What movies have you seen recently?

[PVarck31]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Friday the 13th Part VI. Yep

[Quint75]

Silver Linings Playbook. Great acting all the way around. Story was a bit cliched but it worked fine because of the cast. 8/10 for me.

[goh]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Sushi Girl

A man gets out of jail and is brought to his old friends to discuss just what he did with the diamonds they stole that sent him to jail to begin with (while eating sushi off of a naked girl).

Very Tarantino inspired. Tony Todd and Mark Hamil are so far above everyone else in this movie it's ridiculous. I'm not sure if they were that good or everyone else was that bad. Overall it was a very good movie.

----

All Superheroes Must Die

A fantastic concept. A group of superheroes have their powers removed (one of the group mysteriously keeps them) and have to run around the city to free civilians from various Saw-like contraptions/puzzles.

However shoddy performances,the story/characters not being fleshed out (which there's no excuse for because it's only 80 minutes) and an ending that doesn't make sense with the post credits scene keep it from being very good.

[SPTO]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I can't seem to escape movies that have been remade!

I watched an old RKO film and found out that it was a remake of an even earlier film and my sense of completion pushed me to seek out the earlier film. So you might think that since I saw the remake that'd be the more favorable film....Actually both films have issues and if they were smashed together into one it'd probably make for a good flick.

Anywho here we go:

The Pay-Off (1930)

Plot:

A thug robs a young engaged couple of their last few dollars. When the thug's gang boss hears of the robbery, he gives them back their money and takes them under his wing. The thug, resentful of the couple, plans to organize a mutiny against the gang's boss, but when he is killed in a botched robbery, the police focus their attention on the young couple.

Law of the Underworld (1938)

Plot:

A respected citizen with secret ties to the local mob is faced with revealing his criminal connections to save two innocent people from execution.

So there's the basic plot for both movies. The earlier movie is a lot seedier and indeed it may have been a 2nd or 3rd film on a matinee back then. The basic gist in both films is that a young couple (Tommy and Nancy, tho named Annabelle in the remake) are about to get married and they get robbed by a hood. Tommy comes up with the BRILLIANT plan of going down to where the hood works and stealing their money back. They go and do that and fail miserably with the head of the gang Gene Fenmore (Filmore in the remake) decides to take them in. Here's where things diverge. In the original film the reason for Gene taking them in is interesting as he is smitten by Nancy and wants to do good by her. He eventually realizes that even though she's crushing big time for him that she really only loves Tommy. Still though, he's a lonely man despite outward appearances and wants to get out of the criminal element so it's more or less an adoption of the young couple. In the remake the means of taking the couple in is a lot more cynical as Gene is kind of ambivalent about giving up the criminal life but he wants one last big score and sees the kids as a means to pull it off so he takes them in with Tommy thinking it's no good while Annabelle is completely out to lunch thinking that Gene is a "swell guy".

In both movies the hood that robs the couple is a thorn on the side of Gene. In the remake Rocky's story is a bit more convoluted but the basic point in both flicks is that he's PO'ed at the boss and wants to take over the gang. He believes in using violence and guns to pull off the robberies while Gene is a more "gentlemanly" criminal. In the original film he has the kids unknowingly take part in the crime scheme that the gang has cooked up but Rocky loses his head and shoots the owner of the jewelry store. In the remake the kids DEFINITELY know what they're getting into but are doing it to get back their money. Actually, it's stated that they're doing this for 2000 bucks for a proper wedding. Either way in both films it all goes bad and the cops are after them while Gene feels bad about their plight he can't do anything but still he gets roped in and sent to the DA (Special Prosecutor) in the remake and he sees what he's done to the kids and confesses to the crime thus making the DA tear up the coerced confession from the kids. In the original Gene does it because he truly cares for Nancy and even has his butler/mentor take care of the kids even though he's going to the chair. In the remake he just feels honor bound to give the kids a break even if it means certain death for him.

Now, the original is a lot stronger from a reasoning and emotional basis. Gene is definitely in the mold of the gentleman criminal and has a code of ethics. It's a little hard to believe he'd be a head of a gang of common criminals but it kinda works. The guy who plays Gene in the original was a Lowell Sherman who was an older type of guy who had an aristocratic air to him though not quite at the level of say, William Powell. In the remake he's played by Chester Morris who was younger, definitely a lot more rough around the edges and he's played to be more of a playboy type with the common touch. He's in the mold of a mastermind and someone who'd excel in business.

The huge difference in the films though and it really kills the remake are the young lovers. In the original they're a bit naive and only slightly stupid but in the remake they're FRIGGING IDIOTS! Yes, in both films they do the stupid thing of trying to hold up the gang but in the original they know who they're involved with and Tommy's offered a "job" (it's never really known what it is but it's DEFINITELY not as a member of the gang) and he takes Gene up on the offer. In the remake he doesn't trust Gene at all but Annabelle is totally swept off her feet by him and thinks he's some great guy. Even when things start to get pear shaped these two idiots stick their noses in like when Rocky tries to gun down Gene, Tommy goes and hits Rocky so Gene could defend himself rather than running away when they could. The acting is also shrill as hell. I can't believe I was watching a young Anne Shirley as I just wanted to smack the crap out of her with her high pitched wailing and crying. The other totally idiotic thing is that when they're at the special prosecutor's office they defend Gene by saying they don't know who he is etc etc and go crying like babies with the rough treatment the cops and prosecutor are giving them.

