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

[Janine]

'History Boys' - adapted from the play by Alan Bennett. Thoroughly engrossing and compulsory viewing for everyone. A friend of Alan Bennett is a friend of mine. What is it about him that is so endearing? Any ideas?

Hi Werther, a neighbor lent me this book (it was her son's when he studied in England), but I had not found time to finish reading it. I started it and now I am sure I will have to start over again. I was not aware their was a film adaptation of the book...interesting. Is the book really that good? I must try to read it soon....it is not that long so it should not take me much time between my major reading...no excuses now.

[Janine]

Freedom Writers ~ starring Hilary Swank and Patrick Dempsey

10/10

This is one fantastic movie! It's the story of a naive new teacher who comes to a school that used to teach students with a four point grade average but now is populated by students don't think school is of any use because it doesn't teach how to survive the streets. Fights erupt between gangs and people. Young adults are shot by rival gangs. Through time, Swank(the teacher) modifies her methods and really gets through to the kids by telling them "gangster" stories like Romeo and Juliet and showing racial problems through books like Anne Frank's diary. Also, the class got so excited about the holocaust (that sounds odd) that they held fundraisers to raise money to bring the woman who had sheltered Anne Frank to visit.
Through all the field trips and dinners and lessons learned, the students regain their self-esteem and learn that you don't need gangs to survive. But as Swank made progress with the students, the faculty was against her methods and did much to try to ensure that she wouldn't outshine their own efforts, which were poor because they didn't think the kids were worth it. Of course, everything ended happily.

Hi
andave_ya Do you know, was this film based on a true story? Just curious.

[livelaughlove]

Music and Lyrics with Drew Barrymore and Hugh Grant.

8/10

It was your typical cute and sappy romance story. It didn't require much thought, and was overall a nice, sweet movie. The acting was not bad.

[manolia]

"Young Frankestein" By Mel Brooks starring Gene Wilder 10/10. A fantastic comedy.

"The lives of others" the already famous german film. It was nice but i wouldn't place it among the best german films i have seen. 7/10

[quasimodo1]

The movie was made after the novel by German writer Gunter Grass. Anyone seen it and if so... quasimodo1

[manolia]

The movie was made after the novel by German writer Gunter Grass. Anyone seen it and if so... quasimodo1

Idril has seen this one (i think). I remember having a conversation before about it so check a few pages back in this thread.

*EDIT* on page 97

[metal134]

Just watched "Talladega Nights". It sucked. Big time. The last 20 minutes were unbelievably bad. I give it a 3 out of 10 only because I did laugh a couple of times, though most of the jokes sucked and even when I did laugh, it was a mere chuckle. Bad movie.

[Shalot]

Last night I watched Idiocracy with Luke Wilson. Actually, I fell asleep before it was over, but from what I saw it was okay.

Two people of average intelligence (played by Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph - SNL) are frozen as part of an army experiment that's supposed to last one year (as in they'll be frozen for a year). I don't remember what the objective of the experiment was supposed to be, but of course, things go awry and the two frozen people are forgotten and buried under a pile of rubble for 500 years. When they wake up, the American landscape has changed, and it's no longer a democracy. It's an idiocracy, and the average joes from 2006 are now the smartest people in the country. If you think we're stupid now, wait till you see us in 500 years (if it lasts that long, right? ).

Like I said, I fell asleep but I would like to see where they're going with this one. Since I only saw part of it, I can't give it an actual rating, but I might give it a second try, some other time.

[Janine]

"Hamlet" ~ Mel Gibson version
Since it took me two nights to watch, I have an updated view and something to add, mostly negative, sorry to say.
First off, I did not like the ending nearly as well as the Kenneth Branagh version or for that matter, the BBC version with Derek Jacobi playing Hamlet. Those two versions have a lot more style and a more emotion. I felt really let down by the end in the Zeffirella version (Gibson).
Secondly, I could not get over how many key lines and really poignant verses were completely eliminated. Some of the greatest lines/speeches from Hamlet were simply cut from the script. I was waiting for the scene when Hamlet ruminates on the fall of a sparrow and I thought the lines were clumsily delivered by a starry eyed Mel gazing out at a lovely ocean sunset. Where was Horatio?
Two really weak characters in my opinion were Laertes and Horatio. One hardly knew Horatio existed and Laertes was bland and flat in his performance. I have seen Nathaniel Parker in other films and he has improved since this film, but he fits a nice guy image and did not do well as a Laertes at all.
I would not recommend this version. Rather if you really want to see "Hamlet" and fully understand it, understand one needs the complete text.
Disappointing scene of all time was the graveyard scene - so much removed that I found it painful to watch. Also, the skull/mortality reflection was just awful...again too much removed from the text and little, or no emotion.
I think the women gave strong performances, Glen Close and Helena Bonham-Carter.
Mel Gibson displayed varying degrees of performances, as the film progressed I thought his Shakespeare delivery had a lot to be desired. I felt at the end, during the sword fight, he displayed downright silly jestures and he lost me at that point completely. Then his own death scene felt over-played to me. Without the Fortinbras part of the story, the impact of Hamlet's final words to Horatio, really loss all significance.
If you want to see a quality production of "Hamlet" see either full-length versions I have mentioned, Branagh's fine film or the BBC film starring Derek Jacobi.

[Andrea2007]

Hamlet ~ Zeffirelli's version ~

Starring Mel Gibson, Glen Close, Alan Bates, Helena Bonham-Carter, Ian Holm, Paul Scofield

This version is set in medieval-era Denmark and was nominated for Art Direction and Costume Design. I like this version and the performances are really noteworthy. However, after viewing several other full-length versions, I am noticing many changes in script from the original Shakespeare text. For one thing, many of the lines are changed around and in a different sequence. It is odd to see this when I nearly have the full-length text/versions memorized by now, having viewed them so many times. This version is much more abreviated and condensed, more so than I originally thought. It is a noteworthy film if you think of it as a separate entity - a film in it's self. But it is a far cry from the complete play, if you are more of a purest about adaptations, as I tend to be especially concerning Shakespeare's "Hamlet". Also, I wish that some of the film with great moments was shown with more personal closeups of the actors delivering their lines. I would have like those moments to be more centered. A few parts get a little confusing with too much going on around the actors, too many distractions. I like very much some of the scenes, but felt the "To be or not to be" scene in the tomb, though mostly well done, was a little lacking in focus at times.
I recall seeing this film years ago with my teenage son who loved it, which delighted me. It seems this could be appreciated by youth or those who have not the patience for the full 4 hour play/films. First time I saw this version I was amazed with all of the fine acting and I loved this film's intensity and drama. Now that I have seen full-length versions I miss parts that were cut to make this version fit into a commercial theater timeslot. But this film does work well as a film standing alone from the play.
I especially like Alan Bates as the corrupt uncle/king. Mel Gibson gives a fine performance; so does Glen Close as his mother - in reality they were about the same age when shooting this film, but she is very believable as Hamlet's mother. Helena Bonham-Carter is quite young here and gives a fine performance as Ophelia. Strange though, how the script was so obviously changed around, especially when it came to interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. That is when I first noticed that the director took this liberty of rearranging the script. Also, some key sections were completely left out, like in the bedroom scene between Hamlet and his mother. This rather annoys me now. If you have seen no other version, this will greatly delight you. Mel Gibson plays the role a bit madder, than I think Kenneth Branagh plays it, in his full-length version. I prefer the full-length film and many things about it, but this film is interesting in that it is set in earlier times so the settings are cruder, more rustic, and quite interesting.

I would have to say that I agree with you. I enjoyed the film, but I believe that it was somewhat lacking in areas. Like you said in the "to be or not to be" speech. It didn't deliver as strong of a message as it could have. They focused a lot on Mel Gipson's acting rather than Hamlet in some parts. Overall, the film was good and I enjoyed watching it with my English class.

[Mark F.]

I finally saw 300 and it gets a 1/10 in my book, the actors were pathetic, and the music was awful (especially the saturated guitar bits). The worst thing about the film though is the total absence of directing, Snyder obviously figured he'd just replicate the graphic novel, firstly what makes a good comic doesn't necessarily make a good movie (that's what adaptation is about right? making the material suit another media...) and secondly I'm not sure the gn was much good to start with. Showing a bit of gore isn't enough for an audience that isn't out of their mind, otherwise we would just go watch the butcher do his job. A head flying across the screen isn't going to shock anyone, you need to do more than that. Avoid this film as if it were the plague, if you want a truely epic film check out Conan the Barbarian instead.

[Janine]

I finally saw 300 and it gets a 1/10 in my book, the actors were pathetic, and the music was awful (especially the saturated guitar bits). The worst thing about the film though is the total absence of directing, Snyder obviously figured he'd just replicate the graphic novel, firstly what makes a good comic doesn't necessarily make a good movie (that's what adaptation is about right? making the material suit another media...) and secondly I'm not sure the gn was much good to start with. Showing a bit of gore isn't enough for an audience that isn't out of their mind, otherwise we would just go watch the butcher do his job. A head flying across the screen isn't going to shock anyone, you need to do more than that. Avoid this film as if it were the plague, if you want a truely epic film check out Conan the Barbarian instead.

Thanks Mark F, Well, I think you have finally killed this film off for me for good! I am glad of all the warnings. A friend told me it was great, but at the time I seriously doubted his judgement. I doubt I will be watching this film; I don't care for seeing someones head flying across the screen. I don't like gore and don't even care for watching the butcher cut meat at the grocery store. Thanks again Mark!

[Janine]

I would have to say that I agree with you. I enjoyed the film, but I believe that it was somewhat lacking in areas. Like you said in the "to be or not to be" speech. It didn't deliver as strong of a message as it could have. They focused a lot on Mel Gipson's acting rather than Hamlet in some parts. Overall, the film was good and I enjoyed watching it with my English class.

Andrea, Thanks for agreeing with me on this film. I had not seen this particular film for years, and what happened is I picked up the VHS tape somewhere very cheap ($1.50). I thought - well, I will add it to my "Hamlet" collection. I recalled it from years ago and I thought it was quite good, then. I suppose one's perspectives really changes over time. Now that I have seen two fantastic full-length versions encompassing the whole story and richness of the play, I can't go back and watch a chopped version. Half the story was missing!

I read on Amazon so many reviews. Most were praising it, and educators were saying this was the version they were using to teach their class. Well, that is ashame, I thought - half the play - and not the best acting, to boot. If you really want to see a great version see the Branagh "Hamlet" when it comes out on DVD, hopefully this summer (people have been screaming for the DVD, they even had a campaign to get it on DVD, it took time due to the 70 mm film transfer). Ok, granted some of the casting was a little off, but only the minor minor roles and everyone quibbles about them; well none of the Hamlets are completely flawless. I can overlook one litte misjudgement in casting.

Branagh made a bold choice and used the entire text for his fantastic "Hamlet". Also, the delivery and the sheer beauty of Shakespeare's words are full bodied here and felt deeply. One can see that Branagh took years to perfect his craft and his "Hamlet". Countless times he played it onstage, but he made a wonderful transition to film. Closeups are plentiful and needed to show the full range of emotions for all characters. Branagh knows that the words of Shakespeare are the most important element (they are the magic).The poetry and the words are the play and nothing should distract from them.

Then why is it teachers don't opt to teach this version? Probably unavailable as yet, and their schedules, time limitations won't allow this length of production, maybe kids don't have that long a attention span. That is sad, though. I hope they do switch to this version soon and if need be show it in segments/episodes. Far better to see the whole play than be cheated with a half-baked production!

[Mark F.]

Thanks Mark F, Well, I think you have finally killed this film off for me for good! I am glad of all the warnings. A friend told me it was great, but at the time I seriously doubted his judgement. I doubt I will be watching this film; I don't care for seeing someones head flying across the screen. I don't like gore and don't even care for watching the butcher cut meat at the grocery store. Thanks again Mark!

Gore can be used in interesting ways, for example Peckinpah, Pasolini (Salo) and Romero all use gore to support their message. The problem with 300 is that it's just imagery, and it's not very interesting.

[Janine]

Gore can be used in interesting ways, for example Peckinpah, Pasolini (Salo) and Romero all use gore to support their message. The problem with 300 is that it's just imagery, and it's not very interesting.

Yes, I can deal with gore if it has a purpose but gore for the audience's reaction sake is sickening. I fully agree with you - quality film this does not sound like. I heard from others the film is lacking. It seems it does not have a lot of real content. Let's face it good CG and effects are one thing but a hollow story line is not enough to support such a film. It sounds thin and not worth viewing.