Last Movie You Watched

[mc ukrneal]

Over the last few nights, a recent 'action' film streamed on my local cable & an 'oldie' recorded on the DVR from the TCM channel:

White House Down (2013) w/ Tatum & Foxx; Foxx as the president; White House captured; one of the tourist (Tatum) saves the day (is this a sequel to Die Hard? ) - plenty of CGI, explosions, etc. - the main characters (and Tatum's daughter) actually had some character development.  Ratings: Amazon, 3/5*; IMDB, 6.0/10; Rotten Tomatoes, 50% (5.4/10) - I'd pretty much agree w/ these ratings; only for lovers of CGI destruction!  Personally, Die Hard is a much better flick - 

I thought this a major dud. There are so many problems with the logic of the plot - POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW, BUT SUCH A LOUSY MOVIE, NOT MUCH TO SPOIL...

How do you lock down the WH and 'forget' about the group in the movie room?
How are more than a dozen workmen allowed to work in the WH unsupervised for periods at a time in the first place?
Where are the secret service during the takeover? It seemed like 1 out of every 10 killed was a DC cop.
The idea that the WH servers could be hacked for hours and still get access to something after a takeover is rather mind boggling.

Anyway, there are so many of these fallicies that they distract from the movie. The premise is flimsy at best.

[SonicMan46]

I thought this a major dud. There are so many problems with the logic of the plot - POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW, BUT SUCH A LOUSY MOVIE, NOT MUCH TO SPOIL...

How do you lock down the WH and 'forget' about the group in the movie room?
How are more than a dozen workmen allowed to work in the WH unsupervised for periods at a time in the first place?
Where are the secret service during the takeover? It seemed like 1 out of every 10 killed was a DC cop.
The idea that the WH servers could be hacked for hours and still get access to something after a takeover is rather mind boggling.

Anyway, there are so many of these fallicies that they distract from the movie. The premise is flimsy at best.

Hi Neal - I was probably kind to agree w/ the reviews given - could easily go below 3* which is OK for me, 2* would be YUK! and 1* would be terrible - maybe 2.5* for me - but don't plan to watch it again - once was enough - Dave

P.S. last night I streamed Olympus Has Fallen (2013) - yet another 'capture the White House' film - same feelings and don't even want to review it here - 

[SonicMan46]

Well, a couple more DVD replacements w/ Blu-rays:

Bridge of the River Kwai, The (1957) w/ William Holden & Alec Guiness - BD restoration HERE w/ 4.6/5* on video & 4.4/5* on audio - 7 Oscars including Best Picture - highly recommended in any format -

Man From Snowy River, The (1982) w/ Kirk Douglas (two roles, as brothers) & Tom Burlinson - BD restoration HERE - love this Australian western - if you're into this genre & horses, then worth a watch!  Dave

 

[Octave]

WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR (Martin Scorsese, 1968/1969)
I loved it.  I wonder if it's my new top-favorite Scorsese.  I saw this many years ago and remember thinking it seemed like a dry run or first draft, but this time it seemed like a template.  Harvey Keitel (looking like a kid) is already really good, though arguably he really has to carry the film more than a Scorsese lead ever would again. 
The ~feminist politics of the film seem progressive even (especially?) for its day. 
There's a sexual assault soundtracked by a doo-wop number that's turned into a self-consuming tape-loop a la Terry Riley's You're Nogood, a piece realized in 1967; I found the effect really unsettling, and as with other neat moves in the film (some succulent slo-mo, etc), the trope isn't run into the ground, simply used and left behind.  It suggests a traumatic memory melting and distorting the margin details it retains. 
One thing that is done repeatedly to great and resonant effect is a certain cutting and asynchronized used of sound, where different places/times are layered; that trick is used all the time and probably had whiskers by 1967, but it's used so deftly here and with such immense regard for character development and psychological heft, it's really impressive.  By comparison, Steven Soderbergh's use of similar techniques over 30 years later seems rather shallow and preening, nerdy, merely neat, flattering of its actors....and I actually rather like Soderbergh's slick styles.  (His SOLARIS might be a notable exception here.)  Also the heady mixture of hilarity and menace in aggro blokes-together homosociality....we see all of this many times later, but I don't think it's near as eerie and hysterical as it is here.
I don't think the film's thematic weight is limited to a certain milieu (NYC, Italianamerican Catholic)....it's specific but isn't just critical/~autobiographical ethnography.  It has legs and teeth, and the particulars here ring very true without hampering the portability.  It shows a picture of a destructive, lived contradiction without offering too many easy outs regarding the protagonist.  It's still "a guy's" picture but nowhere else in Scorsese's body of work do I remember seeing such a powerful, limber indictment of vacuum-sealed masculinity (or even just subjectivity, period...sealed off from the world and all others, imprisoned in images).....even considering that he's a storyteller who specializes in this scenario/affliction/diagnosis.

I was also super impressed by the elegance of the editing, without knowing it was....Thelma Schoonmaker!  (Only her second-ever pro editing job according to IMDB, after a picture called "Passages from James Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE", of all things.)  I'd mistakenly thought RAGING BULL was the beginning of the relationship with Scorsese, but she is in beautiful form here.

Gritty poetry throughout.

EDIT: I guess I'm high enough on it to forget its many other "imperfections", mainly because the raggedness appealed to me so much.  One sequence that seemed weird and maybe badly dated (but really prescient of music videos, maybe more so than even Kenneth Anger [almost certainly an influence]) was the "whores" scene tracked to The Doors' 'The End' [a decade+ before APOCALYPSE NOW and with, iiho, rather similar results].  There was elegance even to this scene, but it seemed rather awkward somehow.  Apparently the whole scene was shot at the urging of the production company [??] to appeal to the exploitation/skinflick market.  There is a rather large of amount of skin!  The scene was apparently shot after the film had been completed but prior to wide release in 1969.

EDIT EDIT:  It seems the director wouldn't agree with me about this.  From a little TCM website article:

Director Martin Scorsese has never been especially fond of his feature debut, Who's That Knocking At My Door (1967). Made over a period of four years when Scorsese was in his early twenties, and shown under various titles and in different versions, Scorsese later said the final version is "still a rough sketch to me."

I remember reading at least a couple other such accounts in the director's own words, deprecating this picture; I wonder if that's part of the reason I'd shrugged off seeing it again.  Nonetheless!  My impression this time around was very strong. 

[TheGSMoeller]

"There are angels over the streets of Berlin," quotes the movie poster, but these are like no angels you've ever seen. Bundled in dark overcoats, they watch over the city with ears open to the heartbeat of the human soul, listening to the internal musings and yearnings of earthbound humans like existential detectives. In these delicate, astounding scenes we float through the thoughts of dozens Berlin citizens, from the weary and worn to the hopeful and young, as the angels record the magic moments for some heavenly record. But when Damiel (the empathic and sensitive Bruno Ganz) falls in love with an angel of another sort, the lonely trapeze artist Marion (willowy, sad-eyed Solveig Dommartin), he gives up the contemplation and observation of life to experience it himself.

Wim Wenders's most purely romantic film is like poetry on celluloid, a celebration of the transient and fragile moments of being human: the warmth of a cup of coffee on a cold day, the embrace of a friend, the touch of a lover, the rapture of love. Opening with an angel's-eye view of Berlin in silvery black and white (delicately captured by the great cinematographer Henri Alekan, who photographed Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast 40 years earlier), it transforms into a gauzy color world when Damiel "crosses over" by sheer will. Peter Falk plays himself as a fallen angel with a special sensitivity for celestial visitors ("I can't see you, but I know you're there," he proclaims), and Otto Sander, whose smiling eyes brighten a face etched by eons of waiting and watching, is Damiel's partner. --Sean Axmaker

[asin]B002IVDLGE[/asin]

"One of my favorite films." --Greg Moeller

[Octave]

AURORA [VANISHING WAVES] (Kristina Buozyte, 2012)

