Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:02 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654 ... 808  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7416
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ghost (1990) ***

I had actually never seen this film despite my Dad's claim years ago "Watch Ghost and you WILL get laid." Interestingly, despite the thick layer of cheese I was promised, I found a movie that was pretty interesting, with consistent rules laid down for its own universe, impressive (considering his previous films) direction from Jerry Zucker and a terrific performance by Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not sure it deserved a Best Picture nominee, but I thought it worked as a film.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:50 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1563
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Ghost (1990) ***

I had actually never seen this film despite my Dad's claim years ago "Watch Ghost and you WILL get laid." Interestingly, despite the thick layer of cheese I was promised, I found a movie that was pretty interesting, with consistent rules laid down for its own universe, impressive (considering his previous films) direction from Jerry Zucker and a terrific performance by Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not sure it deserved a Best Picture nominee, but I thought it worked as a film.


Indeed. I loved Ghost when I saw it during its theatrical run. Today I'm not quite as enamored. But it's still an entertaining and at times emotionally effective film. I think the primary reason why I loved it at 12 is that it was one of the first films I found myself able to appreciate on a somewhat adult level.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:22 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2090
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Syd Henderson wrote:
House of Games: A clever Mamet film about a psychiatrist who gets into studying con artists (partly because she suspects she is one herself) and gets deeply involved herself. It's a satisfying film with a great performance by Joe Mantegna and a pretty awful performance by Lindsay Crouse (who happened to be married to the director). Unfortunately, I had the major con figured out a half hour before the film ended, although we still had to have it all revealed in an awkward scene, which amounts to the psychiatrist falling for a con she has seen played out three times directly in front of her. The conclusion, though, is satisfying, and I enjoyed it despite wanting to scream, "Maggie, wake up!" Fortunately, she did. (9 of 10)


Yeah I couldn't give this a 9 out of 10 because Lindsay Crouse's performance is indeed so bad. I prefer the director's The Spanish Prisoner, though I did like House of Games too


I may deduct half a point by the end of the month, although the rest of the major performances are so good and Crouse doesn't really damage the film that much.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:58 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Jeff Wilder wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Ghost (1990) ***

I had actually never seen this film despite my Dad's claim years ago "Watch Ghost and you WILL get laid." Interestingly, despite the thick layer of cheese I was promised, I found a movie that was pretty interesting, with consistent rules laid down for its own universe, impressive (considering his previous films) direction from Jerry Zucker and a terrific performance by Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not sure it deserved a Best Picture nominee, but I thought it worked as a film.


Indeed. I loved Ghost when I saw it during its theatrical run. Today I'm not quite as enamored. But it's still an entertaining and at times emotionally effective film. I think the primary reason why I loved it at 12 is that it was one of the first films I found myself able to appreciate on a somewhat adult level.

Personally i'm completely mystified as to how that film won best picture, there's nothing at all special about it, it's just really slow and incredibly uninvolving.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:23 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1563
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Vexer wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Ghost (1990) ***

I had actually never seen this film despite my Dad's claim years ago "Watch Ghost and you WILL get laid." Interestingly, despite the thick layer of cheese I was promised, I found a movie that was pretty interesting, with consistent rules laid down for its own universe, impressive (considering his previous films) direction from Jerry Zucker and a terrific performance by Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not sure it deserved a Best Picture nominee, but I thought it worked as a film.


Indeed. I loved Ghost when I saw it during its theatrical run. Today I'm not quite as enamored. But it's still an entertaining and at times emotionally effective film. I think the primary reason why I loved it at 12 is that it was one of the first films I found myself able to appreciate on a somewhat adult level.

Personally i'm completely mystified as to how that film won best picture, there's nothing at all special about it, it's just really slow and incredibly uninvolving.


It didn't win. It just got nominated. Dances With Wolves won. I like DWW although I wouldn't have chosen it as Best Picture: my pick was Goodfellas.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:08 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7416
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Eiger Sanction (1975) **1/2

For the first half of the movie, I wasn't just having a good time, I was remembering why I liked movies in the first place. I get a nice warm feeling from certain genres, a familiarity and comfort I suppose, and 70s thrillers are a perfect example. But then the plot started making less and less sense and the climbing sequences, though extraordinarily impressive technically, just starting blending together. So I got a bit frustrated with the film and I can't really recommend it. If you want a thriller starring/directed by Clint, go with Firefox instead.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:23 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 426
Location: Durham, NC
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Crystal Fairy (2013) 2.5/4

