PCF at the Movies (4 Viewers)

[jbutler]

So La La Land is spectacular.

Really surprised how much I liked it. Talking to folks about it at our xmas party last night before I went, apparently some weren't aware it's a musical, so fair warning if you don't like musicals, it is one. They break into song in the middle of conversation, develop the plot through song, etc. - the whole shebang.

I don't particularly love musicals, but I have nothing against them, so in the abstract it didn't matter to me one way or the other. But Damien Chazelle really could not have done what he wanted to do with this movie without making it a musical. It's a fantasy as much as it is a drama and the fantasy is only attainable through the songs. Juxtaposing the fantasy elements with the contemporary setting and some of the more grounded problems faced by the characters only makes it that much more joyous.

I guess I have to stop saying I don't like Emma Stone. She was excellent in Birdman a couple years ago and is truly great here. It might be more her movie than Ryan Gosling's even though they get co-billing. Neither character is developed as it would be in a pure drama, but hers has more texture and she has the better singing chops. Both can dance, though, and those scenes are as much a pleasure to watch as the singing is to hear. I've long loved Gosling, so this only cemented it. This year - with this along with The Nice Guys - proves the guy can do anything.

The couple of main themes that repeat through the film are perfect. I don't know at this point whether it's a lock, but this has to be up there for best original score and best original song (although it might get kind of screwed in the latter category if multiple songs from the movie are nominated and they split the pro-La La Land vote). Same for editing. If you watch a musical and don't notice the editing, then it's perfect and you don't notice it for a second here.

Unless you have a predilection against musicals, this has to be the best movie to watch over the holidays. Beautifully uplifting.

EDIT: One more thought - has nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself, but I think one of the reason this thing is getting sucked off so hard by critics is because critics love movies about the "magic of movies" (exhibited most egregiously in The Artist winning best picture at the Oscars in 2011). Turns my stomach, honestly, to see all these folks so self-satisfied, but doesn't take away from the quality of this movie.

 

[Toby]

So La La Land is spectacular.

Really surprised how much I liked it. Talking to folks about it at our xmas party last night before I went, apparently some weren't aware it's a musical, so fair warning if you don't like musicals, it is one. They break into song in the middle of conversation, develop the plot through song, etc. - the whole shebang.

I don't particularly love musicals, but I have nothing against them, so in the abstract it didn't matter to me one way or the other. But Damien Chazelle really could not have done what he wanted to do with this movie without making it a musical. It's a fantasy as much as it is a drama and the fantasy is only attainable through the songs. Juxtaposing the fantasy elements with the contemporary setting and some of the more grounded problems faced by the characters only makes it that much more joyous.

I guess I have to stop saying I don't like Emma Stone. She was excellent in Birdman a couple years ago and is truly great here. It might be more her movie than Ryan Gosling's even though they get co-billing. Neither character is developed as it would be in a pure drama, but hers has more texture and she has the better singing chops. Both can dance, though, and those scenes are as much a pleasure to watch as the singing is to hear. I've long loved Gosling, so this only cemented it. This year - with this along with The Nice Guys - proves the guy can do anything.

The couple of main themes that repeat through the film are perfect. I don't know at this point whether it's a lock, but this has to be up there for best original score and best original song (although it might get kind of screwed in the latter category if multiple songs from the movie are nominated and they split the pro-La La Land vote). Same for editing. If you watch a musical and don't notice the editing, then it's perfect and you don't notice it for a second here.

Unless you have a predilection against musicals, this has to be the best movie to watch over the holidays. Beautifully uplifting.

EDIT: One more thought - has nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself, but I think one of the reason this thing is getting sucked off so hard by critics is because critics love movies about the "magic of movies" (exhibited most egregiously in The Artist winning best picture at the Oscars in 2011). Turns my stomach, honestly, to see all these folks so self-satisfied, but doesn't take away from the quality of this movie.

I'd been pondering La La Land. Guess we'll have to check it out now! Thanks for the review, Jack!

It sounds weird to say, but watching a movie is these days, for us, a weighty consideration. With 3 weans, we just do not get the time.

I used to think nothing of the freedom/spontaneity of a trip to the cinema. We'd just do it.

Our last movie on the big screen was Trolls, entirely due to the kids/awful Hobbiton weather. I can't even remember what the last, legit movie was that I saw at the cinema, that I actually wanted to see. Jaws..?

