Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[drinkanddestroy]

While I agree with your rating, I disagree with your theory: Jeunet didn't try to show off his craft, he tried to do Amelie in WW1, with a dark twist. It could have worked, but this kind of films are hard to pull off. The stupid "plot" works like a charm in Amelie. Don't be angry at the filmmakers here, salute the audaciousness.

Great technical achievements sometimes annoy me when the movie is not up to par. It's like wearing a $10,000 tuxedo to a garage-band gig at a dive bar.

I'm not saying the filmmaker INTENDED the story to be shit. But when the story is shit, the other elemnts do irritate me. The whole epic scale of a movie that wants to be so much more than it is.


p.s. Helicopter shots (with very, very rare exceptions) should never be used in a movie. The sweeping helicopter shots through a landscape or seascape. Ugh. That is not for a live action movie. That is for an animated movie. I am referring to those nauseating (literally) spinning shots around the lighthouse. They made me dizzy and sucked anyway. In general, helicopter shots through the sea are for commercials for the Navy. Not for movies.

[cigar joe]

Purple Noon (1960) directed by René Clément - Highsmith's Tom Ripley, murder and mayhem in Rome and Naples, with Alain Delon, Maurice Ronet, and Marie Laforêt, good film 8/10

[noodles_leone]

p.s. Helicopter shots (with very, very rare exceptions) should never be used in a movie. The seeeping helicopter shots through a landscape or seascape. Ugh. That is not for a live action movie. That is for an animated movie. I am referring to those nauseating (literally) spinning shots around the lighthouse. They made me dizzy and sucked anyway. In general, helicopter shots through the sea are for commercials for the Navy. Not for movies.

Weird rule. I may see where you're coming from (overuse), but still, weird rule.

[drinkanddestroy]

Weird rule. I may see where you're coming from (overuse), but still, weird rule.

Helicopter shots of landscapes/seascapes feel to me like a travelogue.

[dave jenkins]

Helicopter shots in the 50s were exciting. Today, they are so cliché as to be beyond endurance. I agree with Drink on this one: they should be junked.

[noodles_leone]

As a general rule, meaningless generic wide shots should be avoided. The key words here are meaningless and generic. The fact that they're shot from a crane, a helicopter or a good old tripod has nothing to do with anything. Hell, most "helicopter shots" in films nowadays are 100% CGI, 0% helicopter.

So yeah, still a weird rule. Mine is better.

[Novecento]

Weird rule. I may see where you're coming from (overuse), but still, weird rule.

I'm with n_l on this.

Great technical achievements sometimes annoy me when the movie is not up to par. It's like wearing a $10,000 tuxedo to a garage-band gig at a dive bar.

True, but I'm more annoyed by technically inept films with a great plot because they could have been so much more. In fact I'll tolerate some plot-holes and poor acting if I can marvel at some great camerawork/editing instead.

p.s. Helicopter shots (with very, very rare exceptions) should never be used in a movie.

I'm assuming something like the cut to the helicopter shot in the Attica scene from Dog Day Afternoon would be one of those exceptions?

[dave jenkins]

I'm assuming something like the cut to the helicopter shot in the Attica scene from Dog Day Afternoon would be one of those exceptions?

I can't speak for Drink, but what I'm talking about has to do with going forward. What people did in 1975--when helicopter shots were still only 20 years old--doesn't have a lot to do with creativity in 2017. (And when I use the term "helicopter shot" I'm not talking about how the shot was achieved, only what it looks like.) Every cliché was once an innovation. But nothing stays fresh forever.

[noodles_leone]

Of course cinematography is mainly about being fresh.

I'm a bit arguing for the sake of arguing here since, once again, I see where you guys are coming from. Still, I always react to such broad general rules about what movies should/shouldn't be/look/feel/smell like since, you know, cinema history is written by those who break them.

[drinkanddestroy]

I am talking SPECIFICALLY about landscape/seascape shots - the helicopter flying through the desert or through the sea

[drinkanddestroy]

EDISON, THE MAN (1940) 6.5/10

Run-of-the-mill biopic of the greatest inventor the world has ever known.

[dave jenkins]

Our Man in Havana (1959) - 6/10. Great photography (Oswald Morris) but otherwise: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You know you're doing something wrong when you get a non-funny performance out of Ernie Kovacs.

Mississippi Mermaid (1969) - 6/10. Nothing sells amour fou like the presence of Catherine Deneuve; and Belmondo is credible as the hopelessly smitten one. What isn't credible is the ending, which trades noir certainties for a jejune happy ending.

[Cusser]

I DVR'd "Blindman" last night, now on Encore Western channel, starring Tony Anthony and Ringo Starr.  Have never heard of it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindman

[drinkanddestroy]

I DVR'd "Blindman" last night, now on Encore Western channel, starring Tony Anthony and Ringo Starr.  Have never heard of it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindman

Is Ringo's character named Ringo? 

[dave jenkins]

I DVR'd "Blindman" last night, now on Encore Western channel, starring Tony Anthony and Ringo Starr.  Have never heard of it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindman

You could, you know, read the SLWB every once in a while: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1603.0