Movies you have seen recently

[Monte Carlo]

2001 is one of those movies that has to be viewed in the context of it's time. People will disagree and say that it's a timeless piece of cinema - I say baloney*. However, when it was made the special effects and cinematography were special. The plot, OTOH, was portentous nonsense. Even by the late 1960's, the technology-taking-over meme was well established so HAL was hardly original. And, personally, a year or two later (can't be arsed to search imdb) Silent Running with Bruce Dern did it all a lot better, with more soul.

 

Naturally, Dark Star is the best sci-fi movie of it's time. As for Bladerunner, yes, it is timeless the sci-fi standard by which the others are measured and usually found wanting.

 

* If you disagree, watch Reservoir Dogs. In 1992, the cinematography and dialogue was original and hip. Now, it is dated. This isn't to say RD wasn't a brilliant movie (it's an old favourite of mine) but it is of it's time and place as much as The Maltese Falcon was.

 

Cheers

MC

[Rosbjerg]

Still I think it's pretty unforgiving to devalue something because it's "dated" .. I still find 30's jazz cool, even though it's 70+ years old.

 

That being said - one should never value things mainly on their age (except good whiskey), which is what I think you were stabbing at?

[Amentep]

Eh, 2001 was okay, but I kinda agree with a friend who said that the people who got the most out of the movie were probably stoned in the theater when it came out originally.

 

While I kinda like the film, its definately what I'd call "ponderous" in its pacing (others might use "plodding").

[Monte Carlo]

Still I think it's pretty unforgiving to devalue something because it's "dated" .. I still find 30's jazz cool, even though it's 70+ years old.

 

That being said - one should never value things mainly on their age (except good whiskey), which is what I think you were stabbing at?

 

Sort of.

 

What I'm saying is this: look at Reservoir Dogs - it's a post-modern, ironic piece of cinema; the first in a long series of imitators which in of themselves reference previous genres (i.e. Tarantino adores pulp 60's and 70's trash cinema, Guy Ritchie is clearly influenced by Tarantino). Personally, I see this as very 1992. Viewed in that context, Pulp Fiction is still great. But it isn't timeless.

 

Blade Runner, on the other hand, looks and feels as fresh now as when it was made. That's the difference.

 

Both good movies but for entirely different reasons.

 

Cheers

MC

[Kelverin]

Tigerland (2000) - Basic training flick directed by Joel Schumacher, most likely his best work. Not bad.

[Enoch]

Still I think it's pretty unforgiving to devalue something because it's "dated" .. I still find 30's jazz cool, even though it's 70+ years old.

 

That being said - one should never value things mainly on their age (except good whiskey), which is what I think you were stabbing at?

 

Sort of.

 

What I'm saying is this: look at Reservoir Dogs - it's a post-modern, ironic piece of cinema; the first in a long series of imitators which in of themselves reference previous genres (i.e. Tarantino adores pulp 60's and 70's trash cinema, Guy Ritchie is clearly influenced by Tarantino). Personally, I see this as very 1992. Viewed in that context, Pulp Fiction is still great. But it isn't timeless.

 

Blade Runner, on the other hand, looks and feels as fresh now as when it was made. That's the difference.

 

Both good movies but for entirely different reasons.

 

Cheers

MC

But isn't that just because Dogs has had a bunch of successful imitators and a director who has continued to work in the same general type of film, while Blade Runner hasn't? Or is it something about the latter that makes it inimitable? (I would argue that the BR imitations never came along because it tanked at the box office.)

 

Anyhow, I've never been a huge BR fan. It's good, but not nearly as impressive as its reputation in some circles. (I think it gets too talked-up by sci-fi partisans because it's the stand-in for the idea that sci-fi films can be about Serious Things rather than just blowing up aliens.) The storyline isn't that memorable, performances are inconsistent, and the dialogue is mostly terrible. (Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't fall out of their chair laughing when Rutger Hauer makes that ridiculous grandiose speech, and punctuates it by releasing a freakin' dove?!) What redeems it and makes it a film well worth watching and remembering is the art direction. The urban environment that is the background for the story is really impressive.

[Gorgon]

The dialouge is indeed pretty corny and expected, but Rutger delivers. The hokeyness doesn't hamper him in the least. I'll leave you to decide what kind of comment that is on his acting skills. I mean, that man has been in more bad movies than... well Rudger Hauer, but It seems to suit him.

 

Contrast the scene where he kills Tyrel which is quite fabulous and one or two other instances I can remember where he was in a whole other category of excellence.

 

It's not easy having to deal with this kind of 'high' literary style that rolls off the tongue like cement.

 

 

While it's certainly true that most Sci Fi buffs are sentimental about blade runner to the point of nausea, there is a reason. It's an excellent movie, not that I am going to buy it again every time Ridley Scott resides to make a new 'final revision'. Where are we at now, 3, 4, 5...

[Oerwinde]

Watched a few flicks this weekend:

 

Babylon AD: It was ok. Another vision of the future where the world sucks but America is awesome. I enjoyed it though, not something too deep but enjoyable.

 

Death Race: A excellent piece of popcorn fun. Some great crashes and chase scenes.

 

Cloverfield: The way it was shot made the deaths feel a lot more personal and had a lot more meaning than your standard slasher/monster flick, but on the other hand it makes it hard to watch and leaves any sort of plot in the dust.

 

Fatherland: Slow but interesting. We need more alternate history movies.

[LadyCrimson]

Milk - Sean Penn had a great performance. Overall it was ok, but marred by a slow/oddly structured beginning. Still, I think it did a reasonable job paying homage to a man who is considered a huge political icon around here. Not that I was old enough to emotionally understand it when he and Moscone were killed in SF (I was 10ish), but I remember the impact to the news and family. Not to mention the Twinkie defense.

[Meshugger]

The dialouge is indeed pretty corny and expected, but Rutger delivers. The hokeyness doesn't hamper him in the least. I'll leave you to decide what kind of comment that is on his acting skills. I mean, that man has been in more bad movies than... well Rudger Hauer, but It seems to suit him.

 

Contrast the scene where he kills Tyrel which is quite fabulous and one or two other instances I can remember where he was in a whole other category of excellence.

 

It's not easy having to deal with this kind of 'high' literary style that rolls off the tongue like cement.

 

 

While it's certainly true that most Sci Fi buffs are sentimental about blade runner to the point of nausea, there is a reason. It's an excellent movie, not that I am going to buy it again every time Ridley Scott resides to make a new 'final revision'. Where are we at now, 3, 4, 5...

 

If i recall correctly, this is how it went:

 

1) "Original workprint", Scott's original idea, but hated by focusgroups.

2) "Original US theatrical release", Scott had little to do with it, and wasn't even originally aware of the voiceovers. Ford later revealed that he was "kicking and screaming" while being dragged into the studio to do the voiceovers. He hated it that much.

3) "International theatrical release", little do with Scott, more gore than the US theatrical version.

4) "Director's Cut", nothing to with Scott, Warner Bros just wanted to make some extra cash.

5) "Final Cut", completely remastered audio and video, some scenes where edited to and off. All done under Scott's direct supervision. My personal favourite as well.

 

As you can see, he only had direct supervision of the original workprint and the final cut, the rest was done through other channels.

 

I understand where Enoch is coming from. I however, loved Rutger's speech in the end, almost bringing a mantear out of me. I saw the dove as a cinematic effect rather than anything else, it might be seen as over the top, but i liked to symbolism of it. The story itself isn't that deep, true, but the other elements in the movie overshadows it completely. Like the theme, art design, cinematography, music and most importantly the idea and question on how to define humanity. This execution is excellent IMO.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Meshugger

[Gorth]

Death Race: A excellent piece of popcorn fun. Some great crashes and chase scenes.

This one needs to be watched together with Planet Terror

 

Still waiting for "Machete" to come out as a full length movie

[Hiro Protagonist]

Cloverfield: The way it was shot made the deaths feel a lot more personal and had a lot more meaning than your standard slasher/monster flick, but on the other hand it makes it hard to watch and leaves any sort of plot in the dust.

 

It was the one thing I really disliked about Cloverfield - the shaking camera. I found it annoying to the point of wanting to yell at the screen and say, 'Stop shaking the god damn camera so I can watch this!' I couldn't wait for it to be over.

[Gorgon]

I understand where Enoch is coming from. I however, loved Rutger's speech in the end, almost bringing a mantear out of me

 

From memory 'I've watched sea beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate, attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

 

I take it back, that's not cement. The soundtrack is awesomely merged there as well.

[Gorgon]

On the topic of sentimental favorites I'll throw some in, Down by Law and Ghost Dog by Jim Jarmusch. Also Woody Allen. He made practically the same movie 40 times while he was married to Mia Farrow but they're pretty funny most of them anyway. I like the way his neurotic dialogues drive the scenes.

[Oerwinde]

Death Race: A excellent piece of popcorn fun. Some great crashes and chase scenes.

This one needs to be watched together with Planet Terror

 

Still waiting for "Machete" to come out as a full length movie

 

I think you're thinking of Death Proof, which IMO was Tarantino's worst movie. Planet Terror was definitely the stronger of the two Grindhouse flicks.

[Gorth]

Death Race: A excellent piece of popcorn fun. Some great crashes and chase scenes.