(This is where I admit that I enjoyed Trolls, which I attribute to a heady mix of sleep deprivation and Stockholm Syndrome)

Anyhoo, will defo check out La La Land.

 

[jiratic]

So La La Land is spectacular.

Really surprised how much I liked it. Talking to folks about it at our xmas party last night before I went, apparently some weren't aware it's a musical, so fair warning if you don't like musicals, it is one. They break into song in the middle of conversation, develop the plot through song, etc. - the whole shebang.

I don't particularly love musicals, but I have nothing against them, so in the abstract it didn't matter to me one way or the other. But Damien Chazelle really could not have done what he wanted to do with this movie without making it a musical. It's a fantasy as much as it is a drama and the fantasy is only attainable through the songs. Juxtaposing the fantasy elements with the contemporary setting and some of the more grounded problems faced by the characters only makes it that much more joyous.

I guess I have to stop saying I don't like Emma Stone. She was excellent in Birdman a couple years ago and is truly great here. It might be more her movie than Ryan Gosling's even though they get co-billing. Neither character is developed as it would be in a pure drama, but hers has more texture and she has the better singing chops. Both can dance, though, and those scenes are as much a pleasure to watch as the singing is to hear. I've long loved Gosling, so this only cemented it. This year - with this along with The Nice Guys - proves the guy can do anything.



EDIT: One more thought - has nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself, but I think one of the reason this thing is getting sucked off so hard by critics is because critics love movies about the "magic of movies" (exhibited most egregiously in The Artist winning best picture at the Oscars in 2011). Turns my stomach, honestly, to see all these folks so self-satisfied, but doesn't take away from the quality of this movie.

Glad you enjoyed La la land and changed your mind on Emma Stone. She seems to be developing her acting range with Birdman and La la land (having previously been known for more comedic roles). Editing is really something that's hard to appreciate, you can tell when it's bad but when it's good (as it is in La la land), it can be hard to pinpoint how it works. I think this article is pretty useful for that.

I hope Gosling at least get's an acting nomination, he has been overlooked for his partner on screen before (he definitely deserved a nod for 2010's Blue Valentine).

It almost certainly won't be Adams year again, as great as she was in Arrival, Stone and Portman were better this year (and in far more Oscar friendly films). Shame because she was snubbed in 06 for Junebug and 2012 for the Master.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-cut-tom-cross-la-la-land/

 

[snooptodd]

Rogue One review: been twice, once to preview for the kids, again with the nine year old. Fell asleep for long stretches the first time, dozed off for short bits the second. 'Nuff said.

 

[jbutler]

Glad you enjoyed La la land and changed your mind on Emma Stone. She seems to be developing her acting range with Birdman and La la land (having previously been known for more comedic roles). Editing is really something that's hard to appreciate, you can tell when it's bad but when it's good (as it is in La la land), it can be hard to pinpoint how it works. I think this article is pretty useful for that.

I hope Gosling at least get's an acting nomination, he has been overlooked for his partner on screen before (he definitely deserved a nod for 2010's Blue Valentine).

It almost certainly won't be Adams year again, as great as she was in Arrival, Stone and Portman were better this year (and in far more Oscar friendly films). Shame because she was snubbed in 06 for Junebug and 2012 for the Master.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-cut-tom-cross-la-la-land/

I think Amy Adams was nominated for The Master. And she did get noms for both The Fighter and Doubt, both deserved imo. I haven't seen Jackie yet. It's on the schedule for this week, but I've seen some pretty widely divergent opinions on both the movie and Natalie Portman's performance, though I have tried not to read too much before seeing it.

I don't put much stock in the Golden Globes or the Oscars (I do pay more attention to critics' organizations awards, but still not too much), but I do follow them with a morbid curiosity. Given their predilections I agree that Stone seems one of the frontrunners at this point (along with Viola Davis in Fences). Neither she nor Adams would be in my top three, though: Isabelle Huppert in Elle; Alicia Vikander in The Light Between Oceans; and Hailee Steinfeld in The Edge of Seventeen. But I have a lot left to see and expect there's a reasonable chance someone could jump ahead of all those.

So far my best of the year list (no cap on number, just what I consider the best) is (ranked best to worst):

The Witch
Arrival
Green Room
The Nice Guys
Manchester By the Sea
Elle
The Light Between Oceans
The Handmaiden
La La Land
Midnight Special
Everybody Wants Some!!
Hell or High Water
10 Cloverfield Lane
Weiner
The Edge of Seventeen
Moonlight

I have a bunch of honorable mentions, too, but I won't bother with all that until the end of the year.

And my still-need-to-see list is long and includes plenty of movies that have come and I missed and plenty that will be coming out before year end (spoilered so as to not make this post so long).

Spoiler

The Neon Demon
Creative Control
Maggie's Plan
Krisha
Mountains May Depart
Cemetery of Splendour
Sunset Song
Embrace of the Serpent
American Honey
Toni Erdmann
Tale of Tales
The Clan
Hail,Caesar!
A Bigger Splash
Our Kind of Traitor
Desierto
Denial
Certain Women
Silence
Fences
Gold
Live By Night
Paterson
Patriots Day
The Founder

 

[jbutler]

Saw Rogue One last night. My thoughts below include spoilers, so caveat emptor.

As an overall statement I'd say it's fun, very good in some discreet moments, but overall not great and maybe barely good.

First the good: the prologue and first act are better than good, actually. And so many small details that were not only fun, but occasionally revealing about the full Star Warns universe. Lots of fun and full of solid performances and it sets up a plot that is deserving of a full length Star Wars film. I suppose the quality of the performances was true throughout. You can't necessarily be surprised given the cast includes Mads Mikkelsen, Forest Whitaker, and Ben Mendelsohn, but it's wonderful nonetheless.

And the CGI locations were truly beautiful. Paired with the eye for substantive detail and the competent framing, aesthetically the movie is a huge pleasure to watch for 90% or more of its runtime.

Unfortunately, the acting and other elements suffered from the distractions of...

The bad: the length and the human CGI recreations. People think "epic" films have to be 2+ hours these days and according to the Disney marketing department, I'm sure all Star Wars movies are, by definition, "epic." This is one of the flaws inherent in the Disney process: marketing gets as much of a say as creative. So to some degree I understand, but it doesn't make it any less wrong or make me wish less that they'd not have given into the push. This story did not require 2 hours and 13 minutes.

But couldn't they have put something more interesting in the movie than a slightly incoherent filler battle scene to drain the third act? I actually got excited when they were gearing up to start the big sneak into Imperial territory and thought it would reinvigorate the movie after a lackluster second act, but it was muddied at best and way overlong.

Finally, the ugly: those CGI humans. What. The. Fuck. Totally unforgivably bad. Why? They are nowhere near good enough to warrant their inclusion. Yes, I like the idea of bringing Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher back. But these fucking things look like a bad video game. Horrific. And for no real purpose. They could have easily gotten around such a focus on Peter Cushing. If they had dropped him into a couple of scenes without a ton of facetime, I could have dealt with it. Still would have wondered why they'd bother, but I wouldn't have been totally and completely distracted by him. Here, it's awful. And they absolutely spoil the otherwise excellent epilogue and beautiful tie into the opening of A New Hope by ending the film on Carrie Fishers jump, digital face. Unreal.

After all that, I can't say I disliked the movie as a whole. I'll probably even go see it again in theaters. Felicity Jones was good, Diego Luna was okay. Maybe I'll get over the length as I understand more deeply the turns of the battle and maybe I'll grow somewhat more accustomed to the CGI performances. I doubt it, but maybe.

EDIT: Meant to say something before about the opportunity presented by these one-off movies. I love that we can now see stories about characters that don't have to survive the film and for whom we don't have to build giant backstories and epic futures. I didn't feel the movie really did much with that opportunity, though. Sure, the protagonists get vaporized in the end, but the movie itself is virtually identical structurally to every other Star Wars movie. There are no chances taken, not real envelope pushing as to character or mission. I was hoping these movies would be little bite size chunks of fun set in the universe, but not beholden to the production and story legacies of the franchise. And you could still do the little epilogue tie in to A New Hope as they did, but leave the rest of the movie as a self-contained unit.

Oh and sadly the score was truly mediocre.

Watched it again this weekend and I was able to spend more time noticing what Gareth Edwards and the writers were trying to do outside of the story and characters. Unfortunately, my rating went down rather than up on a second viewing.

The internecine quarrels within the Rebel Alliance could have been the focus of the film and been the grounds for a more compelling story, but instead those debates are limited to one scene and a few stray lines in others while the movie and the bulk of the running time is devoted to crafting a war film.

While discussing the movie via text I found myself saying that I'd wanted it to be more focused on the challenges of the Alliance and, to the extent that there were any action sequences, that I wished they had been more Zero Dark Thirty than Saving Private Ryan. It occurs to me that I'm committing the sin of wanting the movie to be something it's not and judging it on my terms rather than its goals. So I have to conceded that to the extent that my negative rating arises from my expectations rather than the film's intentions, it deserves a pass. Plus, I've said more than once that I was looking forward to these one-off Star Wars movies essentially being genre pictures set in the SW universe, so what am I complaining about?

I guess I'm complaining about the genre still being a waste of time in the SW universe. Most of the "war" is literally a beach invasion. Why spend so much time and money to set a film in space and then have so much of the action occur on a setting identical to so many of the WWII movies we've seen way, way too many of? Couldn't they at least have pulled the war film conventions and taken them to a new location? Plus, the value of a war film is that it shows the "reality" of war. What value is there in showing the "reality" of war in a space location bizarrely fictionalized to be a location virtually identical to one on Earth where we've actually fought a war? It's like pitching a movie as "Jaws in space, but on a planet identical to Earth."

So while I was able to grasp more fully the intention of Gareth Edwards' strangely boring action sequences, they unfortunately give me only more reasons to dislike the movie, those reasons existing in addition to the numerous other shortcomings I noted above in my original thoughts regarding the structure and production of the movie.

A pretty big disappointment and only more so a second time around. At least no additional SW films are reliant in any way on this one, so hopefully the next one-off is able to find its own way.

 

[jbutler]

Also watched The Fits this weekend.

This was an interesting one. So much of the movie is absolutely transfixing. The camerawork, the cinematography, the score, the dance sequences. And yet it doesn't quite get to that next level because I think I'm missing something of the allegory. Or maybe there's no more than what I understand and I'm supposed to be satisfied by the obvious attributes I listed above.

The movie is essentially a body horror and teen drama film with nothing from either genre dissected or made explicit. If David Cronenberg and Amy Heckerling were jointly commissioned to make a PG-rated art film, this would be it. It follows a young girl who, as the film opens, is training in the boxing ring alongside her older brother, but who becomes interested in being a part of the girls' dance troupe. As she transitions to the dance troupe, an ambiguous illness spreads among some of the girls. Our protagonist's response is at once disinterested and resentful. I'll not spoil the rest of the movie, but in all honesty I'm not holding back too much. I can gather the most obvious metaphors, but I kept waiting for something more to emerge, either something broader or more specific. But nothing really does.

So while the best parts of the movie are the production, they're worth watching, particularly since the movie is only 70 minutes long. It seems insane to binge 5+ hours on a mediocre show and then complain about this movie which, while the story doesn't inspire, is clearly going for something specific and willing to risk alienating the audience in a lot of ways to get there. I'll always be interested in watching something like that no matter the result. And the added bonus is that this is a first time filmmaker, so I'll very much be looking forward to what she does next.

 

[jbutler]

My long wait to watch Krisha was very much worth it. Here's the trailer as usual, but I'd recommend not watching it if you're going to watch the movie.

This is probably the one that will end up on a bunch of end-of-year lists that will have everyone wondering what it is. The backstory - it's a micro-budget movie by a first time director using mostly his own family as actors - might lead you to think it's just the latest critical darling that won't beat the hype. The plot - a long-estranged family member returns for Thanksgiving to confront those she left behind, including a son who was raised by her sister - might lead you to think it's a typical 90s-era-type indie family drama. It could not be further from any of those things.

It actually has quite a bit in common with my favorite movie from last year, Queen of Earth. It's a psychological thriller of a sort that shows a woman's breakdown in gruesome detail. And it's filmed almost as a horror film. The aggressive camerawork and score are the main elements I wouldn't want to be spoiled through the trailer. They are so essential in communicating the experience of both the title character, Krisha, and the family upon whom she descends, that it would be a shame to rob them of the power they have as you make your way through the movie wondering, "Is it going to be like this the whole time?"

It's quite an overwhelming watch. The score is frenetic at times. The camera wobbles and zooms and fades and moves from regular to slow motion. The time jumps back and forth slightly throughout. All of this, obviously can be very disorienting, but it is absolutely effective, and the movie is a merciful 81 minutes.

I despise issue movies and it certainly is not the main point of the movie to draw attention to the dangers of substance abuse, but I would be lying if I said the movie isn't breathtakingly painful to watch if you know someone who has problems with drugs or alcohol. I've seen many friends and family members go through addiction and its related trials, some successfully and some not so, and this movie gives you both sides: the hell of the life of the addict and the wreckage the addict can cause in the lives of others. Would make a great double bill with Clean and Sober starring Michael Keaton from back in the day.

Certainly one of the absolute best things I've seen this year.

 

[jbutler]

Also saw Jackie tonight.

I can lump this in with Jeff Nichols' Loving which I reviewed earlier here. This is another one that is truly masterfully done, but while doing nothing to illuminate its subject. After sitting through 90 minutes of beautiful cinematography, one of the most immersive scores of the year, and a performance by Natalie Portman that could only have been achieved through tremendous work, I'm left understanding nothing more of Jackie Kennedy or the circumstances of the film than I did when it began.

I do appreciate the thought that a non-American filmmaker with no attachment to the source material might give it some depth or present it in a new light and he certainly did, but it wasn't enough to bring this script to life. I've seen plenty of praise for the movie apart from the attributes I mentioned above and I honestly just don't get it. I felt like there was nothing there.

 

[detroitdad]

Slash

Very solid movie. The two main characters played my Hannah Marks and Michael Johnston portray nerdy teens that don't really know how or where they belong. Its very well done. It may be a touch slow for some. I didn't mind. It is a little weird which is right in my wheel house . Its not a "great" movie. The two main actors make this worth while.


@jbutler if you have seen this, or are planning on it I'd love to hear your review on the movie.

 

[Milo013]

Horns continues the King family tradition of horrible movie adaptations of decent to better than decent novels.

 

[jbutler]

Saw Fences today.

Unreal performances by both Denzel and Viola Davis and it's difficult to say who has the better one. Probably Viola. But neither would be even possible without the script. I said to my wife that pitting this screenplay up against the others from the year is almost unfair. She was lucky enough to have seen the original play on its initial run with James Earl Jones as Troy Maxson and I could not envy her more. I only with August Wilson had lived to see this adaptation.

I was not a huge fan of some of the directorial choices made by Denzel, but his direction in general is so unobtrusive that all my qualms are quite minor compared to the large feats of the performances and the writing. I love Stephen McKinley Henderson and while we got a very fun brief glimpse of him in Manchester By the Sea, he's a big supporting cast member here and I was glad to see so much of him. The costumes and art direction are excellent as well, both things that could have been given little attention due to the many, many hours poured into the same decisions for stage productions of the play. Thankfully they were treated as new and fresh questions for the film adaptation and the care taken to tend to them shows.

You could spend - and many have if you google writing about the play - volumes discussing the character motivations. Without getting into spoilers (it seems almost sacrilegious to use such a crass sounding term to refer to events in an August Wilson play), literally all speaking characters make decisions in the course of the film that deserve to be explored and maybe even puzzled over. Only when writing is this good can actors open themselves as they do here.

I could say a lot more, but it's getting late and I'm going to try to get a post up of the best/worst of the year and this one will be making a couple of appearances in some capacity.

 

[detroitdad]

Watched two flicks yesterday with my boy.

First one was Oldboys, 2003 S. Korean flick. I really liked it. It took us awhile to find a link that wasn't dubbed. I don't mind subtitles. I fucking hate "dubbed" movies.

Oldboys is a very good flick. Not one of the "best" S. Korean movies that I've seen. Solid none the less. Definitely a little weird and fucked up if that is your thing.

Second flick we watched, and I have no idea why. We watched Kevin Hart: What Now.

It was actually pretty funny. The opening Casino Royale spoof was mostly fun. There were a few jokes that ran a little too long and it got boring. Over all I laughed more than I didn't.

 

[jbutler]

Watched two flicks yesterday with my boy.

First one was Oldboys, 2003 S. Korean flick. I really liked it. It took us awhile to find a link that wasn't dubbed. I don't mind subtitles. I fucking hate "dubbed" movies.

Oldboys is a very good flick. Not one of the "best" S. Korean movies that I've seen. Solid none the less. Definitely a little weird and fucked up if that is your thing.

This is another one that improves on rewatches imo. A great movie by a great director, Park Chan-wook. Oldboy is the middle film of his Vengeance Trilogy, the first being Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and the third being Lady Vengeance. All are excellent.

I know you already saw and liked his Snowpiercer. Stoker is even better and Thirst is probably on the same level as Snowpiercer. And of course he also directed this year's The Handmaiden, which I loved and which I think is maybe his best movie aside from Oldboy.

 

[jbutler]

This seems like a good place to put this. I absolutely LOVE horror films. I'm talking heart pounding, cannot watch scary shit. However, I've yet to find much that scares me. I've just invested in a big OLED and am looking for some real good but possibly unknown movies that I might have missed.

What would you recommend?

Bumping this because as I was looking for an old post in this thread I saw this question and that it didn't get much of a response at the time. If you're still looking for good horror you might have overlooked, check out:

You're Next
It Follows
The House of the Devil
Drag Me to Hell
The Descent
I Saw the Devil
The Innkeepers
Don't Breathe

Limiting my recommendations to relatively recent movies, but if you're looking for older horror films, there are a TON more.

 

[detroitdad]

I didn't realize it was part of a trilogy. Jake and I will definitely watch the other flicks. Not familiar with Stoker or Thirst .We'll watch those time permits (and of course The Handmaiden".

Jake and I have to watch them usually on a SAT. morning. Colleen isn't interested in the flicks that get to weird and fucked up for her. She also doesn't care for subtitles.

The Man From Nowwhere had some of my favorite action scenes of all time.

You're Next
It Follows
The House of the Devil
Drag Me to Hell
The Descent
I Saw the Devil
The Innkeepers
Don't Breathe

The bolded ones are fucking fantastic. The only other one I remember is "Drag Me to Hell". While not as good as the others. It was still a very fun watch.

 

[AdamAAAA]

Bumping this because as I was looking for an old post in this thread I saw this question and that it didn't get much of a response at the time. If you're still looking for good horror you might have overlooked, check out:

You're Next
It Follows
The House of the Devil
Drag Me to Hell
The Descent
I Saw the Devil
The Innkeepers
Don't Breathe

Limiting my recommendations to relatively recent movies, but if you're looking for older horror films, there are a TON more.

Excellent, thank you sir. I shall try get these on Blu-Ray or something and give them a watch!

 

[SixSpeedFury]

Seconding The Descent. Fantastic movie. Pretend The Descent 2 doesn't exist.

 

[bergs]

Butler - any plans to see Hidden Figures? That's next up on my list (and in part because it includes the original IBM mainframe computers and NASA).

 

[tommythecat]

Finally got around to watching Don't Breathe this past weekend and was quite underwhelmed. Do audiences really need to be spoon fed everything in a movie nowadays? Every move was obvious and the decisions those morons make in the movie are ridiculous IMO.

The movie would have been a lot better IMO if

Spoiler

they didn't stop and pause on every important item in the house the camera panned by (hammer, padlocked door, boots in the kitchen, etc) and they didn't jack the volume up on the small sounds you wouldn't normally hear. I get it, the dude is blind and can hear better than me. There are better ways to handle that on screen without the sound effects jacked way up for most of the movie.

 

[jbutler]

Had a very long lunch with a friend today in which we began, though didn't finish, ranking the Coen Brothers' movies. That led to a later discussion with @H|Q that made me look up the documentary that was originally included with the Big Lebowski DVD (and later the Blu Ray) and it's fantastic.

I love the Coens' discussion of how they situated the Big Lebowski in the pantheon of noir movies and particularly love the anecdote about the production of the Big Sleep.

Incidentally, my Coen rankings:

Fargo
The Big Lebowski
No Country for Old Men
Miller's Crossing
Raising Arizona
Inside Llewyn Davis
O Brother Where Art Thou
A Serious Man
Blood Simple
Barton Fink
Burn After Reading
The Ladykillers
The Man Who Wasn't There
Intolerable Cruelty
True Grit

I missed Hail Caesar last year which is befuddling to me and I still inexplicably haven't seen it. Soon.

 

[jbutler]

Butler - any plans to see Hidden Figures? That's next up on my list (and in part because it includes the original IBM mainframe computers and NASA).

Not really, though it has been very positively reviewed. It's hard for me to sit through movies that are trying to so hard to teach me morals and lessons.

Finally got around to watching Don't Breathe this past weekend and was quite underwhelmed. Do audiences really need to be spoon fed everything in a movie nowadays? Every move was obvious and the decisions those morons make in the movie are ridiculous IMO.

The movie would have been a lot better IMO if

Spoiler

they didn't stop and pause on every important item in the house the camera panned by (hammer, padlocked door, boots in the kitchen, etc) and they didn't jack the volume up on the small sounds you wouldn't normally hear. I get it, the dude is blind and can hear better than me. There are better ways to handle that on screen without the sound effects jacked way up for most of the movie.

Yeah, Don't Breathe was a favorite of mine this year as well. Definitely better than anyone had any reason to expect. Maybe the best wide release horror movie of the year (not sure if The Witch got a wide release).

Seconding The Descent. Fantastic movie. Pretend The Descent 2 doesn't exist.

Agreed. I watched them both in succession, so the drop in quality was even more obvious. Too bad.

 

[tommythecat]

Yeah, Don't Breathe was a favorite of mine this year as well. Definitely better than anyone had any reason to expect. Maybe the best wide release horror movie of the year (not sure if The Witch got a wide release).

Your reply is confusing based on my post...misquoted my post maybe?

 

[jbutler]

Your reply is confusing based on my post...misquoted my post maybe?

Whoops, yeah, not a misquote just a misread - I must have speed read and...not read it somehow. I guess I saw it differently. It's been a while, so I wouldn't be able to be too detailed in my defense of it, but I'll watch it again at some point in the near future I'm sure and maybe I'll feel differently.

 

[bergs]

I didn't feel that Hidden Features was overly preachy. Enjoyable movie. Nothing remarkable about it other than the true story it's trying to convey but it's certainly not a Snowden level catastrophe.

 

[jbutler]

I didn't feel that Hidden Features was overly preachy. Enjoyable movie. Nothing remarkable about it other than the true story it's trying to convey but it's certainly not a Snowden level catastrophe.

I would have been more likely to give it a shot if Octavia Spencer weren't in it. I find her beyond annoying.

 

[bergs]

I would have been more likely to give it a shot if Octavia Spencer weren't in it. I find her beyond annoying.

She didn't have as big a part as the trailers would have you believe, but I did LOL at the idea of someone teaching themselves FORTRAN in 15 days.

 

[mummel]

Actually, while recovering from my trauma after watching the disastrous "The Counselor", I remembered one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The Dennis Hopper 2001 film called "Ticker" has got to be the biggest clusterfck in modern movie history. Anyone seen it?

Check NAS dying (13:24) and the brakes on Hopper's car (1:01:27) !!

 

[jbutler]

Saw three this weekend. One was great, one was very good, and one was meh. Keeping them all brief.

The great:

I thought Richard Lawson gave this his number one of the year slot out of some kind of paean to the everyman of movies, but honestly I can understand now. So much more depth than anyone would have thought. Susan Sarandon and JK Simmons give excellent performances.

Looking for something to watch as a family with your spouse or mother or something, this is a great option. Many laught out loud moments.

The very good.

It might even be great. It deserves a rewatch for sure. Never a fan of Andrew Garfield, but this is a career-high performance for him. A very subtle, gradual film. I wasn't even sure I liked it for the first 45-60 minutes. But it deserves to be judged only after you've sat through the whole thing. Yes, it's 2 hrs and 40 minutes, but it's worth it.

Should prompt great discussions if you do movie and dinner (which should always be done in that order imo).

And the meh.

Yes, I'm saying meh, but I truly do not get how it gets ravaged by critics. What do they expect? It's an Underworld movie. And it's exactly that, nothing more. If you like them, you'll like it; if not, you won't.

One thing I love about these movies is that someone as popular and talented as Kate Beckinsale is still continuing on with these movies when she could do more or less whatever she wanted. I wish more performers would be this ego-less.

 

[detroitdad]

Yes, I'm saying meh, but I truly do not get how it gets ravaged by critics. What do they expect? It's an Underworld movie. And it's exactly that, nothing more. If you like them, you'll like it; if not, you won't.

One thing I love about these movies is that someone as popular and talented as Kate Beckinsale is still continuing on with these movies when she could do more or less whatever she wanted. I wish more performers would be this ego-less.

I agree. They are what they are. Nothing more. I liked the first three in the franchise (they weren't good, but they were fun). The last one was really bad. For some reason my wife really enjoys these movies. She likes them way more than what any person should. It baffles my son and I. She is always up for a re watch. I just don't get it lol. There could definitely be worse things that she would want to watch.