What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-05-2008, 05:06 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

The 39 Steps was very clumsily made. Hitchcock "based" almost all of his early films on novels, none of which he followed very closely. Another was Sabotage, which was based on Conrad's novel "The Secret Agent" and barely follows the story and changes the ending. The 39 Steps was considered a huge success at the time of it's release, however.

If you like Hitchcock though, The Lady Vanishes was made in the same year as The 39 Steps, but I think the film is much more sophisticated.

*Classic*Charm*, I have seen those films and even the earliest renditions. I find them so campy I actually do like them. I guess I like Hitchcock so much I will take the bad with the good. I find them all entertaining. I liked the film "The Lady Vanishes" very much. I can hardly recall the other two, though or who starred in them. Ever see the old Hitchcock TV shows - they are on DVD now - my library got them in and I was able to see about a dozen. They were loads of fun.

*Classic* - I have been dying to see you to tell you this. I watched a French film the othe night and who should appear but Jodie Foster - geez, I could hardly recognise her at first and then kept saying 'isn't that Jodie Foster"...sure enough it was and she spoke perfect French. Who would know? It was a small part but quite intense in the film called:

"A Very Long Engagement".
This film is pretty amazing and starrs Audrey Tautou (Amelie, DiVinci Code, etc.) and Gaspard Ulliel. This was a very lush and wonderfully crafted production. Even though some parts in cities are CGI, one did not feel that took over the story or even thought about that factor at all; it all felt quite real; even scenes in black and white or sepia from the past. From the start of the credits, I knew this would be a good film. The credits were so creatively done and set the atmosphere of the film nicely. An old newspaper was used to indicate the movie, features, cast selections, before the film began. Art design was very well done in this film. In fact, I hope to view the film with no subtitles; so that I can fully enjoy the visuals. They are something amazing to see. One scene, that takes place on a very tall lighthouse is so incredible. The acting was stellar; casting superb! The imagery in this film is great, from the opening shot, which shows a battlefield in the WWI and pans down to a cross with a Christ carving, that has been sheered off at the midsection and is hanging from one arm, then a line of wires interwoven, behind is visible the dark muddy trench. This movie has such a stunning series of images, with so much symbolism, even in the first few seconds. My only complaint might be the way the film is somewhat long and some scenes a little confusing. I think a second viewing with subtiles might clear up some of the plot confusion for me, personally. I would definitely give this film a 9/10. I did not go 10, because I think some parts ran slowly and became lagged a bit, but not in visuals. I think the strength of this film lies in the visuals and the acting and the wonderful scenery/seascape of rural France. Stunning!
05-05-2008, 05:18 PM
*Classic*Charm*

Janine, I have seen random episodes of Hitchcock Presents, but not the full seasons. I can't bring myself to spend the money on them. They're so expensive! And yes, I love The Lady Vanishes. It's my favourite old Hitchcock, from before he got all famous lol. My favourite of the newer ones is Dial M for Murder.

Really?!? Jodie Foster has done something other than a terrible action movie recently?!? That's so exciting. I saw previews for A Very Long Engagement and wanted to see it. I'll rent it sometime this summer. I had no idea she could speak French though! That's pretty cool.
05-05-2008, 06:06 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Janine, I have seen random episodes of Hitchcock Presents, but not the full seasons. I can't bring myself to spend the money on them. They're so expensive! And yes, I love The Lady Vanishes. It's my favourite old Hitchcock, from before he got all famous lol. My favourite of the newer ones is Dial M for Murder.

*Classic*Charm*, did you know there are several versions of "The Lady Vanishes" and one features Hitchcock's own daughter, Pat? Don't quote me on it, but I think there are at least, two versions; one more sophisticated, of course. Love the film "Dial M" for murder and in fact, I just saw it a week or so ago. I can never see that film enough. It is one of his masterpieces! It was based on a Broadway play, not written by Hitchcock. He adapted it for the screen and certainly did a superb job. I saw all the extras on the DVD; totally interesting.

I know that other set is so, so expensive...*sigh*sigh* ...sad I did not have time to view the entire set...I could only take it out for 2 nights and that was not enough time to see them all. Noteworthy were the stars who started in that series and all were fine fine actors. I loved being able to see those. When I had it out from my library I looked it up online and was shocked to see how much those cost.

Quote:

Really?!? Jodie Foster has done something other than a terrible action movie recently?!? That's so exciting. I saw previews for A Very Long Engagement and wanted to see it. I'll rent it sometime this summer. I had no idea she could speak French though! That's pretty cool.

Wow, haven't you ever seen Jodie in anything but action films? She is such a fine actress. I just loved her in "Anna and the King" - ever see it? I picked it up cheap (VHS tape), but I have seen the DVD before, too. I love that film and the score is magnificent. I just got bought that recently and play it all the time.

Let me know what you think of "A Very Long Engagement" - Jodi was great, too.
05-05-2008, 08:19 PM
Seabird111

I saw Bee Movie.

9/10. I thought there was going to be quite a bit of childish humor, but, to my pleasent surprise, there was very little. It was almost an Adult Animated Comedy, and I was pleasently surprised.

That isn't to say it isn't appropriate, just quite a bit of jokes younger kids wouldn't appreciate.

Example:

"I mean, think of all the influential bees out there! Bee Ghandi, Bee Jesus!"

Say Bee Jesus out loud really fast.
05-06-2008, 01:55 AM
Janine

The Assassination of Jesse James

Not particularly my type of film, but I thought I would give it a go since someone on here recommended it. I have to say it was quite stunning and amazing. It is so well structured and the way it was photographed, the cinematography was just incredible; that includes set design and composition, truly artistoc. Nice touch casting the great Sam Sheppard (who is one of my all time favorite actors) in the first parts of the film, as Jesse's older brother. The film built and built in the psychological aspects; that is when it began to get really interesting. From the start, you are wondering just what Bob's agenda is and what it will be in the long run in relation to James. The voice-over was perfect. The way the director made use of fade-outs was particularly effective, the sepia tones perfect, the erie western monotonal musical score, and pacing of the film was reminiscent of older films I have seen, such as 'Paris, Texas" and "Days of Heaven" - odd, because Sam Sheppard starred in the second film and was the director or screenplay author on the first, I believe. I wondered if he influenced or advised Ridley Scott on this film. Some of the interesting use of visuals, with blurred edges or foggy areas were reminiscent of other films. The Kansas, Missouri, midwestern scenery was spectacular, especially in snow and at night; the lighting was particularly noticable throughout the film and helped to focus on the drama and the characters.
All this and the acting was incredible! Afleck was unbelievable. Where has he been hiding? Brat Pitt was excellent, as were the supporting actors/actresses. I knew Pitt would be from other fine performances I have seen him play, such as his role in "A River Runs Through it" (love him in that film) and "12 Monkeys" and his recent film role in "Babel". He truly embodied the complexities of Jesse James, the conflicted man. I did not expect a film like this. It was like nothing I have ever seen before. I commend the director for making cuts, when he did; it just goes to show, one does not have to reveal all the gore or sex to get the point across; in the end the way it was presented was far more effective and powerful. The ending was amazing and somewhat of a surprise. I like that.
The film makes me want to research the life of Jesse James to see how much of the story is true....fascinating.
05-06-2008, 02:14 AM
LadyWentworth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

The Assassination of Jesse James

Not particularly my type of film, but I thought I would give it a go since someone on here recommended it. I have to say it was quite stunning and amazing. It is so well structured and the way it was photographed, the cinematography was just incredible; that includes set design and composition, truly artistoc. Nice touch casting the great Sam Sheppard (who is one of my all time favorite actors) in the first parts of the film, as Jesse's older brother. The film built and built in the psychological aspects; that is when it began to get really interesting. From the start, you are wondering just what Bob's agenda is and what it will be in the long run in relation to James. The voice-over was perfect. The way the director made use of fade-outs was particularly effective, the sepia tones perfect, the erie western monotonal musical score, and pacing of the film was reminiscent of older films I have seen, such as 'Paris, Texas" and "Days of Heaven" - odd, because Sam Sheppard starred in the second film and was the director or screenplay author on the first, I believe. I wondered if he influenced or advised Ridley Scott on this film. Some of the interesting use of visuals, with blurred edges or foggy areas were reminiscent of other films. The Kansas, Missouri, midwestern scenery was spectacular, especially in snow and at night; the lighting was particularly noticable throughout the film and helped to focus on the drama and the characters.
All this and the acting was incredible! Afleck was unbelievable. Where has he been hiding? Brat Pitt was excellent, as were the supporting actors/actresses. I knew Pitt would be from other fine performances I have seen him play, such as his role in "A River Runs Through it" (love him in that film) and "12 Monkeys" and his recent film role in "Babel". He truly embodied the complexities of Jesse James, the conflicted man. I did not expect a film like this. It was like nothing I have ever seen before. I commend the director for making cuts, when he did; it just goes to show, one does not have to reveal all the gore or sex to get the point across; in the end the way it was presented was far more effective and powerful. The ending was amazing and somewhat of a surprise. I like that.
The film makes me want to research the life of Jesse James to see how much of the story is true....fascinating.

