Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Ken_McAlinden, Dec 8, 2014.
Never thought I would like the Angry Birds Movie, but my brother forced me to watch it when I visited him. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time, and it's become a favorite of mine.
Hey old people, am I senile?
Have you ever watched a movie you have seen before - and not recognize anything in it?
8 Million Ways To Die
Jeff Bridges as the drunk ex-cop.
Rosanna Arquette as the loveable whore.
Andy Garcia as the baby faced mobster.
If you like those actors it is worth watching.
From the mid 80's on, except for certain genres that I do not care for, I have basically rented any movie that moves.
So for some reason, last year I recorded this from a movie channel, even though I knew I had seen it.
Watched it last week and I do not remember seeing any of it.
Except for the weird white house in it. That looked familiar.
How I never watched it before eludes me.
Or maybe I have gone senile.
Just saw Kiyoshi Kurosawa's latest, "Before We Vanish" so I revisited this one from 2006.
Hitchcocks Lifeboat. I'd never seen it and really enjoyed it!
Blade Runner 2049.
I have tickets to see "Black Panther" on Friday.
Picked up on DVD for 50p, enjoyable enough..
We also watched the Remake? Blair Witch Project..which was good but no cigar..
My idiot son at a stag weekend, he's in the blue one.
It's funnier when you realise that he 6'2" and 16 stone, yet gets knocked clean off his feet.
I think alcohol may have been involved
Written by Oliver Stone
I saw “Hostiles” this afternoon. I’m always looking for some good new westerns as the genre is nearly extinct. And this was a damn good one. There were a few niggling things about it, but overall it was better westerners I’ve seen in awhile.
T2 - Trainspotting (Trainspotting 2)
The Blue Lagoon (1949) w/ Jean Simmons
Pretty decent, actually. Much better than the 1980 version w/ Brooke Shields. It has evidently never had an official release on any home media. It's surprising how many good movies still haven't had modern releases.
O Brother Where Art Thou?
I've always loved this movie.
Four desperate men agree to drive two trucks with highly volatile nitro-glycerine 200 miles across rough terrain.
It was better than I remembered. Probably because I knew to hit the fast forward button after Roy Scheider arrives in the third world country. I skipped circa 20 minutes and restarted it with the men trying out for the job of driving the trucks. This bit of self-editing I think helped give the film a jolt of life as the first half is weak with too much irrelevant set up. Otherwise it’s a pretty plodding film with a mid-pace tempo that I don’t find exciting, tense or even dramatic. It’s all curiously flat and inconsequential feeling. I suspect the reason why I don’t connect to what’s happening on screen is because the characters are too vague and barely there (and it’s got nothing to do with them being unlikable anti-heroes). The movie suffers from not having a charismatic lead actor to hold it all together (Scheider is okay but he’s not an effective centre of attention).
The famous rope bridge sequence was a big indifferent shrug. Maybe I’m failing to see the scariness of such big trucks swaying on such a tiny bridge but to me it was just a drawn out sequence of nothing much. Not a lot actually happens during the scene as all that really happens is that two trucks drive successfully (which is preordained as it’s early in the journey) in a straight-line from one end to the other. William Friedkin is not much of an action director. His staging and editing is more about montages of fairly static images rather than the hustle-bustle of more conventional action filming. His action is a bit too arty for this type of film. Also it ends on a large anti-climax with a very brief scene of Scheider delivering the dynamite – I can tell Friedkin doesn’t care about this moment.
A few sequences are badly filmed (the man running around the truck is incompetently filmed and edited) but it was better made than I recalled from the last time I watched it circa 15 years ago. Also the gigantic budget isn’t up on the screen. It’s easy to imagine this was a modestly budgeted B-movie. It was just about okay.
The remastering was good but it’s a gritty, grainy film like The French Connection (1971) so it’s never going to look beautiful. I put my poor quality DVD on afterwards to compare a few scenes. Sure the DVD is washed out with muted colours, scratches on the print, full screen framing and little detail on the wide shots but I didn’t think it was significantly worse than the new HD version. I’m clearly not sensitive to picture quality issues as I’ll watch anything that isn’t outright annoying. Interestingly the subtitles were larger on the DVD but both versions include the unusual use of a space between the end of a sentence and the question marks.
I found my old review of Sorcerer from September 2006:
I'd read about this in Peter Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" book. It sounded intriguing. So eventually I bought it.
It's not great, but it isn't terrible either. It seems strange that they had a chance to correct many of the faults of the original movie. Instead they just repeated it, flaw for flaw.
As with the original, you can safely skip the first hour as it's only ploddingly dull set up. Eventually when things do start it feels like too little too late. You feel as though the movie should be reaching its climax, not starting a whole new adventure!
Strangely some of the set pieces are better handled in the original than in this remake - the turning on the creaking wooden platform and the blowing up of the boulder/tree stump on the road. It's a shame the characters are so vague as it was a strength of the original when the characters got together to work out how to solve a problem. In this version they say little, apart from insults, to each other. The tree stump scene suffers because of this in comparison to the boulder scene in the original.
The movie was okay. If I ever watch it again I'll skip the first hour.
The picture quality on this DVD is very grotty. It looks like a 70s cinema print that's been on tour around the world. Though it could be argued that its picture quality is appropriate for the material.
3 out of 5
Someone complained about me not liking the opening of the two films: ‘a little known cinema trick called character development…explain the actions of the characters as the story unfolded.’ My response:
Do you enjoy the first hour of these two films? I don't think I'm alone in finding it all to be a bit pointless and not very entertaining.
Do I have a short attention span? Yes as I find that films that don't get to the point annoy me. You're defending slack storytelling. They should be telling me the character stuff while going through the plot like in the Indiana Jones films.
Wages of Fear is an okay film, as is Sorcerer. Just don't expect perfect films.
Watched "The Lobster" last night on t.v. Weird, unusual but enjoyed it, a lot!
Little Shop of Horrors with Rick Moranis. We watched the directors cut first and then watched the happy ending from the point where they diverge.
I warned my wife that it had one of the scariest things I ever saw. She walked out of the room almost as soon as the scene started. "Oh no, no way. I'm not watching THAT."
well, different strokes. I liked it a lot, and the rope bridge for me was just this wonderful lesson in someone who learned Hitchcock 101 very well.
Jerry is pure comic genius, Stella Stevens may at one point habe been the sexiest woman alive.
Separate names with a comma.