[tdockweiler]

The Descendants - 7/10
 
Feels a bit like oscar bait. I swear i've seen this storyline about a million different times.
George Clooney is good in nearly every role he's in (IMO), but he doesn't seem to have much range as an actor yet.
In this one he acted the same way as he did in Michael Clayton. Yes, he can act!
 
There is some comedy in here too, but it's actually more annoying than funny.
 
PS this reminded me of "Savages" which is a much better film.

 

[vwinter]

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter [6/10]

Watched this one in 3D. My first 3D viewing since 3D movies took center stage. The 3D wasn't great really, especially when there was a lot of stuff getting cut off at the lower border breaking the effect. Except for a few scenes, it have been better off seeing it in 2D (probably a conclusion for most movies).

If you were making a movie, directing, editing, the whole nine, and the scene was someone getting out of a car, how many camera angles and resulting cuts would you think would be ideal for this 2 second moment? If you said 6, then this move is for you.

This was par for course in the whole movie. They put an extra 4 cuts, at minimum for every shot, resulting in one of the most hard to visually follow movies I've seen. It was as if the editor meant to take their 8 pill dose of multivitamin and accidentally ended up taking caffeine pills instead.

Realistically, I think this was their attempt at pulling the viewer into a pace that was the result of having one less hour than they needed in the budget. You could see this in the general editing and the script. They needed about 2.5-3 hours to close this down effectively and only had about 1.5, 10 minutes of which were spent reintroducing new viewers to the backstory.

They had Ruby Rose in the movie who for no reason that I can understand was speaking in an American accent. You know, because before the T Virus spread, it was impossible for someone to have hopped on a plane from Australia to the US.

It's not all bad though. There were some inspired action sequences and pretty epic moments. And really since this one was non-stop action, it helped it get by. And one part they did well was incorporate the sci-fi elements. At no point did I see a 3D creature or action sequence and think, "that is out of place". Which is really a compliment given what went on in this one. Some decent dark comedy too.

If you can deal with a script that they were just unable to finesse into the runtime and some generally poor dialogue, the key players put in decent performances for the parts and the action is fun enough to keep it going. It'll do on a rainy Sunday.

 

[vwinter]

Dr. Strangelove [8.9/10]

Another film that is just as chilling and just as relevant today as it was when it came out. The themes explored are almost startling in their recurrence in the current political climate.

There are just so many standout moments here. From the opening message from the Air Force to the discussions between the President and Gen. Turgidson in the war room and the Secretary's phone call while Turgidson was in the "powder room". Almost everyone involved is worth every second of film. And most scenes show Kubrick's touch with composition.

I think the scenes on the B-52 were kind of the obvious weak points, not that stylings of Slim Pickens and the on-screen debut of James Earl Jones weren't worth watching. But they didn't have that same rich tension or comedic impact as the other scenes. You can argue that they were meant to balance out the film or that it was the lack of Peter Sellers here that did them in. Supposedly Sellers was to play the part that was eventually done by Slim Pickens but he couldn't quite get the Texas accent and faced some injury at the time so he was replaced. Personally, I think the writing just couldn't (or didn't) weave these scenes as fluidly into the overall fabric of the rest of the film and the setting didn't allow Kubrick his general sense of dramatic lighting, angle or scale.

A question was raised at some point on this thread about how this would have come out if it was a serious film. You'd almost have to look no further than a film made in the same year (which was the focus of a Kubrick lawsuit no less) called Fail-Safe (1964). I had not seen it but have read the book (which was subject to a lawsuit itself from the author or the book Red Alert on which Dr. Strangelove was based) and can say with certainty that this is what you're looking for, on top of it being very well-received film.

Generally though, to say that turning this subject matter into a satire was inspired is almost giving it too much credit and it was almost an inevitable course of action, a foregone conclusion if you will. This is not to undermine the creativity involved though. The general scenario is so far removed from everyday life that it's almost difficult to create a satisfactory relation between the subject and the general viewer, wherein as a satire, it almost has a stronger impact than if it was a serious drama/thriller. The execution however is where this is inspired, the acting and directing and majority of the scenarios are frankly brilliant. The lack of punches pulled here is what we would be lucky to see today from political satire.


[rule]
This movie is also an amazing example of the progression of graphic design over the years. The official and unofficial posters and physical media box art that has been made for this film is incredible.

 

[tdockweiler]

War of the Worlds (2005) - 8/10
 
Not quite as bad as the remember.
When I saw this when it came out I remember it feeling more like a holocaust movie.
Totally depressing and not much fun at all. A little more fun to watch this time around for some reason.
Rachel is still super annoying in this movie. Oh well, I don't blame her acting.
 
BTW I just read that MTV is planning a TV series of this. No thanks!
It might be good, but I don't have much hope if it's produced by MTV.

 

[WraithApe]

 
Phase IV - 7/10
 
To continue with the Peter Sellars connection, a film featuring Lynne Frederick in an early role. Strange one this; everything about the premise screams B movie and yet it's done in a sober, measured way more in keeping with the likes of Soylent Green. The science is pretty laughable if you examine it for any time at all but Nigel Davenport and Michael Murphy bring a dignity to the dialogue that isn't really there on the page. At no point does it actually become ridiculous, despite being about a new race of killer ants threatening the existence of mankind. I was expecting giant ants and Godzilla-style action, but instead, the threat comes from a super intelligent hive mind. How it comes into being is very vague - some kind of cosmic event occurs which alters ants at a genetic level so that their collective intelligence becomes great enough to challenge humans as the dominant species on earth. They begin a phased takeover, which gradually reveals the objects and subjects of the experiment have been flipped.
 
It has the B movie stereotypes alright - the intelligent, but unsympathetic lead scientist, the perceptive and humane junior, the damsel in distress - and they are a little one-dimensional as characters but the film has other things going for it, not least the artful cinematography, with some excellent close-up camera shots. A few of the models and matte paintings are a little obvious, but what the heck! Plot-wise it doesn't always work either, suspense sometimes replaced by the feeling of watching a cross between and a natural history programme and an episode of Tomorrow's World. Somehow though, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I really like the way it's actually an alien contact scenario; the classic fight or flight dilemma (the opposing positions occupied by the two scientists) played out in miniature - a clever use of very limited resources to make a sci-fi that refuses to simply play it for laughs.

 

[vwinter]

War of the Worlds (2005) - 8/10

Not quite as bad as the remember.
When I saw this when it came out I remember it feeling more like a holocaust movie.
Totally depressing and not much fun at all. A little more fun to watch this time around for some reason.
Rachel is still super annoying in this movie. Oh well, I don't blame her acting.

BTW I just read that MTV is planning a TV series of this. No thanks!
It might be good, but I don't have much hope if it's produced by MTV.

I still maintain that the first half an hour of that movie was amazing. How quickly it went downhill after that was more or less the surprise, as was for how long it managed to do so.


WraithApe So I'm reading, and by time I get to the last paragraph, I'm already typing up a response that says "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts kind of deal?" Then I get to the middle of that paragraph aaand message received.

 

[WraithApe]

I still maintain that the first half an hour of that movie was amazing. How quickly it went downhill after that was more or less the surprise, as was for how long it managed to do so.

 
Ditto. The schmaltzy reunion at the end is entirely predictable and yet I still wanted to shout "OH PLEASE" at the screen! They knew how to end sci-fis (or not) in the 70s 

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3XR9VNcaxA

 

[krumley7882]

Nocturnal Animals  8/10
 
Hitchkockian flavor.  Dark film.  Great soundscape.  Enigmatic ending

 

[krumley7882]

Hacksaw Ridge   7.5/10
 
Story of Desmond Doss- (First contentious objector to be awarded the Medal of Honor.)  

 

[aptr91]

The Rabbi's Cat 8/10
Clever film, I've never had a movie watching experience quite like this. It's kind of an odd film. Oddly paced, and of course it's about a cat that wants to convert to Judaism. Good film, but probably not for everyone.

Funny Games USA 9/10
I really like this movie. It's a bit slow, but I was entertained the whole way through. Really interesting choices were made, and I love them all. I was also pleasantly surprised to hear one of my favorite artists, John Zorn.

 

[tdockweiler]

Air Force One - 5.75/10
 
This one sort of feels like a TV movie. The acting is pretty average overall and the special effects are quite bad.
Pretty stupid overall. Hard to believe it cost $85 million to make and still had such lousy special effects.
How on earth did this also make 300 million at the box office.
 
Suggestion: Watch "Executive Decision" instead. I've seen that one several dozen times and it's a good "popcorn movie".
 
BTW I'm getting so sick of those DVD menus that take 40-60 seconds to load.
What is the record for longest length of time for a menu scene to fade before getting to the menu options?
I think "Apollo 13" is one of them.. Seriously, why didn't they show me every sad face in the movie before I get to the menu options?
 
I also vote "Cinderella Man" as having the worst movie trailer.
The worst trailers are the ones that try to make a movie appear 10x sadder than it really is. For example, just add every scene with a dramatic moment and call it a trailer. Oh and make it seem like the movie is inspirational too! Recycling the same lines for the narrator is also a good idea! Make sure they invite me to see the movie in theaters and describe how the movie characters have "their lives changed forever". This seems to be what they did for every trailer made in the 90s!
 
 
Apollo 13 - 10/10
 
One of my favorite Hollywood movies. Ron Howard adds a few parts to add suspense or more drama, but no big deal.
I've seen this dozens of times and still love it. It's pure entertainment and doesn't really make me think too much, but no big deal.
"The Right Stuff" is a way better film, but not as fun/entertaining to watch.
 
I'm a huge fan of Ron Howard movies. I even admit to loving "Far and Away", which has just about every movie cliche you could imagine.

 

[Hutnicks]

The Right Stuff is more a comic book version of the space program. Wolfe took huge license with the book and that translated to the film as well. Great entertainment though.
 
For a serious look at the whole program. From the Earth to the Moon is the gold standard. Hanks is a spaceflight fanatic and did meticulous research for the miniseries and is shows up well. Brilliantly filmed, acted and scored, if you have any interest in the subject it is an absolute must see. 11/10
 
 If Hanks had never done anything in his life but produce that one he could rest well on its incredible laurels.

 

[WraithApe]

 
The Breaking Point - 8/10
 
A gem of a film noir, directed by Michael Curtiz. Based on Ernest Hemmingway's To Have and Have Not, it's always been overshadowed by Howard Hawks's film made for the same studio a few years prior but by all accounts, this is the more faithful adaptation of the book. Its lack of popularity at the time may have had something to do with the fact that John Garfield's star was seriously tarnished, having been accused of Communist sympathies as he was caught up in McCarthy's witch hunt. He only made one more movie, and died a year later. It certainly isn't down to the quality of the film, which is tightly plotted, well-paced and very nicely shot, in the expressionist style typical of noir.
 
There is no room for sentimentality here - Garfield is excellent as Harry Morgan, a washed-up sea dog who turns to smuggling illicit cargo to make ends meet. There's a rawness to his performance not common for films of this era. As might be expected from a Hemingway story, no-one comes out smelling of roses. Even Harry's long-suffering wife ultimately turns a blind eye to his ruthless venality. The only upstanding character in the film is the Sea Queen's first mate Wallace Park (Juano Hernandez), who acts as Harry's conscience. But his proves to be a voice in the wilderness, as Harry chases the dollar at the expense of friendship, loyalty and logic. The ending is a poignant reminder that actions have consequences often unseen by all but the sufferer.

 

[Hutnicks]

 
 
The Breaking Point - 8/10
 
A gem of a film noir, directed by Michael Curtiz. Based on Ernest Hemmingway's To Have and Have Not, it's always been overshadowed by Howard Hawks's film made for the same studio a few years prior but by all accounts, this is the more faithful adaptation of the book. Its lack of popularity at the time may have had something to do with the fact that John Garfield's star was seriously tarnished, having been accused of Communist sympathies as he was caught up in McCarthy's witch hunt. He only made one more movie, and died a year later. It certainly isn't down to the quality of the film, which is tightly plotted, well-paced and very nicely shot, in the expressionist style typical of noir.
 
There is no room for sentimentality here - Garfield is excellent as Harry Morgan, a washed-up sea dog who turns to smuggling illicit cargo to make ends meet. There's a rawness to his performance not common for films of this era. As might be expected from a Hemingway story, no-one comes out smelling of roses. Even Harry's long-suffering wife ultimately turns a blind eye to his ruthless venality. The only upstanding character in the film is the Sea Queen's first mate Wallace Park (Juano Hernandez), who acts as Harry's conscience. But his proves to be a voice in the wilderness, as Harry chases the dollar at the expense of friendship, loyalty and logic. The ending is a poignant reminder that actions have consequences often unseen by all but the sufferer.

 
I suspect there is more at play there. While Hawks's film was pretty much a formulaic Bogart / Bacall cash in that played well into the romance genre and appealed to a male and female audience, Curtiz's treatment hits harder and pulls out Hemingways inner turmoil. The making of a psychopath was never done better.
 
 Here is a case of the Director making the film. Curtiz life in itself is worth a film or two. Amazingly talented and often incomprehensible his film credits include some of the greatest films America ever turned out.
 
 While I am not sure of the gestation of this film, it may well have been during the time Warner was letting Curtz do his own thing with his own unit inside the studio. That would explain his license to do a remake of the studio's own property so soon and his choice of the unpopular Garfield.
 
 The two films almost scream for a back to back viewing and a little study. One being made at the cusp of the Second World War's turning in the allies favour, the other in the start of the prosperous post war times which of course were marred by HUAC.

 

[WraithApe]

 
I suspect there is more at play there. While Hawks's film was pretty much a formulaic Bogart / Bacall cash in that played well into the romance genre and appealed to a male and female audience, Curtiz's treatment hits harder and pulls out Hemingways inner turmoil. The making of a psychopath was never done better.
 
 Here is a case of the Director making the film. Curtiz life in itself is worth a film or two. Amazingly talented and often incomprehensible his film credits include some of the greatest films America ever turned out.

 
He must be one of the most prolific directors too - just checked his filmography on IMDb and he has 175 director credits! Even Miike Takashi is nowhere near that, though he's still got time on his side!