Recent movies

[1eyedjack]

So, WRT to that whole Hobbit thing, here's a few thoughts...

 

Basically, for a book the length of The Hobbit, spinning it out into 3 films was bound to result in most of the criticisms that you mentioned.

[1eyedjack]

Just saw "The American". If you have not already seen it, don't bother. Absolutely dire.

 

Reasonably atmospheric cinematography, but there is only so much that you can do to patch over a dismally flawed plot.

[y66]

Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Documentary about a legendary chef. Recommended for sushi lovers.

[dustinst22]

Anyone remember the indy film "Open Water"? About a couple who go scuba diving and get left behind by the boat, and just float there for a day, getting nipped at by sharks.

 

Yeah I thought it was disappointing.

 

Just saw The Wolf of Wall Street (Scorsese flick). That was entertaining. Had a Boiler Room feel to it.

[mike777]

I commented on JIro a year ago....great movie.

 

 

wolf of wall street got panned...I thought it was a bit better but far far too long and repetitive.

 

fwiw fast and furious was my favorite movie of the year it had amazing scenes...fun and fast.

 

American Hustle made my personal top ten but somehow it felt cold and lacking.

 

I put gravity...MUD and his aids movie, dallas club, above in my top ten.

Clearly this was the year of Mat!

[dustinst22]

I commented on JIro a year ago....great movie.

 

 

wolf of wall street got panned...I thought it was a bit better but far far too long and repetitive.

 

 

75% on RT for Wolf of Wall Street, that's very solid reviews. That movie was so over the top unadulterated debauchery and greed, really entertaining.

 

"The name of the game, move the money from your client’s pocket into your pocket." "But if you can make your clients money at the same time it’s advantageous to everyone, corrent?" "No"

 

I was actually pretty disappointed with American Hustle. Was expecting much more with the solid reviews.

 

Gravity was good, but everyone was overhyping it so much I was also somewhat disappointed.

[mikeh]

So, WRT to that whole Hobbit thing, here's a few thoughts...

 

1. Desolation of Smaug was MUCH better than An Unexpected Journey. There weren't any scenes that roused my attention quite as much as the dinner scene with the dwarves. However, as a whole the movie did a much better job keeping my interest.

 

2. Still way to many gratuitous chase scenes. Looks like Disney now has a flume to go along with its roller coaster. I blame the foreign movie market for dumbing down mass market cinema.

 

3. Favorite part of the movie was seeing Smaug's face when he suddenly saw a giant golden dwarf taller than he was. The look of shock and avarice was priceless.

 

4. Really disliked the re-interpretation of the black arrow and the back story with Bard the bowman

 

5. I swear that whomever said "open the gates" in Laketown sounded exactly like Baldrick. I can't find any record that Tony Robinson is in the movie, but I like to believe that he is.

 

6. Did anyone else catch the Thranduil's comment about elves and white gems? They're gearing up to do the Silmarillion...

 

7. I still hate fight scenes involving elves. I just want to see an Orc shield bash one of them in the face.

 

8. I want to live at Bjeorn's place

I saw the movie last weekend in Imax 3D, only the 2nd 3D movie I've seen (the other was Gravity).

 

I was bored silly. The fight scenes were too much the same and far too predictable, as was the plot.

 

And I could probably give you an almost scene-for-scene outline of the 3rd movie. We all know, for example, that Bard will use the black arrow to kill the dragon, but only at the last moment, after a desperate chase scene that allows him to recover the (almost stolen or lost but miraculously retrieved) black arrow.

 

We can predict that the wizard, whose name I either didn't catch or promptly forgot, who was told by gandulf NOT to come to his rescue will come to his rescue.

 

Countless orcs will demonstrate an utter lack of competence at fighting beings significantly smaller than themselves and will die by the score or even the hundreds while inflicting at most superficial injuries.

 

Oaksword (if that is the name of the king of the dwarves....it was difficult to remember these hackneyed characters) will have some ethical issues but will ultimately do the right thing, just as he did in going into the lower levels of the city under the mountain.

 

I liked the Lord of the Rings, but Jackson has got himself stuck in a rut and this is just too much the same, and a movie in which cgi has overwhelmed what little plot justification there was for making the movie(s) in the first place. I don't think I will go see the final, not-likely-to-be-riveting episode.

 

oh...I had some vague hopes for real comic relief when I recognized Stephen Fry as the ruler of Bard's city, but he really had nothing with which to work. Also, I think, while I admire Fry a great deal, he isn't an actor capable of being a main character so I probably shouldn't have got my hopes up when he appeared on the screen.

[gwnn]

I saw a few 2013 films in the last few days (I'm trying to catch up with Berardinelli's top 10: http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php).

