love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 2532514 times)

GothamCity151

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 6495
  • Join us!
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7610 on: September 27, 2011, 10:44:06 PM »
Anonymous (2011) over at The Cave

Quote
So, when I found out that his next film was a political thriller about who really wrote the Shakespeare cannon, I was deeply confused. My preconceptions instantly pointed to a train wreck as I had yet to be proved otherwise, but I wanted to see it to see what it would be.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 10:48:44 PM by GothamCity151 »

jim brown

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1751
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7611 on: September 27, 2011, 10:46:06 PM »
A Matter of Life and Death (Powell/Pressburger, 1946)

When we first meet Peter Carter (David Niven) a WWII pilot flying back to England after a bombing raid, things are not looking so good.  His plane is on fire and about to crash momentarily.  His crew has bailed out and he has no parachute.   On the radio he speaks with June (Kim Hunter), an American Air Force radio operator based in England.  He explains his situation to her and asks that she pass along his love to his mother and sisters.  June agrees and tries to console him during his last few moments above earth.   Carter jumps out of the plane to what should be his death, but somehow awakens the next day washed ashore.  He meets June and they fall in love.  Peter then begins having visions of an ‘angel’ (of sorts) who explains that Peter should be dead, that there was a mistake made and he should have been picked up during his fall and escorted to heaven.   This escort, Conductor 71, insists that Peter should accompany him back to the Other World like a good, dead soldier.  Peter demands an appeal and is given three days until his trial.

"Yes June, I'm bailing out. I'm bailing out but there's a catch: I've got no parachute."

As with any Powell/Pressburger production, A Matter of Life and Death is a beautiful film to watch.  The ‘heaven’ sequences are shot in black & white and the production design and mattes of these scenes are as beautiful as the Technicolor scenes on earth.  The opening scenes are particularly stunning, with intense close-ups of Niven in the plane and Hunter on the radio.  Both the way this sequence is shot and the performances give the love story an effective credibility.  (As my 10-year old daughter pointed out: “You really got a sense she felt the weight of the world on her shoulders to make his last minutes alive as nice as possible.”)  And there is a scene featuring a camera obscura that is so striking that it seems ahead of its time.

Camera obscura


Supporting performances are also excellent.  Roger Livesy brings warmth, wit and wisdom to his role as Carter’s doctor.   Marius Goring is engaging and funny as the foppish, French, Conductor 71, whose failure to escort Carter to the Other World sets up the action.  And Raymond Massey has a weirdly menacing good humor in his role as the American prosecuting Carter’s case.

Marius Goring as Conductor 71

There are a couple of things that don’t quite work in the movie, but don’t really detract from it either.  There is a teasingly contentious dynamic between the British and Americans in the courtroom scenes that probably had punch when the movie was produced, but seems more of a curiosity today.  Odder, however, is the question that the movie tries to pose throughout: whether this is all taking place in Carter’s head as a result of a brain injury, or whether events are being guided via the ethereal Other World.  But the film never really takes the question anywhere, and pretty much tips its hand from the very start through a narrative device. 


Again, these are quibbles and don’t take anything away from the overall joy of watching this movie.  There isn’t a moment that I wasn’t entertained by what I was watching, hearing or feeling throughout. 
Kevin: Yes, why does there have to be evil?

Supreme Being: I think it has something to do with free will.

-------------------------------------------------------

Verna: I suppose you think you raised hell.

Tom: Sister, when I've raised hell you'll know it.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7612 on: September 27, 2011, 11:09:29 PM »
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

First time seeing this since the 90s. (And no FroHam, this wasn't the new Blu-Ray. I watched the DVD I already own.) Because I grew up in the hype of Star Wars and never caught the fever, I underappreciated it as a movie. I really like the pace, the way Lucas takes the time to establish his characters and his world. Most of all there is no clearer case against CGI than this film. The visuals are amazingly tactile. The droids are all scruffed up from wear and tear, and the setting feels remarkably real. There's a reason why people wanted to visit Tunisia after seeing this. Something completely lost on the new trilogy. It's funny and exciting and full of human touches. You feel the fingerprints of the artists. And I'd be saying all this if Eps. 1-3 were never made. Science Fiction has never felt more accessible than with A New Hope. It still holds up as a rousing action-adventure, with many moments that 70s Spielberg couldn't have done any better.
RATING: * * * *

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7613 on: September 27, 2011, 11:12:44 PM »
1981 Spielberg managed to do them better, though ;)

In all seriousness, I love this take on Star Wars. It's just a really well made, blisteringly fun film.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

StudentOFilm

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7614 on: September 28, 2011, 01:26:28 AM »
I'm a little tired so sorry for any spelling/grammar errors.

Easy Rider- A lot to say about this. I have a short paper to write on it and I just read five very long readings about the film, so I'm all 'Easy Rider'd' out at the moment. What I can say is that I did like it, more so as I learned about the context. I mean, how such a film can come from a man on the edge (or past the edge) of insanity- Hopper was just a loon if all the stories and articles about him are to be believed. I guess it says a lot about the time period that a film that spoke to so many people managed to come from a guy who asked Peter Fonda to bring back the memories of his mother into the LSD scene. It does make sense that someone such as Hopper would be able to tap into that, I guess it just defies logic (I can think of many other directors who tapped into that socio-political time period while not being drunk and high... I believe). I loved the Jack Nicholson character. I loved that the tagline of the film was something like "Two men went looking for America... and found nothing." Hell, there is a lot to love about it, more so as I learn more and more about the making/reception of the film. Hell, I was a little unsure of what I watched, but after reading all these analysis's (all of which were from different perspectives, some even negative) I just really appreciate whats accomplished here and for what wasn't... well, I'll chalk that up to Hopper being too busy getting ready to possibly kill his wife.

Some Like It Hot- There were a few things I just couldn't get behind. Why does Lemmon's character abandon his lust for Sugar (Monroe)? I mean, I get that he has a bit of a mental breakdown at one point, but shouldn't he still be pining after her? He just stops completely. Also, does Curtis really think when he is doing his British impersonation that Sugar was going to fall for him (in the beginning on the beach)? He was being a total douche. Yeah, Sugar isn't smart, but I'd think he wouldn't go through such a roundabout way to try to bed her. If anything, if he was bragging and forward, she'd be just as taken with him (glasses, he could go play sax, he's "rich", etc.). Also, those Italian impersonations were horrible. Seriously, I really want to show this to my relatives so they can either laugh or get angry. I guess I'm just not sure where the film's zaniness is grounded in reality, if at all during any parts. Now that rant being said and done, I liked pretty much everything else about it. The film is so much fun, the innuendos go over the top and don't stop, but everything was so frantic it worked for me. A lot of fun to watch (albeit not very funny for me). It was a very relaxing movie after working all day. I'm going to have to continue watching a lot more Wilder.
"Be yourself, unless you suck."- Joss Whedon

My Switchboard

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7615 on: September 28, 2011, 01:50:03 AM »
Most of all there is no clearer case against CGI than this film. The visuals are amazingly tactile.

Boo! Broken record says, this is a case for practical effects not a case against CG. ;)

Pet Peeving aside, that review makes me really happy. Glad to hear how much you appreciated the craft of the film. Will you be watching the rest of the trilogy?

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7616 on: September 28, 2011, 02:05:05 AM »
A Matter of Life and Death (Powell/Pressburger, 1946)
 the film never really takes the question anywhere, and pretty much tips its hand from the very start through a narrative device. 
Actually that's open to interpretation. It assumes that one of the two worlds mentioned in that (superfluous?) bit of text at the start is our "real" world and that real world excludes a heavenly plane. Of course, a religious person wouldn't separate our world in that way would they. How's that for a tease. The film- in the real technicolour world, takes a lot of pains to include spiritual/ heavenly/ fantastic elements;

- the boy on the beach is a type of greek imp representation (otherwise a naked shepherd boy on a beach is a bit disconcerting!)
- the Americans are practising "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in the hall, one of Shakespeare's only two fantasy plays
- the camera obscura itself is an other worldly device and casts Livesey as a magician figure overlooking his patients (Livesey's beard is deliberately cut in mage style)

and yes The Wizard of Oz is a massive influence on its making {credit to a BFI book about the film I read on holiday- not my own analysis at all}.

More useless info related to the battle between these two worlds occurred in production. The Production Designer, Junge, fought Powell to make the heaven sequences as plain and real world as he could- the waiting room at the start is more sci-fi than fantasy. Jack Cardiff (brought in because of his Technicolour expertise) took up Powell's prompting to make the colour as fantastic as possible but both Junge and Technicolour themselves try to govern a more "industrial" aesthetic that had already been set for the process. Powell and Cardiff win and Junge is gradually sidelined as the increasingly more fantastic Black Narcissus and Red Shoes show.

Most of all there is no clearer case against CGI than this film. The visuals are amazingly tactile.

Boo! Broken record says, this is a case for practical effects not a case against CG. ;)

I forget whose recent The Thing review (apologies) made the very similar case for "real" effects, and my recent viewing of Alien left the same visceral feel- you can reach out and touch something fantastic. In all 3 cases, you can criticise the execution or see how another $10 million on the budget could have been put to use, but it is the reality- the wetness, or the scratched up surfaces or the lighting on real surfaces that count towards the impact of the film.

The case against CGI is that these skills in model making and lighting get lost in the tech-rush. Serenity proves that you can combine the two with a little care and attention, but this is the exception not the rule.

The Thing remake makes me cringe. The purpose must be to "improve" the effects, not because the paranoia thriller that The Thing really is needs to be retold. The first five minutes of the original with the dog being chased by the helicopter doesn't need improving and if you can't get a thrill watching that innocent sequence without getting a chill for what you know follows then you don't need to watch this story again.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 02:26:31 AM by verbALs »
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7617 on: September 28, 2011, 07:48:28 AM »
The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont, US, 1994)

The Shawshank Redemption must be one of the worst titles for a movie ever. It sounds like a tongue twister - you know one of those verses which are fun because you have to make such an effort to manage to say them correctly. "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." My tongue goes on strike.
 
Since it's so hard to pronounce or to figure out what it possibly could refer to, it's also difficult to remember. This makes its number one position on the imdb ranking list even more impressive. People love this movie so much that they're prepared to learn a name they don’t understand or know how to say.

I’m quite new in the circle of film nerds, but from what I’ve seen so far, they generally don’t approve of this ranking. While very few think it’s a bad movie, they roll their eyes a little at the idea that Shawshank Redemption would be the best movie ever.

Why so popular?
But let’s go with the majority. What is it in this movie that makes it so immensely popular? What is it that we love so much?

The other day I watched the movie for the first time and I liked it so much that I also had a look at some of the extra material included in this edition. Among other things there was a very well made documentary with no less than my favorite critic Mark Kermode as a host, gathering opinions from various people about why The Shawshank Redemption has become the phenomena it is. I thought Tim Robbins, who plays the leading role, put it well in his explanation:
 
"A lot of people are in prisons of relationships, of jobs that they hate, of lives unfulfilled and have given up hope. What this movie is saying to them was: it might take a while, it might take some time, but there's a light at the end of the tunnel and if you have the patience and the belief you can make it there. [...] It allows people to see that they can get out of the prisons they've created for themselves."

Yeah. I think so too. While film buffs tend to like movies with tragic or at least vague, open endings, most people shockingly enough prefer movies that make them feel a little bit better when their own life is miserable. They’d rather get hope and inspiration to endure and improve what can be improved than to see someone confirm to them what they already knew: that life is a bitch and we’re all bound to die anyway, so why bother?

Self help guru
There are moments when Andy Dufresne - falsely accused for murder, serving a life long sentence in a prison under hellish circumstances, in case you’ve forgotten – sounds like a self help guru, cracking lines that someone most likely has printed as a poster with a sunset background.

"Get busy living, or get busy dying."

Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong about the line; as a matter of fact I like it. I like it a lot. And there are many self help gurus out there who actually inspire me and give me insights that help me to get along better with life. There are quite a few charlatans as well, obviously, but the teachings of Andy are solid. Like when he risking a severe punishment plays classical music in the speakers so all prisoners can hear it and the following dialogue takes place:

Quote
Andy Dufresne: That's the beauty of music. They can't get that from you... Haven't you ever felt that way about music?
Red: I played a mean harmonica as a younger man. Lost interest in it though. Didn't make much sense in here.
Andy Dufresne: Here's where it makes the most sense. You need it so you don't forget.
Red: Forget?
Andy Dufresne: Forget that... there are places in this world that aren't made out of stone. That there's something inside... that they can't get to, that they can't touch. That's yours.
Red: What're you talking about?
Andy Dufresne: Hope.
I like this, even if I also see the risk for scenes like this to get too much of love for their own benefit. If it’s repeated enough many times, those lines will eventually become feel worn out and shallow as “Carpe Diem” became after the mega success of Dead Poets Society.

Well crafted
The Shawshank Redemption will not become my number 1 movie. It was a little bit too Hollywood cheesy at times, and slightly too predictable at moments, to beat every other movie I’ve watched. However – I loved it a lot – I guess I’m quite unsophisticated in my taste for movies – and next time I look over my top 100 list, it will definitely be somewhere on it. Because it’s incredibly well crafted in every aspect from screenwriting to score and because it’s wonderful to see someone who goes for the big style storytelling. Screw special effects and 3D! You can tell that this movie is made by a guy who takes his inspiration from good old movie makers such as Frank Capra.

I’ll give you a final quote from the movie, for no other particular reason than that I thought it was beautiful. It hit me like poetry.

Quote
Andy Dufresne: You know what the Mexicans say about the Pacific?
Red: No.
Andy Dufresne: They say it has no memory. That's where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory.

And now I’ll go practicing on the title. Shankred Shawdemption. No, wait… Shawshemtion Redshank… No, no, no… Shenkshank Ration….

Crap. I guess I’ll stick to the Swedish in this case. In Sweden the distributors gave up about the original title altogether and made a new one: Nyckeln till frihet (The key to freedom). It’s generic and a little bit forgettable, but at least I can pronounce it.

My rating: 5/5
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 07:58:18 AM by Lobby »
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

AAAutin

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4186
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7618 on: September 28, 2011, 07:51:48 AM »
Cue Doc Teller in 3, 2...

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #7619 on: September 28, 2011, 08:32:31 AM »
Most of all there is no clearer case against CGI than this film. The visuals are amazingly tactile.

Boo! Broken record says, this is a case for practical effects not a case against CG. ;)

Pet Peeving aside, that review makes me really happy. Glad to hear how much you appreciated the craft of the film. Will you be watching the rest of the trilogy?

Mrs. 1SO (who does put Star Wars in her Top 100) says 'yes'.