|
|
Post by ganews on Dec 31, 2014 8:47:37 GMT -5
Has anyone seen Big Eyes yet? I just got back and I LOVED it. It was reminiscent of Ed Wood, while not as kooky it was still removed enough from Tim Burton to stand on its own two feet. Probably the last movie of the year I really wanted to see and easily knocks its way to the top of my personal best list for 2014. It's so nice to see a Tim Burton movie that was really good again. As a longtime Tim Burton apologist, this is great to hear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 14:45:33 GMT -5
I finally got around to watching The Chronicles of Riddick yesterday. I really enjoyed it! Absurd in parts, but very cool nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by flapjackriley on Jan 1, 2015 3:46:19 GMT -5
Tombstone. Motherfucking Doc Holiday.
|
|
|
|
Post by disqusf3dme on Jan 1, 2015 3:49:45 GMT -5
I haven't been keeping up with him lately, but I would consider him one of the most important critics of our age even just for coining the term Mega-Acting to describe Nicholas Cage's style. I just read another great term he coined that deserves more widespread usage: Macklemore horror. Horror films that people who don't like horror say is the best horror film ever. He applied it to Cabin in the Woods. I think he means it in a kind of a derogatory way, but I think I would apply it to even genuinely great ones, some just cross that line. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 1, 2015 19:16:41 GMT -5
I saw "Into the Woods" yesterday. I am somewhat mystified as to the tone of the film. I wish it hadn't been played so straight and serious. Seemed weird to have Lapine's script and Sondheim's lyrics, but played serious.
Loved Chris Pine, though. I kind of feel like he's the only participant who understood the material. Including the director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Jan 1, 2015 19:52:34 GMT -5
Tombstone. Motherfucking Doc Holiday. Tombstone? That's my jam! Not only is there Motherfucking Doc Holiday but there's Kurt Russell's magnificent glued on mustache and the rage with which said mustache bristled when screaming, "YOU TELL 'EM I'M COMING...AND HELL'S COMING WITH ME!", and Sam Elliot and Bill Paxton. It is somehow the most perfectly cast movie ever created. |
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 1, 2015 20:59:55 GMT -5
Been watching a lot of stuff off the forum this week. Just saw Jacob's Ladder. Oh god, so disturbing...tiny Macaulay Culkin.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Prighlofone on Jan 1, 2015 21:12:58 GMT -5
^Dude, I watched that movie yesterday too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Jan 1, 2015 21:22:26 GMT -5
I watched a Korean movie called 국제시장 (literally "International Market" but dubbed "Ode to My Father" for the international market) yesterday. It was basically Forrest Gump but about Korea designed to make baby boomers feel good about all the shit that their generation did, but where Forrest Gump was loaded with "Fuck yeah we're America! We're so awesome that even this poor retarded guy can become a ping pong champion and shrimp magnate!" this one was very Korean in its message, "Look children at how hard your parents suffered so that you could live in a decent country!"
The cast included Kim Yujin (of Lost fame), some lady who was on the Korean version of Saturday Night Live and was famous for dressing up as a teletubby and yelling "fuck" on said show, and the lady who had to lick another lady's vagina in a hot tub in prison in Sympathy for Lady Vengeance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 1, 2015 21:34:36 GMT -5
I saw "X-Men: This Time We Went Back In Time To The Seventies So That Peter Dinklage Could Sport A Period-Appropriate Porn-Stache" the other day. It was pretty good, even if spoiler alert: you kind of rob the series of a lot of its emotional resonance by going "oh yeah,nothing that happened in the original trilogy ever actually happened now" at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Jan 1, 2015 21:58:22 GMT -5
I saw "X-Men: This Time We Went Back In Time To The Seventies So That Peter Dinklage Could Sport A Period-Appropriate Porn-Stache" the other day. It was pretty good, even if spoiler alert: you kind of rob the series of a lot of its emotional resonance by going "oh yeah,nothing that happened in the original trilogy ever actually happened now" at the end. Spoilers......... ..... ... ... .. . . . I thought it was only "nothing that happened in that third X-Men movie and that first Wolverine movie that we all kind of agreed sucked six and a half kinds of ass actually happened." |
|
|
|
Post by flapjackriley on Jan 1, 2015 22:25:38 GMT -5
Tombstone. Motherfucking Doc Holiday. Tombstone? That's my jam! Not only is there Motherfucking Doc Holiday but there's Kurt Russell's magnificent glued on mustache and the rage with which said mustache bristled when screaming, "YOU TELL 'EM I'M COMING...AND HELL'S COMING WITH ME!", and Sam Elliot and Bill Paxton. It is somehow the most perfectly cast movie ever created. It really does have one of the best casts out there. Every ten minutes I was going, "Is that Billy Bob Thorton? Is that Thomas Hayden Church? Is that fucking Charlton Heston!?" |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 1, 2015 22:34:00 GMT -5
I saw "X-Men: This Time We Went Back In Time To The Seventies So That Peter Dinklage Could Sport A Period-Appropriate Porn-Stache" the other day. It was pretty good, even if spoiler alert: you kind of rob the series of a lot of its emotional resonance by going "oh yeah,nothing that happened in the original trilogy ever actually happened now" at the end. Spoilers......... ..... ... ... .. . . . I thought it was only "nothing that happened in that third X-Men movie and that first Wolverine movie that we all kind of agreed sucked six and a half kinds of ass actually happened." Also Spoilers: ... ... But Jean Gray is still alive as Jean Gray; wasn't she swept away by like a giant wave or something at the end of X2? I thought X3 was the only one undone by the 60s prequel movie, because Patrick Stewart was alive in The Future at the beginning of this latest one. Although now that I'm actually writing this I'm mostly just confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Jan 1, 2015 22:52:44 GMT -5
Spoilers......... ..... ... ... .. . . . I thought it was only "nothing that happened in that third X-Men movie and that first Wolverine movie that we all kind of agreed sucked six and a half kinds of ass actually happened." Also Spoilers: ... ... But Jean Gray is still alive as Jean Gray; wasn't she swept away by like a giant wave or something at the end of X2? I thought X3 was the only one undone by the 60s prequel movie, because Patrick Stewart was alive in The Future at the beginning of this latest one. Although now that I'm actually writing this I'm mostly just confused. Maybe it reset just up to Jean Grey coming back to life in X3, so they can do a decent version of the Dark Phoenix Saga now. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 1, 2015 22:56:53 GMT -5
Also Spoilers: ... ... But Jean Gray is still alive as Jean Gray; wasn't she swept away by like a giant wave or something at the end of X2? I thought X3 was the only one undone by the 60s prequel movie, because Patrick Stewart was alive in The Future at the beginning of this latest one. Although now that I'm actually writing this I'm mostly just confused. Maybe it reset just up to Jean Grey coming back to life in X3, so they can do a decent version of the Dark Phoenix Saga now. Oh, but wait, Jennifer Lawrence's character never takes on the name Mystique and becomes an assassin in this movie when she would have in the older timeline, so presumably a lot more stuff from X2 couldn't have happened now either. |
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Jan 1, 2015 23:56:13 GMT -5
Maybe it reset just up to Jean Grey coming back to life in X3, so they can do a decent version of the Dark Phoenix Saga now. Oh, but wait, Jennifer Lawrence's character never takes on the name Mystique and becomes an assassin in this movie when she would have in the older timeline, so presumably a lot more stuff from X2 couldn't have happened now either. No, it's still okay because comic books. |
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 2, 2015 0:45:19 GMT -5
Now You See Me. So lightweight my TV almost floated away, but still fun. Way better than The Illusionist, not as good as The Prestige.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Jan 2, 2015 2:15:35 GMT -5
I watched Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and ... Spring (2003), directed by Kim Ki-duk. Exceptionally beautiful film about a Buddhist monk and his śrāmaṇera who he raises from infancy on a raft home on a lake in the mountains. Virtuous in its quiet and simplicity. Reminds me that I would actually like to get a few good scholarly books on Buddhism this year and undertake a serious study since I know next to nothing about it. This is the only Ki-duk film I've seen and the only thing that makes me hesitant to watch others of his are their reputation for extreme gruesomeness, which was not the case in this whatsoever. Highly recommended. This is the Ebert review (which contains some partial spoilers) if anyone's interested: www.rogerebert.com/reviews/spring-summer-fall-winter_and-spring-2003 |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Jan 2, 2015 2:53:22 GMT -5
Has anyone seen Big Eyes yet? I just got back and I LOVED it. It was reminiscent of Ed Wood, while not as kooky it was still removed enough from Tim Burton to stand on its own two feet. Probably the last movie of the year I really wanted to see and easily knocks its way to the top of my personal best list for 2014. It's so nice to see a Tim Burton movie that was really good again. And what was interesting is the art critic character played by Terrance Stamp; I didn't detest him like I did the critic in Birdman because there was some rational logic to why he didn't like the Big Eye pieces. While you don't see what his impression was after the trial, you get the sense that he has some respect (or maybe even more disdain) once the truth about the artists are revealed. I get that he doesn't like the art and it isn't helped by Walter Keane's willingness to whore his artwork nor by Keane's unwillingness to listen to criticism. Jason Schwartzmen's character was more in vein with the Birdman critic and he was more so just there as a joke. I think with Birdman I just never really was sure where the satire stopped and the legit criticism translating to real life started, so it came off as much more obnoxious and scathing (but that's the whole point of the movie! [Was it?]).
Haven't seen either 'Big Eyes' or 'Birdman' but both look interesting. I remember Inarritu's 'Babel' being one of the most depressing film-watching experiences I've ever had, but well-made notwithstanding. |
|
clytie
TI Forumite
Posts: 1,071 
|
Post by clytie on Jan 2, 2015 19:58:28 GMT -5
I rewatched Somewhere. I know it's considered one of Sofia Coppola's "lesser" films, but I like it a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Jan 2, 2015 21:41:03 GMT -5
I just watched Honey, I Shrunk The Kids. Rick Moranis was in it and so was a Lego brick. I learned that in Korea, you can't show a guy smoking a cigarette in a movie for children broadcast on basic cable.
|
|
|
|
Post by dboonsghost on Jan 3, 2015 9:11:57 GMT -5
I rewatched Somewhere. I know it's considered one of Sofia Coppola's "lesser" films, but I like it a lot. I think it's the best yet, personally. |
|
|
|
Post by flapjackriley on Jan 3, 2015 15:35:13 GMT -5
Has anyone seen Big Eyes yet? I just got back and I LOVED it. It was reminiscent of Ed Wood, while not as kooky it was still removed enough from Tim Burton to stand on its own two feet. Probably the last movie of the year I really wanted to see and easily knocks its way to the top of my personal best list for 2014. It's so nice to see a Tim Burton movie that was really good again. And what was interesting is the art critic character played by Terrance Stamp; I didn't detest him like I did the critic in Birdman because there was some rational logic to why he didn't like the Big Eye pieces. While you don't see what his impression was after the trial, you get the sense that he has some respect (or maybe even more disdain) once the truth about the artists are revealed. I get that he doesn't like the art and it isn't helped by Walter Keane's willingness to whore his artwork nor by Keane's unwillingness to listen to criticism. Jason Schwartzmen's character was more in vein with the Birdman critic and he was more so just there as a joke. I think with Birdman I just never really was sure where the satire stopped and the legit criticism translating to real life started, so it came off as much more obnoxious and scathing (but that's the whole point of the movie! [Was it?]).
Haven't seen either 'Big Eyes' or 'Birdman' but both look interesting. I remember Inarritu's 'Babel' being one of the most depressing film-watching experiences I've ever had, but well-made notwithstanding. Babel is the only other film of his I've seen. When I was a freshmen, Babel was the first movie we watched for "Intro to Film Studies" and for some reason it was my professor's favorite movie to talk about. So for the following 16 weeks, regardless of the topic or film -Kurasowa to Shawkshank Redemption-, it always came back to the symbolism of Babel. I could go the rest of my life without talking about it, but there were things about the movie that I really liked (mostly the Japan segments). |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Jan 3, 2015 15:40:11 GMT -5
Haven't seen either 'Big Eyes' or 'Birdman' but both look interesting. I remember Inarritu's 'Babel' being one of the most depressing film-watching experiences I've ever had, but well-made notwithstanding. Babel is the only other film of his I've seen. When I was a freshmen, Babel was the first movie we watched for "Intro to Film Studies" and for some reason it was my professor's favorite movie to talk about. So for the following 16 weeks, regardless of the topic or film -Kurasowa to Shawkshank Redemption-, it always came back to the symbolism of Babel. I could go the rest of my life without talking about it, but there were things about the movie that I really liked (mostly the Japan segments). Yes, I preferred the Japanese father-daughter storyline too, though that isn't saying much. Maybe I just saw it a the wrong time, but I was utterly depressed by it and took nothing away from it whatsoever. It wasn't *bad* exactly, just deeply unpleasant without purpose, at least to my mind. No, maybe I think it was bad. I'm sorry I brought it up  I trust Birdman isn't quite like that. |
|
|
|
Post by flapjackriley on Jan 3, 2015 16:32:08 GMT -5
Birdman is different from Babel. I would never really compare the two in terms of story and characters. I can't speak for how Birdman fits in with the other Inarritu filmography but I certainly enjoyed it more than Babel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douay-Rheims-Challoner on Jan 3, 2015 19:51:38 GMT -5
