SEPTicttankfixed,remEMBERWATCHINGthatTHREADget2012flushhits

[J.M. Vargas]

Tee-hee!

Douglas Sirk's MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION (1954) & WRITTEN ON THE WIND (1956) at NYC's Film Forum for the first time. Except for a group of hipsters who came to the theater just to laugh at the movie, "MST3K"-style ("Magnificent Obsession" mostly; by the time "Written on the Wind" got silly the melodrama had won the attentive crowd over), this was an enjoyable reminder that, before TV and soap operas (daytime and primetime) ruined the genre, melodrama was a respectable vehicle for actors like Rock Hudson and directors like Sirk to milk this sucker for all its worth. "Magnificent Obsession" is still kind-of hard to swallow (how does getting hit by a car door make you blind exactly?) but damn if the cast and director don't give it their all; I was teary-eyed when "the doctor" has to pull the do-or-die operation on her. "Written on the Wind" adding the passion and screen presence of Robert Stack as a frustrated and soiled oil family prince ignites the whole thing into an absurdly entertaining 90 minutes of pure escapist fun (especially the next-to-last phallic 'caress' scene ). More Sirk, please.

Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL (1977) at Film Forum. First time seeing it theatrically and man, this thing holds up and still plays well to an appreciative crowd (even the dated jokes have aged well and 'hipsters' dig 'em). See "Deconstructing Harry" and wonder aloud how the hell could that movie and "Annie Hall" have ever been derived from the same story/script.

TOTAL RECALL (1990) at Film Forum. Didn't waste my time/money with the remake (neither did anyone else ) but it was a blast to see Paul Verhoeven's ode to OTT sci-fi cinematic violence on the big screen. Schwarzenegger wisely underplays the he-man antics (though he still mows a small army of padded extras) and mostly looks as confused as the audience trying to follow the script's double/triple-crossing twists. Jerry Goldsmith scores the hell out of the flick (even though he shamelessly steals a couple of beats from Basil Poledouris' "Conan the Barbarian" score), Michael Ironside and Ronny Cox make terrific bad guys and Verhoeven's direction works well here for the same reasons it didn't in "Showgirls" and "Hollow Man" (intensity does not always translate well on-screen). Fun time.

Takashi Miike's HARI-KIRI: DEATH OF A SAMURAI 3D (2012) at IFC Center for the first time. Considering it's both a follow-up in spirit to Miike's own "13 Assassins" (many of the same actors from that flick return, re-cast in diffent-or-slightly-different roles) AND a remake of Masaki Kobayashi's '62 classic, this is both a failure and a small triumph. Stylewise not only is the 3D totally wasted (the color palette is so muddy and dark the 3D effects is imperceptible 95% of the time) but the photography and set design are so sterile they make Kobayashi's B&W version look more cheerful by comparison. Those expecting the balls-to-the-wall action from "13 Assassins" will be disappointed that the heavy action is limited to one short-but-intense burst of energy that makes virtue out of how fantastic it seems (along with Miike's newfound knack for showing restrain during the graphic violence scenes). The story's tragic/symbolic undertones are still powerful and the characters well played (it puts the samurai code of honor through a "Raging Bull"-type hypocrisy workout), but "Hara-Kiri 3D" is to Miike's "13 Assassins" what Woody Allen's "To Rome with Love" is to "Midnight in Paris": the good-but-no-classic disappointing follow-up feature to a breakthrough hit.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012) in theaters for the first time. I like this one the most of the three because, like "Toy Story 1 & 2," the groundwork has been laid and you only sit and watch the crazy go down with a smile in your face at watching Chris Nolan almost, almost pull off the perfect superhero trilogy (Bane's last scene is seriously WTF bad though, and Selena Kyle as portrayed here by Hathaway isn't worthy of being the only character besides Bats and Bane that gets to dress up). As is his duty now in every Nolan movie he's in, Joseph Gordon-Levitt steals "TDKR" from every other actor in it and doesn't get enough recognition or credit for doing it so effortlessly.

[Attrage]

Tora Tora Tora - It’s a little ridiculous to make a comparison (given that one is a serious attempt at a war film, the other basically a bad romance novel set during a war), but I can’t help it: I’d take this film over Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor any day. One has interesting characters, exciting action, and a well-told story; the other has a love triangle made up of two nitwits and an airhead. One has some unintentional humor; the other would be humorous if it wasn’t so god-awful. One attempts to paint a reasonably accurate picture of an horrific act of aggression; the other one is an horrific act of aggression.

Films rarely do today what TTT does so well – the long, slow build up to the action. I mean basically for the first 90 minutes of this film, you watch people standing or sitting around talking. Now, I have a reasonably short attention span, but I wasn’t bored for a minute. I can understand that some people would find the film interminably dull, but I am not of them. Besides, all the talking perfectly sets the scene for when the action does happen: it’s set up so well, that every explosion during the film’s last 30 minutes makes sense. “See, told ya not to park all those planes so close together!!”

There are a few unintentional laughs that I love: for instance, I really dig the guy’s explanation for how the code-breaking machine works, it’s very scientific: “We feed the code in here, it goes round and round in there, then it comes out here.” I love it! And for some reason I find people having doors closed in their faces very comedic. The code-breaking genius does this to his secretary a few times over the course of the film – she has this bewildered expression as he barks an order and then slams the door on her. It’s almost spoof-like in its goofiness.

There is also the scene with the Japanese officer (can’t recall his name) describing the plan of attack while shirtless and sweaty, his eyes closed and slowly rubbing his head as he speaks. I love the way the guy behind him slowly backs out of the room and closes the door, and I love that he just keeps talking once the guy’s gone. It’s delightfully odd.

It’s the intentional humour that doesn’t work as well. Like the two morons who mistake a Japanese bomber for an American plane: “Get that guy’s number, I’m going to bring him up on charges!” (right as the plane drops a bomb on the airfield they’re standing at) is bad enough, but the worse offender is the military band conductor - as he strikes the last note of the US anthem, the ship beneath him explodes. Intentional or not, the comedic tone of the moment is woefully out of place.

Whether you find the film entertaining or not, you’ve got to admire the logistics of such a vast production, it must have been a incredible task to put this film together. And historical inaccuracies aside, the film for the most part makes an effort to tell a balanced story: I like that the Japanese are never depicted as the “bad guys” - you see the cause-and-effect of the political and military decisions that led to their disastrous decision to attack the USA. And they are not just the faceless enemy – each of the main Japanese characters is just as fleshed out and interesting, if not more so, as the American participants. Yes, the film has some pro-American propaganda - the most obvious of which is Yamamoto’s “Americans are a proud and just people” speech, but it’s not always that cut and dried, mostly it depicts a series of events leading to the inevitable conclusion. The film knows that we know how it ends – so it makes no attempt to hide this and that means that even during it’s slowest scenes, it’s never uninteresting.

In fact it’s the slower bits that I find the most compelling. The Pearl Harbor attack is an incredibly well-staged set piece, but it’s nothing we haven’t seen a zillion times in a zillion other war films, and how it plays out is a no-brainer to anyone with even a passing knowledge of WW2. I like the closed-door discussions and the foreboding series of events leading to the attack – the combination of ignorance and hubris among the US military brass, the military vs diplomacy on the Japanese side. Never mind it’s since been proven the Roosevelt administration knew far more than it let on, I find these scenes really interesting.

Plus it ends with possibly the best war-time quote of all time, something Japanese Admiral Yamamoto apparently really said after the Pearl Harbor attack: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

[Attrage]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes – We are in the era of the prequel, so it’s not surprising that Planet of the Apes got the “reboot” treatment.

Although he does a decent job, I think James Franco was terribly miscast. I just didn’t buy him as a scientist. And as great as he is, I wish film makers would have the guts to cast someone besides Andy Serkis when they need a motion-capture performance. Having said that, the main ape in this, Caesar, is a terrific achievement in this field. You end up feeling genuine emotion toward what is essentially pixels on a screen.

I also commend the director for keeping the film cranked at a fast pace, and under 2 hours, while still being easy to follow. But he loses points for the worst “nod-to-the-original” in prequel history: the “get your paws off me you damn dirty ape” line is eye-rollingly awful.

My favourite bit: there’s a subtle but chilling moment between Caesar and the “damn dirty ape” kid at the animal refuge who torments the apes at night. He’s brought a couple of girls and a six-pack for the after-hours visit, and Caesar locks eyes with him as he’s again tormenting them. It’s a brief moment, but the quiet menace of it is superb.

[Attrage]

Silkwood (third viewing) - Firstly, I don’t know whether it’s unintentional irony or just an accurate portrayal of the real characters the film portrays, but I find it, well, ironic that all the characters in this film are basically chain smokers. Is it a comment about choice? As in, you choose to risk lung cancer by smoking, but you don’t choose to be exposed to plutonium at your workplace? I guess that’s open to debate.

Anyway, it doesn’t detract from what is a very enthralling film. Meryl Streep is undoubtedly one of the world’s best actresses, and even way back when this was made, she’s completely believable and just fantastic as Karen Silkwood, the woman who pretty much single-handedly brought down the Kerr-McGee corporation, but paid for it with her life (supposedly, although her murder has never been proven outright, the evidence is pretty strong though).

What makes the film almost a horror movie for me, is that I’m terrified of radiation. The very thought of an invisible substance that can inflict such horrid damage on the human body is, to me, absolutely horrifying. There is no salary or benefits I would accept to work in a nuclear facility of any kind. I’d be a nervous wreck every single day.

What I find just as horrifying in Silkwood is that back in the 1970’s when the story is set, how little people knew about radiation and contamination. The bizarre idea that simply scrubbing someone down with hard-bristled brushes and hot water would eliminate the threat. That they could say with complete confidence that someone had a “safe level” of plutonium in their system. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so damned irresponsible.

And that’s clearly outlined at the union meeting portrayed in the film, the catalyst for Karen Silkwood deciding to take on the Kerr-McGee plant and expose it’s horrendous breaches of employee safety and blatant disregard for safety in general. They are almost Mr Burns’-like in their negligence. The thought that their shonky fuel rods were being shipped out to nuclear reactors across the country is a terrifying one indeed.

One of my favourite scenes is where, in Washington, Karen almost casually tells a union rep about the negatives being touched up to hide defects. She simply says she knows “they shouldn’t do it,” but the guy’s (Josef Sommer) face drops. He realises that if what she’s saying is true, it could cause a meltdown in a nuclear reactor somewhere in the USA. It’s a perfectly-acted moment – you see that he’s clearly shaken, but he forces himself to remain composed as he asks her to get evidence of the practice. He knows without it, they have nothing. It’s just great to see two great actors nail a scene.

Speaking of two actors nailing a scene, my other favourite moment is after her Washington trip, when she and Kurt Russell are at a friend’s house looking at slides of her trip. A slide comes up that shows Karen uncomfortably close to the union rep. I like the little moment between her and Kurt Russell – he takes his arm from around her, and she shoots a quick sideways glance, not quite at him, but enough. It’s again a lovely little moment between two great actors. Unspoken, but clear as a bell.

They are two scenes in a film that’s full of great moments. I highly recommend tracking this one down if you haven’t seen it.

[Attrage]

The Dark Knight Rises - After seeing this film, I must first re-iterate a point from another post of mine – Tom Hardy is one my new favourite actors. His Bane is one hell of a kick-ass villain. His mix of hulking brutality and off-the-wall megalomaniacal insanity was great (the “giving Gotham back to it’s people” rant on the steps of city hall was just fantastically nuts), and *minor spoiler* his transition towards the end between all-out-villain and then sympathetic protector was a valiant piece of acting through that hellish mask. In terms of the villains of the Nolan trilogy, he doesn’t better Heath Ledger’s turn as the Joker, but he comes pretty damn close.

I liked the return to the League of Shadows element of Dark Knight Rises, something that was missing from the Dark Knight, Liam Neeson’s brief but potent cameo in this one was a fantastic scene. And although I hated seeing Batman get beaten to a pulp by Bane, I liked the whole “Batman reduced to nothing, must begin again” aspect of the storyline.

Hans Zimmer’s score is again a cut above, no-one does those thundering climactic drums like Zimmer!

Michael Caine’s expanded role in this was great too – his one-on-one scenes with Bale were a real highlight for me – there’s a reason he’s one of the most respected actors in the world. *Spoiler again* his second-to-last scene where he weeps over the Wayne headstones are the first time I have ever been moved to tears by a superhero movie!

Only one thing I found jarring – the shots of “Gotham” that were so obviously Manhattan took me out of the movie, albeit briefly. Twice during those long pans over the city you can briefly glimpse both the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings – plus during the “blowing the bridges” scene you can clearly see it’s the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges – there are scarcely more recognisable landmarks in any city in the world – it ruined the Gotham illusion for me. But, minor gripe in an otherwise awesome film. Dark Knight remains my favourite of the trilogy, but not by much.

[J.M. Vargas]

René Clément's FORBIDDEN GAMES (1952) in 35mm at NYC's Film Forum. I love it when a movie I already love from seeing at home on video becomes a new experience with a movie audience. Parts of the movie that I felt were cringe-worthy (mostly the Gouard-Dollé family feud hijinks and Michel's cross-stealing church antics) became laugh-out loud comedy moments, which really helped make the already heart-wrenching scenes shine even brighter. This one is rising fast amongst my favorite movies of all time.

Pixar's BRAVE (2012) in theaters for the first time. Perfectly harmless and fun but not very memorable (by Pixar standards) CGI action spectacle that coasts on "girl power" and "motherhood" clichés to dress-up a pretty fun "Braveheart" inspired setting for a typical 'individualism vs. tradition' narrative peppered with the company's trademark visual jokes. Plus it felt like the movie's animators got a new 'panning around in sweeping mode' camera program for this movie and they went overboard using it way too many times. The ending of "Brave" reminded me of how ballsy the original "Shrek" was to end the way it did 13 years ago, something this uber-expensive Pixar project just didn't have the balls to do for commercial reasons (and who can blame them? ). Neat opening cartoon though, makes me wish Pixar would do an arthouse (i.e. no pop culture references) CGI adaptation of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince."

Wes Anderson's MOONRISE KINGDOM (2012) in theaters for the first time. I loved the animated, multi-colored, multi-scrolling and aurally pleasing closing credits of this movie (I wanted to stand up and cheer). The 87 or so minutes before are interesting, quirky and never dull, but personally I can't fully embrace anything Wes Anderson has done besides "Rushmore." It's obvious Anderson's a filmmaker that loves the past and likes to re-create cinematic versions of that past mixed with his quirky sitcom-like view of the world (the cinematography is both distractingly gorgeous but also fitting to Wes' eccentricities). Even Bill Murray seems to be going through the motions this time (Bruce Willis takes his place as the new member of the Anderson troop to steal his debut movie with this particular filmmaker) and, cute as they are together, I never warmed up to Kara Hayword and Jared Gilman's one-note portrayals of Suzy and Sam. Not a bad movie at all, just one I don't much care for.

Ron Fricke's SAMSARA (2012) in theaters for the first time. Saw this projected in 4K and, while not 70mm good (the film was shot with 70mm stock/camera but isn't being shown anywhere in that format), it was as good or better than what we've seen before from the makers of "Baraka": incredible vistas/profiles, distractingly-esoteric soundtrack and no spoken narrative. JB from the "F This Movie" podcast has said there's an infinite number of places the camera can go but that there is only one perfect place, and Ron Fricke has mastered the art of finding that sweet spot where his camera can capture some amazing sights (especially the sky-pointed shots where the Earth's rotation adds a mesmerizing on-camera effect). This time Fricke & Co. grow a backbone and throw (by this genre's standards) social criticisms in several sequences, especially the "food chain" sequence that culminates in a rather-pointed jab at a well-known big box store. A nice and complementary follow-up to "Baraka," "Samsara" nevertheless feels like more of the same.

[Attrage]

Planet of the Apes saga - Having just watched the “reboot”, I decided to pick up the box set of all 5 originals. I just finished the third instalment, Escape from the Planet of the Apes yesterday, and I had forgotten how progressively weirder and sillier these movies got.

Okay, so the first Planet of the Apes is a definite old-school sci-fi classic. It’s an intriguing premise, has a solid performance from Charlton Heston, and even today the make up and special effects hold up really well. I noticed in the credits that Kit West (of Lynch’s Dune) did the make up effects, so it’s no surprise they were first-rate. And although I still find the “shock” ending woefully melodramatic (not to mention I end up with the Simpsons parody “I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z, you’ll never make a monkey out of me!”) I had fun revisiting this film.

Then onto Beneath the Planet of the Apes, which arguably is simply a rehash of the first one with James Franciscus (or whatever the actor’s name is) doing basically a Charlton Heston impersonation. And I find the ending to this one bizarre as well. Just some narrator saying “the Earth is dead” and then those silent credits. And again, once they find that cult underground who communicate by nodding in someone’s direction accompanied by a weird synthesizer sound (again, reminded of the Simpsons Itchy and Scratchy thing where the futuristic Itchy’s telepathically taunt Scratchy) the story just becomes a little too ridiculous.

Okay so then onto the extreme silliness of part three – Escape from the Planet of the Apes. Talk about a head-scratchingly odd movie. It’s so comedic I have trouble believing it wasn’t meant to be a comedy. I loved seeing Bradford Dillman (Pirahna) in it though, I had forgotten he was in it. But Ricardo Montalban?? Please! The whole circus subplot was just so strange! But one thing that surprised me was how violent the ending is. The scene where that guy shoots Zira’s baby came as quite a shock to me. It was a surprisingly down-beat ending to such a silly film.

So, that’s it for now, but the downward slide into ridiculousness will continue this weekend when I tackle Conquest of the Planet of the Apes...bring it on, coz after part 3, I’m ready for anything...

[mavrach]

Been slowing down because I'm going through a surprise divorce and some other odd circumstances, but I'm still here! Mostly watching comfort titles, my attention span is shot, so I'm solely looking for fun movies now.

Last week I watched the Mission Impossible movie series. I'd seen the first two previously but the others I hadn't. Taken as a whole, this is a very awkward series, and each one feels like a reboot. The 3rd & 4th entries are closer to each other, but still they feel so distant from each other. I like that they went with different established directors each time, but the effect is jarring overall. It's like each movie is meant to be watched solo as if it weren't part of a series.

Odd note: I can't take a movie seriously with Tom Cruise's spastic sprinting happening onscreen.

Mission Impossible - This was my favorite of the four. I used to love it when it first came out and watched it to death on VHS, but haven't seen it since I went DVD. Also earlier in the year I discovered Brian Depalma's work, but didn't go through this one as I swept through his movies. This has the feel of an older TV show, has some fun gadgets that you don't take so seriously and just add to the spy atmosphere. And the bullet train finale was balls to the wall, very intense with an atmosphere does doesn't feel like it was shot against a blue screen.

MI:2 - You know, when I saw this in the theaters at age 19 or so I remember having a blast with it. Each time I've seen it since I try to remember that feeling, but this one is a failure on every level. John Wu tries so so hard to be cool & stylish here, and it's just limp. The story is empty, when a spy movie should generally be fairly intricate. Here we get a virus MacGuffin and nothing much happens around it aside from a few shootouts with a bland villain. Make the action as cool as you want, if there's no plot to support it then that's worthless. And this was the first reboot, they turned a sleek TV-style spy movie into an attempted 80's action flick.

MI:3 - Ok, so now Hunt lives like an average bachelor and he's going to be married to a civilian who doesn't know what he does. True Lies, anybody? Finally, we get an interesting villain in Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but I thought he was underused. And hey, they finally explain how they make masks!! As much as I've enjoyed J.J. Abrams' work otherwise, I thought this movie had no style and came off as being bland. Even MI2 had a certain feel to it, but this never got its own flavor.

MI: Ghost Protocol - Very good, but I thought it fell into some of the same holes that MI:3 did. Finally we got some decent supporting characters in the IMF team. Outside of staple Ving Rhames (who's now oddly absent), this has been one of the weak points of the series.

[mavrach]

Again, I'm going through a rough patch, but there were three movies that put a big smile on my face as if there were nothing wrong:

Kick Ass - This movie takes some flak for it's flaws, but it works for me as an oddball action movie. I don't have a problem with the violence or the fact that a kid is performing much of it, hell I welcome it for taking that risk. The real-life superhero thing isn't fully explored, but you get a dork who gets in over his head when he tries it out. And I've said this before, but any movie that makes me want to be a 12-year old girl is doing something right.

300 - This seems to have a reputation of being a big fake cartoon, but I find it to be more seamless than most "real-life" action movies that blend reality to CGI. It's exxagerated in many ways, but most don't realize that the whole thing is a story being retold afterwards to inspire soldiers. So folk who've never seen an elephant before will retell it like they're 30 feet tall, etc. It's a perfect style considering that, and I've got to admit to tearing up happily at the end as the credits roll.

Shaolin Soccer - A freaking blast. If you want to be happy, watch this movie. It's a hard movie to describe and make it sound good: down on ther luck Shaolin masters are recruited to form a soccer team, and their art is represented cartoonishly (i.e. kicking a soda can into orbit). And it's full of terrible CGI. But you end up embracing all of this because the energy is so high. Oddly enough I could never get into Kung F Hustle...

[Dan Mancini]

Taken as a whole, this is a very awkward series, and each one feels like a reboot. The 3rd & 4th entries are closer to each other, but still they feel so distant from each other. I like that they went with different established directors each time, but the effect is jarring overall. It's like each movie is meant to be watched solo as if it weren't part of a series.

What you see as a bug, I see as a feature. I dig that each movie is basically stand-alone and that Ethan Hunt is almost a different character.

I can't stand M:I II, though.

[Mach6]

I can't stand M:I II, though.

Amen to that, Mr. Mancini
I know it has been said a million times, but MI 2 feels more like The Tom Cruise Show or a generic Cruise saves the day action movie instead of the other three movies. The appeal of the 60’s TV show & the 1st movie was how each member of the IMF team would use their own talents to get the job done. MI 2 is all about Hunt getting all the glory by using Matrix type moves, while Ving Rhames gets to push a few buttons on his laptop, & Anthony Hopkins is just there to collect his cameo paycheck. I just see it as a case where Cruise & Woo wanted to borrow from & top the Wachowski Bros. & they forgot they were making a MI movie. MI 2 would be more tolerable if the title didn’t have the words Mission Impossible.

Abrams & Co. were smart to bring the team concept back to MI 3 & 4. I liked 3 (Hoffman was a great villain) but I think Ghost Protocol was the first MI movie to get it right. While Hunt still got to fight the main villain, the other team members really got to contribute to the victory. Like Mavrach sort of said, Patton, Pegg, & Renner are decent (& interesting) supporting characters. Pegg just steals every scene he’s in. Besides, the action meathead in me just loved all the crazy action set pieces that Brad Bird threw in there. I saw the Blu Ray special features & Cruise was insane (but in a good way) for performing all those stunts.

[Dan Mancini]

I just see it as a case where Cruise & Woo wanted to borrow from & top the Wachowski Bros. & they forgot they were making a MI movie.

I place the movie's flaws squarely on Woo's shoulders. It's not that he's copying the Wachowskis; it's that he's being John Woo.

But I have a low threshold for John Woo flicks . . . even the ones that are supposed to be good (I can't stand Hard Boiled or The Killer). His movies are all overwrought stylistic flourishes and weird mix of emotional detachment and gooey sentimentality.

[Steve T Power]

I just see it as a case where Cruise & Woo wanted to borrow from & top the Wachowski Bros. & they forgot they were making a MI movie.

I place the movie's flaws squarely on Woo's shoulders. It's not that he's copying the Wachowskis; it's that he's being John Woo.

But I have a low threshold for John Woo flicks . . . even the ones that are supposed to be good (I can't stand Hard Boiled or The Killer). His movies are all overwrought stylistic flourishes and weird mix of emotional detachment and gooey sentimentality.

Something to be said for the rest of the series: It's a spy-adventure thang. Woo's entry is straight up action, and it sucks.

[Dan Mancini]

I just see it as a case where Cruise & Woo wanted to borrow from & top the Wachowski Bros. & they forgot they were making a MI movie.

I place the movie's flaws squarely on Woo's shoulders. It's not that he's copying the Wachowskis; it's that he's being John Woo.

But I have a low threshold for John Woo flicks . . . even the ones that are supposed to be good (I can't stand Hard Boiled or The Killer). His movies are all overwrought stylistic flourishes and weird mix of emotional detachment and gooey sentimentality.

Something to be said for the rest of the series: It's a spy-adventure thang. Woo's entry is straight up action, and it sucks.

Indeed.

[Attrage]

The Tree of Life (first viewing) - Malick's films defy any rationalisation or analysis, so I'll just say that I liked it. I will need (not want, need) to watch it again to even begin to grasp it's enormous and yet agonisingly small themes (that makes no sense I know). It doesnt surprise me at all that this film has attracted comparison to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both films deal with themes of life, death, creation, evolution, God, the universe and Man's place in it. Both are amazingly ambitious works of art. Where The Tree of Life departs from this similarity is it's wonderful exploration of the idea of Mother as Grace, and Father as Nature. Like I have been with every one of Malick's movies, I was confused by it, moved by it, annoyed by parts and brought to tears by other parts. I loved the non-linear, abstract nature, the absence of a narrative structure, and the sheer beauty of it's images. To some, Malick is a genius. I don't know that I'd go that far, but he's certainly unusual, visionary, and very, very talented.

[Attrage]

Spartan – (Fourth viewing) - This is not the best known film, but it should be better known. Because it’s freakin brilliant.

What I especially like about it is that absolutely nothing about the plot is spoon-fed to you. In fact, the first time I saw it, I found the first 15 minutes or so downright confusing. This is one of the movies that is immeasurably better the second time you see it, because you don’t have to expend any mental energy trying to figure out what the hell is going on. You can sit back and watch a finely executed film play itself out before you. And it’s a very rewarding experience.

Val Kilmer’s character is arguably one of the most interesting ever committed to film, and undoubtedly one of the best of his career. I like that nothing is provided – everything is left to your imagination. You know that he’s military; you know that he’s damn good at what he does; and you know that something in his past haunts him. As to what any of those three things are – you’re left to come up with that on your own. Even his real name is never actually revealed.

He does have one of the greatest scenes ever though – I love the “you broke my arm!” – WHAM! “Now it’s broken,” moment – it’s great. His character’s merciless devotion to extracting information from scumbags reminds me a lot of Liam Neeson’s later character in Taken – he’s just an unapologetic badass and that’s always a great character and, I imagine, a very fun character to play.

I also love those first fifteen minutes of the film. You know something big has happened – but it’s left to you to piece small bits of info together before the penny drops – the President’s daughter has been kidnapped.

The rest of the film is just as good – I love the way the conspiracy is slowly revealed – there’s never really any big moment of revelation – just a few key scenes that propel the film towards several plot revelations that are big – but inherently believable. I especially like the moment between Kilmer and the girl’s minder – where Kilmer asks incredulously: “How do you fake the DNA?” and she says, in a perfectly jaded way: “You don’t fake the DNA – you issue a press release.”

The film is let down ever so slightly by a fairly run-of-the-mill conclusion (which I won’t spoil) but it’s hard to fault the film for that – because the rest of it is just so damn good.

[Attrage]

300 - This seems to have a reputation of being a big fake cartoon, but I find it to be more seamless than most "real-life" action movies that blend reality to CGI. It's exxagerated in many ways, but most don't realize that the whole thing is a story being retold afterwards to inspire soldiers. So folk who've never seen an elephant before will retell it like they're 30 feet tall, etc. It's a perfect style considering that, and I've got to admit to tearing up happily at the end as the credits roll.

That's one of the better descriptions I have read. 300 was never meant to be a historical film - it's a legend. This is best evidenced by the fact it's being narrated/told to the Spartan soldiers by a man (David Wenham) who was not even present at King Leonidas' death - he's giving an epic speech to rouse soldiers for war - of course he's going to exaggerate.

[J.M. Vargas]

Been slowing down because I'm going through a surprise divorce and some other odd circumstances, but I'm still here! Mostly watching comfort titles, my attention span is shot, so I'm solely looking for fun movies now.

Sorry, dude... or should I say congratulations?

P.T. Anderson's THE MASTER (2012) in 70mm (seven bucks for matinee pricing!) for the first time. I never thought Anderson could top "Magnolia" as his most self-satisfying, 'look at this important movie I'm making' nihilistic cinematic piece of shit he's ever done. He didn't, "The Master" is beter than "Magnolia" (what movie isn't? ) but way below "Boogie Nights" and "There Will Be Blood," which are flat-out masterpieces. "The Master's" best redeeming feature is that, like the better Kubrick movies (which seems to be the school of pretentious filmmaking P.T. is aiming for), this movie works if you see it as a very mean, dark and subversive comedy. Even the use of naked women as props just because Anderson can put them there (again, very Kubriesque) has a hilarious payoff that bookends the flick. I could say more but I don't want to spoil the plot. You're better off seeing it knowing as little as possible so you can enjoy it (though 'joy' is not a word that agrees with "The Master") but the 'soundtrack working against/for the movie' technique from "There Will Be Blood" is back, fleshed out and even better.

Joaquin Phoenix looks/acts like Daniel Plainview's slightly-retarded cousin and Phillips Seymour Hoffman, even at half-speed (he reacts as much or more than he being the center of attention), holds his own as the Ron L. Hubbard-type leader of a growing cult. This is the "cult" movie that I thought "Martha Marcy May Marlene" would be, so no points to P.T. for being as obvious as the smaller indie movie was daring. Visually this is a hell of a good-looking film and avoids using photography for "pretty" shots (what the bulk of movies shot in 70mm use the technology for, i.e. the "Baraka/Sansara" school of filmmaking). Many of the shots are close-ups of faces (particularly The Masters' face) which ties up with the movie's narrative pretty well. The TV commercial and trailer for "The Master" have lots of shots/images that are not in the movie (a shot of two people jumping off a bridge and Freddie doing gunplay in a bedroom stick out). For a typical Hollywood movie I'd expect this, but for a filmmaker as particular as P.T. Anderson it's kind-of odd.

[mavrach]

Been slowing down because I'm going through a surprise divorce and some other odd circumstances, but I'm still here! Mostly watching comfort titles, my attention span is shot, so I'm solely looking for fun movies now.

Sorry, dude... or should I say congratulations?

Thanks JM. It depends on the day which way I answer that question.


I saw Hugo last night. Very imaginative, and I'm happy to see a family film focus on early Hollywood. I'd think most kids (and frankly most adults) would reject the idea of silent film, or at least take it for granted even though it's the foundation of the entire medium. Here's a mainstream film that is family-accessible while being a love letter for the silent era.


Raiders of the Lost Ark - This was a once in a lifetime opportunity, so I dragged my sorry ass to the theater to see it all by myself. I've seen this movie so many times that it's a part of me, so I won't rehash the specifics that you've seen over and over again on this one. As far as the print goes, even after DVD there were some things that I never noticed before, namely Belloq eating the fly (apparrently this was a fan favorite goof) and Indy's chest wounds being so fresh on the ship.

There were maybe 30 people in the theatre, mostly folks in their 30's with their young kids. So you can tell this is an important movie to people who want to share it with their own kids so they can grow up with it to. But look at what a violent movie this really is: Han doesn't just shoot first, he shoots somebody with a sword! Melting Nazis, a guy gets splattered by a plane rotor, etc etc. We might take it for granted since we grew up with it, but that's the point. Movies today are so toned down for the sake of saving the children. But is it really that bad? The whole point of the film is good defeating evil and that's driven through using the violence to sell the realism.

[molly1216]

Watched Safe with Jason Statham... the script has some things that don't work..or rather go no where and could have been cut..but who really watches this kind of film for the script? anyway...long story short i watched it twice..and i haven't indulged in a Statham marathon in a very long time..and i feel the need to do so now...he is totally scrumptious..and i'd like him to rip all my clothes off one day... (hey..a woman's gotta still have goals when she reaches my age)...aside from that...there's lots of punches, stunts and gunfire. without a lot of distraction..i recommend it. in fact when it reaches the used dvd market i am investing in a copy to put under my pillow.

[mkiker2089]

I just got word that my Indiana Jones Blu Ray set is in the mail.

I also ordered a set about Jay Leno's Garage. I saw it advertised on the Speed Channel. It's a three or four disc set (the site isn't specific) and I saw disc one ages ago when Netflix had it as part of a different collection.

That's my month tied up nicely. Now it's time to plan for horror movies.

[mkiker2089]

namely Belloq eating the fly (apparrently this was a fan favorite goof) and Indy's chest wounds being so fresh on the ship.

There were maybe 30 people in the theatre, mostly folks in their 30's with their young kids. So you can tell this is an important

That just shows how good the editing was. The story is that they cut two different takes together which is why the fly just vanishes. He probably shooed it away and ruined the first take. It's too bad they didn't just redo the entire take.

[Polynikes]

300 - This seems to have a reputation of being a big fake cartoon, but I find it to be more seamless than most "real-life" action movies that blend reality to CGI. It's exxagerated in many ways, but most don't realize that the whole thing is a story being retold afterwards to inspire soldiers. So folk who've never seen an elephant before will retell it like they're 30 feet tall, etc. It's a perfect style considering that, and I've got to admit to tearing up happily at the end as the credits roll.

That's one of the better descriptions I have read. 300 was never meant to be a historical film - it's a legend. This is best evidenced by the fact it's being narrated/told to the Spartan soldiers by a man (David Wenham) who was not even present at King Leonidas' death - he's giving an epic speech to rouse soldiers for war - of course he's going to exaggerate.

My interest in Thermopylae is evidenced by my choice of soubriquet for this board. Glad for you that you liked the film and each to their own, but I have never left a cinema feeling angrier than after 300. What a wasted opportunity. Make an action film by all means, but please don't spoil something splendid. I would have bet a large sum of money that no one could have made the fascinating and inspirational story of Thermopylae boring, silly and embarrassing to watch, but Zach Snyder managed it by choosing to base his screenplay on Frank Miller's pathetic "comic" instead of far better versions of the story (e.g. Stephen Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" or - here's a thought - the events as sketchily described by some chap called Herodotus). As a result, the film depicts a laughably sub-tabloid newspaper version of the Spartan way of life, and it completely misses the point about the Spartan mentality which we can reasonably suppose lay behind their decision to fight against hopeless odds. The unrecognisable portrayals of Xerxes, the Immortals and Ephialtes are too embarrassing even to be excused as caricatures. The quality of the dialogue and most of the acting are too painful to write about.

It's fair to say that I did not like it.

[molly1216]

DeadHeads (2011) this was worth watching...it's done on the cheap but is surprisingly clever.
i put it on and was going to fall asleep and i ended up staying up and watching the whole thing
and i think i am going to add it to my halloween rotation along with Idle Hands and Slither as it has the same manic splatter quality
wait let me explain....
there's a zombie outbreak that not a whole lot of people are aware of..
and some zombies are kinda just 'the talking dead'
no, let me sum up....
our hero wakes up a zombie..and spends the rest of the picture trying to propose to his girlfriend who is not a zombie.
wackiness ensues.
shut up and pop a beer and watch it.

[molly1216]

Paid Amazon to watch Cabin in the Woods. i enjoyed the speculative fiction aspect to it, as well as the whedon-esque dialogue..didn't think the anti-deus ex-machina cameo fit well and i would have liked to understand more of the global event structure. unfortunately it is not something i will revisit very often which is usually one of Whedon's hallmarks. can anyone put their finger on what it is that is lacking in that regard? aside from that the only spoiler free comment i can make is the quote from The Emperor's New Groove..'why do we even have that lever'?

[azul017]

Dredd (2012) - This is much better than the Sly Stallone film that came out, in terms of casting, acting, and approach. Karl Urban gives Dredd a perfectly badass John Wayne/Clint Eastwood vibe, and his helmet stays on throughout the film. Lean Headey is almost unrecognizable as the drug maven Ma-Ma, but more power to her -- you see little of Cersei Lannister, Sarah Connor, or Queen Gorgo here. The slow-mo sequences go on for too long in some scenes, especially the climatic one where it turns unintentionally funny.

It's worth a 2D matinee price if you're interested. I don't think it'll lose much if you wait for Netflix or Redbox, though.

[Steve T Power]

Dredd - Urban cuts through this thing like Clint Eastwood crossed with Robocop. A surprisingly lean, laser tight focus and some witty writing from Alex Garland combined with a truly unique look that feels considerably more future-real than Sly's more traditionally Cyberpunk crossed with early '90s comic book look. Garland was clearly a Dredd fan, but he had the common sense to not be TOO slavish in his screenplay. Definitely really dug this one.

[Attrage]

300 - This seems to have a reputation of being a big fake cartoon, but I find it to be more seamless than most "real-life" action movies that blend reality to CGI. It's exxagerated in many ways, but most don't realize that the whole thing is a story being retold afterwards to inspire soldiers. So folk who've never seen an elephant before will retell it like they're 30 feet tall, etc. It's a perfect style considering that, and I've got to admit to tearing up happily at the end as the credits roll.

That's one of the better descriptions I have read. 300 was never meant to be a historical film - it's a legend. This is best evidenced by the fact it's being narrated/told to the Spartan soldiers by a man (David Wenham) who was not even present at King Leonidas' death - he's giving an epic speech to rouse soldiers for war - of course he's going to exaggerate.

My interest in Thermopylae is evidenced by my choice of soubriquet for this board. Glad for you that you liked the film and each to their own, but I have never left a cinema feeling angrier than after 300. What a wasted opportunity. Make an action film by all means, but please don't spoil something splendid. I would have bet a large sum of money that no one could have made the fascinating and inspirational story of Thermopylae boring, silly and embarrassing to watch, but Zach Snyder managed it by choosing to base his screenplay on Frank Miller's pathetic "comic" instead of far better versions of the story (e.g. Stephen Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" or - here's a thought - the events as sketchily described by some chap called Herodotus). As a result, the film depicts a laughably sub-tabloid newspaper version of the Spartan way of life, and it completely misses the point about the Spartan mentality which we can reasonably suppose lay behind their decision to fight against hopeless odds. The unrecognisable portrayals of Xerxes, the Immortals and Ephialtes are too embarrassing even to be excused as caricatures. The quality of the dialogue and most of the acting are too painful to write about.

It's fair to say that I did not like it.

Oh yeah, I completely see your viewpoint and kudos for engaging in a rational discussion about it. My comments are solely about enjoying 300 as a film, as a piece of entertainment. To that end, I think it’s awesome. And visually excellent. It’s one of the few films I bothered to upgrade to blu ray. There’s not many on that list.

Historically, the story of the Battle of Thermopylae ranks as one of my all time favourites. It’s one of those things I can scarcely believe actually happened, and the Spartans were a fascinating and brutal people I can’t believe anyone had the gall to mess with. Personally I’d love to see a more historical-epic type film about the battle, I’ll gladly plunk down hard-earned if and when that ever becomes a reality.

I’d disagree though, that the film 300 was a “missed opportunity”. Snyder accomplished what he set out to do, and in my opinion accomplished it and then some. If nothing else, it leaves the opportunity open for someone else to come along and make the historical epic I mention above

[Ptolemy]

Saw Dredd and enjoyed it very much - from beginning to end. Felt it captured the vibe of 2000ad very well. Would love to see it turn in to a franchise, but it doesn't look like the numbers are going to be there - shame.

[mavrach]

My comments are solely about enjoying 300 as a film, as a piece of entertainment. To that end, I think it’s awesome. And visually excellent. It’s one of the few films I bothered to upgrade to blu ray. There’s not many on that list.

That's the perspective I take on 300 as well. I'm watching it as a movie, so I ask what rules its world sets up and base the experience around that. They might as well be living in Middle Earth or something, I get the inspirational element out of it.

But if the historical material is near and dear to you, I can understand being disappointed in not seeing what you hoped could make it to the screen.

[Polynikes]

Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut. Normally, I don't find a "director's cut" adds much to my appreciation of a film, but as mentioned by others on this board in the past, in this case I thought it improved the film markedly. There are still flaws and jarring notes, but this version banished a lot of the disjointed air there was about the theatrical release. I saw it on TV, which normally shows shorter theatrical releases, but I am glad someone took a different decision in this case.

[Attrage]

Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut. Normally, I don't find a "director's cut" adds much to my appreciation of a film, but as mentioned by others on this board in the past, in this case I thought it improved the film markedly. There are still flaws and jarring notes, but this version banished a lot of the disjointed air there was about the theatrical release. I saw it on TV, which normally shows shorter theatrical releases, but I am glad someone took a different decision in this case.

As usual the man himself says it best: Ridley Scott says the theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven he sees as nothing more than an "extended trailer" for the real film. I don't know if it was the same in the US, but it's bad box office takings here in Australia were due also, in no small part, to it being advertised as another Gladiator. All you took away from the previews was "From the director of Gladiator", and that the film had some cool battles in it. I'm not surprised people came away disappointed. I certainly did, not because I was expecting another Gladiator, but because the film felt incomplete. I wasnt surprised upon reading reviews afterwards that called the film "disjointed", and "confusing". I came away hoping there would eventually be a Director's Cut. The one I eventually got now has Kingdom of Heaven firmly among my all time favorite films.

[molly1216]

Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut. Normally, I don't find a "director's cut" adds much to my appreciation of a film, but as mentioned by others on this board in the past, in this case I thought it improved the film markedly. There are still flaws and jarring notes, but this version banished a lot of the disjointed air there was about the theatrical release. I saw it on TV, which normally shows shorter theatrical releases, but I am glad someone took a different decision in this case.

As usual the man himself says it best: Ridley Scott says the theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven he sees as nothing more than an "extended trailer" for the real film. I don't know if it was the same in the US, but it's bad box office takings here in Australia were due also, in no small part, to it being advertised as another Gladiator. All you took away from the previews was "From the director of Gladiator", and that the film had some cool battles in it. I'm not surprised people came away disappointed. I certainly did, not because I was expecting another Gladiator, but because the film felt incomplete. I wasnt surprised upon reading reviews afterwards that called the film "disjointed", and "confusing". I came away hoping there would eventually be a Director's Cut. The one I eventually got now has Kingdom of Heaven firmly among my all time favorite films.

agreed.

Watched Avengers....a LOT.

[J.M. Vargas]

Watched Avengers....a LOT.

And why wouldn't you? That Patrick Macnee was such a hunk!