Movies You've Seen Recently |OT| Dec 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Last Command must have been daring upon release, upending epic-phase Lubitsch and the all-too-common Russian war films of the era with Jannings on deck to impress. It's my first Sternberg and I'm suitably enthralled by the way he uses close-ups, as well as his taste in cast and crew (Hans Drier and William Powell do a great job bringing a sinister aura to the Hollywood soundstage). Aside from the excellent story set in Czarist Russia circa the 1917 revolution, framing everything as a flashback shared both by the general and Sternberg points to the theatricality and royalism of Hollywood, which partly explains the industry's contemporary interest in stuff like The Scarlet Pimpernel. Jannings essentially plays Germany from The Last Man again, so I'm not interested in what he does—Powell and Brent, playing two revolutionary theater people, play their roles perfectly, the former with just an edge of contempt as he reveals his motivations for joining the revolt (simply a way to create more drama to stage!). The Robert Israel score works a bit too well for this movie, too; with or without, this one's got enough amazing cinematography to service the themes and keep characters defined within the often expansive crowd sequences. Simply amazing.
 
Fast Times at Ridgemont High- Don't have much to say, it's a simple, thoroughly enjoyable high school comedy. I like that it doesn't really have a plot, it's more of a collection of moments throughout the year. I thought it was hilarious and extremely charming. And as someone who wasn't alive in the 80s, I just love the look of the decade.

Dallas Buyers Club - McConaughey and Leto kill it. I thought the editing was a little weird at times, and there is a montage that uses blatant green screen that just looks horrible, but overall it was a solid flick. There's real character development, McConaughey really sells the transformation, he starts out as a pretty awful human, but by the end you can't help but root for him. Because of this, I thought some stuff at the end that could be considered standard Hollywood biopic BS was earned and not forced. Definitely one of the better movies to come out this year I think, though it's not a masterpiece by any means.
 
saw this in an Inside Llewyn Davis comment section, made me lol

jdNrtDpAYQit1.PNG
 
The World's End

Easily the most bizarre of the 'Cornetto Trilogy', and looking back, critics were right in that it's not as laugh-out-loud funny as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. But the heart is definitely still there. If this is indeed the end of this particular 'trilogy' (there's no way that Wright, Pegg, and Frost are done making movies together) then I honestly don't know how else they could have possibly capped off such a lovably bonkers series of films.

Also, "Get back in your rocket, and fuck off back to Legoland ya' cunts!" is probably my favorite line from any film this year.
 
Oldboy (remake)

Shit, if Elizabeth Olsen
was my daughter, I would probably wanna fuck her too

Movie was bad, and not in a haha good way. Copley was so awful
 
I've seen Hunger Games 2 last Sunday (haven't seen the first one).

The first hour was pretty good, because they show the political and social aspects of this civilization.
But when the actual games start, it just becomes schlock and the end is magic bullshit.
Too bad. Had potential.
 
magundah14 said:
I've seen Hunger Games 2 last Sunday (haven't seen the first one).

The first hour was pretty good, because they show the political and social aspects of this civilization.
But when the actual games start, it just becomes schlock and the end is magic bullshit.
Too bad. Had potential.
Click to expand...

I thought this was hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyx1U9QjWVQ&feature=share

Haven't seen the movie yet. But the first one was pretty terrible if you're not a 14 year old girl indeed.
 
Prometheus - Kinda shitty.

The Terminator - Really great.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day - Also great, but not as dark as the first one. I've only seen the theatrical version. Should I check out the special edition?

Oblivion - It's good. Story could have been more polished.

Jack Reacher - Good. Tom Cruise is a real badass in this one.

Collateral - Great. Tom is even more badass.

Die Hard - Great. The whole stepping on glass thing is a bit too much for me though (I stepped on glass once as a kid).

Live Free or Die Hard - Good. I prefer the smaller scale of DH1 to this though.

Fight Club - Great. Really like it.
 
Window said:
Interesting article by Rosenbaum I saw posted on another site http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2013/12/en-movimiento-the-season-of-critical-inflation/

I've only seen Gravity from the ones mentioned and I'd have to agree. Good film with an astounding opening but I don't understand the high praise it's getting from critics.
Click to expand...
this is a pretty shitty blog post I think. If Rosenbaum has written at length about any of those films and why he dislikes them maybe that would be interesting to read, but this is a series of shallow contrarian capsules used to assert that active critics are unable to accurately express what they like in movies because they watch too many, which is laughable and self-serving
 
I started reading Dune two days ago, and then I thought, hey why not watch it also? So I got the blur-ray of this classic and have just finished it.
It started out fantastic. Great cinematography and world building, great score and tone, great lore and mythos (the spacer guild is awesome), overall a great beginning.

But then something happens. Something I just cant buy. In the span of about 10 minutes, Paul
crashes, encounters the Fremen, becomes in love AND their leader, and suddenly he's a freedom fighter.
I have no problem with the concept, but I do with the incredible fast pace all this happens in. This made the rest of the movie seem less important and quite uninteresting as well, since we never get to see him earning his way to the top.

I figure the book expands on these things a lot more than the movie did.

Is it worth checking out the 2000 mini series and 2003 sequel btw?
 
big ander said:
this is a pretty shitty blog post I think. If Rosenbaum has written at length about any of those films and why he dislikes them maybe that would be interesting to read, but this is a series of shallow contrarian capsules used to assert that active critics are unable to accurately express what they like in movies because they watch too many, which is laughable and self-serving
Click to expand...

You're right about it being too brief and lacking any specific in depth discussion about the films but as I've barely seen any I do have to ask people here if there's any truth to the matter for the films he's mentioned (since it's that time of year when people perhaps reflect over the things they've see for their 'top 10' of the year) and not the whole idea of score inflation (which you maybe right about). I guess I'm just baffled at the thematic depths people seem to be seeing in Gravity. But really I do think it's interesting to read contrarian opinions sometimes as it gets you to look at the film in a different light regardless of whether your final judgment may differ. Is that worth the time? I don't know...
 
Window said:
You're right about it being too brief and lacking any specific in depth discussion about the films but as I've barely seen any I do have to ask people here if there's any truth to the matter for the films he's mentioned (since it's that time of year when people perhaps reflect over the things they've see for their 'top 10' of the year) and not the whole idea of score inflation (which you maybe right about). I guess I'm just baffled at the thematic depths people seem to be seeing in Gravity. But really I do think it's interesting to read contrarian opinions sometimes as it gets you to look at the film in a different light regardless of whether your final judgment may differ. Is that worth the time? I don't know...
Click to expand...
He's kinda right about Gravity in that its philosophizing is certainly not full of dimension, but I don't think that's enough to tear the film down because its spectacle remains astounding. So it's philosophical dimension isn't comparable to 2001, I agree with you. but in making that his main point Rosenbaum isn't really saying anything of substance because he's focusing on a comparative remark far more than the words of the people he's responding to. Those people have defended their enjoyment of its special effects thrill ride, and JR just calls it an "amusement park ride" as a derogative statement which is such a facile and outdated argument.

Haven't seen Blue Jasmine, but his graph on 12 Years a Slave is kinda the same as the above: pretty much the center point of his argument is that Nightjohn is better. What? That's an empty evaluation. All he actually says about 12 Years a Slave is that it's "arthouse exploitation" and that it's only for "masochistic guilty liberals." On that first point it's unclear how that's even a bad mark on the film, and on the second he's for some reason denying that the film could be enjoyed by conservatives and even implying (through "guilty") that it's only for white audiences. messed up.

while I haven't seen Inside Llewyn Davis either, you can already see how silly his argument is. In fact he praises the film at first, but then takes issue with one detail contrasting with reality. what a ridiculous argument. I've read a lot of praise for the film, and I don't think any of it is reducible to the point "it's a good rendering of this environment, and that's the sole reason it's awesome!" What a gross oversimplification of the writing that's already been done on the film. on top of that I hugely doubt that the presence of a higher number of "fucks" than there were in reality is enough to topple any film based on reality.

Spring Breakers is the only one he makes an even slightly tenable point on: "just another let-them-eat-cake and ultimately unthreatening (if doggedly puritanical) provocation." Problem here is that any reading of the film shows pretty concretely that the girls don't get to have their cake and eat it too, there's definitely an exchange in the film. Basically I simply agree with the numerous essays that responded to this exact criticism in the first quarter of the year. As for "puritanical," not really sure where that's coming in as the morals of Spring Breakers are certainly outside strict norms. And yet, despite that all at least bringing up interesting points, he throws in the "kiddie-porn" comment which is nonsensical and factually wrong and oddly perverted on his part. That's a more desperate grasp at provocation than anything in Spring Breakers, I'd say.

I do like to read opinions different from mine, I really do. just well-written ones. And I think, due to the fact that "contrarian" connotes that an opinion is contrived and only oppositional in order to garner attention, I don't like contrarian positions. I do love oppositional ones.
 
big ander said:
And I think, due to the fact that "contrarian" connotes that an opinion is contrived and only oppositional in order to garner attention, I don't like contrarian positions. I do love oppositional ones.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. A distinction I didn't think of.
 
You're probably going to see a lot of people compare Out of the Furnace to The Place Beyond the Pines, in terms of telling a big story that's focused on a small town, centering around characters on both sides of the law and the ones in between, and being very, very smart about not revealing their full hand in any of the promotional materials. Unfortunately for Out of the Furnace, that's about as far as I'm willing to go for it, as it's a pretty big disappointment, thanks to massive pacing issues that feel like it's stuck in first gear with the parking brake on, and the gas tank was always on empty. About an hour into the film, I was wondering when it was going to start, as it spends a lot of its time establishing a lot about our two leads in the Baze brothers, both Russell and Rodney (Christian Bale and Casey Affleck, respectively, who both do solid work), and yet there's precious little insight on either of them outside of the surface of the events that drive them into the directions they wind up going in. The film is so drastically underwritten that you wonder just what the hell most of the supporting cast is doing there if they're having so many problems with finding ways of attaching the viewer to the Baze brothers, let alone Harlan DeGroat, our villain of the piece as overplayed by Woody Harrelson, which is not so much his fault as he has so very little to work with that he winds up having to overcompensate out of pure necessity. Once there's signs that the plot is finally moving somewhere at long last, it's far too late for it to make up for the eternity it took to get there, and the finale, well meaning as it is, feels way too rushed to take hold like it intends to. While Scott Cooper's direction is strong, thanks to possessing a good feel for the location, his hand in the script dooms the film to being a well-intended bore.
 
The-Hunger-Games-007.jpg


The Hunger Games

First:

- Now I know why everyone has got the hots for Jennifer Lawrence. Goddamn.
- I actually enjoyed this movie.

However:

- Why is it called The Hunger Games?
It's got something to do with food rationing I'm guessing, there are hints at the beginning, but you didn't actually explain why you named the film hunger games you fucking idiots.
- The preparations part is way too long, it's more than half the movie I think, while the actual hunting part is only 1h long. should have been fleshed out more, definitely.
 
An Education

I liked it, even in spite of the familiar story and oddly repressive ending. I thought I'd gotten sick of Mulligan, but maybe it's just the roles she's taken lately because I enjoyed her here. Also thought Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike made for a fun supporting cast.
 
Jonathan Rosenbaum knows alot about film history, I guess, but he's a truly bad critic, in terms of his actual understanding of a work's artistry and import. He's a perfect example of a high-falutin' critic who just doesn't get it, and I guarantee he would have been the kind of guy to pan Moby-Dick had he been among the mainstream critical establishment in the mid-Nineteenth Century. Fuck him.
 
nebraska%20movie%20times.jpg

Nebraska

While I wouldn't say this was a feel-good movie, I came out the theatre with a big smile after that quite touching and sweet ending. Just a pleasant folksy road trip movie, with quite a sedentary pace which fits the Woody character and this sort of dead-in-the-road life that everyone's leading. Sometimes you need a movie with not much conflict and just a chilled out mood like this in a year while still being about real human relationships, which is why I also enjoyed Prince Avalanche (trailer) a lot.

An old dad Woody Grant (Bruce Dern), close to incoherence and probably dementia, thinks he's won a million in sweepstakes. So his son (Will Forte) indulges his fantasy before he'll probably end up in a nursing home to head up to Lincoln, Nebraska to claim it. They make the trip there, meet up old friends, up in Hawthorne which is like a ghost town. They're all happy for him, and even decide to put him in the local newspaper now that he's famous. But these are not the kind of friends you want around, because when Woody was young he was gullible and others would exploit him. Now they're back to do the same thing.

While there is a "disability" on show, Woody's alcoholism and being close to dementia, it's really more about his interactions with others. Dude is a pretty quiet, aloof guy but with this road trip, he finds some energy back. Will Forte is great, I've never seen him in a more dramatic role, even though this is still slightly a comedy. He plays the ideal son to such an ageing dad, calm and collected even when his dad is doing wrong by getting drunk and hitting his head on stuff. Bob Odenkirk is fantastic in this as the more stable career guy who just became a news anchor. It's the mom played by June Squibb who steals the show, doubling as the foul-mouthed comedic relief and voice of reason. "I ain't fiddling with no cow titties, I'm a city girl!" A standout scene is when they're in the graveyard, and she talks about all the dead relatives like they were all pricks who just wanted to get into her pants.

nebraska_graveyard_by_digi_matrix-d6x19bb.jpg


How did they do the
stitching scene of Woody's head wound
? That looked so real!

It's a gorgeous movie, with some great wide landscape shots and really detailed close-ups of faces in hi-def black-and-white. It might be a standard thing, but I really liked one depth-of-focus still shot where the son and dad are switching being drivers.

My dad wants to see a movie with me, and so I might watch this again with him tomorrow since there's no other dad-friendly no-violence movie out right now that isn't a kids movie.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Jonathan Rosenbaum knows alot about film history, I guess, but he's a truly bad critic, in terms of his actual understanding of a work's artistry and import. He's a perfect example of a high-falutin' critic who just doesn't get it, and I guarantee he would have been the kind of guy to pan Moby-Dick had he been among the mainstream critical establishment in the mid-Nineteenth Century. Fuck him.
Click to expand...

He's one of our greatest critics actually.
 
TCRS said:
- Why is it called The Hunger Games?
It's got something to do with food rationing I'm guessing, there are hints at the beginning, but you didn't actually explain why you named the film hunger games you fucking idiots.
Click to expand...

They do a miserable job at explaining that in the movie.
The dudes on the districts can get food by having their names added multiple times to the lottery.
Basically everyone in the districts suffers from hunger.
Peeta also helps Katniss once by throwing a bread over to her, one time she's really weak and hungry.
Katniss hunts to provide food for her family too.

The movie is a disgrace compared to the book. They rushed the most important part. Only to drag it as soon as she gets to the Capitol, because "wow, such special effects. much color!"
 
swaggerdewitt said:
He's one of our greatest critics actually.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. I guess all the critical horrors and bullshit I've read from him over the years were just written on cough syrup benders and should be disregarded.

If he's one of our greatest critics, we've failed as a species. Pretentious, elitist bullshit sans any real understanding of life or art.
 
I think he's coasted on his status as former assistant to Tati for most of his career, lol. He had good things to say about Alan Rudolph!

Badlands is about as incredible as I expected.
 
drkOne said:
The movie is a disgrace compared to the book.
Click to expand...

The book was one of the worst I read last year, so the movie must go into negative dimensions of terrible.

Considering how much the book version of Mockingjay was just an utter mess, I'm looking forward to the movie either exploding and creating a black hole, or ending the series with a little bit of grace left.
 
hal9001 said:
The Fall

Another visual stunner. Some of the shots are out of this world. With a movie this beautiful you could forgive some of its minor flaws.
Click to expand...
The visuals are definitely awesome and I loved the whole storybook thing but the main character is a douchelord. The near-end was so painful.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Oh, okay. I guess all the critical horrors and bullshit I've read from him over the years were just written on cough syrup benders and should be disregarded.

If he's one of our greatest critics, we've failed as a species. Pretentious, elitist bullshit sans any real understanding of life or art.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every single review he's ever written expresses a profound understanding of cinema.
 
Went on a movie watching binge last couple of weeks.
This is the part where I pretend people care about what I have to say about the movies because fuck it I like to hear myself talk/type.

Oblivion : I can't stand Tom Cruise, but I loved the premise of the movie so I gave it a shot. Thought it was slow in parts, and maybe I'm slow too because I did not see the twist coming at all and enjoyed the twist a lot. Overall I'd say it a was 3/5 movie.

Pain and Gain : Everyone was perfect in this movie. So dark yet still funny. I thought certain parts went on longer than needed, but overall I enjoyed it a lot. 4/5

Dredd : A damn shame if we don't get a sequel, great action movie. 5/5

Looper : Started off with such promise and then get terrible when the mother and kid show up. 2.5/5

We're the millers : Love comedy movies, especially adult ones with raunchy and fucked up humor. Really really enjoyed this except for the silly climax scene. 5/5

World War Z : Better than I thought it would be, but I came in with very very low expectations. The Israel scene was stupid imo, and Brad Pitts journey of non stop fuckery was a little silly, but still enjoyed it for what it was 3/5

Hangover part 3 : redeemed itself from the truly awful part 2. Still can't match the first, but I didn't expect it to. Watching the first in a packed theater filled with people laughing their asses off was a great experience. This one had some great moments though. 3.5/5

Batman Mask of Phantasms : Realized I had never watched this despite being a huge fan of the animated series. I feel like I should like it more, I thought it dragged in many places, but still had some great batman moments. 3/5

Batman Vs. Dracula : Didn't realize this was from that era when every fucking cartoon was being drawn like that Jackie Chan cartoon. Art style is atrocious, but it had it's moments. 2/5

Batman Under the Red Hood : Kept falling asleep (not because of the movie, I was just exhausted) so my viewing was disjointed. But I thought they nailed Jason Todd and I liked it's take on Joker being more of an insane evil sophisticated bastard. 4/5


Stll have Fast 6 and White House Down to watch.
 
swaggerdewitt said:
Pretty much every single review he's ever written expresses a profound understanding of cinema.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the guy enough to know, but those capsule reviews that started this discussion consist of profound MISunderstanding after misunderstanding. If those are similar to his regular reviews I'm staying away.

Will qualify that, though, by saying that I am using a Rosenbaun essay on Leos Carax right now that's kinda helpful for what I'm doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The worst commercials you've ever seen.
2
76
321
Impotaku replied
Art film???? Worst experiences or movies you've ever seen.
2 3
134
7K
Badlucktroll replied
Movies You’ve Watched Lately | OT | - 2025
|OT| Opinion Community  13 14 15 16 17
847
25K
AJUMP23 replied
Story time about life recently.
29
495
anthony2690 replied
The worst movies you’ve ever seen…or will about to see.
2
85
4K
INC replied
Top Bottom