What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

L.A. Confidential. (1997)

A masterpiece of modern cinema. If anyone hasn't seen it, then you're missing out.

[Frankenhooker]

L.A Confidential is a brilliant film adapted from a stunning novel, the whole L.A Quartet from Ellroy is just sublime. The film leaves a lot out which, if you've read the book, makes the screenplay even more impressive, the screenplay is backed up by some great performances. Crowe, Spacey and Basinger have never been better in my opinion, all three are perfect fits for 1950's L.A. Probably one of the best films of the past twenty years.

[nosferatu42]

What about Guy Pearce?, haven't seen 'Confidential' for a while, but i really like him normally as an actor, he usually puts in a good performance whatever he's in.
Has anyone seen 'The Proposition' i really like that film a lot?
Always thought he would have been good as Batman myself.

[nosferatu42]

slaughterhouse-five-2ct6faj.jpg
Watched 'Slaughterhouse 5', an interesting film.
Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time.
Basically He has been abducted by aliens, taken to another planet and placed in a sealed dome as some kind of experiment and is expected to mate with an abducted female film star.( who spends most of the time she appears without much clothing. Personally i could probably live with this.)

He also slips through time constantly to revisit earlier moments from his life, primarily the relationship with his previous wife and kids and his experiences in WW2. I guess this must be some side effect of the abduction.
Anyway that all sounds very serious, and it is but the film also has some amusing moments.
I read the book a long time ago but couldn't remember much apart from the above description, so for me this adaption was good.

It's a very interesting film, quite thought provoking and philosophical, i thought the main actor was good though he just seemed to observe most of the time.( which seems weird as you're watching it, but makes sense if he is slipping back into the moment because he would already be aware of the outcome.)
Anyway i liked it, mainly for the juxtaposition of images and ideas, there's actually not much of the science fiction element although it does make all the pieces fit together and gives it a meaning.
Pretty good- 7/10

[troggi]

geekdog.jpg

"Hercules Against the Moon Men" (1964)

Spaghetti Swords and Sandals epic
The neatly coiffured Haircurlers takes on the terrifying shuffling rock men from an old episode of "Flash Gordon and the Farting Rockets"! Thankfully repeated copying and age has leached out some of the colour otherwise Haircurlers would be too orange for the human eye, a bit like David Dickinson on steroids!

7/10 for being a proto-wrestling video starring a young David Dickinson and some bloke in a mask!

p.s. I've just noticed that the next three films are all about Haircurlers (thanks have to go to Ken Dodd and his "Ken Dodd's Big Diddy Book" for the name Haircurlers, I am not worthy to fiddle his tax-returns)!

p.p.s. If anyone knows the whereabouts of a "Ken Dodd's Big Diddy Book" could they please let me know (but only if it's cheap)!

[Vipp]

@Troggi, that is a massive box of Sci-Fi films!.

[keirarts]

Star Wars Phantom menace.

As bad as I remember but with wonkier CGI courtesy of Blu-ray showing it up. Jar Jar binks the racist clown character is the worst thing here, serves little purpose other than to baby talk, fall over and provide toilet humor. Next up on rotten things is Jake Loyd playing Anakin Skywalker. I know a lot of child actors are insufferable, but Loyd can't even act, he's so bloody fake its irritating. There is the occasional interesting thing in the movie like Darth Maul but overall it stinks like a bathroom the day after curry night.

Star wars Attack of the Clones.

An improvement. Hayden christiansen is less annoying than the Loyd brat but still Skywalker comes across as a petulant whiny brat and his scenes are lousy and irritating. Outside of the scenes between him and Natalie Portman the film is actually somewhat more interesting than Phantom menace. Jar Jar exposure is kept to a minimum as everyone realizes he's not the new merchandising sensation that will buy Lucas a new speedboat. Obi-wan's investigation into the bounty hunter Django Fett is actually fun, the clone troopers and the finale in the arena are fun and Christopher Lee as the villain is never a bad thing. Unlike Phantom menace I actually paused the film when I went to get a drink.


Star Wars Revenge of the Sith.

Probably the best of the three as Lucas finally begins to remember how to make movies after over two decades spent producing movies and not directing them. Decent action scenes throughout, actually gets rather dark and finally Ian Mcdirmid gets to shine as the emperor. Even less Jar Jar is a good thing, only a brief appearance from Christopher Lee is not. Neither is Vader and his infamous NOOOOOOO scene. Still, its an entertaining enough romp.


So what went wrong?

I think the simple answer is no one was around to suggest changes to Lucas and he had enough money to put whatever brain farts came to the surface without anyone saying "sorry George, this idea is actually pretty shit" or "no George, those characters come across as racist caricatures" The original Star wars was shot on a tight budget by a young director who could actually listen to people and was constrained by a tight budget. Hell, look at what he did to the originals when he had the budget and the ability to go back over them in the film making Photoshop studio. After watching the Animated Clone wars series and seeing what the setting could be like without the bearded clams interference it makes me wish he had simply handed his notes to a director like Lawrence Kasdan and said go to work, meanwhile using that insane amount of money he has to start a fund to finance and distribute low budget independent films. I seriously don't think he should be let near a film as director or writer ever again.

It's a good thing Disney bought Star wars.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by J Harker

Took my boy to watch Disneys Planes this afternoon. And I really enjoyed it. Much much better than Pixars Cars from which it is a spin off.

I thought it was distinctly mediocre without any of the attention to detail, engaging central characters or emotional impact of the Pixar films. I think Cars is probably the weakest Pixar film but it's head and shoulders above Planes which just doesn't have the Pixar magic.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by keirarts

So what went wrong?

I think the simple answer is no one was around to suggest changes to Lucas and he had enough money to put whatever brain farts came to the surface without anyone saying "sorry George, this idea is actually pretty shit" or "no George, those characters come across as racist caricatures" The original Star wars was shot on a tight budget by a young director who could actually listen to people and was constrained by a tight budget. Hell, look at what he did to the originals when he had the budget and the ability to go back over them in the film making Photoshop studio.

I think much of what you said also applies to Quentin Tarantino, who began making films with a small budget but now has almost unlimited funds and without anyone to tell him to stop acting in his own films and, in the case of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, they are far too long.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I think much of what you said also applies to Quentin Tarantino, who began making films with a small budget but now has almost unlimited funds and without anyone to tell him to stop acting in his own films and, in the case of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, they are far too long.

Most definitely. QT has become entirely self-indulgent. That said his films are still (relatively) low cost budget-wise and I still find them entertaining. Certainly a more 'professional' film-maker would cut them down and be way more ruthless in the editing suite but for me at least I still find his films entertaining and don't mind him being self indulgent.

Hell i'd also level the same charges at Stanley Kubrick, eyes wide shut is probably the most self indulgent and over long of his films but I still keep coming back to it time and time again. he basically got carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted and it shows.

I could even level the same accusations at P.T Anderson. Magnolia and there will be blood for me both fit the same criticism.