Talk about the last movie you saw

Status
Not open for further replies.
drawn_inward said:
Chazwozel said:
[quote="drawn_inward":2ptcg0vi]
Vagabond said:
Public Enemies - The firefights were awesome. The ending was disappointing, even going in knowing full well what was going to happen.
I thought they were going to go with a sympathetic edge for Dilinger. I didn't care for him at all. Why did the crowd/people like him? Cause he was stickin' it to the man? I just can't root for a cop-killer. Even when the cop was smacking his gf, I saw it more from the cop's POV. This lady was protecting a cop-killer. A dude that probably killed some of his friends. I'd probably want to smack her around too.

Michael Mann has disappointed me for the first time.

I do believe that the reason why people liked him was because the film is set during the great depression and people in the midwest had a bone to pick with banks screwing them over.
This was not conveyed in the movie. He has one line where he tells a guy in the bank to keep his money. It's not like Ned Kelly or Robin Hood. Those movies has a sympathetic lead, who was also a criminal.

The acting and action was great. The sound was pretty great. The gunshots in the alley sounded awesome, and the bullets hitting a tree just sounded cool.[/quote:2ptcg0vi]

It seems like they just expect you to feel sorry for him because he's so popular with the public. They mention a few times about how he doesn't want his image with the public tarnished, but never really make him out to be someone to root for. It's why the ending fell so flat, you just don't care.
 
Public Enemies felt really dry and documentary-like. With someone like Dillinger I think this silghtly hurt more than it helped/added anything to the movie. That being said, it was still a beautifully shot documentary with solid performances by everyone involved.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

If you think the intention of the Public Enemies was to portray Dillinger as a sympathetic or admirable character, well, I just don't know what to say to you.
 

Kissinger said:
If you think the intention of the Public Enemies was to portray Dillinger as a sympathetic or admirable character, well, I just don't know what to say to you.
Let me help you.



(I haven't seen the movie, I just wanted to use that image.)
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

The title of Marc Webb's 500 Days of Summer refers to the end, beginning, and middle of the relationship of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel). It's a story told out of order, because that's how we view our own memories. The movie is not so much about the romance as it is about Tom trying to figure out why it didn't work. I am not spoiling anything by saying the relationship in the movie does not last, as a deep-voiced narrator boldly proclaims, “This is not a love story,” right from the start.

After the movie starts, on day 488, we go back to day 1. We see Tom working at a greeting card company, and he sees Summer, the newly hired assistant. Tom is the type of guy who believes in the one true love out there for him – perhaps that's why he decided to write greeting cards instead of pursuing his dream of being an architect, but I'm getting ahead of myself – and he instantly falls for Summer. Despite her clearly stated position that she doesn't want anything serious, she also develops an interest in him. And why not? He's nice, witty, smart, and attractive, just like her, and they look good standing next to each other.

For the most part, Summer remains at arms length Webb and screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber are framing everything through Tom's eyes. Luckily for them, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the perfect man for this role. He sells every moment beautifully, from the unforgettable Hall And Oates themed post-coital celebration to the ingenious and crushing split screen sequence highlighting the difference between hopes and reality. Deschanel, too, is marvelous as the beautiful and baffling Summer. Her eyes are extremely expressive, and as we rewatch a few key moments, we see more complexity and uncertainty there than Tom or we wanted to see the first time.

Together, Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt are a joy to watch. No histrionic displays, slapstick, or crude bodily humor, they look and act and feel like a real modern couple. There is a scene in which Tom is showing Summer certain buildings he likes to look at in the city, and telling her things he would've liked to do if his architectural ambitions had worked out. She wants him to draw a picture, but they don't have any paper on hand, so she offers her arm. It sounds cornball, but the way it's played and directed makes it genuine.

The film has several elements adopted from earlier films, and it does not try to hide this fact. These previously seen elements are not used due to lack of originality. Tom's view on love was built around the music of The Smiths and The Graduate, as much of the audience's view on love was built on romantic comedies like, perhaps, When Harry Met Sally.... or some of the other movies referenced here. The out-of-order storytelling, recalling films like Annie Hall, is much more than a gimmick. Tom's memories of the relationship are shown as series of highs and lows, with one moment at the beginning of the relationship contrasting sharply with a similar moment at the end. That being said, it's unfortunate that the filmmakers decided to adopt some things that don't work as well, such as the comedy relief friends or the precocious little sister dispensing relationship advice. Thankfully, these things only appear occasionally and do not distract from the emotional reality and honesty of the film.

I don't believe 500 Days of Summer is a film which tries to be profound on the subject of love and relationships, but that's okay. It certainly doesn't say anything new, borrowing so heavily pieces from earlier films. And that's okay, too, because the borrowed pieces are assembled so nicely. I've seen many movies that tell this story and expound on the same lessons, but I still smiled as the credits rolled, hopeful that Tom learned something from this experience. Sometimes it's just nice to spend time with a witty movie cleverly directed and charming characters perfectly played.
 
P

Philosopher B.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Good dialogue, great acting, interesting plot ... it was pretty good overall. The only thing that bothered me a bit was the slight over-use of the narrator. It almost felt once or twice as though I were listening to an audio book rather than watching a movie. Besides that, good stuff.
 
W

wana10

drawn_inward said:
The acting and action was great. The sound was pretty great. The gunshots in the alley sounded awesome, and the bullets hitting a tree just sounded cool.
maybe it was just the theater i saw it in but i thought the sound editing/mix sucked. lots of odd highs and lows in places there shouldn't have been.
 
C

chakz

Haven't read the thread so I don't what the current discussion is about but in keeping with the thread title-

Disney's Hercules.
Seriously underrated cartoon. Loved the animation and the style but I've been lead to believe that I have a skewed opinion when it comes to basic animation, I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion. I also liked the writing. It reminded me alot of superman except lois lane is working for lex luthor. I thought it's take on the hero/damsel formula was orignal. I also thought the writing was just good over all. It also seemed that the movie was also hell bent on defiling every cute stereotype in the book, from cute fluffy forest animals, to children with speech impairments.

Curious about other people's opinions on it.
 
W

wana10

chakz said:
Haven't read the thread so I don't what the current discussion is about but in keeping with the thread title-

Disney's Hercules.
Seriously underrated cartoon. Loved the animation and the style but I've been lead to believe that I have a skewed opinion when it comes to basic animation, I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion. I also liked the writing. It reminded me alot of superman except lois lane is working for lex luthor. I thought it's take on the hero/damsel formula was orignal. I also thought the writing was just good over all. It also seemed that the movie was also * bent on defiling every cute stereotype in the book, from cute fluffy forest animals, to children with speech impairments.

Curious about other people's opinions on it.
love the movie and 'won't say i'm in love' is one of my favourite disney songs
 

chakz said:
Curious about other people's opinions on it.
I was surprised how much I liked it. I thought the animation style was a nice departure, and the music is pretty awesome, especially that female gospel group or whatever they were.
 
C

chakz

wana10 said:
love the movie and 'won't say i'm in love' is one of my favourite disney songs
Indeed, its a great sequence.
ZenMonkey said:
chakz said:
Curious about other people's opinions on it.
I was surprised how much I liked it. I thought the animation style was a nice departure, and the music is pretty awesome, especially that female gospel group or whatever they were.
Aye, I'd like to know more about the people involved with it. Especially the character designer. The style reminds me a little bit of Stephan silve'sr, but then again I don't know a lot of character designers.
 
W

wana10

ZenMonkey said:
chakz said:
Curious about other people's opinions on it.
I was surprised how much I liked it. I thought the animation style was a nice departure, and the music is pretty awesome, especially that female gospel group or whatever they were.


we are the muses, goddesses of the arts and proclaimers of heroes.
 
chakz said:
Haven't read the thread so I don't what the current discussion is about but in keeping with the thread title-

Disney's Hercules.
Seriously underrated cartoon. Loved the animation and the style but I've been lead to believe that I have a skewed opinion when it comes to basic animation, I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion. I also liked the writing. It reminded me alot of superman except lois lane is working for lex luthor. I thought it's take on the hero/damsel formula was orignal. I also thought the writing was just good over all. It also seemed that the movie was also hell bent on defiling every cute stereotype in the book, from cute fluffy forest animals, to children with speech impairments.

Curious about other people's opinions on it.
I do like it, but the more you know about Greek mythology, the harder it is to keep your mouth shut while watching.

I find it odd that it needed "nicing up" when just a year earlier as a little kid I'd been watching the Kevin Sorbo stuff on TV and knew since I was 7 that Hera was not Hercules's mother.
 
Hercules was okay. Nothing stellar, IMO, but a pretty good movie nonetheless.

Latest movie I saw was Hellboy II. Before I watched it, I had a way different concept of the Golden Army in my head. I wasn't let down by the way they were different. Damn, that scene was good. The rest was fun, too, although Kraus was way too much of an annoying character for me up until the end.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Philosopher B. said:
Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Good dialogue, great acting, interesting plot ... it was pretty good overall. The only thing that bothered me a bit was the slight over-use of the narrator. It almost felt once or twice as though I were listening to an audio book rather than watching a movie. Besides that, good stuff.
This is pretty close to my read of the movie. Penelope Cruz was utterly fantastic (she usually is, but especially in this, legit one of the best performances of her career) and for once I wasn't totally annoyed by Scarlett Johansson. And yeah, that narrator felt completely unnecessary. Sometimes narrators work very well, like in The Big Lebowski or even The Brothers Bloom with Ricky Jay doing narration at the beginning.
 
escushion said:
I do like it, but the more you know about Greek mythology, the harder it is to keep your mouth shut while watching.

I find it odd that it needed "nicing up" when just a year earlier as a little kid I'd been watching the Kevin Sorbo stuff on TV and knew since I was 7 that Hera was not Hercules's mother.
Those pretty much echo the reasons I hated Hercules the Disney film. I spent alot of time with Greek mythos as a kid, and of course a fan of Hercules/Xena. So when I saw the Disney version I was just annoyed more than anything. Not to mention I'm not really a fan of musicals. Oh and as much as I like Danny Devito, his character really annoyed me.

The saving grace for me was obviously Hades (James Woods) and Pain (Bobcat).
 
C

chakz

escushion said:
chakz said:
Haven't read the thread so I don't what the current discussion is about but in keeping with the thread title-

Disney's Hercules.
Seriously underrated cartoon. Loved the animation and the style but I've been lead to believe that I have a skewed opinion when it comes to basic animation, I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion. I also liked the writing. It reminded me alot of superman except lois lane is working for lex luthor. I thought it's take on the hero/damsel formula was orignal. I also thought the writing was just good over all. It also seemed that the movie was also * bent on defiling every cute stereotype in the book, from cute fluffy forest animals, to children with speech impairments.

Curious about other people's opinions on it.
I do like it, but the more you know about Greek mythology, the harder it is to keep your mouth shut while watching.

I find it odd that it needed "nicing up" when just a year earlier as a little kid I'd been watching the Kevin Sorbo stuff on TV and knew since I was 7 that Hera was not Hercules's mother.
I can understand this. Hercules has as about as much in common with Greek myth as 300 does with historical accuracy. I don't think they were necessarily 'nicing' it up, just giving it a different look....unless there is an interview somewhere that says different....or unless you referring to the fact that Hercules was zeus's illegitimate son, in which case I think if they stick that close they would not have been able to play zeuss as a warm fatherly figure.
 
chakz said:
I can understand this. Hercules has as about as much in common with Greek myth as 300 does with historical accuracy.
Hm, now that I think about it, that is a bit strange, due to the fact that I did like 300. Perhaps because I pushed the "history" out of my head and just enjoyed all the blood spraying. :bush:
 
