TMLfans.ca

Just for Fun => Non-Hockey Chatter => Topic started by: CarltonTheBear on July 14, 2011, 11:08:43 AM

Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 14, 2011, 11:08:43 AM
Final Harry Potter film opens tonight at midnight. Who's excited?

There's also definitely going to be a Dark Knight Rises teaser trailer attached to the film. If you haven't seen the teaser poster for it yet check it out here: http://www.slashfilm.com/the-dark-knight-rises-teaser-poster/
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 14, 2011, 11:14:46 AM
Also, it sounds like there's going to be a trailer for the new Spider-Man flick attached to Captain America next week. Not digging the new costume though: http://www.latinoreview.com/news/new-image-of-andrew-garfield-as-the-amazing-spider-man-14161. It'll be interested to see how it looks on film.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 14, 2011, 11:18:15 AM
Final Harry Potter film opens tonight at midnight. Who's excited?

There's also definitely going to be a Dark Knight Rises teaser trailer attached to the film. If you haven't seen the teaser poster for it yet check it out here: http://www.slashfilm.com/the-dark-knight-rises-teaser-poster/

There's also apparently a teaser for the new Sherlock Holmes movie attached to Harry Potter as well.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 14, 2011, 11:19:48 AM
Final Harry Potter film opens tonight at midnight. Who's excited?

There's also definitely going to be a Dark Knight Rises teaser trailer attached to the film. If you haven't seen the teaser poster for it yet check it out here: http://www.slashfilm.com/the-dark-knight-rises-teaser-poster/

There's also apparently a teaser for the new Sherlock Holmes movie attached to Harry Potter as well.

Yup. You can view that online in high-def already though if you wish: http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/must-watch-first-full-trailer-for-sherlock-holmes-a-game-of-shadows/
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 14, 2011, 11:26:28 AM
Saw the X-Men prequel a few days ago. I didn't think it sucked.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Derk on July 14, 2011, 11:35:43 AM
Saw the X-Men prequel a few days ago. I didn't think it sucked.

I was okay with it. Still not used to the way Marvel changes up parts of the mythology in the movies, but what can you do?
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 14, 2011, 03:52:29 PM
A few people talked about the Conan documentary, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

His version of The Weight by The Band was fantastic.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 14, 2011, 04:26:41 PM
Saw the X-Men prequel a few days ago. I didn't think it sucked.

I was okay with it. Still not used to the way Marvel changes up parts of the mythology in the movies, but what can you do?

I thought it was one of my favourite movies of the year. There were some minor things that irked me, but overall it was great. That scene in the bar with Magneto was amazing. I could have watched an entire movie of something like that. Inglorious Basterds with mutant powers.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: cw on July 15, 2011, 08:00:45 PM
Sarah Palin Movie Debuts to Empty Theater in Orange County
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/sarah-palin-movie-debuts-to-empty-theater-in-orange-county/241983/
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 16, 2011, 04:12:16 AM
Theatrical trailer of "Captain America"....

http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810026349/trailer
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on July 16, 2011, 08:28:37 AM
Watching Winnie the Pooh, and getting increasingly confused and agitated.   How can they change the characters' voices?   They kept Pooh and Tigger, thank goodness, but all the others were off, radically in some cases.

My childhood needs to give Hollywood a stern talking to.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CaptainObvious on July 16, 2011, 10:32:12 AM
If you go to see Harry Potter...watch it in 2D, not 3D or you may become disappointed.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 16, 2011, 10:37:23 AM
If you go to see Harry Potter...watch it in 2D, not 3D or you may become disappointed.

I actially thought the 3D in this one was pretty impressive, especially for conversion job.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CaptainObvious on July 16, 2011, 11:06:36 AM
If you go to see Harry Potter...watch it in 2D, not 3D or you may become disappointed.

I actially thought the 3D in this one was pretty impressive, especially for conversion job.
The way you light for a movie versus how a movie is played are two different things. Warner Brothers came down to watch the movie before the release and they were sorely disappointed. 3D needs more light in general and wearing glasses cuts down the light even more. So, the projectionist has to increase the lighting to 115% to make up for the loss of light. They try to circumvent this by changing the screen itself to the silver background for more reflective  properties, but it's like shuffling chairs on the Titanic.
Having said that, like I said the movie is lit a certain way, from the Director of Photography and the long and short of it until you've seen the 2D you won't really know what you missed.
If you are happy with the movie  then that's good as you are the consumer and that's what matters.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 16, 2011, 11:08:58 AM
If you go to see Harry Potter...watch it in 2D, not 3D or you may become disappointed.

I actially thought the 3D in this one was pretty impressive, especially for conversion job.
The way you light for a movie versus how a movie is played are two different things. Warner Brothers came down to watch the movie before the release and they were sorely disappointed. 3D needs more light in general and wearing glasses cuts down the light even more. So, the projectionist has to increase the lighting to 115% to make up for the loss of light. They try to circumvent this by changing the screen itself to the silver background for more reflective  properties, but it's like shuffling chairs on the Titanic.
Having said that, like I said the movie is lit a certain way, from the Director of Photography and the long and short of it until you've seen the 2D you won't really know what you missed.
If you are happy with the movie  then that's good as you are the consumer and that's what matters.

I suppose I should have mentioned that as a projectionist of the theatre I watched it in, I had a bit of a say in how bright the picture was ;)

edit: but even without that, as far as post-conversion 3D goes, this was one of the best I've seen. If not the best.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2011, 07:04:23 AM
We haven't seen one Potter film... I understand the last couple are a bit scary for little ones? Can anyone recommend an appropriate age to start watching from the beginning?
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CaptainObvious on July 17, 2011, 11:21:46 AM
For Kubrick fans:
http://vimeo.com/25746412
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CaptainObvious on July 17, 2011, 11:28:21 AM
I found this interestingly enough:
http://gizmodo.com/5821586/ebert-dont-watch-the-new-harry-potter-flick-in-3d
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2011, 12:32:41 PM
For Kubrick fans:
http://vimeo.com/25746412

Thanks for sharing that.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CaptainObvious on July 17, 2011, 12:38:41 PM
For Kubrick fans:
http://vimeo.com/25746412

Thanks for sharing that.
No worries. I'm glad someone could appreciate it.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on July 17, 2011, 12:47:00 PM
We haven't seen one Potter film... I understand the last couple are a bit scary for little ones? Can anyone recommend an appropriate age to start watching from the beginning?

The first 4 are pretty tame.  The last couple were kinda scary in spots.  My youngest who is turning 6 in a month has watched them all. 
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2011, 12:50:08 PM
We haven't seen one Potter film... I understand the last couple are a bit scary for little ones? Can anyone recommend an appropriate age to start watching from the beginning?

The first 4 are pretty tame.  The last couple were kinda scary in spots.  My youngest who is turning 6 in a month has watched them all.

Cool. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2011, 02:28:22 PM
Just watched Horrible Bosses. Pretty darn funny... and Jennifer Aniston?  HOLY HELL! Brad, what were you thinking?
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 17, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I didn't know Hugo Weaving was playing Red Skull, might have to go see the Captain America.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: LittleHockeyFan on July 17, 2011, 04:05:16 PM
We haven't seen one Potter film... I understand the last couple are a bit scary for little ones? Can anyone recommend an appropriate age to start watching from the beginning?

the first two are age appropriate even to about age 5 or 6. Three and four have a few incidents of violence that will scare a sensitive child, but I'd say up to age 10 or 11 should be ok. I took my daycare kids to see number 3 years ago, and the oldest one at the time was 11, the youngest (my own boy) was 8 and he was okay with it, but he can stand horror type stuff better than me (he's 15 now). The last four movies (three books,  four movies, so Order of the Phoenix, Half Blood Prince and two parts to Deathly Hallows...) are PG 13 for a good reason. There's way more violence (although most of it is implied, the deaths mostly occur off screen) and frightening stuff  in them. There some very intense stuff, and storyline wise more than a young child can cope with. Unless the child has read the Potter books or is tough as nails, I would say age 10 or older for sure, for the last four movies.

Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2011, 04:24:48 PM
We haven't seen one Potter film... I understand the last couple are a bit scary for little ones? Can anyone recommend an appropriate age to start watching from the beginning?

the first two are age appropriate even to about age 5 or 6. Three and four have a few incidents of violence that will scare a sensitive child, but I'd say up to age 10 or 11 should be ok. I took my daycare kids to see number 3 years ago, and the oldest one at the time was 11, the youngest (my own boy) was 8 and he was okay with it, but he can stand horror type stuff better than me (he's 15 now). The last four movies (three books,  four movies, so Order of the Phoenix, Half Blood Prince and two parts to Deathly Hallows...) are PG 13 for a good reason. There's way more violence (although most of it is implied, the deaths mostly occur off screen) and frightening stuff  in them. There some very intense stuff, and storyline wise more than a young child can cope with. Unless the child has read the Potter books or is tough as nails, I would say age 10 or older for sure, for the last four movies.

Ah. Okay, maybe I'll wait a bit then. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: You're right on July 17, 2011, 07:37:16 PM
So I had to see Monte Carlo with my daughter today (parental duties). Didn't really pay attention but had a great hot dog and popcorn at none other than Encore cinema in Oakville. Fun times!
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 19, 2011, 08:16:53 PM
Watched a movie called Bronson a few nights ago (about the prisoner, not the film star). Starred Tom Hardy as Charles Bronson. Thought it was very well done. Hardy was great. He's putting together a very impressive looking resume. Last year he was in Inception and next year he's in TDKR. He's also starring in two films this year which are speculated to do some damage at the Oscars in Warrior and Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy. 
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: J-Ho Fan on July 20, 2011, 12:38:59 AM
Saw horrible bosses tonight, absolutely hilarious. Jennifer Anistion was great(and yes, what WAS brad thinking?) And I enoyed Jasilon Day as well
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 20, 2011, 03:48:30 PM

Just saw Dear Zachary. Don't know if a movie has ever hit me as hard as it did. What a stupid country we live in.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: mustacheman on July 20, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Saw horrible bosses tonight, absolutely hilarious. Jennifer Anistion was great(and yes, what WAS brad thinking?) And I enoyed Jasilon Day as well
Bronson was a good film but i got the feeling they were ripping off CHOPPER an Aussie flick that came out about 6-7 years ago, maybe more.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: moon111 on July 20, 2011, 10:09:31 PM
My youngest daughter who's and pretty delicate emotionally watched all the Harry Potter movies without problem.  I was a little disappointed with the Transformer's movie as it would of been something I would of liked to have shared with my two sons who've I let see the others. 

And anyone figure out how to clone Jennifer Aniston yet?
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Mordac on July 21, 2011, 03:04:06 PM
My youngest daughter who's and pretty delicate emotionally watched all the Harry Potter movies without problem.  I was a little disappointed with the Transformer's movie as it would of been something I would of liked to have shared with my two sons who've I let see the others. 

And anyone figure out how to clone Jennifer Aniston yet?

My daughter (just turned 11) has seen them all as they were released. No issues. Though at 6, her favourite movie was LoTR, so sensitivity wasn't an issue.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 21, 2011, 04:03:26 PM
Saw horrible bosses tonight, absolutely hilarious. Jennifer Anistion was great(and yes, what WAS brad thinking?) And I enoyed Jasilon Day as well
Bronson was a good film but i got the feeling they were ripping off CHOPPER an Aussie flick that came out about 6-7 years ago, maybe more.

I really like Chopper ( great performance from Eric Bana ) but I don't think Bronson borrowed too much from it, Nicolas Winding Refn has a fairly distinctive style. Maybe it's just due to the prison setting and black-ish humor in both?

I think you may have meant to quote Carlton though.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 21, 2011, 04:05:44 PM
My youngest daughter who's and pretty delicate emotionally watched all the Harry Potter movies without problem.  I was a little disappointed with the Transformer's movie as it would of been something I would of liked to have shared with my two sons who've I let see the others. 

And anyone figure out how to clone Jennifer Aniston yet?

My daughter (just turned 11) has seen them all as they were released. No issues. Though at 6, her favourite movie was LoTR, so sensitivity wasn't an issue.

Yeah, my daughter is 9 and she really liked LOTR and the first 4 or 5 Potter flicks, though I didn't let her see the LOTR until I knew she was ready for it. I hope BMan is kidding...
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 21, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
My youngest daughter who's and pretty delicate emotionally watched all the Harry Potter movies without problem.  I was a little disappointed with the Transformer's movie as it would of been something I would of liked to have shared with my two sons who've I let see the others. 

And anyone figure out how to clone Jennifer Aniston yet?

My daughter (just turned 11) has seen them all as they were released. No issues. Though at 6, her favourite movie was LoTR, so sensitivity wasn't an issue.

Yeah, my daughter is 9 and she really liked LOTR and the first 4 or 5 Potter flicks, though I didn't let her see the LOTR until I knew she was ready for it. I hope BMan is kidding...

Tigger, I was laughing (well,snickering to be accurate) at the expense of Floyd.

It's a sad world we live in to absolutely protect kids because we are paranoid. There is protecting them for which I agree, but then, there's having them live in a cocoon/bubble. It can't be good for them when they grow older.  Who knows how many of lifes moments or sensations or whatnot they are missing due to paranoid parents. Not a shot at Floyd, but it all just blows my mind.

I don't know if you saw the John Stewart show last night ( well the one I did anyways about the British shenanigans ) but yeah...

"Counting bodies like sheep
To the rhythm of the war drums

I’ll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and a voice of reason
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices son
They're one in the same, I must isolate you…
Isolate and save you from yourself"

One of those lyrics that ( kind of ) defenestrates the window pane, if prose can really emerge from such a thing.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2011, 03:48:54 AM
"The Smurfs" in 3D movie trailer:


http://www.sonypictures.ca/english/movies/TheSmurfs/ (http://www.sonypictures.ca/english/movies/TheSmurfs/)    (click on 'trailer')
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: chestyleroux on July 29, 2011, 09:17:24 AM
"The Smurfs" in 3D movie trailer:


http://www.sonypictures.ca/english/movies/TheSmurfs/ (http://www.sonypictures.ca/english/movies/TheSmurfs/)    (click on 'trailer')

It's sitting at a cool 20% on Rotten Tomatoes. Basically all critics are calling it "Alvin & the Chipmunks 2".
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 29, 2011, 12:06:28 PM
Watched Captain America, that was kinda meh.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 29, 2011, 06:29:08 PM
Friends With Benefits was one of my favorite films of the year so far, really funny and danced around the usual cliche's with some panache.  It was refreshing to see two people in Kunis and Timberlake who had sizzling chemistry at times too.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 04, 2011, 08:01:55 AM
For Kubrick fans:
http://vimeo.com/25746412

Thanks for sharing that.
No worries. I'm glad someone could appreciate it.

Hey Capt'... Someone sent me this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sUIxXCCFWw
... thought it was quite interesting.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on August 07, 2011, 02:53:21 AM
Finally saw Thor, and like everyone else it seems, I was pleasantly surprised.   Some great performances, especially from Anthony Hopkins and the dude that played Loki.   A little over the top at times, but they are ostensibly divine royalty.   Some extra drama is to be expected.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 07, 2011, 07:10:33 PM
Planet of the Apes was amazing, close to tears a couple of times, laughed at times and was fascinated by the action.

Solid 8.5/10 for it's genre.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: L K on August 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
Friends With Benefits was one of my favorite films of the year so far, really funny and danced around the usual cliche's with some panache.  It was refreshing to see two people in Kunis and Timberlake who had sizzling chemistry at times too.

Wow, completely opposite opinion.  I thought it was awful and I liked Captain America (not a great movie, but a decent enough action flick with a reasonable segway into the Avengers for next year).
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Deebo on August 08, 2011, 10:16:14 AM
I didn't like Captain America
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 08, 2011, 10:20:03 AM
I didn't like Captain America

Damn. I had hopes. Still worth the download or no?
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 08, 2011, 10:33:29 AM
I really enjoyed Captain America. It wasn't perfect, but, it was exactly what I expected it to be.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 08, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
"Moneyball" trailer;

http://www.break.com/movie-trailers/moneyball-2094478

Should be informative (I hope.)
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 08, 2011, 06:21:31 PM
I didn't like Captain America

Damn. I had hopes. Still worth the download or no?

I'd still give it a watch. Deebo and others have every right to not like it, but the majority of critics (79% on RottenTomatoes) and general audience members (80%) have enjoyed it. I for one thought it was terrific. My second favourite Marvel movie for sure (Iron Man being first).

It was my 2nd favourite movie of the year until last night when I watched Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I went into it with pretty high expectations and it definitely surpassed them.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 08, 2011, 06:30:28 PM
I didn't like Captain America

Damn. I had hopes. Still worth the download or no?

I'd still give it a watch. Deebo and others have every right to not like it, but the majority of critics (79% on RottenTomatoes) and general audience members (80%) have enjoyed it. I for one thought it was terrific. My second favourite Marvel movie for sure (Iron Man being first).

It was my 2nd favourite movie of the year until last night when I watched Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I went into it with pretty high expectations and it definitely surpassed them.

Cool. I'll probably get to it next weekend.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Deebo on August 08, 2011, 07:05:25 PM
I didn't like Captain America

Damn. I had hopes. Still worth the download or no?

I thought it was full of lame one liners and boring action sequences, but i've never really been a fan of the marvel movies.

If you liked the Iron Man movies, you'll probably like this one... just not my cup of tea.

One marvel one I did like was X-Men first class.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 08, 2011, 07:10:11 PM
I didn't like Captain America

Damn. I had hopes. Still worth the download or no?

I thought it was full of lame one liners and boring action sequences, but i've never really been a fan of the marvel movies.

If you liked the Iron Man movies, you'll probably like this one... just not my cup of tea.

One marvel one I did like was X-Men first class.

Yeah, I'll probably enjoy Capt. America then... and I did enjoy X-Men first class too.  - Partly because I had no idea Kevin Bacon was in it... Speaking of Bacon, Animal House was on the tube the other day. I had forgotten he was in it. Man, he's been around a loooooooooooooong time!   
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on August 09, 2011, 03:09:22 AM
Planet of the Apes was great.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Mordac on August 09, 2011, 04:54:15 PM
So...if I were to go to a flick this week, what should I see?

Cowboys vs. Aliens
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Capt. America


I'm leaning towards Rise, myself...but know nothing at all about Cowboys.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 10, 2011, 12:29:41 AM
So...if I were to go to a flick this week, what should I see?

Cowboys vs. Aliens
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Capt. America


I'm leaning towards Rise, myself...but know nothing at all about Cowboys.
Apes by a mile.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on August 10, 2011, 02:12:36 AM
Took the kids to the drive in tonight.  Smurfs and Zookeeper.  Yawn.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on August 10, 2011, 07:17:49 PM
I didn't like captain America either.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: moon111 on August 10, 2011, 07:22:02 PM
I didn't really like the Planet of the Apes.  At the end of the movie I thought, "I leave here with exactly what a small review in the paper said the movie was about.  Into to characters and how they got there.  Not much story, weak acting.  The facial expressions on the apes were pretty good.   Some body language was pretty corny.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on August 11, 2011, 01:34:52 AM
For those who haven't seen "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"... here's the trailer website....

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/rise-planet-apes.html
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on August 11, 2011, 05:41:23 AM
http://www.thedarkknightrises.com/#

The above link directs to the teaser trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises", to be released in cinemas in 2012 and on IMAX.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 14, 2011, 07:03:46 PM
Watched 3 flicks today...

Cowboys and Aliens; Meh... I was pretty disappointed.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes; Everyone was telling me how good it was so I watched on a few recommendations. - Better than Cowboys for sure but still just okay.

Hall Pass; OMG! As good and Horrible Bosses... and I LOVED Horrible Bosses.
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
Paul was pretty good, Sigourney Weaver against type, Jason Bateman is couched nicely ( Jeffrey Tambor, hello arrested development... ), Bill Hader ( some kind of superbad relation with Seth Rogen on board ) and Joe Lo Truglio are fair, Jane Lynch as her usual spot on self and of course Nick Frost and Simon Pegg.

Edit to add, Kristen Wiig is pretty, pretty good as well.

Also saw 13 Assassins, worth a watch too.

Colin Farrell was a nice surprise in Horrible Bosses.

Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on August 16, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
saw Planet of Apes and didn't think it was any great shake. okay but nothing like all the hype Ive heard for me
Title: Re: The Official Temporary Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 17, 2011, 10:54:28 PM
saw Planet of Apes and didn't think it was any great shake. okay but nothing like all the hype Ive heard for me

The 'hype' might be due to extremely lowered expectations from the last attempt at a Planet reboot. I liked it, thought Andy Serkis was, again, pretty genius but while I wouldn't ask for my money back I also didn't think it was a masterpiece or anything.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 19, 2011, 09:40:47 AM
Looking at the cast for 'Prometheus', Ridley Scott's next installment attached to the Alien universe, Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender and Guy Pearce seem like a pretty fair cast. Can't wait to see what Scott has up his sleeve as the movie was originally intended to be a prequel but, according to the director, has turned into something else.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: mustacheman on August 20, 2011, 04:35:45 PM
Watched an Aussie crime drama last night called "Animal Kingdom" with Guy Pierce a stunning film that left me breathless. AMAZING!!!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 20, 2011, 04:51:16 PM
Looking at the cast for 'Prometheus', Ridley Scott's next installment attached to the Alien universe, Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender and Guy Pearce seem like a pretty fair cast. Can't wait to see what Scott has up his sleeve as the movie was originally intended to be a prequel but, according to the director, has turned into something else.

He also recently signed on to direct some sort of new Blade Runner movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Mr. Leaf on August 20, 2011, 05:21:49 PM
I went and saw Captain America on Thursday night and loved every second of it!  It was a great movie that I would highly recommend to anyone.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 20, 2011, 05:39:10 PM
Looking at the cast for 'Prometheus', Ridley Scott's next installment attached to the Alien universe, Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender and Guy Pearce seem like a pretty fair cast. Can't wait to see what Scott has up his sleeve as the movie was originally intended to be a prequel but, according to the director, has turned into something else.

He also recently signed on to direct some sort of new Blade Runner movie.

I'm a little concerned about both of them, to be honest. Ridley Scott hasn't directed a sci-fi movie since . . . well, since Blade Runner, really, and things have changed pretty dramatically since then. I just hope he doesn't end up going the way of James Cameron - who went all sizzle, no steak with his return to the genre.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 20, 2011, 05:44:12 PM
Looking at the cast for 'Prometheus', Ridley Scott's next installment attached to the Alien universe, Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender and Guy Pearce seem like a pretty fair cast. Can't wait to see what Scott has up his sleeve as the movie was originally intended to be a prequel but, according to the director, has turned into something else.

He also recently signed on to direct some sort of new Blade Runner movie.

I'm a little concerned about both of them, to be honest. Ridley Scott hasn't directed a sci-fi movie since . . . well, since Blade Runner, really, and things have changed pretty dramatically since then. I just hope he doesn't end up going the way of James Cameron - who went all sizzle, no steak with his return to the genre.

He's also got a lot of making up to do after Robin Hood.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 20, 2011, 05:58:20 PM
He's also got a lot of making up to do after Robin Hood.

Well, there's that too. He and Russell Crowe took the amazing concept that was 'Nottingham' and turned it into another mediocre Robin Hood movie. As much good as he's done over his career, there's a lot he has to make up for - like Robin Hood, Legend, G.I. Jane, etc.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 21, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
With The Duellists, Alien and Blade Runner as his first 3 flicks I can give him some grace, Robin Hood wasn't that bad... ;)

His greatest trick in Alien, aside from playing up a very 'gritty' angle in the feel and sets, was casting and I think it looks pretty fair. Funny, when you think about movies you can rent in corner store Alien still sells 30 years later.

Another interesting casting choice, Martin Freeman will be playing Bilbo in The Hobbit. I liked his work in Sherlock ( British tv series ) though in this neck o the woods he might be better known for his take on Arthur Dent in the Douglas Adams classic.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 21, 2011, 05:53:13 PM
With The Duellists, Alien and Blade Runner as his first 3 flicks I can give him some grace, Robin Hood wasn't that bad... ;)

When you compare what Robin Hood was to what it was supposed to be . . .

Quote from: http://www.cracked.com/article_19350_6-famously-terrible-movies-that-were-almost-awesome_p2.html
Nottingham would've been the single most original Robin Hood movie in history. The original script (written by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris) so excited studios when it turned up in 2007 that it became the subject of a fierce bidding war (Universal wound up paying freaking $1.5 million for it). It was a totally different take on the story -- the Sheriff of Nottingham is the main character and protagonist. "Stuff" gets real once the sheriff investigates a string of grisly murders in the area. The sheriff then pursues "a jerkish" Robin Hood (Russell Crowe) for the crimes only to find out that Robin, while a "jerk", was actually being framed.

The film was to climax with an epic siege of the city of Nottingham between Prince John and King Richard, all while the Sheriff tries to discover the identity of the real killer using 12th century detective techniques (Reiff is a history buff and researched how actual killings in that era were investigated).

Then, director Ridley Scott came on board and said, "What is this "crap"? We're making a Robin Hood movie! Get all that standard Robin Hood stuff back in there. That's what everybody wants to see." The movie was renamed Robin Hood and lots more scenes with people shooting bows and arrows were added. A few rewrites later, very little of the original screenplay remained. Today, Nottingham is a cautionary tale for every young, aspiring screenwriter out there. It doesn't matter what you write: the director and the star will decide what makes it onto the screen.

I had to make some edits for language, but, man, how much cooler would have movie have been? That's what he has to make up for - not making a rather pedestrian Robin Hood movie, but taking an absolutely fantastic concept for a Robin Hood movie and turning into a pedestrian Robin Hood movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 21, 2011, 06:55:43 PM
With The Duellists, Alien and Blade Runner as his first 3 flicks I can give him some grace, Robin Hood wasn't that bad... ;)

When you compare what Robin Hood was to what it was supposed to be . . .

Quote from: http://www.cracked.com/article_19350_6-famously-terrible-movies-that-were-almost-awesome_p2.html
Nottingham would've been the single most original Robin Hood movie in history. The original script (written by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris) so excited studios when it turned up in 2007 that it became the subject of a fierce bidding war (Universal wound up paying freaking $1.5 million for it). It was a totally different take on the story -- the Sheriff of Nottingham is the main character and protagonist. "Stuff" gets real once the sheriff investigates a string of grisly murders in the area. The sheriff then pursues "a jerkish" Robin Hood (Russell Crowe) for the crimes only to find out that Robin, while a "jerk", was actually being framed.