I gave my rating on this a few days ago. I loved the movie. LOVED IT!!! How it didn't win for cinematography is beyond me!! :mad:

Anyway, I have to be a little know-it-all for a second, if that is OK. Is it? :)

I was down in that area of Missouri just last year (LOVE the Jesse James Farm - one of my absolute favorite places that I have EVER been to!). It is beautiful down in Missouri, but it doesn't look like that. I noticed at the end of the film that it was filmed in Canada (I think it was Alberta). So, honestly, I was a little disappointed that it wasn't actually filmed in that countryside, at least.

Pointless little thing that I want to say here. I stayed in St. Joseph (the town he last lived in). It is a bustling city. In the film there are just those few homes around and it isn't like that now, of course. But I found that interesting, for some odd reason. I never thought about that before that during his time it wouldn't have been like it is now. I just thought that was an odd little thing that I found interestng. :)

I said it before and I will say it again. I loved Casey Affleck in here! Fantastic! Nothing else to say about it!

I think I will have to buy the soundtrack to this film (I already know that I will buy the DVD).

It is funny because as soon as I saw that picture of the horse in the background I remembered it. I actually forgot that I saw it when I was there! But I immediately recognized it. I loved that farm and I would love to go back there again. I didn't get a chance to make it to the home in St. Joseph. That is an excuse to make it back there! :)
05-06-2008, 04:44 AM
Sir Bartholomew

i saw this 2001 movie called "Far Girl" by Catherine Breillat. 4.0/4.0 I can't tell why i liked it.
05-06-2008, 12:57 PM
_Shannon_

I'm trying to think what I saw last...I watched the first installment of Cranford this past SUnday on Masterpiece Theater...and then before that I think it was War of the Worlds-the one with Tom Cruise . It was actually really good--it's the first movie that's scared me in a long time!
05-06-2008, 03:52 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyWentworth

I gave my rating on this a few days ago. I loved the movie. LOVED IT!!! How it didn't win for cinematography is beyond me!! :mad:

:wave: Hi Lady Wentworth! haven't seen you for awhile. That is right - you were the one who reviewed it. I skimmed the thread and did see your post, sorry about that.
I don't know how it did not win; it was truly well done. At first when the train is robbed I gasped when I saw the silouette of Sam Sheppard standing on the pilings as the train approaches round the bend and then illuminates the mistly scene - that was just marvelous! I guess there were many good films last year with amazing cinematography. I am sure it was a difficult decision. Was this film even nominated for cinematography, do you know?

Quote:

Anyway, I have to be a little know-it-all for a second, if that is OK. Is it? :)

No problem at all. I like hearing more information on things such as historical.

Quote:

I was down in that area of Missouri just last year (LOVE the Jesse James Farm - one of my absolute favorite places that I have EVER been to!). It is beautiful down in Missouri, but it doesn't look like that. I noticed at the end of the film that it was filmed in Canada (I think it was Alberta). So, honestly, I was a little disappointed that it wasn't actually filmed in that countryside, at least.

That really does sound interesting; especially if you has a fascination before this. I can well understand it. How lucky you were to visit these areas. I did hear it was filmed in Canada, but most are these days - it seems to be less expensive and mimic the areas in the old west or the midwest. I can't see how the poor actors can be subjected to such harsh cold temperatures though. I always watch the extras on the DVD's and in the Making Of you always see the crew in heavy jackets and the poor actors so bare - they must be freezing to death. It may also be they could not get permission to film at the actual farm site because that is an active tourist area - right? It maybe Federally owned, also.

Quote:

Pointless little thing that I want to say here. I stayed in St. Joseph (the town he last lived in). It is a bustling city. In the film there are just those few homes around and it isn't like that now, of course. But I found that interesting, for some odd reason. I never thought about that before that during his time it wouldn't have been like it is now. I just thought that was an odd little thing that I found interestng. :)

Never pointless. I find it all interesting. You were so lucky to be able to visit these historic areas.

Quote:

I said it before and I will say it again. I loved Casey Affleck in here! Fantastic! Nothing else to say about it!

Yes, I agree - he was just great from the first time we encounter him in the film. I don't ever recall seeing him in other films. What has he been in, do you know. I do think he was good and his performance was quite nuanced, never overdone, but subtle.

Quote:

I think I will have to buy the soundtrack to this film (I already know that I will buy the DVD).

I liked the soundtrack, in conjuction with the film, but to me it got quite redundant. I don't really think I would like it alone. I would have to hear it first on CD. It did support the film well with an edgy mood.

Quote:

It is funny because as soon as I saw that picture of the horse in the background I remembered it. I actually forgot that I saw it when I was there! But I immediately recognized it. I loved that farm and I would love to go back there again. I didn't get a chance to make it to the home in St. Joseph. That is an excuse to make it back there! :)

I hope you get a chance to go back and see it someday.

Another comment on the film for me would be this film might not be for everyone. Some may hate it. I don't think any of the characters were that likable; afterall, Jesse James was complex and strange at times, and he could be quite ruthless, as well. He may have been seen as a hero, a kind of modern day Robin Hood, but he did some horrific things. I am glad the film-makers and director did not dwell on bloody scenes. They cut at the right time. I don't know what I ended up thinking of Bob at the end. I felt all the characters might have been delved into a little more. I know - that is hard to explain - but I felt it did cut short of telling us the 'why' of how James became became as he was or got involved as an outlaw. I do feel we saw a lot of confliction in the characters; if anything I saw more of the reasons behind the character of Bob Ford; yet I never truly felt empathy for him entirely, not sure why. I felt the time period was depicted very well and like I said before the structure and the cinamatography of the film, I felt was it's strengths. I liked the idea of the bad guys against the bad guys; but normally I hate ganster/mob films, and basically, this was a mob/gang film to me set in the midwest; however the psycological aspects of it, did pull one in and is does stay on ones mind, after viewing it...it certainly had an impact.
05-06-2008, 05:08 PM
LadyWentworth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I don't know how it did not win; it was truly well done. At first when the train is robbed I gasped when I saw the silouette of Sam Sheppard standing on the pilings as the train approaches round the bend and then illuminates the mistly scene - that was just marvelous! I guess there were many good films last year with amazing cinematography. I am sure it was a difficult decision. Was this film even nominated for cinematography, do you know?

Yes, I really liked that scene. I thought that it was brilliant. I loved how they made it look exactly how it would look as if it were a train rolling by in the dead of night. That was, perhaps, my favorite of the film. Yes, it was nominated for an Oscar. "There Will Be Blood" won it instead. TWBB was good, but there is absolutely no comparison between the look of the two films. No comparison. I just don't understand it.

Quote:

That really does sound interesting; especially if you has a fascination before this. I can well understand it. How lucky you were to visit these areas. I did hear it was filmed in Canada, but most are these days - it seems to be less expensive and mimic the areas in the old west or the midwest. I can't see how the poor actors can be subjected to such harsh cold temperatures though. I always watch the extras on the DVD's and in the Making Of you always see the crew in heavy jackets and the poor actors so bare - they must be freezing to death. It may also be they could not get permission to film at the actual farm site because that is an active tourist area - right? It maybe Federally owned, also.

No, actually, the farm (it is located in Kearney, Missouri) isn't federally owned. Well, it wouldn't have needed to be filmed at the farm at all, anyway. The house, well, it couldn't have been filmed there. Like I said, St. Jospeh is a bustling town. You need the quietness of what we saw on film. But there is a lot of countryside down there that they could've used. Missouri is such a pretty state. Such a shame it wasn't filmed there.

My guess is that MAYBE it was a tax thing. Wisconsin finally lowered the taxes for films to be made here. That is why that new Johnny Depp movie, "Public Enemies", is able to film on location at different places here. So, I figured that is why it wasn't filmed down in Missouri. That is just an assumption, of course. :)

Quote:

Yes, I agree - he was just great from the first time we encounter him in the film. I don't ever recall seeing him in other films. What has he been in, do you know. I do think he was good and his performance was quite nuanced, never overdone, but subtle.

Well, I thought he was so strange when he first appeared on screen. I, too, liked his subtle performance (which I tend to like over the really dramatic ones - it seems more realistic to me). I also liked that with the subtly you can see the change in Ford's character. He was nominated for an Oscar for this. I know he was nominated, and won, other awards for this role, too.

He has been in a bunch of things. Most notably, he was in all 3 of the "Ocean's" movies, "To Die For" (the film with Nicole Kidman and Joaquin Pheonix) and he was in "Gone, Baby, Gone" (Ben's film that he directed - I haven't seen it yet).

I have to say, though, that if you ever saw the real Bob Ford, Casey Affleck was a very good choice to play the part! :thumbs_up

Quote:

Another comment on the film for me would be this film might not be for everyone. Some may hate it.

I know people who didn't like it because they had no attention span. That is OK. I personally love long movies. Someone said it was a half an hour too long. I think that is ridiculous. FINALLY we get to actually SEE what happens at the end of a story, or someone's life, rather than have to sit there and just read the words that they put up on the screen. Know what I mean? I liked it a lot more that they actually played it out all the way until the end.

