I liked that one too, and I was somewhat very fond of both protagonists I think they had great chemistry as a pair.
Since I already asked you this (or maybe it wasn’t a question), I won’t.
DeHaan is not a bad actor, but somehow i had the feeling he was not the right man in the right place (or space), but I didn’t mind, there was enough to enjoy. I know feel like rewatching The fifth Element
1 Like
I’m not precisely sure on this, but I always disliked movie if even a freaking chimpanzee showed in it. Oh, those Eastwood’s flicks with chimps or whatever it was, I still didn’t watch that garbage. And when I’ve seen King Kong I wished those dinos kick some ape ass not the otherway around.
2 Likes
Pithecophobia. 
1 Like
Heh, funny. But that would be actually valid only if I was afraid of the damned creatures, which I’m not.
1 Like
Watched it last night … very good movie. Thought provoking and a little Kubrick-esque.
I was a little concerned about Oscar Isaac, who has turned up in a few flicks recently … there’s a bit too much of the cocky Al Pacino in his style, but his performance along with the rest of the cast were of a very high standard.
Much better than I expected from a contemporary movie … as I’m usually stuck in the 60s and 70s, regarding cinema 
1 Like
My Darling Clementine (1948, John Ford)
****
I had seen it only once, back in the 80s or so, and had never gone back to it. It turned out to be a much better movie than I thought it was, but it still won’t ever be my favorite Ford western. Fonda is near perfect as a gentle - if determined - Wyatt Earp and Victor Mature (normally not a favorite actor) is quite alright as Doc, but both Linda Darnell and Cathy Downs (as Clementine) are a little out of place and seem to underline that famous statement that women in a western basically hold up the action. Beautifully shot in black and white. The scenes shot on location in Monument Valley have an unbelievable, poetic beauty
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2013, Peter Jackson)
**
The third and final installment in the Hobbit series. The second one was no classic but had at least some narrative structure and characters you could care for, notably the Elf Tauriel and her admirer, the dwarf Kili. The only thing the movie lacked, was the climactic attack of the dragon on Laketown. We get that attack now, at the start of this third part. It’s a spectacular sequence but unfortunately it’s also by far the best part of the movie. There’s no narrative structure and the whole thing seems a poor excuse to show endless series of swordfights, with incredible numbers of orcs hacked to pieces. Tauriel & Kili are still there, but they don’t have enough screen time. Definitely one trip too many to the well.
Terminator 3 : Rise of the Machines (2003, Jonathan Mostow)
***
I must have seen this movie (also the third in a series) before, but the only thing I remembered, was this beautiful female terminator, T-X. Otherwise it seemed completely new to me. Not a bad idea by Cameron to ask another person to direct this third installment; the movie lacks the kinetic energy of the first two movies, but it’s also less pompous and heavy-handed. Mostow’s tongue-in-cheek approach serves the material well and Arnie seems to have a lot of fun playing a terminator suffering from an identity crisis. If only they would have dropped that one virtually interminable chase scene
Shadowlands (1985, Norman Stone)
****
Not the movie starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger, but an award-winning production from 1985, originally made for TV. It tells the story of British author and scholar C.S. Lewis and his decision to marry his American colleague Joy Davidman, a divorced woman. Originally it was an act of charity (so Davidman’s children could stay in Britain), but the relationship became a severe test for his religious beliefs. Most people know Lewis as the author of the Narnia chronicles, but he also was a profound thinker and Christian apologist, who constantly questioned his own convictions and used to defend Christianity with rational arguments. The Hopkins-Winger movie might be a more emotional movie experience, but if you’re interested in the man and hi s religious and intellectual struggles, this is the better pick. Joss Ackland and Claire bloom are magnificent.
2 Likes
Yes, far and away the worst movie from his Tolkien trilogies. What’s going on here? What are the stakes? Are there five armies, or six, or seven? Did I lose count because it was confusing or because I’d stopped caring? Does anybody care what’s happening, to whom, or why? The The Hobbit trilogy had some decent enough set-pieces (mostly contained within the second installment) but, for the most part, it was all a bloated and overindulgent mess. I still bought them all though. Why? Because I find the hours and hours (and hours!) of behind-the-scenes material on the blu-rays endlessly fascinating. Interpreting the source material, casting, location scouting, costume design, set design, artistic concepts, bigatures, miniatures, practical effects, digital effects, forced perspectives… far, far more interesting than the movies themselves.
Yes, I think this one has aged quite well, really. I don’t recall there being much love for it when it was released but it’s a good picture. Not a great one, but a good one (and it’s a f*cking spectacular one in comparison to the Terminator movies which followed).
1 Like
Maybe it’s just me, but I liked the first part of the Hobbit trilogy best. Not sure why, it was definitely flawed for sure, but I had a great time watching that one. The second part had too much stupid crap, which was not in the book, and too much CGI extravaganza to my taste. I can’t even imagine how awful the last installment is.
1 Like
The Dark Knight (2008)
Finally got around to watching this, due to my new ‘Blu Ray makes almost everything watchable’ policy … it really just holds one’s attention a little longer, as bad is bad no matter how long you polish that turd … and this really is a stinky one! 
Ever get the feeling that you’re from another planet and you just don’t get some of the hysteria over events that pass for art, culture or entertainment ?
How in the name of hell did this overblown, self important, cliched, badly acted and directed piece of shite ever manage to rate a 9/10 on IMDB ???
Are we the public supposed to be respectful or awed by the film’s reported $185,000,000 budget ? … ( if it cost that much = it must be important ? ) and Heath Ledger’s performance suddenly became Oscar worthy because of his unfortunate premature death. Sorry, but the guy’s miscast and overacting and not in the least bit terrifying or funny, as I believe the makers were aiming for.
I have never been a fan of superhero films, but I’ve seen a few which were tolerable, though they didn’t exactly blow me away, but I could see how they might appeal to kids or kids who never grew up.
This Batman DC comic franchise is a different monster, it has artistic pretentions, it has ‘A’ list method acting, from a bunch of old movie whores, like Michael Caine and yes even the beloved Morgan Freeman … and a lot of bad, fucking bad acting from a group of slightly younger whores.
Who told Christian Bale and Gary Oldman that they are good actors !? They’re just a couple of English wankers who are revered for making it big in Hollywood.
Bale’s ‘Bruce Wayne’ is the same slimy narcissist he played in American Psycho, and when he’s Batman, he suddenly becomes, Clint Eastwood in ‘Heartbreak Ridge’
Oldman plays Commissioner Gordon with a whispery little voice and a look that resembles a confused Ned Flanders from The Simpsons
People respect the money … and that’s all this exercise is about. Story telling, riveting action and escapist adventure ?, no … it’s about making lots and lots of money, and fuck their so called ‘craft’.
This movie has about as much depth as a Van Damme or Seagal film … but what a triumph in marketing from Warner Brothers!
1 Like
I think Bale is Welsh. From the clips I’ve seen I can’t take his Batman voice seriously. Even Kevin Conroy trashed him for it.
PS. Would The Dark Knight be as acclaimed if it wasn’t for Ledger? I doubt it.
Hope you didn’t get the idea I was being slanderous or anti-English … I should have of course said, UK wanker or British wanker.
I’m not a patriotic type … which is just as well, because the biggest Northern Irish wanker, Mr Neeson appears in the first Bale Batman, in which I bailed after only 10 minutes. 
I just fucking detest these mediocre actors who play the, ‘as an artist card’, but take part in all the worst most exploitative garbage which has effectively fucked up the film industry for 20 years plus.
Regarding Heath Ledger, that was just a gift for the PR people … and probably did add to the success.
I liked The Dark Knight, I thought Nolan did a good job there, but it’s definitely vastly overrated, just like a large portion of his other films, other than Dunkirk perhaps. At least it’s somewhat darker than Avengers or some other Marvel crap that I do not find all that gratifying. It’s as good as a movie based on a comic book can get in the contemporary film industry, but then again I’m a filthy pleb, so don’t mind me, carry on with your rant, don’t keep it in, let it all out.
1 Like
Of course not, I’m from the UK and I still hate limeys 
I feel sorry for the USA putting up with Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais & James Corden etc.
1 Like
BTW, I feel that every nation in the world has their share of wankers, so no need to be walking on eggshells, it’s really unhealthy, Aldo. Take a deep breath, drink a glass of water and carry on, let it all out.
1 Like
Now that you mention that unholy trinity … maybe Dark Knight wasn’t that bad after all ! ???
Ugggh … I’m confused - need to lie down
Thanks Doctor Mick ! LOL 
1 Like
I think The Dark Knight is outstanding, the best superhero pic I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a few. Was Heath Ledger’s performance an Oscar-deserving turn? Well, I can’t imagine it would’ve had a sniff at the Oscar if he hadn’t died but, nonetheless, it was imo the finest live-action performance of an established comic-book supervillain I’ve ever seen.
Just IMO, of course.
Well, no, they’re good actors. Come on.
Definitely a polarising take from Bale here. The idea behind it is that he plays Bruce Wayne like kind of a silver-spoon asshole, which I guess is what he would be, really., if he wasn’t Batman. More at home starring in The Only Way is Gotham or somesuch; not quite so likely to be a masked gothic vigilante psychotic genius MMA fighter. More “Prince Edward” than “Dark Knight”. Conversely of course the vaguely hilarious Bat-voice is supposed to disguise his own. So it makes sense, even if it was ultimately a bit heavy-handed in the execution.
I think The Dark Knight would still be a terrific crime-thriller even if the main protagonists/antagonists weren’t costumed comic-book creations. And what’s wrong with acclaim coming from Heath Ledger’s performance? Wasn’t it any good?
Now, The Dark Knight Rises… THAT was poor. Again, purely IMO. (Tom Hardy was good though, and I bloody hated that muffled performance initially. “Mffftr Wfff!”)
I have to disagree … if all the Superhero stuff was stripped away and it was a modest budget movie with a few members from the cast of The Sopranos, no one would have ever noticed it.
Story wise, it’s a Nicolas Cage straight to video special … without the pleasure of watching Cage go over the top as per … 
1 Like
Guilty as Sin (1993) - Director: Sidney Lumet - 7/10 - Not gonna lie, I liked this one a lot. Not sure why people dislike Don Johnson as an actor. He might’ve been an ass in his private life, but he was a fairly gifted performer and he is really at the top of his game here. He plays a psychotic womanizer accused of murdering his wife. He engages in a twisted cat-and-mouse game with his lawyer who is supposed to defend him in court, but as more time elapses, she feels she can no longer trust her client and grows increasingly apprehensive of him. Undoubtedly not one of Lumet’s best efforts, but it’s definitely far from being really terrible.
Shattered (1991) - Director: Wolfgang Petersen - 6/10 - An expertly executed piece of nonsense. It tries to emulate or pay tribute to the legacy of Hitchcockian filmmaking, but the way action is resolved leaves a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, it’s well pieced together and its technical nimbleness and competent acting are probably the elements that keep this thing afloat and prevent it from becoming a nonsensical debacle of a motion picture.
Disclosure (1994) - Director: Barry Levinson - 5/10 - “Pure and simple trash masquerading as significance.” Wew Gene, I guess I need to give it a look then. Well, it was definitely fun to view, but there is something to what Siskel says. While the premise itself ain’t bad at all, the film gravitates more towards trashy side of things and never fully explores the nature of corporate shenanigans in depth. The whole intrigue constitutes more of a glossy veneer that functions mostly on a purely decorative level rather than comprises a meaningful hub of the story. That is not to imply that it’s not there, but the script never genuinely taps into the potential the initial premise offers, remaining content with Moore gallivanting around and giving Douglas dirty looks. The flick is likewise somewhat anti-climatic in the way it’s structured which also introduces several problems: the final revelation of the collusion lacks punch and the corporate connivance feels more like an afterthought rather than an irreplaceable heart of the tale. The motion picture also lacks a firm narration that could underpin the intrigue. The showdown featuring a VR with some amusingly cheesy CGI is hilarious and clearly denotes the time when it was made.
Cohen and Tate (1988) - Director: Eric Red - 4/10 - It’s got a very interesting concept at the center of its story, however, the script doesn’t really take it anywhere. It’s more of a meandering kind of drama that regrettably suffers from both the irritating-kid syndrome and all kinds of asinine action truisms. If you’re in a mood for this kind of film, you’re better off viewing or re-watching Cani arrabbiati instead. Scheider is the best thing about the whole venture, but even he can’t redeem this uninspired piece of shite.
Deceived (1990) - Director: Damian Harris - 5/10 - The only thing that makes this one stand out is Heard’s electrifying performance. It’s easy to predict what’s going to happen next and its shocks are too conspicuous for anyone who has seen more than two or three movies of this kind. Regardless of its predictability, the execution is perfectly adequate and that paired with the excellent acting by Heard makes the movie worth a look in my estimation.
Descending Angel (1990) - Director: Jeremy Kagan - 5/10 - Instead of trying to make the most of the dramatic potential this sort of script offers and depict the struggle to atone for one’s atrocious misdeeds, it unfortunately veers in the conspiratorial direction with predictable results. The Parallax View it ain’t and most of the time, whenever the director tries hard to endue the whole affair with this conspiracy thriller edge, it all falls flat and looks quite pitiful to be perfectly honest, which makes itself painfully apparent particularly during the denouement. With that being said, the movie remains moderately engrossing by virtue of its somewhat unusual cultural setting which sets it off from the rest of similar movies. The cast is nothing to sniff at either and the acting is another feature that makes it enjoyable in a very perfunctory fashion.
A Kiss Before Dying (1991) - Director: James Dearden - 5/10 - Dillon’s acting flair is probably the only component that prevents the movie from sucking big time. Okay, the execution in and of itself isn’t too bad either, but it’s nothing exceptional at the same time. The most evident issue here is Sean Young’s acting. Not sure what went wrong, as she’s not that much of a terrible actress, but her performance here is way too stiff and way off for some odd reason. Also, let me quote Ebert, he is spot on here: “her character seems to know too much of the story; she has a detachment that’s not appropriate, a way of seeming to know, like we do, what the real outcome is going to be. It undermines the concern we feel for her.” Likewise, the way it slavishly enshrines and flaunts its Hitchcockian influences is both amusing and exasperating. Yes, we get it, you’re well-versed in classic films, whoo, so classy.
1 Like