What Movie Did You Just Watch? ... And Robin

[Goliath]

Chinatown (1974)

Roman Polanski's attempt to make a 1940's-like film noir. Most of it is not vert exciting or memorable. It's entirely up to Jack Nicholson to keep me watching through one predictable cliché after another. It had them all: the one man with integrity who gets murdered for political reasons; the long search to unravel the conspiracy; the man who you though had done it from the first minute indeed did it; corrupt police protecting conspirators; the obligatory relationship between the private eye and his client. The only twist on familiar noirs, is the unhappy ending in which the bad guys triumphs over the honest private detective. Other than that, horribly overrated.

[dvdjunkie]

Goliath wrote:

Chinatown (1974) .............Other than that, horribly overrated.

Agreed. And if you haven't seen "The Two Jakes", which is the sequel to this movie, make sure you have had a good night's sleep before you watch it, a real snoozer!!!

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Chinatown

The one scene that I really did like was "She's my sister!" slap, "She's my daughter!" slap, "She's my sister!" slap, "Daughter" slap, "Sister" thrown against the wall, "She's my sister and my daughter!"

Chinatown wasn't my favorite film noir, but it was certainly better than some of the other ones I had watched for my class.

[dvdjunkie]

Hopscotch (1980)

One of the better comedies of the 80's. Directed by Ronald Neame and starring Walter Matthau, Glenda Jackson, Sam Waterston, Herbert Lom and Ned Beatty, this cat-and-mouse film is about a CIA agent that is suddenly told he is being taken out of the field and being given a desk job. The laughs come at you left and right, and this is one of those little known films that you will cherish from the moment you see it. Highly recommended. 5 out of 5 stars, easily.

[Goliath]

The Insider (1999)

The true story of a whistle-blower from the top of the tabacco industry, who gets persuaded by a producer of CBS's 60 Minutes to tell the story on national tv, after which of course his former firm goes after him with everything they have. I was a treat so see Al Pacino is his former glory again. Long time since I've seen him that way. Of course, this film is over 10 years old. Why he doesn't just retire, I don't know, because the movies he makes nowadays are bad. Not as bad as Robert DeNiro's (which is just sad), but stil... Russell Crowe was amazing, too. Good direction by Michael Mann, but like all of his movies, a bit too long maybe.

[ajmrowland]

^I felt Deniro had a good film in Stardust. Not a great one, but not a bad one.

The King's Speech-it deserves it's critical acclaim. The cast overall was quite excellent. Naturally, Collin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, and Timothy Spall all did excellent turns. The art direction was great and the costume design was winning. The cinematography was odd, but in a relatively good way. My only real gripe is, despite how good the movie really is, aside from the aforementioned, it doesnt really distinguish itself from other inspirational true stories outside of being about a King who undergoes Speech Therapy. Otherwise, I like it.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

No Country for Old Men

Well, it's the last film for my film noir class and I have to say, unfortunately, that I was kind of bored with this one. I know I didn't fully understand the voice over at the beginning or when Tommy Lee Jones was speaking at the end--which is why I was confused as to why the film suddenly stopped. I mean, all it was was running away from Javier Bardem. I don't even remember where Josh Brolin got the money or why Javier was tracking him (I guess the money could have been his or he just knew about it and wanted it). I really wasn't all that impressed with this one, and I think I liked the Coen's version of True Grit better than No Country.

[littlefuzzy]

Hopscotch (1980)

One of the better comedies of the 80's. Directed by Ronald Neame and starring Walter Matthau, Glenda Jackson, Sam Waterston, Herbert Lom and Ned Beatty, this cat-and-mouse film is about a CIA agent that is suddenly told he is being taken out of the field and being given a desk job. The laughs come at you left and right, and this is one of those little known films that you will cherish from the moment you see it. Highly recommended. 5 out of 5 stars, easily.

I really enjoy that one, and need to revisit it. Here's a mini-review I did of it on another site, from ~April 2009.

This is a wonderful film that put me in mind of classics that are 20 years older, like Charade... It stars Walter Mattheau, Glenda Jackson, Sam Waterston, and Ned Beatty as the "villain" of the piece.

They included both the original theatrical soundtrack and the television soundtrack with objectionable language dubbed over. I watched it with my mother, who does dislike language like that, so we went with the TV soundtrack. While I am a fan of watching films the way they were originally shown, I must say that the language did nothing for this film, and ideally should have been left out of it entirely. 99% of the language came from Ned Beatty's character.

I also enjoyed the music in the film, with the exception of one bar scene with a live band... Of course, that may have been included to show how much Walter Mattheau's character was willing to change to keep his cover.

The Criterion DVD includes a 20 minute "introduction" with Ronald Neame and the author of the novel, and 2 trailers. I was slightly disappointed to see that there was nothing else on the DVD.

[dvdjunkie]

Needed some mindless brain fodder today so I watched on Blu-ray Machete starring Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Steven Seagal (one of the worst mexican accents in the world), and Robert Di Niro.

This is one of Robert Rodriguez's faux trailers that was on "Grindhouse" that generated so many letters that he went ahead and made the film. It is truly a slash 'em gash'em movie without much a plot and just one excuse after another to kill someone or something. If you take everything as what it is meant to be, and that is just a plain good old popcorn flick with nary a trace of story to follow, then this is the type of film you will love. And everyone's favorite Lindsey Lohan does have a bit part in this film and gets to show off her body, for what it's worth. (Not much, in my opinion).

[Avaitor]

^Heh, that nude shot of Lohan was taken from the original trailer for the movie and shopped her in- her faces, someone else's breasts.

[dvdjunkie]

Our World Class IMAX theater is showing for one week only, the Director's Cut of Avatar, and my son-in-law, Tim, and I took it in last night. World's largest screen, nine stories tall and even wider. Full leather seats that were the most comfortable I have ever sat in - 65,000 watts of sound power that puts you right in the movie. This was truly an experience that I will remember for some time. IMAX 3-D!!! It rocks.

www.warrentheaters.com

Check it out. I did. And tickets are very reasonably priced. One senior, one adult - $27.

[Just Myself]

^I felt Deniro had a good film in Stardust. Not a great one, but not a bad one.

The King's Speech-it deserves it's critical acclaim. The cast overall was quite excellent. Naturally, Collin Farrell, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, and Timothy Spall all did excellent turns. The art direction was great and the costume design was winning. The cinematography was odd, but in a relatively good way. My only real gripe is, despite how good the movie really is, aside from the aforementioned, it doesnt really distinguish itself from other inspirational true stories outside of being about a King who undergoes Speech Therapy. Otherwise, I like it.

I believe you mean Colin Firth.

Some movies I've seen in the past few weeks:

Rio - A flightless, neurotic blue macaw (voiced by Jesse Eisenberg) is whisked away to Rio De Janero to repopulate with the last female of his species (voiced by Anne Hathaway). What a fun movie! I liked this one a lot more than I expected, my favorite Blue Sky feature yet, right up there with the first Ice Age.

Source Code - Jake Gyllenhaal steps into the last 8 minutes of another man's life to decipher who bombed a Chicago transit railcar, and falls in love with Michelle Monaghan in the process. This film and The Adjustment Bureau are tied as my top picks of the year so far. Classic sci-fi action with a hint of Hitchcockian influence. A great time at the movies.

Limitless - Bradley Cooper finds a super-drug that allows him to use 100% of his brain at any given time, and Robert De Niro is trying to cash in on his intelligence. Throw in some mysterious figures and a Russian mobster, and you got yourself a very good movie.

Sucker Punch - A young girl is shipped off to an insane asylum where she teams with four other girl to map out an escape plan, and there's a fantasy element involved utilizing striptease? Or something equally dumb to that effect. Amazing action sequences can't save a terrible (or non-existant) plot, unsympathetic characters and wooden acting. Zach Snyder, don't dissapoint me with Man of Steel like you did here.

Hop - The young heir to the Easter Bunny title (voiced by Russell Brand) runs away to Hollywood in hopes of finding a career as a drummer, where he meets an equally ambitionless James Marsden, who had an experience involving the Easter Bunny as a young boy. Not as good as Rio, but harmless family entertainment is what's presented, and on most degrees it works out well enough.

Water For Elephants - Robert Pattinson jumps about a freight train in 1931 America and finds himself a job at The Banzini Bros. Circus. Reese Witherspoon is the star attraction and object of his affection, while Christoph Waltz is her sometimes charming, sometimes controlling, and always greedy husband who runs the show. This one I went into expecting the worst, but it was actually a well-acted, well-directed period romance. There's a certain magical beauty on display similar to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but far less ambitious in the scope and story department. The two romantic leads work quite well in their roles, especially Pattinson who proves he has a bright future if he can escape those soapy Twilight movies, but it's Waltz who steals the show, hapless and charming one minute, ruthless and maniacal the next. He returns to his Inglourious Basterds comfort zone after a disappointing turn in this year's The Green Hornet.

[jpanimation]

My library had quite a few of Blus for me all at once, but I haven't had time all week to watch them, so I had to plow through all of them in one sitting at the last minute:

TRON: Legacy (2010) 6.5/10 - far more entertaining then the original, which bored me to tears, but still not a very good movie. Visually, the movie is a feast for the eyes and I kind of regret not seeing this in theaters in 3D. The score provided by Daft Punk suites the visuals well, very harmonious pairing of the two. If only I cared about the characters or plot more. Just cliches and stereotypes occupy this artistic beauty. Still, I’m interested to see where they go with the third one.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) 6.5/10 - this was much more enjoyable then Half Blood Prince, which was an excruciatingly dull-lifeless shitstain that had me wishing they were all dead just to spare me the high school melodrama. Like with the last Potter flick I watched, I found myself not remembering anything that happened during the previous entry (either they’re spacing these out too much or the movies are just not that interesting anymore). Either way, I got the basic gist of what was going on with the help of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this movie has pacing problems. It feels overly long and nothing really happens. It just meanders along to it’s unsatisfying conclusion (since this is only part one, don’t expect any kind of closure). Still, it has me yearning to see the final installment.

The King’s Speech (2010) 7/10 - I was entertained but can't help being disappointed after all the hype this movie has gotten. Really, it wasn't bad but best picture worthy? Granted, the acting was nice and the story was engrossing (albeit a bit stagey). IDK, it just didn't do anything we haven't really seen before and I didn't see anything that will stick with me. It was an average kind of good (the kind of movie people talk about during it's release but forget about a few years down the road). I know this sounds negative but I really did enjoy it.

[Disney-Fan]

Thor - The movie feels as though the characters are like game pieces being placed in an already existing template of game-strategy and all they have to do is work on auto-pilot and go with it. Nonetheless, it didn't make the movie any less enjoyable and I really dug the lead actor's performance as the all-mighty and somewhat cocky Thor. There are definite easter eggs for those Marvel fans that are anticipating The Avengers - and let me say, are placed much better than the Iron Man 2 easter eggs. It didn't feel like a trailer for another movie this time around. I feel like Marvel Studios are becoming Disney Animation in their 90s period. Same same with a slightly different 'do every outing. It gets an 8/10 from me because despite similarities the performances and fish-out-of-water elements to this story make it highly entertaining and a well-paced 120 minute piece.

For all those wondering I didn't stay for the end credits despite knowing there'd be more easter eggs so can't really spoil it for those who may be interested.

[ajmrowland]

Needed some mindless brain fodder today so I watched on Blu-ray Machete starring Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Steven Seagal (one of the worst mexican accents in the world), and Robert Di Niro.

This is one of Robert Rodriguez's faux trailers that was on "Grindhouse" that generated so many letters that he went ahead and made the film. It is truly a slash 'em gash'em movie without much a plot and just one excuse after another to kill someone or something. If you take everything as what it is meant to be, and that is just a plain good old popcorn flick with nary a trace of story to follow, then this is the type of film you will love. And everyone's favorite Lindsey Lohan does have a bit part in this film and gets to show off her body, for what it's worth. (Not much, in my opinion).

^I hear the Truly interesting thing is to-wait, maybe I'm thinking of the Mexico Trilogy.

Edited my last post. I get Collin Firth and Collin Farrell mixed up easily

[Lazario]

Mild Spoilers Below

Well, the most important thing is that I was pleasently surprised. It's mostly a very good film. Betraying its' cheap slasher roots, it's beautifully stylish. The camerawork is incredible! Downright sophisticated and artistic. Although, for every good here- there's a bad. Though the film is remarkably well-shot and paced, that doesn't hide the fact that there is practically zero characterization. It's actually just a movie about guys drinking and trying to bed women, the women in every case being only too happy to 'give it up' if they're approached by a guy they like (and hot damn- there are some seriously fine men here). The writer throws in a very well done crying scene (the woman playing "Sarah" is an amazing actress, whoever she is), but the dialogue still needs work and the characters aren't likable. And I don't believe there's full nudity, which will probably disappoint the people looking for it. When they aren't talking about sleeping with people, they're either getting drunk or talking about that. While recklessly riding around in their trunk as wannabe-Deliverance / any-random-Burt-Reynolds'-road-movie banjo music waddles away on the soundtrack.

However, that's maybe the first half-hour of the movie. There's still an hour to go and most of it focuses on what would be the prom scene if this were Carrie. The movie is still, internally, a very smart slasher film and builds up to its' own Scream-like wild party (only without a movie-watching scene). The way they build up to it tells you how much of an event it's going to be, and the movie's delivery of death in no way disappoints. I unfortunately (well, in my eyes- it was fortunately but gorehounds would be remissed) was saddled with the heavily cut version, so almost all the death scenes were goreless (it was still R-rated, so language and other content went through). But this is one intense, dark, nasty movie when it comes to murder- which it takes very seriously. Compared to, again: most cheap slasher movies of its' era and ilk, those films are all kiddie play. From the moment the sheriff sits down at his desk with the valentine candybox, which is intercut / juxtaposed with the 20-somethings loading into the cafeteria to play pool, drink, eat, dance, and party- everything is taken to the highest level. And it works too, which is again what really surprised me. I thought when they showed 3 people chatting in a room in clear view of a man's corpse (stuffed, but not in any way hidden, inside an open refrigerator while one of them is holding the door but not looking inside)... well, the typical cheap slasher trick is that they won't ever see it and therefore, they won't get while the getting's good.

Turns out, this isn't a typical slasher (that's what I meant when I said I was glad it was edited: almost all the murders are committed with a pickax and there's no way to stylize one of those killings, for example the way throat slittings can just look great and not be ugly). Just because they don't see the body now doesn't mean they won't find it a few minutes later. When the body is discovered, a mass panic insues and... it isn't cheesy. Which is the challenge a slasher that doesn't want to be typical has to overcome. This movie excels here. As well as in the - as I said before - incredibly intense series of killings which follow, set in the underground mine where a group of 6 partiers have gone down to take a ride in the rail cars. How many do you think will be coming back? With this movie's killer (portrayed as the superman of slashers, this guy is Michael Myers from Halloween 4-6 with a suit on!), before he's unmasked- that is, it's likely to be 0. This movie mostly differs from the Halloween / Friday the 13th mold in the way a victim is terrorized before they're killed. When Annie ran off through the woods in Friday the 13th, I'd always thought it was suspenseful. Classically. But now I've seen this film. Most horror films are about a lot more than intensity, and so some of our cherished 70's classics do lack that. For some horror films, it's all they have. And when you mix that with this film's ambitious camerawork, it's a horrifically riveting combination. Even though this is so uncomfortable, I couldn't take my eyes off it.

The survival-horror moments in the last half hour are just extraordinary. In fact, since I've only seen Deliverance once, I would say they easily rival that film. Of course, it could still be just how unusual that it's so visually well-shot and staged. Which only serves to make it more cinematic and epic. Which it is. Anyway, as I also said before, for every good, there's a bad. And this would be a 2.5 star movie if it weren't for the last 5 minutes. For some reason, this movie seems to believe no matter what it does, it is still a cheap slasher. So, it spoils everything by turning the film into a whodunit (like Friday the 13th, Prom Night, Graduation Day, Terror Train, etc.-infinity) and making the killer one of the previously stalked victims (well, they weren't stalked on-camera, but you know what I mean: placed in a dangerous situation while the camera suggests the killer has killed someone only a few feet away from where they're sitting, etc) the killer and fitting them with the single dumbest childhood trauma motivation in the canon of Prom Night's, Graduation Day's, etc. But not before they try and make you believe the killer's already dispatched them off-screen (a scream, a crash noise, and bad explaination). In fact, you'll know who it is well before this point. Here's a clue: it's the only character in the victim pool who does the evil grin. Oh, and since I mentioned the suited-up killer is also super-strong, look for a guy of impressive build who has a problem with anger. Forget it, you don't even need these clues. You'll guess it yourself. And you'll be right.

Worst of all, however, is that it doesn't end there. After Phantasm and Friday the 13th, critics in the early 80's were complaining a lot about open-doors for sequels. The killer here not only gets away, but does it onscreen in full cartoon-criminal mode with whiny-wheeling voice, symbolic childish threat with the film's title shamelessly planted in it (the heart-shaped cards the 50-something characters receive throughout the movie with the killer's death-poetry are written in this same irritating manner) and... he sings too. Before this scene, the killer was actually menacing and the tone of the film was hopeless, bleak, dark, and really scary. Who knew all you had to do was take their mask off for everything to change? It didn't in Halloween or the Friday the 13th sequels. Although the difference here is clearly the whodunit angle, since for that to work- you have to know something about the killer's personality (whereas Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees don't have one). Which merits competition between this movie and Hell Night, which wasn't a whodunit. This film is better, but as least that film knew the value of the killer's identity. If it doesn't matter who is killing people, don't make a big deal out of who it is. This movie makes that mistake only at the end. And as if that weren't enough... Get ready for this... There is a song in the credits, very much in the lyrical mold of Alice Cooper's "He's Back (The Man Behind the Mask)" (of course, that song would come 5 years after this movie) warning the movie's characters about "the horror" (a clever fixture of the song's lyrics) they'll face if they don't listen to the film's Friday the 13th / Texas Chainsaw Massacre old man character telling them they're in danger if they go ahead... after the killer's been revealed and all the victims are dead. Good move. Tacky as hell- since it's actually patterned (in the Weird Al tradition of a stylistic parody) after a Christmas carol!

[PeterPanfan]

Laz, just wondering, how could a movie you raved about for paragraphs upon paragraphs only get two stars? Have you checked out the remake? I like the actors in it, but I highly doubt it will be as "good" as the original.

[dvdjunkie]

Morning Glory (2010)

Very funny comedy with Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton. The story about a producer of a morning television show who gets fired and searches for another job and is hired by a rival station to bring back to life their morning show. She is given a certain amount of time to bring the ratings up and the first thing she does is alienate everyone on the staff by firing their head anchor, who has been with the show since its inception. She goes out and hires Harrison Ford, who is semi-retired and living off the clause in his contract that says he doesn't have to work if he doesn't want to. This film is very funny, not because it is a slapstick, make you laugh comedy, but because all the things that do happen to McAdams in this film could happen to you or me in our search for a working relationship with an 'old codger' who thinks that morning shows are 'idiotic'. Highly recommend this film for those who just want to be charmed by a very delightfully written comedy/romance that will stick with you forever.

[Goliath]

12 angry men (1957)

Second viewing pleased me as much, if not more, than the first time. It's amazing to think this is just Lumet's directorial debut. Looks like the work of a vetted director. I highly enjoyed the verbal sparring of these 12 men, but even more the spot-on portrayals of these very different types of persons. Even though we don't know much about them, they all come to lofe as very real characters. There are no stereotypes or wooden characters here; something that could have happened awfully easy with this kind of material. Lumet avoids all traps and delivers an engaging classic.

Water (2005)

Set in India in 1938, it tells the tragic story of an 8 year old widow (let that sink in for a moment!), who, according to religious traditions, have to live like outcasts, outside of society. She's forced to move into a community of widows, primarily made up of elderly women. The head of the community makes sure the widows obey all religious rules for widows (which forbids any enjoyment they could take out of life), yet she takes awfully good care for herself. Luckily, 8 year old Chuyia meets twenty-something Kalyani, who takes care of her. Together, they meet Narayan, a young lawyer who wants to get rid of 'backward' religious practices and want to 'commit sin' by marring Kalyani. He's inspired by a rebel who's threatening Indian society; a radical also known as... Mahatma Ghandi.

Recommended to everybody who wants to see more of the world and learn about other cultures. But a feel-good movie it is not.

[Lazario]

Laz, just wondering, how could a movie you raved about for paragraphs upon paragraphs only get two stars? Have you checked out the remake? I like the actors in it, but I highly doubt it will be as "good" as the original.

I didn't mean all 5 paragraphs to be a rave. Only 2 and a half of them.

I swear I searched Netflix just last week to see if it was available on Instant and it wasn't. Only the original. I checked my Instant Queue to see what was going to be retired this week and MBV was there. It was just retired today and when I searched it to make sure it wasn't on Instant anymore, I discovered the remake was (it was also on Instant last year). I will probably get around to seeing it tomorrow. Or in a couple of hours. Whenever I'm finally alone (I hear it has graphic nudity in it and I haven't been alone since 6AM).