Amph What was the last movie you saw?

A Better Tomorrow (1986) - Very good. Can see why Ti Lung won the award(s) he did for this, but after viewing this and its inferior sequel, I wish Ti Lung would have appeared in Hard Boiled instead.

A Better Tomorrow II (1987) I have definite triad film fatigue and am stepping away now that my review duties have finished. The first film was much better.

City War (1987) Liked it better the second time around, but that's because Ti Lung is so damn good. His performance here may not be as subtle as it was in A Better Tomorrow, but it's just as good.

 

I indulged in my third showing of 'The Force Awakens' my opinion hasn't changed much. It's got it's problems and the third Death Star climax annoys me but man does it get so much right. It has moments on par with the original trilogy. The prequels had none

 

Oh come on now. She's great in the OT.

I do like her being a general. And it's not too clumsy the way they do it. Setting her up as sort of the goal of the film ("We've got to get this map to the General etc.") feels fine. But I mean, you mention her scene with Han and that she hugs Rey. And that's kind of all you can mention because that's all she does really. Have one scene with Han and hug Rey a couple of times. You'd think there'd have been more there.

 

The thing that got me was Abrams wasn't smart enough to have Leia and Chewie console each other after what happened to Han...

 

Blazing Saddles. A very Mel Brooks mix of incredibly hokey, verging on lazy gags and inspired parodic lunacy. But the lunacy wins. There are a ton of great jokes, and the third act especially is packed with them. Both hilarious and utterly cutting.

 

'The Producers, 'Blazing Saddles' and 'Young Frankenstein'. It's insane to think a director had a run of that many iconic films that completely redefined a genre.

 

Did you happen to see it as part of a classic series at the theater? A local theater here ran it a couple of times. I skipped it as it's really one I don't feel the need to see again. Young Frankenstein never gets old, but Blazing Saddles is kind of one and done in my opinion.

 

I may be slightly biased as I own a big ol' box o' Brooks but I absolutely think Blazing Saddles deserves to be watched at least a couple of times. There's just a lot of really good material there, and it's still a depressingly relevant film, comedy or otherwise.

Silent Film is also really solid, albeit not as iconic. I think his most underrated movie may very well be The Twelve Chairs, as that one grows on me with time and revisiting. There's just something about it - possibly the distinctly Russian pessimism that permeates the whole thing. High Anxiety has some high points if you've watched too much Hitchcock, History of the World does some decent sword and sandal parody... crap, it's me, I'm the Mel Brooks apologist.

 

I'm definitely an unapologetic High Anxiety apologist if that's what it takes to love that movie.

 

Yeah, my megaplex is running the TCM classic film series Jan-Feb. Blade Runner, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Blazing Saddles, To Catch a Thief, Sixteen Candles or Pretty in Pink or one of those movies, they're all the same, and The Maltese Falcon. I sprang for it because I hadn't seen it yet, and will do the same for To Catch a Thief. The only one I've seen and still went to was Blade Runner because it had been forever and it's a big-screen kind of movie. The Maltese Falcon might tempt me, though, out of sheer love for the film. And how many times do you get to see a film from the forties on the big screen?

 

Yeah, that's the exact one my theater's running too. I went to see Blade Runner as well and Sierra Madre (which, by the way, was so much better than I remembered it being; and I remembered it being darn good; it's kind of a perfect movie). I haven't seen To Catch a Thief or Pretty in Pink, so I'll probably hit those up. Hell, I'll probably see Falcon too. Like you say, it's just cool to see those classics on the big screen.

 

Yeah, seeing Raiders on the big screen was the best theatergoing experience I've ever had. So we'll see.

 

There was more depth there than the average EU depiction of Leia. A **** load more. Focussing any more on the OT stars just wouldn't have been a wise move... Han got a bigger share of the limelight, understandably (unless JJ turns SW into Lost and we get flashbacks to compliment with Rey's flashforward, he's probably not going to be in the next one).

Anyway, the movie knew what to do with Leia; she's the new Dodonna/Ackbar/Mothma - but one that we care about, with deep connections to other key characters who we care about. That might not be what you wanted or expected, but it's not as if she's just been tacked on as an afterthought. C3PO and R2D2 really do feel that way, though. I agree with you about that whole map business. Computer game logic, a damned stupid contrivance.

 

Just finished watching that for the umpteenth time on one of the Sky Movie channels. One of my favorite films..

 

John Wick


Simply put, I love this film.

While the trailer gives it a simplistic synopsis of the film, which is dead on, it doesn't provide the richness and larger world that's contain within it.

The film has a good sense of humor, some little twists and a bunch of "what the ...?!" moments. John Wick has a wonderful pace to it, and there was really any dead moments where my mind starts to drift and the character development of the title character is done through subtle and not so subtle reactions to hearing the name John Wick and what was done to him. To me, it had the hardcore Western/Kung fu theater feel to it as well.

I think there's a high level of the rewatchability and fun factor for this flick.

Thumbs up.

 

They stole his ******* car, and they killed his ******* dog. Now they're going to pay.

Who are they, you ask?

 

Primer. Best time travel movie ever made on a $7,000 budget.

 

Does your theatre do it more than once a month?

 

It's the Cinemark around here that does it; they'll have a classic almost every week. They'll show it twice on Sunday and twice on Wednesday, so limited opportunity to actually attend. They'll start a "series" every couple of months. They'll take a week off here and there, but they show a lot.


Blade Runner (1982) – Ridley Scott



It’s a shame she won’t live. Then again, who does?

Blade Runner came out the year I was born, just like Thriller. It’s kind of humbling. I mean, I still look and feel pretty young, but of the two of us, Blade Runner has aged better. It’s only gotten better, I should say. Got a chance to see the Director’s Cut on the big screen and jumped at the chance. It’s just a magnificent movie, misunderstood in its own time, still only vaguely understood in our time. It’s right up there with Ridley Scott’s absolute best, a truly visionary film that merges and melds influences until it becomes its own beautiful masterpiece. The visuals are astounding, the color palette and cinematography creating a moody, atmospheric film and the special effects look better today than they did in 1982, I think. The cast is nothing short of wonderful. M. Emmett Walsh is great in a small supporting part. Sean Young is career best as the enigmatic Rachel. Daryl Hannah gives nothing less than a star-making performance as Pris; she’s magnetic, sexy and, in that final scene with her pale skin, chopped hair and black line across her eyes, truly terrifying. But good as everyone else is, this film comes down to Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer. Hauer is career best, in my opinion, as the passionate, psychopathic replicant Roy Batty; he’s chilling, strange, sympathetic, brilliant. And Ford gives one of his best performances here as the emotionally closed Deckard. It’s a minimal performance, almost entirely free of Ford’s standard array of mannerisms and the easy charm that they communicate. He’s at his best when he’s being still, just listening and thinking; in the scene where he watches Batty die, he does almost nothing but those things, but you feel the weight of everything weighing on his shoulders. It’s easily his least sympathetic character; he would later play an actual murderer that we would watch casually leave his wife to die, but that guy was charming in his own sick way. Rick Deckard is dangerous, too good at killing to be anything but frightening, not charming in the least.

Having discussed the quality of the film, I suppose it falls to discussing the meaning of the film, but it’s been turned over and over so many times that it’s probably tiresome to go into it again. Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant; I disagree strongly. One of the themes of the movie, I think, is the dichotomy of Batty and Deckard in the realm of their emotional lives. Batty is a robot, entirely fabricated, but he lives a rich life of extreme emotions; we see him rage and weep and threaten. Deckard is the human, with a real soul, but his existence is dull, empty, emotionally dead. Even when he attacks Rachel, in one of the most disturbing scenes in the film, his emotion is anger; it’s a devastating scene, a disturbing exploration of sexual power dynamics, dominance, submission, rape and predation. It’s the false human that has the real soul; the real human feels almost nothing. That loses all of its power if Deckard is himself a replicant. Anyway, it’s an astounding film. Nearly every scene is brilliant. Gorgeous direction, great performances, a smart, minimal script; the film hits every beat just right. It’s slow, moody, intense, but gorgeous. And, oh, yes, I had forgotten; what an amazing score. But the film is just jam packed with meaning; it’s a deep, deep movie and I was heartened to hear people actively discussing the movie as I left the theater. Over thirty years on, it’s still making people talk. And making them wonder. 4 stars.

tl;dr – sci-fi/noir/arthouse movie remains perfect, a thought-provoking, emotionally resonant masterpiece; performances, direction, music and script of near unparalleled excellence. 4 stars.

More Movie Reviews!

 

Hail, Caesar! Definitely not in the upper echelon of the Coen brothers' work, but still an enjoyable flick with a few standout scenes. And with such a great cast, I was surprised that Alden Ehrenreich was the one who ended up stealing the show.

 

Thief. Michael Mann's debut film, it's easy to sum up conventionally -- James Caan plays a diamond thief who wants to retire on a big score. But Mann's touch makes it feel unique. It's gorgeous -- great shots, incredible lighting, tremendous style. Caan is excellent as a man scarred by growing up in prison -- from twenty to thirty-one, he lived in prison, and as a result he's hardened, indifferent to risk, a brutal man who takes what he wants and refuses to live on anyone's terms but his own. But he also retains a rather childlike desire to have the picture-perfect life he wants -- to go straight, get married, raise kids, get rich, buy a nice house in the suburbs. Sometimes these things collide -- as when he kidnaps Tuesday Weld in order to convince her that she should sign up for his ideal-life program, or his hilariously out-of-place behavior in an adoption office when he realizes that as a convicted felon (and with Weld sterile), he'll never be able to have a kid. The film does a great job conveying the menace of the criminal underworld, its constant danger, and also the professionalism of its criminals, the well-oiled machine of crime, the organized men using industrial tools to crack vaults. It's a keen, perceptive film, intelligent, artfully shot, and with tons of heist-movie momentum. One of the best crime thrillers I've seen.

 

That is an astounding figure, but it certainly doesn't show in the production values. And in many ways it works to its advantage, forcing a tight focus that's free of excesses. It's a movie where you have to pay very close attention, and it most certainly demands a re-watch.

Everest (2015) - Everest is, if nothing else, a technically impressive film, and like the mountain it's named after, it's a wonder to behold visually. And in this day and age of CGI, I'm sure there are cheats, but they're exceptionally well hidden. The characters were there, knee deep in real snow, and that pays dividends when things go to Hell.

For the most part it eschews adding dramatic spice in an effort to give it some "flavor" (There aren't any Celine Dion ballads here), preferring a more nuts and bolts narrative of the real life disaster in the docudrama style. The first hour or so is a little slow going, but the payoff comes in the final hour, when the time spent with these people makes you care when disaster strikes. It's not that we get to know the characters very well, but the very strong cast help to lift the material and make their characters and their dire circumstances seem real.

Everest isn't quite the film it aspires to be, but it's an ascent worth taking. - 7/10

 

Carol (2015) – Todd Haynes



I love her.

I can’t help you with that.

Carol features two of our finest working actresses. If a gun was put to my head, I’d pick Cate Blanchett as our greatest working actress; Rooney Mara is certainly one of the two or three best actresses in their thirties. The chance to see them working together is too good to pass up. This tale of a lesbian love affair is sensitively and beautifully directed by Todd Haynes. He captures a dreamy, moody atmosphere; this is one of the most visually beautiful movies of 2015 certainly and it’s a movie you drift through. The narrative is as simple as they come; there’s no propulsion to the plot or to the pace. This isn’t an insult; it allows Haynes to stretch out and let the film drift by like clouds in the sky. It’s a luminous, poetic, gorgeous film. Kyle Chandler is excellent as Carol’s husband; I’ve seen him called the villain, but the script is too nuanced for such terms. He’s a real human being and not an evil one or a bad one, just a man struggling with a situation he could never have even imagined. Sarah Paulson continues a run of brilliant supporting turns as one of Carol’s ex-lovers. The film and the performances are all very minimal; this isn’t a film about histrionics or melodrama. It’s a film about those moments that are somehow more intense because they’re so quiet. It’s a film about the wordless looks and the minutiae of body language. And a word for Carter Burwell’s beautiful score, minimal and piano based. There isn’t a whole lot to say about the film; it’s a simple story simply told, but the emotion is all the more powerful for the repression. For all the controversy over the lesbian content, this one’s a good, old-fashioned character drama, the kind people say they don’t make anymore. 4 stars.

tl;dr – perfect performances and sensitive direction make this love story a beautiful, dreamy masterpiece. 4 stars.

More Movie Reviews!

 

The Finest Hours. Great Chris Pine shipwreck drama. If you liked The Perfect Storm, you'll enjoy The Finest Hours.

 

The Monkey King 2 (2016) I've never read the four classics of Chinese literature so this adaptation of a portion of a Journey to the West is kind of lost on me. Aaron Kwok's title character is the sidekick to the gentle monk Golden Cicada (Him Lee) who is charged by Buddha to retrieve the scriptures from the West. They are thwarted by the Maleficent-like White Bone Spirit (Gong Li, whom these people utterly love.. the woman is quite beautiful and she's a good actress but this was kind of funny in how much they lingered on her)...

Anyway the path to enlightenment naturally means suffering, but we didn't see too much of that outside of GC getting upset whenever the Monkey King killed demons. There's a couple of fun characters, the gluttonous pig demon and a vampire-like Prince / Emperor whom I felt was a more interesting villain than Gon Li's White Bone Spirit. The over reliance on CGI and the one dimensional aspect of the title character were disappointing. Ditto the lack of much fighting (choreographed by Sammo Hung no less.) I understand that a film whose themes about enlightenment and judgment won't be the usual wuxia flying beings smackdown (although this was at times), but I wished I would have enjoyed it a lot more than I did. It was fun being surrounded by a largely Asian audience who know these characters and the story quite well. They seemed to enjoy it.

It wasn't bad and I was glad I saw it, but for me, when I want wuxias I'll stick with Shaw Brothers 1970s - 80s output.