What have you watched recently?

The Mad Hatter

A Tale of Two Sisters, a Korean horror film. This film took the Asian approach of spending long periods creating a tense atmosphere through quiet moments and occasional fights amongst the family it centres around, and "boo-agh!" moments are rare but well-placed. The film is well-paced; slow-burning and moody, and the cinematography gives us a beautiful sunny domestic environment but always makes it seem claustrophobic or voyeuristic. The house seems to be watching us as much as we are watching it.

Sadly the plot is not up to the standard of the rest of the film, resting on a couple of fairly predictable twists in the tail (though the final one is jolting and far less predictable). It's nonetheless a well-executed horror film, emphasising mood over everything else, and in that way at least it's a success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anF5XiN8QY8

BopNiblets

The Social Network, it was ok, I'm noton facebook or anything.
Is it just me or is Jesse Eisenberg always po-faced and talks really fast in everything?

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Despite all this, De Palma's camerawork as always is fantastic. The way he moves it, the way he frames shots. It's just unfortunate that he so bad at everything else. Film students could learn a lot about the technicalities of filmmaking from him, just keep the film on mute.

I did a filmmaking course and he was used as an example of how not to frame a shot, the guy teaching us used The Untouchables and tore a scene to shreds, and looking at it again everything he said was right, just little things that dont make sense when viewed from a technical standpoint.

Mackman

Watched the A-Team on Blue-Ray last night. I really enjoyed it. Ripping good fun, it didnt try to be anything other than an over the top action flick. The only thing i didnt like, was jessica Beil. My god she was terrible. I was cringing when she was trying to be threatening.

Still enjoyed the movie immensly though

I have Kick-Ass to watch sometime this week too. Ive heard good things

johnny_ultimate

World's Greatest Dad - ah, a bit of biting black comedy hits the spot sometimes Not a classic by any stretch, but in a world where comedy is currently dominated by an increasingly predictable 'frat pack' (or so I believe they have been dubbed) this was a pleasant surprise. Robin Williams is surprisingly decent, a single father frustrated but determined to try and connect with his son. Said son is by all accounts an asshole: a sexist, cruel, angsty teen who spends most of his time whacking off. Best not to spoil what happens, but it takes a blackly comic twist at the half hour mark. Well worth a viewing: Ebert argues it could have been more biting, but I liked it as a comedy willing to explore darker and I'd argue ultimately funnier and more rewarding territory. Some genuine moments of tenderness too.

The Hole - Joe Dante's back, determined to scare the **** out of children of all ages. While I thought a visibly low budget held it back somewhat, it's still a fine piece of family entertainment. 'Family' is a stretch though, and definitely not for younger kids. This is a sort of horror film for all ages. For us over the age of thirteen (ironically, The Hole has received a fifteens rating despite it clearly being aimed at a younger audience in some respects :pac:) it's horror-lite, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there's some inventive effects work and creepy moments (man, that clown puppet is strange). It'll probably scare the bejesus out of younger kids, and Dante plumbs some refreshingly dark psychological territory for a family adventure. Reminded me of Monster House, and Dante's own classics: kids sometimes need a good scaring, and the Hole never goes too far. Not as iconic as Gremlins, but a far worthier film than most of what passes for family entertainment these days.

ziedth

I caught the new Sacntum Last night, I thought it was truly awful. I think after 15 min I could pretty much play out the rest of the film nearly up to the order the characters died in.

Special effects was good though and the 3D gave it a kinda gritty close feel.

A poor 1.5/5 for me.

Tony EH

Carl Sagan wrote: »

That's what I'm planning on watching next. Don't know anything about it but hear it's better than Inception.

You can move onto 'Memento' next.

Basq

Tony EH wrote: »

You can move onto 'Memento' next.

'Insomnia' was on TV last night too..

.. always thought people were far too harsh on 'Insomnia'. Think it's a cracking film!

bnt

krudler wrote: »

Why? the Jackass movies with a huge crowd are some of the most enjoyable cinema visits I've ever had, everyone laughing, wincing and being grossed out together, its one of those rare times where you dont mind people talking during a movie as everyones having a blast watching it.

I believe you, but I'm on a budget! Student membership at the IFI is already pushing it ...

Yesterday I watched The High and the Mighty (1956), which was possibly the first in the "airplane disaster movie" genre - about a DC-4 in danger on the long haul from Hawaii to San Francisco. This film was "lost" for years, and while it's not John Wayne's greatest work, it doesn't matter since it's an ensemble piece with a strong all-round cast. It was surprisingly gripping, and makes you realise how much luxury we enjoy in aviation today. 12-hour flight, unpressurised cabin, and tossing your baggage out the back door to save weight, just to eke out a few extra miles in the air.

Wayne plays the co-pilot with a chequered past, who gets to slap the pilot (Robert Stack) about the head to bring him back to his senses. (A cliché now, and this is where it came from!) However, the passengers are the real stars: they all have their back stories, and in the long hours waiting to find out whether they'll live or not we see how they cope: some with humour, some with hysterics, some with stoicism and some with violence. The tension was very real - having to ditch a plane in the stormy Pacific is something to avoid today, but was a really bad option back in the early days of commercial aviation.

Sad Professor

krudler wrote: »

I did a filmmaking course and he was used as an example of how not to frame a shot, the guy teaching us used The Untouchables and tore a scene to shreds, and looking at it again everything he said was right, just little things that dont make sense when viewed from a technical standpoint.

It's a while since I've watched The Untouchables, but De Palma is notorious for hanging stuff off the side of the frame and emphasising the sets/consumes over the characters. But that's just part of what makes his compositions so interesting. You really get a sense of the surrounding space in his films. His camerawork is definitely not classical and sometimes he is deliberately trying to disorientate the audience. Having said that, some of his camera tricks don't work.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's a while since I've watched The Untouchables, but De Palma is notorious for hanging stuff off the side of the frame and emphasising the sets/consumes over the characters. But that's just part of what makes his compositions so interesting. You really get a sense of the surrounding space in his films. His camerawork is definitely not classical and sometimes he is deliberately trying to disorientate the audience. Having said that, some of his camera tricks don't work.

Actually I brought up the idea of space outside the frame in that same class, M Night Shyamalananananan is the worst for it, theres so many shots in his movies where something scary is out of frame, therefore the character isnt aware of it, now i dunno about anyone else but I'd bloody well notice if a giant cloaked creature was standing 5 feet away from me, but because we the audience cant see it, neither can the character, it makes zero sense.

VW 1

Saw The Fighter at the weekend, really impressed by Bale's performance he absolutely stole the show as Dickie. Thought Wahlberg put in a very good performance as well.

Also watched Goodfellas last night, one of my all time favourites it really is a true classic.

krudler

VW 1 wrote: »

Saw The Fighter at the weekend, really impressed by Bale's performance he absolutely stole the show as Dickie. Thought Wahlberg put in a very good performance as well.

Also watched Goodfellas last night, one of my all time favourites it really is a true classic.

it kinda sucks that Wahlberg didnt get nominated for an Oscar, he has a far less "showy" performance than Bale but hes the anchor of the movie.

VW 1

krudler wrote: »

it kinda sucks that Wahlberg didnt get nominated for an Oscar, he has a far less "showy" performance than Bale but hes the anchor of the movie.

I would agree with you there, it seems the consensus on Wahlberg is that he is quite a wooden actor in general but I felt in this rather than the quirky and interesting character that Bale plays, Wahlberg conveys the mental battle which Ward went through over his family/girlfriend/boxing career in a fantastically subtle manner and although easy to overlook I really thought he was fantastic.

But having said that I may be quite biased anyway because I really like Wahlberg as an actor.

Jax Teller

Watched due date last night , Wasn't as funny as I expected .

Josey Wales

I watched Enchanted last night. I watched it because I saw Amy Adams in The Fighter at the weekend and was very impressed with her. I've had Enchanted here for a couple of years but didn't watch it because it looked like a kids film.

It was but it was very clever and actually very funny.

Cookie33

Just watched Red.. Was a decent movie, doubt i'll watch it again but it is quite funny especially with John Malkovich and Helen Mirren

Professional Griefer

3 movies tonight, just finished watching the fighter, decent movie, enjoyed it.
Run b*tch run. Terrible movie, god damn, found the trailer yesterday on YT, and thought it was gonna be good, waste of time.
The Castle, brilliant movie, 'tell 'im hes dreamin' '

johnny_ultimate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sc-wRT3JlQ

Watched Kwaidan last night, a stunningly beautiful 1964 Japanese collection of four 'ghost' / 'supernatural' tales. Directed by Masaki Kobayashi, it's a long three hours with an extremely somber pace. But the images on screen are hypnotic. It reminded me of two Kurosawa films: Kagemushua with its extraordinary hand painted backdrops, and Dreams with the supernatural themes and focus on separate narratives. Of course, this also predates said films by a few decades, making it all the more impressive. It's the sort of sedate, haunting and poetic film only the Japanese masters could ever achieve, and a truly extraordinary achievement that has barely aged a day.

Tony EH

'JFK'

Oliver Stone's epic take on Jim Garrison's attempt to prosecute a member of the CIA (Clay Shaw) accused of being embroiled in a plot to assassinate John F. kennedy is a long and winding road. In fact, it's 3 hours and 25 minutes of a long and winding road, but it never fails to entertain. Propped up by a great cast (excluding Costner) and supported by a brilliant, but unintrusive score by the legendary John Williams, it never seems it's length.

Even though I remain in two minds about movies that mix historical fact with fictionalised elements, 'JFK' still remains a powerful film, because of the way it's handled and the seriousness with which the cast take the project. There are a few faltering moments, mostly from Costner who does his best, but just isn't that good an actor. But the film also includes fantastic appearences from John Candy (Dean Andrews), Tommy Lee Jones (Clay Bertrand/Shaw), Donald Sutherland (X/Fletcher Prouty) and an excellent Gary Oldman (Lee Harvey Oswald). Candy's and Oldman's takes on Andrews and Oswald are worth the running time alone.

Make of Stone what you will and frankly he came in for some absolutely ridiculous slander from certain quarters when the film was released in 1991, but 'JFK' remains a very solid film, with some outstanding scenes, including the showing of the Zapruder film in court and Garisson's conversation with Prouty in Washington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwfI93JFyUY

Plazaman

Watched "The Town" (asking myself what possibly reason would Nicolas Cage be doing in Mayo - different Charlestown though). As a previous poster said, nothing too original in the plot but I enjoy heist films of all sorts and thought this was well done and the originality did come in the form of a getaway (say no more).

Also watched The Lovely Bones, unfortunatley I was sober and didn't care for it really. Although Stanley Tucci (who I like as an actor) was suitably creepy and it's noce to see actors who are usually sterotyped in films play something different (point in hand Robin Williams who I can't stand in his photocopy comedy roles - I loved him in Insomnia)

ShiverinEskimo

Plazaman wrote: »

Watched "The Town" (asking myself what possibly reason would Nicolas Cage be doing in Mayo - different Charlestown though).

crazygeryy

Plazaman wrote: »

Watched "The Town" (asking myself what possibly reason would Nicolas Cage be doing in Mayo - different Charlestown though). As a previous poster said, nothing too original in the plot but I enjoy heist films of all sorts and thought this was well done and the originality did come in the form of a getaway (say no more).

what has nicolas cage got to do with the town?

crazygeryy

saw TANGLED its a very good kids movie and not bad for an adult either but way to much singing in it for my liking.

saw THE RESIDENT.been done before .dont bother unless you want to see hillary swanks nice body.

and i saw DUE DATE.what a load of crap.get planes trains and automobiles instead and do yourself a favour

krudler

Tony EH wrote: »

'JFK'

Oliver Stone's epic take on Jim Garrison's attempt to prosecute a member of the CIA (Clay Shaw) accused of being embroiled in a plot to assassinate John F. kennedy is a long and winding road. In fact, it's 3 hours and 25 minutes of a long and winding road, but it never fails to entertain. Propped up by a great cast (excluding Costner) and supported by a brilliant, but unintrusive score by the legendary John Williams, it never seems it's length.

Even though I remain in two minds about movies that mix historical fact with fictionalised elements, 'JFK' still remains a powerful film, because of the way it's handled and the seriousness with which the cast take the project. There are a few faltering moments, mostly from Costner who does his best, but just isn't that good an actor. But the film also includes fantastic appearences from John Candy (Dean Andrews), Tommy Lee Jones (Clay Bertrand/Shaw), Donald Sutherland (X/Fletcher Prouty) and an excellent Gary Oldman (Lee Harvey Oswald). Candy's and Oldman's takes on Andrews and Oswald are worth the running time alone.

Make of Stone what you will and frankly he came in for some absolutely ridiculous slander from certain quarters when the film was released in 1991, but 'JFK' remains a very solid film, with some outstanding scenes, including the showing of the Zapruder film in court and Garisson's conversation with Prouty in Washington.

I love JFK, its a long, draining watch but worth it. I think Costner is great in it though, his near 20 minute monologue at the end is amazing, and its still to this day a masterclass in film editing, it might actually be the most well edited movie ever tbh. Its a labryrinth of fact and fiction but never strays into the "htis is what really happened" phase as it often replays scenes from different perspectives showing different versions of the events.

Best scene by far is Costner and Sutherland meeting in Washington, Sutherland could read the phone book and make it sound interesting.

The Mad Hatter

Watchmen.

This was always a bit of a risk for me, as I've read the original book dozens of times, but I'm of the opinion that adaptation should be free enough to make large changes in order to make a good film, regardless of the quality of the source material. I'd heard that the script followed the graphic novel extremely closely, and from interviews I'd read with Snyder (as well as watching 300), I had almost zero expectation of intellectual engagement from the film. I got pretty much what I expected: a visually interesting superhero movie. The script, thankfully, stuck close enough to the original that it was almost impossible to make a genuinely bad film out of it, but that's not for want of director Zack "wouldn't-it-be-cooler-if-we-broke-his-arm-in-half?" Snyder trying. The characters, their struggles and their psychologies are more or less preserved from the book, but the film doesn't allow as much depth of exploration, and likewise almost all of the amazing structural devices from the book are lost and not replaced.

The soundtrack should be singled out for criticism for its remarkable lack of self-awareness as it stumbled into cliché after cliché of sourced music, the worst example of which was Flight of the Valkyrie over the Vietnam scene. The music supervisor could almost be forgiven for this due to the excellent choice of Philip Glass playing over the scene on Mars, which was the best scene in the film - almost, but not quite.

Overall, not a bad film, but certainly not a good one.

Tony EH

krudler wrote: »

I love JFK, its a long, draining watch but worth it. I think Costner is great in it though, his near 20 minute monologue at the end is amazing, and its still to this day a masterclass in film editing, it might actually be the most well edited movie ever tbh. Its a labryrinth of fact and fiction but never strays into the "this is what really happened" phase as it often replays scenes from different perspectives showing different versions of the events.

Best scene by far is Costner and Sutherland meeting in Washington, Sutherland could read the phone book and make it sound interesting.

Costner's ok in it. But I think he's just generally a rather weak actor. There are some scenes with him that aren't very good. maybe he's just being upstaged by his co-workers. Agreed though, his courtroom scene at the end of the film is very well done, "Back, and to the left......back, and to the left..."

That scene with Costner and Sutherland is brilliant. But what gives it that special edge is Williams' music in the background.

PerrinV2

No way man this is the best song in watchmen.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7p_Vlv7ug

Nolanger

Cat people - the black and white version. Not bad but overrated .

krudler

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Watchmen.

This was always a bit of a risk for me, as I've read the original book dozens of times, but I'm of the opinion that adaptation should be free enough to make large changes in order to make a good film, regardless of the quality of the source material. I'd heard that the script followed the graphic novel extremely closely, and from interviews I'd read with Snyder (as well as watching 300), I had almost zero expectation of intellectual engagement from the film. I got pretty much what I expected: a visually interesting superhero movie. The script, thankfully, stuck close enough to the original that it was almost impossible to make a genuinely bad film out of it, but that's not for want of director Zack "wouldn't-it-be-cooler-if-we-broke-his-arm-in-half?" Snyder trying. The characters, their struggles and their psychologies are more or less preserved from the book, but the film doesn't allow as much depth of exploration, and likewise almost all of the amazing structural devices from the book are lost and not replaced.

The soundtrack should be singled out for criticism for its remarkable lack of self-awareness as it stumbled into cliché after cliché of sourced music, the worst example of which was Flight of the Valkyrie over the Vietnam scene. The music supervisor could almost be forgiven for this due to the excellent choice of Philip Glass playing over the scene on Mars, which was the best scene in the film - almost, but not quite.

Overall, not a bad film, but certainly not a good one.

The opening sequence and credits are amazing though.