 

I liked Drinking Buddies (probably nobody knows this one), but maybe because I'm fond of all of its main actors and clearly they did a solid job.

 

Closed Circuit was interesting as a slightly different take on the good ol' conspiracy film.

 

Finally, today while travelling I saw Prisoners and The Spectacular Now, luckily in that order. Prisoners more or less achieves what it sets out to do flawlessly while I liked and recognised all the characters from The Spectacular Now but maybe some parts of the final third could have been handled differently. Nevertheless it's nice to see a very familiar premise in both films executed by the book but with great effect.

[blackshoe]

We can predict that the wizard, whose name I either didn't catch or promptly forgot, who was told by gandulf NOT to come to his rescue will come to his rescue.

 

Countless orcs will demonstrate an utter lack of competence at fighting beings significantly smaller than themselves and will die by the score or even the hundreds while inflicting at most superficial injuries.

 

Oaksword (if that is the name of the king of the dwarves....it was difficult to remember these hackneyed characters) will have some ethical issues but will ultimately do the right thing, just as he did in going into the lower levels of the city under the mountain.

The wizard is Radagast the Brown. The dwarf's name is Thorin Oakenshield, so named because he once use the branch of an oak tree as a shield during an orc attack.

 

Bad guys in stories are almost always lousy fighters - although perhaps not as lousy as these orcs.

 

The Lord of the Rings was Tolkien's magnum opus. He put a lot of work into it, and it shows. The Hobbit was just a tale he wrote for his children, long before LOTR. I put the decision to expand a one book novel into three movies down to pure greed - it makes no sense otherwise. Also, neither Legolas nor Tauriel appeared in the novel, although Legolas was of of course, one of the Fellowship of the Ring in LOTR.

 

I was as glad to see Beorn though as I was disappointed in LOTR not to see Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.

[blackshoe]

My last two movies: "Catching Fire" and "The Hobbit". I enjoyed both, although I agree to some extent with mikeh's assessment of the latter. It wasn't nearly as good as it could have been. "Catching Fire" was merely okay, although the look on Katniss Everdeen's face in the last scene, when she finally understands that there is the possibility of getting out from under the thumb of the capital, is priceless. President Snow has no idea how much trouble he's in. Still to come: "47 Ronin", for the 3D fx if nothing else. :-)

[gwnn]

Has anyone else seen Her? This is such a personal film and I will likely watch it several times. Maybe it touched me that much because I'm a bit of a technology addict myself? The film is so sad and so non-judgemental at the same time. The soundtrack is perfect, too.

 

I saw Rush as well, BTW, and I liked how it went out of its way to avoid taking sides. I more or less took Lauda's but I was also impressed at Hunt's treatment of that reporter.

[mike777]

Has anyone else seen Her? This is such a personal film and I will likely watch it several times. Maybe it touched me that much because I'm a bit of a technology addict myself? The film is so sad and so non-judgemental at the same time. The soundtrack is perfect, too.

 

I saw Rush as well, BTW, and I liked how it went out of its way to avoid taking sides. I more or less took Lauda's but I was also impressed at Hunt's treatment of that reporter.

 

Gave both of them 2.5 stars out of 4.....a bit over average.

 

/by comparison saw the Lego movie 3 stars and Monument Men 2.5 this weekend .

 

Also rewatched one of my fav movies this past month. North by Northwest and am watching Hard Days Night on Monday another truly great movie.

 

by way of comparison the last 4 star movie I saw at the local theatre was Enough Said.

[Mbodell]

Has anyone else seen Her? This is such a personal film and I will likely watch it several times. Maybe it touched me that much because I'm a bit of a technology addict myself? The film is so sad and so non-judgemental at the same time. The soundtrack is perfect, too.

 

I think Her is my favorites of the best picture nominees that I've seen (still need to see Dallas Buyers Club and Nebraska). It is tough though as a lot of the best picture nominees were also very good, but not fantastically great, IMO. I think I'd go:

 

Her

12 Years A Slave

Philomena

American Hustle

<small gap>

The Wolf of Wallstreet

Captain Phillips

Gravity

 

Any of the top 4 could be reordered and any of the bottom 3 reordered for me too. I don't think any of them are particularly undeserving of a nomination, but I'm not sure any are deserving of the win.

[mike777]

I think Her is my favorites of the best picture nominees that I've seen (still need to see Dallas Buyers Club and Nebraska). It is tough though as a lot of the best picture nominees were also very good, but not fantastically great, IMO. I think I'd go:

 

Her

12 Years A Slave

Philomena

American Hustle

<small gap>

The Wolf of Wallstreet

Captain Phillips

Gravity

 

Any of the top 4 could be reordered and any of the bottom 3 reordered for me too. I don't think any of them are particularly undeserving of a nomination, but I'm not sure any are deserving of the win.

