Page 230 of 307

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:05 pm
by Monterey Jack
There are plenty of "new-to-me" 80s genre films I've seen within the last decade I've greatly enjoyed, but I can't force myself to like someone else's childhood cult favorite. Like Krull, it's a film with a baffling, never-explained "mythos" (what the hell IS "The Quickening", aside from not being a word?) that makes this seem like there were five movies prior to this that you didn't see, and it's not terribly exciting. The laughs are all of the unintentional variety (Clancy Brown is AWFUL in this :lol: ), the Queen soundtrack is obtrusive, and while Kamen's score is fine and the location footage is often very pretty, how could a movie set in Scotland feature Sean Connery, and cast him as a SPANIARD?!

Eh, maybe eight years from now, I'll watch it again and the flaws might be less glaring, but Highlander is total bunk. Give me ambitious "generic Disney dreck" like the bafflingly underrated Last Jedi any day.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:58 pm
by AndyDursin
Hahaha lol. I will take my bad movie over yours!! :mrgreen:

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:25 pm
by AndyDursin
About to watch...


Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:04 pm
by Paul MacLean
Monterey Jack wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:05 pm how could a movie set in Scotland feature Sean Connery, and cast him as a SPANIARD?!
I suppose they could have cast Ricardo Montalban or Fernando Rey -- but I'm inclined to doubt they'd have brought the same dashing swagger to the role.

Like I said, Highlander is far from perfect, but I don't see how anyone could not be thrilled by a sequence like this...



...or not moved by this...


Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:07 pm
by Monterey Jack
Different strokes. Maybe I'll warm to it on subsequent viewings, but I found it all rather dumb and incoherent.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:24 am
by Paul MacLean
As far as genre movies in the 1980s, films back then were more freewheeling -- and as a result, generally more entertaining, even when the results were kitschy.

A movie like Howard the Duck is utterly silly, but to me a lot of fun (particularly Jeffrey Jones' performance -- plus it had a very nice John Barry score). Flash Gordon is totally ludicrous, but I love it. Legend may have paper-thin characters, but it's gorgeous to behold (and contains Jerry Goldsmith's best score). The NeverEnding Story has awkward moments (and not the most satisfying finale) but it too is gorgeously realized and scored (the German version anyway). The Lair of the White Worm is kinky and at times sophomoric -- but also genuinely spooky and highly atmospheric (and hilarious!). And Highlander I enjoy for all the reasons I stated.

These movies are certainly not in league with classics like Raiders, Star Trek II or Conan The Barbarian...but I still enjoy them!

Movies today are all slick, intense, full of "impressive" (and generic) effects sequences, with boring, themeless scores -- and as a result are completely sterile.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:52 am
by AndyDursin
Not to mention often lacking in character detail and humor (all the better to appeal to foreign markets) and dominated by corporate safe SJW tendencies.

Truly this is the dullest, least innovative cinematic era of my lifetime. The regurgitated brands and remakes got old years ago, but it sadly seems increasingly like this era is going to continue for a long way to come

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:06 pm
by AndyDursin
THE PUPPET MASTERS (1994)
7/10

Image

Robert A. Heinlein’s “The Puppet Masters” was one of the most influential sci-fi novels of all-time, having set the stage for countless imitators and rip-offs – both in print and on the big screen – for years to come. Unfortunately, by the time Hollywood Pictures produced the first-ever motion picture rendition of Heinlein’s material decades after its publication, countless films had already covered similar terrain, particularly “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and “Invaders From Mars” among others.

The resulting “Puppet Masters” movie – a box-office wipeout in the fall of ‘94 – is a curiously watchable yet highly flawed film that’s indifferently acted and occasionally quite funny on an unintentional level. The screenplay by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (who would later write the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films for Disney) and future Christopher Nolan collaborator David S. Goyer might have read better on paper, yet the film’s execution is stilted and “off” – way, way off! Donald Sutherland stars as a “Men in Black”-type government agent investigating an extraterrestrial invasion that finds bat-shaped alien creatures binding themselves to the necks of human victims, thereby taking over their minds. Limp work from Eric Thal and Julie Warner (cute but completely unconvincing as a rocket scientist!) is partially off-set by veteran character actors (Will Patton, Yaphet Kotto, Keith David and Richard Belzer) with a better grasp of what they’re doing, though even Sutherland himself seems out of it in a role that’s a far cry from his turn in Philip Kaufman’s “Body Snatchers.”

Director Stuart Orme – whose career is mostly comprised of British TV credits – brings an overly placid, almost PBS-like approach to material that ought to crackle with suspense and horror. Instead, the movie’s stone-faced, serious demeanor ends up becoming a near parody of itself – something that’s accentuated by Colin Towns’ earnest but likewise portentous dramatic score, which tends to punctuate some of the movie’s more unintentionally hilarious moments (the entire opening where Warner tries to prove that there’s something wrong because men aren’t checking her out is worth the price of admission by itself).

