movies
-
MrSaigon
Re: Recently viewed movies
"I've been a Green Lantern fan ever since I was told I would be the person starring in the Green Lantern movie, so this is a thing come true for me," Ryan Reynolds (to the Onion)
-
Jocephus
- 99% conan clips
- Posts: 64992
- Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Re: Recently viewed movies
re: moneyball
phillip seymour hoffman is art howe!
phillip seymour hoffman is art howe!
-
themiddle54
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4524
- Joined: August 24 10, 2:49 pm
Re: Recently viewed movies
I'm optimistic on Moneyball. Zallian and Sorkin worked on the screenplay, and if nothing else they're both very compelling storytellers. And with Pitt (who I genuinely like as an actor in a lot of stuff) and Hoffmann, I'm sold, even without prior knowledge of the book or any baseball fan-interest.
Saw Bridesmaids last weekend. Didn't live up to the hype. I agree w/ heyzeus about the romcom elements, I just thought it was a standard Bullock/J. Roberts/Hugh Grant romcom with some dirty jokes mixed in. Funny, but not overall that good IMO. When you're watching a romcom and ....
...you're a little too conventional to be all that good, unless you just really nail every second of the movie, which I don't think it did.
Saw Bridesmaids last weekend. Didn't live up to the hype. I agree w/ heyzeus about the romcom elements, I just thought it was a standard Bullock/J. Roberts/Hugh Grant romcom with some dirty jokes mixed in. Funny, but not overall that good IMO. When you're watching a romcom and ....
...you're a little too conventional to be all that good, unless you just really nail every second of the movie, which I don't think it did.
-
Transmogrified Tiger
- Puppy Murderer
- Posts: 9323
- Joined: April 25 06, 6:07 pm
- Location: Across the River
Re: Recently viewed movies
That's interesting, I'm pretty sure it'll be the opposite for me.Jocephus wrote:yeah, i think as a baseball fan i'll enjoy it but as an overall movie it'll suck
-
MrSaigon
Re: Recently viewed movies
Super 8 is pretty good. Wasn't blown away but it's fun. Abrams may have got a little carried away with the cute shots, but there is definitely a Spielberg feel to it.
Michael Giacchino is the [expletive].
Michael Giacchino is the [expletive].
-
Jocephus
- 99% conan clips
- Posts: 64992
- Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Re: Recently viewed movies
[/youtube]
-
Jocephus
- 99% conan clips
- Posts: 64992
- Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Re: Recently viewed movies
saw "green lantern" on saturday.
entertaining super hero movie but nothing fantastic amazing stupendous !
like with most "origin" movies it takes awhile to see him in action (which is all i really wanted to see). plus the "end boss scene/fight" i thought was a bit anticlimactic.
i give it 3/5
entertaining super hero movie but nothing fantastic amazing stupendous !
like with most "origin" movies it takes awhile to see him in action (which is all i really wanted to see). plus the "end boss scene/fight" i thought was a bit anticlimactic.
i give it 3/5
-
Jocephus
- 99% conan clips
- Posts: 64992
- Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Re: Recently viewed movies
oh yeah, in regards to moneyball (there was a trailer before green lanter)...
i've been reading up on it and seeing the whole cast...
royce clayton! plays miguel tejada
and some actor is playing john mabry
i've been reading up on it and seeing the whole cast...
royce clayton! plays miguel tejada
and some actor is playing john mabry
-
go birds
- -go birds
- Posts: 32057
- Joined: February 5 10, 9:54 am
Re: Recently viewed movies
I took GRB's recommendation and watched Let Me In the other night.
Really good movie. It actually seems a bit underrated as I never really heard much about it. I mean, I remember it being in theaters, but I don't remember any critical acclaim.
Anyway, good flick with a vampire in it. highly recommend it.
Really good movie. It actually seems a bit underrated as I never really heard much about it. I mean, I remember it being in theaters, but I don't remember any critical acclaim.
Anyway, good flick with a vampire in it. highly recommend it.
-
The Third Man
- It rubs the lotion on its skin.
- Posts: 8935
- Joined: July 17 06, 1:00 pm
Re: Recently viewed movies
Saw The Tree of Life the second time tonight. I saw it again not because the first viewing knocked me head over heels or anything (though I was impressed), but because the nature of the film makes it difficult to gauge an emotional reaction after the first viewing. It's not terribly complicated, thematically (though it does cover a lot of ground while managing to cohere beautifully and communicate its themes through a simple story), but the structure of the film is such that many of its ideas only become fully clear towards the end when it all comes together.
Now, with that in mind. This movie is Malick as [expletive]. Everything you'd expect from Malick on a technical level - gorgeous photography, complex camera movements, classical music, et al - and thematically - the fleetingness of life (and the nature of memory), death, the presence and absence of God, the beauty and indifference of nature, man's scope in the universe - is present, and more than ever. It owes something to 2001 in its vision of the birth of life, man's place in the universe, evolution, etc., but it's less ostensibly cerebral, more emotional than Kubrick tended to be. It's self-indulgent as hell- on a few occasions, too indulgent for its own good - even when compared to The Thin Red Line and The New World. You wonder if Malick's ego hasn't gotten to him, or if he's just unleashing the full scope of his ideas on us now that he's comfortably successful and artistically free to do so (not to mention that he's getting up there in years). He's also virtually eschewed plot and narrative entirely - the film's struggles are largely internal, not external (with the exception of a tragedy that defines much of the characters' emotional states and mentality).
Of course, I am a complete Terrence Malick ~*~fanboi~*~ through and through, so, a few quibbles aside...wow. In a film running 2:18, there are so many ideas jam-packed here, none of them extraneous or undeveloped (and all of them coherent) that it's overwhelming to think about, and my head has been running through its themes near continuously. The story's main strand - Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain raising three sons in a small Texas town - is as simplistic and poetic as you'd expect, and on the level of anything Malick has done. That he manages to contextualize this with footage of the birth of the universe, microcellular processes, an abstraction of God (or some spiritual force/presence), is really amazing. For that matter, it's the most outwardly spiritual film Malick has made. The characters' existentialism is all to some extent by their relationships to God and their spiritual crises. But Malick isn't about some omniscient, personified diety but instead a spiritual presence that exists in life and nature (that started to become clear in Days of Heaven and only became more and more obvious from there) - here, it defines the film, which is where all that stuff about the Big Bang and, yeah, dinosaurs comes in (limited to a couple of brief sequences, but one in particular is thematically telling in its ambiguity).
The final sequence of the film (about 10 minutes or so) breaks off from the established pattern into a sort of experimental montage of sorts - much of which is effective but some of which is a bit too heavy-handed and New Agey for me to take seriously. This, fortunately, doesn't hamper the film any great deal, as it's more a summation and catharsis of what's already been established than a massive development. Still, I would have loved to see Malick cut the film short earlier, instead of opting for a more conclusive ending - it would've really driven home that sense of fleetingness present here (as well as in his other films, which are often as described as "endless," having no beginning or ending in a sense). However, this and a few other quibbles aside (does every line of narration really have to be said in a prayerful hush, Malick?), it's an utterly fantastic film, aiming super high and meeting most of Malick's ambitions to stunning effect.
So yeah, all in all, stellar, beautiful, poetic, amazing, singular, blah blah blah. And if you pass up a chance to see a new Terrence Malick film in theaters, by the way, you are insane.
Now, with that in mind. This movie is Malick as [expletive]. Everything you'd expect from Malick on a technical level - gorgeous photography, complex camera movements, classical music, et al - and thematically - the fleetingness of life (and the nature of memory), death, the presence and absence of God, the beauty and indifference of nature, man's scope in the universe - is present, and more than ever. It owes something to 2001 in its vision of the birth of life, man's place in the universe, evolution, etc., but it's less ostensibly cerebral, more emotional than Kubrick tended to be. It's self-indulgent as hell- on a few occasions, too indulgent for its own good - even when compared to The Thin Red Line and The New World. You wonder if Malick's ego hasn't gotten to him, or if he's just unleashing the full scope of his ideas on us now that he's comfortably successful and artistically free to do so (not to mention that he's getting up there in years). He's also virtually eschewed plot and narrative entirely - the film's struggles are largely internal, not external (with the exception of a tragedy that defines much of the characters' emotional states and mentality).
Of course, I am a complete Terrence Malick ~*~fanboi~*~ through and through, so, a few quibbles aside...wow. In a film running 2:18, there are so many ideas jam-packed here, none of them extraneous or undeveloped (and all of them coherent) that it's overwhelming to think about, and my head has been running through its themes near continuously. The story's main strand - Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain raising three sons in a small Texas town - is as simplistic and poetic as you'd expect, and on the level of anything Malick has done. That he manages to contextualize this with footage of the birth of the universe, microcellular processes, an abstraction of God (or some spiritual force/presence), is really amazing. For that matter, it's the most outwardly spiritual film Malick has made. The characters' existentialism is all to some extent by their relationships to God and their spiritual crises. But Malick isn't about some omniscient, personified diety but instead a spiritual presence that exists in life and nature (that started to become clear in Days of Heaven and only became more and more obvious from there) - here, it defines the film, which is where all that stuff about the Big Bang and, yeah, dinosaurs comes in (limited to a couple of brief sequences, but one in particular is thematically telling in its ambiguity).
The final sequence of the film (about 10 minutes or so) breaks off from the established pattern into a sort of experimental montage of sorts - much of which is effective but some of which is a bit too heavy-handed and New Agey for me to take seriously. This, fortunately, doesn't hamper the film any great deal, as it's more a summation and catharsis of what's already been established than a massive development. Still, I would have loved to see Malick cut the film short earlier, instead of opting for a more conclusive ending - it would've really driven home that sense of fleetingness present here (as well as in his other films, which are often as described as "endless," having no beginning or ending in a sense). However, this and a few other quibbles aside (does every line of narration really have to be said in a prayerful hush, Malick?), it's an utterly fantastic film, aiming super high and meeting most of Malick's ambitions to stunning effect.
So yeah, all in all, stellar, beautiful, poetic, amazing, singular, blah blah blah. And if you pass up a chance to see a new Terrence Malick film in theaters, by the way, you are insane.