 

For comparison from your list:

 

Gravity 4 stars

Dallas 3.5 stars

American Hustle....3.5

Captain Philips...3.5

12 years a slave...3

Nebraska.....3

Her 2.5

The Wolf...2

Philomena ..did not see.

-----

 

Her has been on many top ten lists; for me I found it cold and a bit of a disappointment. Still a movie worth seeing. I guess I don't find the fact that men can fall in love with a phone voice that shocking. the fact that the program gains free will at some point is a worth a discussion, the fact that it becomes super intelligent not so surprising given my many posts over the years. :)

-----------------------

 

Off topic but we just went and saw the play /boeing/boeing in our local artsy theatre here. A very cute farce worth your time if it comes to your local town.

 

"Boeing-Boeing is a classic farce written by the French playwright Marc Camoletti. The English language adaptation, translated by Beverley Cross, was first staged in London at the Apollo Theatre in 1962 and transferred to the Duchess Theatre in 1965, running for a total of seven years.[1] In 1991, the play was listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most performed French play throughout the world"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-Boeing_(play)

[Mbodell]

Her has been on many top ten lists; for me I found it cold and a bit of a disappointment. Still a movie worth seeing. I guess I don't find the fact that men can fall in love with a phone voice that shocking. the fact that the program gains free will at some point is a worth a discussion, the fact that it becomes super intelligent not so surprising given my many posts over the years. :)

 

While I think there is the interest in technology and AI (as well as the interesting 'look' and 'style' of the future) I think the movie is as much or more about relationships between people, how they evolve, and what is real versus projection.

 

The job writing letters, the "cat strangler", the video game kid, the friend and her controlling spouse, the ex-wife, etc. are all aspects of all that devoid of any AI versus non-AI perspective. Samantha is just the most interesting and foregrounded aspect of that exploration (and leads to other like the "3-way" or the double date).

 

But yeah, different strokes for different folks.

 

For me Gravity was the worst of all these films mostly because for me there wasn't really much there. The lack of backstory, character development, etc. made for a tense and exciting moment, but I felt a hollow "So what?" upon leaving the theater.

[mike777]

Samantha is just the most interesting and foregrounded aspect of that exploration (and leads to other like the "3-way" or the double date).

 

 

 

Ya I thought it was the least and most predictable.

 

men fall in love with her.....predictable.

she is super intell.....predictable.

 

 

 

she has free will ...debate. but they don't.

In fact for most of the movie she is a slave.

 

this is really a movie for a slave and those who love a slave.

thus it is as I said cold..

 

as for gravity yes if you need a backstory......development......you make two huge points.

 

If you feel so what.....yes this is not 4 stars.

 

again my fav was fast and fury......:) silly fast and fun...

 

AND YES IT HAD A BACK STORY.... I FOUND IT tense and fun with great stunts....again good movie.

[Mbodell]

again my fav was fast and fury......:) silly fast and fun...

 

AND YES IT HAD A BACK STORY.... I FOUND IT tense and fun with great stunts....again good movie.

 

Wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but you'll get no argument from me that it was a good well executed movie. I think it was the best of the sequels. The original was the only better one, IMO.

[kenberg]

Philomena is the only one of these nominees that I have seen although I hope to see American Hustle and Her. I've been busy. There are a couple of aspects of Philomena I will comment on.

 

Here is a link to a Washington Post article about the "real" Philomena.

 

Added: This link seems to activate a plugin that seems to, at least for me, be a (manageable) pain in the butt. You may want to just go with my excerpt.

http://www.washingto...4dae_story.html

 

An excerpt:

Like her son, Philomena's story has made its way in the world in all kinds of ways she couldn't have expected. Sixsmith's book focuses largely on the biography of the son, Michael/Anthony, who became the chief legal counsel to the Republican National Committee in the 1980s before dying of AIDS-related complications at 43. The movie, adapted by Jeff Pope and Steve Coogan, goes a step farther into fiction and depicts Dench's Philomena and Coogan's Sixsmith going together on an oddball road trip to Washington in search of Philomena's son — a trip that never actually happened.

 

I suppose that I am too old to really be shocked, but this does annoy the hell out of me. The fundamental story, a woman in her 60s hoping to meet the son she gave up for adoption in her teens, is of interest to many, me more than some. So why not tell it straight? I guarantee you I would be interested in seeing a portrayal of the story as it happened. A little dramatic license is ok, I suppose Caesar did not really say et tu, Brute, but why insert a whole trip that never happened? Write a fictional story about a fictional mother if you want, but if you put it out there as the true story of a real person, tell it straight.