Quote:

I don't think any of the characters were that likable; afterall, Jesse James was complex and strange at times, and he could be quite ruthless, as well. He may have been seen as a hero, a kind of modern day Robin Hood, but he did some horrific things. I am glad the film-makers and director did not dwell on bloody scenes. They cut at the right time. I don't know what I ended up thinking of Bob at the end. I felt all the characters might have been delved into a little more. I know - that is hard to explain - but I felt it did cut short of telling us the 'why' of how James became became as he was or got involved as an outlaw. I do feel we saw a lot of confliction in the characters; if anything I saw more of the reasons behind the character of Bob Ford; yet I never truly felt empathy for him entirely, not sure why. I felt the time period was depicted very well and like I said before the structure and the cinamatography of the film, I felt was it's strengths. I liked the idea of the bad guys against the bad guys; but normally I hate ganster/mob films, and basically, this was a mob/gang film to me set in the midwest; however the psycological aspects of it, did pull one in and is does stay on ones mind, after viewing it...it certainly had an impact.

Of course, none of the characters are likable. They are all outlaws. :) None of them are good people. I personally don't understand why people treat Jesse James as a saint. I still find his life interesting, though. He was a ruthless person. I think that is what makes a lot of people conjure this image of this "great" figure. Especially if they combine it with the supposed Robin Hood tales. Of course, all of those stories in dime novels and such didn't help his "legend" any.

I can't say I really feel anything for Bob Ford either. I don't think anyone will really know why he killed him, but I think Ford did it mainly for money and he was a little envious. He was only 20. I don't normally use an age as an excuse for anything, but I think in this case he was young and stupid. But he wasn't a likable person either.

The only person that I ever truly felt bad for was his wife, Zee (who was his cousin, by the way).

As for delving into the characters more, I personally don't think it was necessary. After all, this wasn't about the life of Jesse James. This was about the assassination. I think that to begin to tell the story from where Bob Ford would come in was a good idea. For the people who know the James Brothers (and Ford Brothers, I guess), they don't need to know anymore about them. But for people who are watching this story without that much prior knowledge, I think it was a wise move to keep those people guessing and wondering how these people came to be what they were. I think it helped with the whole psychological effect of the film.

I will say this, though, that if you went to that farm (more so than reading any books, actually), you can see how Jesse's and Frank's lives were. You can understand how they ended up this way. I AM NOT CONDONING. I am saying that you can understand the characters more. He was in the Civil War. After the war, he became what a lot of those men did. He became a train robber, bank robber, murderer and outlaw. There is more to the story, but I won't bore anyone anymore than I already have. :)
05-06-2008, 05:09 PM
browneyedbailey

The "Bee Movie" 4.5/10
05-06-2008, 06:38 PM
Rakthor

Iron Man 4.5/5
It was a damn good movie, if I say so myself. It was quite enjoyable, very entertaining, and did what it set out to do. Also, the fact that Jeff Bridges was in it gives it the extra half point. Seeing The Dude (Big Lebowski, anyone?) being evil and bald was really weird and fun. I'm glad that Robert Downey Jr. has stopped abusing those substances. This is his first leading role in quite some time, if I'm not mistaken. Good to see he's back on his feet with a successful new gig. Anyways, the movie itself was one of the better films I've seen this far. One of the highlights of going to see it was actually the credits before the movie. The new Batman trailer and the new Hulk trailer were shown almost back to back. That's pure sex right there. Hopefully the new Hulk film won't be as god-awfully wretched as the one in '03. Well, it has Liv Tyler. That's a redeeming quality by itself. But again, I digress. So, Iron Man. Good film. Would definitely see.
Rakthor Out
05-06-2008, 10:14 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyWentworth

Yes, I really liked that scene. I thought that it was brilliant. I loved how they made it look exactly how it would look as if it were a train rolling by in the dead of night. That was, perhaps, my favorite of the film. Yes, it was nominated for an Oscar. "There Will Be Blood" won it instead. TWBB was good, but there is absolutely no comparison between the look of the two films. No comparison. I just don't understand it.

Interesting, Lady Wentworth, I didn't realize it was nominated for the Oscar and lost. Was it nominated for the cinematography only? That was a brilliant scene and suspenseful - that tall figure and image in silouette, stayed with me for some reason, and the way the train rolled around that bend, puffing out white smoke against that blackness of night....amazing.

Quote:

No, actually, the farm (it is located in Kearney, Missouri) isn't federally owned. Well, it wouldn't have needed to be filmed at the farm at all, anyway. The house, well, it couldn't have been filmed there. Like I said, St. Jospeh is a bustling town. You need the quietness of what we saw on film. But there is a lot of countryside down there that they could've used. Missouri is such a pretty state. Such a shame it wasn't filmed there.

I guess they estimated the cost and something held them back from filming there. I wish the DVD had had some extras on it like "The Making"; that would have revealed why they decided on Canada, instead of Missouri. I was disppointed there were no extras. I thought they would have a bio of Jesse James, or information on Bob Ford. That would have been great. I did go online and found a very good site with photos; I am always curious this way and love doing additional research. More on that below.....

Quote:

My guess is that MAYBE it was a tax thing. Wisconsin finally lowered the taxes for films to be made here. That is why that new Johnny Depp movie, "Public Enemies", is able to film on location at different places here. So, I figured that is why it wasn't filmed down in Missouri. That is just an assumption, of course. :)

It could have been a tax thing. I didn't know about that new film. Is it "Public Enemies" or "Public Enemy" because I have heard of the second in a older play and an older film. I want to know more about this now. Hummm...a new role for JD..cool.

Quote:

Well, I thought he was so strange when he first appeared on screen. I, too, liked his subtle performance (which I tend to like over the really dramatic ones - it seems more realistic to me). I also liked that with the subtly you can see the change in Ford's character. He was nominated for an Oscar for this. I know he was nominated, and won, other awards for this role, too.

I always like the sutle performances better and I love closeup shots of faces. I saw a film recently where the director even zeroed in on parts of the face. I found that to be quite interesting and quite expression - one eye can say so much, it is amazing. I liked that scene in the parlor and the tention at the end, too. Performances were amazing at that point. I don't want to give away anything to those who did not see the film. :thumbs_up Glad he was nominated - Casey Afleck did a fine job! So he did win some awards for this performance? He did deserve it.

Quote:

He has been in a bunch of things. Most notably, he was in all 3 of the "Ocean's" movies, "To Die For" (the film with Nicole Kidman and Joaquin Pheonix) and he was in "Gone, Baby, Gone" (Ben's film that he directed - I haven't seen it yet).

So he is Ben's brother - thought so. I don't really know much about him. I am not sure, if I saw him in anything, before this. Thanks for this information on his filmography. I like the "Ocean's" movies - they are entertaining. I also, love Joaquin Phoenix; try to see as many of his films, as I can.

Quote:

I have to say, though, that if you ever saw the real Bob Ford, Casey Affleck was a very good choice to play the part! :thumbs_up

I know that. When I found that great site it had them side by side - photos. That is interesting. I liked the very young photo of Jesse James I found. Oh my gosh, he looks like a mere baby, a young teen. I felt kind of bad looking at that one.

Quote:

I know people who didn't like it because they had no attention span. That is OK. I personally love long movies. Someone said it was a half an hour too long. I think that is ridiculous. FINALLY we get to actually SEE what happens at the end of a story, or someone's life, rather than have to sit there and just read the words that they put up on the screen. Know what I mean? I liked it a lot more that they actually played it out all the way until the end.

Well, one always encounters the 'no attention span' viewers. I once lend my friend the excellent A&E miniseries "Shackleton", which I adore; I was horrified to learn she and her son watched it a fast forwarded to the part when they hit the ice in at the South Pole - that is half way through the story! I could not believe it. I always watch these mega long productions and eat up every morsal. I guess I have more patience than some or most maybe. I even watch 4 and 5 hour movies and miniseries in one sitting, with short breaks of course. Yeah really, what would a half hour bother me? Silly...I agree - glad they showed at the end of the story just what happened after. That part was great! Unfortunately, :( the DVD I was viewing, did some skipping or stopping, throughout the film and towards the end, it kept pausing and would not move on. I hate that and have no idea why it did that. I may have missed something, too. I need to view it again, with a different DVD. The DVD may have been defective. Anyway, the way they presented the end was way better than words on the screen; I agree with you on that fact.

Quote:

Of course, none of the characters are likable. They are all outlaws. :) None of them are good people. I personally don't understand why people treat Jesse James as a saint. I still find his life interesting, though. He was a ruthless person. I think that is what makes a lot of people conjure this image of this "great" figure. Especially if they combine it with the supposed Robin Hood tales. Of course, all of those stories in dime novels and such didn't help his "legend" any.

Exactly. I was glad to go look up some more on James and the gangs and see just what was real and what was fiction in this film. I will further explore that site. It is so fascinating. It is strange they aplauded him and made him a 'legend.' Yes, I think the tales and books did that. The public did not know the full reality back then. For one thing communication would be lacking and nowdays it would never happen. He would be called the 'worst of the worst' by TV and media.

Quote:

I can't say I really feel anything for Bob Ford either. I don't think anyone will really know why he killed him, but I think Ford did it mainly for money and he was a little envious. He was only 20. I don't normally use an age as an excuse for anything, but I think in this case he was young and stupid. But he wasn't a likable person either.

I didn't either; not even when he was whining about being the youngest - so what about that? Yes, his brothers did put him down and tease him but I still could not tap into feeling dreadfully sorry for him. I think he killed him because he felt he would gain fame and be applauded and instead it was the opposite. The ending pretty much stated that fact. He told that woman this in a straightforward way and even that he has been so young when the assasination took place. He wanted to gain the same fame that Jesse James had - that was apparent in the very beginning of the film; when he could not be like James he would be like him in a reverse way.

