rate the last movie you saw
-
TaranofPrydain
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2024 1:22 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I only saw Catch Me If You Can once, years after its initial release, but still about a decade ago now, but I remember being so muted about it... I've never been one of DiCaprio's biggest fans, Hanks' role was boring, and for a film that had the reputation of being a crime comedy lark, I found the film to actually be a pretty tragic drama with DiCaprio's character going from one empty masquerade to another to try to escape from his own past and bad home life. Walken was good though, ditto Amy Adams.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 36631
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Well said Taran. It's amazing a Broadway musical resulted from this film also, since it's a joyless movie. I felt like I was watching ORDINARY PEOPLE at times especially early on.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The movie was okay to me, though subtext-wise it fits right in with Spielberg's father-son-family themes that normally permeate his films. I thought the score was okay, though I don't listen to it much. The score that really knocked me out was the one for THE TERMINAL which remains, for me, one of Spielberg's best late period films and one of Williams' best later period scores (I also do like WAR HORSE and LINCOLN...huge fan of AI too but I know I am in the minority on that).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 36631
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Agree with you Michael -- THE TERMINAL is, by far, my favorite Spielberg-Williams score of the last quarter-century. Movie's okay, but the score wears well on repeat listening.
The subtext is there but the execution almost certainly falls flat. I felt nothing at the end of this movie. Maybe it was the fact I don't care for DiCaprio so I didn't feel much for him. On the other hand, Hanks' role was thankless and came off as contrived. I didn't feel "the connection" between them even though that's where the story was supposed to be going -- and that last line, "they're friends to this day", is kind of WTF since DiCaprio's performance is so robotic, he looks like he's in an adaptation of 1984 in the movie's finale.The movie was okay to me, though subtext-wise it fits right in with Spielberg's father-son-family themes that normally permeate his films.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 36631
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
PRIMATE
6/10
I attended this "Bargain Tuesday" showing just because I had to get out of the house (total cost $2) and pretty much came away feeling whoever wants to see this movie would probably like it.
A barebones, no-nonsense horror movie about a human-raised chimp who gets rabies and decides to attack the family that raised him -- along with all the college age friends the eldest daughter brings home, just in time for spring break terror -- "Primate" pushes all the expected buttons and does so with reasonable efficiency. There's scant back story here and little development of the characters, which is probably fine since nearly all of them are poised for simian executions anyway.
Director Johannes Roberts has mostly been a B-grade genre director to this point and he does a capable job with what amounts to a basic "Creature on the loose" plot. That holds particularly for the capable performances, including Troy Kotsur, the father from "Coda" who gets a decent role here, and most especially lead Johnny Sequoia, whose warm smile and general personality seem like they will be better suited to a movie where a monkey isn't ripping the jaw off an idiot college kid.
6/10
I attended this "Bargain Tuesday" showing just because I had to get out of the house (total cost $2) and pretty much came away feeling whoever wants to see this movie would probably like it.
A barebones, no-nonsense horror movie about a human-raised chimp who gets rabies and decides to attack the family that raised him -- along with all the college age friends the eldest daughter brings home, just in time for spring break terror -- "Primate" pushes all the expected buttons and does so with reasonable efficiency. There's scant back story here and little development of the characters, which is probably fine since nearly all of them are poised for simian executions anyway.
Director Johannes Roberts has mostly been a B-grade genre director to this point and he does a capable job with what amounts to a basic "Creature on the loose" plot. That holds particularly for the capable performances, including Troy Kotsur, the father from "Coda" who gets a decent role here, and most especially lead Johnny Sequoia, whose warm smile and general personality seem like they will be better suited to a movie where a monkey isn't ripping the jaw off an idiot college kid.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7846
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Tenet (2/10)
Early in this film, there is a line of dialog that proves a good piece of advice to the audience -- "Don't try to understand it".
Christopher Nolan's attempt to fashion a Bond-like espionage yarn is unfortunately sabotaged by a Nolan-style screenplay -- i.e. a convoluted storyline which is impossible to follow, a lack of emotional resonance, and weighed-down in technobabble. Capping it all is the usual "sound design" masquerading as a score, which (once again) only serves to muddle the typically-unintelligible dialog.
I watched Tenet with a room full of people who are much bigger Nolan fans than I am. None of them liked it either.
Early in this film, there is a line of dialog that proves a good piece of advice to the audience -- "Don't try to understand it".
Christopher Nolan's attempt to fashion a Bond-like espionage yarn is unfortunately sabotaged by a Nolan-style screenplay -- i.e. a convoluted storyline which is impossible to follow, a lack of emotional resonance, and weighed-down in technobabble. Capping it all is the usual "sound design" masquerading as a score, which (once again) only serves to muddle the typically-unintelligible dialog.
I watched Tenet with a room full of people who are much bigger Nolan fans than I am. None of them liked it either.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7846
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Story: 8.5/10 / Adaptation: 7/10)
Like Order of the Phoenix this film lacks the scope of films 1-4, as well as many of the delightful visual details that garnish those earlier movies (what happened to the ghosts, magical candies, floating books, etc.?). Still, there are many touching moments in this movie, mostly in the scenes of budding romance between Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione (Yates handles the “boy-girl” elements better than Newell). This film moves well, until the third act where it sags a bit (did we need the scene where Hagrid mourns the death of Aragog?).
While the 4K transfers have helped me to re-evaluate the cinematography of these films, I still find Half-Blood Prince rather ugly-looking. In some scenes, Bruno Delbonnel’s photography brings to mind the look of a faded Victorian photograph, which initially gives the movie an appealingly nostalgic look.
But the visual style gets tedious, and even stifling after a while. It's just so dreary and drab, in the way Delbonnel restricts every scene to one or two colors. The monochromatic “Sin City” look of the cave scene near the climax is a particular eyesore.
In fact it's honestly hard to see what's going on in some scenes.
It's baffling to me that Half-Blood Prince was the only Potter film whose photography got an Oscar nomination -- considering the stellar work of Seale, Pratt and Seresin in the previous movies (even Idziak's work smokes that of Delbonnel).
Nicholas Hooper outdoes his music for the previous film, and I'd rate Half-Blood Prince as the best non-John Williams score of the series. Hooper again looks to retain elements of Williams’ scores (as in the emphasis on celeste) and offers more quotes of Williams’ music than heard in the previous two films. Still, he’d have done better to quote more -- the score is lacking in melody and thematic variety (I suspect at Yates’ preference). It doesn’t badly comprimise the overall score -- except at the tragic climax where it almost becomes white sound due to the lack of melody (and this where the music needed real emotional punch).
John Williams is keenly missed in these later films. On top of that, the musical "spotting" of these movies is also far-more sparse than the Williams-scored pictures -- much like a British television movie (which of course is where Yates came from).
Like Order of the Phoenix this film lacks the scope of films 1-4, as well as many of the delightful visual details that garnish those earlier movies (what happened to the ghosts, magical candies, floating books, etc.?). Still, there are many touching moments in this movie, mostly in the scenes of budding romance between Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione (Yates handles the “boy-girl” elements better than Newell). This film moves well, until the third act where it sags a bit (did we need the scene where Hagrid mourns the death of Aragog?).
While the 4K transfers have helped me to re-evaluate the cinematography of these films, I still find Half-Blood Prince rather ugly-looking. In some scenes, Bruno Delbonnel’s photography brings to mind the look of a faded Victorian photograph, which initially gives the movie an appealingly nostalgic look.
But the visual style gets tedious, and even stifling after a while. It's just so dreary and drab, in the way Delbonnel restricts every scene to one or two colors. The monochromatic “Sin City” look of the cave scene near the climax is a particular eyesore.
In fact it's honestly hard to see what's going on in some scenes.
It's baffling to me that Half-Blood Prince was the only Potter film whose photography got an Oscar nomination -- considering the stellar work of Seale, Pratt and Seresin in the previous movies (even Idziak's work smokes that of Delbonnel).
Nicholas Hooper outdoes his music for the previous film, and I'd rate Half-Blood Prince as the best non-John Williams score of the series. Hooper again looks to retain elements of Williams’ scores (as in the emphasis on celeste) and offers more quotes of Williams’ music than heard in the previous two films. Still, he’d have done better to quote more -- the score is lacking in melody and thematic variety (I suspect at Yates’ preference). It doesn’t badly comprimise the overall score -- except at the tragic climax where it almost becomes white sound due to the lack of melody (and this where the music needed real emotional punch).
