Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:48 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605 ... 787  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 639
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - On paper, this looks like a clear winner. A playful caper guided by a proven director, with crackling sexual tension between two of the more iconic stars of the '60s/'70s? All the pieces are there to assemble a complete package. And yet, Norman Jewison's 1968 film never really fits together in any meaningful way. Faye Dunaway plays an insurance investigator hired to track down the culprit behind a major bank heist. Eventually she determines the mastermind behind the crime, played by Steve McQueen. As she continues to investigate, however, she starts to fall in love with the wealthy thief. There isn't much of a script here, and Jewison tries to compensate for that absence with an abundance of flashy direction. Most of the film is told through elaborate montage, with more split-screen use than all of Brian De Palma's films put together. It doesn't have any reason to be there, other than to distract from the fact that not much of interest is happening onscreen.

It's clear that Jewison is banking on the sexual tension between McQueen and Dunaway, but even that isn't all it could have been. Dunaway doesn't make her first appearance until over a half hour in, and it takes even longer before she gets to share a scene with McQueen. The standout sequence, really the only part of the film likely to stick around in the memory, is when the two of them engage in a bit of erotic foreplay over a game of chess. But the scene ends up being more silly than erotic, with Dunaway playfully stroking chess pieces and McQueen doing his best to play it cool and not look hot and bothered. And that silliness kind of speaks to the film as a whole: plenty of scenes of beautiful people doing beautiful things, but without much in the way of consequence or interest. Jewison has some strong films credited to his name (In The Heat Of The Night and The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming are the two that I've always found the most worthwhile), but he really missed the mark here. 4/10.

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


Last edited by Blonde Almond on Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:26 pm
Profile WWW
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
42 - *1/2

I saw this at an early screening a few weeks back, and for some reason, I thought that it would be an Oscar frontrunner. Boy, was I wrong. Sure, Harrison Ford is fine in it, as is Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson, but the movie as a whole is just "meh". It's an uninspired biopic that glosses over America's dishonorable past when it comes to racial segregation. Overall, just another dull historical drama that skimps on the history and offers little in terms of drama. Skip it.


Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:32 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
There's some irony in a movie about the power of imagination providing all the imagined imagery so the audience doesn't have to.

I read the book as a kid. My memory might be failing me, but I don't remember the imagined elements of the story being very important compared to the fact that they were imagining it.

_________________
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.


Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:52 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Blonde Almond wrote:
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - On paper, this looks like a clear winner. A playful caper guided by a proven director, with crackling sexual tension between two of the more iconic stars of the '60s/'70s? All the pieces are there to assemble a complete package. And yet, Norman Jewison's 1968 film never really fits together in any meaningful way. Faye Dunaway plays an insurance investigator hired to track down the culprit behind a major bank heist. Eventually she determines the mastermind behind the crime, played by Steve McQueen. As she continues to investigate, however, she starts to fall in love with the wealthy thief. There isn't much of a script here, and Jewison tries to compensate for that absence with an abundance of flashy direction. Most of the film is told via through elaborate montage, with more split-screen use than all of Brian De Palma's films put together. It doesn't have any reason to be there, other than to distract from the fact that not much of interest is happening onscreen.

It's clear that Jewison is banking on the sexual tension between McQueen and Dunaway, but even that isn't all it could have been. Dunaway doesn't make her first appearance until over a half hour in, and it takes even longer before she gets to share a scene with McQueen. The standout sequence, really the only part of the film likely to stick around in the memory, is when the two of them engage in a bit of erotic foreplay over a game of chess. But the scene ends up being more silly than erotic, with Dunaway playfully stroking chess pieces and McQueen doing his best to play it cool and not look hot and bothered. And that silliness kind of speaks to the film as a whole: plenty of scenes of beautiful people doing beautiful things, but without much in the way of consequence or interest. Jewison has some strong films credited to his name (In The Heat Of The Night and The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming are the two that I've always found the most worthwhile), but he really missed the mark here. 4/10.


Yeah I'm with you. Movies which are predicated completely on the appeal of two sexy people being sexy (e.g. To Catch a Thief, Mr. and Mrs. Smith) always fail for me.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:55 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 639
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ministry Of Fear - The fiction of English writer Grahame Greene has inspired quite a few exemplary film adaptations over the years, most notably two films by Carol Reed: The Third Man and The Fallen Idol. While coming up a little short of the mark when compared to those two films, Fritz Lang's 1944 adaptation of Greene's Ministry Of Fear is worth taking the time to see. Ray Milland stars as a recently-released asylum patient who stumbles into a local fair, wins a prize cake, and finds himself tangled up in the world of wartime espionage. The labyrinthine plot is very much in the same vein as Hitchcock's "Wrong Man" films, but perhaps because of the WWII London backdrop, the tone is a little more stranger and sinister, no more so than in its first 20 minutes. Once the action moves primarily to London, the film loses most of its surreal energy, although Lang still finds ways to work in some invention. One scene starts innocently enough as Milland visits a home to acquire information, only to find himself in the middle of a seance, and then a murder. Another scene is set in a tailor shop with a long mirror stretching out over the background, which gives the setting a slightly disorienting feel. These are nice touches and they give the film some much-needed extra character.

Milland is effective as the slightly mysterious protagonist, although I still always think of him as the scheming husband in Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder. He seems more adept at playing darker characters, and although there is darkness from his character's past in this film that is hinted at in the beginning, it turns out to be more insignificant as the narrative progresses. If Ministry Of Fear feels less remarkable than the Carol Reed films, it's more than likely because it takes less chances, content to spend most of its time as a fairly workmanlike espionage thriller (it also admittedly ends on a real sour note, with an incredibly lame throwaway moment that doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the film). It's mainly worth watching for Lang's sense of style, especially in the standout first third. 7/10.

Evil Dead (2013) - More often than not, it's a disconcerting experience watching a new remake of a beloved classic. No genre is safe from the remake virus, but horror films are especially susceptible to its attacks. In the past, I've done my best to avoid horror film remakes, but this retelling of Sam Raimi's 1981 cult classic The Evil Dead drew a little more interest from me than usual. The presence of Raimi and original star Bruce Campbell as producers, as well as the insistence of the new director that the production used as little CGI as possible, hinted at something that could end up more interesting than the average remake. To get the good out of the way quickly, if you're looking to satisfy your desire for copious amounts of blood and gore, this more than gets the job done (as well as once again raising the question of how films like these avoid the NC-17 rating). But there's definitely something missing here.

Maybe the playful inventiveness of The Cabin In The Woods is still too fresh of a memory, and this film by comparison feels too familiar and safe. Like the abysmal prequel/remake of John Carpenter's The Thing, too much of it is built around recycling the same set-pieces from the original version instead of going for something new and daring. Maybe it's the onscreen absence of Campbell, a void that the bland victims in this new version never come close to filling. Maybe it's the presence of a budget, which gives everything a glossier sheen but none of the charm of the original's super-low-budget aesthetic. Sure, it's all handled with an acceptable level of competence, but there's no sense of fun here (this is made clear right at the beginning, when everyone gathers at the cabin not for fun and games, but to stage an intervention to cure a friend's heroin addiction). Really, it's a combination of all those points, all adding up to a whole that just feels obligatory. Because remaking classic horror films is the common thing to do now, and Raimi's film was just the next in line. Like so many of these remakes, in a few years' time it'll likely be completely forgotten. 4/10.

