What was the last movie you've seen?

[prfsnl_gmr]

My wife and I recently sat through parts I and II of Kenji Mizoguchi's:

The 47 Ronin (1941/1942) - The nearly four-hour epic chronicles the struggles of the 47 Ronin to avenge the death of their master. Despite its premise, however, it is nearly devoid of action - the dramatic raid on their enemy's castle is recounted through a letter - and it is much more a samurai drama/comedy of manners that an action film. I found the complete lack of action a bit disappointing, but the film was made by one of the masters of Japanese cinema, a fact that shows through in each beautifully constructed shot. (This movie was released the same year as Citizen Kane, and it shows that Japanese directors of the time were beginning to use some of the same techniques as their western counterparts.) Moreover, the story is gripping, even if it includes two distracting and unnecessary side stories in the second part. (It would have been better as a one three-hour movie than a two-part four hour movie.) In conclusion, I respect the film much more than I enjoy it, and I recommend it only to true fans of the samurai film genre.

(Also, the upcoming Keanu Reeves re-imagining of the 47 Ronin looks...interesting. The trailer for the new film has more action than all four hours of Mizoguchi's epic, and I am cautiously optimistic...)

[Sload Soap]

Isn't that exactly what the movie meant to achieve? I'm not defending the movie, but I thought it was meant to be a tongue in cheek tween fantasy film that obviously and heavily borrows tired cliches.

If it is, it doesn't seem to come across on the screen. I don't know much about the series, other than the books probably started off as Harry Potter fanfic.http://flavorwire.com/410684/what-is-th ... -grown-ups. That most certainly does come across on the screen.

What I should have said in my rant was the one thing that makes this film so bad: it's boring. The action scenes have no punch and the dialogue is flat.

But you have intrigued me now with the idea that it's an elaborate parody. Might have to research.

[Luke]

But you have intrigued me now with the idea that it's an elaborate parody. Might have to research.

Until I see it I can't judge it, but I think it's supposed to be in the vein of STARSHIP TROOPERS and the like; you are supposed to enjoy it for its awfulness. But as Ebert once said "You will fail if you try to create camp. Camp can only create itself".

This film hasn't been on my radar, at all, but if the movie is polarizing I have to see it. Some movies are awfully bad, others are only bad. I'm going to check this out over the weekend and share my thoughts. Thanks for your post as I'm also intrigued.

[o.pwuaioc]

Mortal Instruments is just an awful hodge-podge of all the worst aspects of recent urban fantasy tween movies, slavered with the most bizarre twist on the will-they-won't-they...

Half the film seems stolen from better properties (Harry Potter, Buffy, Star Wars) and the other half is like an advert for hot topic...

Isn't that exactly what the movie meant to achieve? I'm not defending the movie, but I thought it was meant to be a tongue in cheek tween fantasy film that obviously and heavily borrows tired cliches.

It's based off a young-adult book series, so no, it's probably not meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

[Luke]

It's based off a young-adult book series, so no, it's probably not meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, I know that it is based off a book series. Movies based off of books rarely follow the source material. Just saying I've heard it is bad on purpose.

[o.pwuaioc]

It's based off a young-adult book series, so no, it's probably not meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, I know that it is based off a book series. Movies based off of books rarely follow the source material. Just saying I've heard it is bad on purpose.

But the books are bad, too. So unless the books are bad on purpose - and I'm not ruling that out - it's probably not tongue-in-cheek. Then again, I suppose it's possible that someone said, "These books are terrible. You know what would be funny? If we made a movie based off of them that is also terrible!"

[Luke]

Then again, I suppose it's possible that someone said, "These books are terrible. You know what would be funny? If we made a movie based off of them that is also terrible!"

My guess is someone said "These books are terrible but made a ton of money. Quick! Find a screenwriter and a director who wants a 'break out' movie!". As long as it makes money, it's a go.

[Luke]

So, Affleck is the new BATMAN. God I miss Retrodude.

[Jmustang1968]

So, Affleck is the new BATMAN. God I miss Retrodude.

So is this one of those "said no one ever" jokes?

[Luke]

So, Affleck is the new BATMAN. God I miss Retrodude.

So is this one of those "said no one ever" jokes?

Not at all. He and Burning Doom had some weird superhero movie kinship that was bizarre but interesting. I would have loved to hear RD spew about how Ben was either the perfect or worst pick for the Batman.

Ben is the opposite of Damon; great in comedies, terrible in action movies (He wasn't an action star in his Oscar winning film). Time will tell, but I don't particularly like this casting.