What was the last movie you saw?

Saw Pitch Black last night. Okay, not a bad premise, since we seem to be running out of fresh idea lately. I'm starting to like Vin a bit more. He's got that stereotypical Alpha male thing goin' on, and I don't think he needs all of the testi attitude. But, hey, I guess it's working for him.

Tri
 
I also watched Pan's Larbyrinth just the other day (I'd intended to see it in the theater, but the winter weather being what it was...). Beautiful film; very moving, and I highly recommend it. (I will admit, however, to a very big soft spot for Guillermo del Toro's more "personal" films, whereas his Hollywood films are ... candy-floss....)
 
I did a subtitle marathon;
Pans Labyrinth and Apocalypto, followed these up with A Night At The Museum.
Pans Labyrinth; (Spanish with subtitles) Not sure about this one, An arty film about a little girl in a fascist country. Mostly OK but some of the effects (toad death in the tunnel) reminded me of mediocre 1963 effects. I would not rate it highly (Guillermo's Hell Boy was a more entertaining film) give it a C.
Apocalypto (English subtitles), another OK film. Gibson may have confused the Aztec and Maya to some extent but overall pretty enjoyable. Give it a C+
Night at the museum another OK film. A no thought required family film (no subtitles required), enjoyable to see and with a few laughs. Give this one a C.

Enjoy!
 
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I hated Harry Potter, his fiends and Voldemort who pranced around in a black nightgown (I just don't like martyr kids and stupid-looking villains), but all the CGI things were good.
 
Primeval. Terrifying movie. Try to imagine urself being eaten by a 10 ton crocodile. Not a pleasant image is it... Really nice for once in a movie the evil continues to live on. Although its based on a true story.
 
Saw Pirates III; while I have some problems with it, and feel there were some things that could have been trimmed or tightened up, I did enjoy it, and felt that it gave a nice ending to the set... and yes, I think that scene following the credits added a nice element to the film, and made things a bit more poignant.
 
TIME AFTER TIME (1979) - Nicholas Meyer

TAT is a relic of the early 80's SF genre which mixed in teen romance with bubble-gum science, having a specific kinship with the Back to The Future franchise. It was made by Nicholas Meyer, most famous for having written and made a film adaptation of the post-modern Sherlock Holmes novel The Seven Per Cent Solution, where Watson, in a bid to cure Holmes' cocaine addiction takes him to Vienna to consult with Sigmund Freud.

Meyer continues his obsession with popular Victorian culture, this time mixing in 2 famous real-life personalities of that age, H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper. In this story, a young and earnest Wells actually invents a Time Machine. Unfortunately his close friend, surgeon John Leslie Stevenson, is the Ripper and uses the invention to escape into the future. Wells, fearful of what he has unleashed unto his imagined 'utopia', resolves to track down and return the Whitechapel murderer and this quest takes him to...1979 San Francisco.

While the premise may excite genre fans, what is important to understand is that the film doesn't take particular pains to be faithful to the history of either character or play up their peculiarities. Wells, played with a charming naivety by Malcolm MacDowell (who had earlier played the ferocious Alex in A Clockwork Orange) is, apart from a few scenes of cute references, never particularly identifiable as the author of an immense sweep of literature; he could be just another well-meaning anachronistic English hick bumbling his way through the big bad Yank city. Through most of the narrative Jack seems far more comfortable with the technology and mores of the future than the supposed science savant Wells is, and there are few scenes where the characters actually resonate. One is where Jack shows a horrified Wells snatches of television, depicting brutal murders, wars and violent cartoons. "In my time I was considered a freak", he grins, almost ruefully, "here I am an amateur."

Apart from the cat & mouse games that occur between Wells and Jack, the film gives significant attention to a burgeoning romance between Wells and 20th century bank-teller Amy Robbins, a pleasantly stoned looking character, whose approach is quite 'forward' by any standards (inviting a total stranger for lunch and discussing your sexual habits with him at first meeting?), and who is charmed by Wells' naive idealistic curiosities and mild shocks at all her free revelations (despite his claims to be an advocate of free love). Although never particularly touching, the romantic scenes, thanks mainly to the chemistry between the lead actors, have a frothy charm that to a good extent covers up the glaring deficiencies of the plotline. David Warner turns in a suitably chilling portrayal of the villainous Ripper and the visual effects share the cheerful camp of other movies of that age.

If you're willing to accept that the main characters are never strongly related to their real-life counterparts and that a good part of this movie is a cheeky romantic comedy, it's a pleasant enough watch.
 
ravenus said:
,,, a pleasantly stoned looking character, whose approach is quite 'forward' by any standards (inviting a total stranger for lunch and discussing your sexual habits with him at first meeting?), and who is charmed by Wells' naive idealistic curiosities and mild shocks at all her free revelations (despite his claims to be an advocate of free love)....
Click to expand...

At the time this film was made, that behavior would have scarcely raised an eyebrow. It was all over the place, believe me. And the fact he was flustered by it seemed to me a rather tongue-in-cheek comment on "how free is your definition of 'free'?"....

I've always had a fondness for this film, despite its many flaws. The chemistry between the leads is indeed quite good, for one thing, and it makes some nice social commentary along the way... both about violence in society and also about how often the seemingly most ephemeral aspects of a society may be the longest-lasting...
 
I, too, have always been quite fond of Time After Time. I will definitely second j. d.'s assessment of Amy's "forward" behavior and choice of subjects to talk about to a virtual stranger to have been quite normative in the US at the time the film was made. That was pre-HIV, after all, and the sexual revolution of the sixties was still in full swing.

As for myself, I watched The Departed this afternoon. Very good Academy Award-winning film (Best Film and Best Director for Martin Scorsese...finally), with very good performances from all involved. I was especially impressed with Leonardo DiCaprio (who I don't necessarily always enjoy watching) and, of course, with Jack Nicholson, who manages to make a certain amount of scene-chewing work for the character he plays rather than taking away from the performance. Special mention for the music, which was wonderfully evocative and appropriate.
 
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

I really like that movie, I don't think there's ever been a better ensemble cast, lets stack it with as many stars as possible, movie. The cast, the cameo's, the fact that everyone is going at 100mph in or out of a car, it just works really well.

Apparently there may be a sequel and after Rat Race I can only hope it never gets off the ground.
 
The Shooter....Marky Mark has come a looong way from the Funky Bunch, I find myself enjoying his films...as long as he doesn't make any music....

:D
 
Quokka said:
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

I really like that movie, I don't think there's ever been a better ensemble cast, lets stack it with as many stars as possible, movie. The cast, the cameo's, the fact that everyone is going at 100mph in or out of a car, it just works really well.
Click to expand...

But you haven't really seen it until you've seen it the way it was meant to be seen, in Cinerama (although it was filmed using a different process than the original Cinerama). It shows how old I am, but I did see it that way, when it was first out in the theatres...I should add that I was very young at the time. :)

But, yeah, it was a good movie.

By the way, the same thing goes, only even more so for How the West Was Won, which was filmed using the original three-projecter Cinerama process.
 
littlemissattitude said:
But you haven't really seen it until you've seen it the way it was meant to be seen, in Cinerama (although it was filmed using a different process than the original Cinerama). It shows how old I am, but I did see it that way, when it was first out in the theatres...I should add that I was very young at the time. :)

But, yeah, it was a good movie.

By the way, the same thing goes, only even more so for How the West Was Won, which was filmed using the original three-projecter Cinerama process.
Click to expand...

The fact that I also remember seeing films using the process (yes, I remember the Panavision name on those films!) does make me feel old... And I agree... if you've not seen these on the big screen, using that process... you've not seen them properly. It's an incredible experience!....

(Damn, but I wish they'd do a revival of Abel Gance's Napoleon, with a genuine three-screen projection, and live music. Now, that was amazing.....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Toby Frost Lasting Impact? Game of Thrones 26
AnRoinnUltra The last days of the Lóntuisteach Promotions 0
The Judge DISTAFF -- Last Chance to Buy!! Promotions 0
Extollager Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn (1968 novel -- not movie) Classic SF&F 11
N Y: The Last Man, movie or telly series? Graphic Novels & Comics 3

Similar threads


Back
Top