Movies you've just watched

[njiska]

Well this was interesting. Just watched Mission Impossible 2 and for the first time I went in looking at it as a John Woo film, not a Mission Impossible movie. My opinion of it went up significantly. The story is still largely crap, but the action is well done and feels like a Woo film should. Kinda wish I could see the original 3.5 hour R-rated cut that Woo delivered to the studio. From what I hear a lot of plot and action scenes were cut from the film. Wondering if the original version might be more coherent.

Still a terrible movie as far as the Mission Impossible series is concerned, but a solid action flick on it's own. Certainly better than Hard Target. Though Hard Target did have Wilford Brimley.

[ChurchOfSolipsism]

I'm starting to believe that while the Chinese can produce great stories and choreograph amazing action scenes, they seem to lack any kind of skill with the basic, technical aspects of film. Although the framing was good, unlike some other Hong Kong film's I've seen from the era, I was surprised how often the camera was not in focus, or focused on something other than the object of the scene. The audio was similarly crap. From the way is sounds, I'm guessing the movie wasn't shot with sync-sound and was entirely dubbed in post production. Wouldn't surprise me as this is how Hard Boiled was shot 6 years later (Though the dub was way better).

If I remember correctly, none of the Hongkong films from the 80s and largely 90s were shot with synch sound; the reason is the same for why shots often look a bit on the cheap side: these films were produced as cheaply as possible and often filming had to be finished in a week or less. There simply was no time to do dozens of takes.

[njiska]

If I remember correctly, none of the Hongkong films from the 80s and largely 90s were shot with synch sound; the reason is the same for why shots often look a bit on the cheap side: these films were produced as cheaply as possible and often filming had to be finished in a week or less. There simply was no time to do dozens of takes.

That may well be a contributing factor, though I know these films were certainly not rushed through production as Woo had over 90 days to shoot The Killer and 123 to shoot Hard-boiled. Interestingly enough I've been doing some research on sync sound in Hong Kong and it seems that one of the big reasons it wasn't used for so long is that fact that Hong Kong is noisy as shit and there isn't much you can do about that when shooting outside or even inside a studio near a noisy area.

[njiska]

Just finished watching Red Cliff. I really wasn't sure what to expect going in, but it ended up being a true, proper epic. Great story, great characters, an even balance of combat and strategy. Everything you could want. Even at four and a half hours it didn't feel overly long. That's saying a lot. Highly recommend it.

[drauch]

Lately, that I recall:

Garden of the Dead
Deep Star Six
Wheels on Meals
Born to Fight
Flashpoint

[emphatic]

Just finished watching Red Cliff. I really wasn't sure what to expect going in, but it ended up being a true, proper epic. Great story, great characters, an even balance of combat and strategy. Everything you could want. Even at four and a half hours it didn't feel overly long. That's saying a lot. Highly recommend it.

I bought the Bluray this weekend, but mine is only 148 minutes???!

[Ed Oscuro]

Just finished watching Red Cliff. I really wasn't sure what to expect going in, but it ended up being a true, proper epic. Great story, great characters, an even balance of combat and strategy. Everything you could want. Even at four and a half hours it didn't feel overly long. That's saying a lot. Highly recommend it.

Your movie watching seems to parallel the stuff I either am watching or intend to watch...although you're putting these down MUCH faster than me. Glad to hear the movie's good, looking forward to it!

[Ixmucane2]

Fright Night
A "serious", no-nonsense vampire movie, right from the beginning (it is stated matter-of-factly, then proved by evidence, and then confirmed by him when he appears in his first scene that the attractive single man next door is a vampire), in which the vampire hunters are laughably inexperienced but smart and motivated, the vampire is suitably evil and badass and the plot is a pure and simple war.
Good acting (particularly Colin Farrel as the vampire) and many memorable and fun scenes.

[emphatic]

Fright Night
A "serious", no-nonsense vampire movie, right from the beginning (it is stated matter-of-factly, then proved by evidence, and then confirmed by him when he appears in his first scene that the attractive single man next door is a vampire), in which the vampire hunters are laughably inexperienced but smart and motivated, the vampire is suitably evil and badass and the plot is a pure and simple war.
Good acting (particularly Colin Farrel as the vampire) and many memorable and fun scenes.

Did you ever see the original?

[Ed Oscuro]

Fright Night
A "serious", no-nonsense vampire movie, right from the beginning (it is stated matter-of-factly, then proved by evidence, and then confirmed by him when he appears in his first scene that the attractive single man next door is a vampire), in which the vampire hunters are laughably inexperienced but smart and motivated, the vampire is suitably evil and badass and the plot is a pure and simple war.
Good acting (particularly Colin Farrel as the vampire) and many memorable and fun scenes.

Did you ever see the original?

I thought he did mean the original and was joking surely

[njiska]

Just finished watching Red Cliff. I really wasn't sure what to expect going in, but it ended up being a true, proper epic. Great story, great characters, an even balance of combat and strategy. Everything you could want. Even at four and a half hours it didn't feel overly long. That's saying a lot. Highly recommend it.

I bought the Bluray this weekend, but mine is only 148 minutes???!

You have purchased the North American cut. It blends the two Chinese films together as one so that they can be more coherent to people unfamiliar with Chinese History. However, that's bull as I understood the full too films just fine. If you haven't opened it yet, return it and buy this instead:

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Cliff-Interna ... =Red+CLiff

Just finished watching Red Cliff. I really wasn't sure what to expect going in, but it ended up being a true, proper epic. Great story, great characters, an even balance of combat and strategy. Everything you could want. Even at four and a half hours it didn't feel overly long. That's saying a lot. Highly recommend it.

Your movie watching seems to parallel the stuff I either am watching or intend to watch...although you're putting these down MUCH faster than me. Glad to hear the movie's good, looking forward to it!

Every now and then I get on a kick. Plus I watch pretty much anything.

[emphatic]

If you haven't opened it yet, return it and buy this instead:

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Cliff-Interna ... =Red+CLiff

Thanks, but I might just get a naughty copy if I notice that it's lacking depth. I too hate the bastardized US cuts, for example Shaolin Soccer. I have the HK DC on DVD and rented the poor western release and the dubsub was horrible so now I have my own Swedish sub that I based on the HK's Engrish subs.

[Skykid]

^ Lol, four hours of Red Cliff? I'd pick up a gun and several bullets while you're in the process of swapping your copy, just in case the tedium of glossy hack movie making makes you want to blow your brains out. Or just go and get a good film, that should solve the problem too.

Last night: OUTLAND

High Noon inspired Sean Connery sci-fi western goodness with LOOK REAL SETS built by REAL PEOPLE. Digging the used future and setting: mining colony on Jupiter Moon IO. Digging the wall sized computers that are used to send emails and video messages and general 80's ness of it all.
Not an award winner but a pretty enjoyable watch. And oh, zat atmosphere, how I miss thee.

[njiska]

^ Lol, four hours of Red Cliff? I'd pick up a gun and several bullets while you're in the process of swapping your copy, just in case the tedium of glossy hack movie making makes you want to blow your brains out. Or just go and get a good film, that should solve the problem too.

Good Ol' loutish Skykid. I found Red Cliff to be a great film and a proper epic. I can't speak to the butchered version, but the full cut has a lot of political intrigue and some very good acting, cinematography and editing. I'd like to know what your actual complaints are, aside from "hack movie making".

[Skykid]

^ Lol, four hours of Red Cliff? I'd pick up a gun and several bullets while you're in the process of swapping your copy, just in case the tedium of glossy hack movie making makes you want to blow your brains out. Or just go and get a good film, that should solve the problem too.

Good Ol' loutish Skykid. I found Red Cliff to be a great film and a proper epic. I can't speak to the butchered version, but the full cut has a lot of political intrigue and some very good acting, cinematography and editing. I'd like to know what your actual complaints are, aside from "hack movie making".

Ha ha, 'loutish'?! That would be more like, "Naw mate, leaf dat shiz out innit, it's crap wahblow rudeboyyy!"

Can't be bothered to go through Red Cliff again, suffice to say it's throwaway muck of the expensive kind. I discussed it with system11 a while ago so I'll just quote that as an explanation:

I thought it was high gloss trash with beautiful lenses and scenery, lots of celebrities and zero substance. It was John Woo does Hollywood in Hong Kong in mainland China, and totally by the numbers.

It was barely passable as throwaway popcorn entertainment, but I didn't like the fact it was being pushed as some kind of masterpiece by the PR wheels.

Out of 47 contributing film critics it only got one mention in a list of best Asian films of the 2000's, which is generous imo. I put it down to the responsible reviewer's lack of exposure:

http://dgeneratefilms.com/uncategorized ... s-ballots/

^ This is quite a good list btw, lots of the stuff mentioned in this thread ranks very highly on here.

[njiska]

Ha ha, 'loutish'?! That would be more like, "Naw mate, leaf dat shiz out innit, it's crap wahblow rudeboyyy!"

Can't be bothered to go through Red Cliff again, suffice to say it's throwaway muck of the expensive kind. I discussed it with system11 a while ago so I'll just quote that as an explanation:

I thought it was high gloss trash with beautiful lenses and scenery, lots of celebrities and zero substance. It was John Woo does Hollywood in Hong Kong in mainland China, and totally by the numbers.

It was barely passable as throwaway popcorn entertainment, but I didn't like the fact it was being pushed as some kind of masterpiece by the PR wheels.

Out of 47 contributing film critics it only got one mention in a list of best Asian films of the 2000's, which is generous imo. I put it down to the responsible reviewer's lack of exposure:

http://dgeneratefilms.com/uncategorized ... s-ballots/

^ This is quite a good list btw, lots of the stuff mentioned in this thread ranks very highly on here.

So which version did you actually watch, mate? Because the full Asian cut (Red Cliff + Red Cliff 2) feels nothing like a Hollywood John Woo film to me. There was a significantly larger effort put into character development and the period itself is quite engaging. Add to that grand, well put together scenes of warfare and the touching warrior's relationship between Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang and you get a solid film. All things that were cut from the 148 min. combination film.

And yes, it is a largely by the number's production that doesn't go above and beyond what's expected of the epic genre, but there is nothing wrong with that. I can say Lawrence of Arabia was a by the numbers production (which is true of the time in which it was made) and it's still a masterpiece.

[Mischief Maker]

Punisher: Warzone.

Honestly, I don't know how I could improve on Patton Oswalt's enthusiasm for this film in the How did this get made? Podcast. Leave your snooty character-study pretensions at the door.

[Skykid]

So which version did you actually watch, mate? Because the full Asian cut (Red Cliff + Red Cliff 2) feels nothing like a Hollywood John Woo film to me. There was a significantly larger effort put into character development and the period itself is quite engaging. Add to that grand, well put together scenes of warfare and the touching warrior's relationship between Zhou Yu and Zhuge Liang and you get a solid film. All things that were cut from the 148 min. combination film.

And yes, it is a largely by the number's production that doesn't go above and beyond what's expected of the epic genre, but there is nothing wrong with that. I can say Lawrence of Arabia was a by the numbers production (which is true of the time in which it was made) and it's still a masterpiece.

I don't think Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece, I think it's overrated, like David Lean in general.

I was duped into watching the abridged version, admittedly, but I can see exactly what I'll be getting with the four hour one and I'm not interested. I don't go looking for foreign cinema to end up with four hours worth of the Chinese equivalent of a Michael Bay movie.

[njiska]

I was duped into watching the abridged version, admittedly, but I can see exactly what I'll be getting with the four hour one and I'm not interested. I don't go looking for foreign cinema to end up with four hours worth of the Chinese equivalent of a Michael Bay movie.

That is such a misstatement I don't even know where to begin. If it was the Asian equivalent of a Michale Bay film there would have been a lot more explosions and combat and not a single interesting character to be found. More to the point though, if the abridged version is all you've seen, then you cannot pass judgement on the film. There is just way too much plot missing from it. Terence Chang even commented that the goal of the North American version was to turn it into a Hollywood-style Blockbuster so Western audiences would actually watch it. Removing much of the cultural mythology.

I've not seen the abridged version, but I did just take a look at a comparison of the two to see what was cut and was shocked to see how much the story was changed. Several major sub-plots are completely discarded, including the justification for why Zhuge Liang needed to obtain the 100,000 arrows. Two characters that lead to an important conflict are completely excised from the film, as are a number of important speeches.

Seriously, major cuts that completely change the tone of the presentation. http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4784544

And as for Lawrence, while I will agree that it sometimes get's more praise than it deserves, the cinematography is perfect, the pacing is well done for an epic and Peter O'Toole's performance is one of the best of his career.

[xbl0x180]

I dig "Red Cliff." It's polished and has very high production values, and I thought it achieved the effect and style it was meant to - that of a "blockbuster epic" along the lines of Braveheart and Gladiator. The editing and pacing made the 4 hours seamless, which is a very, very difficult feat. Only Wolfgang Petersen's Das Boot (the 5-hour version) had that kind of presentation. It's not as good as the three films I mentioned, but it's also not some empty flick a la Michael Bay. It kinda stands in the middle

[Skykid]

And as for Lawrence, while I will agree that it sometimes get's more praise than it deserves, the cinematography is perfect, the pacing is well done for an epic and Peter O'Toole's performance is one of the best of his career.

No doubt, it has plenty of very good elements. I agree with O'Toole and the cinematography. It's by no means an atrocity, just too long and far too celebrated for what it is. I tend to think Lean is generally overrated, but that's another discussion.

The problem for me with Red Cliff is that I identify problems with the acting, scripting and directing, and not necessarily just the cut. Most people don't, and you're all blessed. But then most people think Transformers and Twilight are good movies, such is life.

While I'm sure the unabridged version is superior, how willing I am to suffer another hours worth to fill in the gaps I'm not sure. It's grandiose, big money, big names, lots of sweeping 360 degree camera shots, zero substance imo. That doesn't exactly encourage me to return to it, I don't like things like that. The story is good because it's historical, I'm taking nothing away from that, but it's so painfully commercial in its every facet it lacks any integrity - like most Hong Kong movies.

[njiska]

While I'm sure the unabridged version is superior, how willing I am to suffer another hours worth to fill in the gaps I'm not sure. It's grandiose, big money, big names, lots of sweeping 360 degree camera shots, zero substance imo. That doesn't exactly encourage me to return to it, I don't like things like that. The story is good because it's historical, I'm taking nothing away from that, but it's so painfully commercial in its every facet it lacks any integrity - like most Hong Kong movies.

Skykid, I have no problem with you not liking the film, but I do have a problem with you saying you have no interest in returning because the version you saw had no substance, when I'm agreeing with you that the particular cut you watched was indeed missing everything that gave the movie substance. It's like refusing a full glass of water because previously when you tried to have a glass of water you were given a very pretty, empty glass. I'm not forcing you to rewatch it, I'm just saying that your justification for not wanting to watch it is a bit foolhardy.

The problem for me with Red Cliff is that I identify problems with the acting, scripting and directing, and not necessarily just the cut. Most people don't, and you're all blessed. But then most people think Transformers and Twilight are good movies, such is life.

Oh come now, I think you're selling the film a bit short with that comment and by proxy, selling me short. I'm not going to say of the acting is the best thing ever, but I will defend the performances of Tony Leung and Takeshi Kaneshiro. Their characters' relationship to one another made the film for me and that was entirely down to the acting abilities of the two men. Of course, most of their best scenes are cut, including a touching one involving the birth of a foal. As for issues with directing and scripting, I don't think it's fair to make those complaints as much of the justifications for why things are happening how they are have been excised.

[Skykid]

Skykid, I have no problem with you not liking the film, but I do have a problem with you saying you have no interest in returning because the version you saw had no substance, when I'm agreeing with you that the particular cut you watched was indeed missing everything that gave the movie substance. It's like refusing a full glass of water because previously when you tried to have a glass of water you were given a very pretty, empty glass. I'm not forcing you to rewatch it, I'm just saying that your justification for not wanting to watch it is a bit foolhardy.

Very wary, but I may take your advice if you're that confident I'm going to get a vastly superior film. I don't know how that's possible, it seems like asking me to watch 3 extra hours of Braveheart, which would be 3 more hours of superficial Hollywood schmaltz, bottom of the barrel dialogue and historical inaccuracy.

Oh come now, I think you're selling the film a bit short with that comment and by proxy, selling me short. I'm not going to say of the acting is the best thing ever, but I will defend the performances of Tony Leung and Takeshi Kaneshiro.

Leung great, Kaneshiro average. They didn't do anything for me that made them any better than any other film, but then Woo isn't exactly known for having actor driven directorial talents.

Of course, most of their best scenes are cut, including a touching one involving the birth of a foal. As for issues with directing and scripting, I don't think it's fair to make those complaints as much of the justifications for why things are happening how they are have been excised.

Again, I'll consider re-watching the four hour cut then if you think it's absolutely necessary. I've never shied away from giving something a second chance based on suggestions on this forum, as long as you're happy to hear an honest opinion.

[Ed Oscuro]

Most people don't, and you're all blessed. But then most people think Transformers and Twilight are good movies, such is life.

Hang on a second there. Don't pretend you're talking to "those people," you know who you're talking to.

Carry on then!

I'm sure Red Cliff will enjoy my watching just as surely as this, although now I have some extra decisions to make on which cut to find

[njiska]

Very wary, but I may take your advice if you're that confident I'm going to get a vastly superior film. I don't know how that's possible, it seems like asking me to watch 3 extra hours of Braveheart, which would be 3 more hours of superficial Hollywood schmaltz, bottom of the barrel dialogue and historical inaccuracy.

Again, I'll consider re-watching the four hour cut then if you think it's absolutely necessary. I've never shied away from giving something a second chance based on suggestions on this forum, as long as you're happy to hear an honest opinion.

I'm just going to say this. I loved the full cut. I did not find it to be like Braveheart. As I have not watched the entirety of the abridged version, I cannot personally comment on the differences or if it will be a different experience for you. Given your rather strong negative opinion, I do think you may have a hard time getting past that bias, regardless of the quality of the full cut. My recommendation, if anything, would be to take the 146 mins and watch Red Cliff, before deciding to watch Red Cliff 2 and complete the experience.

I personally have a policy of not hating a film or having a strong opinion of it, without actually seeing it. If it was me who had watched the short version and didn't like it, I'd still make a point to watch the full cut before making my opinion, simply because it's the real movie.

[Skykid]

I do think you may have a hard time getting past that bias, regardless of the quality of the full cut.

Not bias, appraisal.
I'll watch the 4 hour when I have the time, and call a spade a spade. If it changes my mind I'll be sure and let you know.

On other things, just watched Babylon A.D.

An unbelievable mess of a movie, I'll just leave it there.

[njiska]

I do think you may have a hard time getting past that bias, regardless of the quality of the full cut.

Not bias, appraisal.

No it's bias, on the grounds that you will be going into the film with preconceived opinions, due to your earlier viewing. Whether or not you want them to, they will still be there. Though I'm sure you'll try to give it a fair shake. If you still think it's Michael Bay-esque afterwards I may have to question whether or not you've actually seen one of his films though. Pay particular attention to the arrows and the Admirals. They form one of my favourite subplots that was completely cut out.

[Skykid]

No it's bias, on the grounds that you will be going into the film with preconceived opinions, due to your earlier viewing.

I'll give it 100% of a clean sheet opportunity to sway me, scouts honour. It's the job of the film to prove its worth, I don't really have bias when it comes to movies, just a critical eye. I'll get back to you on it.

[Ixmucane2]

Fright Night
A "serious", no-nonsense vampire movie, right from the beginning (it is stated matter-of-factly, then proved by evidence, and then confirmed by him when he appears in his first scene that the attractive single man next door is a vampire), in which the vampire hunters are laughably inexperienced but smart and motivated, the vampire is suitably evil and badass and the plot is a pure and simple war.
Good acting (particularly Colin Farrel as the vampire) and many memorable and fun scenes.

Did you ever see the original?

No, I suppose it is even better?

[emphatic]

Did you ever see the original?

No, I suppose it is even better?

I haven't seen the new one, so I can't say which is better, but the old one is a classic to be cherished. I prefer Fright Night 2 though, it's the Army Of Darkness of the Vampire genre.