The film was to climax with an epic siege of the city of Nottingham between Prince John and King Richard, all while the Sheriff tries to discover the identity of the real killer using 12th century detective techniques (Reiff is a history buff and researched how actual killings in that era were investigated).

Then, director Ridley Scott came on board and said, "What is this "crap"? We're making a Robin Hood movie! Get all that standard Robin Hood stuff back in there. That's what everybody wants to see." The movie was renamed Robin Hood and lots more scenes with people shooting bows and arrows were added. A few rewrites later, very little of the original screenplay remained. Today, Nottingham is a cautionary tale for every young, aspiring screenwriter out there. It doesn't matter what you write: the director and the star will decide what makes it onto the screen.

I had to make some edits for language, but, man, how much cooler would have movie have been? That's what he has to make up for - not making a rather pedestrian Robin Hood movie, but taking an absolutely fantastic concept for a Robin Hood movie and turning into a pedestrian Robin Hood movie.

First off I don't understand why a murder mystery would make for a 'better' Robin Hood movie, second and probably more important, did you ever hear Matt Stone and Trey Parker talk about being invited to listen to Crowe's musical endeavors? Suffice to say I think Crowe could have been equally or more guilty however, that aside, I didn't hate the movie though it was kind of unnecessary.

Hard to fault a guy who makes bank at the box office, especially after some genius rides... what it was 'supposed to be' didn't turn my crank all that much, fwiw. I'd rather see a prequel to Se7en than a twisted up Hoodie Whodunnit, making up for that doesn't dissuade my interest in what he might bring with a real cast and original project to the Alien universe, though if I'm wrong I will proclaim it loudly.

Not sure what to make of the Blade Runner attempt/revisit, one of the few scifi movies the US Congress put in the library.

Maybe they should have tried to sell it to the guys who produced 'Sherlock'?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on August 21, 2011, 08:31:14 PM
I'm not sure if this should be in the movie thread or complaint thread, but I heard on a movie show today that they're contemplating a remake of the The Crow.

I really don't see that as a movie that needs to be remade. It was awesome. the sequels were not (though admittedly I only saw the second one.)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 21, 2011, 08:48:09 PM
I'm not sure if this should be in the movie thread or complaint thread, but I heard on a movie show today that they're contemplating a remake of the The Crow.

I really don't see that as a movie that needs to be remade. It was awesome. the sequels were not (though admittedly I only saw the second one.)

They're not so much contemplating it, as much as they're doing so with Bradley Cooper in the lead role . . . or, at least, that's the last I heard about it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on August 21, 2011, 09:03:36 PM
I'm not sure if this should be in the movie thread or complaint thread, but I heard on a movie show today that they're contemplating a remake of the The Crow.

I really don't see that as a movie that needs to be remade. It was awesome. the sequels were not (though admittedly I only saw the second one.)

Hollywood's response to the criticism "let's make a sequel to every successful movie" has become "let's make a re-make of every successful movie". 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Newbury on August 21, 2011, 11:02:51 PM
I'm not sure if this should be in the movie thread or complaint thread, but I heard on a movie show today that they're contemplating a remake of the The Crow.

I really don't see that as a movie that needs to be remade. It was awesome. the sequels were not (though admittedly I only saw the second one.)

They're not so much contemplating it, as much as they're doing so with Bradley Cooper in the lead role . . . or, at least, that's the last I heard about it.

Boom.

http://www.newsinfilm.com/2011/08/17/bradley-cooper-exits-crow-remake-whos-in/
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on August 22, 2011, 12:35:18 AM
I think a new Crow movie would make a ton of money.   Media outlets rehashing the Brandon Lee story will give it a bunch of free publicity, and there's a new generation of emo Twilight tweens who haven't seen it.

EDIT: How come all the pirate ships in Pirates of the Carribean have ragged holes torn through all their sales?   That strikes me as incredibly inefficient.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on August 22, 2011, 08:39:15 AM
It can't rain all the time.. :P
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on August 22, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
I think someone like Taylor Kitsch  or maybe Joseph Gordon Levitt would be better choices.

If Wahlberg gets the role, I just don't think I could watch it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 22, 2011, 11:33:42 PM
Interesting little side note to The Hobbit, Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Sherlock Holmes in 'Sherlock' will be voicing both Smaug and Sauron with Watson ( Freeman ) on as Bilbo, elementary my dear hobbit!

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on August 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
When's the second series of that show coming out?   I was blown away by it.

EDIT: Wikipedia says late 2011.   It's almost late 2011, right?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on August 23, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Interesting little side note to The Hobbit, Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Sherlock Holmes in 'Sherlock' will be voicing both Smaug and Sauron with Watson ( Freeman ) on as Bilbo, elementary my dear hobbit!

Evangaline is going to be one hot elvish dream.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Captain Canuck on August 23, 2011, 12:41:16 AM
We had our own Hollywood excitement here in Guelph. Part of downtown was closed off for the filming of the Total Recall remake due out next year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 23, 2011, 09:34:19 AM
When's the second series of that show coming out?   I was blown away by it.

EDIT: Wikipedia says late 2011.   It's almost late 2011, right?

Production started in May this year, won't be out until next year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 23, 2011, 09:35:20 AM
Interesting little side note to The Hobbit, Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Sherlock Holmes in 'Sherlock' will be voicing both Smaug and Sauron with Watson ( Freeman ) on as Bilbo, elementary my dear hobbit!

Evangaline is going to be one hot elvish dream.

Evangeline Lilly? Yeah that works, didn't know she was on board.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Stronger Than All on August 23, 2011, 10:21:26 AM
I think a new Crow movie would make a ton of money.   Media outlets rehashing the Brandon Lee story will give it a bunch of free publicity, and there's a new generation of emo Twilight tweens who haven't seen it.

EDIT: How come all the pirate ships in Pirates of the Carribean have ragged holes torn through all their sales?   That strikes me as incredibly inefficient.

I like your analysis on the new generation of kids.  :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on September 13, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
Small Town Murder Songs was pretty good, so was Hanna though neither 'typically'.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on September 21, 2011, 10:02:36 AM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on September 22, 2011, 08:03:35 PM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.

I've really been looking forward to that one, Winding Refn!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on September 22, 2011, 08:24:23 PM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.
I've heard mixed reviews. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on September 27, 2011, 07:11:06 PM
Drive was very good, quite violent and reminded in me in some very small ways of Valhalla Rising. Really looking forward to the Logans Run remake now that Refn has a toe in American waters.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on September 28, 2011, 02:24:06 AM
Made the mistake of watching the Smurfs movie yesterday, and it enraged me.

The girl Smurf was voiced by Katy Perry, and at one point she says "I kissed a smurf and I liked it."

**** you Katy Perry.   She should be thrown in jail for the rest of her life, and the writer should be beheaded.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on September 28, 2011, 10:02:00 AM
I saw A Dolphin's Tale the other day with the kids... Not a fantastic movie but at the same time, it wasn't overly weepy either and was just a nice feel good flick of this remarkable true stoty.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: You're right on September 28, 2011, 10:05:50 AM
I saw A Dolphin's Tale the other day with the kids... Not a fanntastic movie but at the same time, it wasn't overly weepy either and was just a nice feel good flick of this remarkable true stoty.
Thanks for the info - my daughter wants to see that with a couple of her friends as part of her birthday extravaganza!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on September 28, 2011, 10:10:27 AM
I saw A Dolphin's Tale the other day with the kids... Not a fantastic movie but at the same time, it wasn't overly weepy either and was just a nice feel good flick of this remarkable true stoty.
Thanks for the info - my daughter wants to see that with a couple of her friends as part of her birthday extravaganza!

See it in 3D if you can... Some fun underwater stuff.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on September 29, 2011, 06:54:54 PM
I have to wonder about the choice Refn made having Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman in Drive, two pretty good leads in two pretty good tv shows ( two of my current favourites anyways ) in a 'not usual' hollywood movie.

Safe bet or something more adventurous?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on October 10, 2011, 02:13:21 AM
Who'da thunk a new Planet of the Apes movie would be so good?   I would sell my mother into slavery for a super-smart pet monkey.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 10, 2011, 11:12:56 AM
Saw Real Steel yesterday. It's exactly what you expect it to be.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on October 10, 2011, 12:55:03 PM
Saw Real Steel yesterday. It's exactly what you expect it to be.

Just your run of the mill robot boxing movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 10, 2011, 01:02:31 PM
Saw Real Steel yesterday. It's exactly what you expect it to be.

Just your run of the mill robot boxing movie.

Rocky with robots, yeah.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 10, 2011, 01:05:30 PM
Who'da thunk a new Planet of the Apes movie would be so good?   I would sell my mother into slavery for a super-smart pet monkey.

I think you just wrote the next movie...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 15, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
Saw Real Steel yesterday. It's exactly what you expect it to be.

Just watched it now. Hey, I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on October 16, 2011, 01:58:41 PM
I was super blazed and had a good laugh watching hall pass.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 16, 2011, 02:33:56 PM
I was super blazed and had a good laugh watching hall pass.

Yeah, I loved it... Horrible Bosses was pretty darn funny too if you're in those kind of flicks.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Newbury on October 16, 2011, 02:39:33 PM
I was super blazed and had a good laugh watching hall pass.

This was my Friday night. Strange, but yeah, I felt the same way.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 22, 2011, 09:59:19 AM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.
I've heard mixed reviews.

Just saw it and liked it a lot. For some reason the soundtrack really stuck out as exceptional to me. I have no idea who the artists are nor am I familiar with the tracks but in my mind it suited the mood of the film to a tee.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 22, 2011, 02:24:19 PM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.
I've heard mixed reviews.

Just saw it and liked it a lot. For some reason the soundtrack really stuck out as exceptional to me. I have no idea who the artists are nor am I familiar with the tracks but in my mind it suited the mood of the film to a tee.

Refn uses sound/music very effectively in his movies in somewhat unusual ways, reminds a little of Kubrick in his approach. I've said it before but I think this guy has a real masterpiece in him. Gosling was no slouch either.

Just caught Red State, Kevin Smith hit it out of the park, great performances from John Goodman and Michael Parks.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 22, 2011, 02:26:40 PM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.
I've heard mixed reviews.

Just saw it and liked it a lot. For some reason the soundtrack really stuck out as exceptional to me. I have no idea who the artists are nor am I familiar with the tracks but in my mind it suited the mood of the film to a tee.

Refn uses sound/music very effectively in his movies in somewhat unusual ways, reminds a little of Kubrick in his approach. I've said it before but I think this guy has a real masterpiece in him. Gosling was no slouch either.

Just caught Red State, Kevin Smith hit it out of the park, great performances from John Goodman and Michael Parks.

You watch his Pusher trilogy? I finally watched the first one. It started pretty slow and somewhat mediocre at first, but once things finally got going it became pretty terrific. Plan on watching the other two soon.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 22, 2011, 02:37:54 PM
Anyone who hasn't seen Drive yet should probably stop what they're doing and find a theatre playing it.
I've heard mixed reviews.

Just saw it and liked it a lot. For some reason the soundtrack really stuck out as exceptional to me. I have no idea who the artists are nor am I familiar with the tracks but in my mind it suited the mood of the film to a tee.

Refn uses sound/music very effectively in his movies in somewhat unusual ways, reminds a little of Kubrick in his approach. I've said it before but I think this guy has a real masterpiece in him. Gosling was no slouch either.

Just caught Red State, Kevin Smith hit it out of the park, great performances from John Goodman and Michael Parks.

You watch his Pusher trilogy? I finally watched the first one. It started pretty slow and somewhat mediocre at first, but once things finally got going it became pretty terrific. Plan on watching the other two soon.

Yeah, I've seen the whole trilogy, did you notice Mads Mikkelsen in his small part in that one? That character is the main lead in the second movie.

Each movie has a similar feel and build I found, the second one especially is so tense by the end you're really not sure what's going to happen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 22, 2011, 02:51:25 PM
Yeah, I've seen the whole trilogy, did you notice Mads Mikkelsen in his small part in that one? That character is the main lead in the second movie.

Each movie has a similar feel and build I found, the second one especially is so tense by the end you're really not sure what's going to happen.

Yeah, I recognized him immediately as the villain from Casino Royale. I was hoping he'd play a bigger role in the first movie, but I read after that he was the lead in the 2nd movie so that helped.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 22, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Yeah, I've seen the whole trilogy, did you notice Mads Mikkelsen in his small part in that one? That character is the main lead in the second movie.

Each movie has a similar feel and build I found, the second one especially is so tense by the end you're really not sure what's going to happen.

Yeah, I recognized him immediately as the villain from Casino Royale. I was hoping he'd play a bigger role in the first movie, but I read after that he was the lead in the 2nd movie so that helped.

Yeah, his performance is simply outstanding, weird though I didn't recognize him or think about it until the credits rolled, must have been the shaved head and non bleeding eye... I felt a little stupid not recognizing him but in a way it was good too as I had no preconceptions and was hugely impressed.

I'd like to see a Refn movie with both Mads and Thomas Hardy, that would be just dandy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on October 23, 2011, 01:18:16 AM
The Running Man is on TV right now...classic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 24, 2011, 04:35:29 PM
The Running Man is on TV right now...classic.

'Here is sub zero, now, plain zero!!'

It never gets old.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on October 24, 2011, 04:38:11 PM
The Running Man is on TV right now...classic.

'Here is sub zero, now, plain zero!!'

It never gets old.

'What happened to Buzz Saw?'
'He had to split'
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 24, 2011, 04:46:12 PM
There's even an 'I'll be back' in there

...only in reruns...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on October 25, 2011, 07:11:19 AM
Saw Zookeeper.

Kind of meh, but I love Rosario Dawson. She is fine.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Stronger Than All on October 26, 2011, 11:03:33 AM
I watched Red State last night.  I did enjoy although some parts I was thinking wtf.

Sex, Political, and Religious themes are rolled into this.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Trolloc on October 28, 2011, 10:49:52 AM
I watched Red State last night.  I did enjoy although some parts I was thinking wtf.

Sex, Political, and Religious themes are rolled into this.

Not a conventional movie at all. At the end, just wasn`t sure what to think of the movie. I liked it for the most part just weird transition from horror to action.

Just watched Green Lantern for the first time. I enjoyed the first half of the movie but found it got silly towards the end.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on October 28, 2011, 03:35:29 PM
Has anyone watched Valhalla Rising yet?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 28, 2011, 04:31:59 PM
Yep, saw it a few months ago. I liked it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on October 28, 2011, 05:02:39 PM
Yep, saw it a few months ago. I liked it.

Yeah it was cool. It was a bit weird, but it was good.  2 of 3 bananas
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 28, 2011, 05:52:00 PM
Yup, I quite enjoyed it, posted about it OTOS and continue to be impressed by Refn and Mikkelsen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Arn on October 31, 2011, 01:44:57 PM
Has anyone seen the Senna documentary?

Amazing bit of work - I saw it in the cinema a couple of months back and today picked up the DVD when I discovered an extra 90 minutes of footage on there.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on November 09, 2011, 02:27:11 PM
Just watched Thor - garbage.
It's hard turning down that many bags of $$$, isn't it Portman?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on November 09, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
Just watched "It Might Get Loud."

Jimmy Page looked like the elder statesman, the wise old guitar wizard. Edge looked like the enthusiastic younger guitar player, I liked his thoughts on effects and whatnot.

Then there's Jack White. No offense, but the guy is an extreme weirdo. I don't know what's wrong with the guy but he came off as very, very odd and his views on music were a bit extreme. He spent the documentary teaching his fake 9 year old self some of the more ridiculous aspects of the guitar, like stomping on one.

I think he's kinda nuts, and absolutely overrated as a singer and guitarist in comparison to Jimmy Page and Edge.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Trolloc on November 09, 2011, 04:59:54 PM
Just watched Thor - garbage.
It's hard turning down that many bags of $$$, isn't it Portman?

::)

Damn, people actually take certain jobs to make more money? Those monsters!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2011, 05:31:18 PM
Just watched "It Might Get Loud."

...

One of the things that I think was interesting about that movie was that in addition to the obvious generation gap between the three guys they all sort of represented the different roles a lead guitarist can play in a band. Page, if memory serves, didn't sing at all in Zeppelin and was exclusively playing, The Edge is the secondary writer/singer in U2 and then Jack White who's been the driving creative force/lead singer of every band he's been in(even when he's drumming).

I think that came across as they talked in the interviews(although it's been a while since I saw it) where, with White, it was as much about being a frontman as it was being a guitarist. That sort of culminates at the end there with "The Weight" where White is taking the lead, as it were.

Obviously there's no point in arguing as to how talented Jack White stacks up to the other guys because, you know, to each their own but I thought his inclusion made the movie a little more interesting for that reason.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Mordac on November 09, 2011, 05:32:23 PM
Just watched "It Might Get Loud."

Jimmy Page looked like the elder statesman, the wise old guitar wizard. Edge looked like the enthusiastic younger guitar player, I liked his thoughts on effects and whatnot.

Then there's Jack White. No offense, but the guy is an extreme weirdo. I don't know what's wrong with the guy but he came off as very, very odd and his views on music were a bit extreme. He spent the documentary teaching his fake 9 year old self some of the more ridiculous aspects of the guitar, like stomping on one.

I think he's kinda nuts, and absolutely overrated as a singer and guitarist in comparison to Jimmy Page and Edge.

You do know that that entire documentary was Page's brainchild, right? He decided on White as a subject, apparently. (after discussions with Guggenhiem, of course)

He's definitely an odd cat, but I think he's a juxtaposition to the Edge, who espouses the technology angle. White is musically creative to the core, and his off-the-cuff experimentation, while perhaps appearing childish, lends itself to establishing that it's not the instrument that makes the music.

While certainly not a perfect documentary (it could have gotten louder), it was a very interesting peek into the histories of some of musics more important folks. I loved it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on November 10, 2011, 05:53:49 PM
Just watched "It Might Get Loud."

...

One of the things that I think was interesting about that movie was that in addition to the obvious generation gap between the three guys they all sort of represented the different roles a lead guitarist can play in a band. Page, if memory serves, didn't sing at all in Zeppelin and was exclusively playing, The Edge is the secondary writer/singer in U2 and then Jack White who's been the driving creative force/lead singer of every band he's been in(even when he's drumming).

I think that came across as they talked in the interviews(although it's been a while since I saw it) where, with White, it was as much about being a frontman as it was being a guitarist. That sort of culminates at the end there with "The Weight" where White is taking the lead, as it were.

Obviously there's no point in arguing as to how talented Jack White stacks up to the other guys because, you know, to each their own but I thought his inclusion made the movie a little more interesting for that reason.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, he's a good musician, but comparing him with the stuff of legends... I don't know. That and he strikes me as an oddball that I wouldn't get along with :P
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 11, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, he's a good musician, but comparing him with the stuff of legends... I don't know.

I don't know that the point of the flick is to compare the three guys. It's just three successful musicians from different generations and with different perspectives about music and the guitar getting together and talking/playing.

And I like Jimmy Page and all(Not Led Zeppelin obviously but his work with Donovan was pretty good) but, personally, I'd hesitate to call the Edge "legendary". He's a pretty good guitarist in a band I'm not a huge fan of.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on November 11, 2011, 02:54:33 PM
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, he's a good musician, but comparing him with the stuff of legends... I don't know.

I don't know that the point of the flick is to compare the three guys. It's just three successful musicians from different generations and with different perspectives about music and the guitar getting together and talking/playing.

And I like Jimmy Page and all(Not Led Zeppelin obviously but his work with Donovan was pretty good) but, personally, I'd hesitate to call the Edge "legendary". He's a pretty good guitarist in a band I'm not a huge fan of.

Yeah, I mean to each their own to some extent. I personally think Edge is a more accomplished and versatile guitarist more due to his open mindedness about the instrument than anything. The way he plays the instrument on Drowning Man for example was pretty unique imo. I think he'll go down as a legendary guitarist if only for his uniqueness in his sound, but I think that could be enough.

I just find Jack White offputting for whatever reason, and I just don't see what's special about him other than the fact that he's a very eccentric person. I find it hard to see too much uniqueness in his style to be ranked as one of the top 20 guitarists of all time (Rolling Stone) although of course that wasn't necessarily the point of the movie.

I guess it's more a criticism of the supposed ranking system that people employ. Ranking Jack White ahead of guys like Mark Knopfler, Pete Townshend, Tom Morello, John McLaughlin, Frank Zappa etc. just seems wonky imo.

Of course you also have "guitar gods" like Steve Vai and Joe Satriani, but I guess that's a different category altogether.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 11, 2011, 03:07:09 PM
I guess it's more a criticism of the supposed ranking system that people employ. Ranking Jack White ahead of guys like Mark Knopfler, Pete Townshend, Tom Morello, John McLaughlin, Frank Zappa etc. just seems wonky imo.

Well, it's the old debate about Keith Richards(#10 on Rolling Stone's list), right? He won't melt your face with a solo but he wrote and played some of the greatest rock riffs of all time. So does that make him a great guitarist or a great songwriter?

That's really the category Jack White belongs in even though I think he's pretty good technically and has gotten some pretty great sounds out of his guitar.

So, like I said, three different kinds of guitar players in addition to the age thing.

The lesson, I guess, is to not worry much about things so fundamentally stupid as Rolling Stone's "Best ____ of all Time" lists.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on November 11, 2011, 04:13:57 PM
And I like Jimmy Page and all(Not Led Zeppelin obviously but his work with Donovan was pretty good)

Really?   I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.   Who doesn't like Led Zeppelin?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 11, 2011, 04:17:46 PM
Zeppelin and Bob Marley... Anyone who doesn't like either is a communist.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Jalili on November 11, 2011, 04:23:33 PM
And I like Jimmy Page and all(Not Led Zeppelin obviously but his work with Donovan was pretty good)

Really?   I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.   Who doesn't like Led Zeppelin?

Justin Bieber fans?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 11, 2011, 04:31:47 PM
Really?   I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.   Who doesn't like Led Zeppelin?

What probably should have tipped you off there was the "obviously". Anyone saying they like Jimmy Page but "obviously" not Led Zeppelin can probably be assumed to be joking, as I was. I like Zeppelin fine.

That said, probably my least favourite part of Zeppelin now that I'm drug-free most days is Robert Plant so I do really like Page's 60's studio stuff/Yardbirds stuff quite a bit as you get that really great playing without all the high pitched yammering about the Lord of the Rings. Probably my favourite album that Jimmy Page plays is on is Kinks.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Stebro on November 11, 2011, 05:00:07 PM
the langoliers is a cool weird movie
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on November 11, 2011, 06:07:12 PM
Really?   I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.   Who doesn't like Led Zeppelin?

What probably should have tipped you off there was the "obviously". Anyone saying they like Jimmy Page but "obviously" not Led Zeppelin can probably be assumed to be joking, as I was. I like Zeppelin fine.

That said, probably my least favourite part of Zeppelin now that I'm drug-free most days is Robert Plant so I do really like Page's 60's studio stuff/Yardbirds stuff quite a bit as you get that really great playing without all the high pitched yammering about the Lord of the Rings. Probably my favourite album that Jimmy Page plays is on is Kinks.

Ah, I get it.   I thought you were referring to a previous post that I'd missed.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on November 14, 2011, 10:08:45 PM
Cave of Forgotten Dreams by Werner Herzog. If you've never heard of the Chauvet cave in southern France give this little documentary a view and tell me you don't come away with just a tad more perspective on human history.

Some have referred to the discovery as being on the level of the Tutankhamun find.

Discovered in 1994 the cave contains the oldest known cave paintings by humans on the Earth, some 35,000 years old at a time when the seas were 300 feet shallower, over a third of the Earth was frozen and you could walk across the English channel.

Among the more interesting bits is a fellow named Wulf Hein playing the Star Spangled Banner on a replicated flute originally made from a vultures wing bone some 33 to 37,000 years ago and with a pentatonic scale base.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on November 15, 2011, 10:20:09 AM
Zeppelin and Bob Marley... Anyone who doesn't like either is a communist.

Love Marley.. Yo ucan keep Zeppelin though. never been a fan :o
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Erndog on November 15, 2011, 11:50:48 AM
Got my tickets for The Devil Wears Prada and Enter Shakari at the Kool Haus in Toronto on Dec 16.

Never been to the Kool Haus yet (at least I don't think?).  What's that venue like?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 15, 2011, 11:53:33 AM
Got my tickets for The Devil Wears Prada and Enter Shakari at the Kool Haus in Toronto on Dec 16.

Never been to the Kool Haus yet (at least I don't think?).  What's that venue like?

They show movies at the Kool Haus now? ;)

The place is pretty much an empty warehouse with a coupel bars on the sides and a stage - and I mean that quite literally. I mean, it wasn't called the Warehouse for a long time without good cause.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 15, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
Finally saw Moneyball... I watched it on the computer and flipped back and forth to check the details of the transactions as they happened which kind of added to the experience. I quite enjoyed it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Stebro on November 15, 2011, 12:00:48 PM
welcome to fright night 8)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: The Red Polar Bear on November 16, 2011, 01:19:14 AM
Just came back from J. Edgar.

Not bad, but too much movie. It was about 2.5hrs and could have done with being 1:45-2.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 16, 2011, 07:23:33 AM
Zeppelin and Bob Marley... Anyone who doesn't like either is a communist.

Love Marley.. Yo ucan keep Zeppelin though. never been a fan :o

Communist!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on November 16, 2011, 08:02:13 AM
Zeppelin and Bob Marley... Anyone who doesn't like either is a communist.

Love Marley.. You can keep Zeppelin though. never been a fan :o

Communist!

HAha.. Sorry
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on November 16, 2011, 08:48:06 AM
Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas was great. They tried to justify the 3D part which made it worth it. Smoking before hand would've made it unbelievably good.

NPH puts in another brilliant turn as NPH. Highly recommended.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Arn on November 22, 2011, 07:00:20 PM
Finally saw Moneyball... I watched it on the computer and flipped back and forth to check the details of the transactions as they happened which kind of added to the experience. I quite enjoyed it.

Just watched that myself and more or less did the same thing. Really enjoyed the movie. Also enjoyed it cos I had decent memories of that streak happening too, without knowing any of this background stuff at all.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 04, 2011, 04:36:44 PM
So, ya, for those of you that haven't seen the new Conan the Barbarian movie, don't.

I didn't expect much out of it, but man was it bad.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 04, 2011, 04:46:10 PM
I saw The Muppets yesterday, and it's a load of fun. It's not a perfect movie, but, definitely worth seeing. It's pretty much everything I hoped it would be.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 04, 2011, 05:46:13 PM
I saw The Muppets yesterday, and it's a load of fun. It's not a perfect movie, but, definitely worth seeing. It's pretty much everything I hoped it would be.

Agreed. I loved it. Think I was smiling throughout the entire movie. Haven't seen any other Muppets movie either.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 04, 2011, 09:10:56 PM
Well then you must see Muppets Family Christmas. It's one of the three movies i watch every year during the holidays, including National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and The Christmas Story (you'll poke your eye out!)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 05, 2011, 01:19:59 AM
Well then you must see Muppets Family Christmas. It's one of the three movies i watch every year during the holidays, including National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and The Christmas Story (you'll poke your eye out!)

I watched Christmas Vacation in it's entirety for the first time last night. I've only seen bits and pieces until then. The humour was definitely lost on me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 05, 2011, 08:57:21 AM
Might as well cancel the holidays if Christmas Vacation isn't part of it as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on December 05, 2011, 09:03:15 AM
Well then you must see Muppets Family Christmas. It's one of the three movies i watch every year during the holidays, including National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and The Christmas Story (you'll poke your eye out!)

(http://www.redriderleglamps.com/images/products/26-Leg-lamp-christmas-story.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on December 16, 2011, 11:01:07 AM
Moneyball seems to be getting pretty good reviews, would you suggest it for someone who doesn't particularly know or care about baseball?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Newbury on December 16, 2011, 11:07:33 AM
Finally watched Warrior yesterday. Liked it as much or more than the Fighter and that was my favourite movie of the past year or so. Nick Nolte was great in a role that I'm sure didn't require much acting.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: AvroArrow on December 16, 2011, 12:06:45 PM
Moneyball seems to be getting pretty good reviews, would you suggest it for someone who doesn't particularly know or care about baseball?

If you go, just don't expect any action.  It's really a slow-moving movie.  I'd say it's interesting, but slow, and I don't like, know, or care about baseball either.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 16, 2011, 12:57:28 PM
Might as well cancel the holidays if Christmas Vacation isn't part of it as far as I'm concerned.

Yes it has been a staple for me all the way from childhood to adultery-er .. adulthood!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 16, 2011, 01:13:18 PM
Moneyball seems to be getting pretty good reviews, would you suggest it for someone who doesn't particularly know or care about baseball?
Not a baseball fan in the slightest, but I really liked the movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 17, 2011, 11:54:21 AM
Going to watch The Inbetweeners movie this afternoon, hopefully they've carried on the spirit, too bad the tv show is done but I guess they can only pretend to be in secondary for so long, was hoping for some kind of 'college' version but sadly, doesn't look like it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 17, 2011, 12:09:27 PM
Gonna try to catch Mission Impossible 4 tonight. Looks fantastic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: seahawk on December 17, 2011, 12:48:30 PM
That is one I want to see as well. According to imdb it doesn't come out until the 21st.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 17, 2011, 12:50:15 PM
That is one I want to see as well. According to imdb it doesn't come out until the 21st.

It was released on IMAX screens yesterday.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Newbury on December 17, 2011, 02:00:28 PM
Just curious, and I need some viewing suggestions, but what is everyone's top 5 favourite films here? I honestly probably couldn't pick a top 5, but I'll throw out 5 of my favourites.

American History X
Sunset Boulevard
The Departed
The Prestige
The Last Picture Show

There's also movies like Ferris Beuller, the Bourne movies, and a lot of Will Ferrell comedies that I can watch over and over (more than the five above) but wouldn't necessarily be in my top five.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 17, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Man, that's a tall order to come up with just 5.. I'll really need to think about this...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 17, 2011, 03:38:42 PM
That is one I want to see as well. According to imdb it doesn't come out until the 21st.

Yea it's playing on IMAX and the general opening is Wednesday.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 17, 2011, 03:47:11 PM
Just curious, and I need some viewing suggestions, but what is everyone's top 5 favourite films here? I honestly probably couldn't pick a top 5, but I'll throw out 5 of my favourites.

American History X
Sunset Boulevard
The Departed
The Prestige
The Last Picture Show


That's a tough one for me, especially since I haven't watched alot of classics. But as a general movie fan a few of my favourites are:

12 Angry Men
Back to the Future
Shawshank Redemption
Vertigo
Magnolia

For comedies, My Cousin Vinny, 3 Amigos, Anchorman, Groundhog Day, Top Secret, Naked Gun all are universally re-watchable for me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 17, 2011, 04:00:52 PM
Off the top of my head

Seven Samurai
Brazil
The Usual Suspects
2001 A Space Odyssey
No Country For Old Men

Another 5 that couldn't hurt

Primer
Chinatown
Alien
Akira
Full Metal Jacket

Another 5 just for fun

The Battleship Potemkin
Citizen Kane
Nosferatu
Once Upon A Time in the West
Rear Window

Also, recently I've really come to respect a certain director, Drive and Valhalla Rising being his most recent work.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on December 17, 2011, 04:13:10 PM

From this century:

Memento
Inglourious Basterds
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Inside Job
The Man who Wasn't There

From last century:

Goodfellas
The Godfather pt. 2
Reservoir Dogs
Raiders of the Last Ark
The Big Lebowski

Old Timey:

The Third Man
Dr. Strangelove
North by Northwest
High Noon
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Comedies:

Horse Feathers
Airplane
Animal House
Major League
Blazing Saddles
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: seahawk on December 17, 2011, 04:18:42 PM
Didn't know the imax release was earlier. Plus last time I looked there was no imax screen here.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 17, 2011, 04:19:42 PM
You're all cheating... It's 5!

(in no particular order)

1. Goodfellas
2. Jaws The Professional (sorry sharkie)
3. Raiders of the Lost Ark
4. Wall Street
5. Full Metal Jacket.

... man, that was tough.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 17, 2011, 04:20:18 PM
Reservoir Dogs, oh yeah.

Could have had Fargo in there too, or Blood Simple, or almost any Coen bros. flick.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 17, 2011, 04:22:13 PM
No Star Wars? I'm very disappointed with all of you.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on December 17, 2011, 04:29:50 PM
Reservoir Dogs, oh yeah.

Could have had Fargo in there too, or Blood Simple, or almost any Coen bros. flick.

Just doing a top 5 Coen Bros list would be tough. I'd have to have Fargo, Lebowski, O Brother and TMWWT so that leaves room for...NCFOM? Raising Arizona? Miller's Crossing? It's a tough job.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on December 17, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
No Star Wars? I'm very disappointed with all of you.

The tough thing there is that because it's such an episodic trilogy it's tough to pick one of them that's really exceptional. I probably like Jedi the most, think Empire is the best made movie and obviously any sort of initial response/nod towards innovation has to go to the first. None of them work on their own really.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on December 17, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
1. The Love Guru
2. Talladega Nights
3. Old School
4. Step Brothers
5. Pulp Fiction
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 17, 2011, 05:36:31 PM
Reservoir Dogs, oh yeah.

Could have had Fargo in there too, or Blood Simple, or almost any Coen bros. flick.

Just doing a top 5 Coen Bros list would be tough. I'd have to have Fargo, Lebowski, O Brother and TMWWT so that leaves room for...NCFOM? Raising Arizona? Miller's Crossing? It's a tough job.

Yeah, Barton Fink? I'd go back and forth all day on that one.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 17, 2011, 06:23:21 PM
This is very tough. Here`s a completely random list off the top of my head from movies I`ve either watched many times or watched recently:

- Gladiator
- Bourne Identity
- The Prestige
- Bella
- Cars
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Kessel Run on December 17, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
Gonna show some love for the Prestige as well. Awesome movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on December 17, 2011, 07:41:38 PM
In no specific order: Pulp Fiction, Star Wars IV, Dawn of the Dead <1978>, Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii, The Firm...  a real stoners medley there.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 18, 2011, 09:02:39 AM
No Star Wars? I'm very disappointed with all of you.

I almost put it on there. Same with the first two Godfathers and Reservoir Dogs too... I also considered The Shining and a bunch of other flicks. Like I said, it was a toughie. Anyway, back to Star Wars for a moment... I stumbled across this this morning... Thought I'd share while on the subject... Just found it funny;

(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/870750/82112728.jpg) 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 18, 2011, 09:13:00 AM
Crap... I forgot a flick that I MUST include... The Professional... See, it's just stupid hard to come up with just 5 so here's my 10... and yes, I'm cheating.

(in no particular order)

1. Goodfellas
2. The Professional
3. Raiders of the Lost Ark
4. Wall Street
5. Full Metal Jacket.
6. Jaws
7. The Shining
8. Star Wars
9. Reservoir Dogs
10. The Godfather 1 & 2 (again cheating there a bit.) 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 18, 2011, 01:02:44 PM
'Mission Impossible 4' was fantastic. Non-stop action from beginning to end with some really creative, elaborate and flat out eye-dropping stunts.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 18, 2011, 02:12:05 PM
The Inbetweeners was pretty good, what you would expect from an amped up episode of the tv show. Also caught Louis CK live at the Beacon and laughed for pretty much an hour straight.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on December 18, 2011, 02:16:52 PM
The Inbetweeners was pretty good, what you would expect from an amped up episode of the tv show. Also caught Louis CK live at the Beacon and laughed for pretty much an hour straight.

Did you pay the $5 for for the Louis CK?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 18, 2011, 02:53:05 PM
The Inbetweeners was pretty good, what you would expect from an amped up episode of the tv show. Also caught Louis CK live at the Beacon and laughed for pretty much an hour straight.

Did you pay the $5 for for the Louis CK?

No, what $5 is that? ( sounds kind of specific )

Edit: I looked it up, interesting and apparently lucrative approach, he made half a million in three days online...

I got it from a friend.  :-\
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on December 18, 2011, 11:59:50 PM
Just watched Midnight in Paris. Probably not as critically acclaimed as some people would have you think but definitely a very enjoyable movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on December 19, 2011, 10:52:51 PM
Trailer for The Dark Knight Rises looks sweet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on December 23, 2011, 08:11:02 PM
Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead.  Awesome.  If you can't find it, PM me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 23, 2011, 09:44:25 PM
Just watched Midnight in Paris. Probably not as critically acclaimed as some people would have you think but definitely a very enjoyable movie.

I think it actually has great-to-fantastic reviews.

Looks interesting, will have to check it out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 24, 2011, 08:04:04 AM
Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead.  Awesome.  If you can't find it, PM me.
Great flick, inspiring for those trying to shift some timber.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 24, 2011, 02:03:19 PM
I might have enjoyed The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo more if I hadn't watched it here at work but all in all, pretty good. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: seahawk on December 24, 2011, 02:24:37 PM
I know a couple people here were going to see the new Mission Impossible movie. Without spoiling the movie, I'd like to hear their thoughts on it. Is it worth trying to fight the masses on Boxing Day for?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on December 24, 2011, 03:46:16 PM
Just watched Midnight in Paris. Probably not as critically acclaimed as some people would have you think but definitely a very enjoyable movie.

I think it actually has great-to-fantastic reviews.

Looks interesting, will have to check it out.

What I mean is I think it's one of those really good movies, but not quite good enough to win best picture kinda movies. It's fun, it's interesting, it's light. I liked it a lot, but it's not that meaty in terms of actual drama, if you catch my drift.

In terms of being an exposee on Paris, I thought Before Sunset was better overall, although the plotlines in those two movies are very different, but Midnight in Paris was definitely one of the most enjoyable films I've watched all year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: brothert on December 24, 2011, 05:47:27 PM
Saw Midnight in Paris on the plane.  It was enjoyable but lighthearted.  I watched Crazy Stupid Love immediately after and thought it was way better.  I can't stand Steve Carrell(he was good in this) but the cast was a good mix, there was some good oneliners, and the plot was pure shakespearean (comedy). 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Michael on December 24, 2011, 05:56:39 PM
Saw Girl With the Dragon Tattoo last night. I thought it was a great movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 24, 2011, 06:02:26 PM
A couple of friends have told me they really enjoyed it and thought it was better than the swedish one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 24, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
A couple of friends have told me they really enjoyed it and thought it was better than the swedish one.

OMG!... I haven't seen the trailers so I didn't know what I was looking for and it seems I just watched the Swedish one!  :-[ Anyway, as I said, I like it...   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on December 24, 2011, 10:13:20 PM
A couple of friends have told me they really enjoyed it and thought it was better than the swedish one.

OMG!... I haven't seen the trailers so I didn't know what I was looking for and it seems I just watched the Swedish one!  :-[ Anyway, as I said, I like it...

Well the easiest way to tell them apart is that the Swedish one is in Swedish and the American one is in English..........
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 24, 2011, 10:30:28 PM
I know a couple people here were going to see the new Mission Impossible movie. Without spoiling the movie, I'd like to hear their thoughts on it. Is it worth trying to fight the masses on Boxing Day for?

It was a very fun action movie. So if that sort of movie is your thing then I'd definitely check it out. The villain was kind of lame. Simon Pegg stole every scene he had a line in. Tom Cruise may be nuts but put him in front of a movie camera and it becomes very difficult not to like him (he was amazing in the vastly underrated Knight & Day).

The IMAX scenes were definitely a selling point for me though, so if you can watch it in that format I'd recommend doing that too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 24, 2011, 10:40:51 PM
Well the easiest way to tell them apart is that the Swedish one is in Swedish and the American one is in English..........

Also, the American one has significantly more Daniel Craig than the Swedish one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on December 25, 2011, 03:34:28 AM
Top ten hockey movies.....

From:  http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43702-THNcom-Top-10-Best-hockey-movies.html (http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43702-THNcom-Top-10-Best-hockey-movies.html)

10. Mystery, Alaska.
With arguably the most star-studded cast of actors in any hockey movie – including Russell Crowe, Burt Reynolds, Hank Azaria and Colm Meaney – this film chronicles an Alaskan town bracing for an impromptu game against the New York Rangers. Keep your eye out for cameo appearances from Phil Esposito, Little Richard and Mike Myers.

9. Les Boys.
The most successful Quebec-made film series in that province’s history began with this movie about an amateur hockey team’s comedic exploits. It’s not the most original sports movie you’ll ever see, but it spawned three sequels and a spinoff TV series because of a joyful approach to capturing the spirit of the game.

8. The Rocket.
The story of all-time great Maurice ‘Rocket’ Richard’s ascent to the pinnacle of the sport, this Quebec-made film was made with the help of Richard before he died and features past and current NHLers Vincent Lecavalier, Sean Avery, Pascal Dupuis, Ian Laperriere, Mike Ricci and Stephane Quintal as legends of the past. Don’t let the English subtitles scare you away – the movie was a critically acclaimed hit, winning nine of Canada’s Genie Awards, including best actor, actress and director.

7. Sudden Death.

Listen, any movie starring ‘90s action relic Jean-Claude Van Damme is not going to age all that well. But this particular film has a lot going for it from a hockey fan’s perspective – including cameos from Luc Robitaille, Bernie Nicholls, Markus Naslund and Sidney Crosby’s agent Pat Brisson – and registers high on the unintentional comedy scale.

6. The Hockey Sweater.
A personal sentimental favorite, this animated children’s movie – about a young Montreal Canadiens fan devastated to accidentally receive a Maple Leafs jersey in the mail – has withstood the test of time. It’s only 10 minutes long, but is masterfully told and will tug on any hockey fan’s heartstrings long after it’s over.

5. Bon Cop, Bad Cop.
One of the most financially successful Canadian movies ever, this film isn’t about hockey per se, but its thinly veiled references to the NHL (including fictional commissioner Harry Buttman) make this a more-than-worthwhile puck-related movie.

4. Goon.
Yes, I’m putting a movie that hasn’t yet been released high on this list, but Baruchel’s love letter to the game’s tough guys deserves it. Both of its main stars, Seann William Scott (of American Pie and Dude, Where’s My Car? fame) and Liev Schreiber (Scream, The Hurricane) deliver strong performances and the plot isn’t ham-fisted as so many sports films are. Hilarious, smart and touching.

3. Miracle.
The dramatized story of the 1980 U.S. men’s Olympic team is as inspirational now as it was when it was released 24 years after the actual event. Kurt Russell has gained most of his fame for movies like “Escape From New York”, but his work as legendary late coach Herb Brooks was outstanding.

2. Les Chiefs.
One of the less mainstream movies on this list is also one of the most affecting. A documentary on a team in the ultra-tough, Quebec-based North American Hockey League, this film has more legitimate drama and humor in it than most fictional films about the game. It isn’t the easiest movie to get your hands on, but it is absolutely worth the effort.

1. Slap Shot.
What can I tell you? Unless you’re a hockey fan who literally is physically allergic to obscenities and cartoonish violence, there’s no reason you shouldn’t have seen this masterpiece already. It features one of Paul Newman’s greatest acting jobs, the immortal Hansons and none of that stinkin’ root beer. Honestly, if you haven’t seen it, call your local movie rental place (if you still have one), tell them to reserve one for you right @*#$-ing now, then hang up the phone.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 25, 2011, 06:56:21 AM
I know a couple people here were going to see the new Mission Impossible movie. Without spoiling the movie, I'd like to hear their thoughts on it. Is it worth trying to fight the masses on Boxing Day for?

It was a very fun action movie. So if that sort of movie is your thing then I'd definitely check it out. The villain was kind of lame. Simon Pegg stole every scene he had a line in. Tom Cruise may be nuts but put him in front of a movie camera and it becomes very difficult not to like him (he was amazing in the vastly underrated Knight & Day).

The IMAX scenes were definitely a selling point for me though, so if you can watch it in that format I'd recommend doing that too.

Agreed on all fronts. MI4 is fun, fast, funny, adrenaline pumping action. I even want to go back to theatres and see it again, which is a rarity.

Also have to agree on the Knight and Day props. I can't believe how much I enjoyed that film. Absolutely hilarious with an amazing performance by Cruise. Vastly underrated, as Carlton said.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: The Red Polar Bear on December 25, 2011, 10:08:00 AM
Top ten hockey movies.....

Serious?

No Mighty Ducks? It inspired an actual NHL franchise.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on December 25, 2011, 10:54:03 AM
Top ten hockey movies.....


Serious?

No Mighty Ducks? It inspired an actual NHL franchise.


Unfortunately, the Mighty Ducks movie wasn't given much consideration.  Don't know why.  But yeah, you're right, it should have been listed (chosen).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 25, 2011, 11:27:39 AM
No Youngblood? That's just wrong...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on December 25, 2011, 11:53:22 AM
No Youngblood? That's just wrong...


I remember having seen that movie and actually liking it. Don't think it's a hockey critic's favourite though, which is probably why it's not on the list.
Rob Lowe looked good in a hockey uniform.   :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 25, 2011, 01:29:31 PM
A couple of friends have told me they really enjoyed it and thought it was better than the swedish one.

OMG!... I haven't seen the trailers so I didn't know what I was looking for and it seems I just watched the Swedish one!  :-[ Anyway, as I said, I like it...

Well the easiest way to tell them apart is that the Swedish one is in Swedish and the American one is in English..........

The Swedish version I saw was not actually in Swedish so... Like I said, I had no idea what to be looking for in the first place.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 25, 2011, 01:30:28 PM
Well the easiest way to tell them apart is that the Swedish one is in Swedish and the American one is in English..........

Also, the American one has significantly more Daniel Craig than the Swedish one.

Well, that would only have been a help if I knew to be looking for Daniel Craig...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 26, 2011, 05:56:08 PM
A couple of friends have told me they really enjoyed it and thought it was better than the swedish one.

OMG!... I haven't seen the trailers so I didn't know what I was looking for and it seems I just watched the Swedish one!  :-[ Anyway, as I said, I like it...

Well the easiest way to tell them apart is that the Swedish one is in Swedish and the American one is in English..........

The Swedish version I saw was not actually in Swedish so... Like I said, I had no idea what to be looking for in the first place.

I'm not sure why you're confused here. Either they were speaking in english legitimately, or it was dubbed.

Did you see it in the theatre within the last week or did you rent it?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 26, 2011, 06:13:13 PM
A couple of friends have told me they really enjoyed it and thought it was better than the swedish one.

OMG!... I haven't seen the trailers so I didn't know what I was looking for and it seems I just watched the Swedish one!  :-[ Anyway, as I said, I like it...

Well the easiest way to tell them apart is that the Swedish one is in Swedish and the American one is in English..........

The Swedish version I saw was not actually in Swedish so... Like I said, I had no idea what to be looking for in the first place.

I'm not sure why you're confused here. Either they were speaking in english legitimately, or it was dubbed.

Did you see it in the theatre within the last week or did you rent it?

I'm no longer confused but I understand why you may be so here goes... I know of the book (haven't read  it.) Heard there was a movie out just now that some folks thought was pretty good. I haven't seen any trailers so I had no idea what I was looking for... I downloaded a movie which was titled the same which takes place in Sweden and the quality was less than perfect. For all I knew, this was the flick folks were talking about. What I apparently saw was the Swedish version (which I assume now was dubbed) but I didn't notice the lips not matching the audio due to the quality of the download I suppose... I thought it might have just been a slight delay on the audio end or something but when watching, I just really thought what I was hearing was these actors speaking English... Not a dub at all. Anyway, I need to watch the English version now to compare. Like I said, I thought the Swedish version was pretty good.       
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 26, 2011, 06:45:06 PM
lol...

At least I understand now. i recommend going to a video store and renting it (Swedish trilogy) on blu-ray. Probably a slight upgrade over the quality you got if you couldn't even tell it was dubbed.  ;)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 26, 2011, 06:50:06 PM
lol...

At least I understand now. i recommend going to a video store and renting it (Swedish trilogy) on blu-ray. Probably a slight upgrade over the quality you got if you couldn't even tell it was dubbed.  ;)

The movie is a part of a trilogy?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 26, 2011, 06:57:50 PM
The movie is a part of a trilogy?

Yeah. There are 3 books in the series, all made into movies. I saw the US version of it yesterday, and was kind of confused as to how there could be a sequel (I haven't read the books, but, I've been told the movie does follow the book very well), but, nevertheless . . .
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 26, 2011, 07:05:41 PM
Alrighty  then... Thanks guys.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on December 26, 2011, 08:26:28 PM
When did Star Wars get blu-ray treatment? I got the whole set from Santa!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 26, 2011, 10:26:40 PM
The movie is a part of a trilogy?

Yeah. There are 3 books in the series, all made into movies. I saw the US version of it yesterday, and was kind of confused as to how there could be a sequel (I haven't read the books, but, I've been told the movie does follow the book very well), but, nevertheless . . .

I haven't read the books yet (I have the first one sitting on my dresser) but there's a lot more to the story. Apparently the US movies are truer to the books than the Swedish ones.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 26, 2011, 10:49:24 PM
I haven't read the books yet (I have the first one sitting on my dresser) but there's a lot more to the story. Apparently the US movies are truer to the books than the Swedish ones.

I've been told the other books delve deeper into Lisbeth's character and her past and such than the first one does, which, I suppose makes sense. I mean, the main story in this movie does get fairly effectively wrapped up - there aren't a lot of loose ends, and the ones that were there didn't really feel book/movie worthy. I get the feeling the sequels are related to this one more through the main characters than through the story itself - or, at least, that's what I've been led to believe.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 27, 2011, 09:11:43 AM
In the Swedish version, we really don't find out the details of how Lisbeth got that way... Just a couple flash backs that paint a broad picture.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Trolloc on December 27, 2011, 07:30:55 PM
Been watching movies non-stop during the last two weeks.

Midnight in Paris - 10/10 - Got this movie on Blue-Ray for Christmas and watched it for the second time. First and foremost this movie is absolutely beautiful in high definition.  It captures the physical beauty of Paris like no other film I have ever seen.  Also, the two main themes of the movie are explored in a creative and thoroughly enjoyable fashion.  As of right now my favourite movie of the year.

Hot Coffee - 9/10 - One of the better documentaries I have ever watched. It takes a look into the case of the woman who sued McDonald's for burning herself with their coffee. The movie effectively shows how the public (including myself) wrongfully condemned this woman paving the way for American citizens losing all power to get rightful compensation if they experience wrong doing at the hands of a corporation.

Fast Five - 5/10 - I am not the target audience of this movie. It seems like a more coherently put together instalment than the previous three. However, it remains a mindless action flick for those who love beautiful cars and epic chases. If your fan of the series there is a lot of "nostalgia"  that may make this the best film in the series for you.

Win-Win - 8/10 - An all around good film. I majored in Justice Studies and appreciate films that illustrate how the family environment can drastically alter a child's life. This film effectively portrays how we can condemn a kid for poor choices when they were just dealt a losing hand and given better parenting they could have achieved great things.

Crazy Stupid Love - 6/10 - The film has a hard time balancing the drama and the comedy. It has a interesting  relationship between Steve Carrel and Juliana Moore's characters. It just gets lost in characters doing outrageous things in the name of comedy. If the comedy works for you, this could be a very enjoyable film.

30 Seconds or Less - 8.5/10 - I thought this movie was fun and hilarious. Surprisingly, I found many of the scenarios here to be much more likely than ones that occurred in Crazy Stupid Love.

127 Hours - 10/10 - This is the second time I watched this movie. Like Midnight in Paris, this movie is beautiful in Blue-Ray. It is a true story that is effectively portrayed through film. My favourite movie from  2010 and one of the most motivating true stories of all time.

Cowboys and Aliens - 3/10 - The opening scene was extremely entertaining. It just became  boring right after it. I will have to watch it again to see if maybe I just wasn't in the right mood.

The Hangover 2 - 6/10 - I was expecting to hate this movie. I ended up finding it funny. Not as good as the first time around but this sequel has its moments. It knows the type of film it is and embraces it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Trolloc on January 03, 2012, 08:26:56 AM
And the final movies I watched during the holidays...

The Change Up: 3/10 - The movie was a little too silly for my taste. A recycled storyline which doesn't really do anything that much differnet.

Paul: 4/10 - Really was looking forward to this movie. I am a big fan of Pegg and this movie just bored me and rarely made me laugh.

