List the films you've seen at the cinema: 2013

[DrRingDing]

Yep.

I felt it marred the whole film.

 

[Sue]

I felt it marred the whole film.

Me too. Found it really bizarre actually.

 

[Gramsci]

Just saw this. Lots of laugh out loud bits but there were a couple of pretty dodgy bits I found quite uncomfortable and which ruined it a bit for me.

Which bits?

BTW here is the Torygraph on the film. With what Almodovar says.

The plane has departed from Madrid on its way to Mexico City, but has developed a fault and is circling Toledo, waiting for another airport’s runway to become available. “The passengers are going around in circles, they don’t know where they’re going to land or how they’re going to land. And in real life we don’t know how we’re going to get out of this [economic depression], who will be in command, what the risks are and how dangerous it is. For the Spanish people it’s a very clear metaphor for society.”
There are other topical touches – a joke about the king’s supposed lovers; a reference in a newspaper headline to “Top 10 political scandals”; a passenger who is a bank president, fleeing from a scandal involving embezzlement. All the action takes place in business class; economy passengers are sound asleep, drugged on the pilots’ orders, thus having no say in what happens to the plane.
Even the difficulty in finding the plane an airport to land has real-life echoes: many of Spain’s recently built airports are unprofitable “white elephants”, and one, Ciudad Real in the province of La Mancha, where Almodóvar grew up, closed down last year after four disastrous years. The director used Ciudad Real (a “ghost airport”, he calls it) as a location for the film’s final scenes.
All this subtext is crucial for him – he is a vociferous critic of the centre-Right People’s Party that governs Spain. He has spoken out against banks evicting people from their homes. He has allied himself with demonstrators who have taken to the streets in several Spanish cities against politicians “selling out” to corporate and banking interests. And he has voiced his support for 15-M, a youth protest movement disenchanted with all political parties.
“The government hates me for it,” he says ruefully but with a sly grin. “Public Enemy number one is Javier Bardém and the second is me. We’re the bêtes noires of Spain for the government. Maybe I’m number one right now because I’ve just released this movie, but Javier was bigger when Skyfall opened because it was his moment to talk. At the premiere on opening night, he went over and talked to the [anti-government] protesters. I admire Javier. He resolves the situation of being a star and a citizen at the same time.”

 

[Sue]

Which bits?

BTW here is the Torygraph on the film. With what Almodovar says.

The 'sex' scenes between the psychic and the man and those between the bride and groom.

 

[Sue]

Newly restored Point Blank. Fab.

 

[cyprusclean]

Saw Iron Man 3 in 3-D during the week.

Enjoyed it, and thought it was well done. Good cast, witty dialogue , and skilful direction.

 

[cyprusclean]

Yesterday I saw
Breakfast at Tiffany's - Never seen this before, but even with the Mickey Rooney's utterly racist Japanese and slightly too saccharine ending, I can see why it's a classic.

The book didn't have the same ending. They didn't reunite in the pouring rain.

 

[Reno]

The book didn't have the same ending. They didn't reunite in the pouring rain.

That's because in the book the relationship between Holly and "Fred" the narrator isn't a romantic one. The book is a very loose adaptation of the novella. Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe for the lead. The studio cast Hepburn to play down the character's sexuality and the fact that she lived off it.

 

[cyprusclean]

That's because in the book the relationship between Holly and "Fred" the narrator isn't a romantic one. The book is a very loose adaptation of the novella. Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe for the lead. The studio cast Hepburn to play down the characters sexuality and the fact that she lived off it.

That's right. You read the book too?

 

[Reno]

That's right. You read the book too?

I've read every shred of Capote published.

 

[cyprusclean]

I've read every shred of Capote published.

I've read a lot too. I went through a Capote phase. A long time ago though.

 

[Reno]

I've read a lot too. I went through a Capote phase. A long time ago though.

Same here, mostly in my 20s, which was over 20 years ago.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Hackney Updated at the Rio yesterday, lovely collection of old movies made in the borough that took in slum clearances and pest fumigation, street parties and performance, and was beautifully nostalgic and humorous as well.

 

[redsquirrel]

Iron Man 3 - Nothing groundbreaking, but very enjoyable. The cast are obviously enjoying themselves, especially Ben Kingsley, and the balance of humour and action is good.

 

[cyprusclean]

Iron Man 3 - Nothing groundbreaking, but very enjoyable. The cast are obviously enjoying themselves, especially Ben Kingsley, and the balance of humour and action is good.

I liked some of the one liners. Like Downey near the end of the movie, to Paltrow; *I wish you'd dress like that at home*

I can take any genre, as long as it's well done. Even the gruesomeness of the Coen Brothers.

Now with the The Great Gatsby coming up and all the hype attached, I have my doubts. I'm not keen on Baz Luhrmann's style of direction. Sort of over the top.

 

[Sue]

Our Children (A perdre la raison). A Morocco-Belgian couple marry and have kids, all under the control of the man's adoptive father. Very well done and quite gripping in a low key kind of way. Sad.

ETA Also saw the trailer for Shane Meadows' Stone Roses rockumentary which is out on the 5th of June. Looks fab.

 

[Reno]

Now with the The Great Gatsby coming up and all the hype attached, I have my doubts. I'm not keen on Baz Luhrmann's style of direction. Sort of over the top.

They hype for this The Great Gatsby is nothing compared to the hype for the Robert Redford version in the 70s. It inspired a 1920s fashion craze before the film was even released. Everybody thought it would be the biggest thing ever and when the film came out, it got poor reviews and ended up quickly forgotten about.

 

[Sue]

Gimme me the loot. Two young graffiti artists ducking and diving in New York. Not much happens and maybe a touch long but thought it was quite likeable.

 

[Reno]

The Great Gatsby. I'm no Baz Luhrman fan and the best thing I can say is that I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would and that for the first two thirds at least, I wasn't bored. It's also one of a small handful of films that uses 3D well. Luhrman's films always look like cut out paper dioramas and that look is well suited for 3D film, which always looks more like flats on different levels, rather than like a real 3 dimensional space. I would go as far as saying that the 3D is the best reason to see the film. The soundtrack works fine too, as always with Luhrman. Otherwise it's the usual kitsch-fest, not quite as grating as Moulin Rouge and not as embarrassingly terrible as Australia.

Nothing connects on an emotional level for me with any of Luhrman's films, as the characters are always secondary to all the glitter he chucks at the camera. With its visual overkill, the film works hard not to be a stuffy literary adaptation but goes too far the other way and overwhelms its source. DiCaprio makes for a better Gatsby than Redford, which isn't saying much as the 70s film was deadly dull. At least this isn't dull but it's no more than superficial eye candy and just made me feel like I'd eaten too many sweets.

 

[cyprusclean]

Thought that was a fair critique, Reno.

Not that I've seen the movie.... yet.

Who do you think would have made a more senstiive director?

 

[Reno]

Who do you think would have made a more senstiive director?

Almost anybody else.

To be fair, I don't think The Great Gatsby is a novel that translates well to the screen. The characters make sense on the page where Fitzgerald's prose makes them come to life, but when you don't understand what makes them tick, then they simply aren't very interesting. It seems an impossible task to make Daisy into an engaging character on film (the 70s film also failed to do so) and when you don't understand what Gatsby sees in her, the love story doesn't work. On film you are only left with the opulence of Gatsby's life, but the interior lives and motivations of the characters don't run very deep. The plot of the novel devolves into to melodrama by the end, something that the beauty of the prose deflects but on the screen that comes across as cheap contrivance.

 

[redsquirrel]

Star Trek Into Darkness - Inferior to Iron Man 3 as a blockbuster, Benedict Cumberbach gives it a passing grade but only just. At times it almost comes across as a parody of the previous series/films, an example being the character of Kirk, who's been made into an idiot who's first impulse is to attack.

The Birds - Enjoyed it again, not quite in the top tier of Hitchcock films but still great. I particularly love the first half with the interplay of Melanie, Annie and the mother.

Tabu - Looks great but I didn't love it. I think I took some time to get into it, meaning that I found the second part of the film much more engaging than the first half. I'm not sure if that was my fault or the films.

The Hunt - Very, very good. I think there's one bad misstep early on, the actions of the headteacher, which really strained my disbelief and brought me out of the film for a while. But besides that its very well made indeed, despite the obvious manipulative nature of some scenes (children's choir at the church, Klara in the kitchen at the end) they still work fantastically, making me incredibly uncomfortable.

 

[Sue]

A Highjacking. A Danish ship is highjacked by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. Low key, tense, very good.

 

[Sue]

Mud. Set on the Mississippi, two kids get embroiled with a man on the run. A touch long but really good.

My actor friend used to say, 'Every time Matthew McConaughey gets a part, a real actor dies'. On the strength of this (and Killer Joe), this no longer applies.

 

[belboid]

Star Trek Into Darkness

Perfectly enjoyable action flick, based loosely around the ST characters. Quinto and Cunmberbund make it worth watching.

 

[Sue]

Star Trek Into Darkness

Perfectly enjoyable action flick, based loosely around the ST characters. Quinto and Cunmberbund make it worth watching.

Really don't fancy this. Saw the last one the same week as Moon and did it suffer from the comparison...

 

[Sue]

The Great Gatsby. I'm no Baz Luhrman fan and the best thing I can say is that I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would and that for the first two thirds at least, I wasn't bored. It's also one of a small handful of films that uses 3D well. Luhrman's films always look like cut out paper dioramas and that look is well suited for 3D film, which always looks more like flats on different levels, rather than like a real 3 dimensional space. I would go as far as saying that the 3D is the best reason to see the film. The soundtrack works fine too, as always with Luhrman. Otherwise it's the usual kitsch-fest, not quite as grating as Moulin Rouge and not as embarrassingly terrible as Australia.

Nothing connects on an emotional level for me with any of Luhrman's films, as the characters are always secondary to all the glitter he chucks at the camera. With its visual overkill, the film works hard not to be a stuffy literary adaptation but goes too far the other way and overwhelms its source. DiCaprio makes for a better Gatsby than Redford, which isn't saying much as the 70s film was deadly dull. At least this isn't dull but it's no more than superficial eye candy and just made me feel like I'd eaten too many sweets.

Agree with most of this -- don't think it's a very filmable book and Daisy's problematic in this context, didn't dislike it as much as I'd feared, thought Leonardo DiCaprio was good -- but don't agree with the 3D thing. I felt it was often really intrusive -- was okay in the party scenes but for much of the rest of it, found it very annoying, as well as making me feel a bit seasick. Not a terrible film, just don't think Luhrman's style is at all suited to an adaptation of the book. Saying that, I'm generally not keen on films of books I really like so could just be that.

 

[Reno]

Byzantium, Neil Jordan's new vampire film. Thought it was tedious. It felt very dated and not in a good way, with a clunky, old fashioned flashback structure which stops the film dead every time it goes back and one of those horrible exposition heavy voiceovers which either tells you what you are watching or puts in words what should be conveyed in visuals. A suspenseless horror film without scares and a clumsily conveyed message. The dialogue was terrible, the usually good cast didn't stand a chance and the "action" climax was laughable. This type of Camilla/Countess Bathory inspired vampire film has been done better many times before, most notably in the 70s cult classic Daughters of Darkness, which also takes place in an abandoned hotel, which still feels a lot more edgy and looks far more stylish than this sorry mess does.

Jim Jarmusch has just premiered his vampire film at Cannes, which sounds very similar and will hopefully be a bit more interesting: Only Lovers Left Alive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sue]

Populaire. French, 50s set rom/sex com in the Doris Day/Rock Hudson mode with added typewriter. Hated it which is maybe a bit unfair as mainly down to the shite sexual politics and sleazy/annoying male characters which I guess are of a piece with these kind of films. (Haven't seen any of the orginals since I was a kind -- my mum used to love Rock Hudson -- so could be they'd annoy me just as much if I watched them these days.)

 

[Sue]

Behind the Candelabra. Michael Douglas is excellent, Matt Damon's pretty good too (no idea how old his character's meant to be but feels like he's way too old for the role though) and Rob Lowe's kind of scary. Quite fun.

ETA Didn't recognise Debbie Reynolds at all.