Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 530359 times)

Thief

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
    • Letterboxd Profile
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3290 on: March 04, 2019, 06:16:31 PM »
A Few Good Men (Rob Reiner, 1992)         10/10

Can anyone explain this line?

Quote from: Kaffee
After falsely accusing a highly decorated Marine officer of conspiracy and perjury, Lieutenant Kaffee will have a long and prosperous career teaching... typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Globbo School for Women!

Specifically what does Rocco Globbo school for women mean? Like I get that it's said in the same way you hear people threatened with getting transferred to Siberia, or some other undesirable place. But what is Rocco Globbo? Is that a reference to something? Google doesn't turn anything up for me except to link my back to this film. It doesn't seem to me that Aaron Sorkin would have Kaffee just make up a complete gibberish name. It feels like it must be a reference to something. Does anyone have any ideas?

Something else I wondered this time watching the film... did Kevin Pollack (a known impressionist) give Tom Cruise pointers for doing an impression of Jack Nicholson. Nicholson isn't in the scene when Tom Cruise does it... but I wonder if he's ever watched the movie. It would be fun to know what his reaction was.

This film is somehow totally engaging, and yet the experience isn't taxing. Like at all. I feel I could begin to watch it again as soon as it's over. Most really good films leave me emotionally worn out. The idea of watching even something like Star Wars twice in a row is exhausting to me. To go through all those highs and lows and that big ending... and then to do it all again? No way. A Few Good Men  doesn't deliver the same emotional impact for me... and yet it's still a favourite. I don't quite know what it's getting by on exactly. Not big cinematic artistry that's for sure. The presentation is very straightforward. It's whatever's left I guess.

This is such an enjoyable film. I think it's one of those cases where you can see how it was meticulously crafted to push the right buttons... and it does! so it works.

As for Cruise's line, I think it's supposed to sound like something made-up in the air to highlight the fate that he should expect if he went ahead with the case; like ending up in an obscure, stupidly-named school for nobody.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3291 on: March 04, 2019, 09:21:14 PM »
It's the Rocco Columbo School for Women. In the original play the line is "typewriter maintenance at a women's school!" My guess is that Sorkin changed the line to something that has more sonic poetry.

I was going by the IMDB quotes page, but glad to see the correct version. Even so, the question still remains... what is the Rocko Columbo School for Women? Google gives me nothing. Could it really just be a name pulled from thin air?

There were schools in the 70s and before which were basically secretary's schools that taught typing and dictation and the like.  I'm pretty sure that's what's being referenced.  So low on the totem pole that they can't even be a student at one of these low-level schools.

I wonder if Rocko Clubbo was one such school. Maybe his mom taught there, and taught him how to type. But then, if that were true I don't think he'd have a character disparage it. If anyone runs into him someday, be sure to ask!

Quote
My #1 Tom Cruise is Magnolia.  A Few Good Men is quite good, but I love his co-stars just as well.

Agree. Demi Moore has so many great moments. I appreciate how she plays her part more and more with each viewing. I guess a lot of it is owed to the writing, in that the character is written to be more than just a hard-ass. But she constantly defies falling into any one archetype. Kevin Pollack and Cruise play off each other so well. His character is the most even-keeled, and Pollack plays that nicely. I love all the Kevin Bacon scenes too. :)

Thief

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
    • Letterboxd Profile
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3292 on: March 04, 2019, 10:05:20 PM »
The character of Demi Moore would probably be one of my main gripes. Not necessarily her character, but how they try to push that potential relationship between her and Kaffee. I mean, it's not necessary. The film doesn't need that, and when they try to shoehorn it, it feels clunky.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3293 on: March 04, 2019, 11:20:28 PM »
London Has Fallen (2016)
★ ★
I have a theory for anyone that cares. See, I was enjoying this film for about an hour. Once again, the screenplay sets up a terrorist attack where the amount of manpower is total fantasy (at this point in our world) but it's effective and exciting to watch. A series of ambushes using a variety of weaponry and tactics to keep it fresh and relentless. Meanwhile, Gerard Butler is tossing off badass one-liners like a pro.

Then, the film changes. The action becomes more generic, repeating the same assault weapon charges into battle. Butler's dialogue goes from F.U. cool to dumb macho posturing.

This review is super accurate. As soon as the initial invasion is complete, every action sequences after that was boring.

This film sustains itself because it follows through on it's huge premise. As an exercise it's interesting to see what an attack on the White House might look like. It just is. And I didn't really scoff at what was presented to me here. What I saw felt basically plausible. And appropriately violent.

But I really hated the filmmaking. I mean, lets start with that score. I'm sitting there thinking, what year is it? We're still doing the sad trumpet thing and the generic military-esque themes? It just sets the wrong tone for me. It's voluntarily likening itself to a Bruckheimer type action film for some reason. It's such a safe choice, and in turn it's makes the film feel safe... like, don't worry, nobody important is going to get hurt. Just enjoy the explosions. Rip off The Bourne Supremacy or something with more urgency. But they really commit to trying to milk those patriotic feelings I guess. Seeing the flag fall away from the roof in slow motion is some major thing supposedly. I scoff at this film's sappy patriotism. Aaron Ekharts speech at the end of the film was embarrassing. Usually movie Presidents give good speeches... stuff you wish a real president would say. Ekhart managed to feel more insincere than a real politician even. It's probably the worst movie President speech I've ever heard.

Gerard Butler has to have a girlfriend in this movie for some reason. That just HAS to be established. Oh yea, I really care about this guys home life. Show me more! How about a scene where Gerard Butler is late for work and his girlfriend is concerned about how much he's working.


Gripping.

This film is obsessed with their relationship for some reason. Like, literally in the middle of the White House being INVADED the film cuts to the girlfriend who works in the hospital, and we see that it's chaos. There are bloody patients everywhere. There's a dude SCREAMING right beside her. And she's so selfish and unprofessional, and the movie is so stupid, that she pulls out her phone right at that moment and calls Gerard Butler to see if he's okay.

I'll be with you in a minute. But first I gotta be a cliche worried girlfriend.


You know how movies like to use real news anchors to act like they are reporting on the events of the film. This movie does that a lot and it sucks. I really hate when they use real news personalities in those scenes. Takes me out of the film every time. Also, they're saying exactly what you'd expect them to say, so why even show it? Because that's what they've seen other big spectacle movies do?

Robert Forester and Morgan Freeman are disappointingly boring in this. All the scenes in the command center are bad. Again, they should be ripping of Bourne Supremacy if they want to do "remote crisis management" correctly, not Armageddon.

There's a scene where American attack helicopters try and retake the white house, and the white house has all this anti aircraft weaponry on the roof and shoots at them. That could have been SUCH A COOL SCENE! The got these turrets firing a zillion shots an second, and missiles are going all over the place, and it's night time and so it's lighting up the sky. But the movie ruins it by being the worst shot scene in recent memory. The CGI is awful, but the way they shoot it is to just whiz the camera around all over the place. And then they needlessly intercut it with the Gerard Butler engaged in his 43rd shootout of the movie. It was very frustrating. I'm surprised they didn't choose that moment to also check in with Gerard Butler's girlfriend. "Honey are you okay?"

Antoine Fuqua had no vision for this project. Everything is just pulled from the generic toolbox. Joe Shmoe could make this movie.

That said, it was pretty watchable. And at some point became so bad it was getting good again.

When this Death Rate counter flashed on screen for a bit I laughed out loud.

It's such a dumb movie thing. If every nuke in the US went off it would be bad, I get it.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 11:27:40 PM by smirnoff »

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3294 on: March 04, 2019, 11:26:06 PM »
The character of Demi Moore would probably be one of my main gripes. Not necessarily her character, but how they try to push that potential relationship between her and Kaffee. I mean, it's not necessary. The film doesn't need that, and when they try to shoehorn it, it feels clunky.

It's a weird aspect for sure and doesn't really feel right. They could have dropped it. It only gets pushed that once though, and it does at least yield a good scene between Cruise and Moore at the lobster place.