Quote:

The only person that I ever truly felt bad for was his wife, Zee (who was his cousin, by the way).

I felt worse for his kids; but yes, I felt badly for her but she knew what she was getting into, didn't she? We didn't see her very fleshed out in the film either so I did not feel much towards her. Did you know JJ's mother was also named Zelda and was called Zee; or that may be his stepmother - not sure now. I read it late last night online.

Quote:

As for delving into the characters more, I personally don't think it was necessary. After all, this wasn't about the life of Jesse James. This was about the assassination. I think that to begin to tell the story from where Bob Ford would come in was a good idea. For the people who know the James Brothers (and Ford Brothers, I guess), they don't need to know anymore about them. But for people who are watching this story without that much prior knowledge, I think it was a wise move to keep those people guessing and wondering how these people came to be what they were. I think it helped with the whole psychological effect of the film.

Yes, I can see your point here, LW. After I wrote that last night, I did think this and about the title and the point of the story and you are right; it did not center on Jesse James life story. It did start right at the perfect point. You are correct as well, about the film keeping one 'guessing and wondering' -that is so true and did add into the whole psychlogical aspect and effect of the film. I kept me 'guessing and wondering' - that is why I promptly went online to find out more about the story and the characters.

Quote:

I will say this, though, that if you went to that farm (more so than reading any books, actually), you can see how Jesse's and Frank's lives were. You can understand how they ended up this way. I AM NOT CONDONING. I am saying that you can understand the characters more. He was in the Civil War. After the war, he became what a lot of those men did. He became a train robber, bank robber, murderer and outlaw. There is more to the story, but I won't bore anyone anymore than I already have. :)

Yes, I did realise that the Civil War had a lot to do with it. I agree with all your wrote, in this paragaph of your post. It was the times and things were much different back then in the South; attitudes were born from those hard times. I also don't condone the gangs actions, but the story was well done in the film and I really did find it interesting in a psychological way, plus I did learn things I had no ideas about prior.
05-07-2008, 01:24 AM
LadyWentworth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Interesting, Lady Wentworth, I didn't realize it was nominated for the Oscar and lost. Was it nominated for the cinematography only? That was a brilliant scene and suspenseful - that tall figure and image in silouette, stayed with me for some reason, and the way the train rolled around that bend, puffing out white smoke against that blackness of night....amazing.

It was only nominated for cinematography and supporting actor, which really surprises me now that I have finally seen the movie. That scene was beyond words for me. If nothing else, no other film topped that one scene last year! The look of it was perfect. I haven't felt this strongly about the cinematography for a film since "Glory" (though I thought "Brokeback Mountain" was pretty good). Especially the battle scenes. If it is possible to call a battle scene "beautiful", then that is how I felt about the final battle in "Glory". I guess since I can't find any other words to describe the train scene in this movie, I would almost have to use "beautiful" for that also. Well, at least "Glory" won its well-deserved Oscar for Cinematography!

Quote:

I guess they estimated the cost and something held them back from filming there. I wish the DVD had had some extras on it like "The Making"; that would have revealed why they decided on Canada, instead of Missouri. I was disppointed there were no extras. I thought they would have a bio of Jesse James, or information on Bob Ford. That would have been great. I did go online and found a very good site with photos; I am always curious this way and love doing additional research. More on that below.....

I was surprised that there wasn't at least a "Making Of" extra. I have no idea what the DVD will have that I will eventually buy. I rented this from Netflix. Maybe there will be a DVD with nothing but extras on that. They do that sometimes.

Quote:

It could have been a tax thing. I didn't know about that new film. Is it "Public Enemies" or "Public Enemy" because I have heard of the second in a older play and an older film. I want to know more about this now. Hummm...a new role for JD..cool.

"The Public Enemy" is a film with James Cagney. This isn't that. I think there was a Korean movie called "Public Enemy", too. This is called "Public Enemies" (believe me, they talk about it enough here - I know! :rolleyes: - very tired of hearing about it, but I have my reasons). It is based on a book. It is about the bank robber John Dillinger. Depp will be playing him (I kind of think it is an odd choice, but oh, well :) ).

Quote:

I always like the sutle performances better and I love closeup shots of faces. I saw a film recently where the director even zeroed in on parts of the face. I found that to be quite interesting and quite expression - one eye can say so much, it is amazing. I liked that scene in the parlor and the tention at the end, too. Performances were amazing at that point. I don't want to give away anything to those who did not see the film. :thumbs_up Glad he was nominated - Casey Afleck did a fine job! So he did win some awards for this performance? He did deserve it.

He won a bunch of critics awards. You know who else stood out to me in the film? Remember the guy that Jesse visits? He was all alone in that shack. He played the role of Ed Miller. Not a big role, but I liked him when I saw him. I knew this man was no-good, but something about his performance made him somewhat pathetic. I liked him in his truly brief time on screen.

Quote:

So he is Ben's brother - thought so. I don't really know much about him. I am not sure, if I saw him in anything, before this. Thanks for this information on his filmography. I like the "Ocean's" movies - they are entertaining. I also, love Joaquin Phoenix; try to see as many of his films, as I can.

Yes, he is Ben's brother. They do and don't look alike, I think. I can't say that I would think they were related if I didn't know it, but there were times in that movie where I think he really looked like him. And Joaquin....well....I have my love affair with him. :p

Quote:

I know that. When I found that great site it had them side by side - photos. That is interesting. I liked the very young photo of Jesse James I found. Oh my gosh, he looks like a mere baby, a young teen. I felt kind of bad looking at that one.

I think I know the photo that you are talking about of Jesse James. I will be honest and say that I always thought Bob Ford was kind of cute. Yes! I said it! I always thought that it was such a waste of his life that he ended up like that.

Quote:

I didn't either; not even when he was whining about being the youngest - so what about that? Yes, his brothers did put him down and tease him but I still could not tap into feeling dreadfully sorry for him.

Well, I did feel a little bad in the beginning when they were going through his stuff and teased him. I also understand his frustration when they started up again during that meal that they were having, but that is solely because I know what it is like to be picked on for no reason whatsoever. I always say to just leave everyone alone. Other than that, I didn't care what was happening with him.

Quote:

I think he killed him because he felt he would gain fame and be applauded and instead it was the opposite. The ending pretty much stated that fact. He told that woman this in a straightforward way and even that he has been so young when the assasination took place. He wanted to gain the same fame that Jesse James had - that was apparent in the very beginning of the film; when he could not be like James he would be like him in a reverse way.

That is pretty much what I meant when I said because he was envious and he wanted the money. Oh, well. Too bad for him that he was so stupid.

Quote:

I felt worse for his kids; but yes, I felt badly for her but she knew what she was getting into, didn't she? We didn't see her very fleshed out in the film either so I did not feel much towards her. Did you know JJ's mother was also named Zelda and was called Zee; or that may be his stepmother - not sure now. I read it late last night online.

Oh, I was talking about feeling sorry for her in real life. Not the film. Whether or not she knew what she was getting into, that is something I really don't know. I would assume that she did, but I don't know. What I meant was that I always felt bad that it had to happen like that, in that house and with her finding him. I would feel bad for anyone with that situation. I am pretty sure that she was named after his mother. So, that would make her Zerelda, too, then.

Quote:

Yes, I did realise that the Civil War had a lot to do with it. I agree with all your wrote, in this paragaph of your post. It was the times and things were much different back then in the South; attitudes were born from those hard times. I also don't condone the gangs actions, but the story was well done in the film and I really did find it interesting in a psychological way, plus I did learn things I had no ideas about prior.

I was reading a book about Laura Ingalls Wilder the other day. It was said that her uncle came back from the war "wild". They said that people were generally called "wild" because they would be experiencing something like "post traumatic stress". Then they went on to say that this could be the reason that the west was called the "wild" west. I think that is interesting, considering that so many gunslingers were involved in the war.

Anyway....back to movies.....

Oklahoma
9.95
(I despise Aunt Eller :sick: - didn't like her in the stage version either - she ruins any scene that she is in for me - hence, the 9.95 out of 10 - Gordon MacRae on the other hand....;) )
05-07-2008, 01:59 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyWentworth

....That scene was beyond words for me. .....since "Glory" ....If it is possible to call a battle scene "beautiful", then that is how I felt about the final battle in "Glory"....

Just commenting briefly, don't want to hog this thread going on and on about this film. I wasn't crazy over "Brokeback Mt". so I left that out, but to say the scenery was beautiful, of course. Yes, that train scene sort of creeped up on you and I felt this awe; the lighting was extraordinary. It was just so well done and timed. It was truly beautiful if a train robbery can be called that; I mean of course the art design of that scene. "Glory" was amazing with scenes of splendor even though violent.

Hope they do come out with a "Making Of" extra, but my library edition did not have anything at all.

Thanks for information on "The Public Enemy"; a young Kenneth Branagh also played that on stage but I think when he was still in high school or maybe first year at RADA...I just know he was a hit and caused a lot of talk. Depp does seem a bit odd for the role but let's not prejudge and see what he comes up with this time.

Quote:

He won a bunch of critics awards. You know who else stood out to me in the film? Remember the guy that Jesse visits? He was all alone in that shack. He played the role of Ed Miller. Not a big role, but I liked him when I saw him. I knew this man was no-good, but something about his performance made him somewhat pathetic. I liked him in his truly brief time on screen.

I agree - that guy was great - who is he anyway? I kept thinking I saw him in something before. That ride they took was really something...kept you on the edge of your seat the way James rode behind him; talk about being paranoid. Would you turn your back to Jessie James? I also liked the touch of having Sam Sheppard in the film. He is always quietly nuanced in his performances. I loved him in "Days of Heaven" and "The Right Stuff". He has long been a favorite of mine. I think his character embodied the sadness of losing the war for the Confederacy, don't you? He captured that pathos so well.

Quote:

Yes, he is Ben's brother. They do and don't look alike, I think. I can't say that I would think they were related if I didn't know it, but there were times in that movie where I think he really looked like him. And Joaquin....well....I have my love affair with him. :p

I picked up on that and thought they looked similar now and then in the film. Yes, Joaquin is one of my all-time favorites, too.

Quote:

I think I know the photo that you are talking about of Jesse James. I will be honest and say that I always thought Bob Ford was kind of cute. Yes! I said it! I always thought that it was such a waste of his life that he ended up like that.

Yes, looks like he could not even grow a beard or peach fuzz if he tried - he looks so young. Yes, I saw Ford and he did look somewhat handsome. It was a waste - sad.

Quote:

Well, I did feel a little bad in the beginning when they were going through his stuff and teased him. I also understand his frustration when they started up again during that meal that they were having, but that is solely because I know what it is like to be picked on for no reason whatsoever. I always say to just leave everyone alone. Other than that, I didn't care what was happening with him.

I did too, now and then, like when they found his box of keepsakes and tease him unmercifly. I hated the way they treated him then. I guess I felt most sympathetic in that scene. He was a very confused young man. Yes, teasing him at that meal was truly mean, and they all chimed in.

Quote:

That is pretty much what I meant when I said because he was envious and he wanted the money. Oh, well. Too bad for him that he was so stupid.

I see what you mean now. It was stupid reasoning on his part.

Quote:

Oh, I was talking about feeling sorry for her in real life. .... bad that it had to happen like that,....... feel bad for anyone with that situation. I am pretty sure that she was named after his mother. So, that would make her Zerelda, too, then.

I understand the names/relationships now. I was trying to figure that out. Yes, I really was shocked it did happen as it did. I guess it had to be so, so he would not suspect. I somehow felt he did suspect though. I think in the film, he has a sort of premonition; what do you think?

Quote:

I was reading a book about Laura Ingalls Wilder the other day. It was said that her uncle came back from the war "wild". They said that people were generally called "wild" because they would be experiencing something like "post traumatic stress". Then they went on to say that this could be the reason that the west was called the "wild" west. I think that is interesting, considering that so many gunslingers were involved in the war.

Interesting theory; I must look further into that idea. I like it, it could explain a lot of things back then.

Quote:

Anyway....back to movies.....
Oklahoma
9.95
(I despise Aunt Eller :sick: - didn't like her in the stage version either - she ruins any scene that she is in for me - hence, the 9.95 out of 10 - Gordon MacRae on the other hand....;) )

Loved it! Those old movies are the best. Love musicals and loved Oklahoma on stage and screen.
05-07-2008, 09:09 PM
Sir Bartholomew

Punch Drunk Love 4.0/4.0. Haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet but PDL's the fourth movie I saw from PT Anderson. It's a great departure from Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and most of his mainstay cast are gone. I've never liked Adam Sandler but in here's an exception. As for Emily Watson, an actress I admire, it's fun to see her sane after countless viewings of Breaking the Waves (I've seen Gosford Park though she's only a bit player there).
05-07-2008, 09:23 PM
Sir Bartholomew

i heard there was this long sex scene in the Wings of the Dove.
05-07-2008, 10:12 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Watched "The Wings of the Dove" based on the Henry James book with my husband today. Loved it, though it is no doubt too slow moving for many people.

I thought the scenery in England and Venice was sumptuous and the performances by Helena Bonham Carter (pre-Tim Burton), Linus Roache, and Alison Elliot were so moving and understand. And Charlotte Rampling's small part was excellent.

I'd definitely watch it again. :)

5/5

:thumbs_up Love that movie, too, Antiquarian; it is one of my favorites. I am glad you finally got to see it. I have not yet read the book, but I ran out to buy it, right after I saw that film. I own the film; saw it at the video rental real cheap, when they sold out the VHS tapes. It is great film; loved the scene at the church with the doves, didn't you? and wasn't there a voice over in the end of that scene or a reading? I just know it was an emotional scene.
The sex scene at the end is in shadows; no big deal anymore, as you said. You do see Helena in all her naked spendor, but is that really anything to gawk at? She is merely 'au naturale'.
I loved the acting and thought everyone was cast perfectly in the film. It is such a beautiful film. Cinematography is wonderful and setting superb and romantic.

I can't write any more. My eye is still hurting me badly and this bright screen is a killer. Just checking in quickly and will resume my listening to "Women in Love" on MP3 - I love it!
05-09-2008, 10:39 PM
Janine

Watching tonight:

"No Country for Old Men" - so far I am finding it intriguing. I will let you all know later what I thought of it.
05-10-2008, 08:46 AM
vheissu

Notes on a scandal (2006)

Absolutely loved Judi Dench in this one. Cate Blanchett was ok, not her best though.
But the ending....hmm.
8/10
05-10-2008, 11:30 AM
novelsryou

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I liked "No Country for Old Men" when I first saw it, Janine, but now I'm kind of mad at the Coen brothers for that ending. It was just "too abrupt." It was like we had the chair pulled out from under us.

I haven't seen it yet but what you wrote made me think of Looking for Mr. Goodbar. I found the ending of that movie to be very disturbing.
05-10-2008, 04:00 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I liked "No Country for Old Men" when I first saw it, Janine, but now I'm kind of mad at the Coen brothers for that ending. It was just "too abrupt." It was like we had the chair pulled out from under us.

Wow, I know I keep thinking about that ending also, Antiquarian. I felt angry at first, or let down, but then I thought more about it. At first, I thought, 'oh my, that is it?' Now I realise something - it was much more disturbing this way. I felt because of the ending, one could now empathise with the Sheriff and his situation in his life. I especially liked what he told his wife at the end. I thought, before I viewed the film, that the title meant the old men that were murdered; then I realised at the end of the film, that the title took on a whole new significance and because of that ending. I liked the film, but I felt as I have been feeling lately - why must we always be awakened by such violence? We are never awakened as keenly by kindness or goodness, as we are by these intricate characters who exude this unworldly quality we cannot relate to humanly. I felt at times that the main perpetrator acted out like a robot or a ghost, as Jones pointed out, even though I felt Bardem's performance unbelievably fine, and I also felt that Tommy Lee-Jones deserved an Oscar. I thought he was very complex and just great in this film. He is such a pro. Even the Coen Brothers admit the film is a sort of horror film; others on the Extras on the DVD say it has it's own unique genre..who knows? It is funny, looking back now on the film, I feel I saw more humanity in the monster in "Frankenstein"; I actually felt sorry for Frankenstein's creation sometimes, but I could not find this, in the character of Anton in this film. The suspense and cinematography and the acting in the film were all great; it kept one on the edge of your seat, for certain, truly suspenseful...very scary at times. I felt it reminescent also, of moments in "Fargo", which I really loved; especially the tiny bits of 'real' life humor, throughout the film. The casting seemed to me to be excellent. As a well crafted movie, I felt it excelled. It is definitely a finely made thriller.

I just don't think I would go out of my way to view this film a second time; maybe it just was not my type film. I thought it 'wowed' me in many ways, so that last statement of mine is hard to explain. I did think it one of the Coen Brother's finest films; but I am not a huge fan of theirs, personally. I think the content is what I found to be truly disturbing. I think they did make tasteful choices and cuts at the right moments mostly. I think they could have refrained from showing the man bleeding from his neck and the other spurting blood...what else can I say? I preferred the scenes that suggested the violence or one did not see it so blantantly. That is just personal preference, I know.
05-10-2008, 04:06 PM
Nossa

Wow! Janine, that was an excellent review!! I didn't see the movie actually, but I'm planning to. Your review is just amazing. You made me wanna watch the movie even more now :D
05-10-2008, 05:37 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nossa

Wow! Janine, that was an excellent review!! I didn't see the movie actually, but I'm planning to. Your review is just amazing. You made me wanna watch the movie even more now :D

Nossa, gee, thanks - and here I thought I would be strung up for that review or attacked. I was trying to be honest and I had to really force myself to see this film, but my son and his wife both highly recommended it. The film is 'dark', and I guess by now, I was a little bit leary of watching a truly dark film again this week; I just saw the Jesse James film and that was dark in nature. The thriller aspects of this film cannot be beat. It is, as my son told me, 'unlike anything you have seen before' - even the setting. It is not contemporary, but rather set in the 1980's. I did not realise that fact, until I watched the 'Extra Features', on the DVD. I guess I was so engrossed in the movie plot, that I did not even think about the time period in Texas, although there are many little symbols and important details of set, I should have noticed as in the past. I liked that about the film and always do. They did a good job, depicting these areas in Texas 20 yrs, or so, ago. The set designer said, it is actually harder to depict a time period, not that far from present day, than it would be to do period piece that is set further back, perhaps the 1800's. I thought that was an interesting fact.

