• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Movies You've Seen Recently III: The Third Chapter

Status
Not open for further replies.
y'all are crazy. I'm at 30 movies and I'm pretty proud of that lol. I'm thinking I can finish the year with 150 new movies seen. I love sitting down and watching them but I just don't have that kinda time. I don't like marathoning multiple movies cause I like to give them some time digest, so that comes into play too
 
you fucking plebs forgot the greatest kid-killing scene of all time

ungrateful girl

edit: okay the schindler's list examples are pretty messed up, and in bruges was dramatic. but this is the greatest scene. it's hilarious.
 
Lincoln (2012)

I mean, it was alright. Can't argue with the acting or the production per se. Perhaps not being American made it harder to get into but well, it was just too dry for me. I practically needed eyedrops to keep my eyes moist.
 
Those scenes that were supposed to build suspense were so poorly written and executed. It was obvious that the real story of what happened was very interesting yet wouldn't make a good movie, so they had to add a bunch of shit to keep people munching popcorn.

Like the airline ticket confirmation scene. For absolutely no reason, Ben and the group are standing at the airport desk while Bryan Cranston is running around yelling "Jesse! We need these plane tickets!" The audience is led to believe there's a big moment of danger here because the whole group could be caught. And of course, "check your computer again, please!" and "WOW THE TICKETS ARE HERE NOW!" I bet this was completely fabricated for this stupid movie.

Then there's the phone ringing for 10 minutes while some mouth-breathing doritos-eater tells the guy that it's a closed set and he can't go to his phone. It's a matter of life and death and we're supposed to believe he stood there that long before saying screw it and just powering his way through to the phone? It was another scene added to remind people they were watching a movie and not a documentary and it wasn't successful or believable at all.

And of course, one of the most laughable parts is when the plane is taking off and being chased down the runway by jeeps...I won't get into how absolutely stupid this is because I think it's quite obvious. And when the one hard-nosed character who hated Affleck finally gets involved to save the group, and he and Affleck become buds, it has no impact whatsoever. The characters were barely developed at all so none of their actions or outcomes mattered.

I cannot stand this awful movie. I will never understand why people like it so much. I can understand not hating it, but actually loving it is inconceivable.

I personally loved Argo and I give it a 10/10.

Sure, some of the scenes are highly over-exaggerated but this is a film based on real life events, they obviously had to do something to make it a little more exciting.

Maybe I'm a sucker for these kinds of films but before the film came out, I read an article on Wired about the whole story and in my opinion, the film was quite accurate. Lots of films based on real life events exaggerate a lot more.

I was kind of gutted that they didn't put the 'AARGAU' on the tail number of the plane in the film though. Maybe they did? I must have missed it.
 
Saw Paranorman.

Beautiful and funny.

8/10

I love the bits of comedy where it's mostly still frames with some animation.

iQ5vZlDrWzm0R.gif


in6J9UiDyJTMd.gif


BTW, what is this kind of famous camera shot actually called?

ibx9Nc04HYliid.gif
 
Saw 3 very different kinds of movies:

- 1492: Conquest for Paradise (1992) - I tend to like well crafted period pieces, this one was of those but some parts of the story were dull, more in the second half, some overacting or lack of conviction in some parts put me a little off. 3/5

- Last Year at Marienbad (1961) - Well, this is one of those movies that needs a second viewing, and by then I'm sure it will be more enjoyable/understandable, I felt I missed some points during the story, which is not easy to follow at first. Nevertheless its directing is mesmerizing 3.5/5

- The Avengers (2012) - I'm not a fan of superheroes movies, and I like more the X-men universe. I watch them mostly as a action movies. At least it was entertaining enough. 3.5/5
 
A few more in my spaghetti western marathon:

The Mercenary (Corbucci, 1968)
Maybe I went into this with too high expectations (since it's usually one of the most recommended westerns), but I thought this was kind of disappointing. Nero was cool and I liked that he spoke in English/did his own dubbing; some of the setpieces were nice; the final duel (and its aftermath) was exciting; and the movie has L'Arena, aka Morricone's best piece ever. But the story is a total mess. Things happen too quickly to the point of nonsense, especially with how Tony Musante's character develops. The movie is also way too silly at times and really undermines what should be tension. The final duel is a perfect example of this: it's an intense setup with an amazing piece of music playing in the background, but it borders on farce because Musante is dressed up like a rodeo clown and Jack Palance is totally hamming it up. I liked the scene anyway, but it's one of many examples in this movie where a great scene is undermined by some lame attempt at being funny. Speaking of Jack Palance, he is really fucking weird in this. He's supposed to be "the bad" of the story, but his character is just really bizarre and basically inconsequential to the rest of the movie. Anyway, I didn't hate The Mercenary, but it was definitely disappointing.

The Great Silence (Corbucci, 1968)
This, on the other hand, was fucking great. The snowy hills of Utah in the winter make for a unique setting in a western; Jean-Louis Trintignant is another cool lone gunslinger-type character as Silence; Klaus Kinski makes for a great villain (and obviously); and some of the side characters, like the sheriff and Pauline (a female character with some substance! what a rarity) are really well developed. Most of the hype around this movie is how bleak and nihilistic its ending is, so I don't think what happens is too much of a surprise (though I won't spoil it), but it really does stay with you. The script raises some great themes about morality and the law, it's not very subtle but it's powerful regardless. Corbucci is a pretty sloppy director and I think this might be his worst example of camerawork: shaky cam, poor framing, poor zoom shots, you can even see the filter he puts over the lens in the first few minutes of the movie. But it's definitely his best story; it's not really a deconstructionist movie, but it does a great job of subverting the Man with no Name/Django-type western.

Once Upon a Time in the West (Leone, 1968)
This was a rewatch. When I first saw it years ago, my impression was that it's the best spaghetti western ever made. Watching it again confirms that. I can absolutely understand why people would prefer The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (personally I might prefer For A Few Dollars More to both of them), but this film is definitely the high point of the genre. I've still got a couple more I want to get to (including Leone's own A Fistful of Dynamite) but I can't imagine any of them topping this. This is Leone's masterpiece, there's really nothing else to say about it.
 
Yup. Dolly zoom / Dolly shot

HitchcockZoom_Micael_Reynaud.gif

Surely a dolly shot is any kind of shot that involves the use of a dolly. The reason the shot has the strange effect is its combination of dolly and zoom, hence the tag. I prefer 'Vertigo shot,' from the film that popularized it.
 
Judgement at Nuremberg: 9/10. BURT LANCASTER YOU NAZI PIECE OF SHIT, I never trusted you. I thought this was a fine drama. Just kind of moves along at a steady pace without the need for giant outbursts of emotion or anything, you know, like a trial. How fucking good was Montgomery Clift in this!? So good. Also I watched Spencer Tracy in Fury from 1936 just a few days before, and now saw him in this in 1962. I wonder if he did anything in between.
The Sweet Hereafter: 7/10. This movie was like... dated? Seems weird to already say that about a movie from 1997, but this thing was like way 90s. Or maybe just Canadian. I thought it was a little too sacchariney in parts, which is understandable, but still. Bilbo was great, but I wished they expanded more on the Sarah Polley wincest plot.
Scarlet Street: 5/10. I know I said I liked Edward G Robbinson more when he plays good guys, but let's be reasonable. He plays a GRADE A chump in this movie, he was really starting to piss me off. Lot of over the top cartoon characters, Johnny was like one of the weasels from Roger Rabbit. And the wife was this ridiculous hose beast, who the fuck allows his wife to keep a portrait of her dead husband on the wall? /picard.jpg
Tron: Legacy: 7/10. With allowances for genre, this was actually pretty cool, I liked it. Great production design and slick visuals. Jeff Bridges as Jeff Bridges in a computer +, Olivia Wilde ++. I liked the soundtrack better when it was called Mass Effect.
Marathon Man: 4/10. Oh fuck off. The Nazi concentration camp dentist gets recognized on the streets of New York by some Jew who was at the same camp? Eat a dick, like seriously. Little Dusty Hoffman was great but this was a lot of nonsense. I'm still not sure exactly why any of this happened, or who the girl was and what the point of her character was. And as far as I can tell the only reason he runs marathons is for one sequence where he... wait for it... outruns a guy. And also to have a cool title I guess.

I wish swoon would come back to tell me how wrong I am on all this noir. :(
 
Life of Pi 5/10 The first hour was amazing, then it all fell apart. I was almost as annoyed with Pi as I was that kid in incredibly loud and extremely close. I will have nightmares with the name Richard Parker. Did not enjoy this movie. Thought it was just ok.

Rental at best.
 
Hanna: plot made no fucking sense, but it was a lot of stylish, empty fun anyways. Some great action—and done in a way that I wish more movies would approach. The action scenes are short, brutal and efficient. Case in point: the subway scene. Three minutes of buildup followed by, maybe 20 seconds of action. That's how it should be done. Action is all about the tension, the stakes. Definitely in the Joe Wright for Bond 24 camp now.

Also, was really impressed with how far Wright manages to take small budgets. This and Atonement were shot on 30m, I think, but neither felt limited in scope at all.
 
I personally loved Argo and I give it a 10/10.

Sure, some of the scenes are highly over-exaggerated but this is a film based on real life events, they obviously had to do something to make it a little more exciting.

Maybe I'm a sucker for these kinds of films but before the film came out, I read an article on Wired about the whole story and in my opinion, the film was quite accurate. Lots of films based on real life events exaggerate a lot more.

I was kind of gutted that they didn't put the 'AARGAU' on the tail number of the plane in the film though. Maybe they did? I must have missed it.

Fair enough. I didn't know that much about the story before I saw the movie, but I knew enough to know how it would end. I thought it started out pretty decently but it just went completely downhill after that. For the amount of praise I see it get, it's so blandly mediocre. I don't even feel like it was shot well or paced correctly. The only compliment I can give is that it did have the feel of the time period it was portraying.
 
The film was quite accurate? WAT?

Not only did it completely change the nature of the American-Canadian efforts to swing the favor in the Americans' way, but you also had ridiculous made up shit like cars chasing the airplane down the runway. :lol
 
The film was quite accurate? WAT?

Not only did it completely change the nature of the American-Canadian efforts to swing the favor in the Americans' way, but you also had ridiculous made up shit like cars chasing the airplane down the runway. :lol

Things like that just bring the film down. I hate that sort of bs in films that try to take themselves seriously. It's just cheap tension.

Also, wasn't moka the one who hate 27 Jump Street for being unrealistic? :P
 
Scarlet Street: 5/10. I know I said I liked Edward G Robbinson more when he plays good guys, but let's be reasonable. He plays a GRADE A chump in this movie, he was really starting to piss me off. Lot of over the top cartoon characters, Johnny was like one of the weasels from Roger Rabbit. And the wife was this ridiculous hose beast, who the fuck allows his wife to keep a portrait of her dead husband on the wall? /picard.jpg

I wish swoon would come back to tell me how wrong I am on all this noir. :(

I can't do as well as swoon would but I'll tell you why you're wrong about scarlet street.
Robinson isn't playing a chump. He's playing a guy playing a chump. He wants to buy in to every word Kitty says. Kitty isn't really a cartoon character, she's purposefully playing something like 3 different cartoon characters to get what she wants. Every character is playing a role themselves.
I also don't even see why Cross being oblivious would be bad in the first place when it's the point. He doesn't want reality, he wants to enter the world of innocent nubile other women that he sees people like his boss existing in. Of course that world doesn't really exist and he tries to enter it by attaching himself to a girl who is very clearly a prostitute and not a naive young actress. Cross's entire character dilemma is spoken directly to the audience by one of the art people: he has a problem with perspective. His worldview is subconsciously twisted to the point where he can't hold onto the real world for much longer; when he tries to fit these stock molds he realizes his skewed perception disallows them from working out. That's why his relationship with Kitty goes the way it does and that's why at the beginning he's with said hose beast: he's been trying to play a role, that of normal domesticated middle-aged man. Look at the way he performs for her when his friend comes over: reciting lines, and Lang frames them on either side by curtains. He's on a stage. And when that role of husband turns out so awful (due to aforementioned hose beast) he tries a new role. Before you know it his *ahem* "acting work" has ended, he's alone, and..."jeeeeeeeeepers I love you"
 
Witness for the Prosecution - Charles Laughton really makes this movie for me, his character is so fantastically likeable.

I'm on a bit of a Wilder tear at the moment, I've seen Double Indemnity, Some Like it Hot, Ace in the Hole, Sunset Boulevard, The Apartment and The Lost Weekend and love them all. Any other essentials I need to catch immediately?
 
The film was quite accurate? WAT?

Not only did it completely change the nature of the American-Canadian efforts to swing the favor in the Americans' way, but you also had ridiculous made up shit like cars chasing the airplane down the runway. :lol

Like I said, I agree that there were some parts that were highly exaggerated but overall, I felt it was an accurate-enough portrayal of what happened. I mean, it's a film, things had to be added and taken away to make it better for the screen.

As far as changing the nature of the American-Canadian efforts, I'm not so sure. Didn't the Canadians just host the American Embassy staff while the CIA made efforts to rescue them? I'm not trying to downplay the bravery of the Canadians involved but I feel like their involvement was made fairly obvious in the film.

Also, wasn't moka the one who hate 27 Jump Street for being unrealistic? :P

Yes I was, 21 Jump Street is an absolutely terrible film. I can't even describe how bad it is. Maybe unrealistic was the wrong word to describe that film, maybe I should've just gone with 'plain shit'.

The only compliment I can give is that it did have the feel of the time period it was portraying.

It really did, especially the CIA office.
 
Like I said, I agree that there were some parts that were highly exaggerated but overall, I felt it was an accurate-enough portrayal of what happened. I mean, it's a film, things had to be added and taken away to make it better for the screen.

As far as changing the nature of the American-Canadian efforts, I'm not so sure. Didn't the Canadians just host the American Embassy staff while the CIA made efforts to rescue them? I'm not trying to downplay the bravery of the Canadians involved but I feel like their involvement was made fairly obvious in the film.
Nope. Argo was very, very lax about staying true to the story.

In a CNN interview, former US president Jimmy Carter addressed the controversy by stating: "90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie is very good. But Ben Affleck's character in the film was... only in Tehran a day and a half. And the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."[41] Taylor himself noted that, "In reality, Canada was responsible for the six and the CIA was a junior partner
Upon its wide release in October 2012, the film was criticized for its claim that the New Zealand and British diplomats had turned away the American refugees in Tehran. Diplomats from New Zealand had proved quite helpful; one drove the Americans to the airport,[42] and organised a place for them to hide if they had to change places.[43] The British hosted the Americans initially, but the location was not safe and all considered the Canadian ambassador's residence to be the better location. British diplomats also assisted other Americans beyond the six.[44] Bob Anders, the U.S. consular agent played in the film by Tate Donovan, said, "They put their lives on the line for us. We were all at risk. I hope no one in Britain will be offended by what's said in the film. The British were good to us and we're forever grateful."[45]
In the film, while pretending to scout for filming locations at a bazaar, the crew face suspicious glances, and are accosted by a few vendors, who suspect them of being American. In reality, this scouting trip never happened.[37][39][49]
In the film, the crew again encounters suspicion while purchasing plane tickets to Zurich; in reality Taylor's wife bought three sets of plane tickets from three different airlines ahead of time, without any issues.[37][39]
The film depicts a dramatic last-minute cancellation of the mission by the Carter administration and a bureaucratic crisis in which Mendez declares he will proceed with the mission. Carter delayed authorization by only 30 minutes, and that was before Mendez had left Europe for Iran.[50]
In the film, there is again a tense situation when the crew tries to board the plane, and their identities are nearly discovered. In reality, there was no confrontation with security officials at the departure gate.[50][51]
In the film, before the plane takes off, gun-toting Iranian guards try to stop the plane in a dramatic chase sequence; in reality, there was no runway chase at the airport.[52] As Mark Lijek described it, "Fortunately for us, there were very few Revolutionary Guards about. It's why we turned up for a flight at 5.30 in the morning; even they weren't zealous enough to be there that early. The truth is the immigration officers barely looked at us and we were processed out in the regular way. We got on the flight to Zurich and then we were taken to the US ambassador's residence in Berne. It was that straightforward."[49]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)#section_5


The film is layered in bullshit.
 
Hanna: plot made no fucking sense, but it was a lot of stylish, empty fun anyways. Some great action—and done in a way that I wish more movies would approach. The action scenes are short, brutal and efficient. Case in point: the subway scene. Three minutes of buildup followed by, maybe 20 seconds of action. That's how it should be done. Action is all about the tension, the stakes. Definitely in the Joe Wright for Bond 24 camp now.

Also, was really impressed with how far Wright manages to take small budgets. This and Atonement were shot on 30m, I think, but neither felt limited in scope at all.

yooo that long tracking shot of eric bana as he's being followed into the subway. shit was amazing, and then he just murks them all.

also 21 Jump Street > Argo and Hugo combined.
 
You're absolutely right that some stuff that didn't happen or did happen were added or taken away from the film. A lot of the stuff that was added were for dramatic effect, their TV tropes! They were to make the film better.

You can't hate it because of that.

Even if you overlook everything that's there to overlook, the film is just incredibly contrived. If it hadn't tried so hard to keep the audience tense, it may have been more convincing. It was overkill.
 
forgot to mention Chemical Brothers' Hanna soundtrack was great too.

You're absolutely right that some stuff that didn't happen or did happen were added or taken away from the film. A lot of the stuff that was added were for dramatic effect, their TV tropes! They were to make the film better.

You can't hate it because of that.

Sure you can. It fails as history and it fails as a compelling thriller. I could forgive Ben if it did one or the other, but it doesn't succeed at either. Which is particularly disappointing given how Gone Baby Gone and the Town succeed in all the thriller conventions where Argo fails.
 
Witness for the Prosecution - Charles Laughton really makes this movie for me, his character is so fantastically likeable.

I'm on a bit of a Wilder tear at the moment, I've seen Double Indemnity, Some Like it Hot, Ace in the Hole, Sunset Boulevard, The Apartment and The Lost Weekend and love them all. Any other essentials I need to catch immediately?

One, Two, Three. After that it's just kinda whatevs you get around do, they're all fine.
 
You're absolutely right that some stuff that didn't happen or did happen were added or taken away from the film. A lot of the stuff that was added were for dramatic effect, their TV tropes! They were to make the film better.

You can't hate it because of that.
If you'll remember, I'm responding to your assertion that the film was pretty accurate. And saying you can't hate something because of innacurracies is hilarious coming from somebody who hated 21 Jump Street for not being realistic, before lapping up Argo.
 
Witness for the Prosecution - Charles Laughton really makes this movie for me, his character is so fantastically likeable.

I'm on a bit of a Wilder tear at the moment, I've seen Double Indemnity, Some Like it Hot, Ace in the Hole, Sunset Boulevard, The Apartment and The Lost Weekend and love them all. Any other essentials I need to catch immediately?

Stalag 17 would probably your next best shot if I remember previous recommendations from this very thread. Sabrina and Ariane should be good too.

Avoid the Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.
 
eastern promises
a film by david cronenberg and played by actors like viggo mortensen, naomi watts and armin muller-stahl. the movie was just one of the best thrillers i saw in the last five years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom