Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2017, 10:14:58 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 734 735 [736] 737 738 ... 1162 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1770367 times)
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3927


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


View Profile
« Reply #11025 on: October 21, 2012, 05:42:16 AM »

"Easy Money" aka Snabba Cash (2010) - 6.5/10
Swedish crime film.

Terminator 2 (1991) - 9/10
The 70mm blow-up looked like a regular 35mm in my eyes, but it was still cool as shit.

Logged

"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11026 on: October 21, 2012, 02:26:25 PM »

Rewatchd Rope (8/10) and Under Capricorn (6/10). Reviews in appropriate thread.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13637

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #11027 on: October 21, 2012, 07:37:01 PM »

7 Psychopaths (2012) 7/10. That's right, seven. There were only 3 in In Bruges, so this film must be WAY better. Actually, if I remember right, one of the psychos this time gets counted twice, but even so, this new one still has twice the psychos as the first. So it's gotta be twice the fun, right?  I can't wait for Martin McDonagh to put 12 psychos in his next picture, the perfect end to his Psychopaths Trilogy. What a vision that man has!

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13637

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #11028 on: October 22, 2012, 11:23:59 AM »

A couple Best Buy exclusives:

You Only Live Twice (1967) 5/10. First Blu-ray viewing. Not the worst Connery Bond (that would be Diamonds Are Forever), but man, this is one silly film. SPECTRE has a rocket-launching installation from which they send capsule-capturing spacecraft into orbit, AND NOBODY KNOWS WHERE IT IS? Further, the cost of running such an operation would have to be, er, astronomical--how can they ever extort enough money from their clients to make it pay?  And since their technology is superior to NASA's, wouldn't it make more sense to run the whole thing as a legitimate company anyway? Who did they get to consult on this project, Dr. Evil? But the ultimate absurdity--Bond turning Japanese! This was the first 007 film to descend into flagrant self-parody, and it's not a pretty sight. That's not the fault of the Blu-ray, though, which, PQ-wise, is stellar.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) 7/10. First Blu-ray viewing. Ernst Stavro . . . Savalas? That bit of miscasting aside, there's plenty to like in this film--Diana Rigg, George Lazy-Bee, alpine skiing, Diana Rigg, the best score of the series, Diana Rigg. Perhaps it goes on a little too long. Well, character development (Bond's) was on the cards this time, and that always requires extra time.

With these exclusives, currently going for $9.99, you also get a code that enables you to get 10 bucks off a ticket for Skyfall.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #11029 on: October 22, 2012, 02:55:36 PM »

A couple Best Buy exclusives:

You Only Live Twice (1967) 5/10. First Blu-ray viewing. Not the worst Connery Bond (that would be Diamonds Are Forever), but man, this is one silly film. SPECTRE has a rocket-launching installation from which they send capsule-capturing spacecraft into orbit, AND NOBODY KNOWS WHERE IT IS? Further, the cost of running such an operation would have to be, er, astronomical--how can they ever extort enough money from their clients to make it pay?  And since their technology is superior to NASA's, wouldn't it make more sense to run the whole thing as a legitimate company anyway? Who did they get to consult on this project, Dr. Evil? But the ultimate absurdity--Bond turning Japanese!

You are asking the wrong questions for a Bond film. But I had the same ideas.

But even without asking one of the weakest Bond films. A routine performance. For me the weakest Connery Bond.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11030 on: October 22, 2012, 03:31:12 PM »

1. The Westerner (1940) 9/10

2. The Old Man and the Sea (1958) 0/10 (yes, that's a ZERO. Only because I can't give negative numbers)

3. Destination Murder (1950) 6/10


4. Laura (1944) 8/10


5. The Street With No Name (1948) 7/10


UPDATE: Each of these films has its own thread, where I'll discuss the movie more extensively, with the exception of The Old Man and the Sea; so further discussion of The Old Man and the Sea is on the next page of this RTLMYS thread, beginning here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg160335#msg160335 )

« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 03:19:59 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11031 on: October 22, 2012, 07:43:15 PM »

Mountains of the Moon - 8/10 - Epic chronicle of Richard Burton and John Henning Speke's exploration of the Nile. Lots of pretty scenery and hardship depicted (Speke gets a bug in his ear!) but the primary interest is the characters: the romantic, driven Burton, the ambitious dilettante Speke. Not accurate but works well as drama. Interesting cast with lots of familiar faces: Patrick Bergin, Iain Glenn, Delroy Lindo, Fiona Shaw in major roles; Bernard Hill, Roshan Seth, Anna Masey and Peter Vaughan; Omar Sharif in unbilled cameo.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11032 on: October 22, 2012, 08:13:34 PM »

Scarface (1932) 5/10

A really good and funny performance by Paul Muni in the title role is the only thing this otherwise silly movie has going for it

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #11033 on: October 23, 2012, 02:12:01 AM »



2. The Old Man and the Sea (1958) 0/10 (yes, that's a ZERO. Only because I can't give negative numbers)




Why not. It's a weak and superfluous film. But I would still give it a 4.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11034 on: October 23, 2012, 03:11:25 AM »

Why not. It's a weak and superfluous film. But I would still give it a 4.

OMG, The Old Man and the Sea  was excruciating.before I began watching it, I was skeptical as to how a film can be made of a story that essentially is just one guy sitting out on a boat. Unfortunately, I was correct: this movie is awful.


Where do I start? First of all, the whole movie is basically Spencer Tracy sitting on a boat, while the narrator reads the book. Seriously. Cuz any of you who read the book will know that it' a 3rd person story of a guy sitting on a boat, with very little dialogue. So basically, we just see Tracy sitting on the boat and casting his lines or whatever he's doing, while the narrator reads the book. Occasionally, Tracy will say one line like "Fish, I respect you!" And then, it's back to another ten minutes of us watching him, while the narrator reads the book. (Perhaps this would have been made better as a silent film, so we have no expectation of any dialogue; the title cards would have been sufficient to narrate).

Now, this may be the worst part of all: As i said, the movie is basically Tracy sitting on the boat while the narrator reads the book to us. But who is the narrator? (unless I am wrong, the narrator is) SPENCER TRACY HIMSELF! I mean, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? he is the main actor in the movie, and the narrator who is reading the book in the 3rd person, is the same exact voice as that of the main actor! For the narrator, they could have used literally any person in the entire world except Tracy himself! How the fuck can you listen to Tracy reading, eg. "the old man cast the line into the sea..."  and then you see the main actor, with the exact same voice as the narrator, say a line like "Fish, I'm going to kill you, though you are more noble than I am..."

That is so fucking ridiculous, that alone should qualify the movie for a zero rating. (I couldn't find any credit for Narration, but it sounded to me exactly like Tracy. if I am wrong, then please let me know).

Also, I know this is 1958, but the visual effects were nothing short of horrendous. Eg. in the scenes where the old man is trying pull in the fish, we just see a fish jumping around, they don't even pretend to have him on a line (in some scenes., they add in a line that look so bad it's pathetic). So we just see some footage of a big fish jumping around with no line anywhere near him, and then cut to a shot of the ols man pulling on a string. Come on. And there are an insane amount of rear projections.

Also, (I believe it was Robert Osborne of TCM who said this): Ernest Hemingway was very upset when he saw Spencer Tracy in the movie, cuz Tracy was this fat dude, while the character of the old man was a poor, starving old man who couldn't even feed himself, and he therefore should have used someone that was very skinny


according to a sourced item on wikipedia (first paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea_%281958_film%29) Sturges called this "technically the sloppiest picture I have ever made." No doubt this is a piece of shit.







Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11035 on: October 23, 2012, 03:45:48 AM »

Madigan (1968) 8/10

This is a fun cop movie directed by Don Siegel, featuring Richard Widmark in the title role of New York City cop Daniel Madigan, Henry Fonda as Police Commissioner, and Inger Stevens as Widmark's wife.


-- Generally, these movies with the title as the last name of the cop (eg. Bullitt with Steve McQueen, or Brannigan with John Wayne) will have the cop as the clear main character. But in this movie, Fonda, the police commissioner plays a significant role; if Widmark is the leading guy, it's not by much; so I thought the title was a bit strange. Well, it actually turns out that the movie is based on a book called "The Commissioner," although I am not sure how close the screenplay is to the movie. Anyway, enough about titles:


-- the movie uses lots of real New York City locations, which are terrific.

-- There is a Police Inspector character in the movie whose name is "Charlie Kane." Really?  Roll Eyes  I mean, why not just name his wife Scarlett O'Hara while you're at it!

-- This is a widescreen movie, but the dvd is windowboxed, so there are fat black bars on all 4 sides of the pictures, and the movie is only shown in a small portion of the middle of the screen. The only other time I can remember this happening is with the Vertigo dvd -- and that is also from Universal. Coincidence?

-- the dvd's subtitles are in all CAPS. that's stupid.

-- of course, there is the subplot that Widmark is the workaholic cop, and his wife Inger Stevens is getting no action cuz she never sees him. I was gonna roll my eyes and say "how original," but then again, this is 1968, I don't know if that plotline was cliche' at that time  Wink

-- There is this one awesome scene where Widmark bumps into Fonda at a phone booth. the camera cuts back n forth between Widmark, and Fonda's completely expressionless face, it's just awesome.

Henry Fonda, playing the police commissioner, is sleeping with a married woman. When we see a Fonda character being sinful, aren't we supposed to exclaim in disbelief, "Jesus Christ, it's Henry Fonda!!!"  Wink

Inger Stevens looks pretty, but in one scene, they put this awful-colored dress (I think it's like brown or sumthin)?

And wtf is with the fake fucking eyelashes that I see on so many movies  from that period. It is so fucking obvious and there is nothing in the entire world that even comes close to making a woman look more absolutely fucking stupid than do eyelashes. (Unless you either have cancer and lost your hair, or you're a stripper), don't ever ever ever wear fake eyelashes.  Ever.


---------------------------------------------------------------

That basically ends my discussion on the movie,


Now I want to separately discuss, (based on the Madigan's behavior) a topic in Movie morality: appropriate movie cop behavior. I will   WARN Y'ALL This is a long and  may bore you; IF THE TOPIC OF POLICE MORALITY IN MOVIES DOES NOT INTEREST YOU, JUST SKIP THE REST OF THIS POST


The character of Madigan is, plain and simple, not a good guy, in fact I grew to detest him; (perhaps his only saving grace is that it was played by Widmark and he's supposed to be a good guy), but I really grew to detest him: this guy uses very brutal tactics to how own advantage, and there's nothing heroic about that.

Sure, every famous movie cop that's a maverick makes his own rules, which often mean bending the rules. But even with eg. Dirty Harry: the guy he is torturing is a certain murderer, he has kidnapped an innocent person, who will die if the information on her whereabouts is not beaten out of the kidnapper. So, even though this may violate the law, we certainly sympathize with Harry Callahan when he does WHATEVER IT TAKES -- including torture -- to get the info on the victim's whereabouts.
(Ebert the commie whined about Dirty harry supposedly being fascist, but in that instance, there was an innocent life at stake, and unless you can get her whereabouts out of the kidnapper --who has no incentive to talk -- she is going to DIE. btw, This is the "ticking time bomb" case. Do Ebert and his fellow travelers really want the innocent girl to die rather than having Harry use torture to get the info on her whereabouts out of the kidnapper? if so, he is simply crazy).


But with Madigan, it is completely different: he does whatever he wants to whomever he wants, for selfish reasons, just because his ass is on the line. Eg. he violently pushes around an innocent secretary just to find out where her boss is, cuz he needs the boss to help him get out of a jam created by his own incompetence. That sort of thing is something we never see Callahan, Bullitt, or Brannigan doing. I don't know if the movie intends to show Madigan as the same sort of maverick, but i for one found his character detestable. And if the movie is approving of his actions (as simply being a "maverick cop" or sumthin), the that is detestable.

So the point is: if a movie cop bends the rules cuz he feels that the rules are constraining him from properly doing his job of protecting the people -- particularly if he is pushing around someone who it's certain is a criminal, for the purpose of preventing more harm -- like Dirty harry then of course, that movie cop is a heroic character. But if a cop is simply using his power to push people around to get what he personally wants -- like Madigan pushing around an innocent secretary in order to get information out of her, just because that information is necessary to save his own ass -- then, he is a detestable character. IMO, there are few people that are more detestable than cops who abuse their power in any way.



(Also, one of Fonda's friends, the Chief Inspector, turns out to have been corrupt, helping crooks.. but with good intentions (it was necessary, to help his son, who was in trouble), and Fonda refuses to accept his friend's resignation. That really turned me off. yeah, his friend wasn't an evil guy, he only got involved with the crooks to help his son, so i would understand if eg. Fonda wouldn't prosecute him. But he certainly should have accepted his resignation; IMO even the slightest violation of public trust is be a fire-able offense for an official that is granted power and authority by the citizens).

--

SPOILER ALERT FOR THE REST OF THIS POST


I think you can make the argument that the movie would have been better off ending with Madigan's words, "too late," and cut out the few subsequent lines (by Inger Stevens and others).

Finally, I hope that Madigan's death was intended as poetic justice, that Madigan got his just deserts, rather than him dying as a hero. Cuz he is a detestable character


« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 04:53:25 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11036 on: October 23, 2012, 04:36:23 AM »

Also, (I believe it was Robert Osborne of TCM who said this): Ernest Hemingway was very upset when he saw Spencer Tracy in the movie, cuz Tracy was this fat dude, while the character of the old man was a poor, starving old man who couldn't even feed himself, and he therefore should have used someone that was very skinny

On the other hand Hemingway apparently enjoyed the film.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11037 on: October 23, 2012, 04:50:44 AM »

On the other hand Hemingway apparently enjoyed the film.

I am not doubting that this may be true, but is there any source for that other than the quotes by the film's producer that are mentioned on wikipedia? i wish there was some way for an unbiased person to support that claim.


Anyway, even if it was Hemingway's favorite movie of all-time, it wouldn't change my opinion at all on the movie. maybe Hemingway enjoyed the film cuz he was pleased that they were faithful to the book; who knows. But all I know, regardless of the fact that the book ever existed, is that I am focusing totally on the movie as a movie, and The movie called "the old man and the sea" is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

btw, generally, when a film has narration, is there ua credit given to the narrator? cuz i noticed here that (at least on imdb), no narrator is listed in the "full cast and crew" section. Wondering if movies usually give a credit for narration; if yes, then here if they didn't, it's cuz the movie didn't want to specifically point out how dumb they were to use Tracy's narration?

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11038 on: October 23, 2012, 07:17:54 PM »

Human Desire (1954) 9/10

A wonderful noir directed by Fritz Lang, starring Glenn Ford and Gloria Grahame.

I'll create a proper thread for that movie later tonight, and discuss it more extensively

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3000


View Profile
« Reply #11039 on: October 23, 2012, 08:34:34 PM »

Double Indemnity
A lot better on my second viewing but still one of Wilder's lesser works especially compared to Ace in the Hole and Sunset Blvd.

Trees Lounge
Great great great

Blow
Goodfellas except not at all as good

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 734 735 [736] 737 738 ... 1162 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.055 seconds with 20 queries.