American Gangster - ridley scott's latest shamelessly steals from The Godfather, Scarface, Serpico and Heat but despite all that thievery and a narrative that looks to be far too familiar, scott manages to make the film not feel all that familiar.

Part of it is down to the attention given to certain superfluous scenes which don�t really add much to the narrative flow but do a lot in setting up character and mood. The rest of it is probably down to a reasonably intelligent script and impressive performances from Crowe and Washington, the latter finally doing something worthwhile in recent times. It's also brilliantly shot, successfully emulating the Godfather's shadowy style in grand manner without resorting to direct plagiarism.

7.5/10

Futurama : Bender's Big Score - Much like The Simpsons movie, how much you like this will really depend on how much you liked the latter part of the series. Personally, I found the first 2 seasons great and the last 2 seasons above average at best and the movie is much more like the later seasons, only longer.

4.5/10



Dawn of the Dead (1978) - rewatch and I don�t like it, in fact I actually much prefer the remake (which despite all its flaws had a brilliant first and last 20 min).

George Romero's original is a B movie through and through. The acting is bad, it looks bad and the direction's average. Sure, it's ambitious with all its attempts at social commentary and the recent movies that have copied its themes have probably not executed them as well but they are better movies on the whole. I just couldnt get into this one.

4.5/10 

Thanks for this movie, gibbie... 

Oliver Twist (1948) - All the david lean films I have seen have been great and this one is no exception. There are certain omissions from the Dickens story but I personally think it works better because of them as the original story got far too contrived by the end.

The look and atmosphere are exceptional and the casting is first rate, with alec guiness putting in yet another memorable performance as Fagin.

8/10



Mouchette (1967) - kind of a companion piece to Bresson's earlier Au Hasard Balthasar and again utilising his unique technique of stripping away any emotive acting and leaving it up to the viewer to determine how to react. Its really a brilliant technique and it works extremely well in all his films, but the way it works here from about the 30 min mark on is quite remarkable.

Essentially a coming of age story for a young, outcast girl in a small french town but one that is enveloped in cruelty, disconnection and lack of companionship. Not an easy watch, but quite a worthwhile one.

7/10



Dark Victory (1939) - far too melodramatic story about the impact of sudden terminal illness with the great Bette Davis surprisingly uneven in the main role.

The characters are actually quite well etched but the plotting tends to get quite heavy handed and during the more serious moments, Davis veers into overacting quite often. It�s a pity, because when the film and Davis do work, its quite a neat show.

5.5/10



A Foreign Affair (1948) - disappointing effort from Billy Wilder, which is compounded by the fact that the material actually had quite a lot of potential.

The tone is completely wrong in most scenes, turning what should have been an intriguing dark drama into a mostly lighthearted comedy. Its strange because it comes from the period where Wilder was at his darkest rather than from his later period of comedies. Not a complete misfire because the dialogue and exchanges still retain his classy wit, but definitely a missed opportunity.

5.5/10


A Mighty Heart - Considering how prone the material could have been to exploitative sentimentality and how much it depends on information bombardment, I found that there was expert control demonstrated by the director and actors. The docudrama approach is very well done and I particularly appreciated attention to little details such as conversations between background characters, although admittedly this does not come across in the subtitles.

Jolie was very good but so was most of the rest of the largely unknown cast. It would have been a better film though if there was more time given to the aftermath of Daniel Pearl's death rather than leaving that as an aside at the end.

7/10

Time to Leave (2005) - pretentious, self conscious, but more importantly, dull and distant movie about a fashion photographer who is diagnosed with terminal cancer and struggles to determine what to do with the very short time he has left.

Francois Ozon usually makes movies that have the first two characteristics mentioned above but generally they are also good films. This time he struggles to involve his audience in his story because of poor characterisation and eye rolling occurrences. The acting is good and there's even a cameo from the great Jeanne Moreau but Ozon can do much better than this.

4/10


Wag The Dog (1997) - extremely average, pseudo satire that thinks its a lot cleverer and funnier than it actually is. The content had a lot more potential but Barry Levinson seems content in just making an average tongue in cheek 'comedy' in which a fixer, called in to cover up the president's pre-election sex scandal, decides that a fake hollywood produced war is the answer.

The writing lacks bite and the acting varies, with Hoffman and Deniro sleepwalking through their roles and Anne Heche dreadful as the president's PR manager.

4.5-5/10 

The Mist - firstly, if you get the chance, watch the director preferred B&W version. Both the standard colour and b&w version are on the dvd, and it only took me a a couple of min of flicking through to be convinced that the b&w version is heaps better. It looks much more striking, the feel is much more claustrophobic, the CGI looks better and the whole thing just has a more foreboding atmosphere, which is a key ingredient in a horror film. Doubt many theatres would show this version, but it's really the better way to see it.