"I want you to think I'm a good lawyer."
"I do."
"No you don't... I think you're an exceptional lawyer...." 

It goes on of course, but I think that's a great moment for both of them.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35726
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3295 on: March 05, 2019, 01:36:22 AM »
This review is super accurate. As soon as the initial invasion is complete, every action sequences after that was boring.
What about this one?

This film sustains itself because it follows through on it's huge premise. As an exercise it's interesting to see what an attack on the White House might look like. It just is. And I didn't really scoff at what was presented to me here. What I saw felt basically plausible. And appropriately violent.
This is why I suggested it.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35726
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3296 on: March 05, 2019, 02:45:27 AM »
The Five-Year Engagement (2012)
★ ★ ★ - Okay
There's a sweetness to Jason Segel and Emily Blunt that make their scenes together very enjoyable. They put what little rom there is into this rom-com. The supporting cast roll call is off the charts.
Chris Pratt
Dakota Johnson
Alison Brie
Rhys Ifans
Kevin Hart
Mindy Kaling
Randall Park
Jackie Weaver
Chris Parnell

Maybe that's why this is so much longer than it seems like it should be. At just over two hours, this has enough characters and story for a 10 episode series. This isn't long like most Apatow where the scenes meander through a dozen different jokes. There are just too many scenes, too many characters given something to do. (I'm not even mentioning the dozen cameo appearances.) It's the Pirates of the Caribbean of rom-com scripts, and the scenes that don't work hurt the whole experience. Johnson especially gets the short end in some terribly misjudged scenes, and much as I love Brie she should not be playing Blunt's British sister. Hearing a genuine accent next to a phony one is like negative cultural appropriation.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3297 on: March 05, 2019, 03:28:53 PM »
This review is super accurate. As soon as the initial invasion is complete, every action sequences after that was boring.
What about this one?
I didn't realize that review was for the sequel! When you said "Once again..." I took it to mean terrorist plot films generally, and not what you were actually referring to, which was the previous film. :))

Anyways, I am in agreement with with what you wrote in the real review also. I would rate the film about the same. I haven't read or looked at anything to do with the sequel (except for your review), but being set in London does sound more interesting. Like, what do they attack? Buckingham Palace? Are the Queen's guards with the big fuzzy hats diving over walls and getting in a shootout? If that's the case, that sounds fun. :)

Quote
This film sustains itself because it follows through on it's huge premise. As an exercise it's interesting to see what an attack on the White House might look like. It just is. And I didn't really scoff at what was presented to me here. What I saw felt basically plausible. And appropriately violent.
This is why I suggested it.
Good recommend. I love the ambition.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35726
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3298 on: March 05, 2019, 05:23:16 PM »
Anyways, I am in agreement with with what you wrote in the real review also. I would rate the film about the same. I haven't read or looked at anything to do with the sequel (except for your review), but being set in London does sound more interesting. Like, what do they attack? Buckingham Palace? Are the Queen's guards with the big fuzzy hats diving over walls and getting in a shootout? If that's the case, that sounds fun. :)
It's a meeting of World leaders so there are coordinated attacks on a number of famous landmarks, each one targeting the leader of a country. Again, the terrorists initially succeed mostly because they have hundreds of people all executing their attacks on different fronts.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3299 on: March 05, 2019, 06:04:42 PM »
Heart and Souls (Ron Underwood, 1993)         8/10

Heart and Souls is a strong guilty pleasure with a few really great scenes.

Yo, you were totally right about this movie. It was surprisingly well done, and definitely has some great scenes. Really the whole production was on a much higher level than I was expecting. I had never heard of the film, and cover wasn't familiar, so I figured it would be kind of a b-level charmer. But this has the pedigree of top 90's rom com. The biggest surprise though is that it wasn't Sandy recommending this film. Especially given the presence of Alfre Woodard. And the musical numbers. It has Sandy written all over it! :)

I was charmed by it and touched. I don't think the comedy ever made me laugh, but it didn't make me groan either. And nothing felt dragged out. I have nothing to complain about really. Thanks for recommending it!