Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:46 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804 ... 818  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
Yeah, because there's no degree or concept of comedy in between Grown Ups 2 and Wolf of Wall Street. Come on, dude, you're better than that.


What are you getting at this time, homeboy broseph? At least make your point clear? I'll try and guess: did you think I was implying that those were the only two types of comedy?

I'm very familiar with the many avenues of comedy in existence, including the many that are funnier than either Wall Street or Grown Ups 2.

Most of Scorsese's earlier films had a natural aspect of humor to them, but all out comedy I don't think jives with Scorsese. Often in Wolf, it feels like he's trying to reach for the Judd Apatow crowd, at times imitating those films. Wolf's best moments come from the earnestness of Kyle Chandler and the few times when Jonah Hill becomes serious.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:41 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 433
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Gwaihir wrote:
The Wolf of Wall Street - Long. Long. Long. Long. Long. Long. ...

I think too long is the film's main problem as well. Long, and without any kinetic sequences to juice it up. It's a universal problem, one of the main reasons for instance I think Lawrence of Arabia is surely the most overrated movie of the 60s: too damn long.


I don't think that the length of a movie as such is an issue, it's whether there is enough material in it to warrant such length. I vehemently disagree that 'Lawrence of Arabia' is too long, because I found it captivating from beginning to end and there is sufficient substance in it to justify it (a view which other may ot share). In the case of 'Wolf of Wall Street', there isn't, though. It starts of with a rambunctous office party with people snorting cocaine and having a dwarf-throwing competition, then shows us for 45 minutes or so how Jordan Belfort got there and then there are nearly two hours of more debauchery, which becomes repetitive. This isn't a rise and fall-type story about a white collar criminal, nor does it really examine the financial industry, it's a comedy about copious use of drugs. I think that 90 - 120 minutes would have been sufficient to do that well.

Syd Henderson wrote:
Pandora's Box. This is a late silent movie that got mixed reviews at the time, but was rediscovered decades later and is now deservedly regarded as a classic and helps keep Louise Brooks' name alive and well. Even if you haven't seen her movies, you've seen her look, because her bobbed hair became a fad.

Brooks here is almost a force of nature as "Lulu" casually destroys those who care about her and eventually herself though men's (and one woman's) passion for her, and other men's desire to exploit that beauty. Lulu's joy of life attracts people even as her selfishness and sexuality destroys them. (Although it seems to me that the men also have flaws that make Lulu more of a catalyst.

Brooks is outstanding, and it's hard to find fault with the direction, which has roots in German Expressionism, but is also surprisingly modern. The stages range from the luxurious to the decrepit. The supporting characters can't match Brooks, but Carl Goetz as Schigolch, Lulu's possible pimp and possible father (and quite likely both), and Alice Roberts as Countess Augusta Geschwitz, who is quite obviously in love with Lulu, both make strong impressions, not entirely a good one in Goetz's case. I wonder if some of the problem when this film was first released was the Countess's obvious lesbianism. There's a sweet little performance near the end by a pretty Salvation Army worker whose name I haven't been able to find out. (9.0 of 10)


Great to read your thoughts on 'Pandora's Box'. The DVD has been lying on a shelf at home since last Christmas, waiting to be watched. Perhaps, I'll do it soon. Last year, I visited a film museum in Berlin, where they had some material on the 'Pandora's Box'. Apparently, Louise Brooks caused quite as kerfuffle when she came to Berlin. She must have been a huge star. Apparently, Marlene Dietrich was set to play Lulu but was immediately dropped by the director when Brooks became available.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:53 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 am
Posts: 311
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Unke wrote:
In the case of 'Wolf of Wall Street', there isn't, though. It starts of with a rambunctous office party with people snorting cocaine and having a dwarf-throwing competition, then shows us for 45 minutes or so how Jordan Belfort got there and then there are nearly two hours of more debauchery, which becomes repetitive. This isn't a rise and fall-type story about a white collar criminal, nor does it really examine the financial industry, it's a comedy about copious use of drugs. I think that 90 - 120 minutes would have been sufficient to do that well.


Nailed it! Especially in how there's nearly 2 hours of more debauchery that doesn't really add that much (but the phone fight while they're high on quaaludes, holy shit!) and becomes repetitive.

I have no problem with length in films generally, but this one definitely felt too long to me. For example, if I have 12 hours to kill (which of course doesn't happen often) I can sit and watch The Lord of the Rings extended editions consecutively without one complaint to how long they take. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is another great example of a long movie that I have no problem watching, and it's an hour longer than Wolf of Wall Street. In fact I may watch that today if I don't have anything going on.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:10 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
I vehemently disagree that 'Lawrence of Arabia' is too long, because I found it captivating from beginning to end and there is sufficient substance in it to justify it (a view which other may ot share).


I've contemplated starting a thread about this movie, as its popularity begins to perplex me more and more.

Of its 3.5 hours, a huge portion is devoted simply to wide shots establishing the open expanse of the desert. In the first half of the movie, there's very little plot. The plot is: Lawrence goes to the desert, meets the Arabs, makes the decision to go to take the Arabs across the desert to fight the Turks on the coastal city, goes back to tell the generals in Cairo. That's it. Nothing happens in the movie for very long expanses of time. As a spectacle, it often falls flat, David Lean having a tendency to pancake his shots into the simplest, most rudimentary blocking he can think of. There is also an immense tonal disjointedness in the movie. Sometimes, it's a jolly adventure yarn, other times a plodding piece of political discourse. The "torture" scene especially is painfully outdated and unintentionally hilarious. The film becomes especially talky in the second half. And seriously, not all of it is substance. There is a great deal of padding in Lawrence, because of the producers feeling the need to compete evenly with Ben-Hur and other epics of the time. Many moments are empty of any substance, and there are times when Lean makes his dramatic beats redundant. For instance, when Lawrence rescues Gasim from the "Sun's Anvil," Maurice Jarre's music swells up into a big crowd-pleasing moment as the boy Daud sees them emerging from the desert. But then Lean shoots for exactly the same crowd-pleasing moment immediately after when Farraj sees Lawrence arriving at the camp.

Many of the characterizations strike me as kind of fun, but kind of childish. Anthony Quinn's Auda Abu Tayi is never developed as a character beyond being the old familiar "loveable oaf" type. He might as well be Ballou the Bear. Peter O'Toole's performance is at times electrifying, at times obnoxious, and it largely consists of exaggerating the surface aspects of the character. Anthony Quayle looks like a cartoon, with his face permanently frozen in a childish pout. Alec Guinness plays the old, wise sage for the millionth time in his career. Omar Sharif gives the movie's best, most-well rounded performance. And Arthur Kennedy is just a drier version of the rough cowboys he played for Anthony Mann.

Also, the complete lack of women over the entire running length is just absurd and off-putting.

Most of all, it's just not anywhere near as good as Bridge on the River Kwai. The success of that film clearly went to Lean's head, as he took to simply indulging himself for the rest of his career. And the backlash that came with Doctor Zhivago demonstrates that Lean's weaknesses were beginning to show. Few had the courage to stand up to Lawrence (although some of the most famous critics did, like Bosley Crowther and Andrew Sarris), but Doctor Zhivago's extreme boredom wasn't lost on a lot of people. The rest is history. Ryan's Daughter was the flop that killed Lean's career.

But Lawrence is highly overrated. For epic desert vistas, The Searchers is far more visually dynamic, and 90 minutes the shorter. For the length, Seven Samurai is far richer and Gone with the Wind far more interesting as an artifact of classic Hollywood mythmaking. For the spectacle, the severely under seen El Cid and The Fall of the Roman Empire are leaner, meaner, and more visually rich and kinetic, with more dynamic photography from Robert Krasker. As action epics, they're top of the class, but I also can enjoy serious dramatic epics that have no trace of action or adventure. The Good Shepherd is, to me, infinitely more entertaining and substantial than Lawrence. For me, Lawrence is largely just a bizarre footnote of cinematic history coming at a period of international upheaval in the art form. It's caught halfway between classic and modern Hollywood, not pure drama, not pure adventure, not pure epic, just a gigantic, awkward concoction. Plus it copies the opening scenes of Citizen Kane for no reason.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:53 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 433
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
I vehemently disagree that 'Lawrence of Arabia' is too long, because I found it captivating from beginning to end and there is sufficient substance in it to justify it (a view which other may ot share).


I've contemplated starting a thread about this movie, as its popularity begins to perplex me more and more.

