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.