Amph What was the last movie you saw?

For two hours, E.T. makes me feel eight years old again. For me, that trumps its artistic merits (of which I think it has many) as well as its shortcomings (of which I think there are few, if any). I fully admit to adding a +1 nostalgia roll to many films from my youth, watching them through rose tinted glasses, but that's not necessary here. It works its magic on me without nostalgia. The latter is merely gravy.

I've tried on at least two occasions to read Ender's Game, but just couldn't gain any emotional purchase with it. The fact that I found the title character extremely irritating surely didn't help. I'm therefore not sure how true they are to the book here, but I found the movie managed to make Ender more relatable and was entertaining while still managing to tell an impactful story. I think it deserved a better fate.

Statham is really the last of a dying breed of action star, carrying that Norris/Van Damme/Seagal torch into the 21st century. And he's reasonably dependable. You go to McDonald's, you know what you're gonna get. Same with a Statham movie. They occasionally rise above, like his Crank series. I'd also throw the first Mechanic in there. But this sequel sorta snuck up on me. I'll be curious to see how it does. There's certainly not been much of its type of fare this summer. It may benefit simply by feeling "fresh", which is ironic.


Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984) - Plot; After being shipwrecked off the coast of Africa, a young aristocratic couple must survive in their harsh new environment. When the wife dies and the husband is killed, their infant son is adopted into a community of apes and raised as one of them. But when, as a young man, he is found by the survivor of a doomed British expedition and learns of his true lineage, he is forced to make a choice between the comforts of a home he's never known and the savage jungles where he was raised.

Tries to rise above the pulp roots of its progenitor and the B-movie muck of its siblings in a way that often parallels that of its fish out of water title character. It's a well made film backed by strong performances and a sincere attempt to tell an interesting and dramatic (at times melodramatic) story. If the victim is fun, then so be it, but you'll forgive me if I have been conditioned to expect at least a *little* action from the Lord of the jungle.

Moving at the speed of cold molasses uphill, it still managed to hold my interest for the bulk of its 2+ hour runtime. - 6.5/10

 

Just got done with "Cabin Fever", the 2002 original by Eli Roth (didn't know they remade it and by the looks of it, it's pretty bad). It has some great visuals and make up, including hair raising gore. It feels like a classic '80s slasher flick though, complete with utterly incompetent adults, laughably poor cops, and cheesy over the top gore and acting. It's really nothing groundbreaking, but if you're looking for a modern spin on all the classic slasher tropes look no further than this flesh eating feast.

 

It Happened One Night. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

Till this weekend, it had escaped my notice that apart from SW fan films, you could find short 2-5 minute contest films on there.

Watched an award-winning couple minute horror called Lights Out.

Discovered a feature-length version was released last Friday, so, weighing up entertainment factor versus spike in lightbulb usage, I watched it tonight.

Christened it, "Jump Scare City" but enjoyed it a lot.

 

Well, no, as my point was "I think The BFG (the book) is aimed squarely at six year olds."

 

The One I Love (2014)

Relationship drama by way of The Twilight Zone. A couple having troubles go on holiday at a guest house suggested by their therapist, but things quickly become weird. Interesting.

 

Ahh, the sadness that 1970's, 1980's Spielberg no longer exists.
I was the right age for the Golden Spielberg Era. Personally I utterly love Close Encounters, despite it making very little sense if you take a step back. I love Spielberg Families. Loving dysfunctional suburbia.

Anyway, ET worked just fine for me.

He was last centuries Pixar.

 

The X-Files I Want To Believe. I enjoyed seeing Mulder and Scully back again however like season 8 and 9, it was an effort to get through. The story was lackluster at best and didn't feel very 'X-Fileish'. It was beautifully shot at night and in the snow though.

 

Got a back log!

Pleasantville I don't like Toby McGuire as an actor. He has the same stupid expression on his face 99% of the time and his tone of voice is always the same unless he's playing upset. This movie doesn't seem to have any internal logic. The "Pleasantville" universe literally consists of two streets, yet somehow every person is capable of having sexual desire and sexual intercourse? I thought they were supposed to be TV characters from a sitcom where couples slept apart in twin beds. Yeah yeah, the influence of Toby and Reese obviously changed things; I just don't see how. And why is sex the big focus? It's great and 1950s television was prudish, but was prudishness the only thing wrong with the sensibilities of the era? (No.) Was it the biggest thing wrong? (No.) They touched on other things. The main thrust (hehehe), though, seemed to be "sex alone makes everything better!" (It was the primary thing that made everyone "colored.") Which, eh, that's lazy. And wtf was with the Don Knotts character? His motivations changed. He didn't seem to have any reason at all for zapping the two kids into a horrible television universe. While it was a pleasant enough movie, one time seeing it all the way through is enough.

Son of Saul Oh God, the camera work gave me a headache. The 4:3 frame and the constantly tight shot and the long takes (looked like editing trickery) made for an unpleasant viewing experience. This being a Holocaust drama, unpleasantness may have been the point. However, it wasn't unpleasant to me in that "oh God the Holocaust was awful" but in that "oh God this movie is exhausting." I didn't know much about this aspect of the genocide and the brief uprising that took place in the camp. And I liked Saul's actor, though as someone who does not venerate corpses I have trouble understanding why he would risk the living and himself for a "proper burial." Apparently some other characters didn't understand either.

Eye in the Sky A bunch of U.S. and British officials and their underlings argue for 90 minutes about whether to carry out a drone strike. The drama is certainly compelling. I like Aaron Paul, Helen Mirren, the dude who said "I'm the captain now," and Alan Rickman in what I assume was his last role. I didn't like the scenario the movie presented, though. It was very much contrived as a "HARD DECISION" and literal ticking time bomb scenario when in reality most drone strikes are just on targeted people regardless of what they're doing at the moment. It presented the whole thing as more morally complicated than it usually is.

Bikes vs. Cars A documentary advocating the increased use of bicycles for commuting and urban planning to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. It makes a convincing argument, though I say this as someone who already doesn't like car culture and is considering using a bike to go to and from work. The documentary interviewed people from many places around the world. There was this one ******* from Los Angeles (yes, shocking) who said that we must make driving prohibitively expensive before doing anything else. Really? Does he not understand why a lot of people commute long-ish distances to work? (Hint: they often can't afford to live closer.) Maybe they should've focused on Sao Paulo exclusively instead of California yuppie morons.

Poverty, Inc. Another documentary. This one criticizes NGOs and charities who create a culture of "dependence" and a cycle of poverty in much of the developing world (focused on Haiti and some sub-Saharan countries). I agree that it's a problem, but I don't care for the proposed "solution." It's looking to solve the problems of global capitalism with more local capitalism. ("Look at this dude with solar-powered street lights!") Which, I mean, it conveniently de-emphasizes the role of the IMF and World Bank in keeping many of these countries in poverty, and the exploitation that they are subject to from multi-national corporations. And why the U.S. and other developed countries server, for example, their agricultural sectors. It also naively-- perhaps dishonestly-- assumes that cutting off the "dependence" culture would somehow reduce the power of dictatorships and reduce corruption in democracies. I would get into it more, but I am tired and debating an entirely different economic philosophy than my own is just more tiring.

Midnight Special ANGEL BOY. Michael Shannon is great as always. I like the low-key style. Maybe it was a bit too low-key, and I think it should have told us a bit more about the nature of the boy-- more than just Dragonball Z power ups and slightly weird-looking architecture.

In the Valley of Elah This looks at the trauma of war from an interesting angle. Tommy Lee Jones' stoic grumpiness works well here and he portrays the character development very well. It took me a while to realize that the detective was Charlize Theron.

 

Granted I haven't seen 'BFG" but Spielberg(especially recent Spielberg) doesn't seem like one who could really successfully master the dark playful side of Dahl. There needs to be a drop of cynicism that Spielberg doesn't have.

 

Trojan Women 1971

Sad Tragedy, I hate to see women suffer and became the victim of war and it never changes throughout the history of mankind. Katherine Hepburn was great at Hecuba. Redgrave was so beautiful and magnificent. Too bad that Helen was nowhere close to pretty.

 

Rocky III (1982) - Plot; After the death of his manager and the loss of his title, boxer Rocky Balboa finds an unlikely ally in his quest to regain the belt in former foe Apollo Creed.

Over the years, it's been easy to laugh off the ever growing and increasingly implausible Rocky series. But then Stallone makes Rocky Balboa, not exactly a classic, but a return to basics filled with genuine pathos that brings the character and his saga satisfyingly full circle. This is followed a full decade later by Creed, an almost beat for beat remake of the original Rocky that sees Stallone play the mentor and give what may be the finest performance of his career. It's a fascinating franchise that acts both as a mirror of the times in which they were made and of the soul of its star. Stallone is, for all intents and purposes, Rocky Balboa. The original film essentially ports Stallone's own Hollywood struggles into the ring. The sequel shows how Rocky, and by extension Stallone, dealt with the swift and meteoric rise to fame. This third film too mirrors Stallone's life, as Rocky struggles with maintaining his edge after achieving his dreams. It also is a reflection of its era, replacing the gritty look and tone of its 70s-based predecessors with a slicker, faster approach befitting the dawn of the 80s.

As a sequel, Rocky III works reasonably well, taking the next logical step in a story that very well might have been better served stopping after one film. If the basic framework is the same (challenge, train, fight, win), the character motivations are different enough for it to be interesting. Stallone realizes the story, while serviceable, is somewhat thin, and therefore trims about a half hour from the runtime compared to its predecessors. If there's no meat on its bones, there's also precious little fat. Stallone's Rocky feels very different than the one we meet in the original. He's smarter, more sophisticated. A product of his success? Maybe, but it's a jarring evolution until you get used to it. Adrian is now more or less Rocky's lucky rabbit's foot, reduced to cheerleader, which is a shame, but also an organic part of the series' evolution. The real stars here are Carl Weathers as Apollo, now stepping in as Rocky's trainer, and Mr. T as the villain, Clubber Lang. Weathers feels very much like the Apollo we know, but we get to scratch a bit beneath the surface. He's a charming, energetic breath of fresh air when he arrives in the film's second half. Unlike Apollo in the first two films, Clubber Lang is a true villain cut from a very one dimensional mold. Despite this, Mr. T manages to make for a compelling and daunting baddie and lifts the entire film.

Rocky III isn't a particularly good film, but thanks in no small part to the good will we feel for the titular character because of the previous two films, it does hold together just enough dramatically to allow its slicker, 80s-tinged elements, to deliver a moderate crowd pleaser. - 6/10

- I first saw Rocky III at the theater in '82 when I was 8. Afterward, my friends and I came home and boxed one another. I fared pretty well for the youngest and skinniest of the bunch, though I did lose an already loose baby tooth.

- It's hard to think of Rocky III and not hear Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger" in your head, and I have to admit that all these years later it still does work its magic, and I followed the viewing of the film with my best workout in months.

 

Blue Velvet. With the exception of Eraserhead and The Elephant Man, I'm not really a fan of David Lynch's film, but I liked this one a lot.

 

I haven't seen The BFG so I can't really comment, but this did cross my mind also.

 

Carl Weathers was so the sexy in that movie.

Look at that half shirt, and those shorts.



Mmm, look at that...stache.


Again, the half shirt, the shorts, and the high socks. The 80s had the best workout fashion.




It's okay that there is no tomorrow, Apollo. After seeing you run on that beach, I can die happy.


I love those beach scenes; not just for the beautiful, sexy bromance, but for showing Carl Weathers' graceful, superb running form, which he has to keep in low gear to let Sly win. It really shows that Carl was the superior athlete...and that Sly's running was hardly better than Seagal's.






One more to melt the heart.




*clears throat*

So in sync.

I just remembered what happened in Rocky 4 and it still breaks the heart.

 

CT-867-5309, one of the things I pondered while watching the movie was "Why didn't Weathers go on to have a solid, B-movie action star career of his own?". He certainly had the charisma and chops to do so. He should've spent the 80s and 90s pumping out Action Jackson (an entertaining actioner that tripled its budget at the box office) style movies right alongside his curiously more successful and prolific brethren (no offense to someone like Lundgren, but he has the charisma of a cold French fry). He's even since shown a solid comedic touch that would've allowed him to branch out and diversify. Real shame, actually.

QFT. Sly runs with all the grace of a frightened donkey.

 

When I was a kid, I honestly put Weathers up there with Sly and Arnold. I thought he was that great.

I honestly believe he deserves the Academy Award for All Time Best Supporting Actor based on Apollo and Dillon from Predator. It's a long overdue honor.

It should not be forgotten that he's one half of the greatest handshake in history.

Though maybe not a full half. I'm thinking Arnold's half is bigger.

I've heard strange things about him, though. Apparently he's some kind of weird. Maybe that hurt his ability to get work.

Sly's running style is naturally an extension of his try hard motto. He flexes and grits, fists clenched, head bobbing, arms pulling as if he was trying to swim forward through the air, just way too much effort and movement; he does literally everything wrong, and it all looks as if he had a stroke and is trying to pull his paralyzed body along.

 

I certainly think he had the potential to be. Looks, physique, charisma, acting chops. He had the total package. But Arnie and Sly cast large shadows, and then in the 90s the genre shifted toward martial arts guys. And as you said, maybe he's a case behind the scenes. But then I think about Steven Seagal and...

I'm a bit surprised that handshake didn't cause a second Big Bang.

Lol! And that's what I've always admired about Stallone, and Arnie for that matter. They almost always give %100, no matter what.

 

*double post* likely due to the reverberations from the Arnie/Weathers handshake.

 

Captain Ron, I hadn't seen the movie in years. Still funny as hell, wasn't expecting it to hold up but it did.

 

he's been hanging out at burger king, living on their bottomless sodas.

 

I believe, however, that the weird malapropisms that the BFG speaks in are directly from the book. And I found those super-annoying. But some of the other stuff is probably Spielberg's fault. And Rylance does it no favors. I haven't read the book, so I can't really speak to it. Dahl's a beloved figure, for sure, but one I never really got into that much. I'm not particularly a fan of the Chocolate Factory, neither book nor movies.

It's spelled "Daniel Day-Lewis."

Seriously though, Lincoln probably has the best lead performance of any Spielberg film. But the writing isn't exactly on point. It's a really good movie, but I definitely rank Bridge of Spies above it: more methodical, more minimal, more atmospheric, better score, much more visually striking. Lincoln, for better and worse, is entirely predicated on that lead performance and it does pull the film off balance. Contrast with Hanks' performance in Bridge of Spies: very good, surprisingly minimal, fits into the film like what it is, one of the many beautiful puzzle pieces that makes up the film as a whole. There's nothing in Bridge of Spies like Day-Lewis' performance in Lincoln certainly, but taken as wholes, I'd say Bridge is a fair bit superior to Lincoln.

Pleasantville is a weird movie. It has a good premise, kind of, but it really falls apart in execution. I think I basically agree with everything you said, except I think Maguire is better in general than you do. He's pretty bad here though, sure. The film tries to broaden its focus from the sexual. Reese gets color when she learns to love to read, for instance, but that is literally the dumbest thing ever, so no points. But the sex is definitely where the heart of the movie is. I believe a woman makes a tree burst into flame with the power of her orgasm at one point, which is not as magical as the movie hopes and actually pretty hilarious in a stupid way. Made me feel inadequate, I know that. I do really like Newman's score. It's overblown of necessity, but I like the fact that it manages to be both genuinely beautiful and winkingly satirical at the same time. Newman's good at that. There are definitely bits of the score where he's very slyly undercutting the dead earnestness of everything else about the movie and I liked that. He's the only one here that sees that the film is a bit too serious about itself.

As to Son of Saul, it's a movie that I really found brilliant. I hesitate to say that I "loved" it, obviously, but I think it's a masterpiece. It actually found a way to tell a Holocaust story in a different way and from a different perspective and that alone is super-impressive. I do think that movie wants to be physically unpleasant. I found plenty of "God, the Holocaust" gut punches (the scene of all the prisoners' luggage being unloaded was oddly devastating to me), but I think the film is less interested in the large philosophical statements of most Holocaust movies - it's kind of more about just replicating the moment to moment hellishness of that existence. That lengthy sequence when the huge load of prisoners arrives in the middle of the night is obviously calibrated to make the viewer physically sick, I think. I saw the movie in a theater, which I'd imagine is more visceral than seeing it at home, and that sequence was so upsetting to me that I ended up covering my ears and putting my head way down. That bit is kind of cinema as pure experience in a way I've rarely encountered. It isn't really an exploration of the morality of the Holocaust ultimately; but it's the most harrowing movie I've ever seen about the Holocaust.

I think you're right about the ambiguity of the main character's motives though. When the movie starts and his quest starts, I kind of felt like, "Okay, I get it, he's trying to reclaim an inch of humanity here and this is admirable" but the longer the film goes the more frustrating it gets. I think that's probably the arc the filmmakers intended, though I could be wrong. He ultimately comes off as pretty pathetic. That lead performance though . . . it's great, as you say. Did you know he's not a professional actor? He's a writer - this was his first movie as an actor. That's kind of incredible to me.