Last Movie You Watched

[Karl Henning]

A la recherche du Spock perdu works rather well

Yes, I rather enjoyed the French poster.

[LKB]

Recently I watched these two:





III was entertaining rubbish while IV was both entertaining and great film. I really enjoyed the characters' antics in 80s US in IV.

III had quite frankly an idiot plot and everyone acts like an idiot that results in unintentional comedy. But it was great to see Christopher Lloyd as Klingon commander even though his character was probably the biggest idiot in the whole film.

I agree for the most part, though l also feel obligated to point out that V was more idiotic than lll.

[aligreto]

The Contractor:





This is a story of betrayal and retribution. A guy is discharged from the army and to earn money he contacts an old friend looking for help. He gets involved in a private covert operation. Things go wrong with the operation in more ways than one.

[DavidW]

I understand the general problem with the film is that it was seen by a lot of people who had that as one of their favourite books as a child...

I don't think that is the problem because the critics panned it as well and they tend to be better at separating sentimentality and bias.

[JBS]

I agree for the most part, though l also feel obligated to point out that V was more idiotic than lll.

I'm not sure it's possible to be more idiotic than V was.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not sure it's possible to be more idiotic than V was.

I cannot even bring myself to watch it.

I'll stipulate that III is not Citizen Kane, but I find that no obstacle to my enjoying it completely, just as (we might say) "Spock's Brain" ain't The Twilight Zone ....

[DavidW]

It honestly would have been a better ending if Spock died for real in II and that was it.

[Karl Henning]

It honestly would have been a better ending if Spock died for real in II and that was it.

That's how Shakespeare might have done it. The fans rebelled.

Conan Doyle had to bring Holmes back, too.

[JBS]

I cannot even bring myself to watch it.

I'll stipulate that III is not Citizen Kane, but I find that no obstacle to my enjoying it completely, just as (we might say) "Spock's Brain" ain't The Twilight Zone ....

Then you missed the vision of Nichelle Nichols belly dancing in the desert for no real reason.

That was one of several bits which had the feel of being included to soothe actor's egos, sort of like a suitcase aria.

[Karl Henning]

Then you missed the vision of Nichelle Nichols belly dancing in the desert for no real reason.

That was one of several bits which had the feel of being included to soothe actor's egos, sort of like a suitcase aria.

I was probably unclear (not the first time). I meant that the fact that "Spock's Brain" is not The Twilight Zone is no obstacle to my enjoying it completely, likewise. And (be fair) there are comic Twilight Zone episodes which are arguably no more immortal than "Spock's Brain." "suitcase aria" is a good comparison.

[JBS]

I was probably unclear (not the first time). I meant that the fact that "Spock's Brain" is not The Twilight Zone is no obstacle to my enjoying it completely, likewise. And (be fair) there are comic Twilight Zone episodes which are arguably no more immortal than "Spock's Brain." "suitcase aria" is a good comparison.

In fact it was me being unclear. The bellydancing and the rest of my comment was referring to ST V.

TBH I'm fairly sure I've never seen Spock's Brain.

[VonStupp]

I cannot even bring myself to watch it.

Good evening Karl. There are three aspects that amuse me greatly regarding Star Trek V.

1. All of the ancillary bridge characters get decent moments, although this was still much better in IV (and III).
2. David Warner. He gets a better role in Star Trek VI, and in one of the great episodes of Next Generation, 'Chain of Command', as Gul Madred and his five lights.
3. Bones starts Row, Row, Row Your Boat in a key that I think seems way too high at the opening, and it worries me each time. Kirk fixes this at the final bookend.

What does God need with a starship? - Star Trek V   

VS

[Madiel]

I don't think that is the problem because the critics panned it as well and they tend to be better at separating sentimentality and bias.

I probably didn't express that very well. I wasn't intending to refer merely to sentimental attachment. People know just how good the book was and how strong it is THEMATICALLY. I haven't seen the film of A Wrinkle in Time but from various sources I get the impression that it just didn't have the kind of clear voice of the novel.

So it's not simply whether the film followed the book closely. It's that the book provides a measure of quality that only highlights the film's lack of quality in comparison. A good fantasy/sci-fi film as comparator would similarly show up the problems.

[aligreto]

The Ghost Writer:





I found this to be a good political thriller. An ex British Prime Minister wants his autobiography to be published and a ghost writer is engaged for the job. However, as the ghost writer begins unveiling various details and dubious connections all is not what it seems. It is well done and worth a watch.

[LKB]

...TBH I'm fairly sure I've never seen Spock's Brain.

Here's the one highlight, you needn't trouble yourself to see the rest of the episode:

https://youtu.be/v4fU0Ajo4RM

[LKB]

It honestly would have been a better ending if Spock died for real in II and that was it.

This was actually the ending Nicholas Meyer originally intended for TWoK, and it's also how Nimoy was induced to return after initially declining to appear. I forget if it was Meyer, Harve Bennett or someone else, but someone went to Nimoy and essentially said, " Suppose we gave you a really great death scene... "

That was enough for Nimoy to return.

Once that ending was completed, a test screening was held. At the end of the film, the story goes, the audience filed out silently, as though they had attended a funeral.

So the production heads went, Oh shit... maybe killing Spock was a bad idea.

And so the final ending came into being.

[Madiel]

At the end of the film, the story goes, the audience filed out silently, as though they had attended a funeral.

Which doesn't tell you at all whether they thought the film was a good film.

Honestly, I know why companies think their job is to make people happy, but the job of art is to make people feel and respond, and that's not the same thing.

[Todd]

I haven't watched a Sam Raimi movie since his first Spider Man flick and I didn't really plan on watching one, but when Netflix's rarely worthwhile algorithm popped The Quick and the Dead on screen with the warning it would disappear at the end of the month, I gave it shot.  My very vague memory of the ads for the film was that this was a revisionist Western with a girl playing the hero, and that girl is the then hot commodity Sharon Stone.  That didn't really interest me.  What did interest me was the cast of boys and men.  Notable character actors Lance Henriksen, Keith David, and Gary Sinise appear in the flick.  More interesting yet are a very young Leonardo DiCaprio and a young Russell Crowe.  And then, only a few years removed from playing Little Bill Daggett in Unforgiven, stands Gene Hackman at the center of the film. 

The movie itself is not good.  I had to split viewing into three sessions, roughly approximating a three-act opera, which makes sense since this is an operatic parody of a western.  Raimi's annoying directorial style mars this film something fierce.  Sure, it elicits laughs, most as intended, but the style sucks after a few scenes, even if the movie looks good.  This sort of turns the movie into an actor's movie.  And somehow, some put in good work.  Henricksen is OTT as a gunslinger, and Sinise, onscreen for a couple minutes, does the dignified thing well enough.  Keith David, who gets barely any more time, is a delight, and as he proclaims himself a shootist, the shootout scene with him harkens back to John Wayne's last flick in the thick, bright red blood brought forth by a gunshot.  (It's a nice touch.)  Pre-Titanic DiCaprio looks like a teenager but exudes confidence, and a not much older Crowe demonstrates the screen presence that appeared more fully only a movie or two later.  Stone is not awful or anything, but she is the weak link.  The film belongs to Hackman.  The old hand towers over everyone else in presence and weight, and he combines the rough, realistic toughness he provided for Eastwood, and combines that with the hammy overacting he brought to playing Lex Luthor.  His performance is just so much fun. 

[LKB]

Which doesn't tell you at all whether they thought the film was a good film.

Honestly, I know why companies think their job is to make people happy, but the job of art is to make people feel and respond, and that's not the same thing.

The function of the Hollywood studios is, for the most part, to make films which entertain, thus turning a profit for the studio. If a film also has artistic value or generates a deep emotional reaction, that's a bonus but for the most part, it's all about the $.

[Karl Henning]

The function of the Hollywood studios is, for the most part, to make films which entertain, thus turning a profit for the studio. If a film also has artistic value or generates a deep emotional reaction, that's a bonus but for the most part, it's all about the $.

This is true.

... the job of art is to make people feel and respond ...

I'm reluctant to claim or consent that art has any blanket obligation. One reason why, although the statement that for a Hollywood studio, money is the overarching consideration, is irrefutable, we cannot consider that an artistic question.