Movies You've Seen Recently |OT| August 2017

French horror...lets get bloody!

And Soon the Darkness Well British really but filmed in France so its cool. This is from 1970 but I'd swear it was one of those retro cool new films out there made to look old. Pretty simple story really and a bit predictable but the way it all unfolds and the scenery you get to watch is very cool. I liked this a lot.

Frontiere(s) This sucked. French extreme my ass, its more like a piss poor French remake of the Devils Rejects.
The old Nazi dude with his weird torture bunker
was a total waste. That premise could have had some really gory moments but instead we get some relatively tame scenes. By todays standards anyway. Lame...
 
Lucky Number Slevin (2006) - watched this on my flight from Albany to Charlotte. Really enjoyed it. Thought it got a little too cute with the twists at the end (specifically the one with the girlfriend), but other than that the slow reveal and circle back to the original story was great.

Solid performances but none that really stood out. This was a plot-driven revenge tale and it stuck to that path quite well.

3.5 / 5
 
I am really glad I went into Dunkirk not having seen any trailers, heard of the score, not knowing anything about it except the fact it was a film about Dunkirk during the second world war, and that guy from one direction was in it.

I've been a little down on Nolan films since Interstellar was a load of old cobblers, so I was extremely pleased that Dunkirk was an incredible experience that blew away. It's told via a non linear story structure, three perspectives of a soldier on the dunkirk beaches, a civilian sailors and two young boys ordered to assist in the famous evacuation, and an RAF fighter pilot on the way to provide air cover for the evactuation, roughly covering land/sea/air. These and other players in Nolan's drama aren't characters in the strictest sense though, they are portryals of emotions, fears, reactions, that all would have been present at this particular event, even the negative ones that British national memory tends to pretend wasn't a thing.

These stories are told in chronological order, but since each story is on a way different timescale from each other, the soldiers story takes place over a week, the sailors over a single day, and the fighter pilot story is only an hour, it sure does feel a little abstract. Despite that though, I never lost the story thread, or found it confusing or that it didn't work.

The atmosphere of claustrophobia and tension Nolan succesfully creates here is outstanding. The German forces are never really seen, and never even referred to by name, they are simply known as some outside force 'the enemy', and portrayed as the nearly invisible mouth of the sack closing around the beach. When they do come in for attack, usually in the form of some swooping aerial assault or deeadly submarine torpedo, we get barely a glimpse, before they're off again. Despite this, 'the enemy' is clearly the hangman's noose here, their mere presence or mention fills the people in the film, and us, with fear. It's practically a horror film, or a suspense thriller, more than a war film.

The incredible score by Hans Zimmer compounds this, with an incredible soundtrack that really drills the ticking clock, constant tension into your mind. I've heard some people complain that 'the music was too loud' to which my response would be, well yeah, thats the point, it is in fact, supposed to be that loud. It sounds like well, as close as it could have got to how it would have sounded on those beaches in 1940, I imagine.

The filming and shots done by Van Hoytema are also just incredible, emphasing a big, yet also tiny, canvas of war and of the beaches, and showing us how close, yet how far, the nebulous 'enemy' force is from completing its ghastly task.


I'm really not doing Dunkirk justice. It was a cinematic experience like what we don't get very often. It blew me away, shook my bones, and was just an incredible cinema experience, all while being on a goddamn 12 age rating (or PG 13 in America, whatever) Absolutely mind blowing greatness.
 
jtb said:
Isn't the unspoken assumption that 'black and brown leads don't lead alien lives that are unlike our own'? (Hence they are 'relatable')
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, ideally. So the conclusion I draw from the lack of black and brown leads is that many of industry decisionmakers simply don't think so. Which is why I think something like Master of None is a good thing: here's a TV show that's good AND successful AND catching on with a lot of people, and it has a person of color in the lead who has his own unique life experiences to share but are also, simultaneously, still relatable to white audiences, which knocks down that "can't relate" excuse.

What if white people can't relate to the lives of people of color - or shouldn't be able to? What if the lives of people of color are strange and alien and completely unlike the white experience? (And why do they have to be measured against the white experience in the first place?)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the black experience or brown experience should be represented in film/tv as identical to the white experience; clearly they aren't in real life, so they shouldn't be on screen, either (nor do I think that's what happening in Master of None).

But I don't think that means those experiences are also so completely alien that there is absolutely nothing for white audiences to relate to. There are a lot of elements of Dev's life that I don't relate to (though that's mainly to do with his insane living conditions and quality of life, lol) but there's a lot to, say, how he maneuvers his relationships with Francesca and Rachel that resonates hard with me.

I understand where you're coming from, and as a white guy I know that saying "I don't see it as assimilation" is not that far removed from "I never saw any racism growing up" in terms of having the blinders on. I just don't think that Aziz is trying to pass himself off as a white guy just because we've covered similar relationship ground in our lives. That's all I mean.
 
Doctor Strange

The film looked good and had cool sfx sequences but the dialogue was lame, and cocky Strange really didn't do it for me (not that familiar with the character but feel the same way)

Final battle was quite well done.
 
thenexus6 said:
Doctor Strange

The film looked good and had cool sfx sequences but the dialogue was lame, and cocky Strange really didn't do it for me (not that familiar with the character but feel the same way)

Final battle was quite well done.
Click to expand...

Doctor Strange would have been approximately 43% better if they had cast Joaquin Phoenix in the role.
 
Hacksaw Ridge - Mad Mel

Pure schlock. I'm always deeply troubled when filmmakers I enjoy make movies with this level of clumsiness. Beyond a film that tells a heroic tale in the midst of some kind of hollywood diagram of war movies with a troubling level of artificiality, it's the casting that makes me absolutely perplexed. A ridiculous good looking woman who has no part in this movie beyond being a cheap emotional attachment (which looks absolutely nothing with the real person), and then the trio of Jake Sully/Frank Semyon/ Bad Spider-Man hamming it up. They chew that shit like it's the last meal on earth. At times this movie feels like a bunch of circus freaks in front of a camera.
 
John Wick: Chapter 2: 3/5

An enjoyable continuation of the John Wick series that didn't do as much as I had hoped it would to elevate itself form the first. Instead, it feels more like a retread of the last, with the same general structure that the first used. Once the actual story of the movie kicks in after about a half hour of unrelated material, the movie becomes enjoyable, showcasing its amazing visuals and choreography on full blast. However, mediocre pacing and a lack of a new story keeps this sequel from reaching the heights of the first chapter.

Dunkirk: 5/5

A serious contender for my favorite film of 2017, Dunkirk is the kind of movie that can transport you to another time and convey the feeling os stress, fear, and desperation that the men on those beaches felt for those days. With amazing performances, cinematography, directing, and an incredible soundtrack that ties the whole movie together, Dunkirk is certainly one of Nolan's best. While the non-linear story telling was interesting and made Dunkirk feel more unique, it sometimes created moments of confusion, even during my second time viewing it. Nonetheless, it is a masterfully crafted movie that is a must see in IMAX.

Hacksaw Ridge: 2/5

For the entire runtime of this movie, I either laughing or in complete shock and disbelief for the style Mel Gibson decided to direct this incredible story of a conscientious objector. The story and directing style was incredibly corny, accompanied by ham-fisted acting from an incredibly underwhelming cast. This was one of the most movie-feeling movies that I have ever scene. It's themes were handled shallowly, its directing a complete bore, and a tonal mess, I expected much much more from Mel's return. It checks off almost all the boxes for a generic drama: shoehorned love interest, underdeveloped family subplot, childhood sequence, an attempt at forging charismatic, lovable characters... I can go on. To sum it all up, this movie was a huge disappointment and felt like a relic from the late 90s or early 2000s due to formula the movie utilized. If you're into that, you'll like, maybe even love this movie. But it certainly wasn't for me.

Also, for those of you who have not seen Hacksaw Ridge, I shit you not there is a scene where Andrew Garfield's character is jollily strolling through the very well lit and vibrant woods of Virginia, where he finds a blue a feather and giggles at it. I understand that Garfield's character was not your stereotypical macho masculine war hero, and I commend Mel for not trying to shoehorn him into that category, but come on man, that's just too cheesy.

