My re-watch film thread.

Bladerunner

I first watched this as a kid and pretty much hated it.

I watched it again 10 years ago and thought it was ok but was more style than substance

I watched it again today, and feel that I was right 10 years ago.

It is ok, looks good, great idea, Ford is well cast, but it's all a bit bonkers and the important bits are over too quickly, and lesser scenes, where little happens drag on for ages.

File alongside Total recall.

Platoon (1986)

I first watched 'Platoon' as a young kid. Think my Dad rented it on VHS and left it out, and whilst he was out I watched it.

I watched it again this week for the first time in maybe 25 years,

What a film!!!

As a kid I had seen the shooting and the war bits, and at that time that was all I was really interested in. Just like so many other films about the Vietnam war in the late 80s and the 90s.

This time I was gripped from start to finish, and asked myself why I had not re-watched this before now.



The cast is incredible, with some superb performances, notably from Berenger. (above)

The film was marketed with the tag line: 'The first real casualty of war is innocence', and the film captures that statement superbly.
Stone draws on his personal experiences to tell a story that shows that it isn't simply good guys versus bad guys, but rather that it's about individuals being changed through being placed into a horrendous environment that takes it's toll mentally and physically.

As the title suggests it is about a platoon of American soldiers in Vietnam.
The story is told through the words of Charlie Taylor (Sheen) who has dropped out of college and volunteered for combat over in Vietnam.
It shows the attitude of the others in the platoon to new recruits coming in.
They are seen as insignificant and expendable. Nobody wants to get to know them as they have not yet earned the right to recognition or even acknowledgement.

The film introduces the individuals within the group, each with their own story and personality, and documents their journey or combat, friendship, conflict and morality.
The way the different characters are presented so well is a real gift in this film.
Some films I watch, I struggle to differentiate between the personalities of the characters throughout the whole film. With this I felt as though I had the measure of each within minutes. That is down to the excellent writing, directing and acting that are so evident throughout.



Another thing that this really impressive about this film is the way that it shows the blurred lines of war, Many such films fail to do this by maintaining the moral integrity of the American solidiers whilst portraying the VC as savages. Platoon refuses to go down that route and shows that each man is individual and that their moral compasses are different and that causes struggles even for those fighting on the same side.

Platoon gives the viewer a glimpse into the physical and psychological impact that war has and shows that through the individuals.

I am so glad that I watched this again and it has instantly become a favourite of mine.

Rewatched this again today as I always thought that I didn't really like it.

On this viewing I appreciate so much about it but still feel that it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.

I would have to see that it's not the film it's me.

I know that it is meant to be quirky and meant to break some of the rules and in someway it is meant to be ironic.

I know that it's the Coens style to throw some weirdness around but with this those bit's irritate me.

I love the characters, I mean really think they are superb, especially Walter.

There are plenty of genuinely funny moments and some are so subtle.

The acting is excellent from so many talented actors that appear in this film.

So much is great about it but some bits just irritate me. Namely the two dream sequences - Just nonsense.

As I said, I know it's me and I also know that this film has a cult following but I know that I would enjoy this film even more if the 'weird bits' weren't in it.

Spy Game (2001)

This was a re-watch, but like so many that I am currently re-watching, I can't remember much about them from the first time.

It is a film about the CIA and their operatives and the politics that occur within that environment.
It stars Robert Redford and Brad Pitt as CIA operatives.
It looks at the issues of 'the greater good' and what needs to be sacrificed to ensure that it is attained and the moral challenges that brings.

The film is a bit of a cat and mouse caper or rather Cats and Mice caper which at time seems like a highs stakes game of poker between the characters,

There is not a lot here that I haven't seen before but for the most part it is done well.
It is a film that you need to focus on and follow the dialogue, as there are often little nudges to things that have caught the characters eye, or some extra significance to glances, or words that they say.

At times, I feel as though it may have tried to be too smart for it's own good an almost ran the risk of tying itself in knots.
It does however stay the right side of that line and overall I enjoyed it.

What I liked
I though Redford and Pitt were quality, as I expected.
It was a good mix of political and tactical scenes and 'action'.
I found it to be largely believable and there was not many things that had me thinking "No way, would that happen'.

What could be better
By nature, it was at times quite slow and laboured and I was willing something to happen.
In a couple of the flashback scenes Redford seems to look older than he does in the present

It wasn't a bad film at all, and I am convinced that I will remember much more about it this time.

This is one of my favourite films ever that narrowly misses out on my top 10.
I watch it every year on my Birthday and it is probably in my most watched films ever, and most likely the one I quote more than any other.


Dead or Alive you are going with him

It is a superb action film with so much excellent stuff within it, and an absolute showcase of how to used blood squibs in a film.

I like the vision of the future that it had, and unlike some other films it has not been made to look stupid by the reality as time has gone on.

Clarence Boddicker is right up there with Hans Gruber in the bad guy 'Hall of fame' for me.
So nasty, so many quotable lines and a character that is easy to dislike.


Kurtwood Smith as Clarence Boddicker

Will have to do a proper review for this film sometime, but for now I will just tell you to go an watch it.
If you haven't seen it, then watch it, If you have seen it, then watch it again and if you have seen it but don't like it then we can't be friends.

RoboCop 2014

After watching the original on Tuesday I watched this again to see if my original disdain for the film was justified.

It was

This is dreadful.

I even tried to watch it as a stand alone film. That was difficult because some of the names and aspects of the story are the same.

Everything that makes the original so good is lacking from this film.

I can find few endearing qualities about it. He looks ok. Some of the CGI is good and Michael Kenneth Williams is a decent addition.

Should never have been made and then when they did, it should have been better.

Disturbia (2007)

I re-watched this film last night and enjoyed it as much as I did the first time.

The film is about a troubled young man called Kale (LaBeouf) who is placed under house arrest.

The film centres around what he does whilst he is confined to his property and the observations he makes of his neighbours.

The film is a great example of how a film should raise the tension as well as maintain a sense of intrigue throughout.

LaBeouf is excellent in his role and I find him utterly convincing.

Overall it is a slick, quirky and edgy thriller.

Catch me if you can (2003)

I last watched this 10 or more years ago.

I remember that I liked it and have wanted to rewatch it for a while now.

Finally got around to doing so and am so glad that I did.

I realise that I had never fully appreciated it the first time, but that is more to do with me than the film.

The way I watch films and my appreciation of them has changed so much over the last 5-7 years.

This is an excellent film.


Frank living the dream

The story is one that I would find absolutely ridiculous and so far fetched if it wasn't actually based on true events.

The cast and acting was superb and I never realised until the rewatch that so many talented actors were in it including a young Amy Adams.

Hanks and Di Caprio

I previously enjoyed it, but now it is a firm favourite.

The three Musketeers (1973)



Sigh

I love the story of 'The three Musketeers'. I used to read the book a lot when I was a child. I loved the history, the suspense, the revenge, the swordplay the notion of 'One for all and all for one'.

As a child I saw films that had been made of the story of the Musketeers and I remember that I was always left feeling underwhelmed.

When this was nominated in this HoF, I thought "Maybe I was wrong, I am older now, maybe I will see things differently now".
I didn't.



What I liked
I love the story. Alexandre Dumas told a tale of a young man who has aspirations and dreams of being a musketeer and making his fortune in Paris. I loved the story as a kid and still do now. The themes of love, rebellion and justice is something that I have always found it easy to immerse myself in.
As for the film, I found the costumes good and the set believable.
It did also stick close to the original story in many parts where other versions have chosen not to.
The film was shot well and I also liked most of the music.



What I didn't like
Most of it.
My biggest issue is that it is more comedy than drama.
When I read the story as a kid it was always tense and dramatic, but this film (and most other musketeer films) are not.
Tapping people on the backside with swords and slapping them on the head etc just totally undermines the story in my opinion.
The playing of chess with monkeys on dogs backs
A lot of the characters were comedic too and not in a 'people are eccentric' believable way but a comedy exaggerated way.
I appreciate that this was made in the 70s and that really violent films were not the norm. I also appreciate that the story of the musketeers does lend itself to being accessible for all ages, but it really should be a drama rather than a comedy.
I also concede that some situations in the original story are almost farcical in nature, such as the way D'artagnan manages to arrange successive duels with Athos, Porthos and Aramis not long after arriving in the city, but plenty of the film should be represented in a serious manner in my opinion. This criticism is not limited to this version. I would have the same issues with many of the adaptations of the story, which is probably why 'Dogtantian and the Muskehounds' is still my favourite, as I can appreciate a cartoon with dogs bringing comedy to the story.



Summary
In summary, I just can't get over myself and get beyond the same issues I have had with every screen adaptation of the story of 'The three Musketeers' that I have ever seen.
I love the story but get angry at the way it is portrayed on the screen. As I say, it is the same with every version that I have seen so maybe it is me that it is interpreting it all wrong. With that said, this is all about my opinion, and that is an opinion that I respect

Dances with wolves (1990)

I remember as a kid that was a lot of fuss about this film and that it did well.
I also remember that I had watched it because my Dad had it on VHS.
There is a vague memory that I found it boring. I was 11 at the time of it's release and so will have been 12 when I watched it. I was always going to struggle with a 3 hour film at that age and never mind one that is so dialogue heavy.

I was delighted when it was nominated on the HoF tournament, as I hadn't watched it since that first time and was almost certain that I would understand it more this time and almost certainly appreciate it more.



The film stars Kevin Costner (above) playin Lt. John Dunbar who after being named as a hero requests to be posted to the Western frontier. He gets his wish but find the post deserted. He remains faithful to his posting and keeps a journal, which also serves as the narrative to the film.

He comes into contact with various animals and people whilst there, and eventually he finds himself face to face with a tribe of Sioux.



What I liked
I loved so much about this film. The key thing for me is that I found it totally believable from start to finish. I was invested and immersed throughout.
The writing, acting and directing were superb and woven together created a special piece of film. I felt empathy with many of the characters throughout and the film took me on an emotional journey as well as a visual one.
I thought the cinematography to be spellbinding. The way it was shot simply captured the time and place that it was meant to portray. I was utterly convinced that these shots were taken at the Western frontier in the late 1860s.
The costumes seemed authentic and convincing, as did all of the characters.
One of the things that I appreciated most was the subtle, yet powerful story of the film with key messages of humanity throughout.



What I didn't like
I am seriously struggling to find anything that I didn't like about this film.
The one thing that comes to mind is questions about how easy it seemed for 'Stands with fist' to recall vocabulary in order to communicate. It was more of a question than a problem though.
Apart from that nothing comes readily to mind.



Overall
I loved this film. It really was a joy to watch. 3 hours long and I was disappointed that it ended. It has immediately gone into my top 20 films.
Such a well made film and it is easy to see why it won so many awards.
The characters, cinematography, costumes, directing, acting etc were, as I have already said, of a really high quality and they all combine to tell a wonderful story of hope, integrity, friendship, greed, prejudice and so much more. This is a film that has, action, romance, tension and drama, as well as offering so much more.
I am so pleased that it was nominated.

Bring it on (2000)

This was one of the first DVD's that I bought. As well as the obvious appeal of a film about cheerleaders to a nineteen year old me, I also found that I enjoyed the film. It was a lot of fun and my mind convinces me that there were some genuinely funny bits in the film.

Here we are, some 15 years after last watching it...

... People move on.

Watching it now was just so different. It is not so much that the film has dated, but that I have.

I am just not the same person and my taste in, understanding of and opinion on films has simply changed.

I have moved on from simply thinking that cheerleaders automatically make a good film, although it did bring back memories of my Kirsten Dunst appreciation 'phase', oh and my Eliza Dushku appreciation 'phase'.

I didn't laugh once, and it was quite a painful watch. Nostalgia helped a little but not enough to enjoy the film.

Other films in this thread have been much better on rewatch, this however does not fall into that category.

This was one of those films that I should have left in the past, and been happy with my memories.