[Closed] Recent Viewing Part II

A fair point indeed, which I agree with to be honest. But I still enjoyed Rambo more than I thought I would, if just for the fact that you get to see lots of evil Burmese folk get 'pwnd' by Rambo (who, incidentally, could whoop Jack Bauer's ARSE).

Recent viewing: Mission: Impossible III

This movie is even worse than part II. Why do some directors think that cheap video game aesthetics look good ? The score was way better than the movie but out of place since the 70s Schifrin sounds does not fit to 2000s video games (Giacchino/video game - conincidence? ). My expectations for Star Trek are now near zero.

It's such a shame that this director of all directors is getting to do Star Trek. I held out a tiny bit of hope that perhaps M:I III was a one-off, since it would be a rare director who actually made two films that bad, but then I saw the trailer for Star Trek. J.J. Abrams would appear to be a rare director indeed. There's the saving grace that at least we'll have another big Giacchino score, but really, I wish someone else - pretty much anyone else - was making the film.

Good story telling, a movie that is more than a sequence of action scenes, cinematography that does not make the film look like as it were shooted in a techno disco with a shaky hand camera?

How did you like the score, Alan?

Yeah; taking Mission Impossible movies too serious is a bit funny, admittedly

I've always loved the score as a stand-alone listen - for my money one of Zimmer's best.

As a part of the movie I thought that it works really well - particularly adding to the uneasy feel of the movie as a whole. There sounded as though there was some "lighter" (we're talking relative lightness here compared with the rest of the music) music that I've not heard on the CD(s) I've heard.

You only think they're born to be bad, because they've not been terribly good to date. Actually, on one level, they got off to such a good start. Brian DePalma's film might have been nonsense, but there is no one around who shoots a suspense setpiece better than him. In some ways, he's even exceeded his inspiration (Hitchcock) and his more popular rival (Spielberg). John Woo is at least cinematic, but pales next to DePalma, though even Woo has advantages over Abrams, who is a writer-turned-director if I ever saw one.

I thought Abrams film was garbage through and through. I'd elaborate, but the very thought of the film makes me angry. The last shot of Tom Cruise and his young fiance leaving the team of dedicated espionage professionals who are waving cheerfully in slow motion is beyond pathetic. I'm amazed people bought that nonsense. I'm sure Carnahan or Fincher wouldn't have made a masterpiece or anything, but I doubt you would have seen *cute spy film* Alias leftovers.

Recently saw two films at opposite ends of the spectrum...

Battlestar Galactica - this was the 2003 series opening film, and it's very good. I'll be watching more of the series for sure. It's good enough to even make Richard Gibbs' music seem strong by association.

Hiroshima, Mon Amour - it's like finding the time twin of one of my favourite films, In the Mood for Love. Both of them are among the greatest films ever made. The way Renais tells this story of a relationship formed in a single night is beautiful. I'm keen to see it again.

I quite like McCreary's second and third albums - particularly the third - for the series, so I'm probably already inclined to share your view.

The tracks with the single drum thumping away are under-done, but the rest of it didn't seem like a problem to me.

Do you want me to name all of them!?

I have such low standards when it comes to these things, I can find enjoyment in most of them. It's only when they insult my intelligence (like with M:I III) that I just can't buy into it. With no disrespect intended, my instant reaction was that it was a stupid film made by and for stupid people. Obviously our good friends on this messageboard who enjoyed it are not stupid, so I was mistaken, but it's generally that sort of thing that gets (if you pardon the expression) my goat.

Well, here are some dumb modern action films which I enjoyed watching:

The Day After Tomorrow
Chain Reaction
Rambo 2 and 3
Cliffhanger
Die Hard 1, 2 and 4
US Marshals
... and the king of them... Deep Rising

Films that, blissfully, don't take themselves too seriously.

I won't add the first Mission: Impossible to that list. There's no reason to feel guilty about enjoying that one.

Deep Rising is nothing short of fantabulous! I never fail to laugh at the cover of the DVD which says in huge letters "Takes all the best parts of Titanic and Aliens!" which is the most hopelessly-misleading advertising of all time, but the film itself is a real gem.

RE: Martijn's reaction to Hiroshima (hereafter HMA).

I'm not surprised at the least by the vehemence of your reaction, and even considered not typing the post in the first place in order to avoid the bother of reading a vitriolic reply. (Sticks and stones do break bones after all. )

I also find that incomprehensible films bore me, so I can see where you're coming from. I hate to see pretentious garbage exalted (Silent Light being a recent example), and frequently find as much fault with old classics as I do with modern films. And yet HMA wasn't anything like that for me. What can I say but that it made sense to me consistently, and I was absorbed moment to moment, finding meaning in all of it? I'm glad I didn't dislike it as much as you did, because that would have meant I'd have missed out on what I liked so much about it.

So anyway, here's a defense, and it's the only thing I'll say about it, because time is short, and you're not looking to have your mind changed anyway...

I'll be the first to say that if you're after narrative structure, this is not the film for you. (And neither is In the Mood for Love.) It tells you within the first 5 minutes (and keeps telling you for the next 85) that this will not be a film that is going to give you anything meaningful, so you'd be mad not to turn it off if there are no good films in your past that have worked along similar lines. And yet for others, the kind of dramatic progression you see in HMA feels more natural, and intuitive.

For me the moment where I really found myself wrapped up in it was the moment when she talks about her German lover, and the man becomes that lover, as though he were possessed by the idea. We hear it only in the voices, as we see some illustrative footage. I've seen that kind of moment in plays and novels, but to feel it at last emerge organically within a film made an intriguing film into a very moving one for me. If I ever make that first feature film, I can only hope it will be as strong as Resnais's. (Amazing to think that this was made by someone who'd only made a documentary before.)

'Dated' doesn't seem a fair cop, to me at least. I cannot see how the themes, the filmcraft or the general approach to the story are more dated than any standout film of the past. It only stands out more than something like Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid or Citizen Kane because those all use a mode of storytelling which remains (and will continue to be) the norm. That is merely a survivorship bias to me - only the films which overlap considerably with contemporary filmmaking in general approach aren't regarded as dated. You probably don't agree.

To me the films that only truly date - and I'll admit, here again is a kind of bias - are those that were purely exercises of technical virtuosity that had nothing more behind them, or those who reflect an arcane value system that I would hope we had moved on from, or those that exist only because a commercial opportunity existed (again, with nothing more behind them). Since it fits none of those categories, HMA is not dated at all for me.

I didn't like Marienbad much on first viewing. On the second viewing, I was much more aware of the sense of humour behind it all, and liked it a great deal. I'm glad I put in the work.

Crikey!
I don't!

But that's another discussion.