rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10550
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1516 Post by Monterey Jack »

AndyDursin wrote:Speaking of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, did you ever see the original? My friends and I rented it one night when we were in college, became so bored and disgusted, that I grabbed a stack of my TV themes CDs and tracked in music for the film (since it didn't have any score). We used the "Andy Griffith Show" theme for the end credits, "Hawaii Five O" for the climactic boat attack and the "Jetsons" theme during one of the rape sequences. It definitely makes the film more entertaining -- certainly we couldn't stop laughing during it.

One of these days I should upload it to Youtube, though the producers of the movie may not care for our editorial work, lol...
I suffered through both versions during my October horror marathon last year. Both are putrid, but the remake is like someone rubbing feces directly in your eyeballs. The use of rape scenes in movies is always dicey (the best filmmakers tend to be discrete in how much they show the audience), but in both films you could get a palpable sense that the filmmakers had to be getting off on this somehow, which is distasteful in the extreme. ONE rape scene could make a point, but both versions literally have THREE brutally overextended rape/torture scenes, one right after the other. Yeah, yeah, I suppose they were trying to make the rapists "deserve it" when the two leads finally got their revenge, but seriously...we didn't need to see about 90% of that. :?

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35761
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1517 Post by AndyDursin »

Oh yeah I remember you reviewing them now. They are completely worthless, mean spirited and have no redeeming value IMO.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35761
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1518 Post by AndyDursin »

Oh yeah I remember you reviewing them now. They are completely worthless, mean spirited and have no redeeming value IMO.

mkaroly
Posts: 6367
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1519 Post by mkaroly »

Back in the day I saw the original I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE...I never saw the remake but never wanted to. Films like that are "putrid" as MJ put it...

Back in college I was a big fan of the book MEN, WOMEN, AND CHAINSAWS and feminist readings of horror films and its sub-genres. The rape-revenge films really disturbed me though - I tried watching them (I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE being one of them...never saw MS. 45 though) but they really bothered me because I found nothing redeeming about them in any way. Rape is abhorrent in any form (reality or cinematically), and I don't want to see it. Worthless garbage if you ask me. And I have no desire or intention of seeing remakes of those films either.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7537
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1520 Post by Paul MacLean »

Die Another Day

I only ever saw this film once, back in 2003 on a red eye flight to the UK. I didn't remember much of anything about it, except I didn't care for it. Watching it again, I now understand why I blotted so much of it from memory.

Die Another Day is the Superman IV of Bond movies. Right from the opening gunbarrell -- where they've added a silly animated bullet that flies toward the audience -- this film is a cheesy, over-the-top, gimmick-ridden mess, which makes The Man With The Golden Gun look like Goldfinger.

The harsh, gritty sequence where Bond is tortured for months by the North Koreans gives one the impression this will be a more serious chapter in Brosnan's tenure as 007. The subsequent Hong Kong sequence is slick, but also serious, the way it addresses how things have changed since the city was returned to the Chinese. But soon the film does a complete 180º turn, and begins a quick decent into utter goofiness that at times rivals a Matt Helm movie.

Eventually we find ourselves in London, where we are introduced to Toby Stephens's Gustav Graves -- a thrill-seeking, Richard Branson-like billionaire who has developed a new kind satellite "death ray" (which is basically just the laser satellite from Diamonds Are Forever). But no, he's really North Korea's Colonel Moon, who has undergone a genetic transplant surgery to make himself look European. He is closely guarded by his old crony Zao, a wanted terrorist who has bits of diamond lodged in his face (which any good dermatologist could easily remove, but I guess a Zao -- even though he is a wanted criminal who can't afford to stand-out in a crowd -- hasn't considered this option). If all this weren't silly enough, Bond is also equipped with an invisible car. :roll:

In fairness the cast are very good. As written, Jinx Johnson isn't an especially interesting Bond girl, but Halle Berry brings a nice effervescence to the role. In fact I liked Berry better in this than anything else she's done. Rosamond Pyke's Miranda Frost is also comely and initially appealing (though her duplicity is fairly obvious some time before she is exposed). Judi Dench is still great, and I consider her as good an M as Bernard Lee (and much better than Robert Brown) ever was. I also want to acknowledge how much I like Colin Salmon as Bond's collegue Charles Robinson, and I wish the series had made more use of Robinson (quite honestly I think Salmon would have made an excellent James Bond himself).

However, to say I'm less than a fan of Madonna is a huge understatement, so this film loses a lot of points for subjecting the viewer to her, not only in the title sequence but also a brief "acting" appearance. (The title song by the way is also the worst of the entire series.)

Bond films are rightly famous for their death-defying stuntwork, so seeing an obvious CGI facsimile of Halle Berry dive off the cliff is a real letdown. Later, Bond's plummet over the glacier and subsequent attempt to surf the wave back to the hotel look laughably fake -- especially when 90 minutes earlier this very same film gave us real stuntmen surfing real waves.

Image

The film also makes use of that annoying, gimmicky cliche "ramping" (i.e. the sudden -- and pointless -- acceleration of footage).

I did like the scene where Bond meets with Q and we see a lot of the gadgets from older films -- the attaché case, the crocodile suit, Rosa Klebb's boot, etc. -- but good moments are very few in this otherwise near-total misfire.

For much of the last half hour of I was dying for this movie to end. Jinx finds herself trapped in a rapidly-melting ice hotel, where she is in danger of drowning from the rising water. Ok...but if the hotel is melting, logically the walls and doors of the room she's been locked into would also be melting -- making it easy to escape. :?

The fight on the jet is ridiculous and goes on much too long, as Graves tries to vanquish Bond with his stupid "Iron Man" suit. I think the reason I didn't remember much about my first screening of this film is because I probably turned it off (and given the paucity of entertainment choices on a transatlantic flight, that says a lot).

I do like Pierce Brosnan. He was never a bad James Bond, but he is still the one I like the least. He didn't have the high-voltage testosterone of Connery (though who does?), or the suave brooding of Dalton or the comedic talent of Moore. Brosnan was such an effective villain in cloak and dagger capers like The 4th Protocol, The Tailor of Panama and The Ghost Writer, but he never channeled any such darkness into Bond. Maybe Eon Productions simply wanted him to remain Remmington Steele, I don't know. In any case, I will say he was solid in the role, and can claim two very good movies -- Tomorrow Never Does and The World Is Not Enough -- to his credit.

Looking forward to watching Casino Royale (the Craig one -- though either version is preferable to anything in Die Another Day).
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35761
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1521 Post by AndyDursin »

In any case, I will say he was solid in the role, and can claim two very good movies -- Tomorrow Never Does and The World Is Not Enough -- to his credit.
He can also claim that every one of his films was a big box-office success as well (especially in the U.S. where the Bond films hadn't made much noise since "Octopussy"), paving the way for Craig's tenure and the box-office receipts of "Skyfall."

Great reviews Paul! You should collect them all and put them in an ebook or something!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35761
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1522 Post by AndyDursin »

WILD RIVER
8.5/10

I wrote this up in my column this week. I'm not the biggest Elia Kazan fan, but this impressive, beautifully atmospheric 1960 film is one of his best -- even if it's been seldom shown over the years. Montgomery Clift stars as a Tennessee Valley Authority agent who tries to convince an elderly woman (Jo Van Fleet) to relocate from her rural home so a dam can be constructed through the area during the Great Depression. A box-office disappointment in its day, “Wild River” is the type of film that Blu-Ray was made for, with the movie’s gorgeous location shooting benefiting appreciably here from a beautiful 1080p hi-def transfer (2.35) and DTS MA mono audio. Available previously as part of an Elia Kazan box-set (or in individual releases overseas), Fox’s Blu-Ray is a revelation with an insightful commentary from Richard Schickel provided on the supplemental side along with the trailer. Sensitively acted and lovely -- highly recommended!

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7537
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1523 Post by Paul MacLean »

Casino Royale

For me this film was a refreshing change of pace for James Bond (especially after Die Another Day). I relished this more serious turn for the 007 films, and find Daniel Craig one of the most believable Bonds of all time.

Director Martin Campbell delivers a much more satisfying picture than he did with Goldeneye. The fact that the script (despite its embellishments) is based on an actual Ian Fleming novel doesn't hurt either, and results in one of the most visceral and absorbing Bond pictures in some time. The teaser is superb, the way it juxtaposes a grisly fight to the death, with Bond's far-more subdued altercation with a corrupt superior. The Madagascar chase is a relentlessly nail-biting thrill ride, with some amazing parkour stunts and absolutely phenomenal camerawork and editing.

The airport sequence is likewise awesome, from the clever knife fight (where neither Bond nor his opponent can afford to draw attention to their struggle in the crowded terminal) to the spectacular tarmac chase, and the clever way 007 does away with the wound-be bomber.

The break-neck intensity of the action scenes slows down considerably once we reach the casino -- which is a lengthy (and talky) segment with little action -- yet Campbell adroitly prevents this part of the film from becoming anticlimactic or dull. The introduction of Felix Leiter is also a nice touch.

The torture scene is the most vicious and unpleasant in any Bond film up to this point (and not at all easy to watch), but again it is a factor in the film's successful effort to establish a more realistic tone.

That said, I do think the poisoning sequence slows the film down (being superfluous to the narrative at large) and is the least-believable part of the film. Somehow Bond -- seconds from cardiac arrest -- is cognizant enough to contact MI6, ascertain what type of poison is in his system, and just happens to have a convenient defibrillator in his glove box. Moreover he is good as new moments later. :roll:

I admit I don't find Eva Green especially attractive, but she does a good job with the role of Vesper Lynd (though she does have a prickly quality -- even after she has fallen for Bond -- that is hard to embrace). It's a shame Rose Byrne did not wind-up in the role as originally announced.

Bond's relationship with M is far-more contentious (and insubordinate) than in any previous film (and Judi Dench is given much more to do), making their relationship much more interesting and character-driven.

David Arnold's choice to hold-back on the Bond theme throughout the film is a clever decision, as it makes the finale of the film -- when the theme is finally invoked -- a truly iconic moment.

I have to be honest, my personal choice to play Bond would have been Hugh Jackman, but I think Daniel Craig great. Craig is the most ruthless James Bond ever, and arguably the most believable. The debate rages over how much James Bond films should be outright fantasies, or merely somewhat-fanciful espionage thrillers. As much as I liked Moonraker, my general preference is for greater realism. A man who kills for his government, drinks large Martinis, lives on the edge and leaves a trail of corpses (some of them innocent women) in his wake would be more like the callous Daniel Craig than dandy Roger Moore.

That said, I do wish Craig and co. had made room for a little more humor. Heavens, I'd never want to go back to the camp comedy of the Moore era, but some of the sarcasm and gallows humor of the Connery era would not be unwelcome. Casino Royale is definitely not a "fun" movie -- indeed it is the most relentlessly caustic Bond film up to this point, but it works incredibly well. It is thrilling and emotionally engaging, and I rate it as one of the best.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7537
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1524 Post by Paul MacLean »

The Bourne Supremacy

Maybe it is because I've spent the last month watching Bond movies, but I found this film one of the most tedious, uninvolving, emotionally-flatlined and irritatingly-shot movies I've ever seen.

I liked The Bourne Identity, which had a compelling blend of mystery, suspense, action and an appealing love story. Supremacy kills-off the girlfriend 15 minutes into the picture (how romantic!) and spends the remainder of what feels like it's two-week running time as a gritty revenge story. I like Matt Damon in the role, but casting Brian Cox as a duplicitous government agent was a cliche.

Also, Jason Bourne is American. I love espionage stories, but the I find the CIA incredibly boring -- certainly compared to MI6 or Mossad, who operate much closer to more interesting hotspots like Europe and the Middle East.

As far as the visual style, I can tolerate some "shakeycam" (loved Battlestar Galatica) but it is so excessive in this movie, it becomes unbearable. Hand-held camerawork can be very effective (when juxtaposed with "locked-down" shots), this being one of the greatest examples...



But the swishing and swaying and near-incessant (and intentional) camera judders are so unrelenting, the film looks like was shot by someone who hadn't been to the loo in twelve hours. That, combined with the rapid cutting style, render most of the action scenes confusing and convoluted, and result in a film that is virtually unwatchable.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35761
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1525 Post by AndyDursin »

Yeah, that's the weakest of the Bourne films, but to be fair, even Martin Campbell in CASINO ROYALE dabbled in very "Bourne like" shaky cam during some of the action scenes. Not enough to make you ill, but that influence was definitely there IMO.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10550
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1526 Post by Monterey Jack »

King Kong Lives (1986): 1/2 / 10

For all of the tackiness of the 1976 King Kong remake, it's freaking Citizen Kong compared to Lives, boasting one of the dumbest, flimsiest excuses for a sequel idea ever (Kong apparently surviving his tumble from the World Trade Towers[!] and slumbering in a coma for over a decade, needing an artificial heart to survive) and boasting "special" effects so bad, it often plays like a movie made in the mid-60's as opposed to the mid-80's. No, I take that back...the 60's Toho monster epics had far better minature work and suit construction than this sorry excuse for a second chapter. Did I mention that there's a female Kong discovered in Borneo (or wherever) that's used to give K.K. a much-needed blood transfusion, and that the two hit it off with hysterical results? Linda Hamilton is fetching with her feathered Terminator-era hair, and John Scott's hard-working score is in the best Jerry Goldsmith tradition of treating absolute crap with far more melodicism and dignity than it deserves, but otherwise, this is bad-movie nirvana, filled with awkward camp, gorilla suits less convincing than in a John Landis comedy, laughable F/X and sidesplitting dialogue. Oooga-booga! :lol:

Eric Paddon
Posts: 9037
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1527 Post by Eric Paddon »

Just an awful, disgraceful film all around. The story of the production in the book on the Kong movies is much more interesting than the film ever could be!

Why is the psycho Colonel so obsessed with killing Kong? We never know, we're just supposed to boo him simply BECAUSE he's a colonel and as we know, all guys in the 80s American military are supposed to be evil people. Come on, give us a reason for goodness sake. Maybe his brother was one of the Petrox crewmen shaken off the log? Buddy stomped at Shea Stadium when Kong broke out? At least then it would make sense!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35761
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1528 Post by AndyDursin »

Don't forget the SPARTACUS rip off ending on top of it!

I actually saw that film in the theater on opening day after I got out of 6th grade...amazing because I liked it at the time. (Of course I was also 12 and just wanted to see a monster movie on the big screen. My parents took me to GODZILLA 1985 in the theater too for the one week it played!).

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10550
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1529 Post by Monterey Jack »

I didn't see King Kong Lives in theaters (or even on TV back in the day), but I do have vivid memories of seeing Godzilla '85 in theaters. I mainly remember being scared during the early scene on the Japanese fishing vessel with all of the dead bodies from the oversized ticks that came off of Godzilla's body. I was a collossal wuss as a kid when it came to "scary" stuff, but then again, there was little access to behind-the-scenes footage that showed it was all make-believe and smoke & mirrors back in the 80's (except for the occasional three-minute segment on Entertainment Tonight). That's why to this day I have little knowledge of the 80's "slasher" movie cycle, although I went through the entire run of the Nightmare On Elm St. series about four years back on a lark, and of course I've seen the original Halloween and the first two sequels. I have no desire to see any of the Friday The 13th movies.

Jedbu
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Western Michigan
Contact:

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#1530 Post by Jedbu »

I worked for a small theatre chain in Los Angeles when KKL came out, so I went to see it for free one weekday afternoon. The audience consisted of me, a senior citizen couple and a mother with three kids under the age of 10. By the time the movie was over, the mom and the kids had left, half of the couple was asleep, and I was so astounded with how Godawful the film was that, had I not worked for the chain, I would have tried to demand my money back-and I saw it for free! The film only played for a week at that theatre, and from what I was told, I had missed a great staff screening the previous Saturday, where the entire staff of the theatre and their friends had sat and hooted and had a blast watching the film after midnight. I honestly cannot remember any of John Scott's score, which I have always been told was the only worthy aspect of the film, and I have no wish to find out-seriously.

I also have fond memories of seeing the '76 remake when it came out...hoo-boy! I had planned on seeing NICKELODEON, which was playing in the other theater of the duplex, but they were having problems with the sound system so, instead of driving all the way home in a snowstorm for nothing, I thought I would try for Dino's monkey movie. The theatre was pretty full, mostly with kids and some teenagers scattered here and there. I had read everything in the press about the cost overruns ($22M, which was still quite a lot in those days) and the problems with the mechanical giant Kong, but nothing could prepare me for what I saw.

I was expecting a grand, majestic, epic sounding main title (I was familiar with Steiner's score to the original) and all I got was John Barry's large orchestration of the song "Are You In There?," which I guess was supposed to be the love theme, which did not strike me as either appropriate for a film of this scale or with enough menace for what was to come. After squirming through one of the longest, dullest, least interesting hours in monster movie history (although Rene Auberjonois did get the best line for when he discovers the oil on the island is so weak: "You'll be better off running your car on mule p***!"), one moviegoer actually stood up and shouted at the screen "Hey! Bring on the f***in' ape, man!" The audience reaction seemed to be in agreement with him, with the side benefit (for me) being a little girl sitting in front of me turning to her mom-whom I swear I heard snoring-and innocently asking "Mommy-what does f***in' mean?" The mother's reaction was to take the little girl abruptly by the hand and leave.

The rest of the film is just a blur to me (I don't remember hearing Jessica Lange ask Kong what was his sign was, although I do remember her telling Jeff Bridges that her life was saved by the movie DEEP THROAT) but I do recall the giant Kong's appearance with a feeling of "meh," and exiting the theatre without staying for the credits. I honestly just consider both of Dino's KONG films to be two parts of a whole, with the overall rating of 1/2 out of 10 for both together. :P

Post Reply