"The Score"?

I was in Target tonight, and saw a movie in the $5 discount section called "The Score". It stared Robert DeNiro, Marlon Brando, and Edward Norton. I don't even remember this movie. Was it a bomb? I should have picked it up for $5.

Was it a bomb?

RRA often use that word to describe a shitty movie. But I believe you mean the opposite, as in whether it was very successful, and my answer is no, it wasnt.

But it's not a bad movie. I actually like it, I think it's good. It's just that people expected a really massive hit because you got those 3 stars together, but that doesnt guarantee much. It's one thing to put them all in the same room. It's another thing to make something amazing out of it. I mean, look what happened just recently with Pacino and DeNiro...Righteous Kill.

But anyway, to sum it up: it's good, worth the watch, but dont expect a top 10 material.

Thanks. I had it in my hand, and have no idea why I just didn't buy it.

I thought Ed Norton was really good in that movie, but De Niro was mediocre. Marlon Brando was almost embarrassing to watch.

It's not a horrible movie, but it's no classic. For $5 it was probably worth it. Although if you have NetFlix, just rent it.

I just found out that it was Brando's last film.

And his worse..

I wouldn't use the terms "bomb" or "shitty" with THE SCORE. I only remember it as....MEH. I saw it when it was out in theatres, so maybe I should give it another chance, but I just remember thinking how is it that three acting ubermensch giants in Brando, DeNiro, and Ed Norton could be in the same movie, and I don't care beyond the casting gimmick. Think RIGHTEOUS KILL.

Not a bad technical film at all, but I refuse to associate "good" with it.

How was my Capo impression?



Pretty much, though SCORE had a very public production trouble. You might have heard the story of how Brando refused to have director Frank Oz shoot his scenes. Apparently the Whale thought Oz was a hack, and openly mocked him as "Miss Piggy" rather purposely. If I remember right, DeNiro had to shoot those Brando shots, based off instructions given by Oz off-set through headphones or whatever nonsense.

Then again, Nicholson supposedly took over THE DEPARTED regarding his scenes, and that won the Oscar. Go figure.



That's a fair expectation.

DeNiro now is what Brando was for the last many years of his career. More "working" than "acting." Which is depressing for cinemaphiles like us, but well that's DeNiro's problem. I would say the same for Pacino too.

I ordered it from Amazon for $8. I'll have to see how bad Brando really was.

I wouldn't say Brando was bad, just...there. I'm reminded of his appearance in that Michael Jackson music video.

Brando just shouldn't have been in front of the camera at that point of his life.

Well one thing was for sure. He was quite large.

I LOVE heist movies, and thought it was just fine -- and given the cast, all the better (for entertainment value)...

The ITALIAN JOB remake is still better.

Would you believe I have yet to see the Italian Job? I never saw the original or the remake. The thing is, I've seen it in the tv listings and still, for whatever reason haven't seen it. Probably, because by the time I notice it's on, it's already started and I hate seeing a movie if I can't see it from the opening credits.


TIS

A good film but very overrated..The italian Job that is..

Which one?

I have the remake on Blu-ray. It's not a great movie, but entertaining.

Apparently, you've never seen the following Brando movies:

'Mutiny on the Bounty'
'Reflections in a Golden Eye'.

What's a good movie?

One that is fun to watch? or one of high quality/standards? or both?

Yeah I heard about that and Miss Piggy. Also, about the fart pillow Brando was constantly using on set to joke around during filming.

I think the guy was just there for fun, and didnt mind creating a circus while shooting the movie.

Not like he had that big of a role in this movie anyway. It works well with or without him.

And THE ASPHALT JUNGLE is way better than both italian jobs

In fact, The Asphalt Jungle (1950) is probably the greatest heist film ever made, it's too awesome for words.

Oh please.

You apparently never saw CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY.

Sure only a Brando cameo, but that movie sucks.

What exactly to me is a good movie is subjective, and Capo will probably go off again about how I have low standards and like way too many "shitty" movies (i.e. pictures that most normal non-cinemaphile people might have seen on TV or DVD or at the local theatre) and Geoff too since he's been dying for some DP action.

But my definition?

One that gets me involved with the story, the stakes, the characters, etc. That''s the most important necessary facet for me: If I can't give two shits about what is happening, then I reject it.

Meanwhile, I also like the pyrotechnic dynamics to do what they're designed to execute, i.e. thrill of a car chase or tension from being chased or suspense begotten out of being stalked by a killer.

At the very least, if those two work for me, then I enjoy them in varying degress of success. Take Peter Hyam's THE RELIC, which was a monster movie that rips off ALIEN maybe way too much, but rips it off in the right, good way of tight atmospheric tension and solid scares.

Not obligatory, but I always totally appreciate, when the frame evokes thoughtful positive political, philosophical, and intellectual musings out of me. Unlike Capo, this may happen to me with material not intended to do so, but I habitually bring it up none the less.

Consider Kathryn Bigelow's thriller BLUE STEEL. The thriller and police procedural plotting is disposal, you've seen it everywhere including that last LAW & ORDER rerun you watched. But what's fucking fascinating is how this female director takes a traditional cliche moment when superiors chew out Jamie Lee Curtis is corkscrewed by DIRTY HARRY "liberal" bureaucracy tying hands of the police into BLUE STEEL, where its now the double-standard sexist "conservative" bureaucracy questioning and doubting her.

Also, good acting from Curtis and the late Ron Silver, the baddie in TIMECOP, a movie that Capo would rather write a positive review for DePalma's SCARFACE than ever bother to watch that Van Damme actioneer. Then again, I can't blame him there.

Now all that generic broad definition aside, how does my "standards" apply to THE SCORE?

It's at best competently shot, but not extraordinary with the technicals. The story is basic but not in itself a bad thing, and DeNiro/Norton act what they can or think of the material. It's just I never care for these cons or their dilemmas or even the friggin heist itself. Trust me, if you can't get moved or intrigued in the fun of robbing off the central prize in a heist picture....

The film sorta has a fundamental failing.

Again not a bad film at all, I don't remember anything particularly negative or shallow in execution. It's just not good or remarkable either.

I would give it **1/2

I got it a few years ago at Walmart for 5 bucks. I bought it cuz it had Brando and Deniro in it and never watched it yet.

I haven't gotten around to watching it either.

I've been following this thread only because I want to know your thoughts on the movie JL.

By the way, what's up with your avatar?

I have no idea. I didn't remove it.

I humbly thank you Rons, for taking the time to respond. Pretty soon, I'll write a new thread to discuss some film related issues, and I shall address both what you said in this thread and what Capo said in another thread/s.

Almost missed this.

There's no accounting for personal tastes; what appeals to me might not appeal to someone else. But I still think we ought to agree on what "good" is, on what a film should strive to achieve.

From the tone of Fame's question, "fun" and "high quality" seem to be mutually exclusive terms; the one meaning "escapism" or "made for entertainment only", the other meaning "intellectually worthwhile" or something similar.

I have problems with the first definition; it's quite possibly a meaningless definition. Chaplin and Keaton made comedy "for fun", but in borrowing from what they knew - socially and artistically - their films are very serious. By "serious" I mean they engage with reality.

But I think it's very cynical to make a categorical distinction between entertainment/escapism and good/serious. It's inherently snobbish, self-righteous.

For me, a good film is worthwhile. It is also, by definition, entertaining, or "fun". (There's absolutely no reason why "entertainment" should be used pejoratively. Likewise, there's no reason why a slow, elusive, unresolved "art film" shouldn't be extremely engaging, extremely entertaining.) What makes a film worthwhile is its thematic substance - its issues are important - and the ways in which it engages reality, the way it interrogates or explores the material world.

I see a lot of films that simply aren't good as a whole; they might take as their conceptual premise a potentially important issue, but the final product is poorly realised, whether due to artistic or intellectual shortcomings or commercial interests or both. There are interesting aspects or moments of promise to be found in a lot of mediocre films, though; I rarely see something that is completely beyond hope.

RRA often throws "Steven Seagal" at me as if it's some sort of embodying concept by which I damn his whole taste in films. But in truth, I've never, to my knowledge, blasted Seagal or dismissed his films as non-serious or "shitty". The only Steven Seagal film I've seen is Executive Decision, in which he's killed off very early. So it might be a case of self-projected guilt on RRA's part as to why he keeps bringing up my supposed disapproval of his love for action films.

(I've seen Timecop. I didn't find it too objectionable at the time. At least it knows it's silly. The Dark Knight doesn't.)

I haven't seen The Score. I have it on VHS.

Excellent argument Capo.



Not really.

I do it because it obviously irks you.

I have no ill-will or anything against you. You're a good critic with intelligent thoughts and don't give a goddamn about disrespecting any supposed "holy cow" films. That's an undervalued attitude to have with criticism.

Remember at FCM where I posted that Outlaw Vern's review of PUBLIC ENEMIES? Your knee-jerk reaction was to dismiss it as merely me trying demean you or whatever egotistical nonsense. I posted it because as you ironically pointed out, you and him shared the same (legitimate) criticisms of the movie. The approach was different though.

So yeah you've helped me before with constructive arguments that did iron out my reviews, IMO. Just trying to return the favor, but it's not like I have a gun to your head. Shiv sure, but not gun.

Capo, I simply want more than just mechanical reviews, I'm more intrigued by the critic's response, the personal story of the auteur with that film the launchpad for their feelings and connection and politics and the baggage that we as viewers take with us to the film, etc.

Take svsg, who gave the most interesting thought I've ever read on Bruce Lee's action classic ENTER THE DRAGON. And it had nothing to do with the film itself. He the Indian national wrote how (unless I'm wrong) ENTER was the first English-language movie he watched without subtitles.

See that shit fascinates and compells me more than the usual stuff we critics do. With ETD, highlights the universal appeal and audience-devotion to that one film and International icon.

I don't think my reviews have worked with what I've wanted to do, but I tried (I guess) with AIR FORCE ONE that tired bored DIE HARD clone, highlighting the sheer historical absurdity of a U.S. President going Bruce Willis.

Though Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt could have pulled it off. George Washington won a Revolution without any teeth.



I believe you missed the whole point of me using that bloated has-been. And if you read my OUT FOR JUSTICE review, you know I thought it was a weak-sauce action exploitation picture. But one fun if watched in interrupted spasms (like on TV.)

Don't mistake the trees for the forest.

Oh and for the record, you never trashed Van Damme either. Not that I really care if you did or not, but don't worry. I won't hold (or remember) it against you.



That was an awesome funny touch with EXECUTIVE DECISION, with the action hero star Seagal killed off in the first 20 minutes, forcing the supposed desk jockey Kurt Russell to save the day. Though that kinda doesn't make sense with Russell having done ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK but alas. Forgettable actioneer, but I give EXECUTIVE props there.

But back to your point, I remember your spat about wanting psychological depth with your films. OK fine, whatever I can understand that.

So how does that apply with your positive review of say...LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD? Not pissy or critical, just curious.

And that's the thing, curious. People really don't seem to want to converse or discuss beyond their given statements. Why is that? It's disheartening when people fear offending someone else or whatever.



Oh come on, a dude running around in a bat suit is more realistic than time traveling!



And you have THE OUTFIT too. You have no idea how jealous I am.

Sorry for getting off-topic JL, but, well, you know...

Firstly, just to deter any attacks in advance, I don't think action films should be, by definition, without psychological depth. What I mean by "psychological depth" is a character's plausible, grounded response to the social milieu; any psychological depth stems from social context. I think you got that sufficiently in the first Die Hard, which can be read as an allegorical take on the corruption of corporate America; less so in the second one - that's just a silly cash-in on the first, which works to a certain extent by way of a rinse and repeat method, much like Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

With Die Hard with a Vengeance and Live Free or Die Hard, you've all of a sudden got an attempted seriousness, with specific references again to real, important issues such as race and the meltdown of the post-modern world due to organised terrorism. But it's all diluted and made fodder for poorly staged set pieces; the social context is all dressing, never addressed fully enough for anything to ring true. The terrorists are the biggest let-down; the Die Hard films are set up to cash in on both Willis's appeal as an actor and John McLane's appeal as a character. As a result, he could be fighting anybody, much in the same way that Rocky or Rambo could be fighting anybody, according to what's fashionable at the time (an unstoppable Russian boxer or the whole Soviet army or other such "foreign" threats). There's no real effort to get to grips with social reality in these kinds of films, and as a result, they lack psychological depth.

And so the appeal of Live Free or Die Hard rests on whether you think it's well-staged as an action film. I personally don't think it's all that great. One's enjoyment of it depends on one's knowledge of the genre, its history, its pioneers (this happens to be a sequel to possibly the best action film ever), its limits and its strengths. As always, it's a comparative judgment.

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for elaborating.

Oh and for the record, I still hate you for having seen THE OUTFIT.

Out of curiosity, why wait to make a new thread regarding these posts you are talking about? You seem like an intelligent person, why not just respond with your thoughts in the threads that make you think, instead of starting whole new topics?

Because I'm an attention whore, blib, that's why.

I dont do this to "own" a thread or anything like that. I dont believe that crap that a thread starter owns the thread or has some sort of claim over it because s/he started it. So I dont do that to get the eyes on me. Believe me, some time ago I noticed a little star next to my username and realized I reached 1000 posts, and I didnt mention it anywhere because I didnt want anyone to start a thread by accident. I also dont have my birthday in my profile for the exact same reason, I dont want a birthday thread for me. So why I call myself an attention whore? because I believe in the ultimate discussion. And the ultimate discussion, in my opinion, is the one that gets the attention of as many participants as you can. I planned this new thread to discuss a number of things regarding movies, and wanted everyone to have their say. Now that I realized my reply to what RRA just said would be something I will ALSO (and not just) talk about in that thread, I thought it would be best to wait and just write it all once in that thread. I still wanted to thank him in the meantime, cos I appreciate his reply.

Why did Capo apologized to JL? for going off topic. Or for "Hijacking the thread". But I dont think the apology should be aimed at JL. Capo is doing a wonderful thing to JL and everyone else reading this thread by posting some interesting posts. The people Capo should apologized to are all those members unlucky enough to read his wonderful non-the-score-posts simply because they dont check this thread about a movie they either didnt see or simply dont care about. And that's the real shame. RRA just mentioned above that one particular reply from svsg was the one he cared about most in another thread. What if another wonder-post is being deprived right now from a person who may have wonderful things to say about the notion of "good films" but that person simply dont know that this thread is no longer about the score? think about it.

I think that for the sake of the most healthy discussions - each and every one should be an attention whore. I'm not saying that every off-topic post should be the reason for a new thread, but if there's an interesting debate on the rise, that is no longer about the thread title, I think it should get the attention of a new thread, so that everyone will have the opportunity to voice their opinion.

I ended up posting here after all, because I found specific things I should reply to. I'll save the other thread for a rainy day, got a bunch of others I'd like to post before. (it's a real bitch not to be able to be online everyday, too many ideas and too little time to post them, fuck work). Anyway:



Why make a distinction at all? if a movie is fun or not is no indication to whether it's good or not. Millions of people eat Pizza Hut all over the world because they love it. Is it by default a good pizza then? millions of teenagers love and watch the show "Hannah Montana" - is it by default a good show then, because they enjoy it? I think not. The 2 categories may correlate each other, or not. A movie could be fun, and yet not of high quality. And you dont need to call it "Guilty Pleasure". To go around saying "Anything less than perfect is not good enough for me" is not Elitism, nor Perfectionism, it's pure Extremism. You say it yourself, that you find it hard to call a movie beyond hope - and I say, that any movie, which gives you something, teaches you something, that you wont get from other movies- then it's somewhat worth the 90 minutes. A movie doesnt have to be perfect in order be worthy of your time. A mediocre movie isnt by default a waste of time. Unless you look at movies as just some tool to pass the time with, and I sure hope nobody feels this way. To me it's art. Any great idea that is being polished through whichever medium is art. It doesnt have to be a sculpture or painting. Art is boundless.



You'll find, if you havent already, that french cinema is often "criticized" with the words used in your paragraph. Those viewers who seek visual speed, constant change-of-scenes, and "normal behaviour" are usually the same type of people who refer to surrealism as "stupid" "unreal" etc.

You often hear that Sir David Lean's films, be it Lawrence of Arabia or Dr. Zhivago are usually mentioned by casual viewers as films they cant stand to watch or rewatch, because of the slow pace, some will use the word "boring", yet they appreciate them as quality films.

What does that mean? the quality is not entertaining? the question is to whom. I could watch Dr Zhivago on a weekly basis and not get tired of it, because every second, slow as you may think it is, counts. At least for me. But taste is taste. I know Ballet is very hard and requires a lot of skill, it is a dance of high quality. Yet I dont give a damn about ballet. I know the quality is there, but doesnt mean I have to love it.

There's no problem saying that something (or someone) is pretty good at what it does, yet you're not necessarily a fan. I, for example, appreciate the dialog in "Gilmore Girls", I think it's witty and engaging, and is a couple of levels higher than dialogues you'll hear in other drama/comedy series on TV. And yet, I dont like watching that show despite the excellent dialogue.

I think there must be a personal appeal for someone to call a movie 'favorite'. That's why "one of the best movies" doesnt have to be a favorite of yours.

I think "Fight Club" has a certain quality to it, and I enjoyed it. I have absolutely no problem if Capo thinks otherwise about the movie as long as he pinpoints to what it is that is missing, or not done properly.

I dont think much about "Collateral" to be honest. (here's your holy cow RRA, hope you're enjoying this). I dont think it's anywhere close to "The Insider" (Mann's best picture IMO).
What I appreciate about Collateral is the visual feast. Superb photography. LA never looked more amazing. Dark atmosphere, the "feeling". And great sound effects as well. But that alone wont suffice. A movie doesnt have to only look good, but has to have some substance, and I dont think Collateral had much to sell in that department.

To me, a good movie is a polished idea. A beautiful vase with beautiful flowers inside. (flower=idea). Collateral is what I call a beautiful empty vase. There was nothing about the plot, dialogue or characters that impressed me. The mysterious Vincent may be cool to look at, but as a thriller I didnt find anything to hold on to, any bright piece of content. Again, beautifully shot. Visual feast. But that's pretty much all.

What I'm trying to say in all that is that I think the idea of the movie should be the core and not vice versa. The polishing work then follows. It's true that the medium at hand is visual, but the visuals are the means to convey the idea, rather than some "idea" you attach in a haste to serve your visuals. What is a movie without a heart? a collection of special effects? pretty much what I think of Bay's Transformers.

Then again, should I have a problem with Transformers? isnt the movie exaclty what we expected? is that the reason to condone it? I hear everyone saying that "Fast and the Furious" is a shitty movie. Yet I didnt really expect it to be more than what it was, so I dont understand the criticism. These type of movies have their target audience, and I think that movie served it well. But I did however expected Mann to show a little more content to back his visuals, so that's why I'm disappointed with collateral. Especially after seeing "The Insider" and the way he superbly polished a great idea for a movie. That's the vision I expect to see more. Hopefully with Public Enemies which I'll go see tomorrow.

Damn. I almost missed a public apology!