love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (2013-2016)  (Read 973495 times)

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6800 on: November 28, 2015, 03:09:10 AM »
Crimson Tide
Tony Scott (1995)

You know immediately from its title that Crimson Tide is either going to be about the time of the month from hell or communists. Thankfully it is the latter.

Although to be fair you could argue that in the movie Russia is going through the mother(-land) of times of the month.

Crimson Tide is a deceptively simple movie. At its core is a dichotomy represented by the confrontation of two characters. Gene Hackman plays a seasoned submarine captain who is ready and willing to atom bomb Russia back to the stone age and will do so as soon as he is ordered to. He is a « hard-ass » made hard by his experience of combat and the cold war. By contrast, Denzel Washington is a green, if competent, XO who has never seen action. He is willing to fire the missiles but will refuse to do so until he has gotten the latest information that a breach in communication has stopped the submarine from getting. He prefers to bond with and encourage the crew instead of riding them hard.

As we learn by the end of the movie, from a legal standpoint both characters turn out to be equally right and wrong relatively to their choice about whether to fire the missiles or get the latest orders first. The film is not about Washington taking over a warmongering trigger-happy dinosaur but about the transition from the cold war era to the a new, (hopefully) less belligerent age.

The strength of the movie is that nothing is black and white. Hackman is not a bad simple-minded guy ; he is a great captain and complicated character. But he comes to understand that maybe the time for soldiers like him has gone and it is the Washingtons of the world who are better prepared to deal with what is to come.

« All I gotta know is how to push it, they tell me when. They seem to want you to know why. »

Hackman's remark is a little on the nose but the dialogue works well and the script is one of the definite strengths of the film. It enables Scott to effectively establish characters that are more complex than what you usually get in action movies and makes for great entertainment, both amid the chaos and the calm. The exchange about horses as everyone nerve-wrenchingly awaits for the orders is a treasure.

I don't know if Crimson Tide is too hopeful about human nature and the nature of the people who find themselves inhabiting continent-sundering machines. Everyone in the submarine is terrified by the prospect of nuclear war and they all very much hope they will not have to rain hellfire upon Russia ; their leaders agonize over the decisions they have to make, about the personal considerations that inevitably come into play, their moral codes and military law. I hope these are indeed the people who man nuclear submarines as opposed to those who wish they will one day have the opportunity to put them to use.

Submarines are perhaps the tensest place imaginable when push comes to shove - except perhaps space ships like that of Alien. The movie uses that wisely to build tension and by the end it you can almost taste the sweat pearling down on every character's forehead. You feel the heat of close-quarters and the claustrophobia of it. Somehow they all manage to retain a level of calm and ultimately are able to take a step back and take the most reasonable course of action. Perhaps improbably, no one ever makes a unfortunately drastic decision.

What Crimson Tide best conveys is the terror that must have permeated the worst moments of the cold war, the threat of doom that created people who were ready to obliterate lest they be obliterated first. It is a paradox that a submarine captain, far from being the most senior member of the navy, should have power akin a president's in one way, and yet refuse to question orders. This is quintessentially a movie of its time and could not be made today. It is a time machine that leads you to the last place you would fantasize about but you're glad it does because the trip turns out to be unexpectedly fun.

7/10 - Solid thriller

What's the deal with Tony Scott and Denzel Washington ?
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6801 on: November 28, 2015, 09:31:02 AM »
What's the deal with Tony Scott and Denzel Washington ?
Mutual respect. Tony never questioned Denzel's acting choices and Denzel never questioned Scott's directing decisions.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6802 on: November 28, 2015, 10:35:19 AM »
Well, Mockingjay Part 2 is the worst of the franchise. I'm giving it a Fair (61) for now, but that feels too generous. Adam and Josh pretty much voiced my disappointment.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6803 on: November 28, 2015, 11:41:42 AM »
I'm watching it Sunday.  My daughter and I just rewatched Catching Fire and MJ P1.  I expect an actiony ending, and I expect to enjoy it. 

I'm not listening to anyone who says otherwise.  Yet.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6804 on: November 28, 2015, 10:06:16 PM »
Spring (2014)

I don't really get the Before Sunrise comparisons here, because I don't find the people all that charming or captivating. In fact, the film did a lot to lose me off the bat by being very testosterone-fueled. It doesn't maintain that particular approach, but it did waste the opportunity for me to care about the lead. As the nature of the love interest is revealed, it actually struck me more as compared to Let The Right One In, a haunted relationship at its center. The actress even seems plausible as Lina Leandersson grown up. But, you know, without being great like LTROI. This one just seems a bit...too complicated.

C

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6805 on: November 29, 2015, 10:11:46 AM »
Attack The Block (2011)

This is more grisly than I remembered but it more than holds up. Sadly, its racial/class commentary seems even more relevant now than it did then.

A-

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6806 on: November 29, 2015, 10:04:43 PM »
Was sick yesterday and today which led to a sort of mini-marathon where one film lead into the other.

A 2nd viewing of How Green Was My Valley, this time with raised expectations. I was enjoying it but Mrs. 1SO found the constant singing annoying. She wanted more story and less sonic atmosphere so after an hour I decided to go in the opposite direction and show her Riot in Cell Block 11 which she took to immediately. I liked it a little less than before but it's still among the best prison films.

That led to another Don Siegel prison film, Escape From Alcatraz, which I haven't seen in decades. It's * * * - Good, but so focused on unfussy storytelling it's a little too by-the-numbers, including characters who never develop dimension.

Our 3rd Don Siegel film was Charley Varrick, which I've wanted to rewatch for a long time. Sadly, it didn't hold up to my memories and I'm downgrading it from * * * 1/2 to * * * - Okay. It starts strong but quickly runs out of energy. Walter Matthau is great but the rest of the cast either tries to hard (Joe Don Baker) or not hard enough (Andrew Robinson).

That led into The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1973) which holds up beautifully. * * * 1/2. The pacing is quick, the stakes remain high, the action is fluid and there's a lot of comedy I didn't notice the first time in the way the dialogue captures the attitude of New York City. Joseph Sargent wins the directing contest over all three by Siegel.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6807 on: November 30, 2015, 12:10:34 AM »
Glad you ended your mini marathon on a high note, 1SO! Hope you're feeling better now.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6808 on: November 30, 2015, 12:11:52 AM »
My opinion of Trainwreck expressed in the style of a Judd Apatow film.

You ever read a review and you get the point in one sentence, but the review goes on for several sentences and each sentence makes the exact same point in a different way. Like you start with the basic opinion, and then you give some "shocking" version of the same opinion, followed by a pop culture version of the opinion. (Downton Abbey and Game of Thrones are solid picks.) You think of your reader reacting to your wit so you make the same opinion, making fun of yourself or a minority. Maybe another pop culture reference. Just keep going until the point is smothered, the scene has turned into an unedited outtake.

Trainwreck perfectly describes the way the film is assembled. No wonder it runs over two hours. Apatow never makes a choice
* 1/2

jmbossy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 332
  • Generally Critical
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6809 on: November 30, 2015, 01:57:12 AM »
Trainwreck perfectly describes the way the film is assembled. No wonder it runs over two hours. Apatow never makes a choice

Damn. Shots fired.

I personally like Apatow's liberal editing, though Trainwreck isn't a great example. When done right it resembles conversations I've had with friends; where our opinions are noted, and we sit around trying to mine the topic for additional wit to gleam further insights (if possible, if not the laughs will suffice). It feels purposefully un-artificial, a rejection of mechanical conversations, where information is just leverage to insist narrative momentum. Again, I don't think Trainwreck is a good example of this (I don't think Apatow has any insight or notable interest in the material) but at its best moments (notably, the scenes with James and Cena) I definitely enjoyed myself if nothing else.