Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:29 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620 ... 786  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Blonde Almond wrote:
Unke wrote:
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
I’ve heard this film described as “Adaptation meets Tarantino” and this tagline isn’t too far off. Martin McDonagh, director of the much better ‘In Bruges’, has concocted a plot revolving around a hard-drinking scriptwriter (Colin Farell), who only has the eponymous title for his screenplay and seeks inspiration from his friend (Sam Rockwell), who is in a scheme of abducting dogs from and returning them to their rightful owners while cashing in on the finders’ fee. This scheme also involves Christopher Walken and it goes horribly wrong when a gangster boss’s (Woody Harrelson) dog is kidnapped . Tom Waits also shows up for a scene.
Intermittently, ‘Seven Psychopaths’ is clever and funny, but most of the time, it didn’t do much for me. The comparisons with Tarantino movies are quite apt (the initial discussion of two gangsters about gouging eyeballs could have been lifted from a bad Tarantino screenplay) and ‘Seven Psychopaths’ comes up short. The screenplay-within-the-movie device sometimes makes it unclear whether we are watching fact or fiction and whether one influences the other, which is certainly intended but didn’t quite work. In fact, at times I was thinking that McDonagh noticed obvious weaknesses of his movie and chose to address them explicitly, but that doesn’t really solve any of the movie’s problems. It’s okay and good for a few laughs, but just about average. 5/10


I liked the film more than you did, but I can see where you're coming from. I found the sub-Tarantino elements that are more prevalent in the first half to be a little tiring, and for me the film really hits its stride when the characters go out to the desert.


It was my second or third favorite movie of last year. I think it's absolutely brilliant. It's clearly an attack on the Hollywood style of filmmaking (it opens on a shot of the Hollywood sign and ends with that sign literally falling to pieces), but also a commentary on the writing process. Marty begins the movie as the very definition of a cliche Hollywood screenwriter, and the film itself mirrors that by beginning as the very definition of one of the thousands of Tarantino knock offs we've seen over the last 20 years. As Marty begins to truly experience life and gains inspiration for his writing, the movie itself slowly turns into something wholly original, again mirroring Marty's journey. Walken's speech at the end breaks just about every rule of filmmaking you'll ever come across (dream sequences are for fags), but it manages to end on something pretty beautiful.

Martin's become a real writer/artist, someone with life experiences and insight to share, not just a walking cliche. It's full of meta commentary, but it's all done with a purpose. I don't think it's fair to say McDonagh essentially wrote himself into a corner and tried to explicitly reference the issues as a way to cover them up.


Thu May 23, 2013 5:02 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2017
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Man of Aran is a classic fictionalized documentary of the type Robert J. Flaherty specialized in, and it's often really spectacular. Once again, he creates a fictional family, this time to show us the hard life in the Aran Islands (in the mouth of the Bay of Galway on the west coast of Ireland). Although the movie was made in 1934, Flaherty was actually portraying an older style of life. The great shark hunting sequence was showing a way of life from the 19th century, and there was considerably more soil than depicted (although the way of building up soil was probably authentic as to how it was done a few decades earlier--after four or five centuries you can build a lot of soil).

There is lot of amazing footage of giant waves crashing on shore and shooting up foam to a height of maybe forty feet. At one point the family is retrieving a net from the water and are inundated several times by the waves.

I was amused about them having to render the shark's liver for oil. By 1934, they were probably getting kerosene. They certainly had enough shark meat to feed the islanders and their cats and dogs.

After this, I think Flaherty switched to making films that were a little less dangerous for his participants. I don't think anyone was seriously injured during the film, but I was half expecting the kid fishing from a cliff top to catch a shark and go flying.

Really great photography throughout with brilliant use of telephoto lens. All together, highly recommended. (9 of 10)

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Fri May 24, 2013 1:15 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 185
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I thought Seven Psychopaths was okay but didn't find it quite as wickedly clever as it thought it was, In Bruges had a better screenplay in my opinion.

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Fri May 24, 2013 1:19 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 648
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Re: Beasts of Southern Wild

I thought the "aurochs" were, for the most part, poorly integrated into the main plot. Although brief, most of those cut-away scenes took away from the main flow of the plot, which was Hushpuppy and Wink's struggles. I appreciate the intention, but I don't think they were necessary to convey the message they wanted. Still, a fine film with some fine performances.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Fri May 24, 2013 5:49 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 388
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Unke wrote:
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
...However, there are two problems with ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’, the first of which concerns the eponymous beasts. Hushpuppy associates global warming and melting polar icecaps with the defrosting of ancient ice age beasts (which she terms aurochs, although they look less bovine and more like pigs). In her imagination (?), these Terry Giliam-esque monsters tear south to “The Bathtub” and I assume they are meant to be allegorical, but actually cannot quite figure out what exactly they stand for and what purpose they serve in the movie. They should have been left out. ...


Good writeups, but isn't it a bit solipsistic to say that since you cannot figure out what's going on with the aurochs, they should have been left out?


Hmmm, are you suggesting that the depiction of the aurochses (auroxen?) is the Kantian thing-in-itself, i.e. the fundamental reality behind the representation that provides the matter of perception and that I am solipsistically imposing a form on them to create their representation, although the factor of me not liking them is absent from themselves? If that's indeed what you mean, I give up because I don't understand it.

If you mean that it's very egocentric to suggest that the aurochse .., aurochsi... the monsters should have been cut, just because I couldn't figure them out, that's entirely correct, but I don't really try to assess a movie on any objective terms. I thought the monsters were superfluous and don't serve a discernable purpose. Others will certainly feel differently, such as the filmmakers themselves. If it works for them, that's fine, but it won't make them work for me. I still think that it would have been better to leave out all references to aurochses.


Fri May 24, 2013 9:11 am
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Well, I'm back catching on relatively recent movies I still haven't seen.

Just watched "Seven Psychopaths" which I don 't need to describe further. I really liked it. Yes, it slows down at around the 70 minute mark, but there are still some excellent moments and ideas.
Yep, I agree with the mix of "Adaptation" (which I think is better movie) and Tarantino - even though I actually felt even more of a Coen Brothers vibe in all that, including some of the camera work, the more drawn out reflecting on things like futility (the half burned American flag, seen and commented on earlier in the movie, at the neighbors house just before the end credits when Colin Farrell walks out his house with the finished screenplay seems to be of great symbolic significance), and perhaps the presence of Woody Harrelson (who again is just great here with his ability to switch from funny to nasty in a split second - and back).
Nice mix between things which do happen, dreams, flashbacks, stories being told (true or not), twists, revelations and the fact that the movie we are watching might be the one in the finished screenplay or a mix of its making/coming to be and the screenplay itself (just as "Adaptation"). I also think once again the "Harry Dean Stanton rule" applies: any movie with him in it can't be bad.

I just think both Tarantino and The Coens are a few notches better at clever dialog (characters are often way more articulate than they would be in real life) than Martin McDonagh who goes more for functional dialog here - I still need to watch "In Bruges" - shame on me. Anyway: great clever movie and great acting all around.


Fri May 24, 2013 12:44 pm
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 639
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Red Cliff - After making his name with a string of brilliant Hong Kong action thrillers in the 1980s and 1990s, John Woo went stateside to try his hand at Hollywood filmmaking. His last Hollywood film was the Ben Affleck vehicle Paycheck; watching that film was a fairly depressing experience, so it’s not that hard to imagine what it must have been like to make it. Woo left Hollywood shortly after and returned to China and, much like what happened with Paul Verhoeven and Black Book, the return back home has given him a new spark of filmmaking energy. Based off the real historical Battle of Red Cliffs in 208-209 AD, the film opens with a power-hungry chancellor announcing his plans to attack neighboring warlords and gain control of the lands in the name of the emperor. Realizing that their only chance to survive is to band together against the common threat, the leaders of two rival factions agree to an uneasy alliance. The rest of the film is about the lengthy preparations the two leaders embark upon to get ready for the final battle, although these preparations are occasionally interrupted by brief skirmishes and gamesmanship. There’s also an element of poignancy in the interactions between the two temporarily-allied warlords. The time spent together results in several new friendships, but their set-in-stone allegiances means that sometime down the road they could find themselves on the opposite sides of the battlefield.

Woo isn’t really interested in a by-the-book historical recreation, choosing instead to make an epic film in every sense of the word, by focusing his attention on the staging of the massive battle sequences and developing a handful of key characters that the viewer follows throughout the action. At times, the film recalls the best moments of other modern epics like Wolfgang Petersen’s Troy, although Woo’s film manages to be more consistent throughout. Even with its long running length of around 4 1/2 hours, surprisingly little of it ever feels sluggish or unnecessary. It helps when you have actors like Tony Leung and Takeshi Kaneshiro, two of the more commanding screen presences in Chinese cinema, guiding you through it all, and they’re ably backed up by a terrific supported cast. But still, the biggest draw of the film is action. The battle scenes are incredible, with Woo taking full advantage of the film’s $80 million budget, the largest ever for a Chinese production. Only some spotty CGI work sticks out as a weakness. This is easy to overlook though, because while the film does employ a good amount of digital effects, it is not reliant on them. The film was originally released outside of China in a severely-truncated version running two hours shorter. My recommendation for anyone interested would be to track down the full version; it’s a big investment, but it’s amazing how quickly time flies by when you’re in the company of a filmmaker at the top of his game. 9/10.

Three Times - This 2006 film from Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien is actually made up of three separate stories, each occurring during a different time period in Taiwan and each featuring the same pairing of Chen Chang and Qi Shu. In the first story, which is set in the 1960s, a soldier meets a pool hall hostess and promises to write to her when he is away. When he eventually returns, he finds that the hostess has moved on elsewhere, and he attempts to track down where she went. This story at times recalls the style of Kar Wai Wong, especially in the way it uses pop music to soundtrack the emotions of the characters, although Hou’s style is much more reserved, preferring to keep the camera back at a distance and simply observe, Altman style. In the second story, set in the 1910s, a young man makes frequent visits to a brothel, and one of the courtesans there falls in love with him. The feeling seems mostly unreciprocated though, as he is more interested in his own exploits and cannot get past the client/prostitute relationship. This story is told in a peculiar way, with spoken dialogue not heard but placed on title cards instead, like old silent films. In the third story, set in the 2000s, a photographer and a pop singer engage in a tumultuous relationship, while living in a disconnected world increasingly reliant on technology. This is the bleakest of the three segments, at least in terms of tone, and it’s apparent that Hou doesn’t much care for the evolution of modern society and how people interact with each other.

The common link between the three stories is love, although how it’s presented in each of them is different. The first story embraces the idea of two people finding each other, even if it’s only for a brief moment before separating again. The second story prevents the two people from truly connecting because of their standings in society. The third story presents a more pessimistic overview of the modern world where the concept of love is essentially without meaning. It makes for fascinating viewing, if only to watch the actors inhabit their multiple roles and to see how the varied approaches in the three stories complement each other. Admittedly, its slower-than-slow pacing does make it a little patience-testing at certain points, but for someone who has never seen a film by Hou Hsiao-hsien before, it definitely makes me want to track down more of the director’s work. 8/10.

_________________
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
Letterboxd Profile


Fri May 24, 2013 4:11 pm
Profile WWW
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2105
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
The Stepfather 1987

What a fucked up movie. Really well-constructed and effective. Both scary and sad.



The movie is actually pretty routine stuff but it works very well mostly because of Terry O'Quinn's intensely creepy performance. Without him, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective.


Fri May 24, 2013 4:19 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7275
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Unke wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Unke wrote:
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
...However, there are two problems with ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’, the first of which concerns the eponymous beasts. Hushpuppy associates global warming and melting polar icecaps with the defrosting of ancient ice age beasts (which she terms aurochs, although they look less bovine and more like pigs). In her imagination (?), these Terry Giliam-esque monsters tear south to “The Bathtub” and I assume they are meant to be allegorical, but actually cannot quite figure out what exactly they stand for and what purpose they serve in the movie. They should have been left out. ...


Good writeups, but isn't it a bit solipsistic to say that since you cannot figure out what's going on with the aurochs, they should have been left out?


Hmmm, are you suggesting that the depiction of the aurochses (auroxen?) is the Kantian thing-in-itself, i.e. the fundamental reality behind the representation that provides the matter of perception and that I am solipsistically imposing a form on them to create their representation, although the factor of me not liking them is absent from themselves? If that's indeed what you mean, I give up because I don't understand it.

If you mean that it's very egocentric to suggest that the aurochse .., aurochsi... the monsters should have been cut, just because I couldn't figure them out, that's entirely correct, but I don't really try to assess a movie on any objective terms. I thought the monsters were superfluous and don't serve a discernable purpose. Others will certainly feel differently, such as the filmmakers themselves. If it works for them, that's fine, but it won't make them work for me. I still think that it would have been better to leave out all references to aurochses.


Hmmmm I think more the latter:

the extreme form of scepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence

I'm with Blond Almond about their purpose. Seems like they were the physical manifestation of her fears, and I thought they fit well with the magical realism the film immerses itself in. Particularly since their thundering provides a nice sense of forboding.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri May 24, 2013 4:23 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1665
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Pain & Gain

Michael Bay's films are generally full of macho bullshit, so I think that Pain & Gain, a film that is a true story about gym rats wrapped up in their own machismo, is really a perfect vehicle for him.

First of all, this is a pretty crazy story, the type that is almost too nuts to believe. In short, a couple of dumb bodybuilders kidnap a wealthy man, torture him and force him to sign over all his assets to them. But they get in a lot deeper as the story progresses. A lot deeper. Bay has toned down his style a little bit; things don't blow up every five seconds, the shaky-cam is dialed back, and the racism and homophobia that marks many of Bay's films is absent. The result is a watchable film that is worth a rental. It's not a truly great film, but it is probably Bay's best film as a director. Here's something I'd never thought I'd say...Bay was undoubtedly the best choice to direct this film. I hope he tries more projects like this.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Fri May 24, 2013 5:10 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2017
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Blonde Almond wrote:
Red Cliff - After making his name with a string of brilliant Hong Kong action thrillers in the 1980s and 1990s, John Woo went stateside to try his hand at Hollywood filmmaking. His last Hollywood film was the Ben Affleck vehicle Paycheck; watching that film was a fairly depressing experience, so it’s not that hard to imagine what it must have been like to make it. Woo left Hollywood shortly after and returned to China and, much like what happened with Paul Verhoeven and Black Book, the return back home has given him a new spark of filmmaking energy. Based off the real historical Battle of Red Cliffs in 208-209 AD, the film opens with a power-hungry chancellor announcing his plans to attack neighboring warlords and gain control of the lands in the name of the emperor. Realizing that their only chance to survive is to band together against the common threat, the leaders of two rival factions agree to an uneasy alliance. The rest of the film is about the lengthy preparations the two leaders embark upon to get ready for the final battle, although these preparations are occasionally interrupted by brief skirmishes and gamesmanship. There’s also an element of poignancy in the interactions between the two temporarily-allied warlords. The time spent together results in several new friendships, but their set-in-stone allegiances means that sometime down the road they could find themselves on the opposite sides of the battlefield.

Woo isn’t really interested in a by-the-book historical recreation, choosing instead to make an epic film in every sense of the word, by focusing his attention on the staging of the massive battle sequences and developing a handful of key characters that the viewer follows throughout the action. At times, the film recalls the best moments of other modern epics like Wolfgang Petersen’s Troy, although Woo’s film manages to be more consistent throughout. Even with its long running length of around 4 1/2 hours, surprisingly little of it ever feels sluggish or unnecessary. It helps when you have actors like Tony Leung and Takeshi Kaneshiro, two of the more commanding screen presences in Chinese cinema, guiding you through it all, and they’re ably backed up by a terrific supported cast. But still, the biggest draw of the film is action. The battle scenes are incredible, with Woo taking full advantage of the film’s $80 million budget, the largest ever for a Chinese production. Only some spotty CGI work sticks out as a weakness. This is easy to overlook though, because while the film does employ a good amount of digital effects, it is not reliant on them. The film was originally released outside of China in a severely-truncated version running two hours shorter. My recommendation for anyone interested would be to track down the full version; it’s a big investment, but it’s amazing how quickly time flies by when you’re in the company of a filmmaker at the top of his game. 9/10.


I had the advantage of having read The Romance of the Three Kingdoms which is one of the major sources of the movie and the material about Zhuge Liang. The other one is more sympathetic the Zhou Yu, the leader of the Wu forces. I don't think either is sympathetic to Ts'ao Ts'ao (=Cao Cao). My only complaint was the first half had the subtitles on the movie itself, which, given the movie is really widescreen, makes the subtitles really tiny. Have they corrected that? In any case, Red Cliff is a masterpiece. (. (9/10 from me too.)

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Last edited by Syd Henderson on Sun May 26, 2013 3:13 am, edited 3 times in total.



Fri May 24, 2013 5:45 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 419
Location: Durham, NC
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Let me also weigh in on the Beasts of the Southern wild kinda-sorta-debate that’s going on. First off I’m a huge fan of the film, and believe it to be one of 2012’s best. The acting and score are downright phenomenal, and the setting matches the tone brilliantly. I’ll post what my thoughts on elements of the film and the Aurochs below:

The Aurochs worked really well for meactually. Since the film is told from Hushpuppy's perspective--I always felt that the Aurochs were symbolical of death (fear even as some of you have said); Death in the way that a child would see it: Big Black creatures coming to "get you" essentially. Since the Aurochs "awaken" when Hushpuppy hits Wink in the heart. Hushpuppy feels that she's done something she can't take back. She knows that something is wrong with her father (since she saw him in a weird white robe), and when he falls down, she begins to imagine the worst.

When Hushpuppy talks about things not being in balance, I think she is talking about her world specifically. Her father is sick, she misses her mother and can't quite grasp the fullness of reality. To Hushpuppy her world is not balanced at all; her universe is falling apart before her eyes. By the end of the film Hushpuppy has experienced many new things--allowing for her character to transform and come of age per se. She realizes that family is important, yet not just biological family, but community. Everything fits together in this aspect. Everything in her universe is connected it seems; and the film does a nice job at conveying this through Hushpuppy's journey throughout the end of the film--the mother and daughter scene, facing the Auroch, and being able to give her father a little piece of the past to comfort his last few moments on earth. All of these moments seem important to Hushpuppy and the narrative itself--they all seem to fit together in order to complete a journey of understanding.

_________________
"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."


Fri May 24, 2013 6:35 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 419
Location: Durham, NC
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I finally finished off the unofficial Vengeance trilogy this past week, which I have to say was overall an enjoyable experience—even if the other two entries don’t live up to their big brother Old Boy.

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) 3/4

This is an extremely enjoyable epic revenge tale. Wook’s camerawork is terrific—this guy can frame a shot like no other. Mr. Vengeance is full of stylistic flourishes, and it’s easy to see how viewers could argue that there is little substance overall. While I can concur that characters are not fully fleshed out, this film really takes its subject matter seriously. I found the “cause and effect” workings of this film to be quite interesting, especially in the context of pure, all out revenge.

Lady Vengeance (2004) 2.5/4

Is it just me or is it slightly bothersome when a film tries to rapidly change its tone? Why start a film out with light black comedy and quickly change it to a firm serious demeanor? I can accept tonal shifts I guess, but they have to be done right—the acts need to be able to mesh together in a way that’s not distracting. Ultimately this is where Lady Vengeance fell apart for me. The first and second acts are played out with dark humor. The viewer is given an engaging plot, with a sense of mystery at its core. For the first two acts this works seamlessly, but once the second act comes to an end Wook abruptly changes the films tone. Instead of humor, the audience is given a dark look into a serial killer. The idea of shared vengeance is put across in the third act, and this is by far the most interesting aspect of the film. With that said it just doesn’t work—it doesn’t mesh so to speak. The first and second act work great, and so does the third act. But these acts don’t work very well combined. They work better separately. Overall, the compelling events of the third act don’t feel earned. Our main characters story feels bumpy. She’s out for revenge, but we never get a clean picture of everything that built this thirst for revenge. All in all, this film may be my go to example for the parts not making a sturdy whole.

_________________
"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."


Fri May 24, 2013 7:09 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2017
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I suspect the reason that the aurochs look like pigs is because Hushpuppy has probably seen wild pigs , and she's probably never seen a bull in the bayou. Feral pigs are a little scary to me, too, and huge primeval ones...brrr.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Fri May 24, 2013 7:34 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 986
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The May Movie Binge continues!!!!!

Midnight in Paris

I enjoyed this quite a bit. Every scene where Gil (Owen Wilson) interacts with Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc. is brilliant, and I appreciate the movie's message about everyone being addicted to nostalgia, even if it was a bit obvious. If only the "modern" story held up as well; Wilson and Rachel McAdams' characters are so mismatched that you wonder how their relationship survived even to this point. It's an uneven movie but I still enjoyed it overall.

The Ides of March

Now this is what I'm talking about. In recent years, I've noticed so many more of my friends and acquaintances shifting from die-hard liberal/conservative to middle-ground, and some have even given up on voting for one of the two main parties altogether. This movie gives a pretty convincing argument for doing so. It's a compulsively watchable political thriller, but its ultimate point is that even the most appealing candidate has to play dirty a lot, and when it comes to running campaigns, no one is noble. No, I don't necessarily need a movie to tell me this, but I love the fact that a movie, any movie, is willing to go there and shout a wake up call. Loved this. Easily would've made my Top 10 of 2011 had I made one.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Sat May 25, 2013 1:42 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 201
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ferris Bueller's Day Off. 80s classic ... so waxingly poetic at times! :)


Sat May 25, 2013 5:13 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7275
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
KWRoss wrote:
The May Movie Binge continues!!!!!

The Ides of March

Now this is what I'm talking about. In recent years, I've noticed so many more of my friends and acquaintances shifting from die-hard liberal/conservative to middle-ground, and some have even given up on voting for one of the two main parties altogether. This movie gives a pretty convincing argument for doing so. It's a compulsively watchable political thriller, but its ultimate point is that even the most appealing candidate has to play dirty a lot, and when it comes to running campaigns, no one is noble. No, I don't necessarily need a movie to tell me this, but I love the fact that a movie, any movie, is willing to go there and shout a wake up call. Loved this. Easily would've made my Top 10 of 2011 had I made one.


Really? I found this movie so disappointing. The big revelation is that...politicians are dirty? Wow. Shocker. Reminds me of when Green Zone tried to make a shocking punchline out of "There WERE NO WMDS!"

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sat May 25, 2013 8:07 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 419
Location: Durham, NC
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
KWRoss wrote:
The May Movie Binge continues!!!!!

The Ides of March

Now this is what I'm talking about. In recent years, I've noticed so many more of my friends and acquaintances shifting from die-hard liberal/conservative to middle-ground, and some have even given up on voting for one of the two main parties altogether. This movie gives a pretty convincing argument for doing so. It's a compulsively watchable political thriller, but its ultimate point is that even the most appealing candidate has to play dirty a lot, and when it comes to running campaigns, no one is noble. No, I don't necessarily need a movie to tell me this, but I love the fact that a movie, any movie, is willing to go there and shout a wake up call. Loved this. Easily would've made my Top 10 of 2011 had I made one.


Really? I found this movie so disappointing. The big revelation is that...politicians are dirty? Wow. Shocker. Reminds me of when Green Zone tried to make a shocking punchline out of "There WERE NO WMDS!"


I agree this movie doesn't deliver anything new. It gives a pretty standard look inside the political spectrum.However with that said, I'm still a fan of the film. The cast is sharp, and I found the narrative a joy to watch unfold. Yea it tastes the same as other dishes, but it still offers a pretty naturalistic look at the game of politics (or what I imagine it to be).

_________________
"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."


Sun May 26, 2013 12:51 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1665
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Carrie (1976)

Carrie has long been one of my all-time favorite films. There have been a couple versions made over the years, including a new one that comes out in October. I think, however, that De Palma's version of the story may remain the definitive one. Interestingly enough, it's the one that deviates most from Stephen King's text. De Palma captures the horrific elements of the story exceptionally well, but he captures the main emotion - sadness - even better. It is rare that a film can be terrifying and also make the viewer feel a combination of sad and uplifting emotions. Carrie does just that.

Carrie is not so much a straight-up horror film as it is a coming-of-age drama with elements of supernatural horror, and I hope that the new version manages to maintain that balance. Though I must admit, I'm not totally sold on the casting of Chloe Moretz as Carrie.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sun May 26, 2013 10:01 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 648
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JackBurns wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
KWRoss wrote:
The May Movie Binge continues!!!!!

The Ides of March

Now this is what I'm talking about. In recent years, I've noticed so many more of my friends and acquaintances shifting from die-hard liberal/conservative to middle-ground, and some have even given up on voting for one of the two main parties altogether. This movie gives a pretty convincing argument for doing so. It's a compulsively watchable political thriller, but its ultimate point is that even the most appealing candidate has to play dirty a lot, and when it comes to running campaigns, no one is noble. No, I don't necessarily need a movie to tell me this, but I love the fact that a movie, any movie, is willing to go there and shout a wake up call. Loved this. Easily would've made my Top 10 of 2011 had I made one.


Really? I found this movie so disappointing. The big revelation is that...politicians are dirty? Wow. Shocker. Reminds me of when Green Zone tried to make a shocking punchline out of "There WERE NO WMDS!"


I agree this movie doesn't deliver anything new. It gives a pretty standard look inside the political spectrum.However with that said, I'm still a fan of the film. The cast is sharp, and I found the narrative a joy to watch unfold. Yea it tastes the same as other dishes, but it still offers a pretty naturalistic look at the game of politics (or what I imagine it to be).


Count me in as another one who wasn't that surprised with the film. Well acted and, overall, decent film but not much else.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Sun May 26, 2013 12:46 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15708 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620 ... 786  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr