My theory teacher in high school, and then my theory teacher at RIT, (as well as my theory teacher at MCC), all had long rants about the relationship between the two movies, the choices in female lead, and the resulting career paths.
After at least 10 years of not doing so, I rewatched Mary Poppins for the first time. That is my childhood on screen. To my surprise, I still knew and sang every word of every song.
The only other highlight is that I cried during "Feed the Birds", which had never happened before. Still the greatest Disney movie ever as far as I am concerned.
I watched Takashi Miike's Harakiri, it has one of the most uncomfortable scenes where a samurai commits harakiri with a wooden sword. Decent movie overall, a bit slow but some good performances.
I just watched this odd French film from 2000 called "Water Drops On Burning Rocks". It was apparently based on a play written by a very famous New German Cinema filmmaker known as Rainer Werner Fassbinder. It was directed by a man named Francois Ozon who is sort of a "bad boy" of French cinema today and has made a ton of interesting movies over the years (the one people would probably know him best for is the 2003 psychological thriller, Swimming Pool).
The story is about a 20 year old man named Franz who comes home with a 50 year old business man named Leopold. Franz finds dissatisfaction with his fiance, Anna, and begins a torrid affair with Leopold, who he finds to be more of an intellectual and more attentive to his needs (unlike Anna). Unfortunately the relationship between the two gets sour very quickly, which results in Franz goes back to Anna and the two formulate a plan to get back together and break it off with Leopold.
What follows is a very uneven story that gets incredibly pretentious at times. Not only that, but the story doesn't gel as well as it should (despite being a somewhat interesting premise) and a lot of the conflict resolutions are very unsatisfying. Things either happen too quickly or things that should happen that make sense within in the context of the story just don't happen. Despite that, the film is excellently shot, lit, designed, and the actors are believable in portraying the characters despite the huge story flaws the film has.
The only other comment I have to make is that the woman who plays Anna, Ludivine Sagnier (better known for playing Tink in the 2003 live-action adaptation of Peter Pan; which is really good), is one of the most gorgeous women that I have ever set eyes on and the film does put her in a few gratuitous scenes that demonstrate this (but I sure wasn't complaining...heh heh). In all seriousness though, she is actually a really strong actress in her own right if this role is indicative of her acting ability. I'm impressed enough by her to check out more of her filmography.
Overall, it is an okay movie with some really big flaws that makes the movie suffer as result. I'm intrigued enough by this to see Ozon's filmography; hopefully they are more satisfying than this was.
Riddick...
It is Pitch Black with Katee Sackhoff boobs!
Not quite as awesome as Pitch Black was the first time I saw it (because I now know the Riddick formula) but much better than the Chronicles movie.
I watched about a third of the Gatsby movie. It's garbage. I don't think I agree with Baz Luhrmann's cinematic style. To me, he seems like a teenager trying to imitate Guy Ritchie.
Besides all of the jimmy-rustling anarchonisms (they depict the Empire State Building, all of the cars were post-1922, the dancing wasn't invented yet, the soundtrack..., and at one point they're actually filming each other with a camcorder), the movie plot is basically all about the "love story," with only a few ham-fisted nods towards class issues.
I agree. And much like Romeo+Juliet, it seemed kind of self-obsessed about how clever it is, and spends a lot of time trying to tell you just how clever it is. Instead of just being clever.
I'm way behind in my movie updates for this thread! I'll see if I can remember in reverse chronological order:
The Great Gatsby - Fucking awful. Just terrible, terrible movie making. Some of the worst looking special effects shots ever, with blue screen mistakes that makes Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith look like masterworks. There are so many mistakes with editing which obviously come from lack of basic storyboarding, directing or editing skills. The good acting of some of the cast showed up the dreadful acting of others. However, the story that came to light in the second half kept me watching to the end (despite my earlier protests) and now it makes me want to read the novel.
Four Weddings and Funeral - holds up really well! As 95% of the movie takes place at weddings (and funerals) where everyone is dressed up smart, only a very few costumes look dated. It's still really funny. The "It's raining? I hadn't noticed" line still almost ruins the movie, but not quite.
Trainspotting - my girlfriend really didn't like this one.
Slumdog Millionaire - my girlfriend really liked this one.
Terminator and Terminator 2 - watched after a conversation about the best science fiction movies ever. Terminator looks super 80's but still works great. Terminator 2 is still super 90's and doesn't quite bring the same excitement as it used to, although the action sequences are still hilarious when intended to be.
I'm sure there are more movies I'm forgetting. I'll post later if I remember them.
I don't know wheather it was due to over hype or not but I found Slumdog Millionaire really dull. Compaired to something like KITES it really doesn't hold up.
Watched Riddick with my brother last week. That is a good film. Not oh its good for a Vin Desiel film its a good film as a film. Deisel was actually quite convincing in this role as were most of the other actors. On that note he was crap in fast5/6 and not really all that worth watching. As Riddick hes like a different guy, maybe it is the character or that he actually cares about this role but it is a very different man. The special effects were good quallity and the world looked awesome. The rubs I have are that I would have liked to have seen more of him prior to his exile and that the cast was a little too big. I understand why it needed to be that size but I would have prefered a more atmospheric feel.
Watched Django unchained the other day. I wonder how many Americans calling the Australian accents really bad realised that the one that isn't Tarantino is John Jarrat, a pretty famous Australian actor.
Also, I like the Fast and the Furious movies. They're pure, goofy trash, but I still like them. Also, I think the next few are going to be tokyo drift movies, which means that now the chronology is going to get even more fucking wierd.
World's End was fun. I'm not ready to call it as great as Shaun or Hot Fuzz, but I've seen both those movies dozens of times for all the background stuff so not exactly a fair comparison.
Yeah, I'd say Slumdog Millionaire is a "minor Boyle" compared to many of his other movies, despite it winning him all the Oscars. I had problems with the love story becoming the main focus of the movie, despite the "lovers" only meeting as "adults" for a few hours.
Which reminds me of a movie I missed: Les Miserables. Again featuring a love story between two people who barely even look at each other.
But my main problem was with the performance of Hugh Jackman. Many other people complained about Russell Crowe, but I thought he was just fine, though obviously without the vocal talents of some of the younger cast. But Jackman seemed to put on way too much of a performance, almost speaking all his sung lines. I don't think there was a single time when he held a note for more than a beat, letting it fade away rather than holding any long note. I want Jean Valjean to really sing! He has to lift and carry the entire musical, and this time he seemed to suck energy out of the movie.
It was overall pretty good, but I think it's hard to do badly with such great source material. Like Gatsby, the cartoon special effects took me out of it way too often, but for an adaptation of a stage musical I think that can be forgiven, unlike in Gatsby.
Due to my girlfriend being away for a few nights, and me getting to pick a movie to watch that she probably wouldn't enjoy, I watched Dredd. I'm really glad Juliane didn't watch it with me, as it's super violent. It was also a lot better than I expected, even if there were some issues with picture quality and the standards of acting.
It also reminded me a LOT of The Raid, another movie set in a tower block where police are locked inside and the big boss announces that everyone should stay inside or help kill the good guys. It's almost a pity I watched The Raid first, as I think I'd have enjoyed Dredd more. I'd say The Raid is the better movie.
EDIT: I take that last line back. Dredd is a better movie, but the fight scenes in The Raid were something special in terms of getting my heart rate up.
There is a campaign to make a Dredd sequel, and I think it is doing fairly well, but not sure if it will actually turn anything out. Dredd was ignored mostly because of the Stallone version.
I really liked The Raid because of the awesome marital arts action. The Raid is going to have a sequel, set a day or two after the events of the first movie. Ro and I do a movie night with friends once a month and she showed Dredd and The Raid as her pairing.
I finally watched Dredd because of this thread and I'm fucking amazed. Its the most fun I've had with a movie in a while. There is so much attention to detail but has a wonderfully simplistic plot. Its more horror movie that immerses you in a post-apocalyptic urban sprawl than a straight action movie. Its similar to the ending of "End of Watch" which is another great cop flick that I recommend.
There is a slightly plot hole in which Dredd reloads his gun using the ammo from the corpse of the last corrupt Judge but he doesn't do so earlier when he kills the first corrupt Judge. Minor point.
There is a slightly plot hole in which Dredd reloads his gun using the ammo from the corpse of the last corrupt Judge but he doesn't do so earlier when he kills the first corrupt Judge. Minor point.
I was super impressed by the lack of major plot holes. Normally in these kinds of science fiction movies an element will be introduced in the last act that negates or disrupts everything that came before, plot wise. Dredd got through to the end without any of that. For example, as soon as they got outside, they called in backup right away. And then had a good reason to get back inside. Just that tiny bit of thought makes me appreciate a movie a whole lot more.
Comments
My theory teacher in high school, and then my theory teacher at RIT, (as well as my theory teacher at MCC), all had long rants about the relationship between the two movies, the choices in female lead, and the resulting career paths.
The only other highlight is that I cried during "Feed the Birds", which had never happened before. Still the greatest Disney movie ever as far as I am concerned.
It is Pitch Black with Katee Sackhoff boobs!
Not quite as awesome as Pitch Black was the first time I saw it (because I now know the Riddick formula) but much better than the Chronicles movie.
The story is about a 20 year old man named Franz who comes home with a 50 year old business man named Leopold. Franz finds dissatisfaction with his fiance, Anna, and begins a torrid affair with Leopold, who he finds to be more of an intellectual and more attentive to his needs (unlike Anna). Unfortunately the relationship between the two gets sour very quickly, which results in Franz goes back to Anna and the two formulate a plan to get back together and break it off with Leopold.
What follows is a very uneven story that gets incredibly pretentious at times. Not only that, but the story doesn't gel as well as it should (despite being a somewhat interesting premise) and a lot of the conflict resolutions are very unsatisfying. Things either happen too quickly or things that should happen that make sense within in the context of the story just don't happen. Despite that, the film is excellently shot, lit, designed, and the actors are believable in portraying the characters despite the huge story flaws the film has.
The only other comment I have to make is that the woman who plays Anna, Ludivine Sagnier (better known for playing Tink in the 2003 live-action adaptation of Peter Pan; which is really good), is one of the most gorgeous women that I have ever set eyes on and the film does put her in a few gratuitous scenes that demonstrate this (but I sure wasn't complaining...heh heh). In all seriousness though, she is actually a really strong actress in her own right if this role is indicative of her acting ability. I'm impressed enough by her to check out more of her filmography.
Overall, it is an okay movie with some really big flaws that makes the movie suffer as result. I'm intrigued enough by this to see Ozon's filmography; hopefully they are more satisfying than this was.Is it better than Chronicles of Riddick?
Also watched Assembly a couple of weeks ago. Really good film defiantly worth a watch and the main actor is pretty awesome.
Besides all of the jimmy-rustling anarchonisms (they depict the Empire State Building, all of the cars were post-1922, the dancing wasn't invented yet, the soundtrack..., and at one point they're actually filming each other with a camcorder), the movie plot is basically all about the "love story," with only a few ham-fisted nods towards class issues.
That's Baz Luhrmann in a nutshell.
The Great Gatsby - Fucking awful. Just terrible, terrible movie making. Some of the worst looking special effects shots ever, with blue screen mistakes that makes Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith look like masterworks. There are so many mistakes with editing which obviously come from lack of basic storyboarding, directing or editing skills. The good acting of some of the cast showed up the dreadful acting of others. However, the story that came to light in the second half kept me watching to the end (despite my earlier protests) and now it makes me want to read the novel.
Four Weddings and Funeral - holds up really well! As 95% of the movie takes place at weddings (and funerals) where everyone is dressed up smart, only a very few costumes look dated. It's still really funny. The "It's raining? I hadn't noticed" line still almost ruins the movie, but not quite.
Trainspotting - my girlfriend really didn't like this one.
Slumdog Millionaire - my girlfriend really liked this one.
Terminator and Terminator 2 - watched after a conversation about the best science fiction movies ever. Terminator looks super 80's but still works great. Terminator 2 is still super 90's and doesn't quite bring the same excitement as it used to, although the action sequences are still hilarious when intended to be.
I'm sure there are more movies I'm forgetting. I'll post later if I remember them.
Watched Riddick with my brother last week. That is a good film. Not oh its good for a Vin Desiel film its a good film as a film. Deisel was actually quite convincing in this role as were most of the other actors. On that note he was crap in fast5/6 and not really all that worth watching. As Riddick hes like a different guy, maybe it is the character or that he actually cares about this role but it is a very different man. The special effects were good quallity and the world looked awesome. The rubs I have are that I would have liked to have seen more of him prior to his exile and that the cast was a little too big. I understand why it needed to be that size but I would have prefered a more atmospheric feel.
Also, I like the Fast and the Furious movies. They're pure, goofy trash, but I still like them. Also, I think the next few are going to be tokyo drift movies, which means that now the chronology is going to get even more fucking wierd.
Which reminds me of a movie I missed: Les Miserables. Again featuring a love story between two people who barely even look at each other.
But my main problem was with the performance of Hugh Jackman. Many other people complained about Russell Crowe, but I thought he was just fine, though obviously without the vocal talents of some of the younger cast. But Jackman seemed to put on way too much of a performance, almost speaking all his sung lines. I don't think there was a single time when he held a note for more than a beat, letting it fade away rather than holding any long note. I want Jean Valjean to really sing! He has to lift and carry the entire musical, and this time he seemed to suck energy out of the movie.
It was overall pretty good, but I think it's hard to do badly with such great source material. Like Gatsby, the cartoon special effects took me out of it way too often, but for an adaptation of a stage musical I think that can be forgiven, unlike in Gatsby.
It also reminded me a LOT of The Raid, another movie set in a tower block where police are locked inside and the big boss announces that everyone should stay inside or help kill the good guys. It's almost a pity I watched The Raid first, as I think I'd have enjoyed Dredd more. I'd say The Raid is the better movie.
EDIT: I take that last line back. Dredd is a better movie, but the fight scenes in The Raid were something special in terms of getting my heart rate up.
I really liked The Raid because of the awesome marital arts action. The Raid is going to have a sequel, set a day or two after the events of the first movie. Ro and I do a movie night with friends once a month and she showed Dredd and The Raid as her pairing.
There is a slightly plot hole in which Dredd reloads his gun using the ammo from the corpse of the last corrupt Judge but he doesn't do so earlier when he kills the first corrupt Judge. Minor point.