Nossa, after you view the film, let us know what you thought of it.
05-10-2008, 06:03 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

That's how I saw it, too, Janine. The scenes of implied violence were much stronger than the bloody scenes.

I totally agree - it seems they got it right in some scenes. I even thought the handcuff strangling scene amazing, but then they showed it on the 'Extras' and you could actually see blood spurting out - oh gross! I really had not noticed that before, since I was concentrating on Bardem's expression, which was truly amazing. That also looked so totally scary and real. But where I really thought the Coen Brothers excelled, were in scenes like in the hotel, with Woody Haroldson; first off Woody was creepy himself, and so 'cool and calm and collected' and cocky-sure of himself, and then that phone ringing created such tension; the way it all played out was perfect timing, and one did not see much in blantant violence - imagining was much worse. It was enough. I also felt other scenes that cut right before the violence, were better played out that way.

Quote:

I felt Javier Bardem gave an amazing performance (Tommy Lee Jones as well), but Bardem's character, Anton Chigurgh, was robotic in his ability to kill and kill and kill.

Exactly, and I thought I would be crucified on this thread, if I said so. I wish I could have seen something to indicate the man was anyway human or had a reason to be as he was. But truly, that was the idea of the film and I know that Bardem definitely pulled that off well. I think next Bardem should play Frankenstein...haha...however he would bring some humanity to the role. Yes, the kind of killer he was one could not comprehend. He did play that perfectly and well deserved the Oscar.

Quote:

I have no desire to see the film a second time, though I am glad I watched it.

Me either. Too scary too. Yes, all the talk about it, I am glad I did see it even though I found it disturbing.

Quote:

I don't understand what's with all the violence, either. I'd rather watch a Jane Austen period piece or something by Merchant/Ivory.

I would too. You know that to be true, Antiquarian. I like thrillers when I am in the mood but I would prefer a film that is a little more uplifting or restores my faith in human beings.

Quote:

Oh, speaking of Merchant/Ivory films, if you ever get a chance to see "The Europeans" don't pass it up. It's not the best film or the most engrossing, and Lee Remick was a little too old for the role she played, but the cinematography is the best I've ever seen, even eclipsing "Atonement." The Henry James book takes place in springtime, but Merchant/Ivory changed it to autumn to take advantage of a New England autumn and it is gorgeous. Worth it for the cinematography alone.

Thanks, Antiquarian for the suggestion; I must find that and watch it. I don't mind Lee Remick. I recall her from years ago. How old is this film? I love beautiful cinematography! I like Henry James and the films made from his books; I love films set in autumn - they are so vibrant.
Ever see the Henry James adaptation of "The Bostonians" - I really liked that film and saw it twice now. It's merits really rest heavily on the fine performances. It is an interesting film. Vanesa Redgrave is amazing in her role - worth it just to see her in this part; she is so convincing.
05-10-2008, 06:13 PM
Nossa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Nossa, gee, thanks - and here I thought I would be strung up for that review or attacked. I was trying to be honest and I had to really force myself to see this film, but my son and his wife both highly recommended it.

LOL. Well I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't oppose you yet ;)
But sometimes, even when a review isn't 100% in favor of the movie, it's an excellent one. I guess now that I wanna watch the movie, it's a total contradiction to your purpose of the review, ha? :lol:
I have a comment on something you said, on how the serial killer in the story is acting like a robot. I think this is pretty realistic. I mean, a killer is a killer, that's what he does, it's more of a routine to him, he doesn't feel guilt and so his killings are more of habits by time. At least that's how I see it. Maybe when I watch the movie I'll get more insight into his character.
I still think you provided a great review.
I have one question though. Is the movie different from MacCarthy's novel?!
05-10-2008, 06:20 PM
Nossa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I don't understand what's with all the violence, either. I'd rather watch a Jane Austen period piece or something by Merchant/Ivory.

I think that maybe in a movie, there's exaggeration sometimes, or maybe it's beacuse you see the actions rather than read them(if you read the original novel). I know an Egyptian movie that was in theatres a few months ago. It claims that it depicts the Egyptian reality now, but it's like reality X100...it doesn't scare you, but it just made me feel depressed for a whole week. This might be a downside in the movie, I'll still have to watch it to decide, but I agree on the concept.
05-10-2008, 08:02 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nossa

LOL. Well I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't oppose you yet ;)

Nossa, that is true - you might be the one to condemn my review instead of applaud it.;) :lol:

Quote:

But sometimes, even when a review isn't 100% in favor of the movie, it's an excellent one. I guess now that I wanna watch the movie, it's a total contradiction to your purpose of the review, ha? :lol:

I feel that way also. I can see the value in a good movie even if it does appeal to me personally. I recall seeing "Bonnie and Clyde" when I was young and I we all thought that movie was extraordinary at the time. Now I don't think I would take the time to view it. It just does not interest me and I think it won many awards; and was well done. It is all personal taste.
No, I meant my review to be impartial in a way and I tried to be quite honest. I could see some flaws but basically I thought it was a good film and very well constructed and played out. Let me know what you thought of it when you have viewed it and be honest with me.

Quote:

I have a comment on something you said, on how the serial killer in the story is acting like a robot. I think this is pretty realistic. I mean, a killer is a killer, that's what he does, it's more of a routine to him, he doesn't feel guilt and so his killings are more of habits by time. At least that's how I see it. Maybe when I watch the movie I'll get more insight into his character.
I still think you provided a great review.

It probably is realistic and that is what actually makes the story so scary and gives it it's impact as a film. One cannot explain the killer. I think that is the point. He definitely feels no guilt and no remorse at all; one wonders if he feels anything; you will see. He even walks robatically I think. I don't think there is any insight into the charcter that Bordem plays - that is not to say he plays the role badly - to the contrary - he plays the role spendidly. Who could show no emotion at all? He pulls it off perfectly.

Quote:

I have one question though. Is the movie different from MacCarthy's novel?!

Ah, I did not read the book; I know Virgil did; he mentioned that once in his film review. You would have to ask him; I believe he loved the book.

Quote:

I think that maybe in a movie, there's exaggeration sometimes, or maybe it's beacuse you see the actions rather than read them(if you read the original novel). I know an Egyptian movie that was in theatres a few months ago. It claims that it depicts the Egyptian reality now, but it's like reality X100...it doesn't scare you, but it just made me feel depressed for a whole week. This might be a downside in the movie, I'll still have to watch it to decide, but I agree on the concept.

That is true. That Egyptian movie sounds funny - reminds me of something. I befriended someone on this site, who lived in China; she told me the movies that I mentioned to her, were all 'unrealistic' to the real China and it's history. These were fine acclaimed films. I had to laugh, but I did think it probably true, that they were way 'off' in reality', when I watched them. One was "The Last Emperor" and another was "Raise the Red Lantern". So, you can't believe everything you see on the silver screen, either; for any country this applies. Yes, 'exaggeration' is a 'by word' in the movie industry I am sure. It is all done for effect, not realism.
05-10-2008, 08:22 PM
Nossa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

It probably is realistic and that is what actually makes the story so scary and gives it it's impact as a film. One cannot explain the killer. I think that is the point. He definitely feels no guilt and no remorse at all; one wonders if he feels anything; you will see. He even walks robatically I think. I don't think there is any insight into the charcter that Bordem plays - that is not to say he plays the role badly - to the contrary - he plays the role spendidly. Who could show no emotion at all? He pulls it off perfectly.

Yeah I agree. I only saw the trailer to the movie and Bardem looked scary, with that weird hairdo they gave him too :lol:

Quote:

That is true. That Egyptian movie sounds funny - reminds me of something. I befriended someone on this site, who lived in China; she told me the movies that I mentioned to her, were all 'unrealistic' to the real China and it's history. These were fine acclaimed films. I had to laugh, but I did think it probably true, that they were way 'off' in reality', when I watched them. One was "The Last Emperor" and another was "Raise the Red Lantern". So, you can't believe everything you see on the silver screen, either; for any country this applies. Yes, 'exaggeration' is a 'by word' in the movie industry I am sure. It is all done for effect, not realism

I agree that the exaggeration is done for effect not realism. But something about this Egyptian movie was just...disgusting to a certain extent. Without going into details, there's this trend in the country these days that some people (who're supposedly wiser than all of us) say that the society is corrupted and many moral and ethical problems are spreading in it, and that the role of cinema is to uncover these problems for the purpose of healing them. I agree on that the society has problems, whatever these problems are, but it's been there forever not just now. My take on any movie like the one I talked about is that they don't show the problems in their real size. I mean if you make a movie about a certain moral problem in society, this probelm has to be some sort of a phenomenon, it has to be on a wide scale in order for people to understand and identify with it. That movie wasn't a thriller or a horror movie where some issues can be 'made' and depicted. But in a movie they call 'social drama' or whatever they call it, you gotta make the viewer believe that these things actually happen. Not to mention that the movie is obviously rated NC 17, it's got heavy sexual content and and heavy bad langauge (some words that were said there, was the first time for me to hear them..lol), they let kids go to the movie, like 8,9 and 10 kinda kids. It was weird hearing the questions the kids asked their parents during the movie.
I'm sorry I went off-topic...lol...but I hope you get my point.
05-10-2008, 08:50 PM
Sir Bartholomew

Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress 3.0/4.0
05-11-2008, 01:40 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nossa

Yeah I agree. I only saw the trailer to the movie and Bardem looked scary, with that weird hairdo they gave him too :lol:

I saw a trailer or interview with Bardem on Youtube and he said he hated that haircut that the Coen Brothers insist he wear. It did alter his appearance and he looked frightful, but mainly it was the look in his eyes that was truly scary - like nothing was behind them at all, blank, empty sort of - hard to describe, like dead eyes. One interesting aspect of the story, is that none of the characters chasing each other are in the same scenes together. I hope that does not give away the story to you; but note it when you do view the film. I had not noticed this fact, until it was pointed out in the "Special Features".

Quote:

I agree that the exaggeration is done for effect not realism. But something about this Egyptian movie was just...disgusting to a certain extent. Without going into details, there's this trend in the country these days that some people (who're supposedly wiser than all of us) say that the society is corrupted and many moral and ethical problems are spreading in it, and that the role of cinema is to uncover these problems for the purpose of healing them. I agree on that the society has problems, whatever these problems are, but it's been there forever not just now. My take on any movie like the one I talked about is that they don't show the problems in their real size. I mean if you make a movie about a certain moral problem in society, this probelm has to be some sort of a phenomenon, it has to be on a wide scale in order for people to understand and identify with it. That movie wasn't a thriller or a horror movie where some issues can be 'made' and depicted. But in a movie they call 'social drama' or whatever they call it, you gotta make the viewer believe that these things actually happen. Not to mention that the movie is obviously rated NC 17, it's got heavy sexual content and and heavy bad langauge (some words that were said there, was the first time for me to hear them..lol), they let kids go to the movie, like 8,9 and 10 kinda kids. It was weird hearing the questions the kids asked their parents during the movie.
I'm sorry I went off-topic...lol...but I hope you get my point.

Nossa, I know exactly what you mean in this paragraph; I agree. People do form false impressions from films. Also, it is appalling that 8, 9, 10 yr olds are permitted to see these films with NC17 ratings. I hate heavy bad language - it starts to make me ill, personally. It is funny, but this Coen movie did not resort to much or any of that. I was glad of that fact. I don't think it is really necessary, as much as it is used at times.

Tonight, having been prompted by a discussion on "Wuthering Heights", in it's own thread, I watched the adaptation version of:

"Wuthering Heights"

Starring Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall. Some may know her from her fine performance in Lawrence Olivier's "King Lear". I like Dalton very much in the BBC version of Jane Eyre, with is more like an intimate stage play on film. This movie also felt more intimate, as a play would feel, although much takes place in the exteriors and on the moors, of course. First off, the cinematography is amazing, truly stunning at times, and depicts perfectly the wild austere aspects of the moors. It feels absolutely authentic and the angles that both closeups of faces and other scenes are filmed is commendable and very artistic. I truly love this version. I found the film quite by accident at a thriftstore for $1 - VHS tape, but the tape had lines across it. Still the movie and Timothy Dalton's mesmerizing eyes, kept my sister and I watching intently, putting up with his annoying flaw - we simply could not turn it off. Since then, I have invested in the DVD and tonight was the first time I have watched it on my new HD TV - it looked marvelous and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am still thinking of how mesmerizing Dalton's (Heathcliff)face appeared in some of the scenes; they feel ingraved now on my mind. His performance was absolutely noteworty and very strong/fine. He was quite young, I believe, when this film was made. He certainly had innate talent at a young age. I don't know how well known he was then, but the film is certainly worth watching, just for his performance, alone. I felt he captured the complexity and diabolical qualities of Heathcliff. I also felt that Anna Calder-Marshall was amazing; she also has such hypnotic eyes - they were the perfect match. One alternately, felt sorry for her and then angry with her, for being so selfish. I think the fact she could embody this kind of 'ambiguity' made her performance even more worthy. I think the same with Dalton. One did not know whether to hate them or love them both. I felt like I wanted to cry and felt that this story was truly a tragedy. Afterall, they both were very young and foolish in their own ways, but the strong love/passion they possessed for each other, always surfaced and you could feel this strongly numerous times throughout the film. I have seen other versions of "Wuthering Heights" advertised, one is with Juliet Binoche and Ralph Fiennes, but I can't personally see how they would fit the role. I feel they both possess a maturity, that would not translate to the roles of Heathcliff and Kathy. In this film, I didn't just see but I felt their immaturity, and their weaknesses/flaws, and their deep pain. Therefore, I feel this adaptation did what it set out to do. The only criticism I might have is that the ending is slightly altered, but to me, it does not damage the story; it is rather stunning and beautiful in the way it does end. One can never fully capture the book and I think taking some liberties is sometimes necessary. It has been a long time since I read the novel, so I am not sure how much was altered throughout the film, but I do think, standing alone, as a film based on the novel, it is a very well done and fine film. Good supporting cast as well. I highly recommend this and also the BBC version of "Jane Eyre" also starring Timothy Dalton.
05-11-2008, 03:41 AM
Shalot

Cloverfield

I just watched this movie called Cloverfield. It was something my husband selected. He prefers horror and science fiction horror, and this one seemed to be science-fiction horror.

This movie was like the Blair Witch Project, except that it didn't look so much like a home movie. The movie preface is this: something horrible happened and in the aftermath, a camera has been found, and as the viewer you are trying to piece together the events as though you yourself were the in the story and had discovered this camera amidst the ruin of a city.

The story takes place in New York. The first part of the movie is slow-moving, especially if you're the type that likes to get right to the gore. It is also slow moving and dull if you like to watch a quality movie, but that's a given.

Everything is seen through the lens of a video camera. Different people hold the camera and you see snippets of the goings on between one couple, and then another couple. Then there is a party, and you view the party through the camera.

Then the drama unfolds. The party is interrupted by a rumbling and blackout. When the lights come on at the party, they switch on the news, which shows some reports of some goings on at the Statue of Liberty. The camera holder still has the camera and is still filming even after the blackout.

Then the explosions start and everyone at the party runs, including the person who is holding the camera. Apparently the camara holder is running through an exploding city while still holding a camera to his face. And the camera holder continues to hold that camera as little monsters that fell off the big monster attack them in a darkened subway tunnel

Why are they in the tunnel? Well that goes back to the first part of the movie and the slow scenes showing moments between different couples who inexplicably wind up with the camera.

I hate these kinds of movies. The vantage point is supposed to be interesting, and cool somehow, but it's just not believable. If some huge dinosaur thing is chasing you, you are not going to be holding a damn camera. And you're not going to hold on to that camera after you escaped the giant dinosaur type creature only to wind up running away from man-eating creatures that are chasing you through a dark tunnel.

So 2/10. F. This movie is silly. There is no explanation of what that monster is or where it came from, but I guess there doesn't have to be an explanation in a story told from that vantage point. As the viewer, you are not privy to anymore information than the characters in the movie. And I guess that's supposed to be horrifying somehow, or more interesting than the standard tale that manages to convey both the characters reactions and emotions while clueing the viewer in to the big picture.
05-11-2008, 06:01 AM
Mark F.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 10/10

Arguably the best film made over the last decade or so. The confrontation of Ford's childhood dreams with the stark reality of his adult life, epitomized by the downfall of his hero and model, Jesse James, is absolutely heartbreaking. Affleck deserved much more credit than he was awarded for his performance. The directing and cinematography are perfect and the soundtrack kicks ***, of course it does, it's Nick Cave. Deakins' work on this film was far better and more innovative than on Old Country For No Men.
05-11-2008, 01:18 PM
Janine

Quote by Mark F

Quote:

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 10/10

Arguably the best film made over the last decade or so. The confrontation of Ford's childhood dreams with the stark reality of his adult life, epitomized by the downfall of his hero and model, Jesse James, is absolutely heartbreaking. Affleck deserved much more credit than he was awarded for his performance. The directing and cinematography are perfect and the soundtrack kicks ***, of course it does, it's Nick Cave. Deakins' work on this film was far better and more innovative than on Old Country For No Men.

Hi Mark F, we have been discussing this film a page or so back. I saw the film a couple of days ago and liked it very much. I thought the cinematography was just great and the tasteful cuts. Casey Affleck was fantastic; he surely beats out his brother's acting ability. That guy is going places. I liked the score, too. Thanks for letting us know who composed it; it fit the movie perfectly. I agree - direction and casting both were perfect. Why was this film swept under the rug? See my other review and Lady Wentworth's, as well.

Quote by Shalot:

Quote:

I hate these kinds of movies. The vantage point is supposed to be interesting, and cool somehow, but it's just not believable. If some huge dinosaur thing is chasing you, you are not going to be holding a damn camera. And you're not going to hold on to that camera after you escaped the giant dinosaur type creature only to wind up running away from man-eating creatures that are chasing you through a dark tunnel.

Shalot, I hate these mindless movies, too! I always roll my eyes and say "oh, give me a break..." Yeah, right holding fast a camera as a monster eats you - right, sure thing! Just plain a waste of good time and silly. Also I hate movies pieced together like this; probably it was a handheld shakey camera also - that truly makes me dizzy and my eyes ache.

Quote by Antiquarian

Quote:

Janine, I'm not sure how old "The Europeans" is. It's not recent, I know that. Looked it up. It was made in 1979.

Antiquarian, I will look for it online for that today and put into my 'wish list'. Have you seen many Forster adaptations? I saw one I considered now on Amazon which stars Helena Bonham Carter and Rupert Graves - two actors I adore. The title is something with the word 'Angel(s)' in it; my mind is a blank right now. I like films from the 70's so I would probably like "The Europeans". Also, did you see "The Golden Bowl" another James adaptation? I liked it but many criticized it. I liked the set design emensely. I think it was also a Merchant Ivory production.

Quote:

I've not seen or read "The Bostonians." Always mean to read it, as I love Henry James. :)

I found the film in DVD on a cheap rack at Wallgreens and bought it for a few dollars, but it played horribly, so I took it back; then my library got in the tape. I would like to buy the DVD sometime. I thought Vanessa Redgrave's performance was a tour de force - she was outstanding. A very young and handsome Christopher Reeves is in the film, as well. I forget his love interest's name - the actress but she also was quite good. It is a love triangle of sorts, very different.

Quote:

"No Country for Old Men" sticks very close to the book. Barely deviates at all. I thought the Coen brothers could have done more with Woody Harrleson's character, but I guess they wanted to stick very closely to the book.

Interesting. Yes, Harrleson's character was creepy in itself I thought - he was a strange one wasn't he? Yes, they could have done more with him, but then that would have lengthened the film, I suppose. He did play that role perfectly, very convincing.

Quote:

Last night I watch "Hero" with my brother. Okay, for a martial arts film. Some lovely scenes. I'm just not into martial arts films.

I don't totally enjoy martial arts films either. I find some entertaining but I could do without all that fighting and violence. I do love good scenery and set design - probably why I love period films so much. Anyway, I was thinking about my Chinese friend again, and how she said these films are so so 'unrealistic' to her country. They are totally commercial, but I suppose entertaining to most. Nice you watched a film with your brother, anyway. I like to watch some with my sister sometimes, but lately she has not been a bit interested. My mother only likes a few kinds of films, mostly ones that are not too deep and that end on a positive note, although she has liked some good ones that don't. I never know what to suggest to her really; but, it is more fun to share film viewing, don't you think?

That is one of the soundtracks you sent me, right, "Hero"? I love the music/score, but funny, sometimes I love the score and don't care for the film, at all. I did not really care for "Legends of the Fall" and the soundtrack is stunning. I have a few others like that, that I listen to all the time.
05-11-2008, 02:12 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I usually like to watch films with my husband and oldest brother, Janine. Then we disucss them afterwards. Trouble is, all three of us like different types of films. My oldest brother likes action/adventure, my husband like comedy, and I like period pieces and art house films. We've all started compromising, though, watching things the other likes and it's interesting and broadens our horizens.

I actually, don't have those problems anymore, because I just watch them alone...so I should not complain at all. I have my little tv upstairs, away from everyone and can watch anything I am in the mood to watch at anytime. Usually, every night, I watch at least one movie. If I watch it in my sister's room, it uncomfortable, same with the family/living room sofa. Upstairs I put my feet up and relax, with pillows around me (cozy) and I am close to the TV screen, even though it is only a 19", but it is HD widescreen, so all my my movies look fabulous now. Glad I bought it. It is like watching a whole new movie even when I watch ones I have seen over and over again and still love. The picture looks so much better so I fully enjoy the cinematograpy and the set designs. I like discusing the films with others, so this thread is a God-send. I am glad we can discuss the period films, because I would say that most I own, are of that genre and of Shakespeare, which I also consider period.

I liked "Hero" ST emensely, but I like "M of a Geisha" and "The Red Violin" the best, I think. They are simply stunning! :) thanks so much!

Hahaha - you did my trick - you edited, didn't you? I just saw this part and thought I was seeing things, Antiquarian.... ha!

Quote:

Yes, I have seen a lot of Forster adaptations. I love "Maurice" and my favorite is "A Room With a View." I think you're thinking of "Where Angels Fear to Tread."

I have not seen "Maurice" but now you are the second person who said they loved it. I must see it. It is not listed as cheaply as I would like on Amazon but it is in my "wish-list'. That is the movie - "Where Angels Fear to Tread" - how is that film? Did you like it? I keep wanting to buy it.

Quote:

I have "The Golden Bowl" and it's one of my favorites. I want my husband to see it next week.

I have the film, also (DVD) and I want to re-watch it soon. I really love that film. Someone on this thread slashed it to bits one day, a year or so ago, but I feel the film was very well done and I love the story. I liked the acting very much. I like Jeremy Northam and especially liked him in "Gosford Park"...that is another I have thought of purchasing. I enjoy that film and have seen it several times now. I think it is unique.
05-11-2008, 10:55 PM
Idril

Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries, 9/10
Wes Anderson's Rushmore8/10
05-12-2008, 01:11 AM
LadyWentworth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark F.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 10/10

Arguably the best film made over the last decade or so. The confrontation of Ford's childhood dreams with the stark reality of his adult life, epitomized by the downfall of his hero and model, Jesse James, is absolutely heartbreaking. Affleck deserved much more credit than he was awarded for his performance. The directing and cinematography are perfect and the soundtrack kicks ***, of course it does, it's Nick Cave. Deakins' work on this film was far better and more innovative than on Old Country For No Men.

Thank you for this! As I stated before, this is simply just a brilliant film all the way around. I am glad to see that we agree on that soundtrack. I loved it. I loved the film. But I don't think I need to stress that fact anymore than I already have. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I have not seen "Maurice" but now you are the second person who said they loved it. I must see it. It is not listed as cheaply as I would like on Amazon but it is in my "wish-list'

It took another person to convince you to finally look into "Maurice", huh? :) Well, the price is that much because there are 2 discs. Since you like your extras, this is a good DVD for you. There are a lot of deleted scenes on it. As this is one of my all-time favorite movies, I had seen it a lot of times before I ever bought the DVD. So, these deleted scenes were very interesting to me. There is one small scene that I wish they wouldn't have cut out. It is really small, but there is something about it that I get a kick out of. Then there is a little bit from a scene (that is still in the movie) that was cut out. I wish they would've left that in because there is a line that the character Maurice says that I really enjoyed.

Anyway, I still think you should read the book, too. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful. I was just listening to it the other day, in fact.
05-12-2008, 08:39 AM
novelsryou

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I liked "No Country for Old Men" when I first saw it, Janine, but now I'm kind of mad at the Coen brothers for that ending. It was just "too abrupt." It was like we had the chair pulled out from under us.

Ok, I finally watched the movie and although the ending was abrupt I think it was a good ending. To me, the movie was a statement on the senseless violence that is infecting not just the US but the world today so the fact that closure wasn't brought to the drug deal gone bad and the retribution that folllowed is fitting.

Discuss...
05-12-2008, 01:57 PM
*Classic*Charm*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Wow, haven't you ever seen Jodie in anything but action films? She is such a fine actress. I just loved her in "Anna and the King" - ever see it? I picked it up cheap (VHS tape), but I have seen the DVD before, too. I love that film and the score is magnificent. I just got bought that recently and play it all the time.

Let me know what you think of "A Very Long Engagement" - Jodi was great, too.

Yes, I have seen her in other films of course, just nothing recently worth mentioning. And no, the only version of Anna and the King I've seen is the Musical version called The King and I. :blush:

I saw Catch Me If You Can last night. 8.5/10. I thought it was really well done. I love Tom Hanks. I think he's excellent.
05-12-2008, 02:46 PM
Janine

Quote:

Yes, I have seen her in other films of course, just nothing recently worth mentioning. And no, the only version of Anna and the King I've seen is the Musical version called The King and I. :blush:

I saw Catch Me If You Can last night. 8.5/10. I thought it was really well done. I love Tom Hanks. I think he's excellent.

*Classic*Charm*, I did like that movie very much. It was quite exciting and kept your interest all the time. I thought the acting was commendable. I liked both Hanks and DiCaprio in that film; they worked well together.

You must see the version of "Anna and the King" with Jodie Foster. I adore this film. I could watch it a zillion times over. I own the soundtrack as well and love to play it...simply beautiful. The set design, cinematography, costuming, music, acting are wonderful in this very touching film. I have also seen the musical version many times and I like that well enough. This film expounds on the historic story and it is not a musical, it is a drama and very well done. I own the film and will watch it again many times. I think it is one of Jodie Foster's finest roles.

Antiquarian's quote:

Quote:

thought she was great in "Flight Plan." I know a lot of people didn't like the movie, but I thought it was really interesting. I liked it a lot better than "Red Eye," but then I can't stand Rachel McAdams and don't think she's a very good actress. Jodie Foster is superb in everything she does.

Antiquarian, I agree - I liked that film very much. It was so interesting how no one believed her. It reminded me of the Hitchcock film - "The Lady Vanishes" in the whole idea of the film. I like that Sean Bean played the pilot. I like him in serious roles such as this. I would watch this film again. It was good and kept my interest and was entertaining in a thriller type way.

:lol: notice how I have been following you around the forum, A? :lol:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page