A head flick.  The immediate point of reference for me was ALTERED STATES, but aside from some surface/plot similarities, further comparisons there are pretty useless.  VW is a pro job but contains little of the gonzo fun of AS.  In fact this newer film is rather po-faced and accidentally funny on several occasions.
I came away disappointed but there were at least several things I liked about it.  As with TAKE SHELTER, the FX-on-a-budget (digital or otherwise) actually did not offend me and sometimes seemed pretty cool, plus a modest number of strong images: a throbbing, alien black sun like an iris in the sky; a weird Escheresque house that seemed to be unpeeling itself or buckling open; figures barely visible or shrouded in darkness; an orgy that took on this ominous, predatory Cronenbergian (VIDEODROME) quality.  Some good music as well, making use of psychedelic noise and the occasional guitar ambience that sounded cadged from Neil Young's DEAD MAN score, with a dip into, alas, plodding, hand-me-down post-rock toward the end.
In spite of all this, I felt like I wanted more than I got.  I would not call it boring, nor especially racy.  Quite a bit of skin, though.  And some footplay interrupting a gourmet dinner of imaginary delicacies....that might be a little racy to some tastes. 
But I could not shake the feeling that the sexuality/gender/desire thematics did not go very far....in fact, sometimes it kind of seemed like a nerdy adolescent boy's misconceptions on parade.  (The director is a woman, but this did not shake my nagging suspicions.)  I like the exploration of sex as something only partially about the physical and the natural, but I do wish they'd gone further.  It might more critical than I realize; on reflection, Danny Boyle's TRANCE improved a little bit in exactly this regard, once I'd simmered in for a while.
Still, some striking images and sounds; I really want to watch this movies of this kind, and it's not like this one turned into bollocks like INSIDIOUS or whatever.
Apparently the famed Lithuanian director Sharunas Bartas has a cameo in this; I think he shows up just long enough to get beaten to a pulp by the 'protagonist'.

I also had this experience with Brandon Cronenberg's ANTIVIRAL (wanting to like, not liking), but VW is probably the superior film.

[Octave]

OASIS (Lee Chang-Dong, 2002)

I liked it very much, more than I've liked any of his other films, though I think that has more to do with warming up to his style than with the quality of the films.  In fact, I wonder if I'd recommend any of the other ones I've seen before OASIS.  SECRET SUNSHINE in particular has had a depth-charge effect on me since the one time I saw it...it's grown inside me.
Re: OASIS: Part of the interest is, for me, the queasiness I experience from Lee's pitting his own signature sentimentality and objectionability against one another.  The "exploitation" aspect is also exploited in strange ways.  (The female protagonist here is physically disabled, the male protagonist possibly mentally disabled.  Love story!)  I don't think it's especially edgy, but it does feel uniquely strange [good-strange, discomfiting] and the rather sharp social critique angle is handled without much tubthumping at all.
When we first meet the female protagonist, we don't see her but experience her point of view, briefly, from a 'first-person' camera, with her humming in our ear, her imagination performing magic with the sunlight.  The trick is only used this once (maybe once again?) along with another, different non-FX trick (magical but perhaps a bit overused....striking, though) and both moments made me certain I was in love with the film.  I didn't end up "loving" it, but the lingering effect was exquisite.  I think it would probably be even stronger on a second viewing.
I am still curious why I don't resent constantly being dared to "turn away" here, whereas with Ulrich Seidl (cf. his PARADISE: LOVE) I just got totally fed up.  Lots of people have this problem with Michael Haneke's films, which has not been an issue (a stumbling block) for me.  I can't find solid reasons why, except that I guess I "trust" some film artists more than others....pretty dissatisfying reasoning, but there you are.

[SonicMan46]

A couple of new BD acquisitions watched last night:

Fifth Element, The (1997) w/ Bruce Willis & Milla Jovovich - not sure if I've ever seen this rather goofy sci-fi futuristic film?  Loved the imagery and the lead roles (always a joy to look @ Milla!); however, there was much too much of Chris Tucker and the film could have been shorter - Amazon, 4.4/5*; Rotten Tomatoes, 71% - Ebert review HERE for those interested; now, for myself I'd probably go 3+*/5 on Amazon (3* for my objections but 4* for the visuals).

