...............and a grave mistake was made yet again by the Academy!Big Magilla wrote:It was between her and Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate.HarryGoldfarb wrote:The Miracle Worker (Arthur Penn, 1962): The film is icredibly dated fut the cast did a great job. Was Duke an expected winner? ***1/2
Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
So predictable and boring it doesn't even warrant the mention of its title?Hustler wrote:What a change! After the independent film festival, I have to deal with commercial crap again, I was getting used to good movies so far.
Just go with it 1/10. Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler in a very predictable and boring film.
-
HarryGoldfarb
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
- Location: Colombia
- Contact:
- Tangled (Nathan Greno & Byron Howard, 2010): I actually enjoyed this. The hype was excessive though considering the final product. Great visuals and a nice approach to the story, but in the end the film fell short. ** 1/2
- Clash of the Titans (Louis Leterrier, 2010): On a contrary case, I've seen way worst films than this. Its reputation ain't deserved. I was kind of entertained. What were critics looking in this film in order to be left so disappointed? **
- Winter's Bone (Debra Granik, 2010): I don't know but I can not be as enthusiastic about this film as I thought I would be. I can not find a decent justification for the film as a whole. A nice and interesting portrait of a specific reality but that's it. The screenplay lead me nowhere and in the ened everything was solved as if the writer got out of a decent idea to do so. It is interesting because it shows an unusual side of the USA, rarely seen through movies but I needed more than that. I find nothing outstanding in Hawkes performance though I do believe Lawrence nomination was more than deserved. ***
- Les Chansons D'Amour (Christophe Honoré, 2007): How can a soundtrack be so infinitely superior to a film? well... this might help with the answer. ***
- Cars (John Lassetter and Joe Ranft, 2006): This was the only Pixar film I hadn't seen. Ratatouille remains the one I like the least but imaginative as it is, this is one of the few that I do think feels longer than it should. It was hard to relate to a talking car (nonetheless, it wasn't that hard to care for a robot or a disabled fish) so even though I felt amused it didn't have a strong resonance in me. **1/2
- Un Chien Andalou (Luis Buñuel, 1929): Outstanding. I have no words for this... *****
- Haevnen (In a Better World, Susanne Bier, 2010): I loved it. At first I was like being really cynical about the "in your face" beauty of it, the melodramatic approach... but eventually, I relaxed and I'm glad I did cause it ended up a beautiful and nicely done film. It made my day... ***1/2
- Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (George Roy Hill, 1969): Through my whole life, I've been looking for some films that I've been certain that I'd like. This was one of those films but the result was not the expected. Newman and Redford were, in my humble opinion, great. The film, not so much... ***
- The Celluloid Closet (Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, 1996): A very interesting documentary about how Hollywood has portrayed homosexuality in films through its history. I really liked the commentaries on the 40's and 50's, during the Hays Code era. A lot of footage makes it poignant and a must. ***
- The Trip (Miles Swain, 2002): Formulaic film, filled with a lot of "expected to happen" situations. The leading actors of this gay romance did a decent job considering how badly written the film is. **
- Dog Tags (Damion Dietz, 2008): Despite the raunchy poster (with an absurd tagline that doesn't have anything to do with the film), this independent film was a bit better than the one mentioned before. With unexpected elements for a romance (even though it has some unbelievable others) this film was more effective. **1/2
- The Miracle Worker (Arthur Penn, 1962): The film is icredibly dated fut the cast did a great job. Was Duke an expected winner? ***1/2
- Clash of the Titans (Louis Leterrier, 2010): On a contrary case, I've seen way worst films than this. Its reputation ain't deserved. I was kind of entertained. What were critics looking in this film in order to be left so disappointed? **
- Winter's Bone (Debra Granik, 2010): I don't know but I can not be as enthusiastic about this film as I thought I would be. I can not find a decent justification for the film as a whole. A nice and interesting portrait of a specific reality but that's it. The screenplay lead me nowhere and in the ened everything was solved as if the writer got out of a decent idea to do so. It is interesting because it shows an unusual side of the USA, rarely seen through movies but I needed more than that. I find nothing outstanding in Hawkes performance though I do believe Lawrence nomination was more than deserved. ***
- Les Chansons D'Amour (Christophe Honoré, 2007): How can a soundtrack be so infinitely superior to a film? well... this might help with the answer. ***
- Cars (John Lassetter and Joe Ranft, 2006): This was the only Pixar film I hadn't seen. Ratatouille remains the one I like the least but imaginative as it is, this is one of the few that I do think feels longer than it should. It was hard to relate to a talking car (nonetheless, it wasn't that hard to care for a robot or a disabled fish) so even though I felt amused it didn't have a strong resonance in me. **1/2
- Un Chien Andalou (Luis Buñuel, 1929): Outstanding. I have no words for this... *****
- Haevnen (In a Better World, Susanne Bier, 2010): I loved it. At first I was like being really cynical about the "in your face" beauty of it, the melodramatic approach... but eventually, I relaxed and I'm glad I did cause it ended up a beautiful and nicely done film. It made my day... ***1/2
- Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (George Roy Hill, 1969): Through my whole life, I've been looking for some films that I've been certain that I'd like. This was one of those films but the result was not the expected. Newman and Redford were, in my humble opinion, great. The film, not so much... ***
- The Celluloid Closet (Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, 1996): A very interesting documentary about how Hollywood has portrayed homosexuality in films through its history. I really liked the commentaries on the 40's and 50's, during the Hays Code era. A lot of footage makes it poignant and a must. ***
- The Trip (Miles Swain, 2002): Formulaic film, filled with a lot of "expected to happen" situations. The leading actors of this gay romance did a decent job considering how badly written the film is. **
- Dog Tags (Damion Dietz, 2008): Despite the raunchy poster (with an absurd tagline that doesn't have anything to do with the film), this independent film was a bit better than the one mentioned before. With unexpected elements for a romance (even though it has some unbelievable others) this film was more effective. **1/2
- The Miracle Worker (Arthur Penn, 1962): The film is icredibly dated fut the cast did a great job. Was Duke an expected winner? ***1/2
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Fathom (Leslie H. Martinson, 1967) 4/10
Strictly formula, although tongue-in-cheek, 1960s spy caper. The highlights being Raquel Welch in a lime green bikini and the lovely Mediterranean locations.
Kaleidoscope (Jack Smight, 1966) 3/10
Extremely bland film with it's main attraction being the Beatty/York teaming and the swinging London setting.
Fear is the Key (Michael Tuchner, 1973) 1/10
Terrible revenge yarn with a couple of good car chase sequences. Barry Newman is such a dull actor.
Age of Consent (Michael Powell, 1969) 7/10
Another great James Mason performance and lovely Australian locations make this a winner. Highlights of the film: James Mason in a sex scene with a topless Clarissa Kaye (who was his wife) and a young Helen Mirren with hairy armpits.
The Drowning Pool (Stuart Rosenberg, 1975) 6/10
Slow detective thriller with a great supporting cast. Paul Newman returns to the part of Harper after 10 years. Joanne Woodward is a lovely presence.
Puppet on a Chain (Geoffrey Reeve, 1971) 3/10
Speed boat chases through the canals in Amsterdam and lovely Barbara Parkins in a dull thriller based on one of my favorite pulp author's novels - Alistair MacLean.
Zee & Company ( Brian G. Hutton, 1972) 6/10
A great campy performance by La Liz who chews the scenery and everythinbg else in sight. Michjael Caine tries to keep up while poor Susannah York looks extremely bewildered by the goings on. Margaret Leighton in a purple wig is a hoot.
The Wind Cannot Read (Ralph Thomas, 1958) 5/10
Dirk Bogarde is good as a British soldier escaping from a Japanese prison to return to his Japanese wife.
The Romantic Englishwoman (Joseph Losey, 1975) 7/10
Losey, Jackson, Caine and Stoppard - what more can you ask for in a film? Glenda Jackson was living proof that you do not require looks to become a major star just as long as you have a strong personaility and a total lack of vanity.
Strictly formula, although tongue-in-cheek, 1960s spy caper. The highlights being Raquel Welch in a lime green bikini and the lovely Mediterranean locations.
Kaleidoscope (Jack Smight, 1966) 3/10
Extremely bland film with it's main attraction being the Beatty/York teaming and the swinging London setting.
Fear is the Key (Michael Tuchner, 1973) 1/10
Terrible revenge yarn with a couple of good car chase sequences. Barry Newman is such a dull actor.
Age of Consent (Michael Powell, 1969) 7/10
Another great James Mason performance and lovely Australian locations make this a winner. Highlights of the film: James Mason in a sex scene with a topless Clarissa Kaye (who was his wife) and a young Helen Mirren with hairy armpits.
The Drowning Pool (Stuart Rosenberg, 1975) 6/10
Slow detective thriller with a great supporting cast. Paul Newman returns to the part of Harper after 10 years. Joanne Woodward is a lovely presence.
Puppet on a Chain (Geoffrey Reeve, 1971) 3/10
Speed boat chases through the canals in Amsterdam and lovely Barbara Parkins in a dull thriller based on one of my favorite pulp author's novels - Alistair MacLean.
Zee & Company ( Brian G. Hutton, 1972) 6/10
A great campy performance by La Liz who chews the scenery and everythinbg else in sight. Michjael Caine tries to keep up while poor Susannah York looks extremely bewildered by the goings on. Margaret Leighton in a purple wig is a hoot.
The Wind Cannot Read (Ralph Thomas, 1958) 5/10
Dirk Bogarde is good as a British soldier escaping from a Japanese prison to return to his Japanese wife.
The Romantic Englishwoman (Joseph Losey, 1975) 7/10
Losey, Jackson, Caine and Stoppard - what more can you ask for in a film? Glenda Jackson was living proof that you do not require looks to become a major star just as long as you have a strong personaility and a total lack of vanity.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6398
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Sabin............excellent analyses.Sabin wrote:/A Room with a View/ (James Ivory) - it's fine.
I sadly watched this over the course of a couple of evenings due to circumstances outside my own control. So this is a purely provisional response of "It's fine." Notes:
* To the best of my faculties, it seems as though the gravitational pull between Helena Bonham Carter and Julian Sands should be something rather staggering, something akin to watching young love take flight for the first time, that I should look at Carter's face and find her haunted by it and that I should look at the almost puppyish gaze of Sands and find something irresistibly youthful and naive. I don't find either actor that great. Carter is certainly fine and has moments but she doesn't entirely suggest the complexity innate in Lucy, and that's better than Sands who is often impossibly bland and stilted. This is an issue.
* But the rest of the ensemble certainly compensates. Just about everyone else who strolls on-screen is aces. Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot (who certainly deserved his nomination), Judi Dench, and Maggie Smith, who's a bit subtler than usual. She's quite fine in this film but hardly the stand-out. It's one of those lovely films where you take in lovely sights and meet lovely people. I say this because I did not find the film as volatile or smoldering as I had hoped.
* If there is a stand-out, I'd say it is Daniel Day-Lewis, and I don't say that in a kind way. I say that in that the man is constantly standing out. There's something vaguely Frankenstein-ish about Cecil. He intermittently finds notes of good humor in him, but on the whole I think his laurels were for the striking contrast between his work here and in My Beautiful Laundrette (which I have not yet seen, but I'd imagine so). Although this is doubtlessly true of the character to be such a head-in-the-sky intellectual, emotionally removed and such, it's such an outwardly ridiculous performance that he just sucks the air out of every scene. Again, I know this is the nature of his role but I found him impossibly distracting. Elliot on the other hand gives a very kindly performance that I liked much better. Don't know what was up with the Supporting Lineup in '86. Hopper for Hoosiers and not Blue Velvet. Elliot (quite rightly) over Day-Lewis (quite wrongly). No Ray Liotta for Something Wild. At least they gave it to the [mostly] right man.
* Really though, I find it a trifle. Perhaps seen in context of 1986 it would be a breath of fresh air, but really this is a film about a young woman denying her feelings which even within the confines of this era seems a bit constipated. There should be a good humored fussiness to Lucy that isn't there, and I found the film lacking ballast as consequence. It's not bad, and it's certainly a quite pleasant, handsome film, but I'm not smitten. Placed within the annals of the Merchant-Ivory productions, I find it lacking the intrinsic pull of Howards End and The Remains of the Day.
* I said my peace on Elliot, who is quite fine. Maggie Smith is subtler than usual and does a good job, but I wouldn't dream of holding her over Dianne Wiest in Hannah and Her Sisters and I doubt I would have predicted her although she is more graceful and generous with screen-space than I remember. Obviously, for the Art Direction and Costume Design noms and wins, I give them the same enthusiasm as i do the rest of the film. They're fine. The cinematography nom is reasonably deserved, although none of the Merchant-Ivory productions I've seen are terribly deserving. They're usually more competent productions as the more daring adaptations (like The Portrait of a Lady, The Wings of the Dove), but I find them less visually interesting, which is why they fell out of fashion I suppose. Anyway, a win for The Color of Money, Peggy Sue Got Married or the eventual winner The Mission were far more deserving, as would doubtlessly a different nomination in this film's stead. I'm not familiar or as familiar with Crimes of the Heart, The Color of Money, Stand by Me, or Children of a Lesser-God to make a judgment there. James Ivory does wonderful work with the supporting cast.
God.............I so want to go back to Florence!!
/A Room with a View/ (James Ivory) - it's fine.
I sadly watched this over the course of a couple of evenings due to circumstances outside my own control. So this is a purely provisional response of "It's fine." Notes:
* To the best of my faculties, it seems as though the gravitational pull between Helena Bonham Carter and Julian Sands should be something rather staggering, something akin to watching young love take flight for the first time, that I should look at Carter's face and find her haunted by it and that I should look at the almost puppyish gaze of Sands and find something irresistibly youthful and naive. I don't find either actor that great. Carter is certainly fine and has moments but she doesn't entirely suggest the complexity innate in Lucy, and that's better than Sands who is often impossibly bland and stilted. This is an issue.
* But the rest of the ensemble certainly compensates. Just about everyone else who strolls on-screen is aces. Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot (who certainly deserved his nomination), Judi Dench, and Maggie Smith, who's a bit subtler than usual. She's quite fine in this film but hardly the stand-out. It's one of those lovely films where you take in lovely sights and meet lovely people. I say this because I did not find the film as volatile or smoldering as I had hoped.
* If there is a stand-out, I'd say it is Daniel Day-Lewis, and I don't say that in a kind way. I say that in that the man is constantly standing out. There's something vaguely Frankenstein-ish about Cecil. He intermittently finds notes of good humor in him, but on the whole I think his laurels were for the striking contrast between his work here and in My Beautiful Laundrette (which I have not yet seen, but I'd imagine so). Although this is doubtlessly true of the character to be such a head-in-the-sky intellectual, emotionally removed and such, it's such an outwardly ridiculous performance that he just sucks the air out of every scene. Again, I know this is the nature of his role but I found him impossibly distracting. Elliot on the other hand gives a very kindly performance that I liked much better. Don't know what was up with the Supporting Lineup in '86. Hopper for Hoosiers and not Blue Velvet. Elliot (quite rightly) over Day-Lewis (quite wrongly). No Ray Liotta for Something Wild. At least they gave it to the [mostly] right man.
* Really though, I find it a trifle. Perhaps seen in context of 1986 it would be a breath of fresh air, but really this is a film about a young woman denying her feelings which even within the confines of this era seems a bit constipated. There should be a good humored fussiness to Lucy that isn't there, and I found the film lacking ballast as consequence. It's not bad, and it's certainly a quite pleasant, handsome film, but I'm not smitten. Placed within the annals of the Merchant-Ivory productions, I find it lacking the intrinsic pull of Howards End and The Remains of the Day.
* I said my peace on Elliot, who is quite fine. Maggie Smith is subtler than usual and does a good job, but I wouldn't dream of holding her over Dianne Wiest in Hannah and Her Sisters and I doubt I would have predicted her although she is more graceful and generous with screen-space than I remember. Obviously, for the Art Direction and Costume Design noms and wins, I give them the same enthusiasm as i do the rest of the film. They're fine. The cinematography nom is reasonably deserved, although none of the Merchant-Ivory productions I've seen are terribly deserving. They're usually more competent productions as the more daring adaptations (like The Portrait of a Lady, The Wings of the Dove), but I find them less visually interesting, which is why they fell out of fashion I suppose. Anyway, a win for The Color of Money, Peggy Sue Got Married or the eventual winner The Mission were far more deserving, as would doubtlessly a different nomination in this film's stead. I'm not familiar or as familiar with Crimes of the Heart, The Color of Money, Stand by Me, or Children of a Lesser-God to make a judgment there. James Ivory does wonderful work with the supporting cast.
I sadly watched this over the course of a couple of evenings due to circumstances outside my own control. So this is a purely provisional response of "It's fine." Notes:
* To the best of my faculties, it seems as though the gravitational pull between Helena Bonham Carter and Julian Sands should be something rather staggering, something akin to watching young love take flight for the first time, that I should look at Carter's face and find her haunted by it and that I should look at the almost puppyish gaze of Sands and find something irresistibly youthful and naive. I don't find either actor that great. Carter is certainly fine and has moments but she doesn't entirely suggest the complexity innate in Lucy, and that's better than Sands who is often impossibly bland and stilted. This is an issue.
* But the rest of the ensemble certainly compensates. Just about everyone else who strolls on-screen is aces. Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot (who certainly deserved his nomination), Judi Dench, and Maggie Smith, who's a bit subtler than usual. She's quite fine in this film but hardly the stand-out. It's one of those lovely films where you take in lovely sights and meet lovely people. I say this because I did not find the film as volatile or smoldering as I had hoped.
* If there is a stand-out, I'd say it is Daniel Day-Lewis, and I don't say that in a kind way. I say that in that the man is constantly standing out. There's something vaguely Frankenstein-ish about Cecil. He intermittently finds notes of good humor in him, but on the whole I think his laurels were for the striking contrast between his work here and in My Beautiful Laundrette (which I have not yet seen, but I'd imagine so). Although this is doubtlessly true of the character to be such a head-in-the-sky intellectual, emotionally removed and such, it's such an outwardly ridiculous performance that he just sucks the air out of every scene. Again, I know this is the nature of his role but I found him impossibly distracting. Elliot on the other hand gives a very kindly performance that I liked much better. Don't know what was up with the Supporting Lineup in '86. Hopper for Hoosiers and not Blue Velvet. Elliot (quite rightly) over Day-Lewis (quite wrongly). No Ray Liotta for Something Wild. At least they gave it to the [mostly] right man.
* Really though, I find it a trifle. Perhaps seen in context of 1986 it would be a breath of fresh air, but really this is a film about a young woman denying her feelings which even within the confines of this era seems a bit constipated. There should be a good humored fussiness to Lucy that isn't there, and I found the film lacking ballast as consequence. It's not bad, and it's certainly a quite pleasant, handsome film, but I'm not smitten. Placed within the annals of the Merchant-Ivory productions, I find it lacking the intrinsic pull of Howards End and The Remains of the Day.
* I said my peace on Elliot, who is quite fine. Maggie Smith is subtler than usual and does a good job, but I wouldn't dream of holding her over Dianne Wiest in Hannah and Her Sisters and I doubt I would have predicted her although she is more graceful and generous with screen-space than I remember. Obviously, for the Art Direction and Costume Design noms and wins, I give them the same enthusiasm as i do the rest of the film. They're fine. The cinematography nom is reasonably deserved, although none of the Merchant-Ivory productions I've seen are terribly deserving. They're usually more competent productions as the more daring adaptations (like The Portrait of a Lady, The Wings of the Dove), but I find them less visually interesting, which is why they fell out of fashion I suppose. Anyway, a win for The Color of Money, Peggy Sue Got Married or the eventual winner The Mission were far more deserving, as would doubtlessly a different nomination in this film's stead. I'm not familiar or as familiar with Crimes of the Heart, The Color of Money, Stand by Me, or Children of a Lesser-God to make a judgment there. James Ivory does wonderful work with the supporting cast.
"How's the despair?"
Oh I do go to 'such places' but can only find the Fellinis, De Sicas, Antonionis and the Viscontis. Sadly none of the new Italian stuff can be found. I do have Facing Windows though.ITALIANO wrote:I have no idea honestly - I'm sure that there must be books in English about contemporary Italian cinema, but I didn't see any even in London, where I go often.Reza wrote:Marco, could you recommend any books (preferably in English) which cover Italian cinema and it's stars post 1990?
But Italian movies - I'm sure you can find plenty of them in Pakistan, at the black market maybe - when I'm in Beirut I go to Sabra and Chatila and the Palestinians sell Italian movies that even I haven't seen. Aren't there places like this in Pakistan? (But maybe you don't go to such places).
I have no idea honestly - I'm sure that there must be books in English about contemporary Italian cinema, but I didn't see any even in London, where I go often.Reza wrote:Marco, could you recommend any books (preferably in English) which cover Italian cinema and it's stars post 1990?
But Italian movies - I'm sure you can find plenty of them in Pakistan, at the black market maybe - when I'm in Beirut I go to Sabra and Chatila and the Palestinians sell Italian movies that even I haven't seen. Aren't there places like this in Pakistan? (But maybe you don't go to such places).