Of its 3.5 hours, a huge portion is devoted simply to wide shots establishing the open expanse of the desert. In the first half of the movie, there's very little plot. The plot is: Lawrence goes to the desert, meets the Arabs, makes the decision to go to take the Arabs across the desert to fight the Turks on the coastal city, goes back to tell the generals in Cairo. That's it. Nothing happens in the movie for very long expanses of time. As a spectacle, it often falls flat, David Lean having a tendency to pancake his shots into the simplest, most rudimentary blocking he can think of. There is also an immense tonal disjointedness in the movie. Sometimes, it's a jolly adventure yarn, other times a plodding piece of political discourse. The "torture" scene especially is painfully outdated and unintentionally hilarious. The film becomes especially talky in the second half. And seriously, not all of it is substance. There is a great deal of padding in Lawrence, because of the producers feeling the need to compete evenly with Ben-Hur and other epics of the time. Many moments are empty of any substance, and there are times when Lean makes his dramatic beats redundant. For instance, when Lawrence rescues Gasim from the "Sun's Anvil," Maurice Jarre's music swells up into a big crowd-pleasing moment as the boy Daud sees them emerging from the desert. But then Lean shoots for exactly the same crowd-pleasing moment immediately after when Farraj sees Lawrence arriving at the camp.

Many of the characterizations strike me as kind of fun, but kind of childish. Anthony Quinn's Auda Abu Tayi is never developed as a character beyond being the old familiar "loveable oaf" type. He might as well be Ballou the Bear. Peter O'Toole's performance is at times electrifying, at times obnoxious, and it largely consists of exaggerating the surface aspects of the character. Anthony Quayle looks like a cartoon, with his face permanently frozen in a childish pout. Alec Guinness plays the old, wise sage for the millionth time in his career. Omar Sharif gives the movie's best, most-well rounded performance. And Arthur Kennedy is just a drier version of the rough cowboys he played for Anthony Mann.

Also, the complete lack of women over the entire running length is just absurd and off-putting.

Most of all, it's just not anywhere near as good as Bridge on the River Kwai. The success of that film clearly went to Lean's head, as he took to simply indulging himself for the rest of his career. And the backlash that came with Doctor Zhivago demonstrates that Lean's weaknesses were beginning to show. Few had the courage to stand up to Lawrence (although some of the most famous critics did, like Bosley Crowther and Andrew Sarris), but Doctor Zhivago's extreme boredom wasn't lost on a lot of people. The rest is history. Ryan's Daughter was the flop that killed Lean's career.

But Lawrence is highly overrated. For epic desert vistas, The Searchers is far more visually dynamic, and 90 minutes the shorter. For the length, Seven Samurai is far richer and Gone with the Wind far more interesting as an artifact of classic Hollywood mythmaking. For the spectacle, the severely under seen El Cid and The Fall of the Roman Empire are leaner, meaner, and more visually rich and kinetic, with more dynamic photography from Robert Krasker. As action epics, they're top of the class, but I also can enjoy serious dramatic epics that have no trace of action or adventure. The Good Shepherd is, to me, infinitely more entertaining and substantial than Lawrence. For me, Lawrence is largely just a bizarre footnote of cinematic history coming at a period of international upheaval in the art form. It's caught halfway between classic and modern Hollywood, not pure drama, not pure adventure, not pure epic, just a gigantic, awkward concoction. Plus it copies the opening scenes of Citizen Kane for no reason.


Unfortunately, I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, so cannot respond at length. I also agree that a discussion on 'Lawrence of Arabia' would deserve its own thread. Go ahead, MGamesCook!

And before you do, you may want to reconsider or rephrase some parts of your post. "Lawrence of Arabia is largely a bizarre footnote of cinematic history"? Come on. The backlash that met 'Doctor Zhivago', the extreme boredom of which wasn't lost on a lot of people, makes it the eight-hightest grossing movie of all time (as of now, adjusted for inflation). And you have heard of 'A Passage to India' (which got Lean Oscar nominations for editing and directing in 1984, i.e. after his career appears to have been dead and buried), haven't you?

And "lean" and "mean" aren't exactly the terms which I would use to describe 'The Fall of the Roman Empire'. I mean, it has Alec Guiness sitting on a chair watching a parade for half an hour!


Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:38 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
And before you do, you may want to reconsider or rephrase some parts of your post. "Lawrence of Arabia is largely a bizarre footnote of cinematic history"? Come on. The backlash that met 'Doctor Zhivago', the extreme boredom of which wasn't lost on a lot of people, makes it the eight-hightest grossing movie of all time (as of now, adjusted for inflation). And you have heard of 'A Passage to India' (which got Lean Oscar nominations for editing and directing in 1984, i.e. after his career appears to have been dead and buried), haven't you?

And "lean" and "mean" aren't exactly the terms which I would use to describe 'The Fall of the Roman Empire'. I mean, it has Alec Guiness sitting on a chair watching a parade for half an hour!


What's wrong with calling Lawrence a bizarre footnote of cinematic history? I think I made valid points which support that argument. It's halfway between classical and modern modes of filmmaking. Lawrence himself is half El Cid, half Alex DeLarge almost. Seriously, it's a strange movie.

Doctor Zhivago had and continues to have a backlash regarding its length, in spite of its massive success, and is widely thought to be a rather boring film. Not that it doesn't also have supporters. Thunderball was also a huge blockbuster success, but it's one of the more bloated, tiresome Bond films. Box office success didn't necessarily indicate quality in the 60s anymore than it does now.

I do know A Passage to India, and it was one of only three films Lean managed to make after Lawrence. Less well-known are his earlier 1940s Dickens adaptations, for instance, which I find generally more visually rich and sharper than his epics. And I always loved Bridge on the River Kwai. Still, there's a basic coldness in Lean's approach that does make me long for Howard Hawks' ample personality a lot of the time. Lean liked to extenuate the simpler aspects of a story, sometimes to good effect, sometimes not in my opinion.

Fall of the Roman Empire is at times a bit slow, but overall faster and more mobile than Lawrence or Zhivago. Also about a half hour shorter than the latter two. The assembly, or parade, that Alec Guinness's roman emperor oversees is a stationary establishing sequence, which is pretty typical for an epic. Definitely quite important to the plot. And it gets to the meat of the story quickly enough. There are many stunning sequences, such as the first battle in the forest, the chariot chase, the whole assassination plot of the senators, Marcus's funeral in the snow, the arrival in Rome (still the biggest set ever built?). Even though Stephen Boyd may be a bit bland, we're really not meant to sympathize with his character anyway, and the acting in general is memorable enough, especially Christopher Plummer as the credibly maniacal successor.

Certainly, what's most impressive with David Lean generally is the acting. Many outstanding performances in River Kwai ground the film and drive it forward. In Lawrence, that's also true up to a point, but I think 3.5 hours is simply too long for actors to carry so much weight. And all actors, without a single actress among them. Nashville is very actor-centric, with a larger ensemble than Lawrence, but manages to be an hour shorter. Of course, in Nashville's case the movie never quite feels like it's being driven by the actors, but rather by Altman's aggressive, unusual directorial approach. Such tends to be the case with Mann as well. Lean's direction is very passive at times. A lot of static shots that have a one-at-a-time rhythm to them. Also, I just can't help suspecting that most of the passion for Lawrence goes to the first half of it. Scenes from the first half are what people remember fondly when the movie gets brought up. His funeral scene, which sets itself up as a bookend, is never returned to, and the second half almost feels like an appendix to the first.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:34 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 240
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
Of its 3.5 hours, a huge portion is devoted simply to wide shots establishing the open expanse of the desert. In the first half of the movie, there's very little plot. The plot is: Lawrence goes to the desert, meets the Arabs, makes the decision to go to take the Arabs across the desert to fight the Turks on the coastal city, goes back to tell the generals in Cairo. That's it. Nothing happens in the movie for very long expanses of time.
MGamesCook


Can I borrow your stick? I'd like to beat on "2001 A Space Apathy" when you're done with it.

I do think this warrants its own thread.

_________________
______________________________
Specializing in rodent behavior modification.
-Watch me pull a habit out of rat.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:01 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Awf Hand wrote:
Quote:
Of its 3.5 hours, a huge portion is devoted simply to wide shots establishing the open expanse of the desert. In the first half of the movie, there's very little plot. The plot is: Lawrence goes to the desert, meets the Arabs, makes the decision to go to take the Arabs across the desert to fight the Turks on the coastal city, goes back to tell the generals in Cairo. That's it. Nothing happens in the movie for very long expanses of time.
MGamesCook


Can I borrow your stick? I'd like to beat on "2001 A Space Apathy" when you're done with it.

I do think this warrants its own thread.


I'd be interested to read that, though can't promise total agreement :D . Anyway, I just went ahead and made the thread.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:32 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 442
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
What are you getting at this time, homeboy broseph? At least make your point clear? I'll try and guess: did you think I was implying that those were the only two types of comedy?


That's exactly what your words implied. It's what any reasonable person would assume you were trying to say based on your words alone. But you're correct -- and I'm being 100% sincere here -- in that I wasn't totally clear with my point, which was that I knew that wasn't the argument you were making, but it did seem like a jab at some theoretical people who call Wolf mature comedy and Sandler et al not, which isn't anyone here and sidetracked the actual discussion (which I praised you for and aligned with your points!). No big deal. I also agree with this:

MGamesCook wrote:
Most of Scorsese's earlier films had a natural aspect of humor to them, but all out comedy I don't think jives with Scorsese. Often in Wolf, it feels like he's trying to reach for the Judd Apatow crowd, at times imitating those films. Wolf's best moments come from the earnestness of Kyle Chandler and the few times when Jonah Hill becomes serious.


Spot on. Scorsese has never made films absent of humor, but he never found the right way to tell this story, and while it often looks like a Scorsese picture, it never feels like one.

Unke wrote:
I don't think that the length of a movie as such is an issue, it's whether there is enough material in it to warrant such length.


Indeed. Anyone who takes a categorical stance on long movies = bad is limiting themselves. That's why I agree so much with Ebert, and why this also falls within the concept of a film is not is not good or bad because of what it is about but rather how it is about it.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:50 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 802
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
ilovemovies wrote:
Thief12 wrote:
I know I might be alone, but my main problem with most of Scorsese's films is that I just don't feel compelled to rewatch them. I like, and maybe love, a lot of them (Wolf of Wall Street included) but I just don't feel drawn to them again. And since I value the rewatchability factor of a film, that just hinders his overall impact for me personally.


The Departed is one of Scorsese's most endlessy rewatchable movies and gets better and better with every viewing. Same with Bringing Out the Dead and Hugo.






opg


Well, I said "most", so the statement doesn't have to apply to all. Actually, The Departed and Hugo are the only Scorsese films I own, and the latter is probably the one I consider my favorite.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:38 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 1019
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Awf Hand wrote:
Can I borrow your stick? I'd like to beat on "2001 A Space Apathy" when you're done with it.

I personally don't think 2001 has aged particularly well. Like most I loved the movie once upon a time, but during a rewatch a few years ago it hit me that it really is showing its age (the title alone!)... and imo is now near irrelevant in the face of superior (even if less ambitious and encompassing) modern films with similar themes (that quite possibly owe their very existence to the success of 2001, but that doesn't make the originating film any better when seen TODAY). There, I said it.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:59 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
nitrium wrote:
Awf Hand wrote:
Can I borrow your stick? I'd like to beat on "2001 A Space Apathy" when you're done with it.

I personally don't think 2001 has aged particularly well. Like most I loved the movie once upon a time, but during a rewatch a few years ago it hit me that it really is showing its age (the title alone!)... and imo is now near irrelevant in the face of superior (even if less ambitious and encompassing) modern films with similar themes (that quite possibly owe their very existence to the success of 2001, but that doesn't make the originating film any better when seen TODAY). There, I said it.


I don't think it's aged well enough to be called one of the absolute best of all time, but I do enjoy returning to it now and then. What remains fun is that there are still different possible interpretations of what actually happens in the movie. It also makes a nice companion to the numerous other experimental films of that decade, like Marienbad, Pierrot le Fou, 8.5, Persona. However, even though it's experimental, I don't think 2001 works well as abstract visual art. I find it more fascinating to try and take the story literally, in this case.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:07 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 971
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Giver: I'll never understand why Hollywood insists on dumbing down movies for teenagers...particularly when the source material is so popular in that age group. Frankly, the story and its themes are strong enough that, done right, a film version could be in the running for some Oscars. Sadly, that's not what happened here. They fucked up five minutes in and kept fucking up at a regular frequency until the end, which just sucked ass. They didn't set the stage for the story (Jonas got his job five minutes into the film...wtf?), the acting was horrible, all thought-provoking material was diluted to the point of no existence, and they turned the climax into an action scene? It all comes down to a race between a kid with a baby on a bike and a fighter jet? What were they thinking?

The worst was when they showed the truth about people being
[Reveal] Spoiler:
released. In the book, it made sense using the elderly because it served a purpose for the society but was still a betrayal. In the movie, they used babies, and showed it in all of its graphic glory. It's exploitative and irresponsible.
1/4

Black Death: A historical adventure starring Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean, and Carice Van Houten? SOLD!

Sadly, the film isn't worth it. The plot is clunky, character development is nil, and it descends into a ripoff of "The Wicker Man." Skip it.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:39 am
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

A disappointing non-sequel to Rise of the Apes. It almost feels as though about five years ago, the producers had two scripts they could choose from and that they simply chose to do Rise first and Dawn second. There's very little linear narrative continuity from Rise to Dawn, and exactly zero stylistic or tonal continuity. So it makes sense that Dawn's biggest fans are those like Berardinelli who weren't entirely convinced by Rise. But Rise was a visually kinetic, fun film, where Rupert Wyatt created numerous lively shots and set pieces. The story in Rise was epic and exciting as it began to get bigger and bigger as the film went on. Dawn, on the other hand, is pedestrian and drearily directed by Matt Reeves, who mostly just lets Weta direct the film for him. Despite the air of absolute seriousness the film aims for, several parts are unintentionally funny.

The special effects are outstanding, and in 2014 that's about as impressive as a 1975 movie in technicolor. Dawn is extremely slow and static in parts, never quite boring, generally watchable, but just really underwhelming. All of the human characters should have been named Bland and Blandy, all from Bland City. Man, they're dry, and the acting from Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman is merely competent. Beyond competence, they have no energy or screen presence at all. The story is almost unbelievably cliched and rehashed. It rehashes so many "Cowboys and Indians" movies, and when it's not doing that, it's ripping from The Lion King. The plot progression isn't even remotely earned:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
One minute, Koba is loyal to Caesar, the next they're mortal enemies.
No buildup, no narrative arc. A forced bag of cliches.

Also, the film completely undermines itself by making its villain too flatly evil. If Dawn were actually a sophisticated, complex work, Koba's point of view would be more sympathetic. Unlike the complexity of Zod in Man of Steel, or Magneto, Koba is simply an angry face and a loud voice.

Most of all, this film is just shamelessly manipulative, and plain stupid and unintelligent. It treats viewers like little kids. "Now Caesar understand, not all my kind are good, not all their kind are bad." I liked that line better when it was lectured to me in the second grade.

Damn, what a stinker.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:57 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 630
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Awf Hand wrote:
Quote:

Can I borrow your stick? I'd like to beat on "2001 A Space Apathy" when you're done with it.

I do think this warrants its own thread.


That almost had me ROFL.

I don't have a stick, but I'd like to get in a few kicks while it's down.

I've completely avoided Lawrence on the mostly unfounded assumption that it will bore me to deàth. Love Bridge on the River Kwai, and I don't usually worry about movie length, but nothing about Lawrence of Arabia has ever looked appealing to me. Length does cause me some apprehension prior to watching a film, but in my opinion it does not directly detract from the quality of a film.

On a completely different level, I've avoided watching Pandora's Box just because I don't want my wife to see that title name in my recently watched list! However, after Syd Henderson's review I'll need to see if it's still available on Netflix instant and get with it.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:41 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
moviemkr7 wrote:
The Giver: I'll never understand why Hollywood insists on dumbing down movies for teenagers...particularly when the source material is so popular in that age group. Frankly, the story and its themes are strong enough that, done right, a film version could be in the running for some Oscars. Sadly, that's not what happened here. They fucked up five minutes in and kept fucking up at a regular frequency until the end, which just sucked ass. They didn't set the stage for the story (Jonas got his job five minutes into the film...wtf?), the acting was horrible, all thought-provoking material was diluted to the point of no existence, and they turned the climax into an action scene? It all comes down to a race between a kid with a baby on a bike and a fighter jet? What were they thinking?

The worst was when they showed the truth about people being
[Reveal] Spoiler:
released. In the book, it made sense using the elderly because it served a purpose for the society but was still a betrayal. In the movie, they used babies, and showed it in all of its graphic glory. It's exploitative and irresponsible.
1/4

Black Death: A historical adventure starring Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean, and Carice Van Houten? SOLD!

Sadly, the film isn't worth it. The plot is clunky, character development is nil, and it descends into a ripoff of "The Wicker Man." Skip it.

I'm not surprised it was bad, frankly I thought the book sucked so I had no expectations that the film would be any better, it seems I was right.