True Savior said:
Hacksaw Ridge - Mad Mel

Pure schlock. I'm always deeply troubled when filmmakers I enjoy make movies with this level of clumsiness. Beyond a film that tells a heroic tale in the midst of some kind of hollywood diagram of war movies with a troubling level of artificiality, it's the casting that makes me absolutely perplexed. A ridiculous good looking woman who has no part in this movie beyond being a cheap emotional attachment (which looks absolutely nothing with the real person), and then the trio of Jake Sully/Frank Semyon/ Bad Spider-Man hamming it up. They chew that shit like it's the last meal on earth. At times this movie feels like a bunch of circus freaks in front of a camera.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Those actions sequences cannot be described as anything but pure schlock.
 
Safdie bros' Good Time getting comparisons to Michael Mann and has a Oneohtrix Point Never score?!

https://thefilmstage.com/reviews/good-time-review-safdies-robert-pattinson-cannes/
DGVJUhpUQAEcPRT.jpg


Even more hyped, after having loved Heaven Knows What.
 
Chaplin (1992)

Straight-forward but nicely done biopic about one of the most legendary figures of Hollywood. Robert Downey Jr is awesome in the role, probably his best performance. It seems to have been forgotten to time but I always enjoy it when I watch it.
 
Ben-Hur (2016)
I didn't expect much from this and I still left disappointed and sad at how they squandered the potential of this story. They had a lot of great ideas that could have made for a compelling modernization of this classic tale, but they whiffed it so hard by picking a very bad director. The largest problem with the film is the pacing. Events, world-building, and character development are so rushed and glossed over that it feels like the movie is nothing but 2 hours of plot points and exposition. Instead of giving the scenes space to breathe and make character interactions natural and meaningful, it just tries to run a cliffnotes version of Ben-Hur, with little to think about.

Now, I have little qualms about the CGI and production values of the movie, because they are mostly good. However, the way that scenes are directed makes the events of the film less epic than they could have been. The naval battle is a sour disappointment, because you don't get the sense that there are more ships out there, or that Judah's slavery even meant anything because it's all over in a jiffy. The chariot race could've been a cool scene, but poor editing and awful camera angle choices just left it as an dreadful mess that had zero emotional weight to it. Jerusalem feels like a microcosm of all this film's problems, because even with all our CGI technology, it still feels too small. The way the designs worked out made it seem like it's only ever composed of 2 streets, the Hur house, the circus, and the cliff, all compressed in a city block.

The actors do a decent job, but they are given little outside of expositional dialogue, where character relationships are blatantly stated rather than shown. I really would've liked Toby Kebell's Messala because they tried to humanize him, but they didn't give enough time to make his character choices feel believable.

Even the denoument of the crucifixion felt so rushed and painfully on-the-nose that the emotional payoff of having all the character's problem being resolved felt unearned. It didn't feel like Judah had any reason to care about Jesus in this version, because the water motif isn't that prominent.

Why am I spending so much time writing about this trainwreck? Because the 1959 has one of my favourite film OSTs ever.

Row well, and live.
 
I went to see Valerian last night and I really enjoyed it. The first half was just fantastic though the second half became very by the numbers story telling.

While watching it, I noticed that the image on the screen was slightly out of focus. I noticed this during the trailers and adverts as any text that appeared on screen had a slight fuzz around it. I went out as said this to a member of staff and they said they would have a look at it, and that if there were an issue it would be fixed before the actual film started.

About ten minutes later the film is about to start and the rating certificate is appearing on screen and it's still out of focus. I went out again and said that the image is out of focus. I was then told by the manager that he checked it and it was "fine" I asked if he was a trained projectionist and he said he wasn't. I said that the film is in 3D and if the image is out of focus it will affect the stereoscopic process, and it did. I watched the whole film and all shots that were shot with a wide angle lens looked blurry and hard to make out. Close ups were generally okay but any shot that wanted to show any form of scale, like exterior space shots were severely hampered.

When I got home I sent on the cinema's website and sent an email of complaint. Do you think I did the right thing?
 
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared said:
Logan works in way better in noir, I think
Click to expand...

Like Mad Max, certain scenes look amazing in black & white while others are just so-so. I do wonder if they planned to shoot Logan in black & white from the outset and the lighting setups are very different from colour setups. Though I guess they can do all that now with digital grading.
 
Seems it is the time of the year for me when i watch films once again. Being sick does that...


John Carter
Wow. Pretty, adventurous, retro. Characterization is a bit odd at times and pacing is an issue, but i can't help it but love the retro Mars. It is kind of unashamed nonsense, a very basic story but that makes it work well overall. It has flaws but i can live with those.
I see now where books like Dune and games like Bungie's Destiny got their roots. I will need to read the original books. Project Gutenberg seems to have them.
I wish i had seen this in theaters but somehow it went completely under my radar (though whether because of marketing issues or if my depression made me miss it, i don't know).
I wonder if i'd recommend this. I liked it... but i think liking this requires certain appreciation of basics, accepting them. It is not an original story except in the sense that it (well, the source material) was the original.
Should've been named John Carter of Mars though.

Gravity
Saw this in theater in 2013. I cannot recall what i though of this then, other than disliking the heavy-handed rebirth symbolism. I think i liked it then but... *shrug* My memory is mostly haze.
Or feels like it is, for while watching this, i kinda remembered everything. It is... striking, creepy, intense. A kind of film where knowing what will happen doesn't matter one bit, for the present is so strong. It is not a scifi film really; it has science fiction setting but otherwise it is a thriller in quite pure form. (Better than Interstellar either way.)
The rebirth symbolism works, though i still dislike it, for it is too obvious.
I think this one will go on to become a scifi classic, eventually.
Just gotta watch it alone and in the dark, it is one of those films.
 
The only reason I watched John Carter was because Taylor Kitsch went to the same high school as me. Expected it to be shit, but was pleasantly surprised.
 
Messofanego said:
and has a Oneohtrix Point Never score?!
Click to expand...

He won best soundtrack award for it at Cannes. A big reason as to why I want to see it. I'm still trying to decide if I want to see it at MIFF, would probably have to go alone though as I can't find anyone who's interested :/
 
Ode to Billy Joe (1976): Seven years after the song swept the nation (one of the great one-hit wonders, in my opinion), director Max Baer Jr. does his best to figure out the answer to the question: why did Billy Joe McAllister jump off the Tallahatchie Bridge? The answer turns out to involve
a very 1970s tolerance for sexual relationships between teenagers and adults, and a very un-1970s tolerance toward gay people
. The film is also a bit of an indictment of small town gossip and prejudice, since
after Billy Joe's death, main character Bobbie Lee ends up leaving town to escape the suspicion of so many people that she is pregnant; her own brother ends up suggesting she get an abortion, in a really good scene
. It cast two very solid young actors in the lead roles (Billy Joe's actor went on to voice the Beast in Disney's Beauty and the Beast). This was a big hit at time of release, but has largely been forgotten about now; it just aired on TCM for the first time a few weeks ago.

The Incredible Jessica James (2017): Another Netflix-released film, in this case an indie comedy that is part romantic comedy and part career movie. Mostly, it's a vehicle for Jessica Williams, playing the title character. I liked Williams on The Daily Show, but I wasn't sure going in about her as an actress. She turns out to be pretty solid, even if the character she's playing feels pretty solidly based on her comic persona (which makes sense, of course). She sells the more emotional moments well. Chris O'Dowd continues his streak of films where he is playing way out of his league in the love interest department, looks-wise, but he's also likeable. The thing I liked most about this was the movie's taking Jessica James' career aspirations seriously and treating them largely separately from her love life.
 
Nerve (2016) - pretty solid high adrenaline/love story/thriller with a modern vibe regarding phones and privacy (or lack thereof). High school wallflower who's had enough of being the shrinking violet her whole life decides "fuck it" and hits the latest online game called Nerve. Shit goes south in fairly quick order as she takes on crazier dares, pisses off friends on her way to really learning she's a bad ass at her core.

3.5 / 5
 
Finally saw The Lost City of Z. I love the fact that we've gotten this and Embrace of The Serpent in back to back years. I have the softest of spots for classical exploration dramas, so my leg is twitching like a dog getting his stomach rubbed while watching these. Unfortunately THEY AIN'T MAKING NO MONEY but y'know, whatever, people are terrible.

Anyway, this isn't as great as Embrace of The Serpent in, well, any category you judge films on, but I still really like it. The thing that makes it work the most beyond the atmosphere during those jungle journeys is the fact that the movie does not want to let you have those jungle journeys. I suspect this is the source of a lot of criticism as well (alongside it being 2h20m of fairly low key pacing). Normally I'd come down harder on a movie that repeatedly gives you a strong helping of Ye Olde Blue Balls, but in this instance that was entirely the point. You're supposed to feel the same draw Percy Fawcett did after numerous unfulfilling trips, you're supposed to feel that eagerness to return to the jungle as he did when his obsession dulled the best parts of his home life, you're supposed to be annoyed at the encroaching World War and the way it steers his path right into the trenches. This comes with the same issues most time skipping biopics have, of course, but if you can get past those seemingly inherent weaknesses and gel with the tempo, I think there's more here than a simple "Well 4 years later this happened, and also this happened, but really nothing happened again."

I don't think Charlie Hunnam has as good a turn here as I've read previously tbh. While he definitely stepped up a notch from his previous work, there's still an unconvincing stiffness to his demeanor and delivery. He never feels of the period, or comes alive as the obsessive he's portrayed to be. He does seem to get better as the movie goes along though.... or maybe I was just getting used to him, idk. On the other hand, Sienna Miller and a near unrecognizable Robert Pattinson (and all of the naturalistic Amazon native actors) do a lot of the heavy lifting so it's not like you're following a bunch of wood planks. Tom Holland joins in the final act and manages to add a convincing new layer and bring the movie home in what I consider to be a fantastic ending considering the real life story.

I'd love the industry to keep bringing me movies like these but with my luck this is it for another decade.
 
Mi goreng said:
He won best soundtrack award for it at Cannes. A big reason as to why I want to see it. I'm still trying to decide if I want to see it at MIFF, would probably have to go alone though as I can't find anyone who's interested :/
Click to expand...
Awesome! Can't wait. No UK release date yet :(
 
Jackie Brown (rewatch)

Tarantino once heralded this movie as his, "Rio Bravo", masterpiece in that the rewatchability was infinite and that the characters are why you keep going back. He's not far off.

The cast is off the charts and everyone gives a stellar performance from Grier all the way to Michael Keaton. My personal favorite of the bunch was Robert De Niro's portrayal of an ex-convict pot smoker who has a hard time adjusting to the outside world. A very subdued and nuance on screen performance, his bewilderment and expression of being out again always left an impression on me.

This is still his most mature work yet, in that there is no gratuitous violence or revenge plots. At it's core this movie is about dealing with personal relationships and age.

Still my favorite film from him.

9/10

tumblr_mvbj9bI4vE1qi7vf4o1_500.jpg
 
I'm rather baffled after watching Anne Fontaine's Mon pire cauchemar. Either I'm becoming overly sensitive about political correctness or I just watched something billed as a comedy portraying borderline date rape. Whatever the case, set aside the more dubious moments, movie wasn't doing much for me. Trailer gave me hope and Isabelle Huppert is always a joy to watch, but this movie wasn't working for me most of the time.
 
Watched The Invitation this morning, a really tense flick, I got where it was heading about 40 minutes from the end, but it was enjoyable enough.

I really like how they make you believe for a minute that the crazy is all in Will's head and then they go right ahead and show you he was right all along.
 
Daffy Duck said:
Watched The Invitation this morning, a really tense flick, I got where it was heading about 40 minutes from the end, but it was enjoyable enough.

I really like how they make you believe for a minute that the crazy is all in Will's head and then they go right ahead and show you he was right all along.
Click to expand...

It's a gem. Loves it
 
Hardcore Henry - 2.5/5
Well, that was...something. The novelty of the "fps" wore off after 15-20 minutes. The action scenes were enjoyable and i love the gory and bloody violence, but other than that it was pretty dull. The only cool character in the film was the British soldier played by Shalto. Overall, pretty forgettable.
 
All the good films coming out lately seem to be exclusive to theatres it seems:

Dunkirk
Baby Driver
The Big Sick
Detroit
Valerian

And yes I know one of those is not like the others, but I love Luc Besson even when he misfires so still think Valerian will still be worth the watch. Expecting it to be a beautiful mess. Tempted to hit the cinema next week to try and catch some of these, but part of me prefers just waiting for VOD.

And speaking of VOD releases, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 comes out August 22. Really looking forward to that one as I missed it in theatres.
 
Kubo and the Two Strings

Had watery eyes the whole time. That was some brilliant animation. I thought it was Henry Selick and was surprised that it wasn't!

Highly recommend it to anyone. It's on Netflix now too.
 
The Last Word (2017) - a rich old woman (Shirley MacLaine) hires the local paper's obituary writer (Amanda Seyfried) to write her obituary while she's living. Seeing as how the old biddy wasn't liked by anyone, the result is a short paragraph of tripe. This sets Harriet (MacLaine) off on a pretty formulaic journey of re-discovery, with Anne (Seyfried) along for the ride. Things are telegraphed along the way pretty well, but it's an enjoyable formulaic tale. There are a few decent chuckles, some good music and the chemistry between MacLaine and Seyfried feels earned.

I liked it, for what it was.

3 / 5
 
Seen:

Dunkirk
Blade Runner
The Wind Rises

Blade Runner was fantastic, and man Wind Rises was a master piece of animation. I was thinking about the movie all day at work.

I'm hoping to see Baby Driver or Planet of the Apes next week.
 
Slither

Still one of the most entertaining scifi, alien body invaders type movies. It's been ages since I've seen it and its funny looking back on it now that, whats his face is now famous from Guardians of the galaxy and Walking dead and also elizabeth banks. Entertaining AF and some rather convincing CGI and gore too.

8.5/10
 
Messofanego said:
Safdie bros' Good Time getting comparisons to Michael Mann and has a Oneohtrix Point Never score?!

https://thefilmstage.com/reviews/good-time-review-safdies-robert-pattinson-cannes/
DGVJUhpUQAEcPRT.jpg


Even more hyped, after having loved Heaven Knows What.
Click to expand...

Oh man this sounds so good. Mann comparisons are always liable to get me so hyped. Liked the trailer quite a bit as well. Pattinson and Stewart have done a fantastic job of breaking into the indie scene and flexing their talent.

anyways I just learned yesterday that Sam Shephard died, and that he was behind the screenplay of Paris, Texas and an award winning playwright?!!

oh wow. i never really looked out for his roles but whenever he appeared he always had such an old American presence about him. like he was always giving reliable performances as such a worn and lived-in character. exemplary stuff this century in Mud, Jesse James, Midnight Special, Out of the Furnace, Black Hawk Down etc. and of course his GOAT movie Days of Heaven. RIP man, didn't know he contributed to Paris, Texas. good stuff.
 
I've never seen Paris, Texas or Wings Of Desire but I probably should since there's a new Wim Wenders film coming up with James McAvoy, Alexander Siddig, and Alicia Vikander.
 
Ancient Gray said:
Kubo and the Two Strings

Had watery eyes the whole time. That was some brilliant animation. I thought it was Henry Selick and was surprised that it wasn't!

Highly recommend it to anyone. It's on Netflix now too.
Click to expand...

Watched this last night. Great film but I liked Coraline more.
 
I never have read the Captain Underpants, so when I saw a film for it was approaching, I thought it was going to be inevitably rubbish. Based on the first in a series of 11 books (I think) Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie is a surprisingly clever, infectiously funny spoof on superhero comics, which feels surprisingly right for this particular time, and its a riotous joy to watch.

It's main selling point juvenile toilet humour of the highest degree of course, if the title wasn't a tip off. But you know, no one ever said that toilet humour done well, couldn't be just as funny as an adult as it was when you were a child, and Captain Underpants proves that in spades. Having several extended gags about a character named Professor Peepee Diarrheastein Poopypants doesn't sound clever or funny when you read it here, but the film makes it work. Our main characters George and Harold love to make each other, and by extension, the audience, laugh. And laugh we do. Doesn't matter how, whether its a clever ironic knowing wink to the audience gag, or a stupid gag about a guy wearing underpants with a curtain for a cape flying away on a giant balloon told with great comedic skill and timing, we laugh ourselves silly. I did anyway.

It's not just that either, there's some even more surprising (for me anyway) 4th wall breaking! Don't know if that was present in the books, but its more than welcome here, and its done just as well if not more than the 4th wall breaking in say, Deadpool. It's also not nearly as cynical about the whole enterprise as Deadpool was, as this is a film about friendship, and making each other laugh, and the immense value of humour and being able to laugh at yourself when you're a bit silly. There's a scene where there's an entire room of people laughing at the name Professor Peepee Diarrheastein Poopypants, and I thought I was going to cry from laughter from it myself.

The voice work is also all done extremely well, and apart from Kevin Hart, no one stuck out to me as the actor they were rather than the part they were playing, so to speak. It looks nice, cool retro animation style.

Captain Underpants is the true big surprise of the summer for me, not just 'pretty good for a kids film' but pretty great, hilarious with a valuable message for people film making, that will make you laugh till your ribs hurt.
 
Discotheque said:
Oh man this sounds so good. Mann comparisons are always liable to get me so hyped. Liked the trailer quite a bit as well. Pattinson and Stewart have done a fantastic job of breaking into the indie scene and flexing their talent.

anyways I just learned yesterday that Sam Shephard died, and that he was behind the screenplay of Paris, Texas and an award winning playwright?!!

oh wow. i never really looked out for his roles but whenever he appeared he always had such an old American presence about him. like he was always giving reliable performances as such a worn and lived-in character. exemplary stuff this century in Mud, Jesse James, Midnight Special, Out of the Furnace, Black Hawk Down etc. and of course his GOAT movie Days of Heaven. RIP man, didn't know he contributed to Paris, Texas. good stuff.
Click to expand...

My son had to read Shepard's Pulitzer-Prize Winning play, Buried Child, last year for one of his college classes. When I went to look up the author, I was blown away that he was the same actor I had seen in so many movies.

Great observation about him giving "worn and lived-in character" performances.
 
The Trip to Italy

The successor to The Trip, Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon strike again with a tour through Italy's gorgeous locales, incredible foods, and rehash their careers and impersonations. I liked that there was a role reversal of sorts, where Coogan had been in his midlife crisis in the first while Brydon is in his own this go-around. But for all of the historical beauty and lessons about Byron and Shelley, the two comedians' personalities are the shining star of the film, and while not as strong as the first, I still had a great time with it.

Small Crimes

A small movie about small crimes, it has in its heart the makings of a Blue Ruin and I Don't Feel At Home in this World Anymore. It could be the Macon Blair connection, and it could be the nefarious underbelly of small(ish) towns. But it's quite good, and full of great actors, and a surprising third act. Nikolaj Coster-Waldeau is awesome as an ex-cop newly released from prison, returning to a town and a home that do not want him and with some unfinished business. I saw a review that perfectly encapsulated his performance: his Jaime Lannister, but mixed with Sawyer from Lost. But while it doesn't live up to the two previous movies I mentioned, it does have its own merits, and well worth a watch. It's a Netflix original film, too, another film festival movie they've snatched up, so it makes it easy to find!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Art film???? Worst experiences or movies you've ever seen.
2 3
134
6K
Badlucktroll replied
Movies You’ve Watched Lately | OT | - 2025
|OT| Opinion Community  6 7 8 9 10
471
17K
Liljagare replied
Naked Gun Trailer - August 1st.
News  2 3
124
5K
Hookshot replied
The worst movies you’ve ever seen…or will about to see.
2
85
3K
INC replied
  • Poll
Horror Movie Discussion
|OT| Opinion  2 3 4
154
7K
EerieArcade replied
Top Bottom