|
Post by Mctenzington on Jan 9, 2014 15:36:52 GMT -5
Recently saw Real Life.
Albert Brooks' directorial debut is decent, ahead of its time with its subject matter, but Brooks' own (often oafish, selfish, real) character is a bit too unlikable in this one. The guy's not just a horribly money-obsessed, manipulating, desperate person, the film also takes out the stops to paint him as misogynistic and racist as well.
There wasn't much of a human or sympathetic thread in this film, which I think hurts it tremendously---and is surprising given the film's about the invasive filming of a 'real' family. There's some really funny stuff in it (the cameras are hilarious), but I think the two films Brooks followed this with are in a different league.
2 and 1/2 out of 4
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Bubbles on Jan 10, 2014 0:11:36 GMT -5
The World's End - I'm still undecided on the ending, as well as where the plot goes in general, but the movie is funny and clever enough to be a fitting end to the Pegg/Frost/Wright trilogy.
High Matinee!
|
|
|
Post by lama on Jan 10, 2014 2:51:13 GMT -5
Despicable me 2- High Matinee
|
|
|
Post by PoopaPapaPalpatine on Jan 10, 2014 21:16:11 GMT -5
Just saw The Wolf of Wall Street and it is wonderful. You fucking feel the three hour length but not in a bad way, the movie's entertaining enough to keep you interested all the way through, but there is a point where you realize you've been sitting for a while.
It's also very Scorsese; you just see him all over this picture, like, you know it's his. Everyone's bang on and great, Jonah Hill was surprisingly good in this (especially when he's improvising with the other actors), and there's sex and drugs everywhere in this. It's a lot funnier than I thought it would be (honestly, a bit disappointed that no one got shot in the face) and it all works really well. The only real problem I had with this movie was that I couldn't place the time period it was trying to represent. The movie takes place between 1987 to 1995/96, and besides the old tech you see from time to time, it just doesn't feel like that time period; it all feels so modern. You'll see cars driven in the current time driving around while you hear something from '93 playing. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think the movie felt like it was set in those times.
Besides that, great movie: I give it 4 snorts of coke out of a hookers asshole out of 5. One mark deducted because my back started aching from sitting in the theater chair longer than it wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by PoopaPapaPalpatine on Jan 11, 2014 1:12:50 GMT -5
Django Unchained: Sloppy.
|
|
|
Post by minasa on Jan 11, 2014 20:05:20 GMT -5
Django Unchained: Sloppy. I enjoyed it, care to elaborate? Just finished watching: Hard to rate this. I loved its tone and understand what it was trying to do, but some of the coincidences that lead to events in this film are just hamfisted and terrible. I don't mind bleak endings (some of my favorite Korean movies have bleak endings), but this just ultimately left me unsatisfied.
|
|
|
Post by PoopaPapaPalpatine on Jan 11, 2014 21:51:08 GMT -5
Django Unchained: Sloppy. I enjoyed it, care to elaborate? It was a sloppy movie; I don't know what else to say about that. It all just didn't congeal. The editing lacks a rhythm, a flow, that his previous efforts had (despite their quality), too many cuts and not enough where it mattered which just made it feel like a series of unrelated shorts strung together to make a movie. Which leads me to my second gripe: unremarkable directing from a man who's good with actors and knows how to set up a scene. The film felt more like a fan of Tarantino making an "homage" movie to Tarantino by lifting all his tropes and not knowing how to use it, and using it just to use it. Which is even more odd because the movie had none of the flare and finesse that Quentin typically has even when he's straight lifting camera choices from other movies he was inspired by. Django tried to be so much like the movies that inspired it, it stuck its head up its own ass and got stuck, and began circling around in the ground. Thirdly, Jamie Foxx is boring as all hell for the lead of the movie. As soon as Chris Waltz died, there was nothing to hold my attention in the movie as Foxx just lacked charisma in comparison. Hell, he had less on-screen presence than some of the background slaves in the movie. There are some good moments but not enough to salvage the movie; it was just too much of it trying to be like something else without actually trying to be a movie of its own. Just thinking about it now, this works as a good flipside to a similar movie Tarantino did, that was actually good but was bogged down by the halting of the movie to remind the audience that this was a goofy, exploitation film: Inglorious Basterds.
|
|
Artie Fufkin
New Spillio
When there's no more room in hell doesn't mean I'll stop killing
Posts: 20
|
Post by Artie Fufkin on Jan 12, 2014 5:50:39 GMT -5
Stake Land, a nice change from the world of vampires, slower paced which I enjoyed and sort of shows that even though the fanged ones are the baddies, pockets of survivours can be just as dangeroud. I didn't realise it was Kelly McGillis/religious types are all cunts
|
|
|
Post by minasa on Jan 12, 2014 14:54:40 GMT -5
It was a sloppy movie; I don't know what else to say about that. It all just didn't congeal. The editing lacks a rhythm, a flow, that his previous efforts had (despite their quality), too many cuts and not enough where it mattered which just made it feel like a series of unrelated shorts strung together to make a movie. Which leads me to my second gripe: unremarkable directing from a man who's good with actors and knows how to set up a scene. The film felt more like a fan of Tarantino making an "homage" movie to Tarantino by lifting all his tropes and not knowing how to use it, and using it just to use it. Which is even more odd because the movie had none of the flare and finesse that Quentin typically has even when he's straight lifting camera choices from other movies he was inspired by. Django tried to be so much like the movies that inspired it, it stuck its head up its own ass and got stuck, and began circling around in the ground. Thirdly, Jamie Foxx is boring as all hell for the lead of the movie. As soon as Chris Waltz died, there was nothing to hold my attention in the movie as Foxx just lacked charisma in comparison. Hell, he had less on-screen presence than some of the background slaves in the movie. There are some good moments but not enough to salvage the movie; it was just too much of it trying to be like something else without actually trying to be a movie of its own. Just thinking about it now, this works as a good flipside to a similar movie Tarantino did, that was actually good but was bogged down by the halting of the movie to remind the audience that this was a goofy, exploitation film: Inglorious Basterds. Fair enough, I can't disagree with that. Particularly with Jamie Foxx, why on earth did he pick him for the role I have no idea, the guy's a terrible actor and is pretty much the reason why it stopped me from really loving this movie.
|
|
Artie Fufkin
New Spillio
When there's no more room in hell doesn't mean I'll stop killing
Posts: 20
|
Post by Artie Fufkin on Jan 12, 2014 19:25:07 GMT -5
These movies do not need rating, all I have to say is THE SHAW BROTHERS RULE
|
|
|
Post by el woospo on Jan 12, 2014 21:19:22 GMT -5
Word on the Shaws
At World's End - liked it very much, maybe not as great as others but a rewatch may prove otherwise. If there was any doubt that Pegg has range and Frost does not this should clear it up. Consedine is underused and some of the soundtrack gave me a smile for simply not hearing the songs since high school. Rating = Body Snatchers x Stepford Wifes = strawberry corneto...
Brave - usual crap from Pixar, not the best, not the worst the main problem being its not funny. Rating = Billy Connolly should be in more stuff.
Crocodile Dundee - really badly made, music is okay in places. Unsure why I loved this when I was 7. Rating = hideous stereotypes in fish out of water tale declare 'thats not a knife'.
|
|
|
Post by PoopaPapaPalpatine on Jan 13, 2014 2:22:23 GMT -5
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty: Good movie, really gets you in the mood to just put on your boots and go tromping out into the world. It did get a little precious towards the end but it didn't bother me that much.
I give it "not Zoolander but much better than Night at the Museum(s)".
|
|
Artie Fufkin
New Spillio
When there's no more room in hell doesn't mean I'll stop killing
Posts: 20
|
Post by Artie Fufkin on Jan 13, 2014 4:33:03 GMT -5
Gravity- Nice effects and how the fuck did they do that moments sadly coupled with slightly piss poor dialogue in places. Does give you the totally stranded and completely fucked feeling once or twice.
It gets "great effects and Bullocks arse in those shorts elevates what would be a shit film in space"
|
|
|
Post by erikfrompa on Jan 13, 2014 21:54:43 GMT -5
Just saw The Way, Way Back without any real expectations and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Sam Rockwell and Steve Carell really shine in this coming-of-age film about an introverted 14 year old who would rather be anywhere else than where he is stuck for the summer. This is a pretty accurate depiction of that awkward stage most teenagers find themselves in at one point or another and I found it very relatable. The acting and directing seem very genuine from all involved. I give it a FULL PRICE!
|
|
|
Post by PoopaPapaPalpatine on Jan 15, 2014 1:49:58 GMT -5
Saw "Her" earlier today and while it's well done technically, it doesn't work for me as a romance movie. It's a sci-fi movie wolf dressed in a romance movie sheep's skin with concepts more intriguing than the actual "romance" between future-nerd Joaquin Phoenix and a computer program. I'm sure the whole audience swooned over that but I sure didn't. Just thinking on the physical process of them consummating their love for each other when they finally have sex just didn't work for me. It's handled well and is meant to immerse the audience in the experience, making you think that there are two people having sex for the first time; I couldn't help but imagine some near-middle aged man laying, in his bed in his pajamas jacking off to a moaning earpiece in the middle of the night. I honestly can't see how anyone can't help but think that.
There are funny moments like previously stated, both unintentional and intentional, here and there and while I thought they were good while watching it, thinking about it: they come off as slightly awkward and cumbersome. Though poignant in the grand scheme of things and the ultimate message of the film, they stick out like a sore thumb in a movie that's ultimately about our connection/dependence on technology (coupled with our tolerance of a dreary, mediocre, uneventful, hum-drum life) becoming so severe to the point that we lose sight of what is real in front of us and find solace and comfort in the intangible; losing both our ability to decipher and handle what is real, and often times painful, in life to the comfort in the ideal, convenient, and commonplace.
For those you can see through the "love" bullshit, you'll find that this movie is sprinkled throughout with very interesting, and much more complex and even much more intriguing high-concept ideas like evolving artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and the "life equation". You'll find your imagination reeling with the possibilities of the implications, what consequences are taking place in this future world as a result implied through the evolution of the love story. Unfortunately, these concepts are only hinted at and even doable concepts, like surrogate sex-partners for AI's, are introduced but glossed over so much that just thinking on the mechanics of how the instantaneous correspondence works (how it's presented in the film) between man and machine; the idea kinda falls apart. Further thinking on the idea, if there was a transmittance between the two parties, one has to ask beyond how but why have a human surrogate at all? Why not have an android that can be uploaded with the AI? This world has shown that it has rather advanced technologically but never mentions or bothers hinting at something more plausible than what it presents on-screen. There are these slightly jarring moments of leaps in technology in the film, and it's never explained, but it all happens very quickly. The sex-surrogates is an easy example (they're around faster than the relationship that is presented in the movie), nevermind that towards the end, the OS's can self-update themselves to cross platforms and communicate and interact with others, simultaneously, and even reconstruct a long dead consciousness (whether it really is the same person is implied) of a well-known philosopher. That's something completely different all together.
For what I have to give this movie, I go back to thinking what I thought of "Moon": it's competently made but, ultimately, there are higher concepts in the film that are introduced that would make much more interesting movies. Light sci-fi dressed as internal dramas can only get one score from me: 3 reminders in a film about how it's all bullshit out of 5 minutes of jacking off alone in the dark to a moaning earpiece.
|
|