Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 20, 2017, 09:11:34 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 ... 793 794 [795] 796 797 ... 1162 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1765268 times)
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11910 on: April 24, 2013, 11:05:19 PM »

one of the greatest films of the decade in my personal ranking Smiley

Richard Roeper ranked The Departed as the greatest film of the 2000's

http://blog.richardroeper.com/?p=1499

And here is Roeper's review of the movie http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/thedeparted.aspx


« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 11:10:21 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

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

Posts: 283


View Profile
« Reply #11911 on: April 25, 2013, 02:03:14 AM »

hitchcock ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjRzj_Ufiew  Afro

Logged
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5053


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11912 on: April 25, 2013, 02:45:39 AM »

opening sequence, where he seems to imply that there arefate-like reasons for these things (which, following my theory of everything, sort of sums up the whole point of the movie right away).

We're then brought through the movie, where everything which happens between the characters seems valid as being mere coincidences. And then the frog rain comes, the one thing which happens to unite all the characters. This, also, in the 'Magnolia universe', is the only thing at this point which can not be a coincidence. There have been reports of frog rain in real life in the past, but nothing even close to this extent. Therefore there must be some sort of Godly reason why it happened. And with that, there's the  hint at a possibility of all these meetings and occurrences we've witnessed thus far to be much more than just mere coincidences. Everyone who actually meets has a certain emptiness which another person fulfills. They meet for a fate-like reason.

[...]

If that doesn't make sense/I'm analyzing it way too much....sorry, i've seen magnolia too many fucking times.

That's what I see in the movie too. It just doesn't justify a movie to me. I don't believe in God or fate, so I don't find very interesting when someone asserts "BUT IT HAPPENS". Anyway, once again, the scenes work, and I've seen it 3 times and will watch it again, so I'm very glad it exists.


Richard Roeper ranked The Departed as the greatest film of the 2000's

http://blog.richardroeper.com/?p=1499

And here is Roeper's review of the movie http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/thedeparted.aspx



Thanks! Interesting read!


Don't tempt me. So far, the only movies I own both on BD and DVD are Leone films and There Will Be Blood. But this one wants very hard to be on the list.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 02:48:49 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934



View Profile
« Reply #11913 on: April 25, 2013, 05:15:23 AM »

Richard Roeper ranked The Departed as the greatest film of the 2000's

http://blog.richardroeper.com/?p=1499

And here is Roeper's review of the movie http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/thedeparted.aspx



That's basically only a top 100 of English language films.

The Departed wouldn't make my top 100 (200 ? 300 ? ) of that decade. And there are dozens and dozens of promising films I haven't watched yet.

Logged

dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

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


View Profile
« Reply #11914 on: April 25, 2013, 06:07:50 AM »

Don't tempt me. So far, the only movies I own both on BD and DVD are Leone films and There Will Be Blood. But this one wants very hard to be on the list.
Blu-ray steelbooks. It's the new cocaine.

Logged


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

Posts: 2999


View Profile
« Reply #11915 on: April 25, 2013, 08:33:03 AM »

Groggy...i still love the pilot but the rest of the season really, really sucked. There was maybe one good episode toward the end. I'll see what the S2 opener has to offer but more than likely I'm not gonna continue The Newsroom.

That's what I see in the movie too. It just doesn't justify a movie to me. I don't believe in God or fate, so I don't find very interesting when someone asserts "BUT IT HAPPENS". Anyway, once again, the scenes work, and I've seen it 3 times and will watch it again, so I'm very glad it exists.

I don't believe in God/fate either. But I find the way Magnolia presents these ideas to be interesting. even if it does so a bit too blatantly -- especially when the kid just starts mumbling "it just happens...it just happens"...and when it zooms into that picture that says the same thing. It's absolutely flawed in some aspects, but still an endlessly re-watchable masterpiece for me.

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

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11916 on: April 25, 2013, 09:56:56 AM »

Nowhere to Go (1958) 7.5/10

Saw this nice British crime drama on TCM.

George Nader plays a Canadian crook living in England, who is sprung from prison, where he was sent for conning a widow out of 55,000 pounds. He's got everything figured out -- the money in a safe deposit box, an accomplice to help him flee, a hideout -- but soon finds out that when you're on the lam and you're hot, you can trust no one and may find yourself with... nowhere to go.

Nader is decent but nothing special as the main character, and that's probably the one weak link of the movie; Maggie Smith is terrific as the kindhearted sucker for lost causes, and the rest of the supporting cast is very good.

