logo Sign In

Last movie seen — Page 146

Author
Time

bkev said:

captainsolo said:

Saw this in a second run theater, in which the 35mm print looked great. (Save for the CGI which stuck out like a sore thumb.) Much better than any digital presentation around. And what's with the whole, "we shot 5 minutes in IMAX" gag? Just swallow the cost and do the whole thing!

To be fair didn't The Dark Knight do that too?

There may be a reason there hasn't been a full feature film shot with IMAX yet.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Boy (2010)

Saw this Thursday. It's a great little film. Definitely recommend it to anyone.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

bkev said:

captainsolo said:

Saw this in a second run theater, in which the 35mm print looked great. (Save for the CGI which stuck out like a sore thumb.) Much better than any digital presentation around. And what's with the whole, "we shot 5 minutes in IMAX" gag? Just swallow the cost and do the whole thing!

To be fair didn't The Dark Knight do that too?

That's where it pretty much started. DKR is composed of more IMAX footage but the dialogue is all 35mm (Some have said that some was also shot in 70mm).

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

The Great Escape

A truly great film that is in need of a brand spanking new transfer for its journey to the Blu-ray.

Balls, 20 days.

Since they're like poetry, what with the rhyming and all, I find that I only need to watch three out of the six films.

Author
Time

I'm going to a Q&A with Batman producer Michael Ulsan later this week, and with TDKR approaching I figured I'd do my heavy Batman theorizing again...

Batman

A surprisingly deep film that is unfortunately too tied to its commercial overtones. Much like an opposite reflection of the original Superman, this first film works by bringing the character's world into a hybrid of the era's mindset. Add in a murky depth behind these characters and you have a great experience that will give a few nuggets of bonus material if you pay enough close attention. Perhaps the reason why I've watched this so many times.

3.5 balls out of 4 pale moonlights.

Batman Returns

Hands down the best live-action Batman film by any conceivable notion, and Burton's most and possibly only fully-realized film. Why you may ask? Because this Batman is not about the trappings, but moreover the human condition itself. You don't marvel at the large cityscape of Gotham, as a much smaller and better realized version serves as strongly. You marvel at the characters and their issues and their psychological complexities. There is an emotional and human context that has never been seen before or since in the cinematic Batman mythos that Burton delves gleefully into and we fall under it's spell under the guise of our comic heroes.

Oh, and did I mention the snow? Oh, God this is a beautiful movie to look at. And that moment in the ending when Elfman's score goes a bit Herrmann-esque with Keaton finding the black cat on Christmas? When has there ever been such a deep moment in Batman? Answer: Never again.

4 balls out of 4 beautifully shaped Keaton eyebrows.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The Cabin in the Woods

Whatever you think you know about this movie, be it from trailers or synopses ... you don't.

The whole thing is a giant middle finger to both the state of modern horror films, and we - the audience - who say we want something new, but shun anything that is new.

It's also pretty legitimately scary at parts ... and dear god is it hilarious.  If you know Joss Whedon's dialogue, you'll have an inkling of what to expect comedy-wise.  There's a hilarious "speakerphone" bit that had everyone in the theater laughing like crazy.

I'm trying to give as little away as possible here, which is why this review is so vague.

In short, I fucking loved it - it reminded me a lot of Evil Dead II, in a very good way.

My only complaint - not enough Amy Acker.

Also, this and Dollhouse have made me an enormous Fran Kranz fan.  He's hilarious, and can be quite touching at times (though that might be me thinking about Dollhouse more than this).

All in all, 5 merman-summoning conch shells out of 5.

 

VAGUE SPOILERS BELOW - I personally recommend that you don't read the following if you haven't seen the movie yet, but it's not a HUGE spoiler.

AGAIN

VAGUE SPOILERS

BELOW

.

.

.

The movie could easily fit in the Buffyverse, if you assume that Acker's character is Illyria in disguise as Fred using a different name, and that Tom Lenk's character is Andrew working with Illyria, again under a different name.  And if the organization manipulating things is either Wolfram & Hart or the Initiative, or a merging of the two.

.

.

.

END SPOILERS

 

Also, I'd like to chime in and say that Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is definitely my favorite of the film series, followed by M:I-3, then the first one.

Fuck M:I-2, though.

Author
Time

Forgot to mention that I always watch Batman on LD. Great pressing, with the original Dolby SR which has a great low end dynamic presence. Though all the video versions aren't as dark as the theatrical film.

Batman Forever

I always take a lot of flack for this, but I still love this movie. Call it leftover childhood nostalgia or something but I can't help but enjoy this the 5,000th time around. I know it has many problems and I know it gets too campy in all the wrong places. But it is still to date the only Batman film to include the escapist adventure element of the character. The studio meddling with the super long original cut of the film did not help matters, but the really big problem with the film came in a last-minute meddling with the final film and dropping some crucial subplot scenes. Then they re-ordered the opening structure of the film and made things very discombobulated. Read the original novelization or a earlier script if you can find it, and you get a much better idea of what the original intent was.

Like the first film, there is a lot of subtext going on here. And again like the first film, it is impossible to get all of it due to not being given the whole picture. Kilmer's performance goes beyond Keaton in the psychologically damaged and tortured department. He deserved a straight Batman story that did not delve into the campier aspects. And his main appearances as Batman here are probably the most iconic we'll ever get for live-action (save for the stupid nipples).

The dialogue is occasionally witty and pointed, but unfortunately not all the time. Jim Carrey is too Jim Carrey as the Riddler, and lacks the panache and restraint that Frank Gorshin brought to the role on the TV series. Robin Williams would have brought a much more chilling and intense portrayal in Burton's proposed version, much as Tim Curry would have as the Joker in 1989. (Two of the all-time missed casting opportunities IMO, but these would have been "R" rated ;) Tommy Lee Jones is wasted as Two-Face, but I think the character was devolved that way to eventually just be a silly watered down version of Jack's Joker. Robin still feel shoehorned in to a degree, but at least the dynamic works by lifting the idea of an older Dick Grayson from the Animated series.

I still think the Bruce/Batman relationship with a psychologist is a brilliantly twisted idea, but that too goes nowhere in the film.  The design changes bring in some fresh vitality, but lack the presence of Burton's films because the Forever sets are primarily mattes, models and digital imaging. The score however is fantastic. It works semi in-tandem with the motifs that Elfman setup all the while going for that big Batman fanfare.

The initial idea seems to have been a meeting of Bruce's tortured soul with the fantasy and adventure of Batman. What happened was that the studio wanted a more commercialized venture and here and there little changes became big changes. The scenes in the film bang together if you really look at them, and there is a noticeable patchwork effect if you really pay close enough attention. The original cut was rumored to be in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 hours. The film a stands was cobbled together by a editor at the last minute to have the closest thing to a summer popcorn movie for 1995.

But it isn't bad. Just full of missed opportunities.

3.5 balls out of 4 stupid Bat-asses.

I last watched this film on projected DVD in a sound suite. With amps and the like, the DTS 5.1 track was incredible. However, it sounded a bit too focused to my ears and not quite how I remembered the film sounding. I stumbled across this review from the Widescreen Review of the Laserdisc: 

Both versions of the soundtrack are a blast and you had better be braced into your seat when things get revved up and the 25Hz deep bass kicks in at reference level. The use of the discrete 5.1 palette is wonderful with energized directional and motion effects throughout the soundfield. But the Dolby Surround® version delivers an even fuller bass soundfield experience, with the discrete better articulated.

I've always felt that the Special Editions of the Batman films (ported to Blu-ray) had been tweaked and didn't fully resemble the original presentations. The first film never felt right to me until the LD. I actually have a copy of the Forever LD, and decided to give it a try.

This Dolby Surround track has some of the most natural bass I've ever encountered on a film. Though I still lack an AC3 demodulator, it crushes the DVD 5.1 mixes (even DTS!) from sheer dynamic range alone. Every channel is well balanced with tremendous natural bass and my subwoofer sounding like it's being fed a huge LFE. All this from a 2.0 matrix! The rear surround is actually split as well so there is rear separation just like a 5.1 mix, but just a tiny bit muddy. This is like being in the theaters of old during the 90's era of sound system wars.

And now...oh crap it's time for Batman & Robin. W H Y ?

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

captainsolo said:


And now...oh crap it's time for Batman & Robin. W H Y ?


I don't know. Maybe the chicks in green spandex/black rubber make it worth your while? =P

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Cabin In The Woods (2012).

**SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS**

 

 

It's fun (probably more fun if a series of idiots aren't kicking the back of your seat...grrrrrr) but it could have been so much better.

For starters the premise is slightly hamstrung by the inability of the film makers to secure rights to the genuine horror film monsters.

If this was properly negotiated it could have been the Roger Rabbit of horror films.

Instead you have a pseudo-Pinhead etc and it feels a bit cheap and a bit like the creatures in Thir13en Ghosts (2001). As he is a mostly British Cinema creation wouldn't Pinhead have been better employed in the British sector?

The monster mayhem is fun but as hardly any of them resemble real movie monsters it just doesn't work with the story.

Secondly the horror inflicted on the victims is too cartoonish.

If it looked and felt realistic the reveal would have been much more effective and the behind the scenes comedy would have been more effective in contrast.

Another problem is the film is playing with cinematic horror tropes but we get no hint that horror cinema is actually playing a part in the story itself.

It would have been better if it was a condition of what was really going on that the events be viewed by many witnesses.

So the behind the scenes people could cast the victims so they have a similar build to film actors and map the actors faces onto the victims bodies.

That way all horror films would be snuff movies.

Finally why have the Director played by anyone other than Jamie Lee Curtis?

Indeed there should have been portraits of previous Directors including Fay Wray, Janet Leigh etc. 

Author
Time

That might have been interesting, but I think it would have been much easier to go too far off the deep end that way.

Then again, I'm probably just biased because I loved it.

Author
Time

The adventures of Tintin

Awesome.

Sherlock Holmes 2

less than awesome.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

For starters the premise is slightly hamstrung by the inability of the film makers to secure rights to the genuine horror film monsters.

If this was properly negotiated it could have been the Roger Rabbit of horror films.

I couldn't disagree more. It would've taken me completely out of the film if it were full of recognizable horror monsters. I liked the idea that the horror monsters seen in actual Hollywood films are based, subconsciously, on these elemental archetypal creatures seen below the cabin. In a way, that's what happens in real horror films, they use tropes and monsters that have been part of folklore for hundreds or thousands of years.

Do you know for certain that Whedon and Goddard were ever interested in securing the rights to genuine horror monsters, or is this just an assumption?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mr Whedon and Mr Goddard are not close personals of mine so it is an assumption.

Considering the amount of legal shuffling involved in making Who Framed Roger Rabbit? I assume they assumed they wouldn't have a chance, especially with their budget and the problems MGM were already having.

It would be more fun for me if the folklore was based on really real movie monsters which finally got themselves caught on celluloid once the technology had caught up with them.

If Pinhead was real (and looked exactly the way he does in the films) myths would spread, his image would be depicted from second/third/fourth hand sources and end up in woodcuts and medieval carvings, Chinese silk designs, Indian illuminated holy books etc and not look the same.

With the invention of photography and cinema we would finally get to see his true shape and it's in the basement of the cabin in the woods, only we think it's Doug Bradley wearing make-up in a silly horror film.

The film as it stands took me out of the moment so for me it would be more worth while to push the idea that little bit further.

That way you could never look at movie monsters in the same light again.

It would also have been a very clever business ploy because it would have encouraged fans of this film who may not have seen all those monsters in action to check them out.

All the animation studios did well out of Roger Rabbit so I could see a similar rebirth in horror cinema.

It certainly would be more fun than Freddy Vs Jason or Alien Vs Predator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bis Ans Ende Der Welt (the trilogy) (1991).

It's always interesting to see 'yesterday's futures'.

Predicting 1999 as being full of video phones, credit card digital music, popular GPS use and everyone carrying a digital video camera wasn't far off but who would have thought they would be all in the same device by the second decade of the new century?

It's a lovely shaggy dog story road movie up until the final act.

******SPOILERS*********

The problem I have with it is the notion that people would become addicted to badly distorted video of their own dreams.

It may be a novelty for a while but most people would soon get bored with looking at their own dreams unless there was competition.

If you could load your dreams up to Youtube or Facebook you might try to manipulate your own dreams to 'big up' your own subconscious and compete with other people to be a dream celebrity and become addicted to that but I really can't see how writing a dream diary would be any different from filming one straight from the source.

People become hooked on blog writing and forums like this one (something probably difficult to predict back in 1991) but rarely as narcotically as the dream machine in this film which advocates the written word as a cure for addiction to self reflection.

**************************

It's well worth seeing the longer form of the project as it has genuine charm, even if it does have imperialistic overtones and it's very easy on the eye.

4 Bears finding you.

Author
Time

Cabin in the woods. Pretty disappointed in the end. I gotta agree with Bingo on this one.

Could have been something special. 1 ball.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well it's been a few weeks since I've posted here so this list is rather large.

The Jazz Singer 9/10

Eyes Wide Shut 9/10 (I've seen every Kubrick film now!)

Bridesmaids 8/10

Jason and the Argonauts 7/10

Capote 9/10

The Goodbye Girl 8/10

The Man Who Wasn't There 9/10

Fargo 10/10 (I've seen every Coen brothers film now!)

Doctor Zhivago 8/10

The Adventures of Tintin 9/10 (Re-watch, love this movie) 

Dial M for Murder 8/10

Cool Hand Luke 10/10

Nashville 9/10

Glory 10/10

Yankee Doodle Dandy 10/10

Cinema Paradiso 10/10 (Especially loved this one [Director's cut])

The Wizard of Oz 9/10 (Re-watch, obviously)

Author
Time

American Reunion [aka American Pie: Reunion]

A bit of fun but not all that funny, the first scene is kinda slapstick but then it gets pretty dull for a while.

1 Ball.

Author
Time

Fast Five - 8/10

Margin Call - 9/10

Since they're like poetry, what with the rhyming and all, I find that I only need to watch three out of the six films.

Author
Time

AVENGERS

This movie gets a perfect rating [4 balls] from me for one simple fact - after TWO horrible attempts somebody finally did THE HULK justice.

Not only did they get him right he pretty much steals the show. 

That said there's plenty of other great stuff and everyone is on their game in this one. The plot follows on from the lead-in movies - thor, iron man, et al and does a good job of keeping the pacing tight and interesting.

And yes there IS an extra scene at the end but they moved it up into during the credits rather than at the very end - plenty of people had already walked out by that point but my friends and I stuck around 'just in case'.

oh and an extra ball for not putting the best bits in the trailer ;)

 

Saw a new trailer for Prometheus attached, nothing really different from anything we've seen so far, maybe a few seconds of new footage and a less dramatic feel overall as well as some cool music.

Author
Time

I've yet to see Ghostbusters II and I'm not really sure if I should.  The first is a classic, and I really wouldn't mind more of the same - which appears to be the biggest complaint regrading the sequel - but I'll probably cave one day.

My friend's father actually has a list of movies he's never to see.  It's not required, of course, but said friend seems ok with following it. His father puts Ghostbusters 2 in the same vein as Rocky V.... I understand the latter at least.  For that matter, I'm not sure why BttF pt 3 is on that list. 

Bottom line, I find the concept fascinating and I'm probably going to do the same with my kids. haha

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

The Front Page (1974)

I started out wanting to watch The Odd Couple but Netflix has apparently removed it from their library. So instead I stumbled on this while looking around my queue. I enjoyed it. It keeps a nice pace and is filled with colorful characters. I also apparently have seen it before because I could vaguely recall what was going to happen near the end. Nice film.

Forum Moderator