Last movie seen — Page 165

georgec said:

Tenenbaums

I'll have to check it out.

Anyways, back in gear preparing for The Dark Knight Rises, I watched

A Tale of Two Cities (1935) 9/10 - I've been reading that Christopher Nolan took inspiration from the Dickens book. I didn't really have the time to read it, though I wanted to, but I noticed that the film was playing on TCM, so I DVRed it, and watched it. Very interesting story. I can't say for sure, but they must have taken out quite a bit from the book because the film feels, at many times, shallow. But it picks up significantly in the second half, and features a great performance by Ronald Colman. Recommended.

Oh yes, the Exorcist prequel so bad they made it twice (or two and a half times if you include The Heretic).

I was thinking the other day that splicing bits of Dominion, Prometheus and The Passion Of The Christ together might result in an interesting but confusing film.

As much as I dislike how Morgan Creek screw around with films they had a point with Dominion which I saw in the presence of the director.

Shame they spent all that money remaking the film just as badly but in a different way.

The money they threw away there would have been better spent on making the unremarkable film they already had at least look good.

The real cheek is that it's plot points are all ripped off from the The Keep, the film version of which might not be a hit with fans of the novel but it's much more visually interesting and atmospheric than either version of the Exorcist prequel.

captainsolo said:

The first film has gained a large following who suggest that it is better than Hitch's own remake. (It isn't.)

Thank you for saying that! The original really isn't better than the remake in this case. It's a pity the original gets more attention. Exempting Peter Lorre, the original doesn't have that astounding or memorable a cast, an issue Hitchcock seemed to have in a lot of his early sound films. The story's handling is only mildly exhilarating, with a slow pace. As you said, a lot less memorable a climax than the remake.

It shows his developing strengths and sets the stage for the first masterpiece, The 39 Steps.

Interesting. While I do not dispute the greatness of The 39 Steps, you don't consider any of his silent work, masterpieces? I honestly find them profoundly ignored facets of his career; many of them hold up a lot better than his early sound work. The Lodger and certainly Blackmail constitute as masterpieces for me. What's your opinion of them?

The release of both versions are rather poor.

Well, the BD of the remake is coming soon. Hopefully, that will remedy things. Hang in there.

Continuing my countdown to TDKR I watched

Batman Forever (1995) 5.5/10 - No matter how many times I watch it, I always feel this movie is way more enjoyable than it has any right to be. I thank Jim Carrey.

Batman & Robin (1997) 3/10 - I tried to put my hatred aside while rewatching this, and guess what I found: it's still awful. But it's also almost fun. Not actually fun, but almost.

^To demonstrate how awful these films are to the whole world, they scored less than a 7/10 on the DominicCobb scale, which is like scoring negative points to everyone else ;)

darth_ender said:

^To demonstrate how awful these films are to the whole world, they scored less than a 7/10 on the DominicCobb scale, which is like scoring negative points to everyone else ;)

Ha, yeah, that's probably true!

I like Last Crusade, and I don't care what any of you hardcore Indy fans think.

(Ender care pic in 3...2...1...)

captainsolo said:

You're welcome Falcon! I remember when I first started studying Hitchcock all the big textbooks played up the original version's importance and all but thumbed their noses looking down over the "tawdry" 50's American version. 

Pity, captainsolo. That this is true. I wonder if it has anything to do with Hitchcock preferring the original for its rawness and lack of finesse.

The only decent releases are PAL and a bit on the expensive side. I've always held out for someone (Criterion, clears throat, this should have been no. 1 in your Eclipse line) to finally do NTSC transfers worth a damn.

It's too bad no good NTSC releases exist, but I do really recommend investing in the PAL discs. Even with speed up, they're still watchable. The video quality on those is immaculate by the way: restored with good DVD compression to boot; actually arguably worth the price, in my opinion. The difference versus the public domain NTSC DVDs is beyond night and day. Special features are nice too. If you can just afford to get a few, get Blackmail and The Lodger.

I haven't seen Blackmail in ages because of this, which I hold as likely the first fully functioning talkie and light years ahead of its time.

Blackmail is fantastic. You should watch it. If there's anything I have to criticize about it, it's the lackluster climax (by the standards of Hitchcock's other works). Special effects wise, the climax is effective though. Anyway, I definitely recommend you pick up a decent copy of this even if it's PAL. It is, as you say, a functioning talkie. Though a bit hokey at times, Hitchcock actually understood that sound could be used beyond the sheer gimmick of having it and using music. You can definitely see influences on his later work, especially with the antagonist.

I have a PAL disc with both the sound and silent versions. Both are worth checking out, and presented in impressively beautiful quality. The sound version is obviously a landmark, with the transition from silent to sound film actually taking place onscreen (!). But, the real-time off-screen overdubbing of the lead actress does get a bit tedious. The rare, oft-ignored and not seen silent film version doesn't suffer from this and has some fascinating alternate footage. It's very expressionistic at times, and is worth at least two watches. Hitchcock's best silent film and arguably a classic.

Sound version: 4 out of 5 conveniently placed knives

Silent version: 5 out of 5 conveniently placed knives

Yes I do hold The Lodger as a silent masterwork, but even in the silent period, I've always felt that Hitch was still learning; still gaining all of the necessary aspects that came to define his career.

Perhaps, I judge The Lodger too kindly. It is definitely the work of a young director, yet to learn the ropes fully. Something about Jack the Ripper stories always intrigued me. I also like that they never actually show Jack the Ripper, nice touch.

The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires (1974)

Another nail in the coffin of Hammer Films, as they tried to mix horror with kung fu in a bid to keep interest in the studios films alive.

As someone who likes Hong Kong Vampire films I've never seen the film as a problem.

It's got rather good production values in places.

Dracula was a bit surplus to requirements though and camp too.

I would have loved to see Peter tackle Tibetan and Indian Vampires.

Cushing would have been a gas in a Bollywood horror musical.

captainsolo said:

I had no idea the silent Blackmail was commercially available. Whoa. Definitely need one of the PAL sets now.

FanFiltration said:

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Oh how I did not enjoy this film.  I did like how it was moving along up until the Venice boat chase, but went down hill fast after that.  The effects were atrocious.  The Scottish disguise bit was so unlike the Indian Jones from the first two films. Turned into a joke, and some great character's are so under utilized.  Marcus was so kewl in the first movie, but here he is just way too goofy.  *frown*

Too disappointed to rate this one.  

:) It's tired. It's made by people who no longer have the drive for making an Indy film. The script was re-edited numerous times, even while shooting. There are numerous moments completely improvised such as the entire tank sequence and motorcycle chase. The character of Elsa makes little to no sense. Donovan is a terrible, dull, lifeless ripoff of Belloq. Marcus and Sallah are ruined. The opening goes on far too long. The staging of the opening boat scene is putrid. The challenge of the things Indy has to go through at the end is not built up very well and this undermines the danger that should be building tension. 

"You've made me catch a sniffle!"

Good points: Sean, Sean, Sean, Sean a thousand times over. He has the time of his life with Jones Sr. and that gleam in his eyes makes you lament his retirement.

The father-son interaction is priceless and the the best part of the film. "she talks in her sleep."

The way Harrison says: "Yes, sir."

The improved sound design. Aside from some of the smaller humorous moments, that's about it. Each time I see the movie again, I like it less and become more frustrated with it. The father-son dynamic is interesting and dramatic yes, but there is so little around that single speck of gold that that speck can be outweighed by the bad. I might like it better on Laser when I find one.

It's really a three star film, trying but never succeeding to win you over. But I still to this day cannot understand how so many prefer this to the fantastic Temple of Doom.

 I think this film is simply more fun and light-hearted than the previous two, yet still serious enough to find enjoyable (whereas Crystal Skull is so much "fun" that I never enjoy it that much).  When I was younger, this was my favorite.  In my teens I started to enjoy Raiders more, and now it is my favorite.  I still prefer Crusade to Temple, but that's partly due to the similarities to the first film, i.e. the Judeo-Christian theme, the baddies, the reused characters.  However, I see very much where you both are coming from, and the interesting characters of Marcus and Salah are not utilized to their full potential, instead made to look too idiotic.

The father-son dynamic is fun, and is probably the best point for the film.  Some of the effects are weak, I agree, but I never saw them as outside of what is appropriate for the time (of course I was 7 when the film came out).

I will agree that the Temple of Doom gets a lot of unneeded flack.  The female character is weak and there are things that could easily be found offensive and racist to Indians.  Nevertheless, I still enjoy it.  I really like Shortround, I find it very exciting at times (again, my favorite climactic scene of all Indy films), and other qualities I can't put my finger on.  However, my biggest beef with the film is that I don't believe in Indiana Jones as a gung-ho archaeologist and professor.  I see him as a secret agent or superhero.  He's called Dr. Jones, but he does not really utilized such skills as well as he should.  As I aged, I also started to get more of a disjointed character in this film and the two that sandwhich it, and for that reason I enjoy it less than the others.

Like the various film cousins of Alien(1979) I find it easier to watch the other Indiana Jones films if I imagine them existing in alternate universes to Raiders.

I guess it's the Indy equivalent to Aliens, frothy, silly fun that is largely over-rated.

The fourth one is sort of like Alien Vs Predator, not as good but nowhere near as bad as some people go on about.

I like Temple of Doom as well, put not as a prequel to Raiders. It only works well as a sequel, IMHO, therefore that's what I view it as, caption in the beginning placing the film in 1935 be damned.