Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[moviesceleton]

The last movie I saw was “The Orphanage.” Which was great -- very intelligent story. It makes me curious about “Pan’s Labrynth” which Siskel and Ebert have been RAVING about and I have yet to see.

Hmm. Quick IMDB visit. For some reason I thought the two were from the same director, but I guess not.

Pan's Labyrinth was directed by Guillermo del Toro. After that his name got so big they started advertising movies, he had only produced, with it.

Wow. Humbling. People are watching Hitchcock.

[Lac qui Parle]

Did I misread the Hitchcock reference? Sorry.

I also realize that I said Siskel and Ebert and I meant Ebert and Roeper. I guess I’m showing my age. Sad.

[Lac qui Parle]

Pan's Labyrinth was directed by Guillermo del Toro. After that his name got so big they started advertising movies, he had only produced, with it.

Oh, so... did GDT produce The Orphanage? I've been scouring IMDb, trying to figure that out.

Anyway, thanks.

[moviesceleton]

Did I misread the Hitchcock reference? Sorry.

I also realize that I said Siskel and Ebert and I meant Ebert and Roeper. I guess I’m showing my age. Sad.

I thought you were surprised by the fact that people actually watch Hitchcock, and that surprised me.

Oh, so... did GDT produce The Orphanage? I've been scouring IMDb, trying to figure that out.

Anyway, thanks.

Yes, he produced it.

[Lac qui Parle]

I thought you were surprised by the fact that people actually watch Hitchcock, and that surprised me.

No, I was just impressed that people were watching all these classics. And then somehow I have to follow that with a movie about malevolent ghost children? Ha ha.

[marmota-b]

Don't worry, Lac qui parle... the last film I watched was The Little Mole... when I think of it, it's sort of a classic, too. It's an old Czech cartoon, you know.

[Groggy]

V For Vendetta - 6-7/10 - This is another film I'm going to digest and think about a bit before I give a definite rating. On the one hand, it's a very well-made, stylish, reasonably entertaining post-apocalyptic action/thriller. The acting is pretty good (particularly Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry and John Hurt), on a technical level it's well-made, the direction is stylish and there are some striking images, scenes and ideas throughout. Hugo Weaving is excellent considering we don't see his face once (and the problems with his character) and Natalie Portman gives a passible English accent and a good performance as the reluctant revolutionary Evey. But the movie has several serious thematic issues which make me reluctant to give it a high rating. I wouldn't have a problem with the movie's anti-totalitarian stance, if that's all there was to it (I love the line "People shouldn't be afraid of their government - the government should be afraid of their people"). But more than that, the movie's political commentary is at best sophomoric anarchism: Government is inherently evil, and Violent Revolution is the only answer. This might be acceptable if there were any depth to it beyond that, but V's ideas don't seem to be anything more than simple revenge and destruction of a repressive regime. The destruction of the government, and the FACT of Revolution at the film's climax, are considered a victory; we don't have the slightest clue what will result from the Revolution, or what idea the revolutionaries are upholding. At least the movie keeps the hyperbolic Bush is evil claptrap to a minimum, which is some consolation, but it doesn't make its stated positions any less noxious. I should also state, albeit briefly due to this review's length, that V's essential coercion/brainwashing of Evey in the "prison" scenes makes him seem even less attractive than his nihilism. I did enjoy it as an action film/thriller, but the political commentary and the implications of it bother me.

Also, I received the first two episodes of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy from Netflix today, and watched those as well. It seems a bit dry so far, but I think I can assume it will pick up now that the exposition's out of the way.

[Groggy]

Click was decent, for an Adam Sandler movie. The fact that you give it a 6/10 indicates it wasn't a complete waste of time, though.

[marmota-b]

Na samotě u lesa / Seclusion Near a Forest (1976) - 4/5

A good one, but not so good one. Maybe also because I know the script and some scenes and moments are missing in the film and I think they should have been there... I simply like Ball Lightining more...

...but Josef Kemr as "grandfather" Komárek is perfect. An old village man, quite a peculiar person; and from the interviews on the DVD I've learned he actually nailed down exactly what the screenwriters had in mind, just from reading the script.

[Lac qui Parle]

V For Vendetta - 6-7/10  I wouldn't have a problem with the movie's anti-totalitarian stance, if that's all there was to it (I love the line "People shouldn't be afraid of their government - the government should be afraid of their people"). But more than that, the movie's political commentary is at best sophomoric anarchism.

I’m curious, Groggy, if you’ve read any of the graphic novels. You didn’t make any comparisons to them, so I’m going to assume you haven’t. (I haven’t either.) I’m curious if the comic itself is more expansive on the political statements you feel come off as “sophomoric” in the Hollywood adaptation. Maybe the original writer made a clearer case against British consumerism, tolerence and apathy. OR maybe the “repressive regime” is just a modern day backdrop for a Quasimodo love story. So the statement might not be a statement at all. Do you see what I mean?

[Atlas2112]

here's some links that should illuminate the differences between the film and graphic novel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_vendetta#Themes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_%28film%29#Differences_between_the_film_and_graphic_novel


This is what Alan moore (author of the comics) has to say about the film

Alan Moore, however, distanced himself from the film, as he has with every screen adaptation of his works to date. He ended cooperation with his publisher, DC Comics, after its corporate parent, Warner Bros., failed to retract statements about Moore's supposed endorsement of the movie.[9] After reading the script, Moore remarked:

"[The movie] has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England."[10]

He later adds that if the Wachowskis had wanted to protest what was going on in the United States, then they should have used a political narrative that spoke directly at the USA's issues, similar to what Moore had done before with Britain. The film changes the original message by arguably having changed "V" into a freedom fighter instead of an anarchist. An interview with producer Joel Silver suggests that the change may not have been conscious; he identifies the V of the graphic novel as a clear-cut "superhero… a masked avenger who pretty much saves the world," a simplification that goes against Moore's own statements about V's role in the story.[11]

i beleive he also said something on the lines of "natalie portman can't act to save her life".

[Lac qui Parle]

Great post, Atlas2112. Now I can see how the political message had become blurry. “a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about.” Pretty much sums it up.

I’m not familiar with Alan Moore’s previous flim adaptations. I’m sure I’ve seen them and didn’t realize it was the same author. I’ll have to read up on him. Thanks.

[moviesceleton]

A Foreign Affair (1948) - 9/10
This is my second favorite Billy Wilder movie, after Double Indemnity. (Still plenty to see though.) Sorry Tuco Harmonica but this beats The Apartment by about a mile

[The Peacemaker]

Ten Wanted Men - 1/5


What a horrible movie. The film opens up with a stagecoach robbery, complete with guns blazing and mexican bandits but it turns out to be a practical joke played by Randolph Scott. Sounds ridiculous right? Well imagine the rest of the movie as stupid as that. The actual story, however, was unique and interesting; just poorly done. It's about a saloon owner (Richard Boone) who falls for the Mexican girl he raised as a child. The girl resists and runs off to local ranch owner Randolph Scott for protection being that she loves his nephew. Boone is uber pissed at all involved and starts a range war when he hires ten killers led by Leo Gordon.


Sounds like it should've been a good movie right? Well it sucked big time. Everything from the editing to the dialogue to the acting here is just horrendous. Even Richard Boone did poorly as the main villain which I'm assuming is a result of poor direction being that Boone is a great actor and did an outstanding job in another B western from the same year, The Tall T. Randolph Scott was his usual self. Leo Gordon gave a pretty good performance as the villainous right hand man who turns on his boss and ends up becoming the film's true villain. And get this...he wears a green hat!


As for the editing, one just has to watch the climatic fight between Scott and Gordon to see how bad it was. Just to top everything off, there's no logic to most of the movie and characters literally appear out of nowhere. There's a love scene between Scott and this woman about half way into the movie and I swear she wasn't even on the screen before then. I was blown away at how random it was. It's like the writer said "holy sh*t! I forgot to write in the love story!"


I don't usually like to write a full review like this but I need to rant. I hate to see B westerns like this that had good potential but end up being major crap fests. The only reason why this movie even gets one star is because of Scott, Lee Van Cleef in a minor role, and of course Leo Gordon as the badass dynamite-tossing, cigar smoking villain with a green hat. His character should've had a film unto himself.

[Groggy]

I’m curious, Groggy, if you’ve read any of the graphic novels. You didn’t make any comparisons to them, so I’m going to assume you haven’t. (I haven’t either.) I’m curious if the comic itself is more expansive on the political statements you feel come off as “sophomoric” in the Hollywood adaptation. Maybe the original writer made a clearer case against British consumerism, tolerence and apathy. OR maybe the “repressive regime” is just a modern day backdrop for a Quasimodo love story. So the statement might not be a statement at all. Do you see what I mean?

No I haven't, although I'm familiar with the graphic novels through various sources. Moore's original was basically him whining about the evils of Maggie Thatcher. Even if they didn't exhibit the specific content dealt with in the film (I saw very limited Bush-related stuff myself), I don't think I'd find the message his original work any more palatable.

If the message of the films WAS actually American liberals standing up to fascism, I could probably take it. But even if the film was watered-down in comparison to the comics, it still comes across as agitprop for teenage anarchist poseurs. Methinks Mr. Moore doth protest too much.