Mcgames- I thought Dawn was an OK film, but I do think JB was a bit too forgiving of it, I agree with you on Caesar, he became way too one-dimensional to be interesting as a villain, my biggest problem with the film were the numerous plot holes(apes do not multiply that fast, so there's no way they would be outnumbering humans) and the majority of the characters being nowhere near as interesting as those in the first film(particularly Oldman's character, who is nothing but an unlikeable dick, one throwaway line about how he lost his wife is not nearly enough to make me sympathetic towards him).


Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:56 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1796
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Angel Heart

Pretty good 80s noir with Mickey Rourke. Its biggest flaw is that the twist is quite guessable early on, in all its aspects. Honestly, Robert De Niro's identity is pretty damn obvious from the start. But I found it fun to go along with nonetheless. It utilizes the noir formula in a satisfying manner. It certainly packs a stronger punch than Clint Eastwood's bland Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Rourke himself plays his part very well. Feels like he has a kinship to Ralph Meeker's portrayal of Mike Hammer from Kiss Me Deadly. Despite its predictability, Angel Heart works mainly because it feels like it adds something to the detective genre, and what it adds feels oddly logical.

Only other thing: the film is supposed to take place in 1955, but somehow that's often unconvincing, despite some solid budget money going to period detail. It feels like the 80s. A big part of it must be Rourke; he's just too damn 80s. Then again, I also think Chinatown feels mostly like the 70s.

Quote:
Mcgames- I thought Dawn was an OK film, but I do think JB was a bit too forgiving of it, I agree with you on Koba, he became way too one-dimensional to be interesting as a villain, my biggest problem with the film were the numerous plot holes(apes do not multiply that fast, so there's no way they would be outnumbering humans) and the majority of the characters being nowhere near as interesting as those in the first film(particularly Oldman's character, who is nothing but an unlikeable dick, one throwaway line about how he lost his wife is not nearly enough to make me sympathetic towards him).


Fixed that for you. It's just a big downer. Reminds me somewhat of Quantum of Solace. Somewhere from one movie to the next the dots just didn't connect. The reason in both cases, plainly, is an unfortunate change in director. And when that happens, you end up with something that feels fake, like fan-fiction. Fan-fiction is what Dawn felt like to me for the most part, in addition to the cheap feeling a sequel has when its original cast is completely, obviously discarded and replaced. Like Home Alone 3 and the Jurassic Park sequels. But man, Reeves could at least move his camera a little :( . Also didn't think the mocap was anything so special. The final shot of Dawn is just about the cheesiest, silliest final shot of any movie I can think of, and yet another way for it rip off Avatar.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:37 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I thought Quantum was a pretty good film(i'll take it over godawful misfires like Man with the Golden Gun and Live and Let Die any day of the week) but I can understand others reservations towards it. Home Alone 3 I watched quite a bit as a kid, so I still kind of enjoy it today, and I thought the Jurassic Park sequels pretty good(excited for the new one next year).

The ending of Rise did seem kind of rushed and uninspired.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:53 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1314
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
Doctor Zhivago had and continues to have a backlash regarding its length, in spite of its massive success, and is widely thought to be a rather boring film. Not that it doesn't also have supporters. Thunderball was also a huge blockbuster success, but it's one of the more bloated, tiresome Bond films. Box office success didn't necessarily indicate quality in the 60s anymore than it does now.

The biggest problem with "Doctor Zhivago" for me isn't its length, rather the fact that it's a fairly superficial love story (as was Lean's follow-up to it, "Ryan's Daughter"... which also clocks in at about the same 200-minute running time). And how many Oscar bait-y romance films set against an epic backdrop have we gotten in the same vein since? :?


Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:59 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2115
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
H.I. McDonough wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
Doctor Zhivago had and continues to have a backlash regarding its length, in spite of its massive success, and is widely thought to be a rather boring film. Not that it doesn't also have supporters. Thunderball was also a huge blockbuster success, but it's one of the more bloated, tiresome Bond films. Box office success didn't necessarily indicate quality in the 60s anymore than it does now.

The biggest problem with "Doctor Zhivago" for me isn't its length, rather the fact that it's a fairly superficial love story (as was Lean's follow-up to it, "Ryan's Daughter"... which also clocks in at about the same 200-minute running time). And how many Oscar bait-y romance films set against an epic backdrop have we gotten in the same vein since? :?


Out of Africa, for one.

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


Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:28 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804 ... 818  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 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