This one needs to be watched together with Planet Terror

 

Still waiting for "Machete" to come out as a full length movie

 

I think you're thinking of Death Proof, which IMO was Tarantino's worst movie. Planet Terror was definitely the stronger of the two Grindhouse flicks.

Duh!

 

Yes, that was the one. I watched both within a week of each other and Death Proof is not exactly Kill Bill material. Still good for killing an hour and a half though. Just remember to bring popcorn and beer. Lots of beer.

 

I haven't seen Death Race.

[Gorgon]

Best part of planet terror. The Machete preview was in Planet terror, Death Proof is the one with Kurt Russel as a psycho stunt driver.

Machete

Edited March 24, 2009 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Cloverfield: The way it was shot made the deaths feel a lot more personal and had a lot more meaning than your standard slasher/monster flick, but on the other hand it makes it hard to watch and leaves any sort of plot in the dust.

 

It was the one thing I really disliked about Cloverfield - the shaking camera. I found it annoying to the point of wanting to yell at the screen and say, 'Stop shaking the god damn camera so I can watch this!' I couldn't wait for it to be over.

 

I felt physically ill, and had to close my eyes to prevent myself throwing up. It was completely excessive in its shaking. It didn't have to shake ALL the time. Grrrr...

BR for me was a simple noir film. But that's me loving Raymond Chnadler and all his works.

 

BTW, I went looking for Silent Running, and somehow wound up watching this clip of robots fighting in The Black Hole. Possibly the funniest fight scene EVER. Look out for the robot wang uppercut!

[Rosbjerg]

What I'm saying is this: look at Reservoir Dogs - it's a post-modern, ironic piece of cinema; the first in a long series of imitators which in of themselves reference previous genres (i.e. Tarantino adores pulp 60's and 70's trash cinema, Guy Ritchie is clearly influenced by Tarantino). Personally, I see this as very 1992. Viewed in that context, Pulp Fiction is still great. But it isn't timeless.

 

Blade Runner, on the other hand, looks and feels as fresh now as when it was made. That's the difference.

 

Both good movies but for entirely different reasons.

 

Cheers

MC

 

Personally I don't think Bladerunner is a very good film, but I'm a big fan of Phillip D. so that probably influenced my opinion on that. I wish you had chosen another film as your argument. Because I think BR looks very dated while I think both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are more "modern" in their artistic approach.

 

Apples and Oranges I guess - since movies and art can be as timeless to some as hoplessly dated to other. But I agree with the overall point you are making.

[Gorgon]

I think the litmus test is whether a film works on it's own premise. Whether it 'closes in on itself' to form something unique and uncompromising. If that makes any sense.

 

Sci Fi movies almost automatically look dated a decade after their release simply because expectations and technology changes. Blade runner gets around that by its superb cinematography. It's a beautiful film.

 

It's not fantastic acting by everyone all the time that does it, it's this inexplicable something I tried to characterize above which is also what constitutes a great work of art.

 

And of course the movie should never be compared with the book, I mean of course that is going to happen, but it is in my view a fundamental mistake to regard the generic movie and book as anything other than distant relations touching on some of the same themes. This is also why I can stand watching LoTR for instance. A movie can't possibly compete with what notions you create in your own mind as you read the book.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Gorgon

[Rosbjerg]

And of course the movie should never be compared with the book, I mean of course that is going to happen, but it is in my view a fundamental mistake to regard the generic movie and book as anything other than distant relations touching on some of the same themes. This is also why I can stand watching LoTR for instance. A movie can't possibly compete with what notions you create in your own mind as you read the book.

 

I've tried telling my mind that - but it insists on these impossible standards..

[Kelverin]

The Indian Runner (1991)

 

A compelling story about two brothers and their relationship. Great cast. Worth my time.

[Walsingham]

I think the litmus test is whether a film works on it's own premise. Whether it 'closes in on itself' to form something unique and uncompromising. If that makes any sense.

 

Makes sense to me. Look at Citizen Kane. An undeniably old film, with many hokey shenanigans. But at the same time, perfectly captivating (although it's bloody long).

[taks]

edit: wrong thread...

 

taks

Edited March 24, 2009 by taks

[Monte Carlo]

I think the litmus test is whether a film works on it's own premise. Whether it 'closes in on itself' to form something unique and uncompromising. If that makes any sense.

 

Makes sense to me. Look at Citizen Kane. An undeniably old film, with many hokey shenanigans. But at the same time, perfectly captivating (although it's bloody long).

 

Citizen Kane is, for me, unwatchable along with a number of other movie buff standards (The Bicycle Thieves - huh?).

 

Although I'll raise you a Lawrence of Arabia for that Citizen Kane, now there's a proper classic.

 

Cheers

MC