Movies you have seen recently

[ViceFanMan]

39 minutes ago, Augusta said:

I don't watch the Awards anymore, but I heard a newscaster say last night that:

...."movie____ is clearly the better filmed, better performed film, but CODA is likely to win because it can make you cry and that's what the population wants right now"....

  
I heard the newscaster say that, and I thought, I've seen years when the awards made a pretty biased slant in their choices, but NO WAY the Oscar/Hollywood people could be THAT shallow, and award the year's winner based on THAT superficial a reason!!
...Oh boy, was I wrong.  Look who won best picture. LOL!!!

Yeah, Hollywood is so biased & definitely “shallow”, anymore that usually whatever movie should win an award, they’ll purposely choose a different one.  I haven’t watched the awards in decades...it’s not worth it. I’ll decide what movies are good or not.  

[sdiegolo78]

5 hours ago, Augusta said:

Dalton (who played Bond really well in my opinion), ran through the movie more like a cool-blooded hitman.  Trained like a military operative, relentlessly vengeful, and even when he smiled.... not really a playful smile like Connery that could warm the audience to what body count he was leaving behind him.  Not Dalton's fault that his devilish face just isn't as "warmly" devilish as Sean's.  In the Living Daylights he had enough humorous scenes to compensate for it.  But in two hours of License, the critics came away saying "his killing style is too mean and ruthless to be the right Bond--Dalton is just too damn ruthless for the role".  

Dalton's not nearly as brutal as Craig's explicit, machete-missing, motor-oil swallowing, femoral-artery bleed-out, ugliness of murder when he plays 007----and folks LIKE violent Mr Craig... so in a way Dalton may have been just too far ahead of his era.  

Dalton was sort of a gateway to future James Bond reincarnations. such as D.Craig's. There were talks for a third and fourth movie with the welsh actor as 007 but disputes between EON and MGM stalled it from getting off the ground. That was resolved by 1993 and Dalton agreed to do the planned Golden-eye and leave. However, producers told him he couldn't go back after a 5 year gap from the previous movie to just do one more. Then they decided to look for another actor. Brosnan Bond was reminiscent of Roger Moore, not my style. Though I liked golden-eye for the spectacular action scenes and faster pace. Then came Craig. He brought the best 007 version to date. He and T.Dalton were the closest to the way Ian Fleming portrayed this character in his novels.

[sdiegolo78]

9 hours ago, Kladdagh said:

100% Agree with your statement! LTK is on my Top 3 of Bond Movies Favorites. The critics were rude at the time, and even now, I still don't understand why! 

yeah, as stated in my post this movie was criminally underrated! It gained cult following when Casino Royal came out.

[Vicefan7777]

6 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

The Passion Of The Christ (2004)

A+

It's the most impressive film I have seen based on Jesus final 12 hours on earth. Jim Caviezel's performance truly was astounding.

Every critique surrounding this film is about The Antisemitism claims. Perhaps the movie was a bit harsh on Jews, and I will admit it. But if you read the Bible, which probably most of the critics who said this did not, the entire movie is accurate. The guards of the Temple were the ones who arrested Jesus, not the Romans. It was the Jewish High Priests who wanted to kill Jesus, not the Romans. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with that, and I don't think that Mel Gibson was trying to make an Antisemitic film.

 

I saw this in the theater with my wife and Mother-in-law and it really was a powerful film.  It is still watched every Easter. I really do not see this being an anti-semitic film.  Just one persons interpretation of bible history. Plus, as a film I have to admire Mel Gibson's belief in making this film.  No major studio wanted to finance it.  Thinking no one would want to spend their money watching a religious story.  Gibson got the last laugh as it was a major hit with film goers. 

[ViceFanMan]

25 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

Dalton was sort of a gateway to future James Bond reincarnations. such as D.Craig's. There were talks for a third and fourth movie with the welsh actor as 007 but disputes between EON and MGM stalled it from getting off the ground. That was resolved by 1993 and Dalton agreed to do the planned Golden-eye and leave. However, producers told him he couldn't go back after a 5 year gap from the previous movie to just do one more. Then they decided to look for another actor. Brosnan Bond was reminiscent of Roger Moore, not my style. Though I liked golden-eye for the spectacular action scenes and faster pace. Then came Craig. He brought the best 007 version to date. He and T.Dalton were the closest to the way Ian Fleming portrayed this character in his novels.

Pierce Brosnan was supposed to be the next Bond, after Roger Moore retired in 1985. However, even though Brosnan’s detective show Remington Steele had recently been cancelled, the actor’s contracts were technically not up—as the network cancelled the show before the contracts expired. When fans of RS were furious & bombarded the network to bring it back, they decided to do a few TV movies to end it out. So, Brosnan was legally forced to give up his new 007 project & return for more RS.

Bond producers then turned to Timothy Dalton. Dalton was okay, but (in my opinion) there was just something not quite “there”. I wanted Dalton to be a superb Bond, but it just didn’t quite happen that way. Not that he was a terrible 007 at all...he was good! But he wasn’t Connery or Moore. FYI: In 1979 Dalton guest starred on a Charlie’s Angels episode (“Fallen Angel”), which was one of Farrah Fawcett’s special return guest appearances. In it Dalton plays a sophisticated & professional jewel thief...and his character is ironically described in the episode as having “James Bond-ian type characteristics”. Eight years later, he was 007! 

By 1995 Remington Steele was long over, and Brosnan was able to finally take the Bond-reins...and Golden Eye was spectacular!! Everybody has their opinions on which bonds they liked, or which movies they liked best. I like them all for different & various reasons, but personally I liked Moore & Brosnan best. 

[sdiegolo78]

Last night I watched this blockbuster from 1989, being fresh of 'Freefall':

There's also Sherman Howard (Colonel Baker) playing one of the thugs (no dialogue though)

[Mr. Vigilante]

I keep seeing that Mel is gonna direct a Lethal Weapon 5.  I'm intrigued and somewhat excited, but also skeptical and surprised.  For one, Murtaugh was 50 in the first film in '87 ( I think), so he would be 84-85!  Also, I'm surprised Danny Glover would work with Mel again after Mel's past incidents.  Hope it works out because I love the series!

[RedDragon86]

1 hour ago, sdiegolo78 said:

Last night I watched this blockbuster from 1989, being fresh of 'Freefall':

There's also Sherman Howard (Colonel Baker) playing one of the thugs (no dialogue though)

Have you seen the cut version of that scene when Riggs kills those two bad guys?

Pretty rough 

Edited April 2, 2022 by RedDragon86

[sdiegolo78]

53 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

Have you seen the cut version of that scene when Riggs kills those two bad guys?

Pretty rough 

yes I did! "Col. Baker" gets his karma in this one

[sdiegolo78]

1 hour ago, Mr. Vigilante said:

I keep seeing that Mel is gonna direct a Lethal Weapon 5.  I'm intrigued and somewhat excited, but also skeptical and surprised.  For one, Murtaugh was 50 in the first film in '87 ( I think), so he would be 84-85!  Also, I'm surprised Danny Glover would work with Mel again after Mel's past incidents.  Hope it works out because I love the series!

yeah, according to IMDB the upcoming movie is in pre-production and Danny Glover will be in it! He was born in 1946, so by the time of filming he'd be 76-77 years old. I'd wager his character would finally be retired but pulled back by Riggs for one more crazy adventure!

I didn't like the 4th movie about the Chinese triads and Jet Li as bad guy. It felt like some kung-fu movie. The 3rd was ok but definitely not as good as the first two. The second was the best of all!

Edited April 2, 2022 by sdiegolo78

[Augusta]

Double Features are great, if you have a significant other who likes a good flick, and the two of you can spend four-point-five hours curled together in the sofa (...err, or reclined in those super leather chairs you have in the third row of your private "theater room", if you're wealthy unlike the rest of us).  
War of the Worlds and The Time Machine was a superb double-feature someone recently posted about.  But if you're not into great sci-fi, try a Paul Newman pair.
The Verdict.
And then, Absence of Malice.  
Malice was actually hit the theaters BEFORE Verdict,... but I think the impact of Paul Newman's work in both films hits you best when you see the Verdict first, and follow it up with Absence of Malice.

  
VERY different stories to tell, with no connection and zero in common with each other, so you have two clearly different treats to watch.  Different directors, both consumate directors, but two very different persons Paul has to portray.  Both OUTSTANDING films, and it's hard to pick a favorite.  I think I lean toward the Verdict because it's the one I saw first those years ago, and the prize that's being fought for here feels more personal, even though BOTH films are kind of about personal vindication.

Be forewarned: In one of the films he beats up Sally Field, for real stunning effect, not played as a comedy moment (Sally Field!!!  That's America's darling, Gidget and the Flying Nun---Paul, what the HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOIN, Mister!!!!?----that's like punching a sweet little hamster.  Nobody in Hollywood history was ever made a fist and worked his anger off on Sally Field. OOOOooh, Paul you better pray I never catch you in real life on the street!)

Both films are perfect for BOTH ladies and men to rally behind.  Not a guy-film, nor a chick-flick.  Both have to do with the American Law, and measures how well it protects an individual's rights under circumstances when the individual may find himself at his weakest and most vulnerable.  Both have grim endings you can't feel fully cheerful about, but each one is done so well that it sneaks up and makes you want to care about so much about a subject that you almost want to make a fist and shout "Yeah!!" at the pivotal moments.  

If anyone ever sat and wondered "what's all the hullabaloo about Paul Newman fine actor, blah blah blah",... THIS is why Paul Newman is so freakin respected as an actor.  In both films, KNOCKOUT skill.  Gutteral voice, broken-man eyes, undertoned played-down manner in front of the camera, giving you so much by giving you almost nothing in his body motions---everything perfect.

[RedDragon86]

On 4/2/2022 at 7:06 PM, sdiegolo78 said:

yeah, according to IMDB the upcoming movie is in pre-production and Danny Glover will be in it! He was born in 1946, so by the time of filming he'd be 76-77 years old. I'd wager his character would finally be retired but pulled back by Riggs for one more crazy adventure!

I didn't like the 4th movie about the Chinese triads and Jet Li as bad guy. It felt like some kung-fu movie. The 3rd was ok but definitely not as good as the first two. The second was the best of all!

The first 2 are very good but I thought the 4th Leathal Weapon was very racist towards Chinese people, if the racism was aimed at Black people there would have been uproar but I guess its OK in Hollywood to be racist to Asian people. The same goes with that piece of s*** racist movie Gran Torino.

I happen to watched the third one last night and a lot of stuff did not make any sense. What a dumb script Jeffrey Boam and Robert Mark Kamen wrote, like why would Nick be hanging out with a street gang leader who dropped out from high school? what exactly would be in it for them to associate with Murtaugh son Nick who is a good student and comes from a respectable family and Murtaugh didn't cause fuss when they were practically at his door, what?. Another thing is why would the main bad guy go to a police precinct and kill someone in the interrogation room knowing that there is cameras everywhere and he just goes back to his criminal day to day life like nothing has happened. Lastly I didn't like the its all the White mans fault for these Black youth for having guns "you find the man who put the gun in my sons hand" eh? no he bought it out of choice. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by RedDragon86

[Augusta]

I have to agree with nearly all of what  RedDragon86 posted.  No, I DO like Gran Torino, and I feel it is a movie ABOUT ignorant prejudice in a character, (which is different and way more important than a movie where a character or racial theme is just treated like a tool to add entertaining flavor to your movie. like Lethal IV's Asian slant),.. so I feel as if the vileness of the mentality in that Eastwood film was essential, necessary that the behavior in that movie be hurtful.  That's rare, like those rare movies where there is an essential artistic need for that film to be BRUTALLY violent (I've seen a few of those too, and I have to honor them, cuz I don't like when violence is in our movies just to thrill the audience).

But I agree with the rest of your post.  
I guess I have a personal aversion to sequels (and remakes).  I think I tend not to like anything beyond the first GOOD movie that's made.  It's like art.  If you did it really GOOD, why do a follow-up?---leave it as a "one good gemstone".  Okay, IF you're really good at making that stuff,... do a sequel, but STOP at three movies.  (Indiana Jones set, Lethal Weapon set, The Matrix set).  Only the true PROVEN genius artists should attempt to make more than three----like George Lucas with the Star Wars,... and DID YOU SEE HOW NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE  it was for even Lucas to do six satisfactory ones.  EEwww.

What made the first Lethal Weapon film effective for me was the EXPLANATION why Gibson's character is always ready to walk into the blaze of danger so fiercely, and how at Christmas time his kind of mindset is not rare in people, and how Glover and his family have to pull him out of that path and get his head into a purpose (and patience) about life again.
It's a standalone piece of storytelling, that gets completed by the end of the movie,  so unfortunately that device can't be "repeated" in Lethal II, a Lethal III, etc.  Lethal One, is the only one that isn't just "another bullets-n-blasts buddy cops movie". 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Augusta

[sdiegolo78]

8 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

The first 2 are very good but I thought the 4th Leathal Weapon was very racist towards Chinese people, if the racism was aimed at Black people there would have been uproar but I guess its OK in Hollywood to be racist to Asian people. The same goes with that piece of s*** racist movie Gran Torino.

I happen to watched the third one last night and a lot of stuff did not make any sense. What a dumb script Jeffrey Boam and Robert Mark Kamen wrote, like why would Nick be hanging out with a street gang leader who dropped out from high school? what exactly would be in it for them to associate with Murtaugh son Nick who is a good student and comes from a respectable family and Murtaugh didn't cause fuss when they were practically at his door, what?. Another thing is why would the main bad guy go to a police precinct and kill someone in the interrogation room knowing that there is cameras everywhere and he just goes back to his criminal day to day life like nothing has happened. Lastly I didn't like the its all the White mans fault for these Black youth for having guns "you find the man who put the gun in my sons hand" eh? no he bought it out of choice. 

i agree with the third movie. The stuff you called out do not make any sense at all. I guess you would only watch it if you are a fan of the franchise and like the action. Some really good action scenes and stunts. In particular M.Riggs chasing a bad guy with the police motorbike and falling off a roof and down into a scaffolding.

[sdiegolo78]

4 hours ago, Augusta said:

What made the first Lethal Weapon film effective for me was the EXPLANATION why Gibson's character is always ready to walk into the blaze of danger so fiercely, and how at Christmas time his kind of mindset is not rare in people, and how Glover and his family have to pull him out of that path and get his head into a purpose (and patience) about life again.
It's a standalone piece of storytelling, that gets completed by the end of the movie,  so unfortunately that device can't be "repeated" in Lethal II, a Lethal III, etc.  Lethal One, is the only one that isn't just "another bullets-n-blasts buddy cops movie"

Good analysis, didn't really think about that myself. By the way, i think Mel Gibson would have made a good Sonny Crockett had DJ dropped out after S2. I know it's impossible cause he was a movie star in the making at the time but I'm just saying.

Edited April 6, 2022 by sdiegolo78

[Augusta]

Another double-feature, for those of you who get introspective about Covid and Putin, and such.  I will not watch them.  I've seen them at a time when current events were not so debatable as they are now, and I already know how powerful these two films are.  But we know people who will feel pulled like a magnet to movies about kidnapping, right after a real kidnapping took place in their city.  So...:

Fail-Safe (Henry Fonda and Larry Hagman).

On The Beach (Gregory Peck and Fred Astaire).

They are both fictional films where nuclear death may break out any minute (OK, nuke movies).  Both done at a time long before filmmakers were allowed to show ballooned irradiated victims or dismembered and blackened gory corpses on camera, so no explicit yucky horror.

These are NOT the most gut-hurting, hope-breaking apocalypse movies you can ever see (....a movie called Threads is the winner in that category, and I DO NOT recommend you watch it cuz Threads is such a superb and matter-of-frank achievement that it'll leave you bummed out and depressed for two weeks afterward).  But these two movies are I think the most well-done nuke movies released in that twitchy era of 50'-60's.  
Each has a master director (actually I'm surprised by how many really GOOD directors there were in Hollywood---I'm still learning them), each has some superb actors (some at the beginning of their careers, some already at the top of their field---all mixed and working together really well, thanks to the director).  
Beach got out to the public first, but I recommend you watch Fail-Safe first.  My only peeve with this movie is that it shows politicians as way too smart, and way too capable of making problem-solving decisions.  I know that's a politician's job, but Henry Fonda as president is just OFF-the-chart intelligent and aware of what to do---and we know that's never the case with real people in charge.  
You want to smack Walter Matthau's character. 
And Colonel Black (Blackie)...is a warrior who just breaks my heart.

Once you've watched Safe, then wait 24 hours to watch On the Beach.  Fail-Safe is urgent and edgy, like critical surgery on a patient.  Beach is gentle, quiet, always feeling like a vast loneliness is approaching.  Fail-Safe has you trapped in a cockpit, or in a sound-proof negotiations room, or in a war-control room.  Beach is almost entirely filmed in Australia, which is a wide grassy, proud open place for an ending to take place in.  

Both movies are in B&W, and act like bookends, front and back bookends on a subject, WITHOUT having to even detail the subject itself, because you KNOW what's happened in between these two movies.  Fail-Safe tries to stop it,... On the Beach tries to see it through to a dignified peace.  
You won't get depressed watching these two movies.  But yes, you are likely to feel a bit melancholy.  Altering your emotions for a span of time even after the movie is over, is what a GOOD movie is supposed to be able to do.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Augusta

[ViceFanMan]

I recently acquired the restored Kino Lorber Blu-ray of the movie Grand Slam (1967). This is a classic, and now one of my favorite heist films...full of thrills & edge-of-your-seat suspense!  I had not seen it before, but now I’m really glad I have it! With a star-power cast (such as Janet Leigh, Edward G. Robinson, Adolfo Celi, Robert Hoffman, etc...), superb cinematography & filming locations (such as Rio de Janiero), the meticulous planning & work the elite team of thieves go through,  the action & thrills, the 60s-swinging musical score, the taut direction, and the (as the Blu-ray cover says) slam-bang twist of an ending, I agree with film critic Roger Ebert...it’s one of the best heist movies I’ve seen!  And again, the irony of the ending...love it!!   

[Ferrariman]

"The Batman"    

I've heard this movie called  "the greatest super hero movie ever made"   Couldn't be further from the truth.  3 hours of bad casting and  boring criminals.   Robert Pattinson does not make a good Bruce Wayne or Batman.  Total disappointment in my book.   I've been reading comics since I was a kid and still do.  To me, the movies by Christopher Nolan were the ultimate Batman trilogy and NOBODY will beat Heath Ledger's Joker!

[Augusta]

On 5/6/2022 at 9:58 PM, ViceFanMan said:

I recently acquired the restored Kino Lorber Blu-ray of the movie Grand Slam (1967). This is a classic, and now one of my favorite heist films...full of thrills & edge-of-your-seat suspense!  I had not seen it before, but now I’m really glad I have it! With a star-power cast (such as Janet Leigh, Edward G. Robinson, Adolfo Celi, Robert Hoffman, etc...), superb cinematography & filming locations (such as Rio de Janiero), the meticulous planning & work the elite team of thieves go through,  the action & thrills, the 60s-swinging musical score, the taut direction, and the (as the Blu-ray cover says) slam-bang twist of an ending, I agree with film critic Roger Ebert...it’s one of the best heist movies I’ve seen!  And again, the irony of the ending...love it!!   

Jeez!!!!  How is it that you know about these hit films?  Anybody can know about many of the movies we've all listed here, but when you pull out a gem like Grand Slam,... your knowledge of movies is dangerous.
You're that Maxell man with the butler and the scarf---c'mon now, it's time to admit it.

You still didn't take a look at Brute Force, yet?  As a caper, it's got some similarities to Grand Slam, though it's coming from, LOL, the "other end" of where the Grand Slam characters are travelling.

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Augusta said:

Jeez!!!!  How is it that you know about these hit films?  Anybody can know about many of the movies we've all listed here, but when you pull out a gem like Grand Slam,... your knowledge of movies is dangerous.
You're that Maxell man with the butler and the scarf---c'mon now, it's time to admit it.

You still didn't take a look at Brute Force, yet?  As a caper, it's got some similarities to Grand Slam, though it's coming from, LOL, the "other end" of where the Grand Slam characters are travelling.

Lol...years of watching older movies on cable before, I follow several movie and film pages on FB, and I try and follow/keep up with a few companies that are putting out classic or older movies on home video (DVD & Blu-ray), such as Kino Lorber, Criterion Collection, Warner Bros. Archive, etc...

New movies in the past 10-15 years or so have been mainly nothing but tons of CGI/fake-looking superhero, Star Wars, and sci-fi films...it seems to be all Hollywood knows how to put out anymore.  In all honesty I’m SICK of them!  

That’s why I was so unbelievably pleased with the new Nightmare Alley (2021) movie this past winter...it was SUPERBLY done , and finally a “real” movie, with “real” characters, and a “real” plot!  But, I know of and/or have a ton of movies...and there’s a ton I don’t, lol!  It’s always a fun & enjoyable work-in-progress. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Mr. Vigilante]

7 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Lol...years of watching older movies on cable before, I follow several movie and film pages on FB, and I try and follow/keep up with a few companies that are putting out classic or older movies on home video (DVD & Blu-ray), such as Kino Lorber, Criterion Collection, Warner Bros. Archive, etc...

New movies in the past 10-15 years or so have been mainly nothing but tons of CGI/fake-looking superhero, Star Wars, and sci-fi films...it seems to be all Hollywood knows how to put out anymore.  In all honesty I’m SICK of them!  

That’s why I was so unbelievably pleased with the new Nightmare Alley (2021) movie this past winter...it was SUPERBLY done , and finally a “real” movie, with “real” characters, and a “real” plot!  But, I know of and/or have a ton of movies...and there’s a ton I don’t, lol!  It’s always a fun & enjoyable work-in-progress. 

I agree about the CGI.  I pursued a degree in digital animation years ago so I respect the work that goes into some of these films.  I can't say I watch a ton of newer films, but 2 that impressed me in that area were Alyta:  Battle Angel, and Ready Player One.  The PIXAR films or anything that is 100% animation still amazes me.  Unfortunately, many films' budgets are so low that it makes more sense to make the creature in the computer, rather than with molds/prosthetics.  I would much rather see a rubber creature, even knowing it's fake, because it's still something you can reach out and touch.  As far as things like cgi gunshots (which I hate), I have a feeling they will become common practice, if not totally required, after the Alec Baldwin incident.

[Augusta]

CGI in a full-animation film is quite beautiful to admire.  And I can understand using CGI to produce a peice of the film that COULD have been done beautifully with camera and props but would have been very costly for just a few minutes of footage.  But can't they tell the CGI experts to make it look like it's NOT CGI?  

Good filmmaking also means successful managing of budget costs, so  I THOUGHT the intention of CGI was to cleverly make the audience unaware they are looking at CG-anything, while saving yourself some vital production expense.
That's why to me, when I saw one of the earliest CGI inserts in modern film history (a scene in Crouching Tiger where a man stands lost in a crowded market, and the camera slowly orbits him 360 degrees with villagers everywhere,... I thought that was so cool--you never knew a humble single camera spot like that was done with CG effect, and wasn't real.  THAT'S good CGI at work.

If I get a science fiction, and I want to praise well-done CGI in one of those movies, I still have to stick with The Battle on Geonosis in Star Wars-2, or the Battle for the Dock in Matrix-3,... and that's reaching back at least 20 years!

Nowadays, all my friends come out of the movie theater praising "that scene with Keanu flinging the cars around---was great CGI!"  
...Yuck, I don't want to praise the CGI.  I want to be able to praise the movie (and not be able to tell if there was much CGI in it).

[Marc]

I watched this last night, it's a 6/10 movie but had a nice atmosphere and pleasing soundtrack.

moments of it very Tim Truman Vice and if the show went into the early 90's.

 

[Marc]

 

found this out afterwards, same writer worked on the show.

[RedDragon86]

13 hours ago, Marc said:

 

found this out afterwards, same writer worked on the show.

Great writer on the show.

Edited May 17, 2022 by RedDragon86