What is The Last Movie You Watched?

[Stavros]

The Martian (Ridley Scott, 2015)
I saw this in the 3D version, so I got the best out of the superb photography. The space scenes and the gadgets are also superbly done, Jessica Chastain looks superb too although she doesn't have much to do or say. How much of this film is pure fantasy and how much science fact I can't say, but it is at its heart a feel-good rescue drama with a poor script, practical decision-making which would never happen in the real world, and standard acting. For some reason Sean Bean retains his English accent, but Chiwetel Ejiofor has to speak American, and in the early part of the film without subtitles I could not understand what the crew of Hermes were saying. The film was shot in Hungary and also in the Wadi Rum in Jordan where David Lean (or rather 2nd Unit director Nicolas Roeg) shot a lot of the desert scenes in Lawrence of Arabia. Coincidence or not, when he was a young man Ridley Scott might have drunk a pint of Watney's Red Barrel, a popular (if by today's tastes, disgusting) brand in its day. Overlong at 241 minutes but worth seeing in 3D.

[Laphroaig]

Thanks for the review, Stavros. I was in two minds about whether to see The Martian or not. I find Ridley Scott's films something of a hit and miss. Gladiator was superb and, I know I'm in a minority on this, but Kingdom of Heaven (The Directors Cut version) is in my opinion even better. On the other hand, I've tried and failed on many occasions to enjoy Blade Runner. It sounds like The Martian is similar to Prometheus, which I did see at the cimema on it's release, visually spectacular (in 3D) but ultimately lacking believability and a decent plot.

ps. I checked IMDB and the cinema version is 141 min long. Knowing Ridley Scott, the Directors Cut when it comes out on DVD could well end up at 241 min though...

[buttslinger]

The last movie I saw in 3D was Friday the 13th part III!!!
Maybe I should exit the compound if the new Star Wars movie gets raves.
I liked Kingdom of God also, only saw it on TV, and I don't even know if I saw the director's cut. I might have to investigate that.

There are movies like The talented Mr Ripley that have great moments and come close to being great, but somebody in charge tries too hard and fucks it up, ruins the story. I think that's what happened on Bladerunner. It certainly had it's moments.

[Stavros]

Thanks for the review, Stavros. I was in two minds about whether to see The Martian or not. I find Ridley Scott's films something of a hit and miss. Gladiator was superb and, I know I'm in a minority on this, but Kingdom of Heaven (The Directors Cut version) is in my opinion even better. On the other hand, I've tried and failed on many occasions to enjoy Blade Runner. It sounds like The Martian is similar to Prometheus, which I did see at the cimema on it's release, visually spectacular (in 3D) but ultimately lacking believability and a decent plot.

ps. I checked IMDB and the cinema version is 141 min long. Knowing Ridley Scott, the Directors Cut when it comes out on DVD could well end up at 241 min though...

You are right to correct me on the length of the film, definitely not 241 minutes! I agree with you on Blade Runner, but not Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator; The Martian is much better than the pretentious garbage of Prometheus, but a much simpler story too with no villains. The 3D probably makes it look better than it is. Go for it!

[Laphroaig]

The last movie I saw in 3D was Friday the 13th part III!!!
Maybe I should exit the compound if the new Star Wars movie gets raves.
I liked Kingdom of God also, only saw it on TV, and I don't even know if I saw the director's cut. I might have to investigate that.

There are movies like The talented Mr Ripley that have great moments and come close to being great, but somebody in charge tries too hard and fucks it up, ruins the story. I think that's what happened on Bladerunner. It certainly had it's moments.

The cinematic version of Kingdom of Heaven was an abomination, which (even Ridley Scott admits) had so much removed from it that much of the characterisation was lost and some of the subplots made no sense whatsoever. The directors cut adds 45 min to the film, restores scenes which are vital to the plot and fleshes out some of the characters, in particular Sybilla (Eva Green). Directors Cut versions usually make little or no difference to whether a film can be considered good or not. This is a (rare?) example of a film totally transformed afterwards.

Edit: Stavros, I only saw your post after writing this. Very few people agree with me on Kingdom of Heaven...

[Stavros]

The cinematic version of Kingdom of Heaven was an abomination, which (even Ridley Scott admits) had so much removed from it that much of the characterisation was lost and some of the subplots made no sense whatsoever. The directors cut adds 45 min to the film, restores scenes which are vital to the plot and fleshes out some of the characters, in particular Sybilla (Eva Green). Directors Cut versions usually make little or no difference to whether a film can be considered good or not. This is a (rare?) exmple of a film totally transformed afterwards.

Edit: Stavros, I only saw your post after writing this. Very few people agree with me on Kingdom of Heaven...

Fair enough as I was not aware Kingdom of Heaven had been cut so much. I will consider giving it another look.

[RallyCola]

The Martian (Ridley Scott, 2015)
I saw this in the 3D version, so I got the best out of the superb photography. The space scenes and the gadgets are also superbly done, Jessica Chastain looks superb too although she doesn't have much to do or say. How much of this film is pure fantasy and how much science fact I can't say, but it is at its heart a feel-good rescue drama with a poor script, practical decision-making which would never happen in the real world, and standard acting. For some reason Sean Bean retains his English accent, but Chiwetel Ejiofor has to speak American, and in the early part of the film without subtitles I could not understand what the crew of Hermes were saying. The film was shot in Hungary and also in the Wadi Rum in Jordan where David Lean (or rather 2nd Unit director Nicolas Roeg) shot a lot of the desert scenes in Lawrence of Arabia. Coincidence or not, when he was a young man Ridley Scott might have drunk a pint of Watney's Red Barrel, a popular (if by today's tastes, disgusting) brand in its day. Overlong at 241 minutes but worth seeing in 3D.