Just Go With It: 4/10 - This was better than most Adam Sandler movies. A lot of the plot elements just didn't make sense...really felt like whoever wrote this didn't care about plot and just did whatever to move it forward and bring characters together.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on January 03, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Watched 50/50 last night.  Not a great film but man do I ever like Gordon-Levitt.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on January 03, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
I just watched Warrior. I really enjoyed it and so did my wife, which is very rare considering it's a movie with lots of fighting. Tom Hardy is a very good actor.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 03, 2012, 01:51:10 PM
Have you seen Bronson? It's an odd film ( directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, recently of 'Drive' fame ) about the life of Charlie Bronson, notorious British prison inmate with Hardy in the lead. Really looking forward to what he brings to the new Batman movie, he's got something special.

Haven't seen Warrior yet, have to check it out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Trolloc on January 04, 2012, 07:36:12 AM
I just watched Warrior. I really enjoyed it and so did my wife, which is very rare considering it's a movie with lots of fighting. Tom Hardy is a very good actor.

For a movie that is unrealistic, it was executed extremely well. I ended up buyng it on Blu-Ray.

Watched 50/50 last night.  Not a great film but man do I ever like Gordon-Levitt.

I loved this movie. My second favourite right behind Midnight in Paris...I've yet to see all the Oscar/Globe favourites yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Rick Couchman on January 04, 2012, 04:39:43 PM
I'm looking for a movie - if anyone has a copy or knows how I could download one somewhere.  It's called LBS., the Movie.

If my credit card wasn't maxed (being out of work with no income for 8 mths does that to a guy), I'd buy one at:  http://www.lbsthemovie.com/

It's supposed to be a great story of a fat dude like me that tries to fight his eating addiction and reduce weight.  I'd LOVE to see it.

Anyone know where to D/L a copy?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 04, 2012, 04:49:50 PM
I should be able to find you a torrent when I finish work Rick.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Rick Couchman on January 04, 2012, 04:57:13 PM
I should be able to find you a torrent when I finish work Rick.

That'd be awesome WIGWAL.  I've checked at local libraries - none.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 04, 2012, 06:53:16 PM
False promises I'm afraid sir, all the torrents I've found have been unreliable.

May I suggest Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead in it's place?

Really good documentary around the same subject matter.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on January 04, 2012, 10:27:46 PM
False promises I'm afraid sir, all the torrents I've found have been unreliable.

May I suggest Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead in it's place?

Really good documentary around the same subject matter.

I have this movie.  I mentioned in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that if you can't find it, PM me and I will help you out. 

Rick, if you want a copy, I can get you one, let me know.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Rick Couchman on January 05, 2012, 10:41:39 PM
False promises I'm afraid sir, all the torrents I've found have been unreliable.

May I suggest Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead in it's place?

Really good documentary around the same subject matter.

I have this movie.  I mentioned in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that if you can't find it, PM me and I will help you out. 

Rick, if you want a copy, I can get you one, let me know.

Sure!  Lemme know how I can grab a copy...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on January 05, 2012, 10:57:31 PM
I thought Ghost Protocol was pretty good... Well worth paying movie prices for anyway.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on January 06, 2012, 01:14:18 AM
Just re-watched Inglourious Basters for the second time.

This has to be one of my favourite movies ever made.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 09, 2012, 10:48:05 AM

Just saw The Guard, an Irish flick starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. I really, really liked it. If you like In Bruges there's a similar feel to this(this was directed by In Bruges' director's brother). If this were a better world Gleeson's performance is the kind that would be getting Oscar buzz.
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 09, 2012, 12:18:40 PM

Just saw The Guard, an Irish flick starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. I really, really liked it. If you like In Bruges there's a similar feel to this(this was directed by In Bruges' director's brother). If this were a better world Gleeson's performance is the kind that would be getting Oscar buzz.

I actually watched it on Friday and share your thoughts. Terrific movie from start to finish.

Also watched Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy last night. Hard to give a review of it. I enjoyed all the performances from the great ensemble cast. The movie was definitely a little slow but I was never bored. It also wasn't really advertised as a fast-pace movie so I knew what I was getting. My only gripe is that I really didn't follow how the whole mystery or case was solved at the very end. Gonna have to read the book and hope it answers some questions.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 09, 2012, 04:25:02 PM
Yeah, in Tinker Tailor if you didn't catch all the little things up to the airport runway scene it's tough to make the leap.

I really enjoyed the movie too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on January 09, 2012, 04:47:54 PM
I'm sure this was covered when it was released but out of boredom I watched 'The Tourist' last night with Depp & Jolie - what a piece of garbage.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 18, 2012, 07:01:31 PM
Watched a Korean movie the other day called 'Oldboy', holy revenge story Batman.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on January 19, 2012, 05:52:27 PM
Watched a Korean movie the other day called 'Oldboy', holy revenge story Batman.

Yea that's a pretty famous (and crazy) film. The other 2 in that "revenge" trilogy aren't as good but worth seeing I guess.

There's going to be an 'Oldboy" American version directed by Spike Lee. Somehow I don't see it quite working.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 19, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Watched a Korean movie the other day called 'Oldboy', holy revenge story Batman.

Yea that's a pretty famous (and crazy) film. The other 2 in that "revenge" trilogy aren't as good but worth seeing I guess.

There's going to be an 'Oldboy" American version directed by Spike Lee. Somehow I don't see it quite working.

It's crazy alright, can't see Spike doing it justice either.

I didn't know there was a series, not sure I want to see them, didn't bother with Battle Royale 2 so, y'know...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on January 19, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
It's crazy alright, can't see Spike doing it justice either.

I didn't know there was a series, not sure I want to see them, didn't bother with Battle Royale 2 so, y'know...

That was the right decision. What a disappointment that was after the first one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on January 22, 2012, 12:16:29 AM
Finally got around to watching Moneyball, and I really enjoyed it.   Although, it would have been a much better movie if they'd won the championship in the end.

Scriptwriters dropped the ball on that one.

I think George Clooney should play Bryan Murray in the movie about the Sens winning the 12/13 Stanley Cup.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 25, 2012, 11:45:31 PM
It's crazy alright, can't see Spike doing it justice either.

I didn't know there was a series, not sure I want to see them, didn't bother with Battle Royale 2 so, y'know...

That was the right decision. What a disappointment that was after the first one.

Now that I think about it, it was you that gave me the heads up about that. :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on January 26, 2012, 10:50:12 AM
It's crazy alright, can't see Spike doing it justice either.

I didn't know there was a series, not sure I want to see them, didn't bother with Battle Royale 2 so, y'know...

That was the right decision. What a disappointment that was after the first one.

Now that I think about it, it was you that gave me the heads up about that. :)

Quite possible. I've been very vocal about my disappointment with it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Trolloc on January 26, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
Finally got around to watching Moneyball, and I really enjoyed it.   Although, it would have been a much better movie if they'd won the championship in the end.
Scriptwriters dropped the ball on that one.

I think George Clooney should play Bryan Murray in the movie about the Sens winning the 12/13 Stanley Cup.

It is based on a true story.


Got around to watching The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It has some great moments but the movie is just too long and is a bit of a chore to get through. I did watch the Swedish version which may have contributed to this...but still I've watched the same movie multiple times in past and was entertained the same each time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: riff raff on January 29, 2012, 03:47:27 PM
Finally got around to watching Moneyball, and I really enjoyed it.   Although, it would have been a much better movie if they'd won the championship in the end.
Scriptwriters dropped the ball on that one.

I think George Clooney should play Bryan Murray in the movie about the Sens winning the 12/13 Stanley Cup.

It is based on a true story.


Is your sarcasm detector on the fritz?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on February 04, 2012, 09:01:40 AM
The Grey was pretty good.. Though I feel I need to watch a comedy... Quickly.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: seahawk on February 04, 2012, 07:04:18 PM
Has anybody seen Man on a Ledge or Contraband?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Darryl on February 13, 2012, 04:21:02 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPxdjECyPmw&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Yes you read the title right.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 13, 2012, 04:27:18 PM
Just in case anyone was unaware, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is actually based on a book of the same name.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on February 13, 2012, 10:25:13 PM
Just in case anyone was unaware, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is actually based on a book of the same name.

Non-fiction.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: The Red Polar Bear on February 14, 2012, 12:05:24 AM
Just in case anyone was unaware, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is actually based on a book of the same name.

Non-fiction.

Autobiography.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 21, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
I'm having a tough time getting through Tintin.   It is square in the uncanny valley.   The captain especially creeps me out every time he's on screen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on February 21, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
Finally got around to Motorcycle Diaries.

Amazing, amazing, amazing!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on February 25, 2012, 02:47:14 PM
Might have to watch Slapshot this afternoon, it came out 35 years ago today.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on February 26, 2012, 03:54:42 AM
Anybody seen or heard anything about 3D star wars? I'm on the fence about going to see it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 26, 2012, 09:15:23 AM
Might have to watch Slapshot this afternoon, it came out 35 years ago today.

Speaking of which, go watch Goon today.   I went in with incredibly low expectations, and I thought it was great.   Best hockey movie since Slapshot.

Not for kids, though.   Lots of language, and some of the violence is pretty explicit.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 26, 2012, 11:34:45 AM
Anybody seen or heard anything about 3D star wars? I'm on the fence about going to see it.

I saw it, but only because a buddy of mine had an extra free ticket. If you can past the fact that the Phantom Menace still sucks . . .
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on February 26, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
Might have to watch Slapshot this afternoon, it came out 35 years ago today.

Speaking of which, go watch Goon today.   I went in with incredibly low expectations, and I thought it was great.   Best hockey movie since Slapshot.

Not for kids, though.   Lots of language, and some of the violence is pretty explicit.

Sweet, going to check that out. Did you or anyone else happen to see Breakaway? Kind of funny that Rob Lowe produced it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 27, 2012, 08:50:25 PM

Well, the Oscars sucked. But I'm glad to see that Bret Mackenzie won.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 27, 2012, 08:59:26 PM
Might have to watch Slapshot this afternoon, it came out 35 years ago today.

Speaking of which, go watch Goon today.   I went in with incredibly low expectations, and I thought it was great.   Best hockey movie since Slapshot.

Not for kids, though.   Lots of language, and some of the violence is pretty explicit.

Sweet, going to check that out. Did you or anyone else happen to see Breakaway? Kind of funny that Rob Lowe produced it.

Nope, I think I remember seeing a trailer for it sometime.   Russell Peters kinda irritates me, so I wasn't too into it.   Did you see it?   Is it worth checking out?

By the way, I'd like to amend my earlier statement about Goon being the best since Slapshot.   I forgot about Miracle, that was pretty awesome too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on February 28, 2012, 10:11:14 AM

Well, the Oscars sucked. But I'm glad to see that Bret Mackenzie won.

He did a really good job on the Muppets soundtrack.  I'm kind of disappointed he didn't get a chance to perform the song.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 02, 2012, 06:12:10 PM

Caught a couple movies recently:

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: Too condensed. I'm probably too biased because of my love of the book and the mini-series but I'm not sure this movie added much to my understanding of the story. Kudos, though, to Gary Oldman for doing a terrific job in Alec Guiness' shadow.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: I have no idea why this movie exists. I understand why the Swedes made a version of it but to update it a couple years later but not change the setting, have a bunch of American/Canadian actors speakin in Swedish accents(except, bizarrely, the main character) and not even attempt to clean up the mess of the source material?

The Hangover 2: I know why it got bad reviews as it was more of the same as the original but, personally, I'm ok with that. I like the characters and the premise enough that I'm on board with an hour an a half of their adventures every couple of years.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on March 10, 2012, 01:49:31 PM
Might have to watch Slapshot this afternoon, it came out 35 years ago today.

Speaking of which, go watch Goon today.   I went in with incredibly low expectations, and I thought it was great.   Best hockey movie since Slapshot.

Not for kids, though.   Lots of language, and some of the violence is pretty explicit.

Sweet, going to check that out. Did you or anyone else happen to see Breakaway? Kind of funny that Rob Lowe produced it.

Nope, I think I remember seeing a trailer for it sometime.   Russell Peters kinda irritates me, so I wasn't too into it.   Did you see it?   Is it worth checking out?

By the way, I'd like to amend my earlier statement about Goon being the best since Slapshot.   I forgot about Miracle, that was pretty awesome too.

Haven't seen it, no, caught an interview on Ghomeshi with Lowe and it sounded interesting, going to check it out today or tomorrow, I'll let you know.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on March 10, 2012, 02:36:33 PM
I caught Chronicle the other day, it was interesting at least, had the guy that played Wallace from The Wire. Sort of 'kids get super powers' but not really a kids story, told in a similar style to Troll Hunter and Cloverfield the ending sort of reminded me a bit of one of the bigger scenes from Akira.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on March 14, 2012, 02:57:48 PM
So, finally did get around to seeing Breakaway, pretty light but not terrible either... there's a touch of Bollywood too. Not bad for a hangover day movie...

"ask him what night Cricket Night in Canada is on..."

SP, fwiw, Russell Peters was a relatively unlikable minor character so it kind of worked.

Also caught Goon, yup that was the real deal.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 23, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
Going to see a midnight showing of Hunger Games in a few hours, I have the book to read, going to wait till after the movie to check it out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on March 24, 2012, 03:19:13 PM
Just watched "Husbands and Wives" by Woody Allen.

What a poignant film on relationships.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on March 26, 2012, 05:02:48 PM
I have no idea what The Hunger Games is, but I already hate it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Zid on March 26, 2012, 07:00:49 PM
I have no idea what The Hunger Games is, but I already hate it.

It's a rockumentary on North Korea.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 26, 2012, 07:14:29 PM
I have no idea what The Hunger Games is, but I already hate it.

From what I can tell, it's a watered down version of Battle Royale, but, with a bunch of white kids and too much emphasis on the plot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 26, 2012, 07:20:09 PM

So far I've pieced together that there are some sort of games going on and someone or something is hungry.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Newbury on March 26, 2012, 09:48:45 PM
I have no idea what The Hunger Games is, but I already hate it.

From what I can tell, it's a watered down version of Battle Royale, but, with a bunch of white kids and too much emphasis on the plot.

Not enough white kids, apparently.

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on March 27, 2012, 12:59:00 AM
News like that makes me want to punch a stranger in the face.   This may have me all turned around on this movie, now I might have to put on black face and go see it, just to support those little kids.   That will send the right message.

I really wish they would have gone ahead and made Spiderman black.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on March 27, 2012, 07:41:48 AM
"The Long Walk" would transpose well into a movie - what's the hold up?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 27, 2012, 08:18:18 AM
I have no idea what The Hunger Games is, but I already hate it.

From what I can tell, it's a watered down version of Battle Royale, but, with a bunch of white kids and too much emphasis on the plot.

Not enough white kids, apparently.

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

Leaving aside the fact that I don't know if it's true in this case and the obviously distasteful racial aspect just as a general rule I tend to find people who complain about an adaptation's deviance from its source material to be about as obnoxious as it gets.

(Although I maintain a small exception for Kick-Ass)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on March 27, 2012, 08:20:35 AM
I have no idea what The Hunger Games is, but I already hate it.

From what I can tell, it's a watered down version of Battle Royale, but, with a bunch of white kids and too much emphasis on the plot.

Not enough white kids, apparently.

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

Leaving aside the fact that I don't know if it's true in this case and the obviously distasteful racial aspect just as a general rule I tend to find people who complain about an adaptation's deviance from its source material to be about as obnoxious as it gets.

(Although I maintain a small exception for Kick-Ass)

Wife being a teacher and all, I read the books.  They aren't terrible for YA fiction, but the characters are black in the books and those twitter accounts were real.  It is only acceptable when Kingpin gets turned into a black character.  Ever.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 27, 2012, 08:27:25 AM
Wife being a teacher and all, I read the books.  They aren't terrible for YA fiction, but the characters are black in the books and those twitter accounts were real.  It is only acceptable when Kingpin gets turned into a black character.  Ever.

Wasn't there something similar with Idris Elba in Thor?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on March 27, 2012, 08:57:49 AM
Wife being a teacher and all, I read the books.  They aren't terrible for YA fiction, but the characters are black in the books and those twitter accounts were real.  It is only acceptable when Kingpin gets turned into a black character.  Ever.

What about Nick Fury?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 27, 2012, 10:17:10 AM
What about Nick Fury?

Well, Marvel made him into Samuel L before the movies did, so . . .
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 27, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
Wife being a teacher and all, I read the books.  They aren't terrible for YA fiction, but the characters are black in the books and those twitter accounts were real.  It is only acceptable when Kingpin gets turned into a black character.  Ever.

*Spouse is a teacher high five*

I liked the movie, had a touch of Lord of the Flies meets Battle Royale.  It was an interesting story too, the setup was good.

I know it was based on the book and was aimed at a wide demographic, but I would have liked to see at least a little more of the brutality of the situation.  Not Battle Royale per se, but at least more than they showed.  They spent an exceptionally long time explaining how brutal the whole thing was and then the pay-off was a little weak.

At the end of the day it was clearly a move to get the PG-13 rating and get a wide release, perhaps the Blu-Ray will have a harsher directors cut.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on March 27, 2012, 02:09:47 PM
"The Long Walk" would transpose well into a movie - what's the hold up?

I'm not sure how well that would tanspose, although it probably is one of King's greatest writings. Personally, I'd like to see a more serious, closer- to-the-story adaptation of "The Running Man."
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: brothert on March 27, 2012, 02:22:44 PM
"The Long Walk" would transpose well into a movie - what's the hold up?
I have always felt that this story would translate into a good movie.  You could spend much more time than the book developing characters while advancing the plot slowly and subtly in to a totally suspenseful drama/horror towards the end.  Make the audience love the characters and then kill them off one by one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on March 27, 2012, 06:30:16 PM
"The Long Walk" would transpose well into a movie - what's the hold up?

I'm not sure how well that would tanspose, although it probably is one of King's greatest writings. Personally, I'd like to see a more serious, closer- to-the-story adaptation of "The Running Man."

Bachman!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 28, 2012, 09:32:09 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrNA7RjU91I&feature[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on April 01, 2012, 02:31:10 PM
Ooh...

A workprint version of The Avengers has leaked.   Workprint generally means not finished, like not all of the CGI would be complete yet, and some scenes just have low res placeholders there instead.

Really want to see it, but also don't want to ruin it by watching it without all the special effects.   I have a really hard life, with some tough decisions to make.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on April 01, 2012, 03:15:53 PM

I just got to see Starbuck, a Quebecois movie that was at last year's TIFF. It's a pretty good premise, where a guy who had been a sperm donor 20 years ago finds out that he's the biological father to 533 children. I thought it was a pretty terrific comedy for the most part.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on April 01, 2012, 05:21:53 PM
Ooh...

A workprint version of The Avengers has leaked.   Workprint generally means not finished, like not all of the CGI would be complete yet, and some scenes just have low res placeholders there instead.

Really want to see it, but also don't want to ruin it by watching it without all the special effects.   I have a really hard life, with some tough decisions to make.

Ack, best April Fools one in awhile.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on April 10, 2012, 04:14:01 AM
American Reunion was fun, made me kinda sentimental.  I was around the same age as the characters when the original came out and I'm kinda in the same place as they are now.  I guess I had a tight group of friends back then that I've drifted apart from somewhat, not to mention my living 7000 miles away.

I miss those guys, truth is they had as big a part in shaping who I am today as my own family did.

Sorry for rambling.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on April 10, 2012, 02:20:30 PM
Just watched Indiana Jones 4 for the first time since theatres, and it's not the disappointing train wreck I remember.

However.

Shia LaBeof's Mom's name is Marion Ravenwood.   His Dad's name is Colin Williams.   His name is Henry Jones III.

Why is he so surprised to find out his father is Henry Jones II?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on April 12, 2012, 05:58:05 PM
Just caught "The Dead Zone" on Netflix the other night. Man is that one enjoyable little flick. Really well done.

On a Cronenberg note, really looking forward to his upcoming "Cosmopolis." Anyone read the book?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on April 12, 2012, 06:06:18 PM
Just caught "The Dead Zone" on Netflix the other night. Man is that one enjoyable little flick. Really well done.

On a Cronenberg note, really looking forward to his upcoming "Cosmopolis." Anyone read the book?

I caught Cronenberg's 'A Dangerous Method' recently, wasn't what I thought it would be but then that's Cronenberg for you.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on April 12, 2012, 07:14:41 PM
Watched about 1hr and 30m of Shutter Island. Had to turn it off. What a piece of crap.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Ronco on April 12, 2012, 09:20:43 PM
I recently watched well partially. The Sitter. A Comedy, but with some serious morality issues.
This movie had me shaking my head over the opening scene ..not for kids...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on April 13, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
I recently watched well partially. The Sitter. A Comedy, but with some serious morality issues.
This movie had me shaking my head over the opening scene ..not for kids...
I liked it a lot, it was R rated, so of course it was never meant for kids.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Leafaholic99 on April 14, 2012, 04:56:33 AM
Went and seen "The Lorax" and "Titanic: Imax 3D" this week.

The Lorax was a pretty good movie, I found it funny and would watch it again. We watched the original afterwards and although I enjoyed the original more as it stuck with story moreso then the new version, the newer one would appeal more to children.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Dappleganger on April 14, 2012, 06:14:49 AM
Watched about 1hr and 30m of Shutter Island. Had to turn it off. What a piece of crap.

I didn't get through it either. I would just describe it as blah.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on April 14, 2012, 09:03:48 AM
Watched about 1hr and 30m of Shutter Island. Had to turn it off. What a piece of crap.

I didn't get through it either. I would just describe it as blah.

I thought it was a beautifully shot and acted movie with a wonderful ambience that was knocked down a few pegs by the final revelation or 'twist.'

I was certainly expecting more but I am suprised you guys both couldn't get to the ending, which was the only part that felt 'blah' to me.

 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on April 14, 2012, 09:14:24 AM
I'm thinking of going to see the Stooges. I'm not expecting anything special but I think it will be silly and worth a laugh.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on April 14, 2012, 10:37:27 AM
I'm thinking of going to see the Stooges. I'm not expecting anything special but I think it will be silly and worth a laugh.

I've already laughed a fair bit at the trailers. I mean if the Stooges don't do it for you, just turn in you man badge right now.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on April 14, 2012, 08:08:21 PM
I'm thinking of going to see the Stooges. I'm not expecting anything special but I think it will be silly and worth a laugh.

I've already laughed a fair bit at the trailers. I mean if the Stooges don't do it for you, just turn in you man badge right now.
As soon as I realised that they had people from Jersey Shore in it, I checked out.  Although they also have Kate Upton in a Nunkini, so I might check back in.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on April 14, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Just saw Pirate Radio. Honestly, I didn't even know the flick existed but man, I really enjoyed it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on April 15, 2012, 10:30:43 PM
I'm thinking of going to see the Stooges. I'm not expecting anything special but I think it will be silly and worth a laugh.

I've already laughed a fair bit at the trailers. I mean if the Stooges don't do it for you, just turn in you man badge right now.
As soon as I realised that they had people from Jersey Shore in it, I checked out.  Although they also have Kate Upton in a Nunkini, so I might check back in.

Jersey Shore?.... I don't like that but I still think I'll go.

From the little bits I have seen each of the three actors is playing their roles really well.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on April 16, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
At least Larry David's in it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on April 20, 2012, 07:45:24 PM
Just came back from seeing Chimpanzee. What incredible footage and without spoiling it, it's amazing that they actually caught what happened during their time filming them. - Something which Jand Goodall in a recent interview suggested is probably about 1 in 100,000. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on April 25, 2012, 03:30:46 AM
Lockout (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1592525/)
Quote
A man wrongly convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S. is offered his freedom if he can rescue the president’s daughter from an outer space prison taken over by violent inmates.

Why have I not heard of this yet?   It sounds amazing.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on April 29, 2012, 11:06:00 PM
As a guy who loves Ed Norton, and doesn't particularly like Mark Ruffalo, the Hulk was the best part.

I'll be at the theatre this weekend to see it properly.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on May 05, 2012, 03:43:04 PM
Just saw the Avengers (in 3D.) Started kind of "meh" but picked up around the midway point rather nicely I thought. All in all a good flick and worth forking out theatre prices.

Spoiler Alert;

Anyone who saw it think they made Hulk kind of over the top powerful? - Though I do think he provided a couple of the movie's finer moments.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on May 05, 2012, 06:03:34 PM
I thought Joss Whedon did a fantastic job and yeah, the Hulk and Ruffalo were stealing scenes left and right.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on May 05, 2012, 11:29:43 PM
Anyone who saw it think they made Hulk kind of over the top powerful? - Though I do think he provided a couple of the movie's finer moments.

Not particularly.   I mean, he is "strongest there is".   If he had been able to pick up Thor's hammer then it might bug me, but he wasn't.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on May 06, 2012, 06:28:51 AM
Anyone who saw it think they made Hulk kind of over the top powerful? - Though I do think he provided a couple of the movie's finer moments.

Not particularly.   I mean, he is "strongest there is".   If he had been able to pick up Thor's hammer then it might bug me, but he wasn't.

Good point. I Forgot about that one. - a pretty solid detail. I just wasn't expecting Hulk to be able to take on everyone and everything the way he did. He didn't look to be particularly vulnerable to anything.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on May 06, 2012, 10:19:15 AM
Anyone who saw it think they made Hulk kind of over the top powerful? - Though I do think he provided a couple of the movie's finer moments.

Not particularly.   I mean, he is "strongest there is".   If he had been able to pick up Thor's hammer then it might bug me, but he wasn't.

Good point. I Forgot about that one. - a pretty solid detail. I just wasn't expecting Hulk to be able to take on everyone and everything the way he did. He didn't look to be particularly vulnerable to anything.   

I've been reading a few comics since I saw the movie, and that seems to be pretty much the case.   In the one I was just reading, he jumped into the core of a dying planet, and pulled the tectonic plates together while swimming in magma.

EDIT: And his pants were still on when he re-emerged.   I don't necessarily want to see full frontal nude Hulk, but it's strange that it never happens.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on May 06, 2012, 10:39:54 AM
...he jumped into the core of a dying planet, and pulled the tectonic plates together while swimming in magma.


Ah, yes.. Otherwise known as the Wendel Clark hat trick.  :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 06, 2012, 11:54:20 AM
The Hulk is, in theory, the strongest of any of the Marvel characters - his strength is proportional to his anger.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on May 06, 2012, 11:55:54 AM
The Hulk is, in theory, the strongest of any of the Marvel characters - his strength is proportional to his anger.

If true, I'm glad the finally got it right then.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on May 07, 2012, 04:14:30 PM
I saw the movie and enjoyed it. I didn't care for the story but it had moments and was well done, good eye candy.

 Downey owns that ironman character.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on May 07, 2012, 10:32:29 PM
Downey owns that ironman character.

"That man is playing Galaga.   He didn't think we'd notice.   But we did."

I started laughing out loud when he said that.   Along with about 2% of the viewing audience.

...he jumped into the core of a dying planet, and pulled the tectonic plates together while swimming in magma.


Ah, yes.. Otherwise known as the Wendel Clark hat trick.  :)

Quoting this because I don't think that comment got the respect it deserved.   Well done, Sarge.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on May 07, 2012, 11:33:45 PM
I don't if anyone wants to break away from the Phoenix game but Mark Ruffalo is on Strombo tonight.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on May 08, 2012, 07:11:59 PM
Downey owns that ironman character.

"That man is playing Galaga.   He didn't think we'd notice.   But we did."

I started laughing out loud when he said that.   Along with about 2% of the viewing audience.

...he jumped into the core of a dying planet, and pulled the tectonic plates together while swimming in magma.


Ah, yes.. Otherwise known as the Wendel Clark hat trick.  :)

Quoting this because I don't think that comment got the respect it deserved.   Well done, Sarge.

I don't care, Galaga is still one of my favourite video games.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on May 08, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Just saw Pirates! Band of Misfits. Really well done, love the claymation, the dialog and the interesting take on a couple of historical characters! Glad I paid money to go see it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: leafs_fan89 on May 08, 2012, 10:45:56 PM
went and the avengers today i thought it was pretty and i enjoyed it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 24, 2012, 11:01:59 PM
I had the, uhh, "pleasure" of watching an advanced screening of Chernobyl Diaries this evening, and, I'll just say this - if any part of you or anyone you know has any interest in seeing this abomination of a movie, kill it with fire.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on May 24, 2012, 11:26:03 PM
I had the, uhh, "pleasure" of watching an advanced screening of Chernobyl Diaries this evening, and, I'll just say this - if any part of you or anyone you know has any interest in seeing this abomination of a movie, kill it with fire.

Vague preview hand-held camera action lazy horror movies have gotten really old. 
What kind of genre is the thing at least: zombie? generalized mutant? not bothered to be shown because that makes it "scarier"?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 24, 2012, 11:30:48 PM
Vague preview hand-held camera action lazy horror movies have gotten really old. 
What kind of genre is the thing at least: zombie? generalized mutant? not bothered to be shown because that makes it "scarier"?

It's not really even a hand held style horror movie (though, there was a fair amount of shaky cam). It's just all sorts of awful. And, I guess it was generalized mutant. It was really hard to tell, and they never really tried to explain it either. The deaths were . . . well, mainly off screen and the "meat" of the thing lasted for maybe 15 minutes, and, really, there was a lot of build up for no pay off. Just poorly done all around. The only thing it had going for it was that it didn't over do the CGI - in fact, I'm not convinced there really was any.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on May 25, 2012, 12:54:40 AM
not bothered to be shown because that makes it "scarier"?

I *hate* this.   I get the idea behind it, our imagination is scarier than what they can show on screen, and the longer we go without seeing it, the more anticipation builds.   But unless there's a payoff at some point, it's just irritating.

I'm looking at you, Blair Witch Project.   A dude standing in the corner should never be the climax of a movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on May 28, 2012, 07:12:40 AM
I finally got around to watching that two-hour long Apple Inc. commerical Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I enjoyed it. Lots of action, stunts, cleavage, and intrigue.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on May 28, 2012, 08:06:21 AM
Oh man, just watched Cape Fear for the first time, and it's gotta be in my top 5 scary movies.

(http://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000009811713-5620ii-crop.jpg?3508e02)

This guy scares the bejezus outta me.   I've heard that the original is even better, anyone seen it?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on May 28, 2012, 11:28:11 AM
I watched 'Mr.Nice' again last night - has anyone seen or heard of this film?
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Deebo on May 28, 2012, 01:59:04 PM
Saw a trailer for that new snow white movie and have one question:

It what world is Kristen Stewart "fairer" than Charlize Theron?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 28, 2012, 02:45:36 PM
Saw a trailer for that new snow white movie and have one question:

It what world is Kristen Stewart "fairer" than Charlize Theron?

We're supposed to cheer for the Queen in that one, right?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on May 28, 2012, 11:10:31 PM
Saw a trailer for that new snow white movie and have one question:

It what world is Kristen Stewart "fairer" than Charlize Theron?

We're supposed to cheer for the Queen in that one, right?

Charlize is extra hot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on May 28, 2012, 11:13:32 PM
I'm looking forward to Prometheus. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Strangelove on May 31, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
I'm looking forward to Prometheus.

As you should be.

Between that, the new Wes Anderson, and the new PTA flick in the fall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WTM8eO1Oec (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WTM8eO1Oec)), it's gonna be a good year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on June 10, 2012, 02:52:48 PM
Prometheus was pretty good. A ton of detail, lot's of questions left over and of course Ridley's eye guiding the lot.

Fassbender with an amazing performance.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: BMan on June 11, 2012, 10:00:54 AM
After switching over to US Netflix, I got to see The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and it was a better version of the book coming to life, instead of the American one. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on June 11, 2012, 01:15:02 PM
Interesting, I've heard the opposite from a couple of friends who have seen both versions. I haven't seen the US versions yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on June 11, 2012, 01:19:23 PM
Interesting, I've heard the opposite from a couple of friends who have seen both versions. I haven't seen the US versions yet.

That's what I heard as well. I haven't read the book or seen the Swedish version, but, from people I know who have experienced all 3, the general consensus is that the US version is a more faithful adaptation.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: BMan on June 11, 2012, 02:03:35 PM
Interesting, I've heard the opposite from a couple of friends who have seen both versions. I haven't seen the US versions yet.

That's what I heard as well. I haven't read the book or seen the Swedish version, but, from people I know who have experienced all 3, the general consensus is that the US version is a more faithful adaptation.

Well I did say The Dragon Tattoo movie. I didn't see the other two Swedish/Danish ones as yet. I'll comment further when I see the other two. But really, there can't be a comparison made until the final two are released in their North American versions.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on June 11, 2012, 03:50:27 PM
A weak tie in but I really like Noomi Rapace in Dragon, she also gave a pretty good performance in Prometheus.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on June 12, 2012, 09:51:16 PM
I've been on a reel movie bender lately... :O
Goon - was everything I was promised it would be, I had to rewind some parts I was laughing so much. Easily the second best hockey movie ever made.
Pontypool - 5 bananas check this out if you are a fan of zombie movies, its CDN too - Bruce McDonald <Hard Core Logo>.
Drive - amazing! for a movie about racing & stunt drivers the dialogue / story at times was snail slow but in a clever way...check out 'Bronson' from Refn if you liked Drive.
Contraband - liked the first half then my Mark Wahlberg adderall wore off.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on June 12, 2012, 10:00:37 PM
I've been touting Refn for quite a while now, practically everything I've seen from him I've really liked, Valhalla Rising and the Pusher trilogy...

...and yeah, Pontypool is great and Hard Core Logo 2 just came out on DVD, haven't seen it yet, not sure what the premise is.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on June 12, 2012, 10:11:33 PM
I've been touting Refn for quite a while now, practically everything I've seen from him I've really liked, Valhalla Rising and the Pusher trilogy...

...and yeah, Pontypool is great and Hard Core Logo 2 just came out on DVD, haven't seen it yet, not sure what the premise is.

Yeah I think we talked about VR earlier - I'm going to have to continue to check out Refn's catalog he's 2 for 2 with me so far. Do you have a suggestion?
Haven't watched HCL2 yet either but I will be in the near future - I'll let you know how it is. I'm always more than a little skeptical about sequels though..
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 04, 2012, 05:58:12 AM
The new Spidey flick was great.

Thought Garfield owned the role.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on July 04, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
I watched the first TMNT movie last night for the first time in 22 years - that movie is a drinking game waiting to happen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 04, 2012, 11:44:29 AM
I've been touting Refn for quite a while now, practically everything I've seen from him I've really liked, Valhalla Rising and the Pusher trilogy...

...and yeah, Pontypool is great and Hard Core Logo 2 just came out on DVD, haven't seen it yet, not sure what the premise is.

Yeah I think we talked about VR earlier - I'm going to have to continue to check out Refn's catalog he's 2 for 2 with me so far. Do you have a suggestion?
Haven't watched HCL2 yet either but I will be in the near future - I'll let you know how it is. I'm always more than a little skeptical about sequels though..

Missed this before. I have hope for Logo2 given it's Bruce MacDonald, still haven't seen it.

As for Refn, FearX was hot and cold, John Turturro was his usual self and it was odd but not as effective ( an earlier effort ) it's worth a watch but won't leave you feeling the same as Drive or the others.

I haven't seen Bleeder. I highly recommend the Pusher trilogy and VR, though VR is not for everyone, however, Mads Mikkelsen as 'One Eye' is fantastic and the story is unusual, set in 1000 AD. Mads was 'Le Chiffre' in Casino Royale and is the main protagonist in the second of the Pusher movies ( though he has a small role in the first one, they're all kind of connected but each centered on different main characters in the drug/crime underworld in Copenhagen ). Mads gives a tremendous performance there too.

He has two new movies coming down the pike, 'Only God Forgives' ( with Ryan Gosling ) and the Logans Run remake, purportedly with Gosling as well.

I don't know who the casting director is for Logan's Run but Bronson, Valhalla Rising and the other new one, Only God Forgives, were all under Des Hamilton, though Hardy, Mikkelsen and now Gosling won't hurt him no matter.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on July 04, 2012, 07:03:58 PM
So I'm confused about the new Spiderman movie. Is it completely unrelated to the previous trilogy?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on July 04, 2012, 07:10:31 PM
So I'm confused about the new Spiderman movie. Is it completely unrelated to the previous trilogy?

You mean Cashgrabman?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 04, 2012, 07:49:06 PM
So I'm confused about the new Spiderman movie. Is it completely unrelated to the previous trilogy?

Seems so. Just a reboot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 04, 2012, 11:30:56 PM
The new Spidey flick was great.

Thought Garfield owned the role.

Yup. I absolutely loved it. Favourite movie of the year by far, and I'd be surprised if anything but the TDKR tops it.

Then again, I might be a little biased. I'd pay to watch Emma Stone read a book.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on July 05, 2012, 02:59:43 PM
Better than Avengers?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 05, 2012, 07:32:27 PM
Better than Avengers?

I thought so. Avengers was a bigger action movie no doubt, but I just thought the story and characters in Spidey were much, much more interesting.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: skrackle on July 05, 2012, 09:41:11 PM
I can't wait for The Hulk three re-boots from now. Attempts #3 and 4 will suck, just like the first two did.

But #5? Justin Bieber will totally own that role.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on July 06, 2012, 11:49:43 AM
I can't wait for The Hulk three re-boots from now. Attempts #3 and 4 will suck, just like the first two did.

But #5? Justin Bieber will totally own that role.

When the Hulk finds out he is Justin Bieber the rage will make him unstoppable!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bates on July 08, 2012, 10:27:01 AM
The World is gone completely off kilter these days.  Man are all going to see a movie about a teddy bear while women are all excited to see the strippers!! 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on July 12, 2012, 11:36:44 AM
I just watched Vanilla Sky again (it's probably been about 8 years since I've seen it) and I don't get the flack this movie gets - I enjoyed it - it holds up in my opinion...

One of these days I have to watch the original spanish version - I've heard it's better...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on July 12, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
Loved Martin Sheen in Spiderman. Also, Emma Stone is my imaginary girlfriend. Holy moses.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 17, 2012, 06:37:59 PM
I have my tickets for 6pm Thursday, they are showing all three of the Dark Knight trilogy back to back in IMAX.

Very excited.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2012, 06:40:58 PM
Making any cookies or brownies?  8)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 17, 2012, 06:43:17 PM
Making any cookies or brownies?  8)
This is California my friend, we'll just stop by the store and pick-up some special popcorn and some special lollipops.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 17, 2012, 06:58:06 PM
Nice... So jealous.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Corn Flake on July 17, 2012, 07:13:46 PM
Better than Avengers?

I thought so. Avengers was a bigger action movie no doubt, but I just thought the story and characters in Spidey were much, much more interesting.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23019371.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on July 17, 2012, 11:18:56 PM
I thought Ted was O.K.  I laughed pretty hard at moments.

Mila Kunis is "expletive" hot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Propellertop on July 22, 2012, 08:40:42 PM
Watched Batman in IMAX this afternoon....AWESOME! I didn't think anything was going to touch Avengers but there was alot more substance to Batman. As a supporting actor, Michael Caine's portrayal of Alfred was stellar. Great way to finish up the Trilogy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on July 22, 2012, 09:17:42 PM
I thought Ted was O.K.  I laughed pretty hard at moments.

Mila Kunis is "expletive" hot.
Oh yeah, she's just ridiculous. Love the smokey eyes. I thought Ted was pretty well written, about par for the course for Seth MacFarlane.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on July 26, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Saw TDKR the other day, thought it was great.  Very satisfying way to end Nolan's "trilogy", even if this continues on.  Some people I talked to didn't like the ending, but I didn't mind it - I think it fit in with the whole concept of Batman from the comics (i.e. seems like something that would fit in a comic), even if Nolan had taken it to much darker places throughout.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 26, 2012, 10:03:36 PM
Saw TDKR the other day, thought it was great.  Very satisfying way to end Nolan's "trilogy", even if this continues on.  Some people I talked to didn't like the ending, but I didn't mind it - I think it fit in with the whole concept of Batman from the comics (i.e. seems like something that would fit in a comic), even if Nolan had taken it to much darker places throughout.

Yeah. I thought the ending was very fitting for the character as he was portrayed throughout these movies. I get that some people may not have loved the potential ambiguity, but, I mean, part of Nolan's whole vision was to make a real world plausible Batman, and, in the real world, "endings" tend to be ambiguous.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on July 26, 2012, 10:18:10 PM
I thought TDKR was good.  Not better than the 2nd movie but very good.  I think they might have overproduced Bane's voice though.  It sounded like it was coming through a megaphone when he spoke.  I liked most of the flow of the movie though.  It was enjoyable.  Had some fanboy moments and the action was pretty good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Erndog on July 27, 2012, 11:26:56 AM
Loved TDKR.  I think the Score of the movie was really fantastic.  Kevin Smith called it "the heartbeat of the movie" and I tend to agree.

I liked Banes voice  ???
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: BMan on July 27, 2012, 11:36:58 AM
Agreed it wasn't as good as the second movie, but it was still fantastic.

I also thought Anne Hathaway didn't do it for me as Cat woman. I guess I still consider Michelle Pfeiffer my favourite Cat woman.

All in all, not a bad complaint to have. 4.5/5 stars.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Erndog on July 27, 2012, 02:08:44 PM
Agreed it wasn't as good as the second movie, but it was still fantastic.

I also thought Anne Hathaway didn't do it for me as Cat woman. I guess I still consider Michelle Pfeiffer my favourite Cat woman.

All in all, not a bad complaint to have. 4.5/5 stars.

See, for the last year I was very skeptical of Anne Hathaway.  I didn't even like her "look" (although, she's super hot) when the teaser pictures were being released.

After I watched the movie I totally changed my opinion.  Everytime she was on screen I was drawn to her.  I thought she was excellent. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 27, 2012, 02:20:47 PM
Yeah I absolutely loved TDKR. I know there's some plot holes in the movie, but they really don't bother me. If I can accept the fact that there's man dressing up as a bat fighting crime then I can let some other things slide. It was just a touch below TDK for me. The Joker was just too good to top.

And I also really enjoyed Anne Hathaway. Thought she stole every scene she was in.
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 27, 2012, 04:41:59 PM
I liked the movie a bunch, I especially liked Hathaway when not in costume for some reason, the catsuit freaked me out a little.

In hindsight it was probably the nuclear strength brownie I was rocking at the time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: No.92 on July 27, 2012, 06:38:18 PM
I liked the movie a bunch, I especially liked Hathaway when not in costume for some reason, the catsuit freaked me out a little.

In hindsight it was probably the nuclear strength brownie I was rocking at the time.

Nice... AMC? 

I thought this Batman was the best ever.  I was very pleasantly surprised.

Looking forward to Total Recall. 
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 27, 2012, 07:10:01 PM
We did the whole IMAX watch the whole trilogy thing from 6pm through midnight, it was at the Eastridge mall and they gave out some cool little souvenirs as well as giving free refills on everything all night.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 28, 2012, 10:34:12 AM
About half way through TDKR I suspected it would end a touch ham fisted, and though I thought the easy way out was taken somewhat, I was glad to be largely wrong and overall felt it was a great effort. I have a thought about Tom Hardy's portrayal, somewhat in comparison to Mads Mikkelsen in Valhalla Rising, but I'll wait until it's not a spoiler type discussion.

Incidentally, Mads just blew off Thor 2's bad guy role to star in the 'prequel' series of sorts called "Hannibal" on NBC, supposedly coming this fall, really looking forward to that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on July 28, 2012, 04:10:02 PM
About half way through TDKR I suspected it would end a touch ham fisted, and though I thought the easy way out was taken somewhat, I was glad to be largely wrong and overall felt it was a great effort. I have a thought about Tom Hardy's portrayal, somewhat in comparison to Mads Mikkelsen in Valhalla Rising, but I'll wait until it's not a spoiler type discussion.

Incidentally, Mads just blew off Thor 2's bad guy role to star in the 'prequel' series of sorts called "Hannibal" on NBC, supposedly coming this fall, really looking forward to that.

Dexter for the PG audience.  I think that's going to be a big letdown of a series.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 29, 2012, 11:56:00 PM
Saw a bunch of movies recently. Saw TDKR and thought it was a fitting piece to the other two. Nolan is too good of a filmmaker to ever make a bad movie but I think this was as close as he was going to come. It's a hot mess of a flick with pretty terrible structure but is relatively redeemed by good performances and some pretty good action sequences. Like the other two in the series I thought it was kind of an awkward mix between a serious movie and the nods to Summer Blockbusterism that made it pretty silly. I wish I understood why, after some really great performances from villains in the series, it ended with a villain whose face you couldn't see and an overdubbed voice. Anyways, I really hope Nolan goes back to making movies like Memento and the Prestige. Although with that said, I'm fully prepared to acknowledge that some of this may just be that as I've gotten older I'm kind of losing my appetite for a lot of this nonsense.

I also saw Jiro Dreams of Sushi which I really loved. Maybe it's just that there were parallels with my own life but the whole concept of the Shokunin really resonated strongly with me and got me looking at my own craft in a whole new light. I'd really recommend it for anyone who is a fan of documentaries or obsessive about their own work.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 02, 2012, 12:20:10 PM
About half way through TDKR I suspected it would end a touch ham fisted, and though I thought the easy way out was taken somewhat, I was glad to be largely wrong and overall felt it was a great effort. I have a thought about Tom Hardy's portrayal, somewhat in comparison to Mads Mikkelsen in Valhalla Rising, but I'll wait until it's not a spoiler type discussion.

Incidentally, Mads just blew off Thor 2's bad guy role to star in the 'prequel' series of sorts called "Hannibal" on NBC, supposedly coming this fall, really looking forward to that.

Dexter for the PG audience.  I think that's going to be a big letdown of a series.

We'll see, I think Mads is an outstanding actor and I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with the role. There's a decent chance the show will be well written with Fuller too.

Also, Laurence Fishburne is on board, another decent actor.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 12:34:29 PM
We'll see, I think Mads is an outstanding actor and I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with the role. There's a decent chance the show will be well written with Fuller too.

Also, Laurence Fishburne is on board, another decent actor.

Fuller being involved gives me hope, though, Hannibal Lecter seems like a character that's not exactly in what has been his wheelhouse.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 02, 2012, 01:02:03 PM
Fuller being involved gives me hope, though, Hannibal Lecter seems like a character that's not exactly in what has been his wheelhouse.

True, Will Graham seems more like that kind of character.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 01:24:04 PM
Fuller being involved gives me hope, though, Hannibal Lecter seems like a character that's not exactly in what has been his wheelhouse.

True, Will Graham seems more like that kind of character.

Yeah, maybe. It'll be interesting to see how/if they find a good balance there. I'm hopeful for this one, because it has potential to be a very interesting series, but, I'm not expecting much. In fact, if Fuller's past says anything, the more like I am to like it, the less like it is to be a success.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 04:43:05 PM
I'm looking for a good horror movie to watch tonight - any suggestions? I watched all 3 Paranormal Activities & Blair Witch Project so far - that's my frame of mind at the moment. Anything similar? Chernobyl Diaries isn't out yet is it?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 04:45:59 PM
I'm looking for a good horror movie to watch tonight - any suggestions? I watched all 3 Paranormal Activities & Blair Witch Project so far - that's my frame of mind at the moment. Anything similar? Chernobyl Diaries isn't out yet is it?

I'm sorry. Something does not compute. You said good horror movies and listed Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch?

Though, I guess, if you're into those, you'll enjoy the absolute trainwreck of awful that is Chernobyl Diaries.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 04:51:37 PM
I'm looking for a good horror movie to watch tonight - any suggestions? I watched all 3 Paranormal Activities & Blair Witch Project so far - that's my frame of mind at the moment. Anything similar? Chernobyl Diaries isn't out yet is it?

I'm sorry. Something does not compute. You said good horror movies and listed Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch?

Though, I guess, if you're into those, you'll enjoy the absolute trainwreck of awful that is Chernobyl Diaries.

I'm just looking for something similar I guess - but Blair Witch isn't that bad.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 04:52:54 PM
I'm just looking for something similar I guess - but Blair Witch isn't that bad.

It's not that good, either. And, FYI, Chernobyl Diaries isn't a 'found footage' movie. It should have been. It might have been slightly less awful if it was, but . . .
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 06:10:11 PM
I'm just looking for something similar I guess - but Blair Witch isn't that bad.

It's not that good, either. And, FYI, Chernobyl Diaries isn't a 'found footage' movie. It should have been. It might have been slightly less awful if it was, but . . .

Honestly I'm just looking for something a little different to watch after smoking a "cigarette". Any suggestions?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 06:15:11 PM
Honestly I'm just looking for something a little different to watch after smoking a "cigarette". Any suggestions?

I hear the Rec movie are pretty good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 06:19:21 PM
Honestly I'm just looking for something a little different to watch after smoking a "cigarette". Any suggestions?

I hear the Rec movie are pretty good.

I think I might have seen that one but I'll investigate a little more - thanks for the suggestion. I grabbed The Descent also - any feedback?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 06:28:31 PM
I think I might have seen that one but I'll investigate a little more - thanks for the suggestion. I grabbed The Descent also - any feedback?

Don't think I've watched that one yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 02, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Grave Encounters is a decent low budget horror flick, the Rec movies aren't bad but make sure it's subtitled. Outpost is all Nazi zombies, and there's always the Human Centipede.

If you really want to be horrified maybe Birdemic? ;)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 06:36:22 PM
Grave Encounters is a decent low budget horror flick, the Rec movies aren't bad but make sure it's subtitled. Outpost is all Nazi zombies, and there's always the Human Centipede.

If you really want to be horrified maybe Birdemic? ;)

You don't think Human Centipede and its sequel are horrifying enough? :o
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on August 02, 2012, 07:03:30 PM
Watched some Norwegian (?) film about Nazi zombies fairly recently.  The name is escaping me at the moment, anyone?  Was pretty good though.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 08:09:03 PM
Nazi Zombies eh - Outpost is the name of one?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on August 02, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
Found it - called 'Dead Snow': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap4TiNIKQJ8

I don't know if it is considered 'horror,' it's pretty campy in parts, but I found it entertaining nonetheless.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 02, 2012, 08:26:36 PM
When in doubt . . . Sharktopus.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 08:43:21 PM
Does anyone remember Rawhead Rex?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on August 02, 2012, 08:48:27 PM
I'm looking for a good horror movie to watch tonight - any suggestions? I watched all 3 Paranormal Activities & Blair Witch Project so far - that's my frame of mind at the moment. Anything similar? Chernobyl Diaries isn't out yet is it?

How about a Leaf game?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 08:51:10 PM
I'm looking for a good horror movie to watch tonight - any suggestions? I watched all 3 Paranormal Activities & Blair Witch Project so far - that's my frame of mind at the moment. Anything similar? Chernobyl Diaries isn't out yet is it?

How about a Leaf game?

Oh no you didn't
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 02, 2012, 09:13:05 PM
Descent is fantastic. Very unsettling though.

Recently, Insiduous was quite freaky. Another recent one I enjoyed was House of the Devil.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: skrackle on August 02, 2012, 10:24:23 PM
Does anyone remember Rawhead Rex?

I remember that. I liked the scene where the monster is standing still in a field and the family passing by thinks it's a statue.

Of course, they investigate a little closer.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 02, 2012, 11:13:41 PM
Does anyone remember Rawhead Rex?

I remember that. I liked the scene where the monster is standing still in a field and the family passing by thinks it's a statue.

Of course, they investigate a little closer.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_v0b8K3BqJ4k/TKSh9xx6rYI/AAAAAAAAAA0/WlajgKM-4pc/s1600/rawhead20rex20ss20head20in20hand.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: AvroArrow on August 03, 2012, 09:02:39 AM
How about Birdemic?  I hear that's good...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on August 03, 2012, 09:08:19 AM
Ended up watching 'The Descent' - it was good. I'll check out some of the other suggestions tonight
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on August 03, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
How about Birdemic?  I hear that's good...

Ha.
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 03, 2012, 10:52:57 PM
Just watched Sling Blade for the first time, I found it incredibly moving.

