PCF at the Movies (6 Viewers)

[jbutler]

Brief reviews for the two things I watched this weekend.

Deepwater Horizon

Lots of fun and more emotionally effective than I'd have imagined. Perhaps a bit unfair to compare it and Sully since Sully was obviously trying to work on a different level, but it's hard not to given that they are both "disaster"-related movies in simultaneous release. I would watch Deepwater 10 times again before I'd rewatch Sully. The effects work was very good and the film would have fallen apart if it had been subpar since nearly every scene after the 30 minute mark in the movie relies on those effects.

Amanda Knox

Was really looking forward to this one, but it was unfortunately disappointing. I knew little about the underlying facts and even still I felt like I learned almost nothing. As a character study it wasn't particularly revealing either, so I'm not sure what was the point of the film. She comes off as incredibly aware of her image, but I suppose you can't hold that against her given her experiences over the last decade. Still, they spend so much time with her that you wish she presented as more sincere.

 

[tommythecat]

Two really excellent looking teaser trailers...the Logan one especially. Using Hurt for the music is absolutely pitch perfect and sets the tone beautifully. Can't wait for both of these.

 

[jbutler]

Two really excellent looking teaser trailers...the Logan one especially. Using Hurt for the music is absolutely pitch perfect and sets the tone beautifully. Can't wait for both of these.

Damn, those both look pretty good. Guardians is my favorite Marvel movie by a million miles and the X-Men series has been much more reliable than any other current comic adaptation (excluding the Nolan Batman trilogy).

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Logan seems pitch perfect, but I can't help but be angry over the misuse of the character in the previous series. Fox has never captured the magic of the character (or any besides Deadpool, and they had little to do with that production), and to potentially do it in Jackman's final take bothers me greatly. Wasted years.

GotG was masterful for comic based movies on the scale of The Dark Knight, with fewer plot holes. It hit all the right notes and beats, captured the essence of comic books and did SciFi well. Discovering StarLord felt just like seeing Heath's Joker onscreen the first time. Can't wait for this sequel.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Bought advance tickets for Dr. Strange next.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Also saw 'The Girl on the Train' last weekend.

The first half was an expertly crafted mindfuck, and Emily Blunt suitably played a disturbed woman, slowly deteriorating before our eyes. There is no clear solution to the mystery (for those of us who haven't read the novel), and I feel that was a credit to the director.

Unfortunately, the film suddenly veers off the rails, dumbs everything down for the audience and solves the mystery for us with about 40 minutes left to it. What began as a very Hitchcockian character study and descent into madness turned into every ABC episode of Law & Order, complete with abrupt, unfulfilling though oddly violent ending.

Thankfully we were watching in an AMC Dine in Theater, so I drowned my disappointment in a large root beer and an ice cream sundae til the credits rolled.

 

[detroitdad]

Colleen and I watched "Into The Forest" last night. A story driven end of the world plot without all the special effects. The two main actresses in it (mostly the only two actors in the movie) were pretty good. They don't necessarily look like teenagers. However that is probably my biggest complaint with it. I really enjoyed the first two acts. The movie kind of faltered near the end.

I would definitely recommend it.

 

[jbutler]

Logan seems pitch perfect, but I can't help but be angry over the misuse of the character in the previous series. Fox has never captured the magic of the character (or any besides Deadpool, and they had little to do with that production), and to potentially do it in Jackman's final take bothers me greatly. Wasted years.

The awkwardness of the X-Men franchise as a whole is attributable imo to the fact that the films straddle the emergence of Nolan's dark, gritty comic book film aesthetic. Basically every comic book movie after Batman Begins (2005) had to struggle with the pull between the typical campier comic aesthetic and the dark tone Nolan established. Then Marvel got the campy version "right" (according to some) beginning with Iron Man (2008) and really established it in Iron Man II (2010).

