Skip to main content

16,067 replies

MOVIES: What are you watching?

E eyesintimeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Parcival:
Transcendence
-pretty mediocre. It started with an interesting sci-fi premise, but just did not hold together
-read a review about this that suggested Johnny Depp must have skyped in his performance and that struck me as pretty accurate
-barely held my interest during a flight


This just came up in the new releases on Netflix, and I didn't add it to my queue -- and I add a lot to my queue. The trailer looked bad and reviews I read were bad.
P parcivalMember
quote:
Originally posted by eyesintime:
quote:
Originally posted by Parcival:
Transcendence
-pretty mediocre. It started with an interesting sci-fi premise, but just did not hold together
-read a review about this that suggested Johnny Depp must have skyped in his performance and that struck me as pretty accurate
-barely held my interest during a flight


This just came up in the new releases on Netflix, and I didn't add it to my queue -- and I add a lot to my queue. The trailer looked bad and reviews I read were bad.


Good decision . . . unless you have absolutely nothing else to watch, not worth it. Even though, if you're at home, standard cable would win out for me
P parcivalMember
Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony

Interesting documentary. I watch a lot of My Little Pony since I have two young daughters smitten with the show. But, I haven't yet started to hoof-bump people, dress in pony garb, or tattoo a cutie mark to my ass. . . perhaps at a future offline!

There was one very interesting aspect of the film that I actually would have liked them to delve into more . . . fathers coming to grips with their adolescent sons' infatuation with My Little Pony.
mneeley490mneeley490Member
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
quote:
Originally posted by mneeley490:
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
The Man From Earth

What did you think of it?


It was an interesting "talk talk" kind of movie with some odd twists. I'm not sure I'd bother having Netflix send it a second time to rewatch it. There are plenty on IMDB that liked it though.

Just wondered, as I own the dvd. I know it's not for everybody.
E eyesintimeMember
Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Far cry from the previous movie I watched. While I admit this likely would have been better in a theater, I'm now at the point that I find most of these special effects driven films very boring. I also find it funny that Jackson is splitting the Hobbit into 3 films. I did think this was actually moving along at a decent pace, but the last hour really just dragged on.
The Old ManThe Old ManMember
The Story of Film: An Odyssey

What if you were a true cineaste? One who not only loved movies, but had tremendous knowledge of their history. And you wanted to impart that knowledge to the general public? And what if you were given the chance to produce a documentary of 15 parts running over 900 minutes? And what if you chose to narrate it yourself, and you had a voice that the New York Times described as "having an Irish lilt", but many, many people hear as the voice of an Irish Valley Girl, whose every sentence ends with a Valley Girl's trademark uptalk? You'd have a TV series by film critic Mark Cousins of which 50% of those who've written reviews at IMBD, Netflix etc. turn off by the second or third episode.

But what would you miss? A man who knows more about world cinema than anyone I've heard. Examples include: Cabria, a 1914 Italian film that predated the innovations of D.W Griffith by two years. The first masterpiece of Japanese film Souls on the Road in 1921!

OK, we all know there's significant films made in the US, Europe and Japan, but Cousins will introduce you to Youssef Chahine, an Egyptian filmmaker in the fifties. We know Satyajit Ray, but what about India's "Orson Welles" Guru Dutt or the 1913 full length Indian film by Dadasaheb Phalke, Raja Harishchandra?

Masterpieces and milestone in cinema unravel at a non-stop pace through out the series. A Brazilian film from 1931. The movies of Senegal. Czech new wave films from the well known Milos Foreman, but the unknown to us female director, Vera Chytilova.

Now comes the but--this is a very difficult series to get through. First there is no denying that Cousins' voice is very hard to listen to hour and hour. He is also very prone to hyperbole, "the greatest XXX ever", no "more important biography than this", etc. Even when true he often doesn't back it up. Another problem is the series mostly goes in chronological order, but will jump due to Cousins' ability to connect images and ideas from films from different countries and decades. But sometimes there is no rational for the jump. He had a limited number of live interviews that he could do, so they often go on too long and you may glaze over what some of them say. And though we all have different tastes does he really need to spend 20+ minutes talking with, and about, Buck Henry? I like The Graduate as much as the next guy, but it, and the wretched Catch 22 does not make him the most significant comedy writer of the 70's. Nor does a detailed set of films and an interview make Paul Schrader, or even Robert Townes, more than one hit wonders.

Due to low budget there's endless shots of cities where films are made or where directors lived or where a cinema used to be. These give the narrator a non-interfering backdrop to give lectures over, but we quickly become bored. In addition he becomes enamored of two images that he uses as metaphor--a Christmas ornament that represents the "bauble", bright shiny films, often from Hollywood, that lack depth and even worse, a person in a gorilla suit to represent the device of surprise in films.

In addition it does start to really crash during his discussions of the last 20 years. But even then you'll find a reference to a fascinating Turkish film or the Argentina woman director Lucrecia Martel's The Headless Woman.

In the first episode Cousins says, "At the end of the 19th century a new art form flickered into life." This series is mandatory viewing for those who know that film is an important art and want to exponentially increase their knowledge and finds viewing suggestions. Helpfully there's a complete list of every film from the show at the Wikipedia entry for the series. Also if you poke around on Netflix and Amazon you will find a number of these films for streaming or DVD rental.

Executive summary--highly recommended, but a real slog sometimes.
winetarelliwinetarelliMember
quote:
Originally posted by eyesintime:
Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Far cry from the previous movie I watched. While I admit this likely would have been better in a theater, I'm now at the point that I find most of these special effects driven films very boring. I also find it funny that Jackson is splitting the Hobbit into 3 films. I did think this was actually moving along at a decent pace, but the last hour really just dragged on.

First off, let's all agree that the LOTR trilogy is a masterpiece and these Hobbit movies are a far cry from that. That said, I don't see these new films as "special effects" films per se -- not the way, say, Transformers is. Rather, I think Peter Jackson has become so obsessed with his ability to create the world the characters inhabit (often using special effects) that he has forgotten to tell a story.
The Old ManThe Old ManMember
quote:
Originally posted by winetarelli:
quote:
Originally posted by eyesintime:
Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Far cry from the previous movie I watched. While I admit this likely would have been better in a theater, I'm now at the point that I find most of these special effects driven films very boring. I also find it funny that Jackson is splitting the Hobbit into 3 films. I did think this was actually moving along at a decent pace, but the last hour really just dragged on.

First off, let's all agree that the LOTR trilogy is a masterpiece and these Hobbit movies are a far cry from that. That said, I don't see these new films as "special effects" films per se -- not the way, say, Transformers is. Rather, I think Peter Jackson has become so obsessed with his ability to create the world the characters inhabit (often using special effects) that he has forgotten to tell a story.

It was a big mistake to take a single book and try to make it a long trilogy. Should have been one movie. I stopped about 30 minutes into the first part--that was enough for me.
E eyesintimeMember
quote:
Originally posted by winetarelli:
quote:
Originally posted by eyesintime:
Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Far cry from the previous movie I watched. While I admit this likely would have been better in a theater, I'm now at the point that I find most of these special effects driven films very boring. I also find it funny that Jackson is splitting the Hobbit into 3 films. I did think this was actually moving along at a decent pace, but the last hour really just dragged on.

First off, let's all agree that the LOTR trilogy is a masterpiece and these Hobbit movies are a far cry from that. That said, I don't see these new films as "special effects" films per se -- not the way, say, Transformers is. Rather, I think Peter Jackson has become so obsessed with his ability to create the world the characters inhabit (often using special effects) that he has forgotten to tell a story.


Well, we can agree to disagree on whether LOTR trilogy is a masterpiece and whether The Desolation of Smaug is a special effects/CG film per se. For me, the scenes that I would guess rely most on CG become very boring very quickly. And while some of that can be attributed to watching it on a small screen, again, for me, that is a big flaw with these types of films. I can understand why they are popular, they just hold less interest for me.

I do find it interesting that Jackson's obsession with his ability to create a world in many ways mirrors Tolkien's own obsession. This obsession is why his publisher was initially disappointed with what we now call the LOTR trilogy -- it was in fact written as one book and divided into three books by his publisher -- and why The Silmarillon was not published in his lifetime. Bringing any of these books to film is greatly aided by special effects/CG, but when those effects seem to take on more importance than the story -- well, I guess I'd just rather spend my time re-reading the books or watching more character-driven films.
The Old ManThe Old ManMember
The Rack

The same year that Paul Newman's Somebody Up There Likes Me was released, 1956, this movie came out. Depending on how you count it this is Newman's second or third film. Based on a teleplay by that teller of modern day moralistic tales--Rod Serling--this film deals with a returning Army captain POW from the Korean war. As in the later movie The Manchurian Candidate it deals with a soldier who was brainwashed. As a result the soldier here finds himself on trial for treason. The major difference is instead of the ridiculous brainwashing technique of TMC here is a much more believable and horrific method.

Newman is fantastic in a role that calls for a big range of emotions and there's a cast of great supporting actors including Walter Pidgeon, Edmond O'Brien, Lee Marvin (in a short but devastating performance) and Anne Francis in perhaps her best role.

Highly recommended forgotten film.
The Old ManThe Old ManMember
Melancholia
I just don't know if I can get through this awful film. The opening puts the fartsy into artsy. The tedious wedding just goes on and pointless on. The constantly moving L&O SVU camera has no excuse for being. Lars Von Trier is often said to be the most important director since Carl Dreyer. What a slap to maker of The Passion of Joan of Arc! I'm going to go exercise and when I come back I may try to finish it.

Two hours later:

I'm back and finished it. Essentially you could remove about 90 minutes from the center of the movie. The tag line: Two sisters discover each other when the world is threatened with annihilation. Yes, it could have made a heck of a Twilight Zone.

Meanwhile watching the always great Seven Days in May, with a script by, who else, Rod Serling.
Last edited by The Old Man
F funkyseefunkydooMember
quote:
Originally posted by winetarelli:
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
Under the Skin

Scarlett really was wonderful in it; but so much brood and mood without pacing got me quite frustrated. It seems like a great short story that ought to be tell-able in 50 minutes but instead, took an hour 50. Much more interesting than good, imo.

Still naked Scarlett is great!


I watched this two nights ago and I think I enjoyed it more than you guys. Definitely "interesting" is the best descriptor, but I also found it entertaining ... in a weird way.


Johansson is a much better actress than I realized.
W wine+artMember
quote:
Originally posted by The Web:
quote:
Originally posted by winetarelli:
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
Under the Skin

Scarlett really was wonderful in it; but so much brood and mood without pacing got me quite frustrated. It seems like a great short story that ought to be tell-able in 50 minutes but instead, took an hour 50. Much more interesting than good, imo.

Still naked Scarlett is great!


I watched this two nights ago and I think I enjoyed it more than you guys. Definitely "interesting" is the best descriptor, but I also found it entertaining ... in a weird way.


Johansson is a much better actress than I realized.


Just for the record, the review above was winetarelli's. Wink
PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×