Still, the movie – shot in Fresno by a U.S. studio with American actors but a mostly British crew -- is far from a total loss: between its infrequent moments of comedy and the old-school (very old) special effects of the aliens flying about, “The Puppet Masters” proves to be watchable, old-fashioned sci-fi played so sincerely that fans of Golden Age fare are likely to be entertained by it, provided they can get into the right mindset. It’s no “Lifeforce” but, then again, what is?

Kino Lorber has struck gold again with a super new Blu-Ray of “The Puppet Masters,” commissioning a series of all-new special features. Orme and editor David Yardley provide a fresh commentary while interviews with Julie Warner, Keith David and Richard Belzer comprise an engaging set of retrospective conversations. A new doc, “Robert A. Heinlein: The Puppet Grand Master,” sets out to profile the influential author with David Gerrold and other genre scribes admitting this film was far closer to Heinlein than Paul Verhoeven was in his “Starship Troopers” adaptation, while a segment on the movie’s FX are also included plus an animated photo gallery, booklet notes and the trailer. Visually the 1080p (2.35) transfer looks on par with Mill Creek’s out-of-print bargain Blu, but the audio options are more robust thanks to the inclusion of a 5.1 DTS MA track in addition to the original 2-channel stereo.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:54 pm
by Paul MacLean
I Am Dragon (ОН ДРАКОН) (8/10)

Solid, entertaining Russian-made fantasy / love story from 2015. I was expecting a bottom-drawer indie cheapie, but this film boasts very good production value and is well-realized. It is a bit derivative -- it's part Beauty and the Beast, part How To Train Your Dragon, part Twilight, part The Blue Lagoon -- yet somehow never really feels unoriginal. The effects aren't anything Earth-shattering -- but they're every bit as good as anything produced by ILM or Weta. Performances are first-rate too. The score is a bit lacking (the usual "Remote Control"-type thing, albeit more subdued). I Am Dragon may not be the greatest or most original movie I've seen, but it is suspenseful, touching and adroitly-rendered -- and a darn sight better than most anything from Disney, or the adolescent sadomasochism of Game of Thrones.

Image

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:44 pm
by Paul MacLean
Legend (directors cut) 8/10

I hadn't actually watched this film in over ten years. I'd always been a huge fan of the score, and visual style of the movie. It's no secret Legend was a much-derided film (though the criticisms aimed at this picture almost invariably conflate its three different versions), and I admit that over time I started to wonder if the warm regard I held for it was due more to nostalgia.

Revisiting Legend the other night, I was once again exceedingly impressed. I know the movie has its critics, some of whom have pilloried it as "laughably bad". But I look at Legend and ask -- in complete sincerity -- what is so wrong with this movie?

Yes, it has a few faults -- some of the goblins' dialog makes me wince a bit, especially the attempts at humor ("I get the point, Lord", "Adios, amigos!"). Some of the editing is a little clunky -- as in the early scenes of Jack and Lily and the subsequent unicorn sequence (though this is adroitly smoothed-over by Jerry Goldsmith's score -- more on him later).

I can't deny I wish that there was a little more character development, but I also can't find anything really "wrong" with the characters themselves, who are traditional folkloric personages. There is Jack (Tom Cruise), whose character arc, transforming from wild forest hermit to brave hero, is compelling and rings true. Some have mocked Cruise's casting (and performance), but in fact he he fits the role like a glove -- I think a lot of people simply can't handle the sight of the cool guy from Top Gun playing a "pansy".

Princess Lily (Mia Sara) is lovely and feisty, and proves a strong female character -- not "strong" like today's more androgynous female leads, but strong in her use of feminine wiles to seduce and manipulate, first with Jack, and finally to outsmart the Lord of Darkness himself. Cruise and Sara's scenes together have been mocked as "sicky sweet" -- but have you ever seen a young couple in love? That's precisely how they behave.

The supporting cast is also wonderful, from the diminutive Gump (in an amazing performance by David Bennent), to the alluring fairy Oona (Annabelle Lanyon), hopelessly in love with Jack but unable to comprehend the workings of the human heart. Tim Curry's Lord of Darkness is certainly the most arresting-looking movie villain ever, a towering presence of black-hearted megalomania and sensuality.

And there is no question that Legend is one of the most-impressive and beautiful-looking movies ever made. This is how fairy tales are supposed to look, from the massive trees and pastoral splendor of the forest, to the colossal subterranean caverns of the Lord of Darkness' stronghold. Scott garnishes these beautiful sets with all manner of imaginative embellishments -- mist and cottonwood spores, sporadic raindrops, fog and (sorry MJ!) magic bubbles that evoke a fairy otherworld.

Image Image Image

Jerry Goldsmith's score exhibits the composer at the apex of his inspiration. His music for Legend may not be as "ground breaking" as that of Planet of the Apes or Alien, and (in style) it does recall previous scores (The Secret of NIMH, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Supergirl). But this is a score that must evoke tradition (not the unknown), and never was Goldsmith more inspired, nor given the space to be so unabashedly lyrical and magically epic. Legend is his finest effort, by a considerable margin (which made its removal from the US cut all the more devastating).

It's a shame that Ridley Scott lost confidence in the film, owing to a bad test screening. I'm not convinced Legend would have been a box office juggernaut even if the directors cut had been released to theaters, but it trying to contort an old school fairy tale into something for the John Hughes audience certainly didn't work (and besides, the audience for teen dramas was ebbing by 1986, as their core audience was pushing 20). I also prefer the more bittersweet ending of the director's cut to that of the theatrical versions.

Legend is not a "cinema classic" on the level of Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia or Amadeus. And in the broader context of fantasy genre, it probably does not occupy the top shelf -- it is not as great as The Wizard of Oz, Excalibur or the better Harry Potter movies. But I contend it is not terribly far-behind. It is certainly a better film than The NeverEnding Story, Ladyhawk or Eregon (and is infinitely superior to the recent Star Wars movies, or comic book adaptations from the past ten years).

In some ways, Legend occupies the same category as The Dark Crystal -- a film which likewise wants of deeper characterization and narrative complexity -- but makes-up for them by immersing the viewer in a totally convincing world, a pretty compelling story, and some of the most mind-blowingly imaginative visuals ever (and of course a phenomenal score). Legend's visual style has also been hugely influential, and informed the look of many subsequent efforts -- Jim Henson's The StoryTeller, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings (and a slew of music videos and commercials).

It has long-appeared to me that much of Legend's criticism comes from guys (particularly nerdy guys) who crave action and effects. Legend is admittedly short on those, but long on romance and (hinted) eroticism. Tellingly, a great deal (perhaps even most) of Legend's fans are women (it was the favorite film of a gal I was involved with a few years ago -- believe me, you don't what a kick it is to give your sweetheart the soundtrack from her favorite movie, for which you've written the liner notes, but I digress!). In many ways, Legend is actually a chick flick, and its allure thus lost on a lot of men.

The Fox International Blu-ray contains an excellent transfer (you were right Andy!). The print is grainy in places but honestly looks as good as the European release cut in most scenes. My only criticism is the sound mix is a bit shrill (was this mastered at a low bit rate?).

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:15 pm
by Monterey Jack
Paul MacLean wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:44 pmScott garnishes these beautiful sets with all manner and imaginative embellishments -- mist and cottonwood spores, sporadic raindrops, fog and (sorry MJ!) magic bubbles that evoke the fairy otherworld.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:22 pm
by AndyDursin
Fantastic review Paul!
Paul MacLean wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:44 pmThe Fox International Blu-ray contains an excellent transfer (you were right Andy!). The print is grainy in places but honestly looks as good as the European release cut in most scenes. My only criticism is the sound mix is a bit shrill (was this mastered at a low bit rate?).
I'd be interested in your thoughts if you went back and checked out the U.S. Blu-Ray again. The audio is mastered at a higher bit-rate (and it's in a DTS MA track instead of plain Dolby Digital) on the Universal disc, even though the video is in an inferior codec. However, from my memory, there's little difference between the audio on the two discs. I think that's because the audio IS a bit shrill and was hampered by the condition of the elements -- Chase Audio did as good a job as they could have back at the time, but it was not a refined audio mix to begin with. They didn't have music and dialogue elements to play with, they were stuck with the answer print as it was.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:40 pm
by Paul MacLean
Monterey Jack wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:15 pm

Well...Legend is in good company...


Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:42 pm
by Paul MacLean
AndyDursin wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:22 pm Fantastic review Paul!
Thanks!

AndyDursin wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:22 pm I'd be interested in your thoughts if you went back and checked out the U.S. Blu-Ray again.
I'll have to give it a look -- tho if it was drawn from the same answer print & soundtrack it wouldn't surprise me if there was no difference.

Re: rate the last movie you saw

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:05 pm
by AndyDursin
I'll have to give it a look -- tho if it was drawn from the same answer print & soundtrack it wouldn't surprise me if there was no difference.
It is, it's the same master, the only differences are the superior codec of the Fox European disc and the higher audio bit-rate of the Universal U.S. release. But the mix and the transfer are identical.