So X-Men, X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand are all movies of a previous era even though they were released relatively recently (2000, 2003, 2006, respectively). But they had to carry that cast through into the new movies in which they mix in the grittier, realistic tone of today's comic book movies as well as some of the new camp from the Marvel productions. I think to some degree the X-Men films have been successful in merging the two sides to create a unique vision for comic book movies. I loved Days of Future Past and liked Apocalypse and the First Class reboot stuff doesn't get enough credit imo.

But back to Wolverine specifically, Hugh Jackman has had to take the character from high camp (X-Men, X2) through the attempted realism of something like Apocalypse. Not easy for the writers of the actors to keep the character consistent through those changes. Maybe Logan will capture it well before they reboot the whole thing all over again.

 

[detroitdad]

So X-Men, X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand are all movies of a previous era even though they were released relatively recently (2000, 2003, 2006, respectively). But they had to carry that cast through into the new movies in which they mix in the grittier, realistic tone of today's comic book movies as well as some of the new camp from the Marvel productions. I think to some degree the X-Men films have been successful in merging the two sides to create a unique vision for comic book movies. I loved Days of Future Past and liked Apocalypse and the First Class reboot stuff doesn't get enough credit imo.

Outside of X3. We really enjoy the series. My son and I still re watch the first X-Men flick every few years. I also really like the First Class reboot movies. I think Apocalypse was the weakest of them. None the less. I still really enjoyed it (more so than most of the Avenger movies).

 

[Kain8]

Really really liked First Class, they really struck gold then with both McEvoy and Fassbender.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

But back to Wolverine specifically, Hugh Jackman has had to take the character from high camp (X-Men, X2) through the attempted realism of something like Apocalypse. Not easy for the writers of the actors to keep the character consistent through those changes. Maybe Logan will capture it well before they reboot the whole thing all over again.

Lots of credit to the writers for having to craft DoFP to fix the errors of X2 and X3 and succeeding. I didn't love it or First Class, but I understood why many did. McKellan, Stewart, McAvoy and Fassbender are just fantastic.

Love Jackman as Wolvie, and what he's done with the character under restraints and limitations. Seeing this depiction of him as Old Man Logan just makes me wistful for what could've been because it feels like this is them nailing it finally.

 

[jbutler]

It's easy to not get sentimental when you realize the last movie you'll see in New Jersey is Jack Reacher 2.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

The Reacher-round

 

[jbutler]

It's easy to not get sentimental when you realize the last movie you'll see in New Jersey is Jack Reacher 2.

Man I thought I was just being snarky, but holy shit that was terrible. Like surprisingly so. Typically even the "worst" Tom Cruise movies are relatively enjoyable or interesting on some level. That movie had literally no redeeming qualities. That's the full review. Nothing else. Horrid.

 

[tommythecat]

Logan seems pitch perfect, but I can't help but be angry over the misuse of the character in the previous series. Fox has never captured the magic of the character (or any besides Deadpool, and they had little to do with that production), and to potentially do it in Jackman's final take bothers me greatly. Wasted years.

The awkwardness of the X-Men franchise as a whole is attributable imo to the fact that the films straddle the emergence of Nolan's dark, gritty comic book film aesthetic. Basically every comic book movie after Batman Begins (2005) had to struggle with the pull between the typical campier comic aesthetic and the dark tone Nolan established. Then Marvel got the campy version "right" (according to some) beginning with Iron Man (2008) and really established it in Iron Man II (2010).

So X-Men, X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand are all movies of a previous era even though they were released relatively recently (2000, 2003, 2006, respectively). But they had to carry that cast through into the new movies in which they mix in the grittier, realistic tone of today's comic book movies as well as some of the new camp from the Marvel productions. I think to some degree the X-Men films have been successful in merging the two sides to create a unique vision for comic book movies. I loved Days of Future Past and liked Apocalypse and the First Class reboot stuff doesn't get enough credit imo.

But back to Wolverine specifically, Hugh Jackman has had to take the character from high camp (X-Men, X2) through the attempted realism of something like Apocalypse. Not easy for the writers of the actors to keep the character consistent through those changes. Maybe Logan will capture it well before they reboot the whole thing all over again.

I think the R-rating for this one is what is going to make this Wolverine movie better than the others. Logan just isn't a PG-13 character. Deadpool being a huge success is what made that possible.

The X-Men movies in general I have enjoyed though I have yet to see Apocalypse. The biggest detractor of the movies to me are the instances where they got something very wrong. They did such a good job on most of the characters that when one of them is off it doesn't make sense. Deadpool in Origins is probably the most egregious of these.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I watched this this past week. I'm a huge fan of Christopher Guest films, I'm a big fan of his cast regulars, and I love the improv mocumentary film style. I was very much looking forward to this.

I felt it fell a bit flat. The humor felt a bit stale and predictable, and the movie felt even lower budget than normal. There were some genuinely great moments, but they were few and far between. Talking to my sister and brother in law, they felt similarly.

I feel like I need to go back to Best in Show just to cleanse my palate of the bad taste left in my mouth.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

^Watched this also, and totally forgot about it, which says the worst I can really say about it.

I agree with your points. Felt stale and sadly low budget. Huge disappointment to us Guest-lovers. Sad really.

 

[jbutler]

Saw two movies this past weekend and one was damn near amazing.

First, The Handmaiden:

Kind of a funny story. I had heard at some point - or more likely misheard as I learned - that this was an adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaiden's Tale, so going in, my expectations were quite different. It actually took me a bit of time to figure out that I had been wrong. I thought, "Damn, Park Chan-Wook is really putting a spin on this one." But no, it's an adaptation of a contemporary British novel, The Fingersmith, but with the setting moved to early 20th century Korea.

It's honestly best if you go in knowing virtually nothing, which I suppose is why the above trailer has essentially no real substantive information about the film. The most I think is safe to reveal is that it centers around a confidence scheme designed by working class thieves to gain access to an aristocrat's fortune. I guess it's hard to sell a movie by giving no real information, but know that it's by one of the best directors working today. Almost certainly in my top ten of the year at this point.

Also saw Inferno:

I have a soft spot for these movies for whatever reason. They're sort of a subgenre unto themselves and it's such an interesting thing that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks have decided to just go all in on these garbage Dan Brown novels. But they're actually interesting and this one is better than you might think if you see the critics' reactions (I think it's at about 20% on Rotten Tomatoes).

Don't get me wrong - it's by no means groundbreaking and it never transcends the (sub)genre in any way - but if you like popcorn mysteries, it's a better than average time. This is also the second time this year I've liked a Ben Foster performance (though the first - in Hell or High Water - was much better and was in a top ten film of the year). Maybe I'm coming around to the guy after all.

 

[MegaTon44]

Maybe I'm coming around to the guy after all

Never really thought about Ben Foster as an actor. Just generally seemed somewhat forgettable. But then I thought about Alpha Dog and Hostage, two very average movies that were actually improved by Ben Foster being a bad ass/psycho.

 

[jbutler]

Never really thought about Ben Foster as an actor. Just generally seemed somewhat forgettable. But then I thought about Alpha Dog and Hostage, two very average movies that were actually improved greatly by Ben Foster being a bad ass/psycho.

Haven't seen Alpha Dog in a while, but I remember liking it quite a bit, but never seen Hostage. I'm trying to think back to what movie made me think I dislike Ben Foster. Maybe 30 Days of Night where his performance was just way overstylized.

Speaking of Alpha Dog, it would make a great double bill with another movie I rewatched a few weeks ago, but never mentioned here (I've been lazy updating this thread the last few weeks): Bully by Larry Clark:

This one is fucked up, but that's no surprise given Larry Clark's filmography (Kids, Ken Park). It's based on (and follows pretty damn closely) the true story of the murder of a kid in Florida by a group of teens. Brad Renfro gives a great performance as the "bullied" kid.

Larry Clark tells a fucking hilarious story about his working with Brad on this movie in the Bret Easton Ellis podcast (podcast link here - it's free for another month or so probably). Basically Brad was all coked up and Larry had to essentially kidnap him from his parents' home to get him to detox literally a week before filming was to begin. That story made me want to go back and rewatch it and I'm glad I did. Great movie.

 

[MegaTon44]

Haven't seen Alpha Dog in a while, but I remember liking it quite a bit, but never seen Hostage. I'm trying to think back to what movie made me think I dislike Ben Foster. Maybe 30 Days of Night where his performance was just way overstylized.

Speaking of Alpha Dog, it would make a great double bill with another movie I rewatched a few weeks ago, but never mentioned here (I've been lazy updating this thread the last few weeks): Bully by Larry Clark:

This one is fucked up, but that's no surprise given Larry Clark's filmography (Kids, Ken Park). It's based on (and follows pretty damn closely) the true story of the murder of a kid in Florida by a group of teens. Brad Renfro gives a great performance as the "bullied" kid.

Larry Clark tells a fucking hilarious story about his working with Brad on this movie in the Bret Easton Ellis podcast (podcast link here - it's free for another month or so probably). Basically Brad was all coked up and Larry had to essentially kidnap him from his parents' home to get him to detox literally a week before filming was to begin. That story made me want to go back and rewatch it and I'm glad I did. Great movie.

Bully was an awesome movie. Loved Nick Stahl in it as well as Brad Renfro. The fat dude from Mean Girls was annoying as shit though, as was Bijou Phillips. Good double feature with Alpha Dog as they have a similar spirit.

 

[jbutler]

Bully was an awesome movie. Loved Nick Stahl in it as well as Brad Renfro. The fat dude from Mean Girls was annoying as shit though, as was Bijou Phillips. Good double feature with Alpha Dog as they have a similar spirit.

Larry Clark's entire discussion about Bully on the BEE podcast is worth listening to. He talks a lot about Bijou Phillips and how horrible of an actress she was and what he had to do to try to get a decent performance out of her.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

More for the movie queue here. Thank you sir.

 

[Kain8]

Just saw Dr. Strange last night. It was psychedlic, funny, and had great action scenes with Inception like visual effects on crack. Definitely worth watching!

 

[jbutler]

Saw Dr. Strange last night after getting back from DCS.

I'm on record as not being a fan in general of Marvel movies, but I do like a few of them a lot (Iron Man 1 and 3, Thor, Capt. America 1 and 2) and thought one was one of the best movies of the year (Guardians). I had some hope that Strange would hit 3 or 3.5 star range just due to the uniqueness of the story and the visuals, but was unfortunately very disappointed.

Also not a big fan of Benedict Cumberbatch, but he was particularly bad in this. I heard Joe Rogan say something about how when you get stoned and watch a movie that bad acting stands out much more so than when you're sober. For some reason, even though I don't get high anymore, just that thought triggered something in me in the way I watch performances sometimes and this was one that really went off the charts as horrible in a lot of spots. And the writing could not have been more cliched and hacky in so many scenes. I was actually shocked in the first 15 or 20 minutes of the movie at how bad the writing was. The scenes between Cumberbatch and Rachel McAdams were horrifically embarrassing. I can't expect either of them to make good with the dialogue they were given, but still, it was hard to watch.

I was prepared to overlook the apt criticism that the visuals look like a ripoff of Inception, so I don't have much criticism of the folding of streets and buildings, but the design of the villain and the evil world encroaching on reality was pretty horrible. It looked like someone took a 15-year old stoner's art class journals and asked the graphics team to do that for 20 minutes in the film. Totally uninspired.

Maybe I just shouldn't bother with these movies anymore, but when they're fun they can be a lot of fun and I keep hoping that directors will find interesting ways of using their own styles to rethink the source material. I guess the best chance for that happening isn't with the director of Sinister, though.

 

[jbutler]

Kept hearing how amazing Moonlight is and I was not disappointed.

We live in an amazing time for movies (despite the much advertised death of film and Mark Duplass's honest and accurate speech at Sundance a while back about how quality studio mid-budget film is dead). This movie could not have been made in the true early 90s heyday of independent film. There just wasn't a budget for it and the equipment necessary to achieve the level of cinematography on display wasn't there yet. But it is stunning. That's not to say there are any special effects - there are none. But simply making quality equipment available at a reasonable price point has allowed independent film to access the palette that has traditionally been available only to large scale productions.

And that palette isn't used to simply make the movie look good. The lighting, particularly the ability to well-light black and brown skin, is crucial to relaying the themes of the film: identity and self-knowledge. The original title of the screenplay that gave rise to the film was In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, which should give some indication as to how those things - cinematography and identity - can relate. And standing on the shore in the moonlight, the titular black boy, Chiron, does look blue.

There's hardly any story to speak of. You could explain the entire plot quite thoroughly in a couple of lines. The strength of the film is in the performances. It's structured in three acts which show the lead character at approximately ages 8, 15, and 25. Things happen, but none of those things - save one - are all that important to the story. It's really more about how Chiron - first known as Little, then Chiron, and finally Black (also the titles of the three acts) - navigates his world as a mostly closeted gay man.

One might expect such a story to feature all the typical plot points of a "coming out" narrative, but it's nothing like that. It's probably the most realistically written movie I've seen this year. Not a single scene rings false and not a single performance is anything but natural.

Highly, highly recommended. I would be shocked if Mahershala Ali (Remy from House of Cards) isn't nominated for best supporting actor. He is stunning. So are many others, but he stands out among even the other great performances.

 

[jbutler]

Well, at least this week was good for one thing: I saw two movies that were among the best of the year. Last night: Arrival.

Very difficult to talk about this with any specificity without getting into spoiler territory, but as much as I'd been looking forward to this for a while now, it exceeded my expectations. Denis Villeneuve may be one of my top three working directors with this one which is my favorite of his four English-language films (Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival).

There are many influences clearly on display and it reminds also of many other films that share common influences, but the pace and the tone of the movie are imo totally original within the genre. The design of the aliens and their ships are perhaps less original, but still quite unconventional and almost every aspect of their interaction with Earth and its people only pulls your further into the film.

As with the rest of Villeneuve movies, the cinematography and score are excellent and serve the themes perfectly. I heard two critics lamenting that they hadn't been able to get on board because the movie hadn't clicked in their minds at the precise time intended by the filmmaker and I can understand that. But it must have clicked at precisely the right time for me because I was blown away at the climax. Amy Adams also deserves a lot of the credit for selling the plot after one sees it fully in retrospect.

I wish I could go on, but I don't want to reveal anything else about the movie. It might be my second favorite release of the year at this point. This is why going to so many movies is worth it to me. I'll sit through a dozen clunkers (and I have this year) to see something like Arrival.

 

[Dr Lecterr]

Saw Arrival last night as well. Fantastic. Felt a lot like Interstellar and we thought the score was awesome. Its a solid B+

 

[jbutler]

Felt a lot like Interstellar and we thought the score was awesome.

Definitely one of the movies that I was alluding to as having harvested the same previous material as Arrival. I think Arrival did a better job on a lot of what Interstellar wanted to do to the extent that they overlapped thematically.

I'm hoping very much that Arrival holds up on subsequent viewings better than Interstellar did for me. There is one specific plot element that I fear could cause Arrival to drop a bit, but it was so dead on for 99% of the movie that I'm thinking this particular thing will resolve itself once I think see it a second time and give it more thought.

 

[jbutler]

Watched Arrival again tonight. Definitely solidified as one of the best of the year on rewatch. Maybe the best sci-fi movie since Prometheus.