It's all a bit stupid and totally destroys what credibility the remake could have. At least in the original film they defend Gene but it's because Gene legitimately had no idea that Rocky had set them up that way and so there's plausible denial. (I'm sure Gene lawyers would probably get him off despite signing a confession)

The remake adds a beefed up special prosecutor played by Walter Abel who had a reputation for playing Thomas E. Dewey type DAs in movies and this is no different. At least in this movie Gene is actually a part of society and you can tell that while the two aren't particularly the best of friends, there is a respect between the two men which makes the ending where he tells Gene he could've used his smarts for better uses much more credible.

Anyways I give the original film 2 stars and the remake about the same only because of the acting of Chester Morris who really did well in the Gene role.


Next up more classic Hollywood (and hopefully not a movie that's been remade!)

[Chaos81]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Watched Requiem for a Dream last night for the first time in a few years. Just as good as I remembered it being. Watched it with a couple people who had never seen it before which definitely made for an entertaining viewing. The number of "WTFs" and "OMGs" were very high.

[cardinals57]

I recently watched The Shawshank Redemption for the first time and I loved it. It was definently as good as I'd heard and I don't know why it took me so long to see it.

[Chrisksaint]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Argo.

Very well done, a little bit of a slow start for me but it was a very suspenseful end. The comedy lines were very well placed and done, Kyle Chandler needs to be featured in more movies as I love his recent roles in movies.

[DJ]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Argo.

Very well done, a little bit of a slow start for me but it was a very suspenseful end. The comedy lines were very well placed and done, Kyle Chandler needs to be featured in more movies as I love his recent roles in movies.

The wife and I have plans to rent this tonight.

[daflyboys]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

The Illusionist. Haven't seen it in quite a while. Solid performances, but I think I really like Giamatti the best. He needs to get more roles like this and stay away from being a super-villian.

[Caveman24]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Django Unchained

If you haven't seen it yet your missing out.If your not a big fan on cursing this movie not for you

[Bellsprout]

Premium Rush: For those of you who think JGL cannot make a ****ty movie, I submit to you this trainwreck.

[SPTO]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I love TCM sometimes even if the movie was dull like this one. This is a movie i've wanted to see for quite some time. So here goes.....

Wilson (1944)

Plot Summary:

The political career of Woodrow Wilson is chronicled, beginning with his decision to leave his post at Princeton to run for Governor of New Jersey, and his subsequent ascent to the Presidency of the United States. During his terms in office, Wilson must deal with the death of his first wife, the onslaught of German hostilities leading to American involvement in the Great War, and his own country's reticence to join the League of Nations.

This movie is notorious for being the biggest box office flop to garner tons of Oscar noms/awards. The movie was nominated for 10 awards and winning 5. 1944 is arguably the weakest year in Hollywood history and I guess this shows because while slightly interesting in terms of the actors involved and some left elbow scenes, this movie was rather pedestrian and dull.

I will say the casting of Wilson was spot on with Alexander Knox playing the role. Honestly, i've never heard of the guy but looking at his filmography he was in some pretty well known films. Interestingly enough, he was Canadian . Anyways, he had the mannerisms and look to pull off the role. Unfortunately, Wilson was a pretty dull person so a lot of the movie has to be held up by the supporting actors. Some very well known actors of the day were involved in this in small as well as larger roles such as Cedric Hardwicke as Republican senator Henry Cabot Lodge and in the small role department, Vincent Price as a campaign worker during the 1916 Democratic convention.

The movie had to do some fancy footwork to make Wilson seem better than he was and in this the movie falls flat as Wilson is portrayed as ALWAYS being right and even a bit stubborn. The question of his 2nd wife being very ambitious and taking advantage of his misfortune when he had his debilitating stroke towards the end of his presidency was whitewashed greatly which I suppose was only natural given when the movie was made.

As I said there were some pretty good scenes such as the 1916 Democratic election segment of the movie and Wilson's conversation with the troops at a red cross/train depot. This leads to another weakness of the film as most of Wilson's dialogue was either speechifying or dialogue which is meant to be emotional but doesn't quite work because for as lengthy as the movie was you never really delved deep into the man and his interpersonal relationships.

This movie is quite long (2 1/2 hrs) but it could've been trimmed up quite a bit as it dragged quite a bit and suffered through too many montage scenes.

All in all, an interesting rehabilitation of Wilson's standing by Daryl F. Zanuck but it just wasn't a very good film.

1 1/2 to 2 stars.

[Burns11]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

That's My Boy
While not the best comedy ever, and certainly not the best Adam Sandler comedy, it was absolutely better than most of his recent efforts. Parts of it were really funny, and it kept being funny throughout the whole movie, which seems to be a dying art.

[DJ]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Premium Rush: For those of you who think JGL cannot make a ****ty movie, I submit to you this trainwreck.

You're just anti-bike messenger.

[Bellsprout]

You're just anti-bike messenger.

Bike messengers aren't a thing here. I have no feelings one way or the other about them.