rate the last movie you saw

[DavidBanner]

By the way, I'm not saying that those are the only bonuses on the Gravity Blu-ray. I'm sure there will be more. Those were just the ones that were getting discussed at the moment.

[AndyDursin]

SEVEN UPS
8/10



A good deal better than I recall, this pseudo-sequel to THE FRENCH CONNECTION from the same creative team -- sans William Friedkin -- offers a gritty Roy Scheider performance as the head of an elite undercover unit of the NYPD. The movie doesn't have the kinetic energy of Friedkin, but it's still a tough, compelling yarn from cop Sony Grosso with a crackerjack car chase sequence at its center. The realism extends to its NYC shooting in the midst of urban decay, giving the movie a great deal of atmosphere.

I watched the German Blu-Ray last night, which has a decent though unspectacular transfer -- but the moderately budgeted film (for its time) likely will never look much better than it does here. The US DVD from Fox is still in print and will likely suffice if you've never seen it. Good stuff!

[jkholm]

MOONRAKER 6/10

The Alamo Drafthouse here in Dallas had a screening of MOONRAKER last night with Richard Kiel in attendance. He did a lengthy Q&A before the film in which he talked about his role as "Jaws" as well as many other roles. He told a nice story about how he played the Hulk in a TV movie pilot and how relieved he was that he didn't get the role in the series since he hated the makeup and contact lenses he had to wear. Most of the audience knew him for Jaws but there were some younger people who are HAPPY GILMORE fans and some older folks who asked about The Monkees and The Wild Wild West. He's 74 now and gets around in a motorized scooter. I sat in the front row and he was right in front of me.

As for the movie, it's fun (if you like the more humorous Moore era) but still has some flaws. The villain is one-dimensional (although I loved his lines near the end like "Engage laser!" and "Prepare to destroy spacecraft!") Lois Chiles was very attractive but too aloof to be likeable.

[Paul MacLean]

Das Boot -- The Director's Cut



Certainly one of the best war films ever made -- and one with such sympathetic, realistic characters, the viewer never once thinks of them as "the bad guys". Technically this film has aged unbelievably well, and there is virtually nothing on screen that suggests it is over 30 years old (indeed it feels even now like something made only a few years ago). Jost Vacano 's camerawork is a paragon of technique and innovation, and Klaus Doldinger's score is understated but immensely powerful (he's someone who should have scored a lot more films than he did). The effects also hold-up incredibly well by today's standards.

I'd seen the German-language theatrical cut of Das Boot twice on the big screen (and the English-dubbed version "The Boat" once on VHS). While the "director's cut" is very effective, I'm not sure the film gains anything from the added footage. Unlike Apocalypse Now Redux, there are no hitherto unseen sequences which weren't in the theatrical version (except for a brief, slightly comical scene which opens the film). There is more dialog in the director's cut, and the longer version provides a better feeling of how tedious it is for the crew to be at sea for weeks with no action, but none of the added footage adds to the overall story in a significant way. Overall I'd rate the faster-paced theatrical cut as superior.

In any case, this film in either cut remains Wolfgang Petersen's masterpiece, and he's never made a picture this effective or challenging since. Das Boot has so much more dramatic weight than any of Petersen's Hollywood movies (most of which are basically "popcorn flicks"). I wish he'd make more films with this level of artistry.

[mkaroly]

Love DAS BOOT - great film in every way. I have the 293 minute version of the film on DVD and the movie is so engrossing that I don't even notice the time passing away.

[AndyDursin]

HUNGER GAMES - CATCHING FIRE

7.5/10

Compelling second entry in the Hunger Games series plays like a more polished re-run of the first movie -- a good amount of talk and romantic intrigue drive the movie's first half before the Games begin again with a succession of well-executed scenes courtesy of director Francis Lawrence. Jennifer Lawrence once again carries the action with another can't-take-your-eyes-off-her type of performance, and the movie goes by quickly even with a lengthy, 146 minute running time.

The main reservation I have with the film is basically the same problem I had with the original: there's next to no backstory or real development outside the core characters, so you have to take it at face value...which means accepting that this evil Dystopia that makes life miserable for its inhabitants is basically Donald Sutherland calling the shots while sipping tea and sending out small groups of thugs to do his bidding. It doesn't really make sense (the failure to develop the backdrop leaves too many nagging questions dangling for my tastes), but I guess it doesn't have to -- so long as you don't think too much about it. The cliffhanger ending also gives off the same vibe as the second Matrix sequel, which doesn't help matters either, though the fans gave a smattering of applause when it was over.

One other quibble: I found the film excessively dark, so much that it was hard to see what was happening at times. Good thing they didn't bother putting this in 3D or it could've been even worse!

[Monterey Jack]

One other quibble: I found the film excessively dark, so much that it was hard to see what was happening at times. Good thing they didn't bother putting this in 3D or it could've been even worse!

Apparently, it's this film's version of the awful shakey-cam from the original...an attempt to "hide" the worst of the violence to earn that lucrative PG-13. Agreed that it was kind of ridiculous at times...almost Peter Hyams levels of darkness.

Anyways, I liked the film about the same as you (maybe I'd bump it to an 8/10 because it's technically leaps and bounds a better-made movie that the first, with James Newton Howard's score amongst the year's best, faint praise at that might be). I've heard nothing but bad things about the third novel (even from the most rabid series fans), and the fact that they're cutting it in half makes me even more leery. All of the worst elements of the second book that thankfully trimmed out of the movie, but it seems like they're gonna needlessly extend the last one just to extort another billion dollars' worth of ticket sales. Imagine if Return Of The Jedi were cut into two 2 1/2 hour movies.

[AndyDursin]

I haven't read the books -- I guess they're from Katniss' POV or roughly along those lines? -- but that may be part of the problem with these movies for me. They're slavish to the books and their scope, but when you are putting them on-screen, what's left unanswered on the page becomes an issue if it's not spelled out on-screen. The power of suggestion doesn't translate to the visual medium when it's being literalized and you start asking questions about "how did this society get here," "how many people are running it," etc. All we ever see is Donald Sutherland rolling his eyes and sitting in his living room -- and yet it's supposedly this totalitarian like government that stifles its people? Maybe it's not a concern for the book readers but when it's not filled in, on-screen, for viewers like me new to the material, it's an issue. I mean, who is Elizabeth Banks supposed to be anyway? Why does she act so crazy? And yet she's able to act like that even in a stifling environment where anyone who doesn't fit in is beaten down or executed? How is Woody Harrelson's character able to scheme and help Katniss out when the regime simply wants to put everyone in their place?

It might sound like a lot of little issues, but I just have problems with what this world is supposed to be. Again, maybe if you read the books, this stuff is either fleshed out more, or it's left to you to fill in the gaps -- but in the film medium, the flaws become magnified because they're not developed.

Again, I'm not saying I haven't liked these films, but I see people RAVING about them and I don't get the fuss. It doesn't really engage me emotionally at all -- it's all stylishly done and well acted, but it doesn't leave me with any lasting impact.

This leads into the other issue: these adaptations are, by and large, being made more and more these days for book readers, and less for viewers who aren't already familiar with them. As a consequence, they might be "faithful" but they don't work so well as standalone motion pictures. It's the same feeling I had with most of the Harry Potter movies -- especially the later ones (though I've liked these two Hunger Games movies much more than the middle/later end of the Potter pictures).

[AndyDursin]

Also, I can't wait for December 13th so I don't have to watch another trailer for THE HOBBIT. So sick of seeing that ad for the last six months -- and I'll make another prediction: it'll be lucky to do half of what the first one did. Nobody liked it, only the hardcore fans are going to show up -- at least in the U.S.

[jkholm]

I haven't read the books -- I guess they're from Katniss' POV or roughly along those lines? -- but that may be part of the problem with these movies for me. They're slavish to the books and their scope, but when you are putting them on-screen, what's left unanswered on the page becomes an issue if it's not spelled out on-screen. The power of suggestion doesn't translate to the visual medium when it's being literalized and you start asking questions about "how did this society get here," "how many people are running it," etc. All we ever see is Donald Sutherland rolling his eyes and sitting in his living room -- and yet it's supposedly this totalitarian like government that stifles its people? Maybe it's not a concern for the book readers but when it's not filled in, on-screen, for viewers like me new to the material, it's an issue. I mean, who is Elizabeth Banks supposed to be anyway? Why does she act so crazy? And yet she's able to act like that even in a stifling environment where anyone who doesn't fit in is beaten down or executed? How is Woody Harrelson's character able to scheme and help Katniss out when the regime simply wants to put everyone in their place?

It might sound like a lot of little issues, but I just have problems with what this world is supposed to be. Again, maybe if you read the books, this stuff is either fleshed out more, or it's left to you to fill in the gaps -- but in the film medium, the flaws become magnified because they're not developed.

Again, I'm not saying I haven't liked these films, but I see people RAVING about them and I don't get the fuss. It doesn't really engage me emotionally at all -- it's all stylishly done and well acted, but it doesn't leave me with any lasting impact.

This leads into the other issue: these adaptations are, by and large, being made more and more these days for book readers, and less for viewers who aren't already familiar with them. As a consequence, they might be "faithful" but they don't work so well as standalone motion pictures. It's the same feeling I had with most of the Harry Potter movies -- especially the later ones (though I've liked these two Hunger Games movies much more than the middle/later end of the Potter pictures).

I also don't like the trend of movies that follow the book practically word for word. What works on the page doesn't necessarily work on the screen. I've only read the first Hunger Games book and found it mildly enjoyable. I was hoping that the screenwriter would fix some of the book's problems, like the sluggish opening act. Another missed opportunity was to expand upon the oppressive government that runs the games. They did that a little bit with Sutherland's character, who I don't remember even being in the book that much. Unfortunately what we got was a competent and faithful adaptation, but not an exciting one.

[AndyDursin]

I also don't like the trend of movies that follow the book practically word for word. What works on the page doesn't necessarily work on the screen. I've only read the first Hunger Games book and found it mildly enjoyable. I was hoping that the screenwriter would fix some of the book's problems, like the sluggish opening act. Another missed opportunity was to expand upon the oppressive government that runs the games. They did that a little bit with Sutherland's character, who I don't remember even being in the book that much. Unfortunately what we got was a competent and faithful adaptation, but not an exciting one.

And this movie, while a bit more exciting, is really more of the same.

From reading some of the reviews of her books, it seems the story ISN'T fleshed out much more...so that's a problem with the source material.

[Monterey Jack]

Not fleshing out how the totalitarian society came into power didn't matter so much in the first book, and it's all told in first-person perspective from Katniss' POV, so she doesn't know much about how it all works aside from what the government allows her and her "district" to know, but the second book (and movie) didn't really have an excuse not to start expanding the world that author Suzanne Collins created. Then again, this is Young Adult literature, which is notoriously filled with logic holes and narrative lapses, but who cares, as long as there's a love triangle involving two hot guys and a blank slate of a heroine to imagine yourself as? I'll probably read the last book despite the bad reviews simply because I hate leaving anything unfinished, but I doubt it offers many explanations that are satisfactory. That's the problem with "speculative" sci-fi movies...very few of them really imagine a plausible world, because the director/writers are too busy using the plot as some heavy-handed alarmist metaphor for How We Live Today (like this past summer's goofy Elysium, which was a decent enough action movie wrapped in a laughably obvious metaphorical shell). It's like old Twilight Zone episodes bloated to feature length, which robs them of the succinct punch that made them work in the first place. The Hunger Games would have made for a great episode of an anthology series, or just as a brisk, standalone movie, but by turning it into an "epic" series, it just lays bare all the flaws in the storytelling and world-building.

I just wish that its success would inspire a film version of Stephen King's awfully similar novel The Long Walk, but that doesn't have a love triangle, so little chance...

[Jedbu]

WHITE CHRISTMAS: 4/10

Had not watched this film all the way through in probably 30 years but remembered that there were some things about it that I felt did not jell completely. Pulled out the Paramount Blu-Ray last night-yup, some parts are not so good but will talk about what I like first.

1) Rosemary Clooney is GORGEOUS, and she sings so beautifully, as well. Her character....well....see below.

2) The image on the Blu-Ray is stunning, with color that is so luscious you could eat it with a spoon and the clarity of the image is so good that you would never guess you are watching a film that is almost 60 years old.

3) I love the interior sets for the inn-they look like they actually shot those scenes at a real Vermont resort.

4) Der Bingle is always good, and some of his line readings you can tell were his own little flourishes rather than just recitations.

5) The title song is always worth hearing, and two other songs: "Count Your Blessings" and ""Love-You Didn't Do Right By Me" are some of Irving Berlin's best later songs.

6) Moments like the tracking shot of the troops as Crosby sings the title tune at the beginning as they prepare to move out and when Dean Jagger enters the dining room at the end and his former troops stand at attention are real gems.

7) Did I mention that Clooney looks gorgeous?

As for the rest of the film....this is one of those movies where two hours feels longer. With the exception of the three songs mentioned earlier the others just seem to stop the film in its tracks. The "Snow" number is probably one of the least interesting songs in the Berlin catalog, along with "When My Dreams Come True" from THE COCOANUTS. The minstrel medley appears to be Paramount's attempt to put on a minstrel number but without any white people in blackface, which by 1954 was pretty much politically incorrect, and the restaging of "Abraham," which had been done in blackface in HOLIDAY INN 12 years before, is pretty much just giving Vera Ellen another energetic number. "Choreography" is probably one of Danny Kaye's most forgettable specialty numbers.

With the exception of the scenes at the train station, the whole film-both interiors and exteriors-is on soundstages, and while sometimes it works (the Florida nightclub where Clooney and Ellen perform is supposed to be open-air and looks nice) but the "pier," were Kaye and Ellen do their "The Best Things Happen When You're Dancing" number is probably the phoniest looking water set since the early days of sound, and the war scenes at the beginning are shot against one of the most artificial backdrops I have ever seen. The super clarity of VistaVision and HD really make these sets stand out. In some ways, the musical numbers make you feel like you are watching one of those early sound "revue" films, but with better sound and some actual camera movement.

The comedy in the film is so-so, with the most laughs coming at the end of the "Sisters" number that Crosby and Kaye perform and where you can tell that Der Bingle and Kaye are barely able to keep from breaking up completely. The scene where Kaye tries to keep Jagger from watching TV is OK, but I almost felt like I was watching warmed over Jerry Lewis in that scene. And as for Clooney's character, she falls in love with Crosby a little quickly, but when she hears some misinformation about his plans for Christmas Eve, she swallows it hook, line and sinker without even asking Crosby about what he is going to do and comes off as a little bi-polar in leaving then, returning after she sees the real situation (and evidently cancelling a NYC night club engagement after only one night to go back-now THAT'S professional). The film really needed one scene where either Crosby confided the scheme to her so that she could help him with it-but then the film would have only been about 90 minutes long-or one at the end where she apologizes for being such a flibbertygibbet and walking out on the show at the inn (another good bit of professionalism).

All in all, WHITE CHRISTMAS is not an awful film, just a mediocre one that if it were not the first VistaVision film probably would not have the reputation that it does have. If I'm going to watch a Christmas musical, I think I'll either watch HOLIDAY INN or SCROOGE from now on.

[jkholm]

FROZEN 8/10
Highly entertaining animated fantasy based on The Snow Queen about two sisters, one of whom (Elsa) has the magical ability to create ice and snow. When her powers run amok and the kingdom is threatened by a perpetual winter, she runs away. Her determined sister Anna goes after her with the help of a sensible young man (an ice trader), his reindeer pal and an anthropomorphic snowman. Complicating matters is a prince whom Anna falls in love with.

The music is a highlight here with several memorable songs sung in Broadway fashion. In fact, this is probably the best Disney musical since the days of Ashman and Menken in the 90's. The score by Christophe Beck is good too. (It doesn't sound like Zimmer! Yay!)

The jokes are funny and Olaf the snowman is hilarious. There's also some nice subversion of traditional Disney princess tropes. When Anna impulsively decides to get married because of love at first sight, several characters point out what a bad idea this is. Also, the idea of an act of true love breaking a magical spell is handled quite nicely and plays out in a very satisfying way.

One drawback is the backstory of Kristoff (the ice trader.) In one scene he takes Anna to meet his "family." I won't spoil it but it's strange. Perhaps his background was better fleshed out in an earlier version of the script. It's not a huge problem but does seem out of place.

[AndyDursin]

Thanks for the review John -- my wife and I are looking forward to seeing it...though it'll probably be next week.