I'm not quite sure why this film earned so much acclaim at Sundance. Is this a movie about drugs, mystics, hipsters, or just young adults out to get high? I really couldn't tell you. Critics have stated that this film is about searching for true identity and going through life without smelling the roses, but I just don't see it. Scratch that, I can see it but l don't buy it. The majority of this film is the sole definition of the term "mosey along." The pace here is extremely slow, and a whole lot of nothing happens to our main group of characters while they search for a hallucinogenic cactus. On a solely comedic level Crystal Fairy is awkward and dry. Sometimes the humor works and sometimes it doesn't--in short it misses substantially more than it hits. Micheal Cera is still Michael Cera, and the supporting cast (minus Gabby Hoffman, whose part as a free-spirirt is quite enjoyable) only seem to take up space in shots capturing the emptiness of deserts and beaches, essentially not providing anything worthwhile to the film as a whole. However even for all of its faults, Crystal Fairy maintains a pretty great sense of realism. Overall, I'm just not quite sure about Crystal Fairy. Is it comedy? Is it pure drama? I would argue a little of both, but this film feels nothing like a dramedy. To me, this is a film that kinda feels like a meandering mess; one that I don't fully understand and ultimately don't really like.

_________________
"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."


Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:13 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I had a lot of fun with Star Trek (2009), so I was kinda looking forward to the sequel, Star Trek: Into Darkness. I watched it this morning and, although I don't think it was as good as the first one, I still enjoyed it a lot. Action was very well handled, there were some good emotional moments, Benedict Cumberbatch was pretty good as Khan... but I also felt it went over a bit longer than it should during its last act. Still, for someone who isn't familiar with this franchise, and who hadn't seen any of the previous films, I'm sure enjoying J.J. Abrams take on it. Grade: B+

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:58 pm
Profile WWW
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 942
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Thief12 wrote:
I had a lot of fun with Star Trek (2009), so I was kinda looking forward to the sequel, Star Trek: Into Darkness. I watched it this morning and, although I don't think it was as good as the first one, I still enjoyed it a lot. Action was very well handled, there were some good emotional moments, Benedict Cumberbatch was pretty good as Khan... but I also felt it went over a bit longer than it should during its last act. Still, for someone who isn't familiar with this franchise, and who hadn't seen any of the previous films, I'm sure enjoying J.J. Abrams take on it. Grade: B+

My biggest issue with it is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek canon - so technically shouldn't even be called "Star Trek". It has the names, but not the faces (or even the characters for that matter) - Abrams' TV series Fringe did parallel universes a lot better in this regard. Leonard Nimoy (the only thing tying the two "universes" together) should hang his head in shame for being involved in this, but I guess the money was too good to pass up (a paycheck is a paycheck I 'spose).


Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:53 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I would have preferred, following the 2009 movie, that they'd kept Nimoy out of it altogether. I find myself surprised to say that, since I'd have never imagined before that I'd be disappointed to see him in anything Star Trek related, but I think it hurts the new movies to keep insisting on their association with the original canon. I think it'd be better here on out if they just tacitly kept the connection in mind and otherwise treated this as a brand new series. No more "homages". New villains, new adventures... give this new cast a chance to do their own thing. STID is definitely at its best when giving them original situations to deal with.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:05 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 942
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ken wrote:
I would have preferred, following the 2009 movie, that they'd kept Nimoy out of it altogether. I find myself surprised to say that, since I'd have never imagined before that I'd be disappointed to see him in anything Star Trek related, but I think it hurts the new movies to keep insisting on their association with the original canon. I think it'd be better here on out if they just tacitly kept the connection in mind and otherwise treated this as a brand new series. No more "homages". New villains, new adventures... give this new cast a chance to do their own thing. STID is definitely at its best when giving them original situations to deal with.

Isn't the Star Trek universe more than big enough to accommodate a few more ORIGINAL characters? I just can't see why Abrams' went the whole "parallel universe" route, other than as an excuse to resurrect old names. Not faces or even characters mind you, just NAMES. I just don't really see this as being anything other than a cynical cash grab, which is what Hollywood is all about of course, but how any "old skool" Star Trek fan (e.g. our esteemed host) can get on board this particular ride is truly beyond me.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I doubt it was Abrams' idea.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:21 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7416
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Thursday (1998) ***

Tarantino clones are often guilty fun (anyone else enjoy Go? I enjoyed Go) and this one was no exception. Blood splatter, flashbacks, women raping men, lots of good stuff. And checking in at a lean 85 minutes. On instant -- go watch it! You'll have a blast. i did.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:29 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Thursday (1998) ***

Tarantino clones are often guilty fun (anyone else enjoy Go? I enjoyed Go) and this one was no exception. Blood splatter, flashbacks, women raping men, lots of good stuff. And checking in at a lean 85 minutes. On instant -- go watch it! You'll have a blast. i did.