Has anyone seen Big Eyes yet? I just got back and I LOVED it. It was reminiscent of Ed Wood, Sold. Anyway back from Birdman. The only other Inarritu film I've seen was Babel, which I didn't like at all, so I didn't know how I'd feel about this, but actually I really enjoyed it. So consider that a recommendation for the apparently large group of people whose only Inarritu exposure is Babel; this is not a depressing film, or even a really self-important one, it's more getting all messy with the loose connections between fiction and reality (even implicit, of course, in Michael Keaton playing an actor who used to play a popular superhero until 1992) and the strains and colourful, larger than life characters inhabiting the theatrical world. It made me think about all those times I was in a theatre audience watching a live performance of some significant play and the thought running through my head was to the effect of 'oh, hey, Indira Varma from Rome and Game of Thrones!' or 'hey look, it's Fran from Love/Hate!', 'Harris Yulin is doing Death of A Salesman, but he'll always be Aamin Marritza to me,' etc. Oh and it's impressive how much the not-actual continuous take doesn't feel like it's calling attention to itself. This isn't Russian Ark; after a while it just feels less like a technical achievement and more something rambling and intimate, weaving in and out of a vivid, dinghy, lively New York city. To see it when he was her age indeed. |
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619 
|
Post by Pear on Jan 3, 2015 19:58:48 GMT -5
Just saw The Imitation Game. Sigh. I completely understand why it's getting attention, but it's not so much a movie as it is a bunch of mediocrely written and directed scenes that happen to be next to each other. The characters are dull and underwritten, the various timelines are unnecessary, the major theme of the movie is smashed over your head whenever they get a chance, and the more "dramatic" moments fall flat. Cumberbatch is good, but far from great, and even the kid who plays Turing's young self is just as good as he is. A waste of some great actors all around, too, and most disappointingly, a waste of a great story that should be told.
I do wish that the people behind the movie took more time to approach the character as anything but a cliche. He comes across as yet another exaggerated, socially inept genius.
Blue Ruin and Wild were both pretty good, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 3, 2015 20:19:33 GMT -5
Just saw The Imitation Game. Sigh. I completely understand why it's getting attention, but it's not so much a movie as it is a bunch of mediocrely written and directed scenes that happen to be next to each other. The characters are dull, the major theme of the movie is smashed over your head whenever they get a chance, and the more "dramatic" moments fall flat. Cumberbatch is good, but far from great, and even the kid who plays Turing's young self is just as good as he is. A waste of some great actors all around, too, and most disappointingly, a waste of a great story that should be told. Blue Ruin and Wild were both pretty good, though. This is kinda a random thought and not terribly relevant I guess to your impression of "The Imitation Game", but for a couple of weeks now I've heard plugs for this movie on NPR as one of the station's sponsors or whatever, and I find it weird that they never refer to Turing by name in any of these ads, just "the man who cracked the Nazi code" or something to that effect. Which, is Turing really that obscure that they couldn't have trusted an NPR-listening audience to know who he is? Anyway, I'm not really sure what my point is with this, just that I find it really weird. |
|
|
|
Post by NerdInTheBasement on Jan 3, 2015 20:46:39 GMT -5
I saw Foxcatcher today, excelsior!
The slow pace took me awhile to get used to (and frankly, there's still some moments where I feel like it wasn't used properly) but the movies great, and is really getting better and better the more I think about it. Steve Carrel and Mark Ruffalo were terrific, but Channing Tatum was the real shocker here. He just really gave his part equal parts tragedy and determination, both done in extremely effective fashion. And the cinematography! Good Lord, Pennsylvania looked beautiful in this movie.
Am I weird for feeling like the movie was a parody movie? That's no insult; I actually felt that's an immense part of the movies quality. Like, I felt like the film was a take on traditional sports movie cliches (underdog champion, unconventional mentor, inspirational speeches) but put these two very idiosyncratic characters into the center of it that made it anything but traditional. I felt like that during the middle of the film, and felt kind of vindicated when towards the end Jan de Pont is watching footage of a speech he gave (previously depicted in a morose fashion) on TV, and now it's showcased in a more inspirational manner. Felt nice to know I wasn't crazy and that the movie knew it's characters were engaging in well known storytelling tropes in very captivating ways.
|
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jan 3, 2015 20:52:40 GMT -5
I saw Foxcatcher today, excelsior! The slow pace took me awhile to get used to (and frankly, there's still some moments where I feel like it wasn't used properly) but the movies great, and is really getting better and better the more I think about it. I feel the opposite here. I really liked it at first, but after thinking about it, I think the movie stumbled in perhaps the most important place: with the handling of du Pont's character. He could've been a really interesting character, but I feel Miller wanted to explore him more as a symbol than as a character. Channing Tatum was great, agreed. Mark Ruffalo was fantastic, especially in that interview scene. |
|
I trust Birdman isn't quite like that. 
