Raxivace wrote:It helps that Day After Tomorrow feels pretty sincere for the most part, which honestly does make it feel pretty refreshing compared to most modern blockbusters. Helps that time has been fairly kind to its themes too even if not its special effects.
Like Day After Tomorrow may not be an all time great movie or anything but I enjoyed it way more than like, Rise of Skywalker.
Gendo wrote:63. The Rescuers - Beautifully drawn. The backgrounds all looked like paintings. The animation as a whole has an interesting mix between classic early Disney and the Don Bluth trademark style. Some great music as well. The story and characters were very simple, but that was fine; it had just a charming quality to the whole thing.
64. The Rescuers Down Under - It wasn't exactly bad, but it threw out all the charm and quiet dignity of the first film. Still some great scenery, but the animation quality was noticeably worse. George C. Scott was fantastic. The story was the exact same story as the first one.
I think in-and-of-itself this isn't a terrible film, but it's impossible for me not to compare it to the book, and there's just no film adaptation that comes close to capturing the haunting, elusive, mysterious, ineffable nature of that book, and I really think Luhrmann's style is ill-suited for making such an adaptation. OTOH, I think it's easy to argue that he's going for something entirely different than what Fitzgerald was, where Baz plays up the glitz and glamour and kitsch of the superficial persona much more. I just wish he had the depth/substance to make the meaningful stuff stand out more even if by comparison. In the end, it seems like Luhrmann is just having too much fun with all the superficial camp that Fitzgerald was criticizing. Maybe call that difference between a Modernist and Postmodernist, maybe... or maybe I'm just overthinking this.Gendo wrote:39. The Great Gatsby (2013) - Pretty good. I like that it did its own thing and didn't just feel like a remake of the older one. Fun and interesting visuals, of course. I really liked DiCaprio's version of Gatsby; he brought an extra vulnerability that wasn't in Redford's. Really showed a man who was struggling to maintain his facade; unable to keep control. Unlike Redford's Gatsby who always seemed in charge. It still dragged on a bit; had trouble keeping my interest constantly throughout.
Like Raxi I don't like DePalma but Untouchables is probably my favorite film, mostly for the reasons you stated. I think it has just enough of DePalma's camp (that word again) to make the film weird/interesting, but not so much as to where it feels kitschy (that word again) or unbelievable, so that it still works as a fairly straight-forward crime drama.Gendo wrote:42. The Untouchables - Excellent. Great score; interesting story; good suspense. Strong performances all around.
43. Wyatt Earp - The second-best movie staring Kevin Costner as a historical figure that I watched this week. It was ok I guess. Started out good but just kept dragging on. By the end I was happy it was finally over. It also had a good score, and beautiful cinematography. The best thing about it though was Dennis Quaid; he was amazing. Stole every scene he was in. Ultimately the only memorable part of this is going to be Quaid's performance. I've heard Tombstone is a better version of the same thing, so I'll have to check that out.
I don't remember the film much, but I have great memories of reading that book in class in like 4th grade.Gendo wrote:47. James and the Giant Peach - Fine, but I know Henry Selick can do much better. His trademark dark imagery is present throughout, which is good. But the plot left me mostly bored. And I'm a fan of Roald Dahl; I know I read the book as a kid.
Like Rax said, most of Hitch's silents suck, with The Lodger being an exception. Blackmail was good too, though it was also made as a sound version. If you want to watch some great silent films, check out: The Passion of Joan of Arc (on some days, this is my all-time favorite film. It's easy top-5 anyway), Sunrise (FW Murnau), Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein), Metropolis (Fritz Lang), Intolerance (DW Griffith), The General (Buster Keaton), Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin), and The Man With the Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov).Gendo wrote:51. Easy Virtue (1928) - The first of several silent Hitchcock films on my list. Also kind of meh... the story just wasn't that interesting; and silent films are going to probably require a high standard of interesting story in order to keep my attention. I've seen so few silent films at all; so there's something of a "learning curve" in terms of knowing what to expect.
I don't think Jamaica Inn is horrible but it's pretty forgettable. If you want to talk underrated Hitchcock I'd take Sabotage, Spellbound, Foreign Correspondent, or even Under Capricorn.Gendo wrote:53. Jamaica Inn - I thought it was fine, why is this considered to be so bad? Maybe compared to Hitchcock's masterpieces, sure. But I found it to be interesting, with a lot of good characters. It wasn't a master work of suspense or anything, but it held my attention enough to want to see what was going to happen next throughout.
As a kid I actually saw T2 before T1, and I agree that T2 is better, though they're quite different films. T1 is more suspense while T2 is more action. I just think Cameron was better suited to the latter.Gendo wrote:R18. The Terminator - Good, but I don't think it comes close to the greatness of T2. It's an interesting mix between standard 80s stuff and imaginative/creative sci-fi. The characters aren't all that interesting, but the action and dialog is fun.
R19. The Prestige - Great movie; though a bit slow to get going. For the first part I found myself thinking it wasn't as good as I'd remembered, but it gets a lot better by the end. Ultimately I think I still prefer The Illusionist for a 2006 movie about magicians in the late 1800s. Still it does a great job at just showing the depths of obsession; and the twist is a lot of fun; with some very obvious clues given about it that really stand out if you've seen it before.
It will continue to stick with you. It's a great film, though I still wouldn't quite declare it a masterpiece. Still, it's the best of Hitch's silents by a long shot.Gendo wrote:60. The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog - Clever. When it is first revealed that the lodger is innocent, I felt at first like it was just unfair that the film seemed to have gone out of its way to make you think that he was The Avenger, but then I realized that in fact it did no such thing; I as the audience member simply had the same prejudices as the other characters in the movie. And that's just really clever. I still don't know how to judge silent films as a whole, but that aspect definitely sticks with me.
It's a fun little film but it's middling Hitch, with the exception of the long tracking shot that Rax mentioned. For those who don't know:Gendo wrote:73. Young and Innocent - It was fine I guess. Had some weird comedic elements that I didn't expect from Hitchcock. The thriller/mystery aspect didn't seem all that thrilling or mysterious. North by Northwest certainly did that much better.
I remember enjoying that when it came out, though I don't remember much beyond the surprise shooting that happens in the elevator. Such a well edited "shock" moment.Gendo wrote:R27 - The Departed - Hadn't seen this since theaters. Great movie overall. DiCaprio's performance is excellent. And when you've lived in Boston; movies about Boston always hold special meaning.
This one I feel like had a lot of intriguing concepts but didn't quite deliver on its promise. As a whole I did enjoy the movie for what it was; a kind of parable of a couple trapped in a Kafkaesque suburban hell, but in the end left me feeling like something was missing and even the overall grander themes at play seem perhaps a little superficial in their statements. Although from a production standpoint, even if minimalistic it is visually very impressive; especially so in a trippy and bizarre later sequence.
And our two leads, a slightly less twitchy than usual Jesse Eisenberg and the grossly underrated Imogen Poots, do exceptionally well as our lead couple and have a palpable chemistry that injects the movie with some much-needed comedic moments, but as a whole is a mostly dour affair. Feeling more like an overextended Twilight Zone episode it kind of gets lost in what it's trying to say and balancing that with developing an entertaining and compelling mystery. There is a lot on the minds of the world of Vivarium and I do appreciate its attempts to work at multiple levels acting as a sci-fi mystery as well as invoking grander ambitions on dehumanization.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests