detroitdad
Royal Flush
Watching Wargames. Hoping it's as good as I remember
-
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 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
bergs
Royal Flush
War Dogs was fairly entertaining. Haven't read much about AEY and how closely the movie was to the real story but acting was solid and it was a fun watch.
Almost saw this one as well. I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually. I kind of like Miles Teller, probably more so because every millennial seems to think he's a giant douche nowadays.
Saw Imperium with Daniel Radcliffe the other night.
This is getting a limited theatrical release, but is also available through video on demand. Daniel Radcliffe is a young FBI agent, a black sheep introvert among a bunch of more typical cop types. He's primarily targeting Islamic terrorism until he's approached by an older female agent for a possible undercover job within a white power organization believed to have ties to domestic terrorism.
As he gets into the job we are shown the various groups within white supremacy: the skinheads, the neo-nazis, the KKK, and a few other stray offshoots. There's plenty of white knuckle tension, but what's most enjoyable is considering how the filmmakers frame you to make assumptions about one group or another and manipulate your sympathies.
Daniel Radcliffe is good, but you won't find a performance here as strong as Edward Norton in American History X. And the filmmaking is solid, but you won't find subtly built fear as all encompassing as what you feel in Arlington Road. But either of those films would make a great double bill and Imperium is certainly worth watching.
------------------------------
Also watched the Point Break remake (which I complained about here when the trailer was released). Not that it takes any great Kreskin to have known, but damn was I right that this is a piece of shit.
It is totally and completely without balls as a film, which is pathetic for a movie ostensibly about "extreme" sports. Of course the "villains" in this reimagined nonsense have to be virtuous, giving all the money they steal to the poor. And of course "Utah" (whose name isn't Utah anymore - it's a nickname because his mother was a Ute indian) has to have a traumatic experience of losing a friend in the first 3 minutes of the movie so we feel sorry for him. And of course Gary Busey's character can't be funny and fucked up anymore - he has to be a serious hard ass.
The director wants to be Michael Bay so bad. I imagine he had a conniption when he was told not to use lens flares. The action is somewhat competently directed, but the only scene that is really fun to watch is the glide suit jump. I lost track of how many music montages there were. The film is intent on communicating an aesthetic and the story serves the aesthetic rather than the other way around, which is fine for a movie like Spring Breakers or The Tree of Life because those movies are about atmosphere and tone and emotion. This is a genre movie, but instead wants to be a Volcom promo film.
If this were a current release it would be a major contender for worst movie of the year.
This is getting a limited theatrical release, but is also available through video on demand. Daniel Radcliffe is a young FBI agent, a black sheep introvert among a bunch of more typical cop types. He's primarily targeting Islamic terrorism until he's approached by an older female agent for a possible undercover job within a white power organization believed to have ties to domestic terrorism.
As he gets into the job we are shown the various groups within white supremacy: the skinheads, the neo-nazis, the KKK, and a few other stray offshoots. There's plenty of white knuckle tension, but what's most enjoyable is considering how the filmmakers frame you to make assumptions about one group or another and manipulate your sympathies.
Daniel Radcliffe is good, but you won't find a performance here as strong as Edward Norton in American History X. And the filmmaking is solid, but you won't find subtly built fear as all encompassing as what you feel in Arlington Road. But either of those films would make a great double bill and Imperium is certainly worth watching.
------------------------------
Also watched the Point Break remake (which I complained about here when the trailer was released). Not that it takes any great Kreskin to have known, but damn was I right that this is a piece of shit.
It is totally and completely without balls as a film, which is pathetic for a movie ostensibly about "extreme" sports. Of course the "villains" in this reimagined nonsense have to be virtuous, giving all the money they steal to the poor. And of course "Utah" (whose name isn't Utah anymore - it's a nickname because his mother was a Ute indian) has to have a traumatic experience of losing a friend in the first 3 minutes of the movie so we feel sorry for him. And of course Gary Busey's character can't be funny and fucked up anymore - he has to be a serious hard ass.
The director wants to be Michael Bay so bad. I imagine he had a conniption when he was told not to use lens flares. The action is somewhat competently directed, but the only scene that is really fun to watch is the glide suit jump. I lost track of how many music montages there were. The film is intent on communicating an aesthetic and the story serves the aesthetic rather than the other way around, which is fine for a movie like Spring Breakers or The Tree of Life because those movies are about atmosphere and tone and emotion. This is a genre movie, but instead wants to be a Volcom promo film.
