Femmeworth
Banned
Do you breathe? Y/N
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Movies You've Seen Recently |OT| March 2015
- Thread starter Charles Foster Kane
- Start date
- Status
Kilgore Trout
Member
Oh wow, Hulu has added They Live. With ads. For Hulu Plus subscribers.
lmao
Appropriate in the worst ways lmao
No ads with 3d glasses on.
AlternativeUlster
Absolutely pathetic part deux
I think I might watch Wild Tales tomorrow. Did anyone get around to watching it yet? A regular at work today said he loved it to death.
same here, a mate of mine watched it and said it was hilarious and hectic. I trust his taste so it's on my radar as well
found it average, neither very dark nor very funny. 9/10 sketch comedy shows on TV, from Newsreaders to Bedtime Stories to Key & Peele, are more savage and much funnier. Doesn't help that the segments don't play off each other in any interesting way, they all generally revolve around outsized animalistic reaction to everyday injustice but don't offer any greater insight by being combined.
Dragoon En Regalia
Member
Is that a TV feature Hulu+ detects or an option you can specify within the app itself?
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Poseidon. Pretty terrible. Everything about it. No wonder it bombed so hard. 2/10
lazybones18
Banned
A Little Romance
Charming and funny. Liked all of the characters, including "Hot Lips" being totally lame
Charming and funny. Liked all of the characters, including "Hot Lips" being totally lame
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Life Itself
TwoThumbsUp/10
My feels man. R.I.P. Ebert and Siskel
Watch it if you haven't.
TwoThumbsUp/10
My feels man. R.I.P. Ebert and Siskel
Watch it if you haven't.
Ghost_Messiah
Member
So Jack O'Connell's latest Irish war drama film 71 was just released on Blu Ray. Looking for a film to see and this one might just be it. Can anyone vouch for it? Loved him in Starred Up and Skins before that and it has an extremely impressive Metacritic score. Any of you guys seen it yet? Opinions?
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
No Country For Old Men
this was fun! But that ending was kind of 'ehm'
this was fun! But that ending was kind of 'ehm'
CFK when was the last time you actually watched a good movie? I think every review of yours I've seen in the last couple months boils down to, "I watched this plainly shitty movie. It was shit. 2/10."
it's worrying.
Messofanego
Banned
Can absolutely vouch for it. Intense stuff. Saw it last year and was impressed.
'71
Great film, one of my favourites of this year. Intense action combined with a heartfelt core. While it's effective as a chase thriller in The Troubles times between the loyalists/Protestants and republicans/Catholics of northern Ireland, the movie really gets down to children. These children are lost in this explosive and confused mess of war. Most of the players involved in the conflict are probably younger than 25. The utter sadness felt for such a young generation bred on such circumstances comes to a head at the climax which was quite unpredictable and tense.
Much like the battle sequence in Children of Men, this also has a guerilla style going on that makes for intense encounters. It had my pulse pounding as Jack O'Connell's (who's had a stellar year as Starred Up was brilliant) character has to navigate behind enemy lines, Die Hard-like. Jack O'Connell's physical acting is on full display here since there's little dialogue for him as it's all about staying quiet and surviving. There's a loss of innocence in such idyllic village towns becoming battlefields where everyone's on edge and sides are unclear.
One problem viewers might have is with the Irish accents. They're quite thick but it really only becomes an issue in legibility with a kid whose accent is so thick, I couldn't make head or tails about any sentence he saidHe's only in the movie for 10 minutes though.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I watched and liked budapest hotel a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't comment on it. But yeah, you're right. I haven't been watched much anyways though. I've only seen 20 movies this year.
I don't really have a lot to say about the 1953 version of The War of the Worlds, other than it aging about as well as a carton of milk from that same year. It's got a nice Technicolor look to it, and the Martian designs are pretty neat, but it's so clunky, stilted, and cheap otherwise. It felt like a lot of scenes existed in isolation before coming up with thin excuses to leave them in there, particularly a jarring switch from a would-be negotiation that turns into a suicide wish, with nothing in between to indicate why that would have happened to that character. It's hard for me figure out how anyone could prefer this to Spielberg's take, but I guess a neat sound effect can go a long way.
Ghost_Messiah
Member
Wow thanks man.
Pretty awesome review you wrote there. You definitely have me super interested now. The guy is just the most promising actor. He's been in some amazing films recently. He really rocketed after Skins. I think after reading your review which again was just super helpful and detailed I've decided to watch 71 tonight. It really sounds like my kind of film especially with your comparison to Children of Men which was a film that I also adored. I'll let you know what I think of it. You have however successfully steered me towards watching the film. Hope I enjoy it just as much as you did.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Far as I can tell, people review the last 90 seconds of Spielberg's WotW, as opposed to the film. It honestly feels like everytime somebody shits on that film, they forgot about the two hours prior to those last 90 seconds. Or they only remember 5 seconds of Dakota Fanning screaming.
Bad endings leave lasting sour impressions.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Which is weird too, because that's not what wrong with it from a writing perspective: the problem is that the army suddenly respawns out of nowhere (wait, when did this become a video game? I was watching a disaster movie and then suddenly BLAM! random respawn, wtf?). How did that Javelin shit even make it? More importantly: why was it there when the story didn't need it? The very next scene could have simply been the thing going down on its own, and nothing would chance. In fact, this would probably have more impact because we would see it from the protagonist's direct perspective, and not some random nobody who hijacks the camera for a minute.
It felt like a scene with an element that was specifically there as a 'pay back' to the Pentagon for allowing the movie to use military material.
That said, the guys in the foreground, the building in the middle (of the grid / composition), and the thing in the background, which then went through the middle and ended up in the front is itself an excellent use of composition to establish scale. Which, as you all know, is completely FUBAR anywhere else. Godzilla 2014 has no idea how large its things are, as one frame makes them barely bigger than a house and the next it's a damn skyscraper.
So basically this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale
But in Spielberg's War of the Worlds the scale of the tripods tends to fairly consistent, which is really commendable. And rare. I like this version a lot, but that scene is problematic because it contradicts the narrative of the entire film, not because the girl is screaming or some other nonsense argument.
imho
It felt like a scene with an element that was specifically there as a 'pay back' to the Pentagon for allowing the movie to use military material.
That said, the guys in the foreground, the building in the middle (of the grid / composition), and the thing in the background, which then went through the middle and ended up in the front is itself an excellent use of composition to establish scale. Which, as you all know, is completely FUBAR anywhere else. Godzilla 2014 has no idea how large its things are, as one frame makes them barely bigger than a house and the next it's a damn skyscraper.
So basically this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale
But in Spielberg's War of the Worlds the scale of the tripods tends to fairly consistent, which is really commendable. And rare. I like this version a lot, but that scene is problematic because it contradicts the narrative of the entire film, not because the girl is screaming or some other nonsense argument.
imho
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Agreed, but it still doesn't warrant erasing the rest of the film from people's minds.
Agreed. Spielberg sold the world a Tom Cruise chase movie with big explosions and that little girl everyone seemed to like at the time, and sprung on them a relentless, bleak and mostly uncompromising look at a deeply dysfunctional family unit lucking out on just missing being part of another death ray massacre for the better part of two hours.
Sometimes the original is best because its the original. WotW, Red Dawn, and the Thing (Carpenter) all come to mind. The remake/sequels probably had better production values but the original is still better. Cheap, shitty knockoff watch or the coveted original? Now the Hills Have Eyes was a piece of shit someone make sparkle as a remake...
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
There are things I like about Spielberg's WotW, but the things to dislike are pretty strong. I also like the original WotW. I find it a bit charming and love the machines.
that's not the original.
that's not the original.
Net_Wrecker
Member
lol, The Thing always screws with these kinds of discussions
And The Thing (2011) isn't a remake
And the family is the worst part of Spielberg's WoTW. If it was Cruise alone, that movie would've been A+.
And The Thing (2011) isn't a remake
And the family is the worst part of Spielberg's WoTW. If it was Cruise alone, that movie would've been A+.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
nvm
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Even worse than the kids in JP
Or even just remove the son.
That character made zero fucking sense all throughout the movie.
I can't think of a more useless metric for being considered better simply because it was first. How the hell does that alone determine merit?
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Way worse. And it's not just the douchbag son, but Dakota Fanning too. Realized it upon rewatching the film.
I think for Rachel, it's more because Dakota Fanning has always been a really annoying actress that always landed on the wrong side of precociousness. I don't think the writing for her was that much of an issue, but Fanning played it so much like an adult pretending to be a child would and not like, well, a child. If only her sister was that age then.
Robbie, though, holy shit. I can get being angry at your father with how non-existent that relationship was, but facing impending annihilation flipped off every self-preservation switch in his brain and he turned into a shouting, pouting moron who decided that now was the best time to air any grievances and continue to defy someone who is doing his best to keep you the fuck alive. If I was Ray, I would have thrown those PBJ sandwiches in his face as a warm-up.
Robbie, though, holy shit. I can get being angry at your father with how non-existent that relationship was, but facing impending annihilation flipped off every self-preservation switch in his brain and he turned into a shouting, pouting moron who decided that now was the best time to air any grievances and continue to defy someone who is doing his best to keep you the fuck alive. If I was Ray, I would have thrown those PBJ sandwiches in his face as a warm-up.
I know but it was the high point and original as far as the newer one which isn't a remake but close enough. They didn't do enough to make it feel like a prequel IMO.
Well typically its where the idea came from and simply copying an idea doesn't make it a better idea.
But how does War of the Worlds copy from the 1953 film, beyond being adapted from the same novel?
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
WotW isn't a remake either
Two of the films you mentioned were adaptations though. Still, not a good metric. Films aren't about the what, they're more about the how.
Infernostew
Member
Watched Bobby Fischer Against the World earlier today since it was snowing like crazy out. I've been meaning to watch the doc for a while and it didn't disappoint. I really like how the doc was critical of Fischer because he was a maniac. Interesting stuff, check it out. 7/10
Honestly I doubt either will amount to anything in movieland.
But the shitcakes character that is his son exists throughout the entire movie. Espilbergo's WOTW just has too many bad calls. The spectacle really is the only good part of it.
Inspired by the tangent about the original versus the remake, I finally got around to watching the original version of The Fly. Not knowing a lot about it beyond the presence of Vincent Price and publicity stills showcasing the titular character in both of its incarnations, I was pleasantly surprised to see the film take on a bit more of an interesting structure by beginning with the death of our poor scientist and taking a bit of time to set up an eventual flashback recalling the events leading up to that point in time, with a deliberate move to insinuate that the one telling the story may not be entirely all there mentally. It's an interesting move for a film that could otherwise be a more slickly produced version of a dozen films of its era, but it was often little things like that that made all the difference between just another throwaway B-feature and something with a bit more staying power. And I do mean slick, thanks to some great photography that took advantage of CinemaScope technology, making the film look surprisingly fresh for its age, using a wide palette of colors and light sources to help make it pop out of the screen. It doesn't quite achieve an appreciable level of pathos that the story deserves, what with lines like "a stream of cat atoms" being delivered straight-faced and a surprisingly high level of sexism that has aged rather poorly, but it is still an oddly effective film, especially towards its finale, with a highly effective and nearly-wordless sequence in which we finally catch up to where the story begins and the justifiably iconic climax that invokes some of the most bizarre imagery caught on film at that time. For a sci-fi monster movie from 1958, it certainly isn't content to be so easily disposable.
The secret to why David Cronenberg's remake became so well-regarded on its release is that it passes as being a portrait of a quickly disintegrating romantic relationship as much as it is also one of the defining moments for body horror cinema, and while I had noticed it had bigger things on its mind than being really gross back when I had originally saw it in the earlier part of the 2000s, rewatching it opened up for an even deeper appreciation than I had already had for the film. A lot of that has to do with Jeff Goldblum's performance as Seth Brundle, whose charts his sad descent into becoming a new organism in a consistently surprising way, taking on characteristics and mannerisms without drawing too much attention to himself, which is highly commendable for how much special makeup he winds up having to wear by the end of it. It's the rare kind of eccentricity that tends to resonate a lot more strongly than performances with the same vibe but brushed with broader strokes, and it's a shame that Goldblum didn't get more awards buzz then for a more than deserving performance. There's very little fat to the film as a whole, with a laser-like focus on keeping the scale small but fleshing out what they had, making you really feel for all of the characters and the ordeal they're going through with Brundle's condition. If it's a less surreal and mysterious film than Videodrome, it makes up for it by being much more emotionally connective, which would serve Cronenberg well again for a similar tragic tale on Dead Ringers. It may be easy to forget this at times, but Cronenberg is capable of making you reach for a tissue as much as he'll make you reach for a barf bag.
The secret to why David Cronenberg's remake became so well-regarded on its release is that it passes as being a portrait of a quickly disintegrating romantic relationship as much as it is also one of the defining moments for body horror cinema, and while I had noticed it had bigger things on its mind than being really gross back when I had originally saw it in the earlier part of the 2000s, rewatching it opened up for an even deeper appreciation than I had already had for the film. A lot of that has to do with Jeff Goldblum's performance as Seth Brundle, whose charts his sad descent into becoming a new organism in a consistently surprising way, taking on characteristics and mannerisms without drawing too much attention to himself, which is highly commendable for how much special makeup he winds up having to wear by the end of it. It's the rare kind of eccentricity that tends to resonate a lot more strongly than performances with the same vibe but brushed with broader strokes, and it's a shame that Goldblum didn't get more awards buzz then for a more than deserving performance. There's very little fat to the film as a whole, with a laser-like focus on keeping the scale small but fleshing out what they had, making you really feel for all of the characters and the ordeal they're going through with Brundle's condition. If it's a less surreal and mysterious film than Videodrome, it makes up for it by being much more emotionally connective, which would serve Cronenberg well again for a similar tragic tale on Dead Ringers. It may be easy to forget this at times, but Cronenberg is capable of making you reach for a tissue as much as he'll make you reach for a barf bag.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Saw Airport. There was a lot less action than I expected, and it's not as bloated as Towering Inferno. It's silly, but kind of enjoyable. The editing with the bubbles makes it look a lot less dramatic and more like a parody. Airplane! is better. 6/10
Fancy Clown
Member
Finished watching Alien 3: Assembly Cut. Last third or so was kind of weak, and the ending was too melodramatic for the franchise and didn't really fit with the tone of the movie, but I really enjoyed it. Sue me.
The concept was awesome, the setting was awesome, it even does a brilliant job with the side characters by making them shitty prisoners who you hate except for Charles Dance until
and then they all get developed and become kind of interesting, or at least entertaining.
I can see it being disappointing just because it's so different from Aliens and quickly establishes itself as its own thing, but given its massive production issues I'm astounded they were even able to scrape together a secondary cut this enjoyable. It's not scary at all though, and in fact the alien itself looks like complete and utter shit in everything but the tight close ups. Like bad rotoscoping or something.
So, yeah, Alien 3 isn't nearly as good as Alien or Aliens, but it lives up to it's title; third best.
The concept was awesome, the setting was awesome, it even does a brilliant job with the side characters by making them shitty prisoners who you hate except for Charles Dance until
he gets offed an hour in
I can see it being disappointing just because it's so different from Aliens and quickly establishes itself as its own thing, but given its massive production issues I'm astounded they were even able to scrape together a secondary cut this enjoyable. It's not scary at all though, and in fact the alien itself looks like complete and utter shit in everything but the tight close ups. Like bad rotoscoping or something.
So, yeah, Alien 3 isn't nearly as good as Alien or Aliens, but it lives up to it's title; third best.
Grinchy
Banned
I finally got around to watching Nebraska. I was a little worried about poor performances in the beginning of the movie. The woman who played Will Forte's ex-girlfriend was insultingly bad. The movie just felt cheap as hell for the first 20ish minutes and I considered turning it off.
It did finally get pretty good, though. The mom was so good, and Bruce Dern did a really nice job too. Will Forte wasn't bad but there were some weak moments. Bob Odenkirk felt like a bad casting decision.
It did finally get pretty good, though. The mom was so good, and Bruce Dern did a really nice job too. Will Forte wasn't bad but there were some weak moments. Bob Odenkirk felt like a bad casting decision.
Serpentine
Banned
I kinda just expected a blaxploitation action movie with Black Caesar, but it's more dialed in and more of a straight up crime movie than an action movie. It's also pretty awesome, totally well-made with no money and Fred Williamson has really great screen presence. The movie's raw as hell, and doesn't try to make Tommy Gibbs some likable crime lord dude; he's a pretty awful person! I love the ending, where
. Great stuff.
Hell Up in Harlem was more or less what i was expecting from the first one, and there's not much there past the surface here, it's a pretty straightforward action movie. Definitely made solely because Black Caesar was a hit, so some things just don't make sense (the dad joins the gang and starts wearing crime boss clothing all of a sudden?) but it's still pretty fun to watch. The music is also even more unsubtle than in BC, somehow. Also, I can't find it online but there's an insanely terrible gore shot where Williamson stabs a dude with a flag, it's hilarious because it's so goddamn low budget and they cut away real quick because it looks so bad. I wasn't laughing AT the movies in any case except this one. So, not as good as Black Caesar, but still enjoyable.
he gets beat up and mugged by kids who are essentially like him as a kid, and they leave him to die in the trash with his ledgers, 'cuz that's where all this has brought him in the end
Hell Up in Harlem was more or less what i was expecting from the first one, and there's not much there past the surface here, it's a pretty straightforward action movie. Definitely made solely because Black Caesar was a hit, so some things just don't make sense (the dad joins the gang and starts wearing crime boss clothing all of a sudden?) but it's still pretty fun to watch. The music is also even more unsubtle than in BC, somehow. Also, I can't find it online but there's an insanely terrible gore shot where Williamson stabs a dude with a flag, it's hilarious because it's so goddamn low budget and they cut away real quick because it looks so bad. I wasn't laughing AT the movies in any case except this one. So, not as good as Black Caesar, but still enjoyable.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
On the Town. Lovely little musical with tons of neat dance numbers. It's very difficult not to be charmed by Kelly, but here everyone was very likeable. It just looks like they had a lot of fun making it. 7/10
Messofanego
Banned
Appropriate Behaviour
So, went out and saw this at Curzon Soho. At first I was ehhh but then at the end I was ohhh!
It seemed like a typical post-breakup life crisis movie (w/ 500 Days of Summer-like flashbacks) but with a Persian bisexual framework to it. There are unique moments that framework brings, the dialogue can be funny, there are memorable moments, but that's standard for many indie life crisis romcoms. However, there was something more interesting than Shireen's relationship with sex, parents, and work.
It was more honest to life than most movies. Things get left unresolved, there is unexpected awkwardness, but things change and you're still making the most of it. You're moving on. You're still here, surviving.
At first, I found the ending unsatisfying, but then I realised that was kind of the point.
- Status