater has to do a better job of it -- the projection wasn't great, the sound was poor (and too loud!) and the theater itself badly designed.