Go? No, Go had a few nice moments here and there and wasn't too awful overall, but it was pretty meh for me by the end.

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:15 pm
Profile WWW
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 942
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ken wrote:
I doubt it was Abrams' idea.

I wonder if he'll reboot Star Wars in the same manner, with perhaps Zac Efron as Luke Skywalker, Shia LaBeouf as Han Solo, Katherine Heigl as Leia, George Clooney as Obi-Wan, maybe Chris Rock as a wise-cracking all-CGI Chewbacca (he talks now too), and as the coup de grace non other than Mark Hamill to play Darth Vader (which would obviously blow people's minds, and be 100% awesome!). It would all be ok of course, because... PARALLEL UNIVERSE!


Last edited by nitrium on Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:27 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
nitrium wrote:
Ken wrote:
I doubt it was Abrams' idea.

I wonder if he'll reboot Star Wars in the same manner, with perhaps Zac Efron as Luke Skywalker, Shia LaBeouf as Han Solo, Katherine Heigl as Leia, George Clooney as Obi-Wan and maybe Chris Rock as a wise-cracking Chewbacca (he talks now). It would all be ok, because PARALLEL UNIVERSE!

I don't see it happening that way, but I would be totally fine with Chris Rock if that was true. Anyways my mom grew up watching the original series and she loved both the 2009 film and Into Darkness.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:34 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1710
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
Zac Efron as Luke Skywalker, Shia LaBeouf as Han Solo, Katherine Heigl as Leia, George Clooney as Obi-Wan


All very possible at this point.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:51 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 649
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Lonesome - Paul Fejos’ 1928 film has quietly built up a reputation since its original release among those fortunate enough to see it, but it had never been made widely available for home viewing until a release by the Criterion Collection in 2012. The release highlights a film that is simple in its intent but still holds a good deal of value. Essentially a straightforward romance, the film follows a man and a woman, both living alone in New York City, who individually decide to take a break from their daily work routines to spend an afternoon at Coney Island. Fejos sharply contrasts the daily drudgery of the New York work routine/adult lifestyle with the youthful energy of Coney Island, where responsible men and women can reclaim some of the carefree joy and exuberance of their childhood, if only for a short while (surprisingly, the filmmakers never shot any material in New York). For a film from the later years of the silent period, Lonesome feels a little ahead of its time, with the inclusion of some surprisingly-experimental flourishes. The early scenes unfold at a rapid pace, with the work routines of the two characters complementing each other, each of them bombarded by the monotony of their occupations (the film juxtaposes the woman, who works as a telephone operator, with the faces of the many people with whom she is communicating). Elsewhere, three dialogue scenes were added to capitalize on the success of The Jazz Singer in 1927, and the film also includes brief splashes of color, done the old-fashioned way, by hand over individual frames. The Criterion release uses a later French print as its source, and while it will probably never be known whether the print was truly accurate to the filmmakers’ original intentions, what remains onscreen has a unique life of its own.

This will be the point where I reveal myself as something of a philistine regarding silent film. With only a few exceptions (mainly Chaplin), I’ve never been able to completely invest into a silent film. Instead, I tend to view them from a more detached perspective, usually more focused on the filmmaking details or the history of its making than the narrative or whatever emotions the filmmakers are attempting to evoke. Lonesome is one of the few silent films I’ve seen that bucks that trend. While there is a brief orientation period to the storytelling methods of silent cinema, the narrative quickly gets its hooks in you. It’s a simple story, but that’s not a problem when the story is told so well. When the two potential lovers break away from their daily work routines for an afternoon of entertainment and joviality, there is a palpable energy that rises up in the film. When the couple is separated after a harrowing rollercoaster ride, there is genuine tension as to whether or not they will find each other again amidst the overwhelming crowds. And when the film starts to come to a close, there is a nice ironic twist that ends everything on an incredibly satisfying note. Lonesome shouldn’t be viewed as a relic of the silent times; it’s a film that still has the capacity to entertain and inspire, 85 years since its original release. 8/10.

