rate the last movie you saw

[Monterey Jack]

In fact, I can't imagine where Rogue's scenes would've fit -- so it'll be interesting to see what that "alternate cut" is like when it's released in July.

Supposedly, the remaining X-Men have to break Rogue out of prison so she can absorb Kitty Pryde's powers and take her place keeping Logan is the past after he inadvertently injures Kitty with his claws. Singer had to re-shoot some scenes in order to excise the Rogue subplot, which is why the upcoming "Rogue Cut" will also feature the theatrical version (each version will also have its own commentary track). I'm interested in seeing the new cut, as I always liked the Rogue/Logan storyline in the first two films, and was disappointed that Paquin was so marginalized in X-Men 3.

[Paul MacLean]

I really enjoyed X-Men: Days of Future Past. I thought it nicely blended the old cast with the new, and the ending brought things to a very satisfactory resolution. My only problem was that it never explained how and why Professor X was suddenly alive again after being disintegrated by Jean Grey (I think it would have been better to save Patrick Stewart's appearance until the final scene, as they did with Famke Jansen).

[Monterey Jack]

My only problem was that it never explained how and why Professor X was suddenly alive again after being disintegrated by Jean Grey (I think it would have been better to save Patrick Stewart's appearance until the final scene, as they did with Famke Jansen).

The post-credits scene of X-Men: The Last Stand showed the "clone body" in the hospital looking over and saying, "Hello, Moira" in Stewart's voice, and her whispering, "Charles...?"

They also never explained how Magneto still had his powers despite having them taken away in X-Men: The Last Stand, or why Wolverine still had his Adamantium claws despite having them cut off in The Wolverine. Tight continuity is not exactly a strong suit of this particular franchise.

[Paul MacLean]

My only problem was that it never explained how and why Professor X was suddenly alive again after being disintegrated by Jean Grey (I think it would have been better to save Patrick Stewart's appearance until the final scene, as they did with Famke Jansen).

The post-credits scene of X-Men: The Last Stand showed the "clone body" in the hospital looking over and saying, "Hello, Moira" in Stewart's voice, and her whispering, "Charles...?"

I saw that post-credits scene -- but it doesn't explain why he has his original body as well (and if he somehow was able to recreate his original body, you'd thing he could come up with a pair of woking legs!)

They also never explained how Magneto still had his powers despite having them taken away in X-Men: The Last Stand, or why Wolverine still had his Adamantium claws despite having them cut off in The Wolverine. Tight continuity is not exactly a strong suit of this particular franchise.

The end of X-3 at least gave us Magento manipulating the chess piece, inferring his powers were not gone.

[BobaMike]

Saw Avengers:Age of Ultron last night. It was a step down from the 1st one. The plot was too similar (not-threatening aliens replaced with cheesy robots), the action went on too long (you see Cap America hit a guy with his shield about a thousand times), and even though the movie felt long, the ending was rushed (Tony Stark leaving seemed to come out of nowhere, I thought I had missed something).

I did enjoy the fun banter between the heroes..I would have liked more scenes of them just talking and having fun. Scarlet J is beautiful as always, so that was a plus.

Not excited about Avengers 3 at all, because I could care less about the 2nd tier heroes like Scarlet Witch.

[AndyDursin]

I get that. On the flip side, having the 2nd tier heroes, though, might result in a better movie since without the big names and egos, they might be able to just tell a story without having to worry about who's saying what, when and where. That was one of the big problems in ULTRON.

Mixing up the roster was always how the comic worked too. Back when I was reading it as kid, it was always The Vision who was mostly the lead character plus Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch.

Of course, this Vision and Scarlet Witch aren't nearly as captivating as they were in the comics!

[Monterey Jack]

TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES...!

-Mad Max (1979): 9/10

-The Road Warrior: Mad Max 2 (1981): 10/10

-Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1985): 8/10

DYING to see Fury Road, but I'm working Friday and Saturday.

[AndyDursin]

Very generous score for the terribly mediocre Thunderdome IMO -- but agreed with the others!

I'm going tomorrow night for FURY ROAD. Meeting a friend, so Thursday night movies while Baby Theo sleeps seems to be an OK plan. As much as she likes Tom Hardy, this movie is most definitely NOT Joanne's cup of tea

[Monterey Jack]

Thunderdome is underrated...while I can't quite agree with Roger Ebert's four-star rave, where he opined that it was the best of the series, I think it's a movie brimming over with imaginative concepts and stunning visuals (and boasts a superb Maurice Jarre score). Yes, it's "softer" than the first two (smacking of mid-80's Spielberg with the "quick-quick!" pack of wild kids right out of Hook), and there's less action, but I find the movie grows on me with each viewing. Following up The Road Warrior was an impossible task, but Thunderdome is still a fine movie that only suffers from comparison to the middle sequel (much like Day Of The Dead compared to Dawn...people groused about that film back in the day, but it's weathered the past three decades better than expected). There's plenty to chew on in this installment, and it concluded Max's storyline in an appropriately melancholy yet hopeful manner.

[AndyDursin]

I liked it alright when I first saw but I really thought, the last time I watched it, that it's very close to a misfire. The writing is a mess -- the whole "Lord of the Flies"/Ewok civilization of castoff kids is asinine, and I still can't understand why the lead girl drops an f-bomb heading into Bartertown. I didn't buy any part of that. The opening is strong, the Tina Turner scenes are fun (if a comedown from Road Warrior), the end chase is good...and if Miller had enough energy, the film would've been fine. Unfortunately, it's very telling what sections were delegated to Oglivie because the movie grinds nearly to a dead stop for me during those moments.

Good score by Jarre, and I liked what it was trying to do at the end -- I just felt it fell far short of those goals. That, and as Paul has said, why Bruce Spence is even in the film playing a different role...never made much sense.

As for my friends Gene and Roger -- that had to have been a hell of a press junket to generate that review!

[AndyDursin]

MAD MAX FURY ROAD

8/10

See front page for full spoiler-free review

[Paul MacLean]

Cloud Atlas

A sometimes interesting, visually impressive film, that blends romance, science fiction, history, new age mysticism and comedy into a kind of "super epic". The result is a watchable, sometimes compelling but ultimately top-heavy (and overlong) narrative that weaves together several (often incongruous) storylines set in different eras, with the same cast members (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Ben Wishart and Hugh Grant among them) playing roles in each.

One storyline depicts a 19th century slave trader sailing to America who decides to help a runaway slave who has stowed away. Another (circa 1930s) involves a young gay musician (Wishart) who's inspired to write the "Cloud Atlas Symphony", only for his crotchety employer (Broadbent) to take credit for the work. Halle Berry plays a 1960s investigative journalist, while Jim Broadbent stars in a comical present day story as a low-rent publisher whose brother shutters him in a nursing home. Two science fiction scenarios round-out the narrative, one concerning a runaway clone/slave in future Korea, and the other with Hanks as primitive tribesman living centuries after civilization has collapsed.

The story with Broadbent as the beleaguered publisher is by far the most entertaining. Most of the various storylines are on some level interesting, but they are so disparate (in both setting and tone) that they all feel like different, unrelated movies.

The "slave ship" story bespeaks an attempt at social commentary along the lines of Amistad, while the "publisher" story is like something out of a BBC sitcom, and the Korea story is heavily influenced by Blade Runner and The Fifth Element. What do any of these things have to do with each other?

The film also leads one to expect a climax that intersects these various narratives -- with Wishart's "Cloud Atlas Symphony" becoming the musical centerpiece of it all -- but it never comes to pass. Moreover, this great, transcendent symphony of which Wishart and Broadbent continually wax poetic (the "McGuffin" of their segment) is barely even heard. (Of course, given the generally underwhelming nature of the film's score, it is doubtful that the picture's three composers -- one of whom is the film's co-director; the other two I've never heard of -- could have come up with anything sufficiently compelling.)

Visually the film is impressive, and the make-up used on the actors is for the most part extraordinary (except for the attempts to make actors of one race to look like another, which doesn't come off at all). But Tom Hanks' attempt to play a British gangster is handicapped by his accent, which sounds half-Belfast and half-Sheffield, while Hugh Grant's attempt to do a Texas accent is half-Dallas and half-Cockney. Hugo Weaving's "evil spirit" which perpetually haunts Tom Hanks (the future one) is sort of a bizarre cross between "Number 7" from Battlestar Galactica and Baron Samadi from Hatian lore. And why is Hugo Weaving playing a woman in another segment?

The film's inference that people reincarnate and are reunited their lovers from past lives doesn't really come over too well, seeing that Hanks and Barre play lovers in two of the stories, but Barre plays Broadbent's wife in another, and Broadbent winds-up with Susan Sarandon in yet another.

Cloud Atlas is not bereft of charm or interest, but it doesn't really hold together either. The filmmakers greatly overreach in their attempt to organize these eclectic stories into a cohesive whole, and the film's overlong running time (nearly three hours) doesn't help matters.

Oh...and some automotive trivia -- VW Beetles were airtight, so Barre's car would not have sunk.

[AndyDursin]

It’s never a good sign that my first response after starting “Cloud Atlas” – and upon hearing Tom Hanks’ garbled dialogue – was to double-check the disc menu to ensure it was set on English.

http://andyfilm.com/2013/05/15/5-21-13- ... -archives/

[Paul MacLean]

It’s never a good sign that my first response after starting “Cloud Atlas” – and upon hearing Tom Hanks’ garbled dialogue – was to double-check the disc menu to ensure it was set on English.

http://andyfilm.com/2013/05/15/5-21-13- ... -archives/

Andy, that review is one of the funniest things you've ever written!

[Monterey Jack]

Cloud Atlas suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.