Agreed. Cinematically, these are the strongest scenes in the film.

Bringing Up Baby

There have been a few other screwball comedies in the top 100, but I think this is probably the strongest. As a genre, these films don't fit very well into the high-art pantheon of "cinema"; but that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile. Bringing Up Baby serves as the breakout comedy role for Katharine Hepburn. Aside from that, I think this film is the perfect argument for why screwball comedies deserve attention.

Cary Grant plays it straight; he's just a guy doing his job, for the most part. He just tries to maintain the status quo. And like all screwball comedies, he gets thrown into quirky shenanigans, in this case caused by a girl. His reactions to these situations and final confession of love are a metaphor for cinema lovers. At the beginning, David (Grant) is content with his engagement to his boring fiancee. Their relationship is founded on little more than professional admiration. In this metaphor, his fiancee represents the traditional notion of "cinema". For the first half of the movie, David is annoyed with Susan (Hepburn), who represents screwball comedies. He eventually expresses his annoyance, but he sticks with it. Finally, he admits his love for Susan and how much he enjoyed their time together. Bringing Up Baby is about learning to enjoy films for what they are. They don't all have to be boring or challenging.

But that's just my theory.

3/4

Immortals

This is essentially Clash of the Titans meets 300, and unfortunately falling closer to the former rather than the latter. Some nice visuals and special effects work is not enough to cover up a lazy screenplay.

Although, speaking of the visuals, this version of ancient Greece is oddly barren. Why put your village halfway up a gigantic cliff in an area where there's no vegetation to speak of and no place for a harbor for your boat? They must have really liked the view, which features the sun always just about to set (unless it's night time).

I was also irritated by the fact that, even though this was set around 1200BC, the Tartaros leader kept going on about how they followed science and reason exclusively, even though this was 500 years before Thales, who was the first western philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thale

And even then, nearly a thousand years later, they still put Socrates to death for bringing up such matters! Gah! No one at this time would have spoken of science and reason in such high terms. I'm not one to bring up historical accuracy in films but good grief, that was absurd. I mean okay, most people when exposed to supernatural phenomenon in movies are going to refer to science and reason (usually so Hollywood can then go - neener! neener! neener! Science is wrong! Ghosts, fairies, monsters, goblins, UFOs piloted by ET's, etc. all really do exist!) but that makes sense in modern times, not for a story set long before Thales, Socrates, Plato, were walking upon this earth.

Also don't get me started on how poorly disciplined the soldiers at Tartaros were. Thanks Hollywood, scientists and thinkers obviously are weak and cowardly. You've had your fun pissing on us, could you move on now?

And before anyone points that films don't have to be historically accurate, particularly ones that deal with myth, a good analogy would be how Hollywood goes out of it's way to protect it's viewers from male nudity, but in Excalibur, they have Aurthors dad doing the not so naked pretzel in full plate body armor. It's not the historical inaccuracy per se that bothers me, it's the absurd length the filmmakers felt they had to go to make a mockery of science and intelligence. That's all.
-Jeremy

Purple Noon: The 1960 film of The Talented Mr. Ripley starring Alain Delon as Ripley. James has it at four stars, which seems a little high for me, but it's a good movie with genuine suspense, and some very good scenes. The one where he has to drag/carry a body down several flights of stairs made me very glad I live in a first floor apartment. I much prefer the ending of the Matt Damon movie.

I agree that James's **** is bizarrely high. While I admit that the ending seems very Code-era (despite being French) I think it's perfect

A while back Mr. Blonde Almond had this to say about a little seen Japanese samurai film:



His write up intrigued me enough to blind buy the film during Criterion's still ongoing 1/2 off sale at Barnes and Noble (and this one only ended up being $15 because the original is only $30). I watched it last night, and while I didn't love it as much as he did, it's still a pretty excellent film. If you liked Yojimbo and Sanjuro, you should like this too. I don't think it's quite as good as either of those, but it's certainly not too far behind.

Samurai films that reveal truths about human nature are guaranteed to fascinate me. This one has a pretty pessimistic message (I was reminded of the speech Loki gives in The Avengers about people wanting to be ruled), but also puts worth the idea that action as necessary as ideas if you want to bring about any kind of change. An excellent, smart, exciting, and well done film. I'm definitely glad I bought it.

Gregory's Girl took me a few minutes to get into, because Gregory is a bit annoying, but it takes off when we meet the girl who replaces him as a scorer on the football (soccer) team and Gregory is instantly in love, an emotion that he's helpless to deal with. And, amazingly, as awkward as he is, he has two friends who are far more hopeless than he is. (There's also a 10-year old boy who's less clueless than he is.)The film has a lot of charm and is often very funny, and the last fifteen minutes are particularly good. Directed by Bill Forsyth, who also directed Local Hero and Housekeeping, two of my favorite movies.

Hancock was a very good film that, unfortunately, morphed into a muddled, merely adequate film. A shame, really. If the second half had been handled with the same focus, humor and thought-provoking care as the first half, we would be looking at a very good, if not great film. Neutering it with a PG-13 rating certainly didn't help either. So much potential wasted.

**** plus ** equals ** 1/2



In any case, Will Smith was fantastic all the way through.

One of those movies where I, embarrassingly, found it hard to hear what people were saying.



The only part of Hancock that truly worked for me by the end was John Powell's magnificently stirring score

The Proposition (2005)

A film that went completely under my radar upon release, I managed to catch up with it last night, a mere 7 years later.

I've always rated Guy Pearce as an actor, and despite some well received roles in good films he seems to have never really broke Hollywood despite having an excess of the required ingredients. A square-jawed, good-looking leading man or character actor who oozes intelligence and versitilty. I get the feeling he has under-achieved, or perhaps the modern industry struggles to find roles for certain kinds of actor (I actually though the same of Daniel Craig before Bond gave him a big break).

This film is good rather than great. It's well acted by a good cast and hard-hitting in moments -

One or two neagatives are perhaps (on first viewing anyway) a lack of clarity with regards to a moral message which might not have been a problem but for the fact that the film is essentially geared up to have one. Also there are one or two moments of odd melodrama and I wasn't sure of Winston and Watson's relationship.

Overall though, well worth a watch. 8/10

I saw this a while back (theatrically, but not during its initial run) and was left pretty underwhelmed. I can't say it's a bad movie, because it's well acted and has some really nice cinematography, but I just left the theater feeling kind of hollow. It's something I've been meaning to revisit because I'm not sure if I just didn't get it the first time through, or if it actually is a fairly empty film.

One thing it does have going for it - Ray Winstone. Everything is better with a little more Ray Winstone.



Completely agree. I've been saying something similar for years. The guy should be a star by now. Instead of being an A-lister by now, he's shows up in some kind of random, odd roles...like playing a 90 year old in Prometheus...or being in The Hurt Locker for, like, one scene. I don't know. He seems to pick genuinely interesting roles, so I guess I shouldn't complain. John Hillcoat seems to really enjoy using him, and that's always kind of cool.

I love how dirty and violent it is though. And it has a great head-exploding moment and enough John Hurt to sate big John Hurt fans such as myself

PeachyPete -



Yeah, that's why added a little "first time" disclaimer to my review. I've got the feeling I may have missed something. Then again I notice that Nick Cave wrote it. So perhaps it's just odd.

I confess I did have captions on, although I could usually understand what people were saying. It wasn't like Kes and Naked, where I needed subtitles.

I made the mistake of watching Naked on Instant, without a subtitle option. Thankfully so much of it was visual (in the first and third acts at least) that I didn't miss that much. I try not to feel guilty when I need them, but for some reason I always do

(2003) The Return (*** out of ****) - A dark, unsettling look at two boys who struggle to come to grips with their father's (Konstantin Lavronenko) sudden return to their family after a 12 year absence, and how he takes them on a camping trip that turns into a test of each one's masculinity. Although the amount of ambiguity the film contains tends to be a little annoying at the conclusion given the film's unwillingness to give really any answers, director Andrei Zvyagintsev's point is clearly to have you as confused as the boys who are being mentally tortured by their father. Throw in a sudden, shocking twist 3/4 of the way through that is impossible to see coming, some beautiful still photography, and the fact that the actor who plays the older boy (Vladimir Garin) died a day before the film's release due to a similar accident that takes place in the film, it is a very memorable, unmistakably powerful little movie. Not for all tastes to be sure, as this is an art-house film inside and out, but a watchable one.

I like this one a good deal. I think it's an elaborate metaphor for Russia under Communism

Platoon

I've often wanted more people to notice how Oliver Stone is one of the worst directors when it comes to "MTV" style or the snatch and grab style of filmmaking. Other directors often get picked on (Nolan) but Stone always stands out to me because when he does resort to quick editing or whatever, he's almost never effective at it.

However, I may have to revise my opinion of him, as Platoon is a harrowing cluster fuck that I was not prepared for. I've only seen a small number of films about Vietnam but this is the best one that I've seen so far.

Stone does a number of things that are worth pointing out. While Platoon is generally apolitical, it does make the point about the senseless nature of war, and the particular puzzling nature of this particular combat. What does stand out is the brutal toil fighting in an untamed jungle has on the grunts who are sent to fight it. (the shot early on of ants eating Sheen's neck sticks out in my mind) Combined with the constant threat of death, and I can only guess at what the physical and mental toll this must have had on the troops themselves.

A recent film, such as Act of Valor, (which I have not seen but guessing from the promotional material I have seen and the reviews that I have read) lionized the soldiers fighting for the U.S., and did not question the sanctity of the U.S.'s fight against "terrorism". Platoon, which fails to take the validity of the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam as a given, and goes out of it's way to point out how the marines fighting here sit at the very bottom of societies totem poll. Rather than detract from, this puts that much more of a punch to the screen caption at the end, dedicating the film to those who fought and died in the Vietnam war. A punch, I don't think any film intended to be propaganda could equal.

4 out of 4 stars.
-Jeremy

The Dark Knight Rises

Not as good as The Dark Knight, but that feels more like a matter of preference, since the tone and structure were quite different. The Dark Knight Rises is more conventional than the previous one. For me, the Joker had added a unique tension and unpredictability to that story; he was like a series of ticking time bombs that can go off anytime, anywhere, to anyone. The whole movie was in constant tension. For some, that became a detriment late in the third act when things may seem tiring with the constant climaxes. There's some truth to that, but I love the unpredictability of it all, and it ended on a perfect scene.

TDKR has more of a three act structure: the first act setting things up, the second act putting plans in action; and the third act is resolution. For me, there are a few stumbles, mostly in the first act and overlapped a bit into the second. This was a movie with a lot of ideas, characters, and plot threads; so many that even 2.45 hours may seem like it will not be enough. Nolan almost pulled it off, but certain characters and a plot point or two should have been given more time to breathe, especially if some of the things/characters would become important late in the proceeding. It doesn't quite hurt the quality of the film much overall, but it made the first act feel a little bit rushed setting things up, and exposition-heavy. A rewatch would help clear things up and clarify my feeling on it.

Bane here was more of a force of nature with a plan than an uncontrollable freak. The nature of the role doesn't allow for a lot of flexibility, but Tom Hardy did very well with what he was given, doing a lot of threatening and menacing with only his eyes and pose. Anne Hathaway also surprised; Catwoman has more background than I initially thought, and she played several aspects of her character well, while injecting light-hearted moment into the grim proceeding. Marion Cotillard was kinda wasted in an underwritten role (or maybe it just ended up on the cutting room floor); only towards the third act that she was given something to do. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was strong as a hothead outsider integrating into the Batman's world.

There are 2 things this movie has over the previous one. For the longest movie in the franchise, it also feels like the shortest; great pacing there. And the last half (last hour?) of the movie was just incredible, easily topping anything in all the 3 films. For once in Nolan's Batman trilogy, the climax is the best part. Every plot thread comes together. Every character plays a part. Nolan's talent of crosscutting events shines; from a certain point onward, the movie just builds and builds continuously into a prolonged, grand and stirring climax. And the final moments were perfect: a sometimes bittersweet, mostly rousing send-off for all the characters. It's the best ending I could ever hoped for to the trilogy.

3.5/4.0 (Came this very, very close to full 4.0 and still not sure; a rewatch is needed)

EDIT: How could I forget to mention Christian Bale? Batman's screentime isn't significantly higher here than TDK, but Bruce Wayne's is, and Bale knocked both roles out of the park. His portrayal of a complicated, darker Bruce Wayne makes the Batman scenes all the more meaningful. With a film that has several plot threads running around, he is truly the glue that holds them all together.

Batman's first appearance here is almost iconic. Just a kick-ass reintroduction. I could feel everyone in theater was on the verge of cheering out loud.
People clapped for a long time in my theater at the end. A very rare thing here, even for an event film this big.
Oh and please see it on imax screen at least once. Nolan went all out with those scenes. Great, great experience.

Was it just me, or was anyone else able to predict the ending when Alfred first tells Bruce what he used to do whenever he went on holidays?

EDIT

Whoops! Posted in the wrong thread. I thought this was The Dark Knight Rises topic. My bad

The Pink Panther 2 (2009)

See my giganto-thread