Still Walking - Hirokazu Koreeda is a filmmaker I’ve been meaning to explore for quite some time now, but different circumstances have kept me away from his work. It hasn’t been for a lack of trying; I’ve attempted to watch Maborosi and After Life, but the quality of the DVDs have rendered the films close to unwatchable. Fortunately, that was not a problem with the home release for this supposedly-autobiographical 2008 effort, which observes a son and a daughter as they return to their parents’ home on the anniversary of a past tragedy. The son, Ryoto, has distanced himself from his family in the years since the death of his brother. He’s recently-married to a widow with a young son, but is struggling to find work, a fact that he wants to keep a secret from his parents. The daughter, Yukari, has a friendly but shallow-headed husband and two young children, and harbors reservations about having to look after her mother and father as they continue to age. As soon as everyone is together, it is clear there are still unresolved issues between all of them.

The most obvious comparison to make with Koreeda’s work here is to Yasujiro Ozu, but it’s also an appropriate one. Like the films of that Japanese master, Koreeda prefers to keep the camera stationary, letting the action speak for itself without the need for any overt visual distractions. The recurring motif of a train whistling its way through a quiet seaside town also can’t help but spark memories of Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds. But it’s in the film’s insights into family life, and specifically the different ways family members react to tragedy, where Still Walking really earns the comparison. There’s a lot of pain here, bubbling just underneath the surface, but Koreeda wisely resists any moments of big emotions. This family has drifted too far apart for there to be any hope of real reconciliation, and everyone seems to quietly acknowledge that fact. Instead, they all go through the motions. Nobody is this scenario is completely right or completely wrong, which might be why they all feel incredibly real. I recognize parts of myself and part of others in their thoughts and actions. That kind of recognition is not an easy thing to pull off, but Koreeda manages to make it seem effortless. 10/10.

Robinson Crusoe On Mars - The most surprising thing about this 1964 science-fiction adventure from director Byron Haskin is how faithfully it adheres to the source material referenced in its title, the classic Daniel Defoe novel from 1719. Of course, the film has an extra hook, with everything happening on the Red Planet instead of on an uninhabited island. It opens with two astronauts nearing their final destination of Mars, only to run afoul of a planet-orbiting asteroid that causes their ship to crash violently to the surface. Only one of the astronauts survives, and along with the ship’s flight-test monkey Mona, he sets about scrounging for what he needs to survive. Obviously, with a title like Robinson Crusoe On Mars, you’re not going into it with the expectation that you’ll be seeing an overly-serious production. The film seems to confirm its campy nature right away, when Adam West, two years before Batman, is the first person to pop up onscreen. Sadly though, his screentime is short-lived, and the film never completely recovers from his absence.

The first hour of the film is completely devoted to the astronaut’s struggles to survive by himself on the alien world, scrambling to find food, water, shelter, and oxygen. The pacing is very deliberate, almost excessively so, although there is a quiet kind of appeal in watching the astronaut methodically work through his problems. It’s disappointing though how he mostly stumbles into all he needs instead of working out practical, intelligent solutions (at one point, he accepts his impending death and lays down to die, only to wake up later and discover the sponge-like rocks on the planet emit oxygen when set on fire). The arrival of Friday, an alien brought to Mars as a slave, breaks up some of the feelings of monotony, but the filmmakers strangely don’t bother with a final confrontation between the two men and the slavers, despite some foreshadowing early on that that’s where everything is heading (at least the slavers inspire the best special effect, with their ships zipping around the screen at hilariously disorientating speeds). It’s a little odd to see a film like this battle with itself, attempting to exist both as a campy escapade of ridiculousness and a more serious-minded science-fiction adventure. As it stands, there is a certain amount of hokey charm to be had here, but the attempts at seriousness make the film an uneven and less compelling experience than it would have been had it gone full-tilt into the realms of lunacy. 5/10.

_________________
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
Letterboxd Profile


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:52 pm
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
nitrium wrote:
I wonder if he'll reboot Star Wars in the same manner, with perhaps Zac Efron as Luke Skywalker, Shia LaBeouf as Han Solo, Katherine Heigl as Leia, George Clooney as Obi-Wan, maybe Chris Rock as a wise-cracking all-CGI Chewbacca (he talks now too), and as the coup de grace non other than Mark Hamill to play Darth Vader (which would obviously blow people's minds, and be 100% awesome!). It would all be ok of course, because... PARALLEL UNIVERSE!

It would all be okay because no matter what the film turns out to be, good or bad, the ones you like are still sitting there right on the shelf, as they always were. This is a lesson we should have all learned a long time ago.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:53 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The A-Team Why did this film caught so much flak? I mean, it was stupid fun and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Perhaps the last 20 minutes were a bit too chaotic, but when you have a film where four guys survive a tank falling from 20,000 feet by shooting its cannon to redirect its fall into a German lake... well, I guess you can expect everything. Grade: B

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:59 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654 ... 808  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr