-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
PCF at the Movies (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
atomiktoaster
Full House
I left entertained, and if you pressed me, I would say I liked it but I feel bad about liking it. "Gypsy Danger is analog" was too much for me.
wrote this in haste while i was on the phone, but considering further, pacific rim and godzilla (2014) taken together actually make for a pretty interesting comparison since Gareth Edwards, the writer/director of monsters, directed - but did not write - godzilla which was at best mediocre whereas guillermo del toro co-wrote and directed pacific rim which was - in my view at least - quite good.
i know that there were serious problems behind the scenes in godzilla during production and the obstinance of the studio regarding the script actually caused guillermo del toro - the director of pacific rim - to withdraw from discussions about directing. then they bring in a younger, less known director less able to object to the script or exert any authority. and he's left with a pretty basic, empty script.
there isn't a wealth of evidence that gareth edwards is capable of turning out good movies as reliably as del toro, but monsters was very solid and i would bet that whatever creativity he might have otherwise brought to the project was squelched by the studio, which insisted on moving forward with the pre-written script.
of course there was the later suggestion that pacific rim and godzilla could be part of a mutual crossover production. that could be fun if del torro is given final cut. i have a feeling that would be the only way he would be willing to be involved anyway.
i'm looking forward to his next movie, crimson peak:
and this is yet another example of the trailer not really selling the movie very well imo, but my trusting the director to do good with what could be rather middle-of-the-road material, particularly where that director has demonstrated an ability to transcend a genre by exploiting its tropes.
Got 5 minutes into Inside Llewellyn Davies on Saturday before the kids woke up and we abandoned hope of watching a movie. Also have Under The Skin to watch. Maybe next weekend! Interested to see which parts of Glasgow were used for filming. I'm routinely 6-24 months behind these days
I rate del Torro. He good.
I rate del Torro. He good.
man, i envy you. to watch under the skin for the first time again would be a dream. it maintains on subsequent viewings, but that first one was really incredible.
llewyn davis is a different story. on first watch, i was a little disappointed and thought it was not quite up to the coens' other stuff. but i was wrong and a second and third viewing turned me around. i don't think this was the universal experience, though - i know several people who really loved it straight away.
del toro is a boss. i would rank his stuff (that i've seen) as: pan's labyrinth > hellboy 2 > pacific rim > cronos > hellboy > blade 2 > mimic.
It's funny - rewatching movies is an alien concept for me. Just do not get the time. Lucky to watch a film once. Rarer to watch one from start to finish without interruption!
I cannot not recommend having children highly enough!
I cannot not recommend having children highly enough!
manamongkids
Full House
Last three movies I saw
John Wick - entertaining thriller with a man on fire/taken type of vibe, I enjoyed it and didnt have to think too much
Gone Girl - had high expectations, but meh. great idea, execution was poopy. I know it was based on a book that I did not read, but that ending stunk
Hunger Games Mockingjay part 1 - had seen the first 2 and again, I did not read the books, I was hoping for a similar movie to the first 2 and was disappointed, borrrrrrring
those are my roeper-like movie reviews. enjoy!
John Wick - entertaining thriller with a man on fire/taken type of vibe, I enjoyed it and didnt have to think too much
Gone Girl - had high expectations, but meh. great idea, execution was poopy. I know it was based on a book that I did not read, but that ending stunk
Hunger Games Mockingjay part 1 - had seen the first 2 and again, I did not read the books, I was hoping for a similar movie to the first 2 and was disappointed, borrrrrrring
those are my roeper-like movie reviews. enjoy!
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I really had fun with this movie. I loved the constant reloading of his weapons throughout the movie. Just don't get to see that very often.
If you liked this movie. "The Man From Nowhere" is a must see. The third act is one of my favorite actions sequences of all time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527788/?ref_=nv_sr_1
The action scenes don't employ that shaky camera bullshit. A very fun film to experience.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
i guess i forgot to mention it here, but i saw the documentary Amy about Amy Winehouse a couple weeks ago. it was directed by the same guy who did Senna which everyone else seems to have loved, but which i still haven't seen for some reason.