John Williams is keenly missed in these later films. On top of that, the musical "spotting" of these movies is also far-more sparse than the Williams-scored pictures -- much like a British television movie (which of course is where Yates came from).
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9250
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Shining (1980) 3 of 10
-Full disclosure. I have never read a Stephen King novel and until last night I have never seen a movie based on any of his books. I'm just not a fan of that genre and have a generally low level threshold regarding violence. But I decided to take advantage of a Prime freebie so I could in effect "rent" this film and study it knowing a lot about it.
-I have always been convinced that Stanley Kubrick was an overrated critics darling director who always got more praise for his films just because of his name. I am one of those who considers "2001" overrated and my reasons for disliking 2001 as a movie are the same reasons why I ended up disliking this movie. It isn't the fact it's a horror story it's the fact that like with "2001" Kubrick comes off as a directorial narcissist who decides that creating a solid story narrative isn't necessary so long as he has great cinematography and dazzling camera shots and who also believes in letting scenes linger endlessly instead of moving things along. The way he lingers endlessly over Wendy's discovery of the repetitive typed pages with the same lines when the point could have been made in just a few seconds or the endless repeating of "Redrum" are cases in point. They gave me flashbacks to how insipidly endless the "Dawn Of Man" scene or his space journeys set to the Blue Danube in "2001" are.
-And while I haven't read King's novel, I have read enough to know why he hated the film and I can concur that my chief problem is the fact many others have cited (even those who love the film) that Jack Nicholson is horribly miscast in this film because he's playing a guy who is clearly a psycho right from the outset when this character should have been depicted as a normal everyman and someone who could be believable as a loving husband and father before his descent into madness. But that is the kind of role I can NEVER buy Nicholson in. Consequently, I'm seeing more of a case of a story about a guy flipping out from cabin fever and all these bizarre things regarding the hotel and his son's never developed "shine" gift are just slapped on incidentals. And I don't want to hear anything about symbolism or any other junk that is so often used to justify the lack of a narrative in "2001". Here, Kubrick has even less of an excuse. The script is terrible and what's supposed to be horror comes off more as comedy even without the iconic "Here's Johnny!" bit.
-In the end I think I learned less about King's stuff than I did about why I'm not one of those people who swooned over Kubrick's name.
-Full disclosure. I have never read a Stephen King novel and until last night I have never seen a movie based on any of his books. I'm just not a fan of that genre and have a generally low level threshold regarding violence. But I decided to take advantage of a Prime freebie so I could in effect "rent" this film and study it knowing a lot about it.
-I have always been convinced that Stanley Kubrick was an overrated critics darling director who always got more praise for his films just because of his name. I am one of those who considers "2001" overrated and my reasons for disliking 2001 as a movie are the same reasons why I ended up disliking this movie. It isn't the fact it's a horror story it's the fact that like with "2001" Kubrick comes off as a directorial narcissist who decides that creating a solid story narrative isn't necessary so long as he has great cinematography and dazzling camera shots and who also believes in letting scenes linger endlessly instead of moving things along. The way he lingers endlessly over Wendy's discovery of the repetitive typed pages with the same lines when the point could have been made in just a few seconds or the endless repeating of "Redrum" are cases in point. They gave me flashbacks to how insipidly endless the "Dawn Of Man" scene or his space journeys set to the Blue Danube in "2001" are.
-And while I haven't read King's novel, I have read enough to know why he hated the film and I can concur that my chief problem is the fact many others have cited (even those who love the film) that Jack Nicholson is horribly miscast in this film because he's playing a guy who is clearly a psycho right from the outset when this character should have been depicted as a normal everyman and someone who could be believable as a loving husband and father before his descent into madness. But that is the kind of role I can NEVER buy Nicholson in. Consequently, I'm seeing more of a case of a story about a guy flipping out from cabin fever and all these bizarre things regarding the hotel and his son's never developed "shine" gift are just slapped on incidentals. And I don't want to hear anything about symbolism or any other junk that is so often used to justify the lack of a narrative in "2001". Here, Kubrick has even less of an excuse. The script is terrible and what's supposed to be horror comes off more as comedy even without the iconic "Here's Johnny!" bit.
-In the end I think I learned less about King's stuff than I did about why I'm not one of those people who swooned over Kubrick's name.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Eric, I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I also find Kubrick to be overrated, or to be more precise, his movies are overrated. They often look great and the guy knew how to block scenes and do clever things with the camera but as you said, he wasn't very good at telling a story. I find myself increasingly disliking movies with unconventional narrative structures although I give 2001 a pass since I do enjoy the visuals of the film.Eric Paddon wrote: Wed Feb 11, 2026 10:59 am The Shining (1980) 3 of 10
-Full disclosure. I have never read a Stephen King novel and until last night I have never seen a movie based on any of his books. I'm just not a fan of that genre and have a generally low level threshold regarding violence. But I decided to take advantage of a Prime freebie so I could in effect "rent" this film and study it knowing a lot about it.
-I have always been convinced that Stanley Kubrick was an overrated critics darling director who always got more praise for his films just because of his name. I am one of those who considers "2001" overrated and my reasons for disliking 2001 as a movie are the same reasons why I ended up disliking this movie. It isn't the fact it's a horror story it's the fact that like with "2001" Kubrick comes off as a directorial narcissist who decides that creating a solid story narrative isn't necessary so long as he has great cinematography and dazzling camera shots and who also believes in letting scenes linger endlessly instead of moving things along. The way he lingers endlessly over Wendy's discovery of the repetitive typed pages with the same lines when the point could have been made in just a few seconds or the endless repeating of "Redrum" are cases in point. They gave me flashbacks to how insipidly endless the "Dawn Of Man" scene or his space journeys set to the Blue Danube in "2001" are.
-And while I haven't read King's novel, I have read enough to know why he hated the film and I can concur that my chief problem is the fact many others have cited (even those who love the film) that Jack Nicholson is horribly miscast in this film because he's playing a guy who is clearly a psycho right from the outset when this character should have been depicted as a normal everyman and someone who could be believable as a loving husband and father before his descent into madness. But that is the kind of role I can NEVER buy Nicholson in. Consequently, I'm seeing more of a case of a story about a guy flipping out from cabin fever and all these bizarre things regarding the hotel and his son's never developed "shine" gift are just slapped on incidentals. And I don't want to hear anything about symbolism or any other junk that is so often used to justify the lack of a narrative in "2001". Here, Kubrick has even less of an excuse. The script is terrible and what's supposed to be horror comes off more as comedy even without the iconic "Here's Johnny!" bit.
-In the end I think I learned less about King's stuff than I did about why I'm not one of those people who swooned over Kubrick's name.
As for The Shining, I would rate it higher than you but it's only a 3-star movie at best for me. I am baffled by the fact it has achieved masterpiece status among so many movie fans. What accounts for this? Is it because it was shown on TV repeatedly throughout the 80s? Is it because it checks off so many boxes for different types of viewers? It's a Kubrick film. It's a Stephen King film. It's a horror film. it's an 80's horror film (even though it feels more like a 70's horror film.) Do people think it's a masterpiece just to feel smarter than the critics who panned it upon its original release?
Also, Nicholson could play normal characters. One of my favorite performances by him is in About Schmidt where he plays a very quiet and timid person and he's fantastic at it.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I think The Shining is a technical masterpiece - gorgeous to watch for its framing and style and ambiance. I do think Kubrick's films are generally awesome and I love watching them. However, I do agree with you as well Eric that Jack Nicholson was horribly miscast for many of the reasons you state. Kubrick also gutted the book of its primary theme - a man struggling with/trying to overcome his addiction to alcoholism and the demons associated with alcoholism/addiction. Yeah, it is in the film to an extent but it is not as up as up front of a theme as it should be IMO. Being a former alcoholic myself, I love the book because I can relate to SOME of what it is trying to communicate - the book resonates with me on a personal level. The Kubrick version of the film was basically a showcase for Nicholson's "psycho" character acting, and as such does not hold up for me in that way. I remember liking the TV mini-series version better where the actual adaptation was concerned - might be worth watching again soon as I have not seen it since it came on TV the first time.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 36631
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Have mentioned this before, but I ended up taking a great HISTORY OF HORROR class at Boston College which was taught by a professor who had a bestseller (IN SEARCH OF DRACULA) that was made into a quasi-doc with Christopher Lee. He showed movies and gave you the option of several books to read as part of the course -- I chose to read King's SALEMS LOT and THE SHINING as part of it.
The Kubrick movie is a visual feast but the story, always, left me empty -- and once you read the book, it's even more remarkable how the humanity was thrown out of the material by Kubrick. Every odd story alteration from killing off the Scatman Crothers part to "Jack being Jack" and the flat, who-cares ending just intensified it. The movie has no heart or human engagement -- which to be honest, is what I feel from most Kubrick movies. BARRY LYNDON is gorgeous but is filled with unappealing characters (yes, part of its point, but still, it's like watching a living painting more than anything else). 2001 is spectacular but I like the FX work and the individual sequences more than the story itself. EYES WIDE SHUT is another chilly drama where the characters are at arm's length.
The later SHINING TV mini-series from King and Mick Garris loses the technical innovation and visual genius of Kubrick but as a story and piece of drama it's a much more worthwhile view.
The Kubrick movie is a visual feast but the story, always, left me empty -- and once you read the book, it's even more remarkable how the humanity was thrown out of the material by Kubrick. Every odd story alteration from killing off the Scatman Crothers part to "Jack being Jack" and the flat, who-cares ending just intensified it. The movie has no heart or human engagement -- which to be honest, is what I feel from most Kubrick movies. BARRY LYNDON is gorgeous but is filled with unappealing characters (yes, part of its point, but still, it's like watching a living painting more than anything else). 2001 is spectacular but I like the FX work and the individual sequences more than the story itself. EYES WIDE SHUT is another chilly drama where the characters are at arm's length.
The later SHINING TV mini-series from King and Mick Garris loses the technical innovation and visual genius of Kubrick but as a story and piece of drama it's a much more worthwhile view.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 11010
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
King once described Kubrick's movie as "A gorgeously restored vintage automobile with no engine inside of it" (or something to this effect), and I've always agreed. The book is an achingly sincere metaphor for King's own alcoholism and how it can twist and warp an inherently good man into a monster over time, but there's no humanity to the character of Jack Torrance in the movie, from both Kubrick's icy distant filming style and Nicholson's eyebrow-raising mugging (this is truly the beginning of Nicholson becoming more of a "persona" than a true actor, playing up his more cartoony tics and affectations for crowd-pleasing effect). From frame one, Nicholson is playing the character like a barely repressed nutjob, and thus it's dissatisfying as a viewer to see him "descend" into madness, when he was already there!AndyDursin wrote: Thu Feb 12, 2026 9:03 amThe later SHINING TV mini-series from King and Mick Garris loses the technical innovation and visual genius of Kubrick but as a story and piece of drama it's a much more worthwhile view.
The 1997 TV miniseries is obviously much more basic on a filmmaking level, with some inherent network television cheesiness, but it gets the heart of King's text a lot better. Hell, if Mike Flanagan is gonna remake every King property under the sun, why not The Shining? He already made a damn good "legacy sequel" to it with Doctor Sleep. I always enjoy the Kubrick film on a masterful technical level, and it has a dangling eeriness that's undeniably effective, but it emotionally leaves me as cold as the frozen Nicholson in the final scene. 
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7846
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Love him or hate, Kubrick's influence on many of the films we love is undeniable. As Spielberg once said "He copied no one, and we were all clamoring to imitate him".
The influence of Paths of Glory is all over Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. Star Wars, Alien, Aliens, Space: 1999, etc. owe a great debt to 2001 (Ripley is even interrogated in 2001's conference room). His use of a rotating set in 2001 was later utilized by Spielberg in CE3K, 1941 and Poltergeist.
Kubrick's innovative (and radical) idea to retrofit old BNC cameras with then-modern Zeiss lenses enabled him to light Barry Lyndon with actual candlelight, and resulted in images unlike anything ever seen before. This was a colossal game-changer, and the cinematography of Amadeus (and every period piece made since) owes entirely to Barry Lyndon.
Kubrick's adroit use of moving camera shots was unusual (and inventive) in the 60s and early 70s. Today every director uses them. He changed the way films were made -- for the better. Spielberg, Lucas, Scott, Cameron, Nolan, et al, all owe him a tremendous debt.
That said, I'm not the biggest fan of The Shining either. I think it is watchable and sufficiently entertaining, but other than the relationship between Mr. Halloran and Danny, there is little sense of warmth among the characters.
Interestingly, Ridley Scott isn't a fan either...
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/1 ... v556zxk62c
The influence of Paths of Glory is all over Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. Star Wars, Alien, Aliens, Space: 1999, etc. owe a great debt to 2001 (Ripley is even interrogated in 2001's conference room). His use of a rotating set in 2001 was later utilized by Spielberg in CE3K, 1941 and Poltergeist.
Kubrick's innovative (and radical) idea to retrofit old BNC cameras with then-modern Zeiss lenses enabled him to light Barry Lyndon with actual candlelight, and resulted in images unlike anything ever seen before. This was a colossal game-changer, and the cinematography of Amadeus (and every period piece made since) owes entirely to Barry Lyndon.
Kubrick's adroit use of moving camera shots was unusual (and inventive) in the 60s and early 70s. Today every director uses them. He changed the way films were made -- for the better. Spielberg, Lucas, Scott, Cameron, Nolan, et al, all owe him a tremendous debt.
That said, I'm not the biggest fan of The Shining either. I think it is watchable and sufficiently entertaining, but other than the relationship between Mr. Halloran and Danny, there is little sense of warmth among the characters.
Interestingly, Ridley Scott isn't a fan either...
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/1 ... v556zxk62c
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Harrison Ford double feature: watched 2 movies I hadn't seen in forever yesterday (while I spend the day sorting 20 lbs of legos)
Blade Runner. (5/10) This is one of the most overrated movies. I thought not seeing it in 20 years might change my opinion, but I still found it boring, I watched the cut with no-narration (Final Cut). Yes, the FX and art direction is great (although does no one in the future turn on the lights? Everyone was in a dark smoke filled room.), but every aspect of this movie was a drag. There is no connection to the characters, as the humans are stiff, and the replicants (who are supposed to be the ones with humanity), are just as bad. The Vangelis score is droning and annoying. Even the plot is not very exciting, since you can predict everything before Ford's character does.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (6/10). The last time I saw this was in the theater and I came away so upset and annoyed with it. This time, my opinion improved. I think I'd place it on par with Crystal Skull. Sure, there are too many car chases, and the deaging of Ford was hit or miss (mostly because they didn't repitch his voice), but I didn't find Pheobe Waller-Bridge's character as off-putting this time. The plot isn't as much of a mess as Crystal Skull (although you can tell they reshot the ending here, and Ford was meant to stay in the past).
Blade Runner. (5/10) This is one of the most overrated movies. I thought not seeing it in 20 years might change my opinion, but I still found it boring, I watched the cut with no-narration (Final Cut). Yes, the FX and art direction is great (although does no one in the future turn on the lights? Everyone was in a dark smoke filled room.), but every aspect of this movie was a drag. There is no connection to the characters, as the humans are stiff, and the replicants (who are supposed to be the ones with humanity), are just as bad. The Vangelis score is droning and annoying. Even the plot is not very exciting, since you can predict everything before Ford's character does.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (6/10). The last time I saw this was in the theater and I came away so upset and annoyed with it. This time, my opinion improved. I think I'd place it on par with Crystal Skull. Sure, there are too many car chases, and the deaging of Ford was hit or miss (mostly because they didn't repitch his voice), but I didn't find Pheobe Waller-Bridge's character as off-putting this time. The plot isn't as much of a mess as Crystal Skull (although you can tell they reshot the ending here, and Ford was meant to stay in the past).
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7846
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Blade Runner's a unique film to be sure -- and it certainly didn't connect with audiences in 1982. I imagine at the time people were expecting something different from a movie with the star of Raiders and Star Wars, from the director of blockbuster thriller Alien with a soundtrack from the hugely popular Chariots of Fire composer. Instead they were greeted with this somewhat abstract, almost "European" art film.BobaMike wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 9:38 am Blade Runner. (5/10) This is one of the most overrated movies.
I found Blade Runner dense and unengaging when I first saw it. Cool visuals but that's about it. Then I saw it again two years later and was knocked over. I prefer the narrated version myself. The narration clarifies things, and the original "happy" ending is better IMO.
Not to regurgitate what I said above about Kubrick, but if nothing else Blade Runner was hugely influential, having birthed (and tandem with The Road Warrior) the genre of "cyberpunk cinema".