 

The movie takes a highly critical view of the place that took in Philomena's mother and arranged for the adoption, although Philomena, at least in the movie, takes what I regard as a more balanced view. More than once, as they learn of the life of the adopted child, she says "I couldn't have given him this". Exactly. Philomena herself went on to successful life with marriage and children, and the boy grew up successfully (He died of AIDS but we should not hold the Sisters responsible for that). And the Sisters took money for the adoption. So? They weren't hiring male strippers with the money, they were running a shelter for unmarried women in poverty. My own circumstances of birth were similar, and I strongly suggest that those who are not offering assistance go very carefully on criticizing those who are. One more thing about this. Philomena was working with a journalist to uncover this story, with the agreement it would be published. Really? And what exactly gives her the right to do this? It's convenient that her son, and I gather his adoptive parents, are dead. If not, it is a great invasion of their privacy.

 

I enjoyed the movie, who doesn't like Judi Dench, but in tackling the real issues I thought it was lazy.

[hrothgar]

Shout out for "The Lego Movie"

[gwnn]

If anyone doesn't like Her, I think I need to use my "You are too old to understand" card, developed as a natural reaction to the "you weren't even born yet when they made it" card employed by people who think To Kill a Mockingbird or Gone with the Wind have aged well. :)

 

In unrelated news, I am watching Hitchcock these days and I'm constantly impressed, and I don't need to give them any handicap for historical context, they stand up for themselves.

[kenberg]

If anyone doesn't like Her, I think I need to use my "You are too old to understand" card, developed as a natural reaction to the "you weren't even born yet when they made it" card employed by people who think To Kill a Mockingbird or Gone with the Wind have aged well. :)

 

In unrelated news, I am watching Hitchcock these days and I'm constantly impressed, and I don't need to give them any handicap for historical context, they stand up for themselves.

 

From this I am guessing you also wouldn't think A Tree Grows in Brooklyn has aged well. How about The Long Hot Summer ? Or Picnic ? But I suppose this is all for another thread. Tastes change. I think I will accept the challenge and see Her. As for Hitchcock I liked Notorious, even if Cary Grant (well, his character) is remarkably obtuse. He usually is. But as Doris says in The Man Who Knew Too Much, Que Sera, Sera. I'll report back on Her, although Becky has us schedule for some foreign film this weekend.

[mike777]

It is important to note that the Man in Her is extremely narcissistic. I think that is what makes the movie feel so cold. The program is all about pleasing him. As the program develops outside needs and desires and takes on other lovers and thousands of friends the relationship falls apart. Ultimately the movie seems much more about self love rather than love for others.

 

Again I gave the movie an above average rating...just not a top ten movie for me.

 

I certainly think men can and will fall in love with computers or advanced robots.

I certainly think people will have more and more machine made parts integrated into our bodies and at some point the internet will be connected to our bodies.

 

In some sense those that own cell phones seem connected to the internet, just not internal yet....:)

[gwnn]

I don't think he is narcissistic. In my eyes, he shows no obvious signs of liking himself particularly. He has some issues, for sure, but he's not obviously immoral or twisted. Other thoughts best kept inside a spoiler tag (maybe you could look into it if you are interested in continuing this conversation):

 

The fact that he was bothered by his computer GF not talking to him is simply explained by the fact that he is still conflicted between accepting Samantha as a person and not just a very smart computer. Treating your computer as a slave is completely normal, even if it has a nice voice, treating a person as a slave is completely abhorrent, and he had to solve this conflict somehow. Anyway, this was not really the point of the film at all. People being in love being selfish is definitely not unheard of. Your GF telling you that she loves you as much as before but now having 600 other boyfriends, all of them orders of magnitude smarter and more compatible to her is likely to hurt you, even if you are as understanding as they come. I just think this aspect of the film -the way she was growing and he couldn't possibly keep up- was very well made and I do not think he was being unreasonably possessive.

 

[gwnn]

Also, thanks for the films kenberg, I admit I haven't seen any of them! :)

[mike777]

I don't know how to do spoiler tags but good idea. How do you do them?

 

btw being narcissistic is not immoral or twisted.

 

Anyway good film, worth seeing,but I just found it cold for the above post reasons.

 

For me it sort of all came back to the whole singularity threads I have posted over the years and how man and machine become ever more combined not just in a physical sense but a deeply emotional sense as this movie explores as computers become more intelligent. Of course this ignores issues such as free will or consciousness as they seem to be undefined and unmeasurable.