[Closed] Recent Viewing Part III

Same here. I was not a big fan of it either. This film was praised during the film festival in october and I couldn't help but having a hard time staying awake during this film thinking "Is it just me?" I'm ok with long movies and I like complex stories, like maybe Munich or the successful le Carré adaptation The Constant Gardener, if I had to name a few. It's not that there were too many story-lines or characters running around, but I couldn't help but losing the feeling who the main character was and what the main narrative was trying to tell us, because the story was jumping in all kinds of different directions (and places).

At first Gary Oldman takes the lead, but when it turns out Mark Strongs character had a much stronger presence than the former. Then the other actors are often great to watch, but in this film, most of them never succeeded in making me forget which actor I was watching (Cirian Hinds, Toby Jones, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, ...) and it's not a bonus that Colin Firth is playing the same part he has already done (sort of) for like a 100 times. Change something about this guy! Give him a pair of glasses! Give him a mustache! Give him a new haircut! (Oh wait. They sort of tried that in The Last Legion and it looked-Tom Hanks-Da Vinci Code-awfull. ps Do not watch that film. Both. But never the less...)

And man... I got this feeling already after ten minutes, thinking... It's not thàt kind of movie isn't it... And than it ìs. Oh god. (The score did not helped either. Fits the film like a glove: moody, distinguished, slow, and dull beyond belief!)

The other strange thing (spoilers ahead) is - it is supposed to be an intellectual film... So you don't necessarily expect that (1.) in the end the 'bad guy' will be found or caught 2. he is screwing the other guy's wife and 3. his victim takes his revenge. But... all these things happen! It's like some movies have a straight story and an open ending and Tinker Tailor has an open story and a straight ending. Although I have the feeling that, while I'm writing this, if I would see the movie again, it might surprise me how well all the ends are tied up. Maybe I should see it again, but hey, I already tried hard enough.

I got the same feeling with Let the Right One In... In the end: nothing but a classic story, but told as if it is something else, something more original or much 'deeper' and 'serious' than any other Horror or Spy-drama-thriller. And yes, while it is a little less "Hollywood" and a little more "realistic" - most characters and plot have more development than usually - on the other hand, Tinker Taylor also loses the entertaining values of me wanting/trying to find out who the mole is, of actually rooting for a sympathetic character, or having the scary feeling that something bad will happen. It reminded me of "Enigma" in many same ways, which I would gladly see for a second time, except that Tinker Taylor has ten times more characters and places and it lacks the emotional hook. It's also not all that different from The Good Sheperd (One interrogation scene was particularly similar in tone and resolution): Same thing: Some wonderful individual scenes, here and there, but in the end: not involving or interesting enough for me to care.

I'm a little surprised Gary Oldman was nominated for best actor, not because he did a bàd job, he might have been a little underrated before, but because I didn't really noticed nor cared for his role. Strange nominee, not the kind of role a lesser known actor would have been praised for, I think. 6/10


Paranormal Activity (Scary movie? Hell yes! Good Movie? No!) Dumb ending. 4/10

Boy A (a little too much talking heads) 7/10

Amercian Splendor (a fantastic mixture of reality and fiction!) 9/10
You should see it because
- Paul Giamatti can be amazing in some great films and this is one of them!
- the mixture of honesty, real people, graphic novels, tv-footage, documentary and fiction is very rare and very interesting!
- The main character/person is one of the most common guys / irritating / pathetic / losers / low class / awkward / anti-heroes you'll ever see in a movie; and that means it is also a very funny film!
It tells a lot about the need for succes, fame, self image, loneliness, love, life... in the same ways why the graphic novels about Harvey Pekar are/were so successful. You might recognize moments and feelings of your own life in funny and sweet ways.

Priest

Blimey, this was crap. But I am even more in awe of Christopher Young's score than I was before watching it. How in hell did he come up with that for a film this bad?

It's better than Twilight. At least it has real vampires, and not sparkling teen fairies.

I haven't seen any of the TWILIGHT films....any good?

Would you recommend these films on a forever loop with Abu Qatada strapped to a chair in front of a big loud screen with his eyes stitched permanently open while intravenously fed amphetamines?

Thought so.

Are you kidding? A steaming hot pile of shit is better than Twilight.

We already know that.

Just saw: WAR HORSE

So much music, and I get to hear every note of Mr. Williams passionately written (and performed!) score through the superb and generous sound mix. I'm grateful and delighted!

"To Sir, With Love 2"


Sidney Poitier repraises his role of Mr. Thackeray thirty years after the original.

This time, coming out of retirement, Mr. Thackeray isn't teaching a rambunctuous group of sodding little brats, but troubled inner city youths in Chicago, with students in a violent gang, drugs, money for sex, and guns.

The film doesn't get as dark or violent as it could in such a situation and location, but nonetheless it's handled very well, with some great set ups, and payoffs in the emotional department, and some very nice acting from some of the troubled youth.

Much like the daft gaggle overseas, Mr. Thackeray manages to move and shape his class into people with potential.

He's a teacher who really cares, takes his time to check on each student, and does his job well.

The TV film even takes time aside, though not necessary, to address his passed and an old love interest, as his wife of the first film has passed on, which was a nice touch.

Poitier of course delivers a first class performance, and this could be one of the greatest sequels ever made, especially considering it's a TV movie.


The draw backs:

The film is too short, at 92 minutes; you feel like some good scenes were never fully covered, though rather nicely covered in the writing department. This should have been a 130 minutes production.

The scoring is by somebody named Trevor Lawrence (Ron Grainer scored the original '67' film).
The score is short, I'd say there's probably under 15 minutes, and mainly orchestral, though not in the sense you might assume, and it short where it is. It has not real core to it all, just sort of does it's own thing where it is. The film could really have used some score in some other places, and a more dramatic work with a core.
Especially it should have replaced the two aweful songs, including the one that goes over the opening credits, as both, like I said, are aweful, and also date the film badly (1996).


Both films are highly recommended.

Must. See. This.

Peter

Oh-hooooo! It's OUT now, is it?

Wunderbar! I just LOVE a good Evil Empire movie!

Dear Zachary (trailer)

This documentary has got to be the most emotionally exhausting thing I've ever seen. If you want to see a movie that makes you want to curl up in a fetus position under a table and cry your eyes out, this is the one. Rather traumatizing, but in the end I'm glad I watched it. I was bothered by some of the editing, but otherwise a very fine documentary.

My rating: 9

Peter

Seriously? the score is a marvelous listening experience on its own too. Don't dismiss it like that

Boring? Come on. If you think that the first hour of the movie (which is action-packed) was boring, I wonder what must be entertaining for you.