This film is made in the style of the noirs of the end of the 50's.

According to Amazon, this movie is available only on Region 2 dvd. Anyway, I wouldn't say it's that important to rush out and buy it on dvd, but I'd definitely recommend giving it a look next time it plays TCM. If you like the late noirs, you will like this.


Here is the opening credits sequence  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cg07Je34yw&feature=youtu.be
can someone please tell me the name of that jazz song that plays over the credits? I've definitely heard it in movies before and it's making me crazy not knowing what it is

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 10:08:03 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

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

Posts: 1767



View Profile
« Reply #11917 on: April 25, 2013, 10:53:24 AM »

I don't think so. It had exactly as much (technical) influence on me than Goodfellas and Casino.

Never seen Internal Affairs, but it seems to make the consensus when opposed to Scorsese's film. I also heard that it handled the plot much better, while characters and style were better in The Departed. But I doubt it would beat one of the greatest films of the decade in my personal ranking Smiley

I remember watching the 'drop' scene or whatever you want to label it with the Asians and Italians and I just don't see where you're coming from. I firmly stand by opinion that The Departed looks much more like the work of an average studio director than one of the greatest of all time. Even the wardrobe, the lighting, set design, etc is a humongous step down from stuff like Goodfellas or Casino. I saw this in the theaters, enjoyed it quite a bit, but then tried sitting down and watching this again and it's just not a very good film. It's entertaining but it's more in line with Scorsese posturing stuff like Blow than Goodfellas or Casino. imo.

I know it's the chic thing to say the HK original is superior but it really is the case. That movie handles its characters perfectly and the ending is quite memorable and even touching. The US remake ignores the reason why the HK movie worked so well. The Departed doesn't know if it wants to be a thriller or an epic crime tale, which is its downfall.



RE: Magnolia - I haven't seen it quite a while but I view it as melodrama, possibly an unintentional (or non-ironic) modern day Sirk movie. either way, I do enjoy it quite a bit but understand the gripes some may have.

Logged


Claudia, we need you to appear in LOST COMMAND. It's gonna revolutionize the war genre. What did you think of the script?
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11918 on: April 25, 2013, 07:38:08 PM »

Diabolique (1955)

I was very disappointed when I realized that the movie, which appears to be a crime drama, becomes a mystery halfway through. But I guess I can't wish a movie to be something it isn't.

I'll give this a max of 8/10, but I definitely enjoyed the first half more than the second half.


SPOILER ALERT FOR THE REST OF THIS POST

The ending, though it may involve a legendary scene, is one of those times where a movie plot is far more complicated than it would ever be in real life. They had to dream up this whole scheme cuz they knew the wife had a bad heart and would die from fright when the guy returned? Really? if they wanted her dead so they could get her money, they would have had a million and one opportunities to walk into her room one night and smother her, rather than dreaming up this whole cockamamie plot. but hey, then there would be no movie, right?

and the very final scene, where the boy says he has seen the wife, what is that supposed to be? is that just the director laughing at the audience and saying, "i can do whatever I want?" (or is it setting up a sequel?)

btw, what exactly would they be arrested for and charged with? Is it a crime to frighten someone into getting a heart attack

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:18:33 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 #11919 on: April 25, 2013, 07:59:52 PM »

Groggy...i still love the pilot but the rest of the season really, really sucked. There was maybe one good episode toward the end. I'll see what the S2 opener has to offer but more than likely I'm not gonna continue The Newsroom.

I checked out the last three episodes tonight. They were actually better than the first seven, though still larded with Sorkinian excess. Maybe there's potential for a sophomore turnaround.

Logged


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

Posts: 13635

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


View Profile
« Reply #11920 on: April 26, 2013, 05:39:15 AM »

Diabolique (1955)
The ending, though it may involve a legendary scene, is one of those times where a movie plot is far more complicated than it would ever be in real life. They had to dream up this whole scheme cuz they knew the wife had a bad heart and would die from fright when the guy returned? Really? if they wanted her dead so they could get her money, they would have had a million and one opportunities to walk into her room one night and smother her, rather than dreaming up this whole cockamamie plot. but hey, then there would be no movie, right?
You can use the same kind of analysis on Vertigo, another film based on a novel by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. Those guys just loved convoluted plots. Trouble is, once you've been through one, you never need to go back again. Knowing the surprises in advance takes all the fun out of it, and the surprises are so striking you can never forget any of them. One of the reasons Vertigo is such a cinematic miracle is that I can go back to it again and again--because of the characters. Not so with Diabolique, where the characters are merely ants running through a maze. I'm a huge fan of Henri-Georges Clouzot, too, but this is the one film of his I never rewatch.

Logged


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

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11921 on: April 26, 2013, 06:42:42 AM »

You can use the same kind of analysis on Vertigo, another film based on a novel by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. Those guys just loved convoluted plots. Trouble is, once you've been through one, you never need to go back again. Knowing the surprises in advance takes all the fun out of it, and the surprises are so striking you can never forget any of them. One of the reasons Vertigo is such a cinematic miracle is that I can go back to it again and again--because of the characters. Not so with Diabolique, where the characters are merely ants running through a maze. I'm a huge fan of Henri-Georges Clouzot, too, but this is the one film of his I never rewatch.

Also, Vertigo is a beautiful film to watch, with one of the most brilliant uses of color and light in cinema history.

on a general note: I know that for you, an important question when judging a movie is "Can I enjoy repeated viewing of it?" but for me, it's not that big a deal: if a movie is amazing on first viewing, but not nearly as interesting afterward (eg. because once you know a plot twist, it takes all the fun out of it), I don't hold it against the movie; if I loved a movie the first time I saw it, but would have no interest in seeing it again cuz of that reason, I still would consider it a great movie.  (As discussed above, I wouldn't say that I loved Diabolique this first time, but I'm just making a general point now, that  IMO, if a movie "WOW's" you the first time, then it should be considered a great movie regardless of whether you would get the same "WOW" the second time around).

Of course, it's in the best financial interest of the filmmakers if you wanna watch the movie again and again. And there are definitely advantages to the viewer if a movie can be enjoyed repeatedly: Obviously, the simple advantage that you get pleasure each time you view it, so that movie brings you more pleasure than one that can only be enjoyed once.
And also, the fact is that some movies aren't always appreciated fully the first time around, it may take a couple of viewing till the viewer really loves it; but with the movies we are discussing, you never give it a second chance, so it has no opportunity to "grow" on you: you  watch it once, either like it or don't, and that's that.

But I still believe that if a movie "wow's" you on the first viewing, then the filmmaker did his job successfully, it can be considered a successful piece of art and a great movie. If I enjoy Movie X at a 10/10 level but wouldn't wanna see it again, and I enjoyed Movie Y at a 10/10 level but would enjoy repeated viewings, I wouldn't say that that necessarily makes Movie Y a better movie, and I wouldn't give Y a higher rating.

So, while anyone would prefer a movie that can be watched again and again, when I watch a movie and want to rate/analyze it, I just consider "how much did I enjoy this now," and not "and how much may I enjoy it again later."



Logged

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

Posts: 13635

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


View Profile
« Reply #11922 on: April 26, 2013, 09:48:16 AM »

I know that for you, an important question when judging a movie is "Can I enjoy repeated viewing of it?" but for me, it's not that big a deal
We obviously differ here. But note, when I was your age, I never thought of seeing movies repeatedly. I would only ever consider watching a movie more than once if I had forgotten its key plot points. It wasn't until my 30s that I even considered the idea of returning to movies I liked, and that's when I started buying LDs: if I was going to re-watch films, I wanted them on the best possible medium for home viewing. I had a friend once who said to me, "The only thing better than watching films is reading about them." It's one of those things that isn't true until it's said, but once said, changes your life forever. I suddenly had to start buying books on film. But what I noticed was, the more I read, the more I wanted to re-watch things to verify if what the writers were saying had merit. And so a cycle was begun. Today, I've modified my friend's statement to "The only thing better than watching films is thinking about them." Reading, writing, and discussing are three methods of reflecting on films. Part of re-watchability has to do with whether a film is worth thinking about to begin with. If, after a film, I'm still thinking about it days later, it's very likely I'll want to watch it again at some point. And so the cycle is perpetuated. In college I heard one of my professors say, "Art should be a catalyst to thought." Films that aspire to that condition should work that way as well.

Logged


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

Posts: 5053


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11923 on: April 26, 2013, 10:37:06 AM »

Even the wardrobe, the lighting, set design, etc is a humongous step down from stuff like Goodfellas or Casino. I saw this in the theaters, enjoyed it quite a bit, but then tried sitting down and watching this again and it's just not a very good film. It's entertaining but it's more in line with Scorsese posturing stuff like Blow than Goodfellas or Casino.

I can easily concede it doesn't have even half the scope/ambition of Goodfellas or Casino. For the rest I'm resting my case Smiley
Moreover, the lack of scope of many american movies of the late 2000's isn't a bad thing. I know that very few people will follow me on this, but Marty isn't the only "big shot" to have made his best work of the decade around that time and by going the low ambition road: I'm in love with Fincher since the Zodiac, and QT's Death Proof is probably the last great movie he will ever make.


RE: Magnolia - I haven't seen it quite a while but I view it as melodrama, possibly an unintentional (or non-ironic) modern day Sirk movie.


Haha this is great Smiley and true!

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 10:40:30 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11924 on: April 26, 2013, 10:58:21 AM »

We obviously differ here. But note, when I was your age, I never thought of seeing movies repeatedly. I would only ever consider watching a movie more than once if I had forgotten its key plot points. It wasn't until my 30s that I even considered the idea of returning to movies I liked, and that's when I started buying LDs: if I was going to re-watch films, I wanted them on the best possible medium for home viewing. I had a friend once who said to me, "The only thing better than watching films is reading about them." It's one of those things that isn't true until it's said, but once said, changes your life forever. I suddenly had to start buying books on film. But what I noticed was, the more I read, the more I wanted to re-watch things to verify if what the writers were saying had merit. And so a cycle was begun. Today, I've modified my friend's statement to "The only thing better than watching films is thinking about them." Reading, writing, and discussing are three methods of reflecting on films. Part of re-watchability has to do with whether a film is worth thinking about to begin with. If, after a film, I'm still thinking about it days later, it's very likely I'll want to watch it again at some point. And so the cycle is perpetuated. In college I heard one of my professors say, "Art should be a catalyst to thought." Films that aspire to that condition should work that way as well.


I'm not saying I don't re-watch movies. I'll definitely re-watch movies I love, generally not more than once every year or two. More that, it would get old.
I remember seeing McCabe and Mrs. Miller, being so blown away, I was affected so deeply. For 18 months I still felt the effects of that magical nite. Then after like 18 months, I suddently felt that effect wearing off and the desire to see it again, so I did. and it was unbelievable. And today, it's like a year later, I am still feeling the effects of it. Obe day I will wanna watch it again, but not now.


watching too much kills the movie. with very rare exceptions. I have seen Leone's movies repeatedly. However, now, I am starting to scale back. To force myself not to see it until I get a great urge, and that I will enjoy  it more if I wait a long while in between each viewing.


I see all the famous John Wayne Westerns within a period of  few months, like 3 years ago, and that was that., then, a year or two later, I watched The last Picture Show, which gave me this great urge to see Red River again (if you have seen TLPS,. you will know why). And that in turn led to me going through all those Wayne westerns a second time. I've now seen Stagecoah, TMWSLvalance, Fort Apache, SWAYellow Ribbon, The Horse Soldiers. Rio Bravo and Red River I've seen like 2 or 3 more times.

And each time was wonderful. And I am still enjoying it when I think of it. When the day comes that it starts wearing off and I want to see it again, I will do so.

So, I can certainly enjoy re-watching. But not "repeatedly," as you call it. I'd say that with a few specific rare exceptions, you can enjoy a great movie once every 18 months or so.


No doubt, when you really love a movie, you can enjoy talking or reading about it as much as seeing it. When we get an intense discussion going on these boards, that is great. I also loved reading Ebert (I know you didn't like him, but the point is that I liked him and he provided me with that great pleasure you are talking about).  No doubt. And it's great to know other people like the stuff you do.
And that's why i always read reviews of a movie after I see the movie: to hear an analysis of the movie you just saw.
 and I like to see classic movies at Film Forum: it's great to see them on the supposed big screen, even though the screen and sound are awful IMO. But it's great to see them in a theater setting. It's like a happy family of cienastes, watching it together. People who have the same interests as you, loving the same art you do. It's why -- even though I usually like a theater to have some empty seats around me -- when I am watching a classic movie at Film Forum, I love when it is so pcked you can't move: cuz that is a big family of friends loving the same art you love

Like you say, I wish Noir City would come to New York. or that TCM Film Festival (which I believe is happening now) would come to New York. Watching, reading about, and talking about movies you love with other people who love them, there's nothing like it. When we get a  great discussion going on these boards, there ain't nuthin like it  Smiley Afro

« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 08:06:54 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Pages: 1 ... 793 794 [795] 796 797 ... 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 19 queries.