Gettysburg (1993) w/ Berenger, Daniels, Sheen, et al - this is called a 'Director's Cut' w/ added footage making the film about 2 1/2 hrs - the Blu-ray transfer is superb (rated @ Blu-ray website as 4.0/5 video & 4.5/5.0 audio); Amazon, 4.4/5*; Rotten Tomatoes, 88% - as a Civil War buff, living in the Carolina/Virginia area, and having visited the battlefield (need to return - new visitor's center & the ugly tower removed!), I'd have to go 4+*/5 on Amazon (would of course go to 5* if I left a review there) - Dave

 

[Karl Henning]

Fifth Element, The (1997) w/ Bruce Willis & Milla Jovovich - not sure if I've ever seen this rather goofy sci-fi futuristic film?  Loved the imagery and the lead roles (always a joy to look @ Milla!); however, there was much too much of Chris Tucker and the film could have been shorter - Amazon, 4.4/5*; Rotten Tomatoes, 71% - Ebert review HERE for those interested

Many thanks!  Gotta love not only "hairy aerodynamic pineapple" (not the inspiration for the thread, but perfectly apt) but "who comes into existence with flaming red hair already dark at the roots (those cells remember everything)."

[Todd]

A couple of new BD acquisitions watched last night:

Fifth Element, The (1997) w/ Bruce Willis & Milla Jovovich - not sure if I've ever seen this rather goofy sci-fi futuristic film?  Loved the imagery and the lead roles (always a joy to look @ Milla!); however, there was much too much of Chris Tucker and the film could have been shorter - Amazon, 4.4/5*; Rotten Tomatoes, 71% - Ebert review HERE for those interested; now, for myself I'd probably go 3+*/5 on Amazon (3* for my objections but 4* for the visuals).

Such a fun movie, and so visually stylish.  The soundtrack is great, too.  2001 it is not, but how can one not but admire the work of the supporting actors - the late Brion James, Ian Holm - and the over the top ham 'n' cheese acting of Gary Oldman?  And yes, Ms Jovovich was beautiful to look at.  (She didn't get the role just because her husband made the film, right?)  The BD transfer is superb.

[The new erato]

The 5th Element has been a firm favorite of mine for years. Such a fun movie, indeed!

Last night a rewatch of Forman's Amadeus, such an absolutey brilliant movie. The premise of the movie are surely not historically accurate but makes for a very interesting take on Mozart - and the movie absolutely succeeds in demonstrating the revolutionary and transcendent nature of Mozart's music and genius.

[SonicMan46]

Return to Snowy River (1988) w/ the two main younger stars as in the first film; Brian Dennehy replaced Kirk Douglas as the father of Jessica - streamed last night from Amazon - liked the first one better & miss Douglas in the dual brother roles, BUT still visually beautiful w/ a lot of horse scenes  - if you're a fan of the 1982 film, then a strong recommendation.  Dave

P.S. picked the image below because I loved the bottom line, i.e. 'Coming on videocassette'! 

[stingo]

Brave - A good film, but not quite the same level as the Toy Story Trilogy or Up. Worth watching, but I don't (at this point) have the need to own it, unlike the other two films.

[George]

Lemme class up the joint.

[kishnevi]

Lemme class up the joint.

you know,  I never could get into those Comedy Channel series.  Not enough raunchiness.

[George]

you know,  I never could get into those Comedy Channel series.  Not enough raunchiness.

[Todd]

The Place Beyond the Pines, aka, Schenectady, NY.  Three interrelated movies in one, involving crime and cops and corruption and power and a family feud of a sort.  The film boasts a gaggle of good actors.  Fine craft, good acting, but it's a bit too melodramatic, a bit too much.  It doesn't achieve the greatness the director clearly was shooting for.  That written, Derek Cianfrance has what it takes to make such a film.  This would be a solid three star flick using the traditional four star rating system.

[North Star]

THE HOLLOW CROWN: RICHARD II

[Bogey]

[asin]B004CIIXG4[/asin][/font]

One of my all time favorite films.

[North Star]

THE HOLLOW CROWN: HENRY IV, PART ONE
Dir. Richard Eyre

Jeremy Irons as King Henry IV
Tom Hiddleston as Prince Hal
Simon Russell Beale as Falstaff
Julie Walters as Mistress Quickly
Alun Armstrong as Northumberland
David Hayman as Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester
Joe Armstrong as Hotspur