Billy Bob Thornton deserves a lot of credit for that performance. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 06, 2012, 06:55:42 PM
3 (maybe 3.5) stars from me for Savages. Just kind of okay I feel. Would have been worth the theater prices I think but I was hoping for more out of Stone.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 06, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
It seemed a little half baked to me, could have been better.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 06, 2012, 11:28:16 PM
For sure. It was fine and all but in the end, it was just another movie about running drugs and it really didn't stand out as one of the really, really good ones.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 06, 2012, 11:35:37 PM

I don't know, what's the last really good Oliver Stone movie? Nixon? Natural Born Killers? I liked Any Given Sunday but that's all sorts of problematic and even that is 13 years old.

I think the guy's fastball might be gone.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 06, 2012, 11:42:16 PM
I really love Platoon and Wall Street might be in my top 10/15 of all time but yeah, I think you might be right there.

Edit: and I wasn't blown away by those other flicks you mentioned there either, Nik.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 06, 2012, 11:52:10 PM
Looking at his directorial filmography, I'd have to say he blew out his arm in '91 with JFK and The Doors - two flicks which I thought were fantastic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 06, 2012, 11:55:05 PM
Edit: and I wasn't blown away by those other flicks you mentioned there either, Nik.

I don't love either movie myself, I'd just call both of them solidly good movies.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 06, 2012, 11:55:28 PM
For sure. It was fine and all but in the end, it was just another movie about running drugs and it really didn't stand out as one of the really, really good ones.

That's exactly what the previews/ads make it look like, too. It just looks so forced and so formulaic. Nice to know I haven't really been missing anything there.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 06, 2012, 11:57:29 PM
Don't skip it though altogether though. Still worth watching I think.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 06, 2012, 11:58:46 PM
Don't skip it though altogether though. Still worth watching I think.

Oh, I'll watch it . . . I just won't pay for it. I'll wait for it to hit TMN.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 07, 2012, 01:26:36 PM

I listened to some critics raise a pretty interesting point about TDKR that, to me at least, maybe answers why it was such a mess. Because we've known that Nolan's Batman story would be a trilogy for a long time you have to figure that he had rough ideas for all three movies before they were shot. If that's the case, how much did Heath Ledger's death change what he had planned for the third movie? It does sort of seem as though the Joker was supposed to be a central character in the trilogy. If the third movie has to be hastily written on the fly and can't follow the arc he had planned it would go a ways to explaining why so much of it didn't work.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 08, 2012, 05:47:32 PM
Apparently Warner Brothers wants Ben Affleck to direct their Justice League movie. Yeah, I'd be down with that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on August 08, 2012, 06:18:01 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Apparently Warner Brothers wants Ben Affleck to direct their Justice League movie. Yeah, I'd be down with that.

Enh. I don't like the way DC is rushing to this instead of laying the groundwork properly like Marvel did with the Avengers. I mean, the Batman here will be completely disconnected from the trilogy that just ended. Green Lantern bombed and who knows about Superman. On top of that, they've been so gun shy with Wonder Woman and their other characters . . . I have really low expectations for this one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 08, 2012, 06:27:16 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

breaking bad?

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 08, 2012, 06:29:00 PM
Apparently Warner Brothers wants Ben Affleck to direct their Justice League movie. Yeah, I'd be down with that.

Ben Affleck has proven himself to be a pretty good director but for a movie with big action set pieces? Like busta said I'd be more confident if DC had made a decent flick in the last little while besides a Batman trilogy that was pretty light on Batman.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 08, 2012, 06:34:07 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

It's a pretty broad library so it kind of depends on what you're looking for. Knowing you....the first season of Downton Abbey should fit the bill.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on August 08, 2012, 07:08:22 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

It's a pretty broad library so it kind of depends on what you're looking for. Knowing you....the first season of Downton Abbey should fit the bill.

I googled it.

You're funny.

I was hoping to find "The Wire"...no such luck.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on August 08, 2012, 07:13:12 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

breaking bad?

I'll try it.  I'm just not sure I much like the subject matter of that show.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 08, 2012, 07:19:58 PM
I googled it.

You're funny.

I was hoping to find "The Wire"...no such luck.

For what it's worth I actually kind of like Downton Abbey but, yeah.

Anyways, The Wire is an HBO show and HBO stuff isn't on Netflix. FX stuff is though which means there's some terrific drama available. Breaking Bad, as mentioned, but also Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy and so on. Or BBC stuff like Luther, Sherlock and the like.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on August 08, 2012, 07:24:26 PM
I googled it.

You're funny.

I was hoping to find "The Wire"...no such luck.

For what it's worth I actually kind of like Downton Abbey but, yeah.

Anyways, The Wire is an HBO show and HBO stuff isn't on Netflix. FX stuff is though which means there's some terrific drama available. Breaking Bad, as mentioned, but also Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy and so on. Or BBC stuff like Luther, Sherlock and the like.

Thanks Nik, I'll check it out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 08, 2012, 07:24:49 PM
I'll try it.  I'm just not sure I much like the subject matter of that show.

For what it's worth while the Wire is a better show than Breaking Bad and is so in large part because of the depth and scope of later seasons their subject matters aren't all that different. Both are largely about law enforcement and drug dealers.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 08, 2012, 09:06:03 PM
Apparently Warner Brothers wants Ben Affleck to direct their Justice League movie. Yeah, I'd be down with that.

Interesting choice. I would have loved a Nolan version but I guess he's done with all that.

I thought Afleck was doing "The Stand"? That adaptation sounds really interesting.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on August 08, 2012, 10:19:31 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

breaking bad?

I'll try it.  I'm just not sure I much like the subject matter of that show.

Wha?  Never heard anyone say that before about Breaking Bad.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on August 08, 2012, 10:52:10 PM
Apparently Warner Brothers wants Ben Affleck to direct their Justice League movie. Yeah, I'd be down with that.

I'm not a comic book guy, but the idea of the justice league just seems so stupid to me.

Or maybe it's because all I can picture is that awful super friends crap from when I was a kid.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on August 09, 2012, 10:12:39 AM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

breaking bad?

I'll try it.  I'm just not sure I much like the subject matter of that show.

Wha?  Never heard anyone say that before about Breaking Bad.

It's the whole cancer thing, then turning into a drug dealer. 

I just find that unappealing...but I'll try it, just for you.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on August 09, 2012, 10:19:04 AM
Filming the remake of Carrie about a 100 yards down the road from my house. Kinda neat.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on August 09, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
Just got Netflix.

What's the best thing on Netflix right now?

breaking bad?

I'll try it.  I'm just not sure I much like the subject matter of that show.

Wha?  Never heard anyone say that before about Breaking Bad.

It's the whole cancer thing, then turning into a drug dealer. 

I just find that unappealing...but I'll try it, just for you.

Was genuinely curious if it was some moral thing you didn't like about the idea.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on August 09, 2012, 03:00:07 PM
I felt the exact same way with respect to Breaking Bad.   Despite all the great reviews, I never watched an episode until fairly recently.   It wasn't a moral thing, I just didn't find the show's concept compelling.   But once I did bother watching it, I burned through every episode pretty quickly.

With regards to Netflix.   KENNY VS. SPENNY!!!!!!!   Although, it doesn't have the last season or the Christmas special.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on August 10, 2012, 05:21:12 AM
I felt the exact same way with respect to Breaking Bad.   Despite all the great reviews, I never watched an episode until fairly recently.   It wasn't a moral thing, I just didn't find the show's concept compelling.   But once I did bother watching it, I burned through every episode pretty quickly.

Really eh?  I would have never thought that, since a lot of shows seem like they recycle the same basic storyline, but Breaking Bad always seemed like something actually different and fresh - but to each their own! Different strokes and all that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on August 19, 2012, 01:11:57 PM
So I just saw green latern even though I was warned against doing so. My god what a movie. It's superman 4 bad, right down to using the sun as a plot point.

I'm not a comic book reader but is the original story just as ridiculous?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on August 19, 2012, 07:17:06 PM
So I just saw green latern even though I was warned against doing so. My god what a movie. It's superman 4 bad, right down to using the sun as a plot point.

I'm not a comic book reader but is the original story just as ridiculous?

I've had that movie on my hard drive for months but continue to avoid watching it. Movies that are that bad make me angry.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 19, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
So I just saw green latern even though I was warned against doing so. My god what a movie. It's superman 4 bad, right down to using the sun as a plot point.

I'm not a comic book reader but is the original story just as ridiculous?

Green Lantern is a hard character to translate into live action because, his power will almost always come across as fairly cartoony. The movie was sort of doomed to be ridiculous right from the start.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on August 30, 2012, 10:20:19 PM
I wish I had a time machine because I would back to 1994 on the set of schindler's list to show both liam neeson and Ralph Fiennes the script of wrath of the titans and then see how they laugh at me when I tell them that they will both star in it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 30, 2012, 11:54:39 PM
I wish I had a time machine because I would back to 1994 on the set of schindler's list to show both liam neeson and Ralph Fiennes the script of wrath of the titans and then see how they laugh at me when I tell them that they will both star in it.

Blank cheques have a lot to answer for.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 31, 2012, 03:21:09 PM
Caught 'Jiro Dreams of Sushi', an amazing account of dedication to craft and duty or 'Shokunin' philosophy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on August 31, 2012, 04:33:18 PM
Caught 'Jiro Dreams of Sushi', an amazing account of dedication to craft and duty or 'Shokunin' philosophy.

Yeah, I heard that was excellent. I'll definitely check it out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 31, 2012, 06:41:18 PM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on August 31, 2012, 10:25:33 PM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.

Ip Man was friggen amazing.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on September 02, 2012, 01:14:24 AM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.

Ip Man was friggen amazing.

I enjoyed it too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on September 02, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
Ted was better than I thought it would be... Typical MacFarlane humour and there were more than a few gut-busters.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on September 15, 2012, 12:19:08 PM
Total Recall 2012 was a lot better than I expected it to be.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on September 17, 2012, 10:57:53 AM
I just watched the Marinovich Project on netflix... Interesting doc...

Whoever mentioned Jiro dreams of Sushi, thanks, I checked that out, really nice doc. Made me realize what garbage sushi we're eating here...

Also watched Gonzo - great doc on Hunter S. Thompson.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on September 17, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
Mission to Mars is on tv. I remember it being a pretty bad movie but my god this is almost highlander 2 bad. And the score of this movie is something else.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: BrownRolo on October 06, 2012, 03:04:03 AM
Has anyone seen Looper yet?

If you have, how much of its dialogue is in Chinese? I want to go see it here in China, but if there is a lot of Chinese dialogue I won't bother.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on October 23, 2012, 06:48:24 AM
Has anyone seen Looper yet?

If you have, how much of its dialogue is in Chinese? I want to go see it here in China, but if there is a lot of Chinese dialogue I won't bother.

Not enough Chinese to even bother mentioning it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on October 23, 2012, 11:06:35 AM
I just watched the Marinovich Project on netflix... Interesting doc...

Whoever mentioned Jiro dreams of Sushi, thanks, I checked that out, really nice doc. Made me realize what garbage sushi we're eating here...

Also watched Gonzo - great doc on Hunter S. Thompson.

Gonna get on Jiro Dreams of Sushi soon! Original mention would be by Nick.

I first heard of the film at the Japanese Cultural Centre down on Bloor. They all seemed to love the film there.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 23, 2012, 12:50:17 PM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.

Ip Man was friggen amazing.

I enjoyed it too.

Just watched them both. The stories were completely made up, but very enjoyable!

donnie Yen is amazing. I'm in the middle of watching Flashpoint now.

I really recommend War of Arrows. Really great Korean film centered around the Manchu invasion. It's not a big war movie, but more of a personal story, kind of like Last of the Mohicans. Absolutely loved it.

And I feel sorry for you if you haven't seen 13 Assassins yet.  ;D Wicked movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on October 24, 2012, 08:58:35 PM
I agree with the positive reviews of Ip Man.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on October 24, 2012, 09:09:44 PM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.

Ip Man was friggen amazing.

I enjoyed it too.

Just watched them both. The stories were completely made up, but very enjoyable!

donnie Yen is amazing. I'm in the middle of watching Flashpoint now.

I really recommend War of Arrows. Really great Korean film centered around the Manchu invasion. It's not a big war movie, but more of a personal story, kind of like Last of the Mohicans. Absolutely loved it.

And I feel sorry for you if you haven't seen 13 Assassins yet.  ;D Wicked movie.

I'll second 13 Assassins. Great movie.

Also really liked the film Elite Squad (Tropa de Elite). Great Cop movie .
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: BrownRolo on October 25, 2012, 10:47:39 AM
Total Recall 2012 was a lot better than I expected it to be.

I just saw it a couple of days ago. Didn't really even want to go see it, but had nothing to do so thought I would check it out. I REALLY liked it! I don't get why it didn't get better reviews. The visuals were amazing, great action sequences...a perfect sci-fi/action movie in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: BrownRolo on October 25, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.

Ip Man was friggen amazing.

I enjoyed it too.

Just watched them both. The stories were completely made up, but very enjoyable!

donnie Yen is amazing. I'm in the middle of watching Flashpoint now.

I really recommend War of Arrows. Really great Korean film centered around the Manchu invasion. It's not a big war movie, but more of a personal story, kind of like Last of the Mohicans. Absolutely loved it.

And I feel sorry for you if you haven't seen 13 Assassins yet.  ;D Wicked movie.

Right now I live in Foshan, China. Tons of the great KungFu masters came from here like Yip Man, so I have been getting into some of the older movies. If you guys want to see some good ones, watch any of the Shaw Brothers movies. The One Armed Swordsman, 5 Deadly Venoms, Mad Monkey Kung Fu..these are the movies Tarintino used for "inspiration" when making Kill Bill. Or the old Jackie Chan moves are pretty fun like Project A or Police Story.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 25, 2012, 01:43:58 PM
3/4 of the way through watching Valhalla Rising for the 2nd time. I forgot how creepy and ominous that movie is.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on October 25, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Really enjoyed Ip Man and Ip Man 2 recently.

Ip Man was friggen amazing.

I enjoyed it too.

Just watched them both. The stories were completely made up, but very enjoyable!

donnie Yen is amazing. I'm in the middle of watching Flashpoint now.

I really recommend War of Arrows. Really great Korean film centered around the Manchu invasion. It's not a big war movie, but more of a personal story, kind of like Last of the Mohicans. Absolutely loved it.

And I feel sorry for you if you haven't seen 13 Assassins yet.  ;D Wicked movie.

Right now I live in Foshan, China. Tons of the great KungFu masters came from here like Yip Man, so I have been getting into some of the older movies. If you guys want to see some good ones, watch any of the Shaw Brothers movies. The One Armed Swordsman, 5 Deadly Venoms, Mad Monkey Kung Fu..these are the movies Tarintino used for "inspiration" when making Kill Bill. Or the old Jackie Chan moves are pretty fun like Project A or Police Story.

Is the first one made up entirely? I thought there was some level of truth to the story. Either way Donnie Yen is a total badass. Apparently Ip Chun (Ip Man's son) helped train him for the role and said Donnie was one of the fastest learning pupils he had.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on October 26, 2012, 08:59:25 AM
So I admit, without a shred of embarassment or self-consciousness, that I not only watched 'Rock of Ages' but that I enjoyed it immensely.  That is all.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TML fan on October 26, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
So I admit, without a shred of embarassment or self-consciousness, that I not only watched 'Rock of Ages' but that I enjoyed it immensely.  That is all.

Have you seen the live show?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on October 26, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
So I admit, without a shred of embarassment or self-consciousness, that I not only watched 'Rock of Ages' but that I enjoyed it immensely.  That is all.

Have you seen the live show?

No I haven't
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Gerald The Duck on October 26, 2012, 03:13:37 PM
So apparently Arnie is going to come back as Conan.

Seems ridiculous right - mainly because of him being 65. Well, I'm not familiar with the Conan story, but apparently people are speculating it may not be so far fetched as some of the later Conan storyline deals with an aged Conan battling age and one last battle?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 26, 2012, 03:17:09 PM
Damn! There's like zero chance he yells GET TO THE CHOPPA in this.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on October 27, 2012, 09:42:56 PM
I was thinking of going out to see a movie tonight but there is nothing out that interests me right now. I've already seen Looper..
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on October 28, 2012, 12:18:53 AM
Saw Argo tonight. It was hands down the best movie I've seen in 2012.

Go see it!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on October 28, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
I was thinking of going out to see a movie tonight but there is nothing out that interests me right now. I've already seen Looper..

'Argo' and '7 Psychopaths' are both in theatres and really well received.

I'm waiting for 'Skyfall' to come out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on October 28, 2012, 08:48:30 AM
Saw Argo tonight. It was hands down the best movie I've seen in 2012.

Go see it!

Easily! What a fantastic movie! Heart pounding from start to end.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 30, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
So, Disney bought LucasFilm today, and announced Star Wars Episode VII for 2015.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on October 30, 2012, 06:27:25 PM
So, Disney bought LucasFilm today, and announced Star Wars Episode VII for 2015.

Star Wars VII: The Rebels need your cash

Edit : On further reflection it should be.

Star Wars VII:  The Empire (Disney) needs cash
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 30, 2012, 07:36:34 PM
Star Wars VII: The Rebels need your cash

Edit : On further reflection it should be.

Star Wars VII:  The Empire (Disney) needs cash

Buzz Lightyear: The Jedi Saga
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 30, 2012, 10:28:20 PM
Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 30, 2012, 10:33:45 PM
Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

Just another pile to add to his already existing piles.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 30, 2012, 10:40:45 PM
It's probably substantially the biggest but yeah, he's done okay. ;)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 30, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
So, Disney bought LucasFilm today, and announced Star Wars Episode VII for 2015.
Which in my mind, is probably good news. Even Disney couldn't drop the depths that Lucas did when making the thoroughly unwatchable prequels.

And there's a lot of additional Star Wars content to borrow from. For my part, I'd love to see them try their hand at a trilogy based on Knights of the Old Republic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 30, 2012, 10:54:24 PM
Which in my mind, is probably good news. Even Disney couldn't drop the depths that Lucas did when making the thoroughly unwatchable prequels.

And there's a lot of additional Star Wars content to borrow from. For my part, I'd love to see them try their hand at a trilogy based on Knights of the Old Republic.

Well, Lucas is still involved as a creative consultant, and I'm not fooling myself into believing that he won't have his fingers all over any Star Wars projects.

I agree that there's a lot of content that could make interesting projects. I'd much prefer they explored some of those stories instead of a sequel trilogy. KotOR would be great. I also think something really interesting could be done with Vader's apprentice (certainly, something better than what they did with Force Unleashed). I just think the main story line is best left alone. I mean, the sequel trilogy story, as it's been explained to me (I haven't read the books or any of the stuff they'd likely draw from) is less interesting than the prequel trilogy story, and, look at what a mess that was made of that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 30, 2012, 10:59:48 PM
Is there an actual storyline that follows Solo prior to us meeting him in the canteen? Yeah, we all know the history with Jaba and Lando, etc. But is there any real literature? That could be kind of fun.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 30, 2012, 11:02:37 PM
Is there an actual storyline that follows Solo prior to us meeting him in the canteen? Yeah, we all know the history with Jaba and Lando, etc. But is there any real literature? That could be kind of fun.
Yeah, he's an Imperial cadet who ends up rescuing Chewie. It's a little hammy and I really don't like the idea of any of the original main Star Wars characters being played by someone else. I mean, they kind of made it work with Obi-Wan Kenobi, but he wasn't really a main character in the original trilogy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 30, 2012, 11:04:39 PM
Unham it?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 30, 2012, 11:07:12 PM
Well, Lucas is still involved as a creative consultant, and I'm not fooling myself into believing that he won't have his fingers all over any Star Wars projects.
As he should. He has some great ideas. He just can't write or direct (well, his older work suggests that he can, he's just old and lazy) and he needs someone to say "uh, no George, that's a really stupid idea".

Quote
I agree that there's a lot of content that could make interesting projects. I'd much prefer they explored some of those stories instead of a sequel trilogy. KotOR would be great. I also think something really interesting could be done with Vader's apprentice (certainly, something better than what they did with Force Unleashed). I just think the main story line is best left alone. I mean, the sequel trilogy story, as it's been explained to me (I haven't read the books or any of the stuff they'd likely draw from) is less interesting than the prequel trilogy story, and, look at what a mess that was made of that.
I definitely agree. I would really like to avoid seeing any of the characters re-used, except in certain cases. Luke in a original trilogy Obi-Wan/Yoda role would kind of bring the thing full circle and would be an acceptable nod to the whole trilogy. Anything else will turn into what Lucas tried to do with the prequels, where he incorporates characters that really have no reason being in the movies; Threepio, R2D2 and Chewie are all great examples of that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 30, 2012, 11:07:49 PM
Yeah, he's an Imperial cadet who ends up rescuing Chewie. It's a little hammy and I really don't like the idea of any of the original main Star Wars characters being played by someone else. I mean, they kind of made it work with Obi-Wan Kenobi, but he wasn't really a main character in the original trilogy.

I don't love it either, but, if the script was strong enough and so on . . . though, I mean, all things considered, that's unlikely.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 30, 2012, 11:09:41 PM
Unham it?
Sure, I mean you can probably do anything with anyone Star Wars-related and do it well. I'd prefer to see them work to build off the universe, not the original movies.

Also, any Star Wars plot has to be focused around the Jedi (one thing Lucas got right) and since this is pre-Luke Skywalker, you'd really have to jump through hoops just to make a coherent storyline.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 30, 2012, 11:12:13 PM
Also, any Star Wars plot has to be focused around the Jedi (one thing Lucas got right) and since this is pre-Luke Skywalker, you'd really have to jump through hoops just to make a coherent storyline.

Well, you could do something without the Jedi/Sith, but it would have to at least be about the rebels - though, I guess a whole chunk of movies where the good guys don't really win may not be the most appealing series.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on October 31, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

He's going to use the cash to build his very own death star.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on October 31, 2012, 04:46:05 AM
Watched Moonrise Kingdom a few days ago. What a beautiful movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 31, 2012, 08:55:11 AM
I'll probably be shot for this, but I really don't think there's much difference in the six films in terms of quality. They're all cheesy and enjoyable in their own way. The acting is forced and the dialogue is deplorable.

I honestly believe much of the criticism about the newer movies is due simply to nostalgia. I've watched all six movies numerous times and, really, they're all bad, though the Empire Strikes back is probably my favourite.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on October 31, 2012, 09:36:23 AM
Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

He's going to use the cash to build his very own death star.

... and then blow it up. - Just for fun.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on October 31, 2012, 10:19:50 AM
I'll probably be shot for this,

Luckily there's a whole department of digital effects wizards just chomping to airbrush a 'first shot'... ;)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 31, 2012, 11:37:27 AM
I'll probably be shot for this, but I really don't think there's much difference in the six films in terms of quality. They're all cheesy and enjoyable in their own way. The acting is forced and the dialogue is deplorable.

I honestly believe much of the criticism about the newer movies is due simply to nostalgia. I've watched all six movies numerous times and, really, they're all bad, though the Empire Strikes back is probably my favourite.

They are kind of cheesy. I don't think too many people would debate that. Lucas has shown some ability to be able to create interesting characters and/or stories, but he's awful when it comes to dialogue and direction. That being said, I feel like the original versions of the original trilogy have a lot less unnecessary stuff in them, a more engaging and less convoluted story, and, because they're not over-populated with obviously CG everything, they feel warmer and more real. They're more cohesive movies than the prequels.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: LittleHockeyFan on October 31, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
My 18 year old self liked the first movie when it came out. A lot. Probably too much. While I watched and enjoyed Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Ewoks, they never captured the magic the first one did. And don't get me started on the reekquels. I'm not sure I want to see any more damage done to the franchise :-\

<---awaiting smite
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 31, 2012, 11:51:34 AM
I'll probably be shot for this, but I really don't think there's much difference in the six films in terms of quality. They're all cheesy and enjoyable in their own way. The acting is forced and the dialogue is deplorable.

I honestly believe much of the criticism about the newer movies is due simply to nostalgia. I've watched all six movies numerous times and, really, they're all bad, though the Empire Strikes back is probably my favourite.
You're not going to get shot, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. And it's not necessarily a subjective thing either; Lucas only directed the first one in the original series and he was coming off two movies where direction was not an issue. By the time of the prequels, he kind of ignored everything that made him an alright director and instead settled for identical and boring scenes filmed while he sat in a director's chair in a studio sipping coffee.

Same goes for the writing. Star Wars I, II, II and IV were all written solely by Lucas. The other two, were co-written by Lawrence Kasdan, likely to smooth out Lucas' terrible dialogue and help cut down on Lucas' awful idea.s

If you're unconvinced, check out Red Letter media's reviews of Star Wars. They're long, but they do a much better job of demonstrating the noticeable dip in quality between the original series and the prequels.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TimKerr on October 31, 2012, 01:41:43 PM
I'll probably be shot for this, but I really don't think there's much difference in the six films in terms of quality. They're all cheesy and enjoyable in their own way. The acting is forced and the dialogue is deplorable.

I honestly believe much of the criticism about the newer movies is due simply to nostalgia. I've watched all six movies numerous times and, really, they're all bad, though the Empire Strikes back is probably my favourite.
You're not going to get shot, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. And it's not necessarily a subjective thing either; Lucas only directed the first one in the original series and he was coming off two movies where direction was not an issue. By the time of the prequels, he kind of ignored everything that made him an alright director and instead settled for identical and boring scenes filmed while he sat in a director's chair in a studio sipping coffee.

Same goes for the writing. Star Wars I, II, II and IV were all written solely by Lucas. The other two, were co-written by Lawrence Kasdan, likely to smooth out Lucas' terrible dialogue and help cut down on Lucas' awful idea.s

If you're unconvinced, check out Red Letter media's reviews of Star Wars. They're long, but they do a much better job of demonstrating the noticeable dip in quality between the original series and the prequels.

The issue is we watch them all as adults having seen the original trilogy when we were kid and the new trilogy when we were older. And we care and can make qualitative judgments about the quality.

But when my 4 and 7 year old boys watch the original trilogy and then watch the new trilogy, it is no contest. They love the new trilogy much more than the original. They love pod-racing and clones and yes God forbid Jar-Jar. And isn't the major audience for these movies the kids.

These aren't meant to be Oscar winners they're meant to be pure entertainment.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 31, 2012, 01:44:30 PM
And isn't the major audience for these movies the kids.

In general, the major audience for sic-fi type movies are teens and young adults, since they have the most disposable income. The original trilogy is clearly aimed more at this age group (outside of the ewoks, at least), whereas the prequels . . . I'm not sure they're sure who they're aimed at.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on October 31, 2012, 01:53:12 PM
That being said, I feel like the original versions of the original trilogy have a lot less unnecessary stuff in them, a more engaging and less convoluted story, and, because they're not over-populated with obviously CG everything, they feel warmer and more real. They're more cohesive movies than the prequels.

I just want to emphasize this because of how strongly I agree with this particular point. The older movies have their issues, and to be fair I don't think anyone ever seriously argues that they should be considered some of the finer works of filmmaking in history, but I do think that there's something to be said for the authentic, lived in quality of the original movies that comes from the fact that sets had to be built and authentic out door settings be found/

Personally, when a movie is almost entirely CGI I find that there's a distance to it because of how much it resembles a cartoon. The Prequels don't just have CGI'd characters but most of them are almost entirely shot against green screen. To me that's just so visually ugly when compared to the first one being shot in the Tunisian desert.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on October 31, 2012, 02:04:26 PM
These aren't meant to be Oscar winners they're meant to be pure entertainment.

But remember that the Oscars recognize technical achievement as much as they do artistic achievement. The first trilogy won 10 Oscars, largely for things like Score and Sound Mixing and Visual effects. That said, the original trilogy got some artistic love as well. A New Hope won seven oscars and was nominated in categories like Direction, Screenplay, Supporting Actor and Best Picture. The DP, Gilbert Taylor, was the same guy Kubrick used on Dr. Strangelove.

In a lot of ways, it's a really great movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TimKerr on October 31, 2012, 02:32:52 PM
These aren't meant to be Oscar winners they're meant to be pure entertainment.

But remember that the Oscars recognize technical achievement as much as they do artistic achievement. The first trilogy won 10 Oscars, largely for things like Score and Sound Mixing and Visual effects. That said, the original trilogy got some artistic love as well. A New Hope won seven oscars and was nominated in categories like Direction, Screenplay, Supporting Actor and Best Picture. The DP, Gilbert Taylor, was the same guy Kubrick used on Dr. Strangelove.

In a lot of ways, it's a really great movie.

Sorry, I should have clarified Oscar winning. I was referring to the non-technical categories.
Now I love A New Hope, but there is no way it should have been nominated for Screenplay, Direction or Supporting Actor.
So I went to Wikipedia to check what else was nominated that year and see that John Travolta was nominated for Best Actor for Saturday Night Fever and my entire argument got thrown out the window. So I give up.

My point is, my kids and all their friends like the Prequels much more than they like the original Trilogy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on October 31, 2012, 02:56:04 PM
Sorry, I should have clarified Oscar winning. I was referring to the non-technical categories.
Now I love A New Hope, but there is no way it should have been nominated for Screenplay, Direction or Supporting Actor.

I can't argue with Screenplay or Supporting actor(well, I could, but being as there's a lot there that's subjective it wouldn't have much of a point) but I think that if you don't think that it deserved a best direction nomination that you're largely looking at it in hindsight. Think of everything Lucas had to do, to pioneer, to even get that movie made. It required tons of innovation.

Looking back, it's easy to say that parts of it look outdated or the idea of shooting largescale space battles is par for the course for a science fiction movie but I think that ignores the practical realities of what Lucas did in the mid-late 70's.

So I went to Wikipedia to check what else was nominated that year and see that John Travolta was nominated for Best Actor for Saturday Night Fever and my entire argument got thrown out the window. So I give up.

It's not like it was a bad years for movies. Annie Hall, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Slapshot, A Bridge too Far and so on.

My point is, my kids and all their friends like the Prequels much more than they like the original Trilogy.

Sure but kids, as a general rule, are not the most discerning critics. My point is that there's genuine artistic merit to the originals that isn't there in the prequels.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TimKerr on October 31, 2012, 03:14:58 PM
To your last point about kids not being good critics. I agree. And I also agree that there was more artistic merit to the originals and than the prequels.
But people are acting like the prequels ruined the franchise.
I am saying that it actually brought more fans to Star Wars in the shape of all the young kids who love the prequels. And then get absorbed into all the toys and marketing available for Star Wars.
The prequels were a bad thing for hardcore fans who loved the originals and didnt want to see them sullied. But for Lucas and those who made the prequels, they were nothing but a success in growing the Star Wars fan base and thus the revenue associated with it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 31, 2012, 03:17:25 PM
My point is, my kids and all their friends like the Prequels much more than they like the original Trilogy.
Which doesn't really speak to anything as far as I see it. If your kids like Madagascar 3 over Argo, does that mean Madagascar 3 was the superior movie? Probably not.

And maybe Lucas really did intend to market the movie to children (and that's not just something he said in retrospect when he realized his attempt to pay homage to his own creation fell flat on its face) but that doesn't make a ton of sense because he already had a built in market which he tapped. I mean, it wasn't your kids sitting out on the street for hours dressed as Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia and it certainly wasn't your kids sustaining Lucas' business before the prequels were made by buying books, magazines, toys and anything else Star Wars related that they could get their hands on because they loved the original movies so much. So why intentionally shirk that market and make a movie made for kids that will both alienate huge numbers of your fanbase and make you into a villain when you could just make a movie geared towards the fans of the original sequel who were going to drag their kids to see the movie anyway?

I mean, George Lucas is many things and he doesn't deserve half of the things he gets blamed for, but to say he made these movies for kids just doesn't add up. He made three bad movies. There's no way around that.

Also, a general note - if something states its geared towards kids, it's usually pretty stupid. Which is why a company like Pixar is so unique in its ability to create movies that appeal to both adults and children.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on October 31, 2012, 03:26:47 PM
The prequels were a bad thing for hardcore fans who loved the originals and didnt want to see them sullied.

That might be true for some but personally, I'm someone who is fine with reimaginings and reinterpretations. I don't think a new, worse version of something I liked sullies the thing I liked originally. . For me the prequels were disappointing because they were bad movies, that's all.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 31, 2012, 03:35:07 PM
For me the prequels were disappointing because they were bad movies, that's all.

This. These movies had so much potential. There was a really interesting story there, some potential for some great new characters and some great new looks at characters we already knew, but, these movies seriously failed to deliver on any of that. Instead, we got some well polished, shiny looking turds.

What sullied the original trilogy are the "Special Editions" with all the unnecessary CG that was tacked on to them.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: LittleHockeyFan on October 31, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
For me the prequels were disappointing because they were bad movies, that's all.

This. These movies had so much potential. There was a really interesting story there, some potential for some great new characters and some great new looks at characters we already knew, but, these movies seriously failed to deliver on any of that. Instead, we got some well polished, shiny looking turds.

What sullied the original trilogy are the "Special Editions" with all the unnecessary CG that was tacked on to them.
totally agree with you! I still have my vhs copies of the Original Trilogy in their Original Release form. Can't stand all the special edition, extra special edition, newly remastered extra special special edition crap......
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on October 31, 2012, 03:55:14 PM
I just want to emphasize this because of how strongly I agree with this particular point. The older movies have their issues, and to be fair I don't think anyone ever seriously argues that they should be considered some of the finer works of filmmaking in history, but I do think that there's something to be said for the authentic, lived in quality of the original movies that comes from the fact that sets had to be built and authentic out door settings be found/

Personally, when a movie is almost entirely CGI I find that there's a distance to it because of how much it resembles a cartoon. The Prequels don't just have CGI'd characters but most of them are almost entirely shot against green screen. To me that's just so visually ugly when compared to the first one being shot in the Tunisian desert.
I'm gonna get in on this.

There's two problems with relying too much on CGI. The first is that these objects, places and people look too foreign to suspend the adequate amount of disbelief needed for the audience to really get into a movie. I mean, yes, the prequels were constantly pushing the boundaries of what could and could not be done, but they did it a terrible price.

The second problem is that blue screens and CGI aliens, clones, robots, etc, make it really hard for the very few real actors to get into character. Now you might say a great actor should be great no matter what - but I don't think that's ever the case. Many people believe that once they're in costume, they're immediately more attached to the character. Real sets and real actors to react to and bounce lines off serve the same purpose. It's hard enough getting great performances out of even great actors - but George Lucas did himself no favours by hiring a bunch of pretty good actors and shoving them in a studio while telling them to respond to a slapstick alien.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 31, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
All excellent points. I definitely agree with the CG part. It was unnecessarily over the top.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 01, 2012, 10:08:31 AM
Maybe Episode 7 redeems the franchise.  :-\
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 01, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

He's going to use the cash to build his very own death star.

Or he'll donate most of it to charity (http://collider.com/george-lucas-lucasfilm-sale-charity/207790/).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 01, 2012, 03:11:54 PM
If you're unconvinced, check out Red Letter media's reviews of Star Wars. They're long, but they do a much better job of demonstrating the noticeable dip in quality between the original series and the prequels.

I'd highly recommend anybody who hasn't already seen these to watch them. I was kind of in the same position as Bulldog before I did. I never watched the films as a kid and so probably about 4 or 5 years ago I watched them all within a couple of weeks (original trilogy first). At the time I didn't notice much of a difference between the two trilogies. I thought they were both enjoyable, but didn't love any particular movie.

The RLM videos really broke down what the prequels did wrong and what they should have done instead. Not only is the guy pretty funny, he definitely knows his stuff when it comes to film criticism. In the end does it make a difference since when I personally enjoyed all six somewhat? Maybe not, but it does make me realize what the hardcore fans are complaining about.

Just skip the stupid parts where he isn't talking about the movies. You'll know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on November 01, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

He's going to use the cash to build his very own death star.

Or he'll donate most of it to charity (http://collider.com/george-lucas-lucasfilm-sale-charity/207790/).

He should give to those whiners over at the NHLPA. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 06, 2012, 09:39:52 AM
 Would Harrison Ford Return for Star Wars: Episode VII?
Harrison Ford is reportedly open to the idea of reprising the role of Han Solo in the newly announced Star Wars: Episode VII.
ign.com/articles/2012/…

Sorry, I don't have much more to add here because the link is fire-walled here.)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 10, 2012, 08:14:45 AM
Going to see a Skyfall matinee this afternoon - with very high expectations. If it's as good as Casino Royale, I'll be happy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on November 10, 2012, 09:35:45 AM
Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: brothert on November 10, 2012, 09:50:15 AM
Going to see a Skyfall matinee this afternoon - with very high expectations. If it's as good as Casino Royale, I'll be happy.
Saw it last night.  You have high expectations to hope it's as good as Casino Royale(IMO the best bond film made).  The skyfall trailers certainly do not give a feel for the movie.  There are scenes that made me bust a gut (something I never pictured happening during a bond film).  It seemed like a Retro-Bond movie but very enjoyable none the less. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 10, 2012, 10:33:16 AM
So many good Bond films and unfortunately, too many stickers including the last one. I'm partial to Goldfinger as the quintessential Bond film but yeah, I'd say Casino Royale makes my top 5 with ease... Possibly my top 3. - Can't wait to see this one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 10, 2012, 02:58:31 PM
Completely met my expectations. Another terrific Bond film, IMO. Probably in my top 5 too. So, to homers and a strike out for these new Bond films. Not bad at all.

As a side, I almost said to homers and a strike out for Craig but truth be told, I don't think any of the problems with Quantum are to be blamed on Craig. He was fine.     
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on November 10, 2012, 04:46:21 PM
Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.

I dunno....I found it intense from start to end..though sitting beside my wife, who was clenching onto my arm tight enough to leave bruises, may of upped the intensity.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 10, 2012, 08:00:51 PM
Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.

I dunno....I found it intense from start to end..though sitting beside my wife, who was clenching onto my arm tight enough to leave bruises, may of upped the intensity.

That's exactly how I felt too. Thought it was a terrific movie. I really can't decide which one I liked better, but I have to watch The Town again soon.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on November 10, 2012, 08:10:13 PM
Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.

I dunno....I found it intense from start to end..though sitting beside my wife, who was clenching onto my arm tight enough to leave bruises, may of upped the intensity.

That's exactly how I felt too. Thought it was a terrific movie. I really can't decide which one I liked better, but I have to watch The Town again soon.

The Town was fantastic as well. Once Argo comes out and I have some time I'll sit down and watch both. Right now Argo wins IMO but it's still fresh in my mind.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Michael on November 22, 2012, 04:25:46 PM
Going to see Lincoln tonight.  :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on November 22, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
I watched Looper the other day......That may of been the creepiest kid I've ever seen!

How the heck that movie got a 94% on rotten tomatoes is beyond me.

I give it a 6/10 at best.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on November 28, 2012, 09:39:03 AM
Well, we have a very good step in the right direction for Star Wars Eposode VII. Matthew Vaughn looks to be directing.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 28, 2012, 10:14:21 AM
Well, we have a very good step in the right direction for Star Wars Eposode VII. Matthew Vaughn looks to be directing.

Finally, a Star Wars movie with all of the subtlety and narrative cohesiveness of Layer Cake.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 28, 2012, 11:18:09 AM
I'll buy a nude Sienna Miller as a Jedi for a dollar.

Her scenes in Layer Cake where 'interesting'.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 09, 2012, 05:01:47 PM
Just to the family to Life of Pi... Great story (it really kicked my ass.) Visually stunning... See it in 3D if you can.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on December 10, 2012, 01:46:04 AM
The nerd in me is so looking forward to The Hobbit!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on December 13, 2012, 06:00:06 PM
The trailer for Pacific Rim (filmed in Toronto!) came out yesterday. It promises to be one of if not the biggest summer blockbuster of 2013.

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/guillermo-del-toros-pacific-rim-trailer-squashes-all-other-2012-previews-2/ (http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/guillermo-del-toros-pacific-rim-trailer-squashes-all-other-2012-previews-2/)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Leafaholic99 on December 25, 2012, 11:15:49 PM
Just saw Batman The Dark Knight Rises, awesome movie, slow at times, but overall I liked it, will watch it again, pumped for the next one!!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on December 26, 2012, 10:08:54 AM
Django Unchained was superb. It's like a Tarantino movie on steroids - and that's actually a good thing. It was a good story turned over by a great cast. Foxx was solid in the lead role, Dicaprio played the bad guy for once and was really good, and Samuel Jackson stole the screen in the latter half of the movie. Still, Cristoph Waltz topped them all. He's clearly going to win an Oscar for this.

At just under 3 hours it's a long one, but it's an extremely entertaining one. Go see it!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: louisstamos on December 26, 2012, 12:23:05 PM
Django Unchained was superb. It's like a Tarantino movie on steroids - and that's actually a good thing. It was a good story turned over by a great cast. Foxx was solid in the lead role, Dicaprio played the bad guy for once and was really good, and Samuel Jackson stole the screen in the latter half of the movie. Still, Cristoph Waltz topped them all. He's clearly going to win an Oscar for this.

At just under 3 hours it's a long one, but it's an extremely entertaining one. Go see it!

The Mrs went to see it yesterday and has been raving it about it since!  I guess I've gotta go see it too!

Does the movie flow well, or because it's so long are there some slower parts/sections?
Title: Re: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on December 26, 2012, 12:53:11 PM
Django Unchained was superb. It's like a Tarantino movie on steroids - and that's actually a good thing. It was a good story turned over by a great cast. Foxx was solid in the lead role, Dicaprio played the bad guy for once and was really good, and Samuel Jackson stole the screen in the latter half of the movie. Still, Cristoph Waltz topped them all. He's clearly going to win an Oscar for this.

At just under 3 hours it's a long one, but it's an extremely entertaining one. Go see it!

I think Christoph Waltz is an acting genius. I'd love to see him in more films.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on December 26, 2012, 03:50:50 PM
Django Unchained was superb. It's like a Tarantino movie on steroids - and that's actually a good thing. It was a good story turned over by a great cast. Foxx was solid in the lead role, Dicaprio played the bad guy for once and was really good, and Samuel Jackson stole the screen in the latter half of the movie. Still, Cristoph Waltz topped them all. He's clearly going to win an Oscar for this.

At just under 3 hours it's a long one, but it's an extremely entertaining one. Go see it!

The Mrs went to see it yesterday and has been raving it about it since!  I guess I've gotta go see it too!

Does the movie flow well, or because it's so long are there some slower parts/sections?
It flows very well. It was 3 hours long but didn't feel like it. There was a little bit of a lull after what you would assume is the climax before (sorta spoiler alert!) something crazy happens at the end. But by that time you're so sucked in it doesn't matter. This movie is pure entertainment in many forms: Drama, adventure, love, action, and yes, comedy. People will tell you it's a trademark Tarantino movie spun into a Western but it's actually really hilarious at times. As I said, pure entertainment.
Title: Re: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on December 26, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
It's rare that you can confidently say an actor will win an Oscar without having seen many of the films that other actors are nominated for. I have no doubt in my mind that Waltz will win one again this year. He was that great.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 27, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
Caught 'Jason Becker - Not Dead Yet' decent-ish doco on a blazing guitar player that, after landing a fairly coveted slinger role with David Lee Roth as a very young man, was diagnosed with ALS. 22 years later he's still alive, against the odds, and still writing music with the use of his eyes to guide communication. I had his solo album 'Perpetual Burn' when I was young, crazy shred guitar.

The documentary is clumsy but Jason's story is worth a watch.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: lamajama on December 27, 2012, 11:41:27 AM
Haven't seen Reacher and will never do. The books are excellent but the Reacher character in the book is a 6'5" broad shouldered intimidating guy and they chose a 5'5" shrimp that is laughable in the reviews when he talks "tough".
Bad bad casting despite the perhaps better than average chance the box office will be greater than that with a lesser known actor.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 28, 2012, 08:25:52 AM
Sushi Girl.... pretty good overall, a touch torture porn but Mark Hamill was a fantastic surprise.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 30, 2012, 06:15:34 PM
Haven't seen Reacher and will never do. The books are excellent but the Reacher character in the book is a 6'5" broad shouldered intimidating guy and they chose a 5'5" shrimp that is laughable in the reviews when he talks "tough".
Bad bad casting despite the perhaps better than average chance the box office will be greater than that with a lesser known actor.

Well really, movie and books are completely different mediums; it would be boring if everything was exactly the same.  And the reviews for the movie all generally feel that Cruise was great in the role (while the movie was mostly 'by the numbers').

Personally I kind of like seeing movies take a few risks and veer off in their own direction. Hell, Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins practically make 'Shawshank Redemption' and they are almost polar opposites of their characters in the story.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 01, 2013, 06:27:14 PM
Haven't seen Reacher and will never do. The books are excellent but the Reacher character in the book is a 6'5" broad shouldered intimidating guy and they chose a 5'5" shrimp that is laughable in the reviews when he talks "tough".
Bad bad casting despite the perhaps better than average chance the box office will be greater than that with a lesser known actor.

Well really, movie and books are completely different mediums; it would be boring if everything was exactly the same.  And the reviews for the movie all generally feel that Cruise was great in the role (while the movie was mostly 'by the numbers').

Personally I kind of like seeing movies take a few risks and veer off in their own direction. Hell, Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins practically make 'Shawshank Redemption' and they are almost polar opposites of their characters in the story.

I watched the movie. I'm a pretty big Tom Cruise fan, and while it wasn't one of his best films it was rather entertaining.

As for him being too small for the role, it's not like they picked Tobey Maguire to play the guy. Tom Cruise can pull off the intimidating parts despite his size.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on January 01, 2013, 07:07:25 PM
I haven't seen the movie but I understand there's some pretty impressive stunt driving - which Cruise did himself.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: caveman on January 01, 2013, 08:57:04 PM
Haven't seen Reacher and will never do. The books are excellent but the Reacher character in the book is a 6'5" broad shouldered intimidating guy and they chose a 5'5" shrimp that is laughable in the reviews when he talks "tough".
Bad bad casting despite the perhaps better than average chance the box office will be greater than that with a lesser known actor.

Sometimes the actor will still carry the role even with the physical differences. The character description in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" was a big burly redhead yet Jack Nicholson turned it into one of his best performances. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on January 08, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
Huh. James van Riemsdyk along with 3 other NHLers had roles in "This is 40." Haven't seen it yet but I'm hoping to.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TimKerr on January 08, 2013, 01:12:54 PM
Huh. James van Riemsdyk along with 3 other NHLers had roles in "This is 40." Haven't seen it yet but I'm hoping to.

It's all Flyers (or ex-Flyers); Hartnell, LaPerierre and Carle.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on January 08, 2013, 09:17:23 AM
Django Unchained was superb. It's like a Tarantino movie on steroids - and that's actually a good thing. It was a good story turned over by a great cast. Foxx was solid in the lead role, Dicaprio played the bad guy for once and was really good, and Samuel Jackson stole the screen in the latter half of the movie. Still, Cristoph Waltz topped them all. He's clearly going to win an Oscar for this.

At just under 3 hours it's a long one, but it's an extremely entertaining one. Go see it!

Totally agree with this.. Loved this movie..
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on January 08, 2013, 11:22:38 AM
Huh. James van Riemsdyk along with 3 other NHLers had roles in "This is 40." Haven't seen it yet but I'm hoping to.
Here's the clip:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oLv_INKF9p0[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on January 08, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Thanks for finding that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 10, 2013, 04:41:09 AM

The Oscar nominations were announced today.

http://oscar.go.com/nominees (http://oscar.go.com/nominees)

I'm a little disappointed at the relative lack of nominations for Django and Moonrise Kingdom which along with Zero Dark Thirty were my favourite flicks of the year. Sam Jackson and DiCaprio especially, I felt, should have gotten a nod in supporting actor and Tarantino not getting a best director nomination...whatever.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: riff raff on January 10, 2013, 05:43:05 AM

The Oscar nominations were announced today.

http://oscar.go.com/nominees (http://oscar.go.com/nominees)

I'm a little disappointed at the relative lack of nominations for Django and Moonrise Kingdom which along with Zero Dark Thirty were my favourite flicks of the year. Sam Jackson and DiCaprio especially, I felt, should have gotten a nod in supporting actor and Tarantino not getting a best director nomination...whatever.

My only comment on Django and the Oscars would be what in the world is Christoph Waltz doing in the Supporting category? He's in almost every scene.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 14, 2013, 10:23:14 AM
Django was sooooo good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on January 14, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
Django was sooooo good.

I saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it, I really did but I though it was far from Tarantino's best. To be honest with you, I did't enjoy it as much as I had hoped to.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 14, 2013, 10:55:23 AM
Django was sooooo good.

I saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it, I really did but I though it was far from Tarantino's best. To be honest with you, I did't enjoy it as much as I had hoped to.

It might not be his best but from my pov I went in without knowing anything about it at all, not the premise, nothing so I was really surprised and shocked and reminded of how I felt watching Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction the first time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 16, 2013, 07:38:16 AM
Seven Psychopaths was a strangely uplifting movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Michael on January 21, 2013, 06:53:02 AM
Saw Zero Dark Thirty last night. It has been a long time since I have seen a movie that good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on January 23, 2013, 06:23:00 PM
Zero Dark Thirty was huge disappointment. It really isn't a good movie, at all.

It's way too long, it drags on terribly, and there's no character development whatsoever. I'm not sure why Jessica Chastain has received so much praise for her role, an extremely one dimensional character. All the characters in the movie are one-dimensional, actually. It's pathetic. The last half-hour of the movie when they actually kill Bin Laden is suspenseful and worth watching, but the long 2 hour lead up to that is...boring. Like, really boring. Zero Dark Thirty is a boring movie and I wasted my time.

I guess if you want to watch it to actually see the behind-the-scenes of how they got Bin Laden, then it's ok. It's ok for its historical significance. Just don't expect an overly entertaining flick.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 24, 2013, 03:49:16 AM

Spoilers about Zero Dark Thirty ahead:

I think the thing about ZDT that needs to be understood going in is that they're not trying to construct a traditional hollywood narrative around the capture of OBL but rather they're trying to get a sense of the entirety of the effort involved and what went into it and present it as frankly as possible to legitimately challenge your ideas about what went on.

Chastain's Maya is defined, increasingly as the movie goes on by her single minded focus on her task. To the point where it borders on obsession. It's an impressive transformation precisely because when we're first introduced to her she has a tough time watching the torture that she'd come to accept as a pretty mundane part of her job. The flip side of that is Jason Clarke's character, whose name escapes me at the moment, getting beaten and worn down by what he's being asked to do to the point where he has to quit. To say that neither character develops boggles the mind.

It's not a movie where easy, pat lessons are learned or, to my mind, with a position staked out in advance. It seems to want to present the story as bare bones as possible and leave the morality of it up to the individual. It's a tough watch but, I think, ultimately one of the best made flicks of the year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on January 24, 2013, 01:37:18 PM

Spoilers about Zero Dark Thirty ahead:

I think the thing about ZDT that needs to be understood going in is that they're not trying to construct a traditional hollywood narrative around the capture of OBL but rather they're trying to get a sense of the entirety of the effort involved and what went into it and present it as frankly as possible to legitimately challenge your ideas about what went on.

Chastain's Maya is defined, increasingly as the movie goes on by her single minded focus on her task. To the point where it borders on obsession. It's an impressive transformation precisely because when we're first introduced to her she has a tough time watching the torture that she'd come to accept as a pretty mundane part of her job. The flip side of that is Jason Clarke's character, whose name escapes me at the moment, getting beaten and worn down by what he's being asked to do to the point where he has to quit. To say that neither character develops boggles the mind.

It's not a movie where easy, pat lessons are learned or, to my mind, with a position staked out in advance. It seems to want to present the story as bare bones as possible and leave the morality of it up to the individual. It's a tough watch but, I think, ultimately one of the best made flicks of the year.

I agree, and I enjoyed it.  I don't go to the movies very often, but Chastain's character development throughout the movie is what I really enjoyed about it.  She became increasingly obsessed with finding UBL, and nearing the end, she was a little bit tyrannical. 

Is it childish to be a little pumped about Movie 43?

 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on January 24, 2013, 01:43:13 PM
Is it childish to be a little pumped about Movie 43?

I'm very intrigued by it. It's too high profile a cast for a parody type movie. I don't really know what to make of it, but I feel like I need to see it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on January 24, 2013, 01:51:23 PM
Is it childish to be a little pumped about Movie 43?

I'm very intrigued by it. It's too high profile a cast for a parody type movie. I don't really know what to make of it, but I feel like I need to see it.

I need to see it.

My gf thinks I'm childish. 