I watched Earth Girls are Easy last night with an alternate soundtrack that was simply sublime and made the movie the funniest 90 minutes of my life. I woke up hungover from laughing so hard with literal muscle pains.
 

fade

Staff member
Batman (1989) Okay, I'm only 15 minutes in, and I feel compelled to comment on this stinker. I remember, I hated this movie when I was a kid because it was such a departure from the comics I loved. I haven't seen it since 89, and It still sucks. And this is coming from a Burton fan. Everything looks cheap and fake, and you can't blame in on the year it was made. the painted skyline composites are so bad, I can see the seams where they transition from paintings on glass to soundstage/location. They did a much better job than that in Gone with the Wind 50 years earlier! The first appearance of Batman appears to be (poorly) animated--or at least poorly rotoscoped. The actors are all dead inside, and Batman moves so unconvincingly, I feel like I could beat him up. And all of that is just 15 minutes in.
 
fade said:
Batman (1989) Okay, I'm only 15 minutes in, and I feel compelled to comment on this stinker. I remember, I hated this movie when I was a kid because it was such a departure from the comics I loved. I haven't seen it since 89, and It still sucks. And this is coming from a Burton fan. Everything looks cheap and fake, and you can't blame in on the year it was made. the painted skyline composites are so bad, I can see the seams where they transition from paintings on glass to soundstage/location. They did a much better job than that in Gone with the Wind 50 years earlier! The first appearance of Batman appears to be (poorly) animated--or at least poorly rotoscoped. The actors are all dead inside, and Batman moves so unconvincingly, I feel like I could beat him up. And all of that is just 15 minutes in.
This.... must.... be.... a .... troll..... post..... it must..... be.... :bush:
 
watching batman gotham knight with my 4 year old...we are both enraptured by the different takes on batman...he seems as confused on why there are so many batmans as he is excited about it. his favorite is the first one with everyone's different versions of what happened and mine is the epic sewer episode..very cool dvd...this is a concept everyone should explore...superman? wolverine? transmet?

:batman:
 
W

wana10

mortualio said:
his favorite is the first one with everyone's different versions of what happened
you should track down an episode from the 90's animated series called "Legends of the Dark Knight" it was the basis for that part of gotham knight but instead spoofs 50's batman and miller batman as the different tales the kids have heard.
 

fade

Staff member
Shegokigo said:
fade said:
Batman (1989) Okay, I'm only 15 minutes in, and I feel compelled to comment on this stinker. I remember, I hated this movie when I was a kid because it was such a departure from the comics I loved. I haven't seen it since 89, and It still sucks. And this is coming from a Burton fan. Everything looks cheap and fake, and you can't blame in on the year it was made. the painted skyline composites are so bad, I can see the seams where they transition from paintings on glass to soundstage/location. They did a much better job than that in Gone with the Wind 50 years earlier! The first appearance of Batman appears to be (poorly) animated--or at least poorly rotoscoped. The actors are all dead inside, and Batman moves so unconvincingly, I feel like I could beat him up. And all of that is just 15 minutes in.
This.... must.... be.... a .... troll..... post..... it must..... be.... :bush:
Nope. And I'm telling you, I like Burton, and I'm a huge Batman fan. There's quite a bit of opinion in my post, but the technical things are facts--I can see seams in the background paintings. The rotoscoped Bats in the opening scene is poorly executed (and a questionable artistic decision at best). The acting so far is horrific. Even Nicholson doesn't seem to care to be there. I remember critics panning the darkness back in 89, and at the time, I disagreed. I thought, "that was the one redeeming factor!". Now that I'm older, I agree with them. Not because of the darkness, but because it's a brown, muddy midtone darkness. It's not black enough to be noir, so it comes off as "bleh". Again. First 15 minutes (I paused to mow, and I just came back to check this).
 