Well, I too saw The Martian in an early preview last weekend and I will say this: if you liked Interstellar and Gravity, you will like this movie, but if you found flaws in the implausibility (even for sci-fi) with the above movies, this will not be a pleasant experience.

First off, when I saw this, I went in with very VERY low expectations and was pleasantly entertained. True to the book in most cases, it is visually a great movie to watch and superior to Interstellar, but falls short of Gravity in terms of visual intensity. That is partly because the movie is mostly shot on the planet so the space visuals are secondary to the terrestrial shots but also because unlike Gravity (which mind you I enjoyed FAR less than this), this movie has multiple perspectives instead of just focusing on one character so the Jordanian backdrop is nearly inconsequential.

Next, the acting: Matt Damon, is, well MAAAAT DAAAMON (ala Team America). He isn't a very good actor in my opinion so I can't knock him too much since he could not save his script. I know the book is supposed to be funny and witty so that his character isn't perceived as a depressed loaner, but to me, the character should have had far more desperation to be believable. That said, I did enjoy other performances.

Next, the story: Well, it should be clear from the trailer, and since it is faithful to the book how it ends, but Stavros also spoiled it above. That doesn't ruin it really, because no one really wants to watch or make, for that matter, a depressing movie, but the manner in which the final plot unfolds, well sucks...which brings me too...

The science: please do not expect anything remotely plausible or factual as the movie is as bad at being accurate as Alien, Prometheus, Spaceballs and Machete Kills In Space are all rolled into one. It is science fiction but its attempt at reality fail so miserably that it makes me wonder why they even tried. I am fine with made-up science for entertainment but...well...watch final chapter of this and you will see what I mean.

Overall, I would give this movie a solid 5/10. To base that, Gravity was a 3/10 for me, Prometheus was a 4/10 as a stand alone film, 0/10 as an Alien prequel and Interstellar was a 2/10. I would recommend it to anyone that doesn't mind scientific inaccuracy. I would also recommend it to anyone that likes rescue movies because, as Stavros said, it is really standard fare. I have not truly enjoyed a Ridley Scott film since 2001 but this is probably his best effort since Black Hawk Down.

[trish]

Black Mass
Definitely no romanticizing here. In this accounting Whitey Bulger brutal, petty, gritty and totally unappealing. One is mystified by the loyalty he was able to extract from his fellow 'southers.' Well done, and in my estimation worth the price of admission. Wouldn't be surprised if Depp was nominated for this one.

[runningdownthatdream]

Transsiberian (Brad Anderson 200-eight)
I had not seen or heard of this film before watching it on tv last night. It has the usual plot holes, absurd situations, but does have some well-defined characters, none of whom are likeable, which is unusual. It means that it is hard to root for the anti-heroine (no pun intended), or anyone else for that matter, and is not the kind of film that is going to encourage anyone to take the long train journey from Russia to China or the other way. The issue of mules is an interesting one, as it has been in the news in the last few years but does not seem to figure as a major plot line for films. I am also surprised that an American Christian evangelist would be so partial to any alcohol, not just vodka.

I liked it because all the characters were so unlikeable.......fits well with my world-view!

[runningdownthatdream]

I hope you will give it a try, it is very long and very slow so be aware of that. As someone who knows the PI you will notice the absence of mobile phones and also the church, and I think this is deliberate. The religious devotion of most Filipinos is hinted at in the story of the family whose faith seems to be taken for granted, and who suffer the most from the corruption in the country, but it's not their fault, whereas the man who has rejected law, politics and religion and is free to do what he wants destroys everything he comes into contact with. It is also noticable that the woman tells her children she and her husband thought about working abroad but decided to remain in Ilocos Norte, evidently the wrong decision! If there is a message here, the director seems to be saying nothing works in the Philippines, and there is no hope anything will. Bleak.

I finally got around to watching this. I started off with a long-assed commentary and think my login session timed out and lost it all. So i'll be brief: movie was good and accurately portrayed the cast of characters you'll run into in the Philippines on any given day at any given time. It really was like watching real-life unfold with the exception of the antagonist - can't say I've met anybody here with the knowledge or the burning desire to get answers to the big questions of life. Most people here tend to be suspicious of knowledge and people with knowledge. Trying to engage anyone in an intelligent, thoughtful discussion is like trying to get Obama to bomb Iran - it ain't gonna happen! I think the writer was trying to advocate that idea by just taking the main character with his knowledge and questions and turning him into an abomination to humanity. And if you're here for any amount of time you'll notice that anybody who purports to 'know stuff' is deemed 'boastful' and more or less shunned.

Really loved the way violence wasn't shown BUT the sounds were....in long and painful detail. Also loved the long, continuous shots of the environment without man and with nothing but audio to complement the scenery. Almost like the director was reflecting on the natural world and its correlation to society.

For another take on the Filipino existence try Metro Manila which was directed by a Brit, Sean Ellis. Really engaging, thoughtful movie that, for the most part, shows things as they really are although towards the end it veers into unlikely sentimentality. I felt the director, after showing the thorns, copped out and tried to redeem either the Filipino or his view of the Filipino.