Secondly, it's the best horror film in years (well, at least the b&w version is anyway), probably since The Descent. There's a few internal logic gaps, but if you're willing to get past them, it's a well acted and well written movie thats just a whole lot of fun.

Like The Descent, although there is gore present, its not the focus as it is in so many other 'horror' films coming out these days. Instead, there is a lot more attention to character and also psychological horror. It goes onto the list of recent movies with memorable endings.

7-7.5/10


Shanghai Gesture (1941) - No idea how this got past the censors back in the day, it's a dark, bleak film with amoral characters in abundance. It's also another highly stylised and engrossing movie from Josef von Sternberg with tons of atmosphere and an interesting story centering on a gambling house in Shanghai where al sorts of shady dealing and characters go on.

Well worth checking out.

7-7.5/10 

Are you talking about the new The Mist? Isn't that a remake (maybe I'm mistaken) and isn't it based on Steven King (imho, a hack whose output far exceeds his talent)?

If it is like The Descent though I will watch it... the Descent was awesome, to me it seemed like there were hints of something... some seriously fucked up imagery seemed to hint to me that it wasn't just nature, or a person's perception of nature, but some "third party" involved (outside her mind, not just within). The vaguest, creepiest hints - similar to (the best of) Lovecraft's method, even, where the nature of the threat is not totally certain or defined.

Damn that was creepy. 

yep, the new The Mist. Pretty sure it's not a remake, and yes it is based on the King book (and unfortunately it kind of shows in some scenes).

It's not really like The Descent, much more straighforward than that, I just think it's the best new horror film since then. But starbuck made some comments earlier that are valid (he didnt like it as much as I did). But I'm not sure if he saw the b&w version, which is a lot better in terms of atmosphere and addresses a few of the shortcomings from the color version. 

You're confusing The Mist and The Fog. 

to go see Iron Man??? YEAH!!!!! 

http://www.celephais.net/board/icons/icon0.gif
messagehttp://www.celephais.net/board/icons/icon1.gif
questionhttp://www.celephais.net/board/icons/icon2.gif
exclamationhttp://www.celephais.net/board/icons/icon26.gif
flame 

 

Juno - its pretty obvious within the first 5 min that there's going to be a rhythm of speech that's just not normal and/or realistic. It doesn’t take long to get used to it, but I still found that in this particular case, it was unnecessary, try hard clever and distracting.

Luckily, the longer the movie goes on the less it features and it also helps that the movie works, not as a comedy but as a lightweight drama. Most of that is down to good characterisations and strong performances all around which help paper over the showy, pretend cool dialogue that plagues most of the first half hour of the movie.

7/10


Marathon Man (1976) - surely one of the greatest thrillers ever? It fires in pretty much every department and the only weak link is the slightly convoluted plot but there is so much attention to little details and the way Conrad Hall's camerawork and William Goldman's script combine in establishing character is quite remarkable. J

ohn Scheslinger amps up the suspense beautifully and Hoffman, Olivier, Scheider and co put in great work.

8.5/10


The Taste of Cherry (1997) - Abbas Kiarostami's movie is fairly basic in plot, a middle aged man drives around Tehran looking for a man who will do a 'job for him', and even more basic in style. But amongst all that simplicity, he has quite a number of involving characters to introduce and quite a few interesting turns to make.

It all happens slowly, taking 20 min or so to reveal the 'job' and another 40 min or so till the main character finds someone to do it, but interspersed between all those plot revelations are conversations that appear to be banal but are rich in ideas.

But then there's the ending. Kiarostami builds to an extraordinary climax and then does something that is likely to catch most people off guard, and I'm guessing slightly annoyed. I cant say I understand the need for the last sequence, I personally think the movie would have been better off leaving it out as it distracts rather than adds to the penultimate sequence which is brilliantly executed.

7/10


Blow Out (1981) - Brian De Palma has a habit of taking A grade material from elsewhere and making entertaining B movies out of them. Sometimes though, like in Dressed to Kill, the A grade material he 'borrows' is outright classic stuff and an entertaining B movie in the same vein is just not enough (it was Psycho in that particular case).

For this one, he combines two great films, Coppola's The Conversation and Antonioni's Blow Up, and the result is the same, a mildly entertaining movie with some great camerawork (there's two scenes near the end that are equally as good as anything in both the original films) but with a poor script and patchy performances.

A pity, because when he gets it right, he's a very talented filmmaker.

5.5/10 

Cheesy, lots of continuity problems, really stupid things (the outside is full of snipers, so naturally all the characters hang out at the door windows and stick their neck out every now and then, the baddies are just ultra evil with no reason etc etc...

But it has some charm too... It avoids the over-emotionalism and screaming that plagues many tense enclosed movies and plays in general.

The theme is so extremely familiar, I'm thinking some C64 game, but couldn't find it in my sids. Anybody know? This one recycles the melody too (fast forward a bit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayV5xzUAalw
so you can hear it. Carpenter was multi-talented as he made that himself. 

Heh, this was both parody and madness. Much better than what I expected it to be. I still can't judge Bale. He might have potential, I say. I don't really know - it's either hard to pull this kind of (weird) movie off well (just the freaking business cards ffs) or then it was just usual but sleek.
Is it resting on Bale or the usual "everything just works" smoothness? Or both? Or what? The message?
I guess I suck at understanding movies. Not having slept last night might have something to do with it.

If you remember yuppies from the late eighties, even vaguely, then this movie is definitely worth watching. 

but bale's a gun. His recent string of movies is a quite a good track record. 

I've been way more impressed by what Bale's done post-American Psycho, but to me it is a great movie. The sarcastic (but not overly so) attitude is what gives it its awesome mood, I mean when he pronounces lines like "And Less Materialism!" it's hard to tell if he means it and he's exposing their hypocrisy (and wants to kill them), or if he is just joking and is totally beyond the pale (and wants to kill them). Hell, if they hadn't cast Bale as Batman because of that movie they could have cast him as the Joker. There was a lot of shallow bullshit in the 80s; the movie seems faithful to the book's idea that the overload of pleasure could lead to lethal boredom. 

read the book? 

So John Carpenter's self-made synth theme from The Attack on Precinct 13 from the seventies ended up in ... Xenon 2 megablast! I wondered where it was familiar from! Kickass tune. I remember it from the pc speaker before I had a soundcard.
The original Amiga version seems to be best on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6jNosHmHG8 

yeah, but to be honest, I didnt care much for the book either so that probably explains my reaction. 

Perfume

Very, very odd. Good in parts, but mostly odd (not least being made by Germans, set in Paris with a more or less entirely British cast). I'd rate this the canonical surrealistic fish out of 10.

The Golden Compass

Fuck me, this was bad. I really like the books, but the movie was very disappointing. It makes you realize how good the Lord of the Rings adaptations were, even with their flaws. Don't bother/10.

Iron Man

I really enjoyed this, despite or quite possibly because of the really stupid bits. Have a laugh/10.

I am Legend

It's hard to say what I'd have thought of this if I hadn't read the book. Probably: "This is pretty good, but wow is it a lot like 28 days later". Instead of: "Hm, I'd never really thought of how much 28 days later (and lots of other movies) ripped off I am Legend... WTF THEY DICKED WITH THE ENDING!". Probably worth the rental/10. 

Big Nothing (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488085/

Watched this for featuring Simon Pegg (not expecting much as it is not one of "his" movies though). It is less of a comedy than it is a black drama thriller something. Nothing that shifts up the mood. Very nice images, soundtrack, acting, etc. Really really dark (I underline this). David Schwimmer is kind of one of those hip "generic introvert noir" guys like Clive Owen, I like those!

Sure a recommendation if you like black humoured films or anything I just blabbered made you interested. 

The Wrong Man (1956) - Most people say Rebecca is the most unhitchcock Hitchcock film, but I put my hand up for this one. Sure, the plot is similar to numerous hitchcock films, Henry Fonda's character being incorrectly mistaken for a wanted man, but the verite approach taken here (with a supposed true story) is completely different to any other Hitch movie.

It's still a well polished affair, despite no real Hitchcockian moments, mainly due to Henry Fonda and Vera Miles putting in excellent performances.

7/10


Robocop - Hadnt fully seen this before, it's another sly litlle black humoured film from Paul Verhoeven that's a lot of fun. It also surprisingly works dramatically, quite a task when the most you can see of the main character is the bottom half of his face.

7/10


Pierrot Le Fou (1965) - I find Godard frustrating, even when he's at his best, and this is no exception. The first 50 min or so are close to some of the best cinema I have ever seen as Jean Paul Belmondo's character runs off with his babysitter (played by Anna Karina) and their subsequent road trip becomes Godard's mouthpiece for anything and everything he wants to say about life, war, politics, and even his failing relationship with his wife (also Anna Karina). It's bizarre, disjointed, fearless and utterly brilliant.

However, it just cant keep up with its own desire to burn through as many ideas as quickly as possible whilst breaking almost every rule of cinema. The second half is not quite as engrossing and that makes the pretentiousness all the more noticeable.

Karina and Belmondo are magnetic all the way through though and make sure it never sinks under its own weight.

7.5/10


Wings of Desire (1988) - The plot and central idea are quite simple, the film follows two angels, Damiel (Bruno Ganz) and Cassiel (Otto Sander) as they float over the skies of Berlin observing and listening in on the lives of the city�s inhabitants, with Damiel becoming convinced over the course of the movie that he has to experience human life rather than just observe it. The same idea was tackily remade as City of Angels.

But Wim Wenders' original is a much more meditative, improvisational film that lies somewhere between the works of Andrei Tarkovski (who is one of the people that movie's dedicated to) and Wong Kar Wai's recent stuff.

I dont think its entirely successful, it's a bit too disjointed and some scenes are grossly overlong, but its definitely ambitious, original and interesting and when it all clicks together, quite touching.

7-7.5/10


The Last Picture Show (1971) - brilliant movie set in a small town in Texas and focusing on the friendship between two young men (Timothy Bottoms and Jeff Bridges). In doing so, it manages to work in a number of well written characters and their relationships and is a showcase for what is possibly the best piece of ensemble acting I've come across. There is not one weak link here and everyone involved, even in the tiniest role, puts in a high class performance.

Its also beautifully written and shot and is one of the great debut films in history (from Peter Bogdanovich).

8.5/10


Cloverfield - pretty solid little movie even if its best moments are directly derivative of Alien/s. The camerawork is indeed quite annoying in places, its one thing to try and make a Blair Witch meets Godzilla movie, its another to have a character that is an uncoordinated lunatic behind the camera.

But on the whole, its not too bad, and is reasonably thrilling in a number of spots. More carnage next time please.

6.5/10 

Rec is a spanish zombie movie, where people get trapped in an apartment building which has... zombies. It's one of those movies where the whole movie is supposedly recovered footage from a camera that was used by the characters.

It's pretty good. Moves fast, well-edited, feels different than the usual "zombie siege" scenario (everyone's inside, zombies outside.) 

Well.
Scifi with serious attitude, been a long time since that.

Excellent sets. Just fabulous stuff. Who designed the space suits? Nothing felt cheap. Well perhaps there could have been more zero gravity.
Good casting.
Good direction in many senses, had both that realism and also those extreme effects and sense of awe. (A bit too much camera effects imo though.)

But what the fuck. Is there some line in movie director contracts that the scripts have to be fucking idiotic?

The following includes SPOILERS.

The elaborately built suspension of "this is really happening" breaks just too many times: Do we have itty bitty sized spacecraft flying into the sun and having some massive instant effect? Yes. Do we have only one man out of a big crew doing all the trajectory and guidance calculations, and then doing a trivial mistake, costing lives, with nobody checking the work? Yes. Do we run out of oxygen in a huge flying space station in a matter of few hours? Yes. Do we have a rogue leader with a god complex? Yes. Turned partially monster? Yes. Do the supposedly calm and professional very thoroughly picked crew members argue, fight (obligatory machos) and panic (obligatory frail girl) constantly? Well, not all the time, but still somewhat.

At least there were no space aliens or gun fights.

Probably this is as good as it can get as a modern scifi movie, and it still sucks compared to what it could be.

The script. The script. Please. What is it always preventing it from being even remotely sensible? All the countless millions and the innumerable work hours derailed for want of a reasonable even remotely plausible and un-cliched script.

Take for example Risto Isom�ki's "Pime�n pilven ritarit" Finnish novel. It has it's good and bad moments, but overall it is quite similar to Sunshine (predates it by quite a lot though). A crew is sent to deflect an asteroid that is going to hit earth. I can spoil it to you since it's never going to be translated anyway. The craft uses a solar sail and on the return trip they must pass close to the sun. The solar sails rip and the crew must repair them, resulting in quite similar scenes compared to Sunshine, except more believable.

All in all somewhat nice but can't they get a single engineer or physicist to read the script through? It boggles the mind. 

I watched this again the other day and loved it, like you say the sets are absolutely fantastic!

I loved the camera effects used, and the sound effects too are just brilliant.

Yes there are issues with the plot, but imo the film manages to deal with them very well 

I was constantly amazed at how good it looked, especially for a UK film. The spacesuits, yes! Fantastic visual style, they had a slight 1970s tinge I thought.

The thing that let it down for me was definitely the ridiculous space-danger twist at the end. Oh dear.