Amy was good, but not great. i seem to hear a lot of "i didn't know what a great voice she had/great writer she was/etc." i had sort of the opposite reaction. i'd always assumed she was talented because of some of the praise she got from people i consider good barometers of taste, but i'd never listened because her stuff just didn't grab me. seeing it here, i think she really could have used proper vocal training. she clearly has some natural ability, but a little proper training could have made it a thousand times better imo. her writing, however, does seem remarkable.
as to the actual movie, i really like the style. the entire film is old footage of Amy with voiceovers of interviews of her and various other relevant parties. presented chronologically, the effect is quite good in that it allows you to watch her grow and then devolve which of course is sad, but also seems to be an accurate depiction. there's not a ton of talking heads telling you why you should like her which to me is sort of the kiss of death for documentaries about any subject. it presents its subject - Amy - very naturally and for the most part allows the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions.
however, the sum of all the parts add up to something of a very good behind the music rather than a very good film. it doesn't really tell all that much more than i would have probably been able to remember on my own not even having followed her career very closely. i'm not sure who to recommend it to, then. people like me who have no real interest in Amy Winehouse don't get a lot out of it because there's just not a lot to present. people who adore Amy already know most everything it presents (apart from some bits with her father which have evidently sparked controversy).
i guess i would say watch it if you want to see an elevated behind the music, but don't expect much more.
Amy was good, but not great. i seem to hear a lot of "i didn't know what a great voice she had/great writer she was/etc." i had sort of the opposite reaction. i'd always assumed she was talented because of some of the praise she got from people i consider good barometers of taste, but i'd never listened because her stuff just didn't grab me. seeing it here, i think she really could have used proper vocal training. she clearly has some natural ability, but a little proper training could have made it a thousand times better imo. her writing, however, does seem remarkable.
as to the actual movie, i really like the style. the entire film is old footage of Amy with voiceovers of interviews of her and various other relevant parties. presented chronologically, the effect is quite good in that it allows you to watch her grow and then devolve which of course is sad, but also seems to be an accurate depiction. there's not a ton of talking heads telling you why you should like her which to me is sort of the kiss of death for documentaries about any subject. it presents its subject - Amy - very naturally and for the most part allows the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions.
however, the sum of all the parts add up to something of a very good behind the music rather than a very good film. it doesn't really tell all that much more than i would have probably been able to remember on my own not even having followed her career very closely. i'm not sure who to recommend it to, then. people like me who have no real interest in Amy Winehouse don't get a lot out of it because there's just not a lot to present. people who adore Amy already know most everything it presents (apart from some bits with her father which have evidently sparked controversy).
i guess i would say watch it if you want to see an elevated behind the music, but don't expect much more.
i'm a few days late with a mini-review, but i saw Southpaw with Jake Gyllenhaal last weekend.
someone recently posed the question of whether a good performance by an actor could make a bad movie good. i'm not sure, but Southpaw is the perfect example of a stellar performance elevating a mediocre movie into a very enjoyable one. Jake Gyllenhaal has gotten to the point where i'm at the very least going to take a look at whatever project he takes on. i can't say i'll see everything - a a recent romantic comedy, for instance, looks horrible as most romantic comedies do and i'm sure i won't bother.
but something like Southpaw - a completely typical, mediocre film with nothing to distinguish it apart from its cast - is made into an entirely different film when you can watch someone turn in a performance like Gyllenhaal's. of course you have the beyond talented Forest Whitaker in a supporting role and that never hurts either. but it's Jake who keeps your attention on a movie that is nothing more than a paint-by-numbers script of a prizefighter's fall and comeback.
there is literally not a single scene that will have you on the edge of your seat in suspense. you will see every turn of the plot coming a mile away. but it's all still worth watching to see a great performance by someone who is turning out to be one of the best actors working today.
someone recently posed the question of whether a good performance by an actor could make a bad movie good. i'm not sure, but Southpaw is the perfect example of a stellar performance elevating a mediocre movie into a very enjoyable one. Jake Gyllenhaal has gotten to the point where i'm at the very least going to take a look at whatever project he takes on. i can't say i'll see everything - a a recent romantic comedy, for instance, looks horrible as most romantic comedies do and i'm sure i won't bother.
but something like Southpaw - a completely typical, mediocre film with nothing to distinguish it apart from its cast - is made into an entirely different film when you can watch someone turn in a performance like Gyllenhaal's. of course you have the beyond talented Forest Whitaker in a supporting role and that never hurts either. but it's Jake who keeps your attention on a movie that is nothing more than a paint-by-numbers script of a prizefighter's fall and comeback.
there is literally not a single scene that will have you on the edge of your seat in suspense. you will see every turn of the plot coming a mile away. but it's all still worth watching to see a great performance by someone who is turning out to be one of the best actors working today.
tommythecat
Flush
I have been wondering about this one a bit. It seems like all the plot points were wrapped up in the trailer. Or is it a trailer that makes you think it is giving too much away, but really only showing events in the first 5 minutes?
yeah the plot is not the strength of the movie at all. as you suspected, the trailer shows pretty much the whole thing. still i say it's worth the watch to see gyllenhaal.
tommythecat
Flush
Cool, will keep it on the list.
bunch of articles being posted over the last week about Kids since it's the 20th anniversary (see the oral history in Rolling Stone here and an interesting enough article on the Concourse/Deadspine here). hard to believe it's been 20 years. i remember buying tickets at 15 with a friend and not getting carded despite the fact that it was rated NC-17 and my dad was sitting in the car behind us at the box office so i could tell him when to come pick us up.
it was harmony korine and larry clark's first movie and my first exposure to either. i didn't follow clark as closely, but korine has ended up being one of my favorite directors. that's not to say that his films have ended up being my favorite films (though a couple have), but they are always the most interesting thing in the theater when they're out.
it was also my introduction to lou barlow as a solo artist or an artist in any capacity apart from his band sebadoh and i ended up listening to a looooot of that first folk implosion album over the next couple years (which still holds up to this day imo).
anyway, the DVD is out of print and they never put out a blu ray, so it's not easy to get a hold of, but i have a copy someplace and i'm going to put it on this weekend.
it was harmony korine and larry clark's first movie and my first exposure to either. i didn't follow clark as closely, but korine has ended up being one of my favorite directors. that's not to say that his films have ended up being my favorite films (though a couple have), but they are always the most interesting thing in the theater when they're out.
it was also my introduction to lou barlow as a solo artist or an artist in any capacity apart from his band sebadoh and i ended up listening to a looooot of that first folk implosion album over the next couple years (which still holds up to this day imo).
anyway, the DVD is out of print and they never put out a blu ray, so it's not easy to get a hold of, but i have a copy someplace and i'm going to put it on this weekend.
wrote the below in an email, but figured i'd put it out here as well since i've been rewatching all of harmony korine's stuff. lots of highs, some lows, but almost always compelling and definitely always more interesting than 99% of anything else out there.
have you guys seen most of harmony's movies? you've prob seen kids which he wrote and which was directed by larry clark (infamous photographer who shoots lots of kids and junkies and sex workers).
his movies are mostly non-actors or artists who rarely act and all just really out there and atmospheric and uncomfortable.
watch them in this order (trailers linked from titles):
kids (accessible but still indicative of how fucked up he is)
gummo (following fucked up people in white trash ghettos of nashville)
trash humpers (people in masks hump trash and get crazy filmed on vhs)
spring breakers (bikini chicks in ski masks with guns in florida)
julien donkey boy (schizophrenic visuals, dogme 95 certified)
mister lonely (michael jackson impersonator in paris)
ken park (teenagers get high and fuck a lot in unsimulated sex scenes)
or i guess just watch the trailers and see which ones look good. my favorites are spring breakers and gummo then prob trash humpers and julien donkey boy.
have you guys seen most of harmony's movies? you've prob seen kids which he wrote and which was directed by larry clark (infamous photographer who shoots lots of kids and junkies and sex workers).
his movies are mostly non-actors or artists who rarely act and all just really out there and atmospheric and uncomfortable.
watch them in this order (trailers linked from titles):
kids (accessible but still indicative of how fucked up he is)
gummo (following fucked up people in white trash ghettos of nashville)
trash humpers (people in masks hump trash and get crazy filmed on vhs)
spring breakers (bikini chicks in ski masks with guns in florida)
julien donkey boy (schizophrenic visuals, dogme 95 certified)
mister lonely (michael jackson impersonator in paris)
ken park (teenagers get high and fuck a lot in unsimulated sex scenes)
or i guess just watch the trailers and see which ones look good. my favorites are spring breakers and gummo then prob trash humpers and julien donkey boy.
Kids is good but Gummo is brilliant imo... I really liked JDB and Spring Breakers as well but I put 'em behind Gummo for sure... I haven't watched the other ones...
yeah i agree. but there's something in the visceral experience of the spring breakers and the way it corrupts traditional narrative in the context of what seems superficially to be a typical movie that i really love.
my "watch in this order" list wasn't intended to be my ranking, but rather what order might be more enjoyable for someone who's never seen most of his movies. my real ranking would probably be:
spring breakers > gummo > julien donkey boy > trash humpers > kids > mister lonely > ken park
not just with harmony, but with many artists i've often wondered which of their works i would regard as most representative of their voice if they were all released simultaneously. it's tempting to say gummo because it was so striking on initial release, but i actually think JDB is probably closer in spirit to what he is generally trying to do as a filmmaker.
I think you're "watch in this order' list was absolutely spot on, although I haven't watched the last two on it, which based on your preference list might not be a huge mistake
I also agree Gummo and JDB (and Kids for that matter) are what I believe HK spirit is all about... Spring Breakers was one of my favorite movies of the past couple of years and it feels like a combination of HK universe intertwine with a world people can relate to... Great movie but I'm one of those crazies for whom watching Gummo was one of the most unique movies experiences I've ever had...
I think you're "watch in this order' list was absolutely spot on, although I haven't watched the last two on it, which based on your preference list might not be a huge mistake
I also agree Gummo and JDB (and Kids for that matter) are what I believe HK spirit is all about... Spring Breakers was one of my favorite movies of the past couple of years and it feels like a combination of HK universe intertwine with a world people can relate to... Great movie but I'm one of those crazies for whom watching Gummo was one of the most unique movies experiences I've ever had...
yeah mister lonely is probably the least interesting of his movies, but it's still worth seeing imo. ken park is a larry clark film with harmony on the script (as was the case with kids) and it has a similar vibe, but set on the west coast rather than in NYC in the 90s.
i saw gummo at a pretty influential time in my life. i think as effecting as the substance of the movie was, it was almost more important that a lot of my friends liked it as well. previous to that - and obviously prior to the internet - i didn't really have anyone to discuss movies or art with because no one was all that interested. after gummo it seemed like more of my friends were willing to take chances in what to watch/listen to/etc. so it began a new kind of social experience with movies where i'd previously just checked stuff out of the library and the only discussion to be had was reading film comment or something.
Kevin Costner
New Member
I always thought this one was really underrated.
Shameless self-promotion on the part of Mr. Costner there. We were expecting an apology, goddammit!!!
I think that Waterworld belongs in the Movies That Were Shit At The Time You Saw Them And Are Even Shitter With Time thread.
I think that Waterworld belongs in the Movies That Were Shit At The Time You Saw Them And Are Even Shitter With Time thread.
manamongkids
Full House
was just thinking about this thread and your yearly movie intake via theaters. how much do you spend a year on seeing movies in theaters? do you get food everytime?
I dont enjoy going to the movies as much as i used to. only really see the big action movies in theaters and the comic book movies, even if they are garbage
detroitdad
Royal Flush
My son and I used to go once a month. The first showing on SAT mornings were affordable. Then we would hit lunch. Now we might hit the theater a few times a year. We see most movies. Just stream/DL them
i guess i would say on average i see 1.5 movies per week in the theater at an average cost of about $11 each. i never buy food/drink at the theater, so no cost there, but i commute into the city to see movies that will not get a wider release and that's probably $60ish each time (sometimes drive/park, sometimes train/cab). i guess overall i spend somewhere in the range of $1500 a year including all of the above.
i much prefer seeing movies in theaters to watching at home in significant part because i'm forced to watch the movie and not pause it to pee or eat or check my phone, etc.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
My son and I have been watching a high than usual number of foreign flicks (S. Korea, Chinese, ect...) with sub titles. This kind of forces us pay attention. I like it. Unless its a movie we've seen before I plug my phone in the other room to charge and forget about it. When your screwing off while a movie is on you don't realize how much of it you're actually missing.
manamongkids
Full House
Lol @ the phone comments, Im a huge stickler for paying attention in movies. My wife IS THE WORST offender. She'll suggest a movie to watch that we both have never seen. She will be playing on her phone then ask me 10x what she missed and what happened. I have never ever ever ever answered her. I tell her to put the fucking phone away and pay attention. DRIVES ME BANANAS
detroitdad
Royal Flush
My wife does the same thing, but fucks around on the laptop. I treat it the same way. Watch the damn movie.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
