love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 2532696 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14030 on: July 07, 2012, 06:45:19 PM »
Savages (Oliver Stone, 2012)

You know what show impresses me, Banged Up Abroad. One talking head interview, an actor who looks like them in the dramatization, and some really effective stylistic flourishes to set the mood. The production quality for a show of that nature is really very good. The episodes live or die on the strength of the story though. Typically they are excellent, enthralling stories full of people making the worst kinds of descisions and driven by desperation to do so. Sometimes the stories are just your run of the mill drug-mule decoy type thing, which gets old after you've seen a couple. The story in Savages is toward the lower end on the scale... a couple pot growers getting mixed up in a cartel, some kidnapping, etc. In the realm of drug stories it's pretty straightforward and doesn't really have much to shake you up (though it tries very hard). Does the budget that's 100 times that of a BUA episode make up for anything? Meh, not really.

These actors can do great things, GREAT things, but if you only ask for archetypes you're only going to get archetypes. Anyone can snarl and lick his chops and look mean. The only thing Del Toro can lend to such a simple part is his name. There's one scene, ONE scene, between him and Travolta that sets itself apart and goes to places where actors of this caliber become necessary. In general though, it's a movie with no great performances, but LOTS of great performers. If you take marketability out of the equation this big budget cast was not an necessary expenditure.

Up to and including Any Given Sunday something I had always liked about a Stone film was the general presentation. A style that fit the piece, felt current, but also managed to set itself apart from the mainstream in some small way. Water with a lemon in it. You know what I mean... just that little something more. To use Any Given Sunday as an example, there hadn't been football scenes filmed with that sort of bravado and intimacy ever before. Nowadays the you can see equally impressive footage during the halftime highlight package, but my point is that at the time it was remarkable. I walked out of that movie as said, "whoa... I've NEVER seen football like that before". It was an advancement. That wasn't the only good thing about the movie, but it was a chocolate chips in the icecream.

Savages is vanilla, plain and simple. It's Tony Scott on a slow day. Some flash, some dash, but really there's really no stretching going on. Style wise it's right in the middle of the pack, where a film like Any Given Sunday was at the tip of the bulge. Not way ahead, but leading. The man behind the lens, Daniel Mindel, has what I consider to be some major victories under his belt. Films with a fresh new look that absolutely blew the doors the established style of the day and lead to much mimicry. Spy Game, Domino, Star Trek, and to a lesser degree Enemy of the State and Mission Impossible III. To me these films set new high water marks. Not all the credit is his to be sure, but my point is that like the actors, this guy is a capable of great things if you ask it of him. But he's also capable of something run of the mill if that's all you want.

I hate to conclude by saying Stone has a bad case of the Murtaughs, but I think it's may be true. I think he may just be "too old for this shit". I don't see him at the front of the pack anymore, like he used to be. I'm not saying he should quit, but I think he should narrow his focus or something. Find a space where he still has the drive to push everyone around him to do their best.


BlueVoid

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
    • Movie Fodder
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14031 on: July 07, 2012, 07:06:21 PM »
The Bridge on the River Kwai

I decided to watch two of director David Lean's most acclaimed films back to back. I started off with 'Lawrence of Arabia', and then moved on to this film, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'. Both represented big gaps in my movie knowledge and I had avoided both for their length. I liked 'Lawrence' quite a bit and 'Kwai' is a fine companion to it. The movie is a sensationalized version of an actual event. In World War II, British POWs constructed a bridge across the river located in Sri Lanka under Japanese command. This is where the accuracy of real life events stops.

In the film the British are led by an uptight, by the books Lt. Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness). Nicholson refuses to allow his officers do manual labor, a point at which commander of the camp Colonel Saito insists. Nicholson steadfastly sticks to his stance despite being kept in an 'oven' for a month. Finally Saito, under pressure to complete the bridge or risk his own life, allows the officers to command rather than work. At the same time an American POW at the camp, Commander Shears (William Holden) escapes and makes it back to an Allied camp where he receives a mission to go back and destroy the bridge.

Truly this is a study of the personalities of war, pride and honor. Lean pits two very different types of men against each other. The by-the-books Nicholson who would sooner die then show any instance of improper behavior. He is going to do what is right no matter what the cost. On the flip side is the loose cannon American POW Commander Shears (William Holden), who has the exact opposite stance. He will do whatever it takes to stay alive and he has no time for the rules of war. Both men have their flaws and both men have their own code of values and they stick to them. Supporting the main contrasting characters are several supporting characters who are set up in a similar way. They have clearly defined values and motives and as they work to either build or destroy the bridge, their will towards those values is tested. My biggest qualm about the movie is that I think these characterizations went a little too far at times and verged on becoming cartoonish. I appreciated what Lean was conveying but I wish he was a bit more subtle about it.

 While the bridge makes for a superbly suspenseful climax it really serves as a McGuffin. As Nicholson explains to his officers on why they will build the bridge, "the fact is, if there weren't any work for them to do we'd invent some". This is how I feel about the bridge, it serves to move the plot along, give the characters something to either defend or destroy, but really this movie is not about the bridge. It is about the characters. It is about the horrible things wars make people do, how it affects them. It is about what it means to be a good soldier, the hypocrisies of war and really when it comes down to it, what it means to be human. Lean doesn't take sides. There was some backlash against the movie for being anti-British, and I don't think that is the case. I think Lean does a fairly good job at showing all sides. The Japanese are probably shown in the worst light, but even they have a few scenes in which their humanity is shown. When it comes down to it, it shows that there is no good way to fight in a war. As famously quoted at the end of the film, war is 'madness! madness!".

4/5
Former blog on FlickChart: The Depths of Obscurity
Letterboxd 
iCM
Twitter

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 #14032 on: July 07, 2012, 10:12:34 PM »
What a fine time I've had reading reviews on this thread today. There's so much, that it's impractical to respond individually, so I'll do something different. I pulled out some of my favorite lines from the last two pages (there's amazing stuff before these pages, but had to make a break off) and here's three things:



1) If you see a line you wrote, thank you for the great writing! :)

2) You can make a game of it. Just by writing style, see if you can guess who's line is who's. If you go this route, PM me for the answers or,

3) Enjoy looking back over the last two pages and see why I've had a great time here today.




“It was also pretty funny along the way; teetered on the brink of being overly precious, but to me it didn't ever fall that way.”

“The film shows how far visual clarity and spatial cohesion go in making otherwise implausible action exciting.”

“There's this great balance between tenderness and melancholy.  This is another movie that I want to live in.”

“That's pretty much the entire movie, but somehow because of how natural the whole production is it really hits home. German mumblecore? I dunno, but I found it really effective.”

 “So I've ruined it! I'm discussing the themes of one of the most sadistically violent films ever made. At times, Stallone struggles with the language of the film. Whilst Sandra Bullock skips gaily around him, delighting in the details of future life ("Where'd you learn to fight like that?", "Jackie Chan movies"), Stallone fights the script.”

“Their first musical number (which was a jolt of energy that the film needed (and more films need) floored me so much through its honesty and humor that I forgot to notice that it also set the characters up.”

“Truly this is a study of the personalities of war, pride and honor.” and “This is how I feel about the bridge, it serves to move the plot along, give the characters something to either defend or destroy, but really this movie is not about the bridge.”

“It provides a beautiful energy, and a breezy vibe to film-making, and everything looks so darn grungy.”

“The decade has brought with it so much wider acceptance of sexual diversity that Jessica's awkward hesitations are less funny than make me want to smack her. I just don't see why Helen, helped no doubt by Juergensen's Scandinavian beauty that is impossible for me to resist, puts up with it.”

“A style that fit the piece, felt current, but also managed to set itself apart from the mainstream in some small way. Water with a lemon in it. You know what I mean... just that little something more.”

“Again, the thing feels like it just didn’t have enough time in the oven, which is disappointing, though I can’t begrudge the 76 year-old Allen for trying to race the clock.”

“Simply put, chalk up another win for adult comedies in this post-40 Year Old Virgin world my brain seems to recognize.”

“In the early dawn hours, the quiet pavement glistens gorgeously with rain.  A May Day parade is a communal joyfest, with spontaneous cheers and a sea of smiling faces.  It's an idealized version to be sure, but one that sweeps you up in its incredible imagery and masterful camerawork.”


1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14033 on: July 08, 2012, 12:04:34 AM »
Did you just watch it or is that an old rating?

Old rating. I saw Demolition Man on Friday night when it opened and I used to own the laserdisc.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14034 on: July 08, 2012, 01:16:10 AM »
The Barefoot Contessa
* * * 1/2

Everybody at some point watches All About Eve, but so few people even talk about Joseph L. Mankiewicz's companion piece, The Barefoot Contessa, which shares a similar love for tearing down the romance of celebrity as well an intense love for the spoken word. This is one talky film, yet it never feels dull. Even one someone starts with "when I was a little girl..." the dialogue plays in your ear like a beautiful melody. This is the inversion/subversion of a Cinderella story, told at the Contessa's funeral by the three people who thought they knew her best. (Only one of whom actually does.) The three-headed narrator also reminded me of The Bad and The Beautiful, but while that was an attack on the main character this is done to honor her, looking back with a heavy romantic sigh. Dreams now buried in the dirt.

The story is such an incredible journey, I don't want to get into too many details. What appears at first to be a straight-ahead Hollywood satire, develops into something much more dense and complex. In the final third, it's like we're in a different film, with Hollywood just a faded memory. The film is a banquet with platefuls of comedy, drama and melodrama. How many films begin like exceptional Billy Wilder and end like exceptional Douglas Sirk? Through it all is trust in the intelligence of the audience and that great dialogue. I will leave you with this introduction between Gardner and Bogart.

Harry: Do you know who Mr. Kirk Edwards is?
Maria: I have heard of him. He is the owner of Texas.
Harry: That is correct. Recently, however, Mr. Edwards decided to produce motion pictures. So for that purpose, he's just bought California too.
Maria: And now he wants to buy me.
Harry: Not exactly. Mr. Kirk Edwards is looking for somebody like you to play in his first production. He wants to talk to you about it.
Maria: Who are you?
Harry: I'm not important. I'm writing the film, and I'll direct it. My name is Harry Dawes.

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14035 on: July 08, 2012, 02:05:41 AM »
What's the Spanish word for "Cinderella"?
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14036 on: July 08, 2012, 03:09:33 AM »
The Barefoot Contessa
* * * 1/2


it never feels dull

I quite disagree.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14037 on: July 08, 2012, 03:37:11 AM »

The Lineup (rewatch) - A movie doesn’t have to be perfect to be great.  The Lineup is not a perfect noir.  Taking place entirely in the daytime, it lacks the rich chiaroscuro lighting associated with the genre.  There’s no femme fatale.  It utterly lacks moral ambiguity, with absolutely clear demarcations between the good guys and the bad guys, the guilty and the innocent.  And the heroin smuggling scheme these guys have concocted is absurd.

It’s not a perfect noir.  But it is a great one.  Largely because of the film’s two primary villains.  On the one hand, you have Dancer (Eli Wallach), a sociopathic, psychotic fella who can charm his way into any situation and shoot his way out.  And then there’s Julian (Robert Keith), the older veteran with words of wisdom, a cool head in the middle of a crisis, and a little notebook where he records victims’ last words.  These guys have a riveting, nutty dynamic.  Julian serves as Dancer’s mentor, and when they’re not in the process of collecting junk from unsuspecting mules, they’re sharpening Dancer’s grammar.  Julian’s a father figure… but what he doesn’t realize is that when the heat is really on, Dancer’s daddy issues come to the fore in a big way.

Even the routine police procedural stuff at the beginning of the film (it’s about 20 minutes before we meet Dancer and Julian) is reasonably entertaining, with enjoyable cop performances by Marshall Reed and especially Emile Meyer.  Sure, the film only really gets cooking when Wallach and Keith are onscreen, but the policework is compelling enough to keep things chugging along.  And the use of San Francisco locations is dynamite.  The evil lurks among the innocent pleasures of an aquarium or a skating rink.  It seeps into majestic opera houses.  It careens through the city streets in one of the great cinematic car chases.  If the movie lacks the characteristic high-contrast photography, it still looks beautifully composed against the city’s locations, and it also contains some impressive tracking shots.

The film’s acts of violence are unique, intense, shocking and gripping.  The first couple of minutes catch your attention, a burst of sudden vehicular manslaughter right out the gate.  I won’t spoil the others.  Of course, it ends as all noirs must, with the bad guys getting their due.  Few get it in such spectacular fashion.  The time I’ve spent with these nasties has been so enjoyably twisted, it makes me immediately want to watch the whole thing again.  Rating: Masterpiece (96)

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14038 on: July 08, 2012, 05:59:42 AM »
Woody Allen - A Documentary (Theatrical cut) (Robert B. Weide, US, 2012)


Behind the scenes of Woody Allen – the light version
 
Do you enjoy taking a peak behind the scenes? I do and whenever I have the opportunity, I’ll dive as deep as my time schedule allows me into the extras that come with DVD editions of movies. Well, apart from the trailers then; those I’ll skip. At the best they’re pointless, at worst they’re annoying, misleading, spoiling and whatnot. But that’s a story for another day.
 
My favourite among about-films were those that came with LOTR. Those who made it seem to have been given absolutely free hands to do whatever they wanted for how long they wanted. There was no time limit at all; the floodgates were open. The more there was of it, the merrier. This meant that they could expand on every little detail and aspect of filmmaking without ever having to apologize or compromise. Nothing was too little and narrow to be covered in depth. The sword smith, who at the most would get a single line in a normal about-film, had an entire little film dedicated to this topic only. I loved it; as a matter of fact I wonder if I didn’t love the extras even a little more than I loved the movies (which I still thought were good.)
 
Cut into pieces
Most about-films aren’t like that. There is an unexplainable tradition in this genre to cut every interview into fragments, one line at a time, run them through a mixer and then glue them together again with some inserted clips from the movie. A document destructing machine couldn’t have made a better job.
 
Since nothing is allowed to be discussed properly, what you get are superficial, empty one-liners that are spoken by a bunch of celebrities, but probably are written by the PR department. When you’ve watched them you’ve learned nothing new about the making of the film that you didn’t know already. I still keep watching them, always in the hope that someone will cross the line of the expected and say something meaningful and remarkable. And besides I can never get enough of seeing the craft of movie making. Film sets, make-up, editing, costume making – I just enjoy seeing those people at work, as much as I can enjoy watching a professional chef cooking a delicious restaurant meal. I always hope to get a glimpse of that between all the talking heads.
 
Popular in Sweden
Considering my life-long love for Woody Allen’s movies and my eagerness to learn more about the making of movies, I was excited and delighted when the theatrical Woody Allen: A Documentary opened in my city.

It doesn't happen too often that a documentary about a director comes up on a big screen in a multiplex, but then Woody Allen is very popular in Sweden. Or at least I always thought he was; I ended up as the only person in the audience, so maybe his reputation as a Swedish darling is exaggerated.

So what did I get from this one-to-one date with one of my favourite directors? Well, while my real life experience of dating to be honest is very limited, I imagine that I got pretty much the same as what you get on your first date: I got a conversation aimed to please and possibly tease, but never getting into uncomfortable places.

He presented me the story of his life in the same way as you would if you were flipping through a photo-album.

He did as you do when you talk with strangers, keeping it to the job and not so much about the private life, always making sure that the small talk remained in a safe zone. Nothing offensive. Nothing that hurts or burns.

The scandal when Allen left Mia Farrow for her daughter is mentioned, but only briefly and with a respectful distance. I don't say this is the wrong choice, but it reinforces the impression that this film mostly is a harmless celebration in the standard format that Hollywood loves to use. It's not an independent documentary with the ambition to say something new, something that makes me feel and think about Woody Allen, life and myself in a new way.

Our second date
Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed our date well enough and had no regrets going to it. Yes, there are those talking heads, and no, they're never allowed to say more than a line or two, but for an Allen lover like me, it's still a good watch.

I loved to learn how Allen writes his scripts, using an old manual typewriter, cutting out the pieces he likes and then putting them together with staples. I thought the clip where he fought a kangaroo in a boxing ring was hilarious. I was captured by the story about how he decided to be the director and have everything under control after he had seen his script for What's New Pussycat being massacred in the final film.

But for my second date with Allen, the one where get a bit further in our relationship, I think I'd rather go back to his vast production and revisit some of my favourites from all those years. They would bring us much closer than this documentary does.

Perhaps it's about time that I make a Woody Allen marathon? I'm chewing on the idea. I've never done any marathon, but if I'd do one, he would be a good candidate.

My rating: 4/5
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 06:03:53 AM by Lobby »
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

Antares

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14039 on: July 08, 2012, 08:03:38 AM »
The Barefoot Contessa

I've watched this once, and really liked it, but I've been apprehensive about watching it again, as I'm afraid I won't like it as much as my original viewing.
Masterpiece (100-91) | Classic (90-80) | Entertaining (79-69) | Mediocre (68-58) | Cinemuck (57-21) | Crap (20-0)