If this were a current release it would be a major contender for worst movie of the year.
bergs
Royal Flush
Point Break is one of those movies that you DO NOT redo. The original was quirkily perfect. I refuse to see the new one.
Chicken Rob
Full House
I didn't care that much for the original. I really have no interest in the remake, but am now curious to revisit the original and see if I change my mind.
The original is one of my favorite movies. I'd be shocked if you didn't love it on rewatch. It's maybe the prototypical 90s action crime film.
tommythecat
Flush
Watching Hot Fuzz (which I do with some regularity) always makes me want to watch both Point Break and Bad Boys 2. Haven't watched either in many years.
I've got to rewatch both Bad Boys movies sometime soon. Right there with you on Hot Fuzz, though. I watched it a couple of months ago most recently, but have seen it many times and it always delivers. All of the Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright movies are phenomenal imo.
Saw Don't Breathe tonight and holy christ that was fun.
Don't feel like writing a whole thing, but if you like horror/suspense movies, this is certainly one of the better ones over the past several years. And one of the most genius things about the movie is that everyone is a dirtbag, so you can't know for sure who "deserves" to die according to the logic of the movie and therefore you really don't know how it will end until the very end.
Tons of fun.
Don't feel like writing a whole thing, but if you like horror/suspense movies, this is certainly one of the better ones over the past several years. And one of the most genius things about the movie is that everyone is a dirtbag, so you can't know for sure who "deserves" to die according to the logic of the movie and therefore you really don't know how it will end until the very end.
Tons of fun.
Since Anthony is back in the news with his very smart texting, no better time than the present to watch or rewatch Weiner, one of the best movies of the year.
Saw Blood Father this weekend.
The story isn't extraordinarily complex: Mel Gibson is a recently released and recently sober felon trying to put something of a life back together as a tattoo artist in the middle of a California desert with a group of twelve steppers whose strategy for staying sober is evidently the sheer geographic distance they've placed between themselves and the booze. Mel's also been looking for years for a daughter who went missing and it's no spoiler to say that he finds her since she shows up in the first scene of the movie. The rest of the film is spent with Mel trying to get his daughter out of the trouble she found herself in by becoming romantically involved with a Mexican drug cartel associate.
If you miss the gun-heavy action movies of the 90s, you'll like it. Maybe because of the gun debates going on for the past several years, it seems these types of movies have been out of production, which is too bad. I love a good semi-mindless action movie with lots of shooting and violence. And even those that fall generally within that category are relatively toothless because they know a movie will be more profitable with a PG-13 rating than with an R.
But Blood Father is a hard R movie. Lots of graphic violence a probably more coarse language than would be allowed in a PG-13 movie as well. Which isn't just debauchery for the sake of debauchery - it's a more realistic portrayal of the action as it occurs in the semi-reality of the film. The script is good and the acting above average with the exceptions of Mel who is excellent and William H. Macy who is always perfect. Probably more of a lazy Sunday couch affair than a theater watch, but a good time nonetheless.
EDIT: Meant to include a link to Manohla Dargis' surprisingly glowing review in the NYT.
The story isn't extraordinarily complex: Mel Gibson is a recently released and recently sober felon trying to put something of a life back together as a tattoo artist in the middle of a California desert with a group of twelve steppers whose strategy for staying sober is evidently the sheer geographic distance they've placed between themselves and the booze. Mel's also been looking for years for a daughter who went missing and it's no spoiler to say that he finds her since she shows up in the first scene of the movie. The rest of the film is spent with Mel trying to get his daughter out of the trouble she found herself in by becoming romantically involved with a Mexican drug cartel associate.
If you miss the gun-heavy action movies of the 90s, you'll like it. Maybe because of the gun debates going on for the past several years, it seems these types of movies have been out of production, which is too bad. I love a good semi-mindless action movie with lots of shooting and violence. And even those that fall generally within that category are relatively toothless because they know a movie will be more profitable with a PG-13 rating than with an R.
But Blood Father is a hard R movie. Lots of graphic violence a probably more coarse language than would be allowed in a PG-13 movie as well. Which isn't just debauchery for the sake of debauchery - it's a more realistic portrayal of the action as it occurs in the semi-reality of the film. The script is good and the acting above average with the exceptions of Mel who is excellent and William H. Macy who is always perfect. Probably more of a lazy Sunday couch affair than a theater watch, but a good time nonetheless.
EDIT: Meant to include a link to Manohla Dargis' surprisingly glowing review in the NYT.
Last edited:
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I agree. It was mostly mindless fun. I love a good "R" action flick with guns a blazing. Spot on about the acting. Gibson was fantastic. He sold me on his anger management issues
Macy is one of my favorite actors. He is just fun to watch. I kept trying to place where I had seen the actress that played his daughter. Couldn't figure it out so I had to IMBD it. She was the daughter in "The Watch". Then we had to stream that.
If anyone wants to see something absolutely heart-wrenching and stunningly beautiful, definitely go see The Light Between Oceans.
I'm not one for period pieces and not usually one for melodramas and this certainly is the former and smacks of the latter, but it fully transcends any of the limitations that would ordinarily attach to movies in those categories. I don't read much contemporary fiction, so I didn't even know what the book was about, but it almost (but not quite) makes me want to bring "literary fiction" (a completely loathsome designation) back into my life.
Michael Fassbender has returned from WWI to Australia and is appropriately emotionally cold having seen what he's seen on the Western Front. He takes a job as a lighthouse operator and woos (and is wooed by in an interesting bit of role switching) Alicia Vikander. They marry and she joins him on the island that supports the lighthouse some 100 miles from civilization. I hesitate to give anything beyond the nuts and bolts of the plot because I walked in relatively clueless and loved it that way, so that's all I'll say.
No one is surprised that Michael Fassbender can act the fuck out of anything, but Alicia Vikander is unbelievable. I didn't see The Danish Girl, so perhaps I'm late to the gam, but she is much more talented than I realized. It takes more than most actors have to match Fassbender on screen and she is fully his equal.
Maybe as good a film as any I've seen this year.
Next: Morgan.
Almost exactly what you expect from the preview; nothing more, nothing less. A totally middle of the road combination of Hanna and Ex Machina (both better films by miles and I wasn't nearly as happy with Ex Machina as most) and with one of the most telegraphed twists I've ever seen.
I can't think of a single aspect of the film that stands out as notably good or bad. I guess that could be an achievement and if the central premise of the movie were more interesting, I might agree. As it was, though, I mostly just sat idly and waited for it to end.
I'm not one for period pieces and not usually one for melodramas and this certainly is the former and smacks of the latter, but it fully transcends any of the limitations that would ordinarily attach to movies in those categories. I don't read much contemporary fiction, so I didn't even know what the book was about, but it almost (but not quite) makes me want to bring "literary fiction" (a completely loathsome designation) back into my life.
Michael Fassbender has returned from WWI to Australia and is appropriately emotionally cold having seen what he's seen on the Western Front. He takes a job as a lighthouse operator and woos (and is wooed by in an interesting bit of role switching) Alicia Vikander. They marry and she joins him on the island that supports the lighthouse some 100 miles from civilization. I hesitate to give anything beyond the nuts and bolts of the plot because I walked in relatively clueless and loved it that way, so that's all I'll say.
No one is surprised that Michael Fassbender can act the fuck out of anything, but Alicia Vikander is unbelievable. I didn't see The Danish Girl, so perhaps I'm late to the gam, but she is much more talented than I realized. It takes more than most actors have to match Fassbender on screen and she is fully his equal.
Maybe as good a film as any I've seen this year.
Next: Morgan.
Almost exactly what you expect from the preview; nothing more, nothing less. A totally middle of the road combination of Hanna and Ex Machina (both better films by miles and I wasn't nearly as happy with Ex Machina as most) and with one of the most telegraphed twists I've ever seen.
I can't think of a single aspect of the film that stands out as notably good or bad. I guess that could be an achievement and if the central premise of the movie were more interesting, I might agree. As it was, though, I mostly just sat idly and waited for it to end.
Ellasdaddy
Flush
Agreed on Fassbender and Ex Machina.
Fassbender has long been on my list of people who I'd watch paint a fence for 2 hours.
I wanted so much more from Ex Machina. I felt like there was a truly deep character study just bubbling below the surface and it never emerged. Loved the concept, aesthetics and the ending, but it left me feeling empty and wondering what could've been. Didn't help that I'd already seen an episode of Black Mirror also starring Domnhall Gleeson who's story was extremely similar.
Fassbender has long been on my list of people who I'd watch paint a fence for 2 hours.
I wanted so much more from Ex Machina. I felt like there was a truly deep character study just bubbling below the surface and it never emerged. Loved the concept, aesthetics and the ending, but it left me feeling empty and wondering what could've been. Didn't help that I'd already seen an episode of Black Mirror also starring Domnhall Gleeson who's story was extremely similar.
Saw Yoga Hosers this weekend as well.
I had no idea what this movie was or what it was about, only that it was the new Kevin Smith movie. My history with Kevin Smith is probably similar to a lot of people's: I adored Clerks, liked Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma, but thought he'd sort of fallen off quite a bit after that. But then he did Red State, which I loved and I thought perhaps he was embracing the wave of genre-film love that has come through in the past several years.
Unfortunately he followed that with Tusk which was one of the worst movies of the year. Still, I thought it was admirable that he would go balls out for a concept like that and that he might continue trying genre concepts. He would also be a good candidate for those movies because even though he's rich as fuck now, he's a blue collar guy at heart without a lot of the pretentious attitude that makes a lot of filmmakers try to look smart rather than just have fun.
Sadly, Yoga Hosers is even worse than Tusk. Not only is it far and away Kevin Smith's worst film, it's the first of his that makes clear he is making movies for a very, very narrow audience of pure fanboys and Smodcast listeners who think they're in on the joke, but who are really just being taken for a ride. It was horrible. Brutally horrible. I'm sure the defense is that it's supposed to be an absurd, dumb movie dreamed up while he was high. The problem is that he evidently made it when he was high as well because everything is a mess: the camera work, the blocking, etc.
But honestly those technical things would have virtually no impact on the film if it were capable of achieving it's minimal goal of emulating an 80s-style mini-creature film (Ghoulies, Critters, Munchies, Gremlins, etc.). I would have loved to see something like that. And the bar isn't high, but even the pacing of the film is quite obviously off from the very first scene.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, but it was very disappointing. I wonder if I'll be in the theater for his next one.
I had no idea what this movie was or what it was about, only that it was the new Kevin Smith movie. My history with Kevin Smith is probably similar to a lot of people's: I adored Clerks, liked Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma, but thought he'd sort of fallen off quite a bit after that. But then he did Red State, which I loved and I thought perhaps he was embracing the wave of genre-film love that has come through in the past several years.
Unfortunately he followed that with Tusk which was one of the worst movies of the year. Still, I thought it was admirable that he would go balls out for a concept like that and that he might continue trying genre concepts. He would also be a good candidate for those movies because even though he's rich as fuck now, he's a blue collar guy at heart without a lot of the pretentious attitude that makes a lot of filmmakers try to look smart rather than just have fun.
Sadly, Yoga Hosers is even worse than Tusk. Not only is it far and away Kevin Smith's worst film, it's the first of his that makes clear he is making movies for a very, very narrow audience of pure fanboys and Smodcast listeners who think they're in on the joke, but who are really just being taken for a ride. It was horrible. Brutally horrible. I'm sure the defense is that it's supposed to be an absurd, dumb movie dreamed up while he was high. The problem is that he evidently made it when he was high as well because everything is a mess: the camera work, the blocking, etc.
But honestly those technical things would have virtually no impact on the film if it were capable of achieving it's minimal goal of emulating an 80s-style mini-creature film (Ghoulies, Critters, Munchies, Gremlins, etc.). I would have loved to see something like that. And the bar isn't high, but even the pacing of the film is quite obviously off from the very first scene.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, but it was very disappointing. I wonder if I'll be in the theater for his next one.
Saw Sully last night.
I was a little ambivalent about the movie, but with little knowledge of the incident, I thought it might be interesting to learn about a controversy I was unaware even existed. All I knew was that Sully avoided crashing a plane into NYC by successfully effecting a water landing on the Hudson River with no loss of life. Apparently there was much concern after the fact about whether he was correct in doing so and whether he actually could have made it back to LaGuardia to land more safely. If you know all the details and the answers to the above questions perhaps the movie would be less interesting, but I didn't and so was hearing it all for the first time.
The film itself is kind of a hodgepodge. There are numerous surreal sequences depicting Sully's clouded, stressed mind following the event and his frequent mid-day spaceouts drawing him back into what might have happened. By design, you sometimes don't know how objectively you're seeing the world because you're always seeing it through Sully's eyes. I'm not sure, though, that I can write off some of the more stilted, standard-issue characters and the routine "one man versus the world" story arc.
But the good news. Other characters' flatness is only made more apparent by Tom Hanks' pitch perfect performance. He is superb and completely immersed in the role, which I suppose isn't news to anyone. Aaron Eckhart - who is almost always good - also turns in a solid, steady turn here. And the score is beautifully subtle. Mostly a spare piano vamping over a theme evidently composed by Clint Eastwood. I'm torn on the direction. In small segments, it's precise and workmanlike and does an excellent job at focusing us on the inner lives of the characters during a time that was so much about the outward appearances. But other times it draws attention to the flaws in the writing and the performances of small roles.
I've seen it said that this is Eastwood's best film since Million Dollar Baby. I don't know how much that means. Since then he's produced bland and unremarkable films (Flags of Our Fathers, Changeling, Invictus) and irritatingly indulgent films (Hereafter, American Sniper, Jersey Boys). I guess more than anything the comment is intended to put down "controversial" films like Gran Torino and American Sniper. The latter I disliked tremendously, but the former I liked quite a bit and think is a better overall film than Sully.
More than praise for Sully himself, though, the movie is a tribute to professionalism. It's a proud and impressive moment when the film shows not only the pilot doing the right thing, but all the other public servants being there and doing the job when it counts.
Oh and one more very positive thing: the movie is 96 minutes long, which should be a lesson that every semi-biographical film doesn't have to be epic length to be good.
I was a little ambivalent about the movie, but with little knowledge of the incident, I thought it might be interesting to learn about a controversy I was unaware even existed. All I knew was that Sully avoided crashing a plane into NYC by successfully effecting a water landing on the Hudson River with no loss of life. Apparently there was much concern after the fact about whether he was correct in doing so and whether he actually could have made it back to LaGuardia to land more safely. If you know all the details and the answers to the above questions perhaps the movie would be less interesting, but I didn't and so was hearing it all for the first time.
The film itself is kind of a hodgepodge. There are numerous surreal sequences depicting Sully's clouded, stressed mind following the event and his frequent mid-day spaceouts drawing him back into what might have happened. By design, you sometimes don't know how objectively you're seeing the world because you're always seeing it through Sully's eyes. I'm not sure, though, that I can write off some of the more stilted, standard-issue characters and the routine "one man versus the world" story arc.
But the good news. Other characters' flatness is only made more apparent by Tom Hanks' pitch perfect performance. He is superb and completely immersed in the role, which I suppose isn't news to anyone. Aaron Eckhart - who is almost always good - also turns in a solid, steady turn here. And the score is beautifully subtle. Mostly a spare piano vamping over a theme evidently composed by Clint Eastwood. I'm torn on the direction. In small segments, it's precise and workmanlike and does an excellent job at focusing us on the inner lives of the characters during a time that was so much about the outward appearances. But other times it draws attention to the flaws in the writing and the performances of small roles.
I've seen it said that this is Eastwood's best film since Million Dollar Baby. I don't know how much that means. Since then he's produced bland and unremarkable films (Flags of Our Fathers, Changeling, Invictus) and irritatingly indulgent films (Hereafter, American Sniper, Jersey Boys). I guess more than anything the comment is intended to put down "controversial" films like Gran Torino and American Sniper. The latter I disliked tremendously, but the former I liked quite a bit and think is a better overall film than Sully.
More than praise for Sully himself, though, the movie is a tribute to professionalism. It's a proud and impressive moment when the film shows not only the pilot doing the right thing, but all the other public servants being there and doing the job when it counts.
Oh and one more very positive thing: the movie is 96 minutes long, which should be a lesson that every semi-biographical film doesn't have to be epic length to be good.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
We watched "The Shallows" tonight. Not to bad. Second best shark movie since "Jaws". Its basically surfer chick Blake Lively vs a giant great white shark. 90 minute movie which I appreciate. slightly suspenseful at times. The shark is all CGI and mostly solid. There are a few instances where it looks computer generated.
If you have 90 minutes and like this kind of flick I recommend it.
Plus we get to see B. Lively in a bikini for most of the flick.
If you have 90 minutes and like this kind of flick I recommend it.
Plus we get to see B. Lively in a bikini for most of the flick.
Saw Blair Witch and Snowden last night.
Production of this one began as a movie called "The Woods" and I was super psyched for it since it was being directed by Adam Wingard who had directed a couple great movies over the past several years: You're Next and The Guest. Unfortunately, when it premiered at Comic-Con it was revealed that The Woods was actually Blair Witch. I was pretty bummed, but knew I'd see it since it's directed by Adam Wingard and it didn't hurt that I loved and had recently rewatched the original (which actually did come close to matching the original watch in quality with several years between viewings).
This is being billed as a remake, but it clearly is not. It's more a direct sequel (ignoring the abortion of a sequel that was released in 2000) as it follows the younger brother of Heather from the original film who is still on the hunt to find or find out what happened to his sister. It's very well structured as a pure found footage film and takes smart advantage of what kind of recording gear would be accessible to the people in the film.
I would say the bulk of the movie is good, but that the last 15 minutes or so is spectacularly scary and smartly ties itself together without answering everything so clearly that the movie doesn't warrant any further thought or discussion. Certainly very few movies will match the experience of watching the original for the first time at the time of release when so little was known about the truth of the film, but at the very least this one caught a piece of its spirit.
The original trailer made me think I would hate it due to Joseph Gordon-Levitt's laughable attempt at a Snowden imitation and Rhys Ifans' ridiculously villainous portrayal of a CIA operative and instructor. But it's Oliver Stone and I'm just going to see anything he releases period, so I paid my $12.
What a mixed bag it turned out to be. I certainly didn't hate all of it. The portions of the film dealing with Snowden's professional life were great propaganda pieces. I don't mean that in a pejorative way. There are plenty of propagandistic advocacy films that are worth watching even if you disagree with the agenda being pushed. And this is one of the better ones, at least when limited to the portions of the film dealing with Snowden's job and his leaking of information. It's way, way, way over the top, but that's why it works as a propaganda piece and why it's clearly not intended to simply be a dramatic film.
But it is an extraordinary failure dealing with his personal life. I can not imagine caring about anything less than Edward Snowden's personal relationships and the movie does nothing to convince me I should. Shailene Woodley is as bad as she typically is, but I don't know that I can blame her because JGL - who is capable of great performances - also flounders with the material and with Stone's direction.
Stone also makes a bizarre artistic choice at the end of the film that I can't understand. I won't spoil it (even though most won't care), but I will say that it is almost embarrassing. And the song Peter Gabriel wrote and recorded for the film and which appears over the end credits is embarrassing - and I mean horribly cringe-inducing. Here's a sampling of the lyrics.
Some say you're a patriot
Some call you a spy
An American hero
Or a traitor that deserves to die
In the heart of the free world
In the home of the brave
You gave up everything
To bring down the veil
There's no safe place to go
Now you let that whistle blow
Show exactly what was going on
Show exactly who was looking on
If the film ended with Oliver Stone and Peter Gabriel taking turns blowing the actual Edward Snowden it might have been more dignified.
Production of this one began as a movie called "The Woods" and I was super psyched for it since it was being directed by Adam Wingard who had directed a couple great movies over the past several years: You're Next and The Guest. Unfortunately, when it premiered at Comic-Con it was revealed that The Woods was actually Blair Witch. I was pretty bummed, but knew I'd see it since it's directed by Adam Wingard and it didn't hurt that I loved and had recently rewatched the original (which actually did come close to matching the original watch in quality with several years between viewings).
This is being billed as a remake, but it clearly is not. It's more a direct sequel (ignoring the abortion of a sequel that was released in 2000) as it follows the younger brother of Heather from the original film who is still on the hunt to find or find out what happened to his sister. It's very well structured as a pure found footage film and takes smart advantage of what kind of recording gear would be accessible to the people in the film.
I would say the bulk of the movie is good, but that the last 15 minutes or so is spectacularly scary and smartly ties itself together without answering everything so clearly that the movie doesn't warrant any further thought or discussion. Certainly very few movies will match the experience of watching the original for the first time at the time of release when so little was known about the truth of the film, but at the very least this one caught a piece of its spirit.
The original trailer made me think I would hate it due to Joseph Gordon-Levitt's laughable attempt at a Snowden imitation and Rhys Ifans' ridiculously villainous portrayal of a CIA operative and instructor. But it's Oliver Stone and I'm just going to see anything he releases period, so I paid my $12.
What a mixed bag it turned out to be. I certainly didn't hate all of it. The portions of the film dealing with Snowden's professional life were great propaganda pieces. I don't mean that in a pejorative way. There are plenty of propagandistic advocacy films that are worth watching even if you disagree with the agenda being pushed. And this is one of the better ones, at least when limited to the portions of the film dealing with Snowden's job and his leaking of information. It's way, way, way over the top, but that's why it works as a propaganda piece and why it's clearly not intended to simply be a dramatic film.
But it is an extraordinary failure dealing with his personal life. I can not imagine caring about anything less than Edward Snowden's personal relationships and the movie does nothing to convince me I should. Shailene Woodley is as bad as she typically is, but I don't know that I can blame her because JGL - who is capable of great performances - also flounders with the material and with Stone's direction.
Stone also makes a bizarre artistic choice at the end of the film that I can't understand. I won't spoil it (even though most won't care), but I will say that it is almost embarrassing. And the song Peter Gabriel wrote and recorded for the film and which appears over the end credits is embarrassing - and I mean horribly cringe-inducing. Here's a sampling of the lyrics.
Some say you're a patriot
Some call you a spy
An American hero
Or a traitor that deserves to die
In the heart of the free world
In the home of the brave
You gave up everything
To bring down the veil
There's no safe place to go
Now you let that whistle blow
Show exactly what was going on
Show exactly who was looking on
If the film ended with Oliver Stone and Peter Gabriel taking turns blowing the actual Edward Snowden it might have been more dignified.
legend672
Full House
When JAWS was at theaters it was intense . There was a long standing ovation by the crowd afterwards. Only seen that a couple of times. ( blues brothers )( ET ) (Rocky ).
When are you gonna watch the great one & Steve McQueen in soldier in the rain ?
The butler did it
detroitdad
Royal Flush
not familiar with either one of them.
legend672
Full House
The great one is a guy called Jackie Gleason, he co-stars with King of cool Steve McQueen in the aforementioned movie. Real movie with real acting. You will love it
Ellasdaddy
Flush
Hugely excited for Blair Witch tomorrow night. Snowden will get a requisite viewing because, as you wrote, it's Oliver Stone.
Ellasdaddy
Flush
Anyone giving a movie screen an ovation instantly gets sneered at and labeled an idiot by me. I like to yell out THEY'RE NOT HERE! THEY CANT HEAR YOUR PRAISE!
Hope you enjoy Blair Witch, but if you don't, Don't Breathe is still out and is excellent. Great if you still need a quality horror fix.
Ellasdaddy
Flush
I expect to. As critical as I can be about film (used to minor in it), I tend to suspend belief at all times and just buy in. Unless a movie is just God awful from jump, I'm capable of enjoying it on some level. The original hit when I was 18 and I immersed myself in the campaign and lore. Saw it 5x in theaters that Summer. Loved it more each time.
Was very interested in seeing Don't Breathe as well, but the wife wouldn't ever agree to see 2 horror flicks within weeks of each other.
Keep up the yeoman's work you're doing with your reviews. Top notch, sir.
Was very interested in seeing Don't Breathe as well, but the wife wouldn't ever agree to see 2 horror flicks within weeks of each other.
Keep up the yeoman's work you're doing with your reviews. Top notch, sir.
Ellasdaddy
Flush
Update: Blair Witch was legit. Final 15-20 minutes were pure tension for me, pure terror for my wife. Was not expecting what I got.
I'd add that this should even please most of those who complained after the original, or plan to throughout and after this movie, that "nothing really happened" and "you don't see anything".
A few plot points, small issues and missed opportunities aside, I really enjoyed it.
@jbutler - Did you catch/enjoy that they referenced Book of Shadows without actually mentioning it?
I'd add that this should even please most of those who complained after the original, or plan to throughout and after this movie, that "nothing really happened" and "you don't see anything".
A few plot points, small issues and missed opportunities aside, I really enjoyed it.
@jbutler - Did you catch/enjoy that they referenced Book of Shadows without actually mentioning it?
It's been so long since I've seen Book of Shadows I'm not sure I'd notice it even if I watched it again looking for it. But glad you liked it!
Be curious what you think about Snowden.
Ellasdaddy
Flush
Definitely looking to see it soon. Loved Citizenfour, love Stone.
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