I dunno what to tell you then. You're dead inside man. :devil:

It can't be compared to anything of current time, but when it was released, it simply personified what Batman was. The entire "feel" of the movie felt ripped from so many pages I had read growing up.
Joker was beautifully devious, well done by Nicolson, so no clue where you're getting the "didn't even want to be there", hell he's been quoted as being upset that his character was killed off instead of getting a chance to be in a sequel.
There has never been a more "serious" and "playboy" Batman/Bruce Wayne since Keaton.
The film was everything we needed in a comic book film, especially one based off the Batman.
 
W

Wasabi Poptart

Just watched Taken tonight. Wow! Liam Neeson like I have never seen him before. Certain things I found predictable, but it was an overall good action flick.
 
What bothered me about Taken was that everything was too convienent. I mean I know he was "trained" but everything happened exactly when it needed to. Even things out of his control. Kind of threw the film for me. Though I do enjoy Liam, so his performance really made this movie shine for me. Favorite scene? Getting the guy to say "Good luck" in the small room and when the guards rush the room afterwards.
 
WildSoul said:
Just watched Taken tonight. Wow! Liam Neeson like I have never seen him before. Certain things I found predictable, but it was an overall good action flick.
Taken was one of two movies that jumps immediately to mind when I think about superfluous names. I don't recall Liam Neeson's character's name, and I don't care. I feel like they shouldn't have even bothered trying to establish one. He should have gone by the name "Liam Neeson" the entire way through. Just because it would be awesome.

The other movie was Snakes on a Plane. He wasn't FBI agent whatever-face. It was goddamn Sam Jackson. The end.
 
P

Philosopher B.

The Terminal

I found this to be a fanciful yet oddly charming movie, though a bit over-long perhaps.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Ugh, fucking Taken. Fuck that movie. It would've been a really cool "Jason Bourne in twenty years" type thing if the script weren't so fucking terrible and it wasn't incredibly misogynistic, jingoistic, and exploitative. The action scenes are sort of cool, and Liam Neeson is really good outside of that first half hour which is completely awful in every way imaginable, but he's not enough to save the movie.
 

escushion said:
I do like it, but the more you know about Greek mythology, the harder it is to keep your mouth shut while watching.
True, but the same can be said for I think any of Disney's animated adaptations. I loved reading the books of Bambi, Peter Pan, and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland as a kid and those were as diluted down and sillied up for the movies as the Andersen or Grimm fairy tales. Which isn't to say I don't like or even love many of those movies, but Disney has never ever treated myths and fairy tales with respect, so Hercules was no different along those lines at all.

(Let's not even go there with Hunchback of Notre Dame and Pocohontas.)

Re Batman '89:

Shegokigo said:
I dunno what to tell you then. You're dead inside man. :devil:
Have to go with this right here.
 
Shegokigo said:
chakz said:
I can understand this. Hercules has as about as much in common with Greek myth as 300 does with historical accuracy.
Hm, now that I think about it, that is a bit strange, due to the fact that I did like 300. Perhaps because I pushed the "history" out of my head and just enjoyed all the blood spraying. :bush:


...You also liked Hercules and Xena. Don't tell me you think those are any *closer* to the actual mythology, or you've read some very different mythology than I have.


Anyway: last movie seen: Alien.
I dunno, for such a classic movie in the genre, it sure does everything by the book. Nothing really great imho. Not bad, but nothing stellar.
 
Shegokigo said:
It can't be compared to anything of current time, but when it was released, it simply personified what Batman was. The entire "feel" of the movie felt ripped from so many pages I had read growing up.
Joker was beautifully devious, well done by Nicolson, so no clue where you're getting the "didn't even want to be there", * he's been quoted as being upset that his character was killed off instead of getting a chance to be in a sequel.
There has never been a more "serious" and "playboy" Batman/Bruce Wayne since Keaton.
The film was everything we needed in a comic book film, especially one based off the Batman.
This.

I consider Tim Burton's Batman to be one of the major landmark superhero films, the other being Richard Donner's Superman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top