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


Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:24 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 388
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)
In this finally final instalment of the hugely popular teenage vampire love story based on the books of Stephenie Meyers, heroine Bella (Kristen Stewart, acting mostly by means of a quivering lower lip) has been turned into a vampire so she can be with her beau Edward (someone named "RPatz", acting by mostly standing in the background and generally not doing much). Because their infant daughter grows at an unnaturally rapid rate, vampires of an enemy clan (or something to this effect), who are led by Tony Blair/David Frost (Michael Sheen, overacting terrifically, just listen to that delicious manic cackle), threaten to kill the daughter.
Like all other (two) Twilight movies, which I have seen, 'Breaking Dawn - Part 2' has been made with one specific target audience in mind to the exclusion of all others: Unless you're a fan of the series of books, the movies are totally inaccessible. Characters are briefly introduced, appear to be of some importance and are never really seen again. Plot strands seem to materialise out of thin air and are left dangling or are resolved in a very perfunctory manner. While this may not find disapproval by Twilight fans, who will be able to fill in the gaps, they surely must object to the atrociously wooden acting, extremely poor CGI special effects (worse than any 90ies sci-fic/fantasy TV series) and ludicrously bad screenplay. In my favourite scene, a werewolf is about to introduce a "normal" person to the fact that there are supernatural beings. He slowly peels off his shirt (exposing a sixpack, the true purpose of the scene), then his trousers and, while about to drop his panties, states that the other guy, who is recoiling in terror already, is about to see something that he has never seen before. The implications of this scene made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes (particularly because werewolves in this movie normally don't require to take off their clothes before a transformation). This movie is full of howlers like this and might be even watchable in a so-bad-it's-good way, if it wasn't terminally boring for stretches and if it didn't have a lame "it was all a dream" conceit at the end. I could go on, but I've spent too much time on this rubbish as it is. Very Bad: 2/10

Lawless (2012)
Crime saga about three moonshine-making brothers (Shia LaBoeuf, Tom Hardy and, er, someone else) in prohibition-era Virginia and their struffle against an evil federal agent (Guy Pierce).
I had seen two other movies by director John Hillcoat before, the bleak but very good Oz-Western 'The Proposition' and the bleak and reasonably decent Cormac McCarthy adaptation 'The Road'. Likewise, 'Lawless' is a bleak and violent movie, too, perhaps unsurprisingly as its script has been written by musician/author Nick Cave, who has always had a thing for bleakness and American Gothic. While the movie is impeccably made and features surprisingly good performances even by Shia LaBoeuf, it is an unsuccessful attempt to tell an epic crime saga. 'Lawless' isn't focussed enough on the main story thread and features numerous sublots, particularly those dealing with the female characters played by Mia Wasikowski and Jessica Chastain, which aren't dealt with satisfyingly. It's still a decent movie, but it would have to be half an hour longer to fulfill its ambition. Also, the heavy accent and mumbling by the main characters made it hard for me to understand what was being said at times, but that's just a personal thing. To sum up, 'Lawless' is decent, but not good. 6/10

Dredd (2012)
Second adaptation of British sci-fi comic 2000 AD's character Judge Dredd. I haven't ever read the comic, but suffered through the first 'Judge Dredd' movie´, a pretty bad Sylvester Stallone vehicle. This one is better with Mega-City-One's helmeted lawman and a psychic rookie partner cleaning up a massive futuristic highrise, which is controlled by a vicious gang. The general plot is very similar to the recent Indonesian martial arts action movie 'The Raid', which has (much) better physical action, though. Instead, 'Dredd' offers some interesting visuals and Karl Urban is good at turning the corners of his mouth down, which is the only requirement for playing Judge Dredd. Overall, 'Dredd' is neither terrible nor any good, but a mediocre genre effort. 5/10


Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:36 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 388
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Blonde Almond wrote:
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - On paper, this looks like a clear winner. A playful caper guided by a proven director, with crackling sexual tension between two of the more iconic stars of the '60s/'70s? All the pieces are there to assemble a complete package. And yet, Norman Jewison's 1968 film never really fits together in any meaningful way. Faye Dunaway plays an insurance investigator hired to track down the culprit behind a major bank heist. Eventually she determines the mastermind behind the crime, played by Steve McQueen. As she continues to investigate, however, she starts to fall in love with the wealthy thief. There isn't much of a script here, and Jewison tries to compensate for that absence with an abundance of flashy direction. Most of the film is told through elaborate montage, with more split-screen use than all of Brian De Palma's films put together. It doesn't have any reason to be there, other than to distract from the fact that not much of interest is happening onscreen.

It's clear that Jewison is banking on the sexual tension between McQueen and Dunaway, but even that isn't all it could have been. Dunaway doesn't make her first appearance until over a half hour in, and it takes even longer before she gets to share a scene with McQueen. The standout sequence, really the only part of the film likely to stick around in the memory, is when the two of them engage in a bit of erotic foreplay over a game of chess. But the scene ends up being more silly than erotic, with Dunaway playfully stroking chess pieces and McQueen doing his best to play it cool and not look hot and bothered. And that silliness kind of speaks to the film as a whole: plenty of scenes of beautiful people doing beautiful things, but without much in the way of consequence or interest. Jewison has some strong films credited to his name (In The Heat Of The Night and The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming are the two that I've always found the most worthwhile), but he really missed the mark here. 4/10.


Good review. I also think that this is a prime example for style & glamour over substance. Doesn't Steve McQueen look fetching playing polo? Even the heist sequence isn't all that great, although the split screen technique should have allowed for some interesting filming of parallel action.

Blonde Almond wrote:
Ministry Of Fear - The fiction of English writer Grahame Greene has inspired quite a few exemplary film adaptations over the years, most notably two films by Carol Reed: The Third Man and The Fallen Idol. While coming up a little short of the mark when compared to those two films, Fritz Lang's 1944 adaptation of Greene's Ministry Of Fear is worth taking the time to see. Ray Milland stars as a recently-released asylum patient who stumbles into a local fair, wins a prize cake, and finds himself tangled up in the world of wartime espionage. The labyrinthine plot is very much in the same vein as Hitchcock's "Wrong Man" films, but perhaps because of the WWII London backdrop, the tone is a little more stranger and sinister, no more so than in its first 20 minutes. Once the action moves primarily to London, the film loses most of its surreal energy, although Lang still finds ways to work in some invention. One scene starts innocently enough as Milland visits a home to acquire information, only to find himself in the middle of a seance, and then a murder. Another scene is set in a tailor shop with a long mirror stretching out over the background, which gives the setting a slightly disorienting feel. These are nice touches and they give the film some much-needed extra character.

Milland is effective as the slightly mysterious protagonist, although I still always think of him as the scheming husband in Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder. He seems more adept at playing darker characters, and although there is darkness from his character's past in this film that is hinted at in the beginning, it turns out to be more insignificant as the narrative progresses. If Ministry Of Fear feels less remarkable than the Carol Reed films, it's more than likely because it takes less chances, content to spend most of its time as a fairly workmanlike espionage thriller (it also admittedly ends on a real sour note, with an incredibly lame throwaway moment that doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the film). It's mainly worth watching for Lang's sense of style, especially in the standout first third. 7/10.


I liked this a bit less than you did, although 'Ministry of Fear' is watchable enough. Good eye for the visuals - I didn't even notice the touches you mentioned but they are certainly there (in the mirror-scene, for instance).


Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:46 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Sean wrote:
42 - *1/2

I thought that it would be an Oscar frontrunner.


As much as I think The Academy is full of shit, I still like to give them a smidge of credit. At least the simplistic, racially motived dreck they like to single out is usually passably entertaining (The Blind Side being the exception). This one just looks terrible. Harrison Ford looks like he's gone full retard for a character that not only isn't retarded, but one who was actually an intelligent, forward-thinking man whose influence on the sport of baseball can't really be overstated.

I went and saw The Place Beyond the Pines over the weekend. There's so much to like about the film that the few missteps that are made can easily be overlooked. JB (amongst others) is right about the film losing momentum during it's final third. As that portion of the film unfolds it quickly becomes apparent what Cianfrance is trying to do. While it gives the movie a sense of inevitability that absolutely mirrors the theme of the film, it does make for a somewhat sluggish third act. That said, there's so much inspired stuff in the film from the way the movie forgoes standard character developing scenes without forgoing actual character development (a lot of this is does my how the actors are shot and by letting them act), to the beautifully suggestive contrast between the opening and closing shots it's a movie that concerns itself with an idea, grounds it's story in character, and uses its visuals to accentuate it's points. It's a wonderfully put together movie, albeit with a third act that becomes predictable. That third act partly sticks out because of the fresh, unpredictable vibe of the first two acts. It's been quite a while since I really had no clue where a movie was going to end up (only to then quickly figure out exactly where the movie was going to end up). It really is a movie, in terms of how it's constructed (how it's filmed and how it's written), that defies expectations. This is surely intentional on Cianfrance's part, as it mirrors the film's theme about men being trapped by circumstance, despite having good intentions (which is what Blue Valentine is about as well).

Easily the best movie of the year so far, and one that, on the heels of Blue Valentine, solidifies Cianfrance as a major up and coming director. He seems very interested in making movies about seemingly real people who fuck things up unintentionally. That makes for some pretty easy to identify and sympathize with characters.


Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:00 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I'm still considering seeing 42 simply because I haven't seen a movie in theaters since A Good Day to Die Hard...longest drought since I got a car.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:08 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
I'm still considering seeing 42 simply because I haven't seen a movie in theaters since A Good Day to Die Hard...longest drought since I got a car.


I recommend driving into DC and seeing The Place Beyond the Pines instead. I'd say go to Bethesda, but that theater is closed for renovations until early May.


Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:44 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
I'm still considering seeing 42 simply because I haven't seen a movie in theaters since A Good Day to Die Hard...longest drought since I got a car.


I recommend driving into DC and seeing The Place Beyond the Pines instead. I'd say go to Bethesda, but that theater is closed for renovations until early May.


Landmark Bethesda? It doesn't need renovations -- it's the best theater ever!

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:15 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
I'm still considering seeing 42 simply because I haven't seen a movie in theaters since A Good Day to Die Hard...longest drought since I got a car.


I recommend driving into DC and seeing The Place Beyond the Pines instead. I'd say go to Bethesda, but that theater is closed for renovations until early May.


Landmark Bethesda? It doesn't need renovations -- it's the best theater ever!


Yup, that's the one.

Not sure if you've ever been to the one in DC on E Street, but it's also a Landmark theater and I think it's slightly better than the Bethesda one. I just usually go to Bethesda because it's easier for me to get to.


Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:40 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
Not sure if you've ever been to the one in DC on E Street, but it's also a Landmark theater and I think it's slightly better than the Bethesda one. I just usually go to Bethesda because it's easier for me to get to.


I've been to E Street twice, Moonrise Kingdom and Hitchcock, but unlike for you, it's harder for me to get to.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:55 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 419
Location: Durham, NC
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Out of the Past (1948) 3.5/4

A film noir that comes close to pure perfection—one that is truly among the best of its genre. Praise of this film is pretty redundant, so I wont go into the brilliant performance by Mitchum or the excellent present and past tense of the narrative. With that said the sole reason that I cannot go 4 stars on this noir is because of the following:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
I know this may be a bit “nitpicky”, but it’s just my subjective-dumb opinion. So we have Robert Mitchum, a pretty smart and cunning guy who eventually tricks and essentially “one ups” the film’s antagonist played by Kirk Douglas. In a way to try and get back at Mitchum’s character, Douglas sends out a lackey to reel Mitchum back in to his grasp. Douglas asks Mitchum to go and steal documents that could potentially put Douglas in jail for a long time. My issue is: why would Douglas do this? Why would he take this risk on a cunning guy, who has already tricked him, and trust him with being in the general vicinity of incriminating information? Yes I understand that Douglas’ plan is to frame Mitchum, and that Douglass believes his plan is foolproof, but why would you even risk the chance to have Mitchum so close to this evidence?!?! It just seems too risky for Douglas’ character to actually go through with, at least with what the narrative suggests about his character, which really isn’t that much.



Olympus Has Fallen (2013) 1.5/4

America is under attack. Every army entity is useless, and the only person who can save the president and outsmart a ridiculously intelligent, methodical North Korean is Gerald Butler (cue angry faces and a really bad American accent). Overall, Olympus Has Fallen is a pretty bad flick. Yes there is a ton of action, but where’s the substance? Perhaps it got lost in all the cliché characters and logical inconsistencies.

Side Note: This film easily wins the award for worst effects of the year (so far).

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


Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:57 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 388
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Five friends go on a weekend trip to a remote cabin in the woods, even despite of sinister warnings by a creepy hillbilly gas station attendant. Meanwhile, the whole sitzuation is monitored/controlled by some office workers in a huge underground control centre.
This Joss Whedon-scripted movie is a clever post-modern take on a sub-genre of horror movie, which could indeed be referred to as "cabin in the woods movies" (think 'Evil Dead' and 'Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn'). Whenever it attempts to be comical, particularly in the scenes involving the office workers, it is really, really funny. The more horror-oriented parts of the movie are very generic, though, which, arguably, is the whole point but keeps the film from being fuly engaging throughout. Nevertheless, a good movie. 7/10

They shoot Horses, don't they? (1969)
... holds the record for receiving most Academy Award nominations without having been nominated for best picture and has been recommended by many fellow posters here. It is a drama about the participants in a gruelling marathon ballroom dancing contest in 1930ies California, who are willing to endure all hardship and demean themselves in order to stand a chance of winning the grand prize of $ 1,500. Flash-forwards indicate that the protagonist Robert (Michael Sarazzin - who?) will commit a crime related to the contest, although he appears to be a sensible and meek type compared to his cynical dancing partner Gloria (Jane Fonda, very good).
I liked this movie very much, which is, at times, technically impressive (cinematogaphy) and features excellent performances, especially by Gig Young as the Mephistopheles-like Emcee. I liked the metaphor of a marathon dance for, well, life as such, I suppose, although it is at times a little heavy-handed. 'They shoot horses, don't they' is in no way a preachy "message movie", though, and interesting to watch on a literal level as well. That being said, due to unfortunate circumstances, I watched the movie in three sessions, which slightly impaired my enjoyment of the movie and also meant that the film wasn't captivting enough for me to stay up very late. In other words, I think this is a very good movie, albeit not quite a masterpiece. 8/10


Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:58 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Unke wrote:


They shoot Horses, don't they? (1969)
... holds the record for receiving most Academy Award nominations without having been nominated for best picture and has been recommended by many fellow posters here. It is a drama about the participants in a gruelling marathon ballroom dancing contest in 1930ies California, who are willing to endure all hardship and demean themselves in order to stand a chance of winning the grand prize of $ 1,500. Flash-forwards indicate that the protagonist Robert (Michael Sarazzin - who?) will commit a crime related to the contest, although he appears to be a sensible and meek type compared to his cynical dancing partner Gloria (Jane Fonda, very good).
I liked this movie very much, which is, at times, technically impressive (cinematogaphy) and features excellent performances, especially by Gig Young as the Mephistopheles-like Emcee. I liked the metaphor of a marathon dance for, well, life as such, I suppose, although it is at times a little heavy-handed. 'They shoot horses, don't they' is in no way a preachy "message movie", though, and interesting to watch on a literal level as well. That being said, due to unfortunate circumstances, I watched the movie in three sessions, which slightly impaired my enjoyment of the movie and also meant that the film wasn't captivting enough for me to stay up very late. In other words, I think this is a very good movie, albeit not quite a masterpiece. 8/10


Loved this film. Straight up **** for me. Found it absolutely riveting, and in the case of the derby, agonizing. I've been praising it from the rooftops ever since.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:12 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1667
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Square

A nifty little neo-noir that burns slowly and deliberately, but the payoff is worth it. We've seen the plot before: A guy wants to steal some money, run off with his mistress, but they both get in over their heads. This has some style to spare, solid acting and good writing. Worth a view.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:02 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
The Square

A nifty little neo-noir that burns slowly and deliberately, but the payoff is worth it. We've seen the plot before: A guy wants to steal some money, run off with his mistress, but they both get in over their heads. This has some style to spare, solid acting and good writing. Worth a view.


Fuck yeah two movies in a row by forum members that I love the shit out of. Not to mention that the moment where he
[Reveal] Spoiler:
blows his girlfriend's head off


was so brilliant and shocking that I started saying "Oh fuck" over and over again.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:11 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1348
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Yeah that was an effective little thriller. And also have some unexpected black comedy as well, but Patrick that was such a HUGE spoiler. Did you press the quote button instead of the spoiler one?


Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:38 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
peng wrote:
Yeah that was an effective little thriller. And also have some unexpected black comedy as well, but Patrick that was such a HUGE spoiler. Did you press the quote button instead of the spoiler one?


(shame face). Yes, yes I did. Fixed.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:11 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605 ... 787  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], nitrium and 0 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