She's right, but I still want to see it.  I love stupid comedies...one of my all-time favourite movies is Old School.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on January 24, 2013, 03:35:26 PM
Zero Dark Thirty was huge disappointment. It really isn't a good movie, at all.

It's way too long, it drags on terribly, and there's no character development whatsoever. I'm not sure why Jessica Chastain has received so much praise for her role, an extremely one dimensional character. All the characters in the movie are one-dimensional, actually. It's pathetic. The last half-hour of the movie when they actually kill Bin Laden is suspenseful and worth watching, but the long 2 hour lead up to that is...boring. Like, really boring. Zero Dark Thirty is a boring movie and I wasted my time.

I guess if you want to watch it to actually see the behind-the-scenes of how they got Bin Laden, then it's ok. It's ok for its historical significance. Just don't expect an overly entertaining flick.

It depends what you view as interesting or entertaining. Maybe its more an issue of your expectations not jiving with what the movie presented.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on January 24, 2013, 03:49:32 PM
JJ Abrams is going to direct the new Star Wars movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on January 25, 2013, 04:11:46 PM
Is it childish to be a little pumped about Movie 43?

I'm very intrigued by it. It's too high profile a cast for a parody type movie. I don't really know what to make of it, but I feel like I need to see it.

Sounds promising: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/1320233--movie-43-review-the-worst-film-ever-gets-zero-stars
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on January 26, 2013, 12:47:58 PM
Anyone else remember this movie? Please tell me it's on NetFlix.

http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/cobra/
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on January 26, 2013, 12:55:24 PM
Is it childish to be a little pumped about Movie 43?

I'm very intrigued by it. It's too high profile a cast for a parody type movie. I don't really know what to make of it, but I feel like I need to see it.

Sounds promising: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/1320233--movie-43-review-the-worst-film-ever-gets-zero-stars

Damn it.

Anyone seen a genuinely funny movie lately? 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on January 26, 2013, 01:59:41 PM
Is it childish to be a little pumped about Movie 43?

I'm very intrigued by it. It's too high profile a cast for a parody type movie. I don't really know what to make of it, but I feel like I need to see it.

Sounds promising: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/1320233--movie-43-review-the-worst-film-ever-gets-zero-stars

Damn it.

Anyone seen a genuinely funny movie lately?

Well, Freddy Got Fingered is in my top 10 movies of all time, so I'll see Movie 43 A.S.A.P!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on January 26, 2013, 02:19:34 PM
Zero Dark Thirty was huge disappointment. It really isn't a good movie, at all.

It's way too long, it drags on terribly, and there's no character development whatsoever. I'm not sure why Jessica Chastain has received so much praise for her role, an extremely one dimensional character. All the characters in the movie are one-dimensional, actually. It's pathetic. The last half-hour of the movie when they actually kill Bin Laden is suspenseful and worth watching, but the long 2 hour lead up to that is...boring. Like, really boring. Zero Dark Thirty is a boring movie and I wasted my time.

I guess if you want to watch it to actually see the behind-the-scenes of how they got Bin Laden, then it's ok. It's ok for its historical significance. Just don't expect an overly entertaining flick.

It depends what you view as interesting or entertaining. Maybe its more an issue of your expectations not jiving with what the movie presented.
As I said, it was an interesting movie from a historical perspective but just not an overly entertaining/riveting movie. I have to admit my expectations were pretty high considering the Oscar buzz the movie has gotten but I felt it was boring through parts. Argo, from a pure entertainment perspective, was much better.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 26, 2013, 02:24:30 PM
Anyone seen a genuinely funny movie lately?

I watched Animal House a couple days ago. It holds up.

"Don't worry about it, I'm Pre-Law"

"I thought you were Pre-Med."

"What's the difference?"
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on January 27, 2013, 05:55:17 AM

Anyone seen a genuinely funny movie lately?

Stir Crazy is on the tube right now. I haven't seen it in many, many years. I had forgotten how hilarious it is.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on February 06, 2013, 08:32:48 AM
Is there an actual storyline that follows Solo prior to us meeting him in the canteen? Yeah, we all know the history with Jaba and Lando, etc. But is there any real literature? That could be kind of fun.
Yeah, he's an Imperial cadet who ends up rescuing Chewie. It's a little hammy and I really don't like the idea of any of the original main Star Wars characters being played by someone else. I mean, they kind of made it work with Obi-Wan Kenobi, but he wasn't really a main character in the original trilogy.

Well, I'm getting my wish but I hope to God they don't Eff 'em up.

'Star Wars' spin-offs: A young Han Solo movie, and a Boba Fett film -- Exclusive
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni46505857
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 06, 2013, 08:56:18 AM
Well, I'm getting my wish but I hope to God they don't Eff 'em up.

'Star Wars' spin-offs: A young Han Solo movie, and a Boba Fett film -- Exclusive
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni46505857

So, the two most obvious spin offs? Makes sense.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Corn Flake on February 06, 2013, 09:04:19 AM
Well, I'm getting my wish but I hope to God they don't Eff 'em up.

'Star Wars' spin-offs: A young Han Solo movie, and a Boba Fett film -- Exclusive
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni46505857

So, the two most obvious spin offs? Makes sense.

What about the Cantina band story?  :-*
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 06, 2013, 09:07:51 AM
What about the Cantina band story?  :-*

I'd leave that to Behind the Music.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on February 06, 2013, 09:08:30 AM

What about the Cantina band story?  :-*

Like when they were a big stadium band and then it all went bad and how they wound up doing the Empire lounge scene?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Corn Flake on February 06, 2013, 09:11:23 AM

What about the Cantina band story?  :-*

Like when they were a big stadium band and then it all went bad and how they wound up doing the Empire lounge scene?

Yea... how the manager screwed them over, the drug problems, the Yoko Ono who tore them apart, the reunion tour 20 years later including the Cantina .. how Jimmy got fat ... etc...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on February 06, 2013, 09:16:47 AM

What about the Cantina band story?  :-*

Like when they were a big stadium band and then it all went bad and how they wound up doing the Empire lounge scene?

Yea... how the manager screwed them over, the drug problems, the Yoko Ono who tore them apart, the reunion tour 20 years later including the Cantina .. how Jimmy got fat ... etc...

Perfect!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on February 06, 2013, 09:36:17 AM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 06, 2013, 09:55:12 AM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

I'm a strange fella, your post made me want to see it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 06, 2013, 10:02:55 AM
How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

According to IMDB, the movie cost 6 million to make. It's already grossed 7.7 million domestically. Add in after-theatre sales and foreign gross(where movies with big stars do disproportionately well) and it'll probably be pretty profitable when all is said and done.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TML fan on February 06, 2013, 12:20:43 PM
Anything to make a buck. Next thing you know they'll be doing a remake of Steel Vaginas.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on February 06, 2013, 01:24:22 PM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

I'm a strange fella, your post made me want to see it.
The only reason I saw it was because a friend told me how bad it was. I was intrigued, expecting to laugh at the pure horror on the screen. But to quote Peter Howell once again:

"It’s not a 'good bad' movie, the kind where you laugh at the incompetence on display. It’s simply a terrible movie, the kind that makes you feel lousy for having spent money to see it."
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: iwas11in67 on February 06, 2013, 01:27:50 PM
Saw Parker and I say "meh".

It's really a rough remake of Payback which is a much much better film.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 13, 2013, 09:33:29 PM
Got a chance to see an advanced screening of the new Die Hard movie. Not bad. Better than the last one. Not as good as the first 3.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2013, 10:50:25 AM
I'm not a comic book guy, or a animated feature kind of person - but I just watched Dark Knight Returns part 1 and 2, and they are fantastic movies.

If you have any interest at all in Batman, do yourself a favour and check these out.

I also watched the animated version of Batman Year 1 (it's on Netflix), also worth watching.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on February 14, 2013, 10:56:55 AM
Got a chance to see an advanced screening of the new Die Hard movie. Not bad. Better than the last one. Not as good as the first 3.

It's getting trashed by critics (14% on rotten tomates). By comparison, Die Hard 4 was around 80%. I'm kind of on the fence about seeing it, especially since I am pretty much on board with the ciritcal concensus of each installment.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Erndog on February 14, 2013, 11:03:29 AM
I'm not a comic book guy, or a animated feature kind of person - but I just watched Dark Knight Returns part 1 and 2, and they are fantastic movies.

If you have any interest at all in Batman, do yourself a favour and check these out.

I also watched the animated version of Batman Year 1 (it's on Netflix), also worth watching.


Funny, I just came from amazon where I was considering buying them.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 14, 2013, 11:05:01 AM
It's getting trashed by critics (14% on rotten tomates). By comparison, Die Hard 4 was around 80%. I'm kind of on the fence about seeing it, especially since I am pretty much on board with the ciritcal concensus of each installment.

It was pretty generic action movie at times, but it felt much more like a Die Hard movie than the last one did.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2013, 11:29:23 AM
I'm not a comic book guy, or a animated feature kind of person - but I just watched Dark Knight Returns part 1 and 2, and they are fantastic movies.

If you have any interest at all in Batman, do yourself a favour and check these out.

I also watched the animated version of Batman Year 1 (it's on Netflix), also worth watching.


Funny, I just came from amazon where I was considering buying them.

Well if you read the frank miller works (which judging by your history you have) then you will no doubt really enjoy the movie.

I wasn't that familiar with the original graphic novel, but it really has the same vibe as the Watchmen. So I was curious which came first - Dark Knight returns was published Feb 1986, and Watchmen was September 1986. I found that interesting.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Erndog on February 14, 2013, 02:34:57 PM
I'm not a comic book guy, or a animated feature kind of person - but I just watched Dark Knight Returns part 1 and 2, and they are fantastic movies.

If you have any interest at all in Batman, do yourself a favour and check these out.

I also watched the animated version of Batman Year 1 (it's on Netflix), also worth watching.


Funny, I just came from amazon where I was considering buying them.

Well if you read the frank miller works (which judging by your history you have) then you will no doubt really enjoy the movie.

I wasn't that familiar with the original graphic novel, but it really has the same vibe as the Watchmen. So I was curious which came first - Dark Knight returns was published Feb 1986, and Watchmen was September 1986. I found that interesting.


Frank Miller Batman and Frank Miller Daredevil are pretty much 2 of the best runs ever in comics.  EVER.

So yeah, I'm going to have to watch these.  Kevin Smith last week tweeted that he watched them at least 20 times and he's still in awe how good it is.

If you liked them, you might enjoy Batman: Under the Red Hood. (http://www.amazon.ca/Batman-Under-The-Hood-Blu-ray/dp/B003ITZBVI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360870450&sr=8-2)  That was fantastic!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: #1PilarFan on February 14, 2013, 02:53:26 PM
I'm not a comic book guy, or a animated feature kind of person - but I just watched Dark Knight Returns part 1 and 2, and they are fantastic movies.

If you have any interest at all in Batman, do yourself a favour and check these out.

I also watched the animated version of Batman Year 1 (it's on Netflix), also worth watching.


Funny, I just came from amazon where I was considering buying them.

Well if you read the frank miller works (which judging by your history you have) then you will no doubt really enjoy the movie.

I wasn't that familiar with the original graphic novel, but it really has the same vibe as the Watchmen. So I was curious which came first - Dark Knight returns was published Feb 1986, and Watchmen was September 1986. I found that interesting.
Dark Knight Returns also had a horrible initial reception, though it's not considered a classic Batman graphic novel. I'm guessing you didn't read it, but it's a little hard to follow. Still great though.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2013, 02:56:48 PM


Frank Miller Batman and Frank Miller Daredevil are pretty much 2 of the best runs ever in comics.  EVER.

So yeah, I'm going to have to watch these.  Kevin Smith last week tweeted that he watched them at least 20 times and he's still in awe how good it is.

If you liked them, you might enjoy Batman: Under the Red Hood. (http://www.amazon.ca/Batman-Under-The-Hood-Blu-ray/dp/B003ITZBVI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360870450&sr=8-2)  That was fantastic!

I actually listed to Kevin Smith's Fatman on Batman podcast - so that's actually where I learned about Dark Knight returns... I think the podcast before the most recent one, he moderated a panel with most of the talent behind the movie.

He also did his own 'commentary' track to part one with a friend of his as one of the podcasts...

Under the red hood I believe is on Netflix, so I'll check it out.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2013, 02:58:46 PM

Dark Knight Returns also had a horrible initial reception, though it's not considered a classic Batman graphic novel. I'm guessing you didn't read it, but it's a little hard to follow. Still great though.

I have not read it no.. I just can't get into reading comics in any form. The only one I've ever read end to end was Year One.

I watched the Watchmen Motion Comic if that counts. I'm not sure if that's a frame by frame recapturing of te comic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sudafederov on February 14, 2013, 06:19:32 PM
This whole special was so good I bought it on DVD, but it's now on Youtube. Here's a little bit about the Dark Knight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bwuIwt4pRNI#t=3981s

While we're on the topic of Frank Miller, don't forget Sin City, 300, and my personal fave Elektra Assassin.

Also little known fact, he wrote scripts for Robocop 2 and 3

Not sure where the horrible reception stuff is coming from, maybe some bad mainstream media reviews.  All the comic book fans I knew at the time, myself included, considered it a masterpeice then as we do now. From what I can recall sold pretty well.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 14, 2013, 07:43:28 PM
DC's come out with some damn good animated movies lately.

I really liked Justice League: Doom, although I prefer the comic the story was taken from.   Basically, someone hacks into Batman's computers and steals his files on the rest of the Justice League, detailing strategies to neutralize all his allies.   The whole Justice League gets taken out in pretty inventive ways.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on February 14, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
DC's come out with some damn good animated movies lately.

I really liked Justice League: Doom, although I prefer the comic the story was taken from.   Basically, someone hacks into Batman's computers and steals his files on the rest of the Justice League, detailing strategies to neutralize all his allies.   The whole Justice League gets taken out in pretty inventive ways.

Yeah. DC's done a very good job with their straight to DVD animated stuff. Much better than they've done with most of the feature films.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 14, 2013, 07:46:18 PM
DC's come out with some damn good animated movies lately.

We're ignoring Emerald Knights, right?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 14, 2013, 07:50:22 PM
DC's come out with some damn good animated movies lately.

I really liked Justice League: Doom, although I prefer the comic the story was taken from.   Basically, someone hacks into Batman's computers and steals his files on the rest of the Justice League, detailing strategies to neutralize all his allies.   The whole Justice League gets taken out in pretty inventive ways.

Yeah. DC's done a very good job with their straight to DVD animated stuff. Much better than they've done with most of the feature films.

Someone please tell me that we're ignoring Emerald Knights!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 14, 2013, 08:27:20 PM
DC's come out with some damn good animated movies lately.

I really liked Justice League: Doom, although I prefer the comic the story was taken from.   Basically, someone hacks into Batman's computers and steals his files on the rest of the Justice League, detailing strategies to neutralize all his allies.   The whole Justice League gets taken out in pretty inventive ways.

Yeah. DC's done a very good job with their straight to DVD animated stuff. Much better than they've done with most of the feature films.

Someone please tell me that we're ignoring Emerald Knights!

Was that the Green Lantern one where it's basically a bunch of short stories?

I liked the one where it turned out the planet was a Green Lantern.   That was funny.   Don't remember the rest.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: LittleHockeyFan on February 15, 2013, 08:25:11 PM
Wooooo! for those of us who are Star Wars (the original trilogy, not the pREEKwels) fans, this is good news!

Han's back!!

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/15/harrison-ford-will-return-as-han-solo
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on February 15, 2013, 08:34:54 PM
I hope it works... As a side, Ford was my first favorite actor in my first favorite movie (Star Wars.) In fact, when I went to the Mann theater 16 years ago, his hand prints were the first I looked for.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on February 16, 2013, 03:23:29 AM
Han So-0ld...

I read that on the site and it made me chuckle.
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sudafederov on February 16, 2013, 06:57:19 AM
Danny Boyle has a new trailer out for Trance

I'd link to it, but it's pretty gory, violent etc. So here's the cool poster instead.

Guy in the poster looks like me watching a Leaf game when Dion shoots high and wide.

(http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2013/01/Trance-Poster.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on February 24, 2013, 09:33:58 PM
It's rare that you can confidently say an actor will win an Oscar without having seen many of the films that other actors are nominated for. I have no doubt in my mind that Waltz will win one again this year. He was that great.
;)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 25, 2013, 04:59:57 AM
Great night it was for Canadians and for Canada at the Oscars.  Toronto composer Mychaal Danna won for best original score for Life of Pi, a movie based on The novel of the same name written by Canadian Yann Martel.

Best director went to Taiwanese Ang Lee who thanked his Canadian crew in his acceptance speech.

Ben Affleck's Argo won best picture, based partly on the "Canadian Caper" (escape from Iran) as well as on a CIA collaboration in tandem with the Canadian embassy at the time.  In the film, Affleck plays a Canadian filmmaker (a disguise of course to hide who he really is).  In his acceptance speech, Affleck thanked Canada, as did Chris Terrio, who won for best adapted screenplay for Argo.

Not bad, eh?!

Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/02/24/85th-oscars-academy-awards.html

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/02/24/oscars-2013-live-blog-academy-awards-presented-in-los-angeles/


Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 27, 2013, 02:10:40 PM
So what's the deal with Movie 43?   Sounds like an interesting concept, but is getting some horrendous reviews.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on February 27, 2013, 04:36:58 PM
So what's the deal with Movie 43?   Sounds like an interesting concept, but is getting some horrendous reviews.
Go back a couple of pages and read my review.

It's undoubtedly the worst piece of trash I've ever seen on a screen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on February 27, 2013, 06:18:58 PM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

Gotta agree with WIGWAL, your review makes it bizarrely compelling.   I want to see it now.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 27, 2013, 07:03:08 PM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

Gotta agree with WIGWAL, your review makes it bizarrely compelling.   I want to see it now.

You really shouldn't, at least according to many.  People say it's not at all entertaining because it's so bad, as some films can be.  From Peter Howell:  "It’s not a “good bad” movie, the kind where you laugh at the incompetence on display. It’s simply a terrible movie, the kind that makes you feel lousy for having spent money to see it."
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Justin on February 27, 2013, 07:35:46 PM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

Gotta agree with WIGWAL, your review makes it bizarrely compelling.   I want to see it now.
It was a similar review by a friend that made me want to go see it in the first place. I was fully ready to walk out after 20 minutes if not for a couple of buddies that wanted to stay.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on February 27, 2013, 07:39:46 PM
Side Effects was a bloody good film!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on February 28, 2013, 09:44:49 AM
If anyone as thinking of seeing Movie 43...don't. It was unequivocally the worst movie I have ever seen. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star even called it the "worst film ever" while NOW Magazine (or was it The Grid?) said something along the lines of "it looks and sounds atrocious from start to finish." These are no exaggerations...this movie is pure filth. It's disgusting, obscene, reaches new levels of vulgarity, and is downright offensive. Not offensive to me, but offensive to the Hollywood film industry as a whole for merely existing. The boatloads of big-name stars that made appearances including Halle Berry, Naomi Watts, Dennis Quaid, Hugh Jackman, Uma Thurman, Anna Faris, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Leiv Schreiber, and Gerard Butler should all be embarrassed for attaching their names to this debauchery. How did this piece of crap even get into theaters?

But was that not the point of the film? To shock and offend as many people as possible? That's how it was being billed anyways.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on February 28, 2013, 09:46:52 AM
Watched the new Red Dawn remake.

Certainly not as entertaining as the first movie. They tried way too hard to make it Hollywood with the special effects and big explosions.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 13, 2013, 01:31:31 PM
So Kristen Bell and Rob Thomas started a kickstarter for the Veronica Mars movie, in under two hours they are fast approaching $700k of their $2 million budget.

Pretty crazy.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 13, 2013, 09:33:51 PM
So Kristen Bell and Rob Thomas started a kickstarter for the Veronica Mars movie, in under two hours they are fast approaching $700k of their $2 million budget.

Pretty crazy.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project

They've already surpassed the $2M goal they set for themselves and they still have a full month to go. I wish something like this would happen for series that I actually followed.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on March 20, 2013, 03:34:05 PM
"Thumbs and Ammo".  Replacing the gun with a "thumbs up" alternative in movie posters.  Have a look:
 
http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/wide-screen/happens-replace-gun-thumbs-famous-movie-scene-173913759.html (http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/wide-screen/happens-replace-gun-thumbs-famous-movie-scene-173913759.html)
Title: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 22, 2013, 03:44:02 AM
Olympus has Fallen was a great action flick, best I've seen in a while. Gerard Butler is badass in that type of role. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: seahawk on March 23, 2013, 07:50:10 PM
Really want to see Olympus and the new G.I Joe movie. The new Tina Fey movie looks interesting as well along with Safe Haven.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sucker Punch on March 23, 2013, 07:56:11 PM
I saw the trailer for World War Z before Hansel and Gretel a while back.   That looks amazing.

Hansel and Gretel had its moments.   (Not really a spoiler) Loved how they made Hansel diabetic from being force fed candy by a witch.   Even if it was weird, magic diabetes.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 31, 2013, 10:10:02 PM
Checked out Red Dawn and End of watch this weekend.

Red Dawn was a decent flick, very predictable, but watchable.

I really enjoyed End of Watch though, Gylenhall and Pena have unreal chemistry as partners in one of the best cop movies since Training Day.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on April 04, 2013, 04:45:56 PM

Roger Ebert died today. Definitely on the short list of the best and most influential critics of all time, reading his blog/reviews is something I'm going to miss a great deal.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on April 04, 2013, 06:11:20 PM
RIP Roger Ebert.


I remember watching the Siskel & Ebert Show back then, and of course, Ebert on his own.


Probably one of the best movie reviewer(s) there ever was.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/celebrated-movie-critic-roger-ebert-passes-away-battle-200817399.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/celebrated-movie-critic-roger-ebert-passes-away-battle-200817399.html)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on April 04, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
RIP Roger Ebert.

I remember watching the Siskel & Ebert Show back then, and of course, Ebert on his own.

Probably one of the best movie reviewer(s) there ever was.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/celebrated-movie-critic-roger-ebert-passes-away-battle-200817399.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/celebrated-movie-critic-roger-ebert-passes-away-battle-200817399.html)

Damn.  I'll miss him.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: mc on April 04, 2013, 08:57:29 PM
F*ck cancer. RIP Roger. A great man.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TML fan on April 18, 2013, 08:32:49 AM
The new Star Trek movie looks fun.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on June 02, 2013, 07:53:13 PM
I hope none of you wasted your money on After Earth. I was "fortunate" enough to see a preview of it last week, and, my word, it is terrible. The acting is horrible (seriously, if it wasn't for his father, Jaden Smith would never have been cast in anything), the dialogue is bad, the story is so painfully predictable, it's laughable and, while the special effects were nice, they were pretty ordinary by today's standards. Just truly awful.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Rick Couchman on June 02, 2013, 08:08:30 PM
I hope none of you wasted your money on After Earth. I was "fortunate" enough to see a preview of it last week, and, my word, it is terrible. The acting is horrible (seriously, if it wasn't for his father, Jaden Smith would never have been cast in anything), the dialogue is bad, the story is so painfully predictable, it's laughable and, while the special effects were nice, they were pretty ordinary by today's standards. Just truly awful.

Just got back from it.  My wife thought is was ok...  I concur with your analysis.  Awful.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on June 03, 2013, 02:43:52 PM
saw star trek this weekend... I enjoyed it. But I can see why true 'trekkies' may hate these new movies - these are just pure action movies now.

On another note, I watched the 30 for 30 doc on Gretzky, and it is one of the most boring docs I've ever watched.

It didn't give any new insight on the trade to LA... anyway, I guess what I'm saying is unless you don't know who Gretzky is, then this doc isn't worth your time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on June 03, 2013, 11:03:39 PM
On another note, I watched the 30 for 30 doc on Gretzky, and it is one of the most boring docs I've ever watched.

It didn't give any new insight on the trade to LA... anyway, I guess what I'm saying is unless you don't know who Gretzky is, then this doc isn't worth your time.

Yeah, I thought the same for the most part(although I thought it was interesting that Gretzky could have chosen to go to Detroit instead of LA). That said, it was intended for US audiences so I don't think it's really meant for hockey nuts.

If people want to watch a good sports documentary, they should look on Netflix for Undefeated, which won the oscar a few years back. It's about the volunteer coach of a football team at a poor Memphis high school and while it's maybe a little straight-forward for some tastes I thought it was terrific.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TheMightyOdin on June 06, 2013, 01:24:45 AM
I've always been a big superman fan. I have high hopes for the new movie. I've been trying to avoid watching trailers so as not to spoil as much as possible but it's hard.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on June 06, 2013, 10:16:23 AM
I've always been a big superman fan. I have high hopes for the new movie. I've been trying to avoid watching trailers so as not to spoil as much as possible but it's hard.

well if it helps any the trailers look fantastic. And to be honest, I like Snyder's movies, even Sucker Punch; I think that movie had potential, it was a great concept, the execution just didn't hit the mark, but honestly, the movie looked stunning.

So worst case with superman is your going to at the very least have a stunning looking movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: KoHo on June 06, 2013, 10:58:14 PM
Saw HBO's Behind The Candelabra on the weekend. It was easily the best post-Oscar season movie I've seen this year. Not even close to any others.

Michael Douglas gave an impeccable performance as Liberace. He played the character perfectly, and it was one of those acting performances you really get in awe of. Matt Damon was great too, but Douglas absolutely stole the screen. The writing was also excellent. Both main roles were fairly complex characters and Douglas and Damon pulled it off. It's truly is amazing how MATT DAMON and MICHAEL DOUGLAS can portray an on-screen relationship and make it look extremely touching and convincing. Kudos to them.

Rob Lowe's character was also hilarious, mainly because he looked like a cross between Kato Kaelin and Michael Jackson:

(http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/photo/2013/0529/grant_g_katolowejackson_640.jpg&w=640&h=360)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on June 07, 2013, 08:23:37 AM
Saw HBO's Behind The Candelabra on the weekend. It was easily the best post-Oscar season movie I've seen this year. Not even close to any others.

Michael Douglas gave an impeccable performance as Liberace. He played the character perfectly, and it was one of those acting performances you really get in awe of. Matt Damon was great too, but Douglas absolutely stole the screen. The writing was also excellent. Both main roles were fairly complex characters and Douglas and Damon pulled it off. It's truly is amazing how MATT DAMON and MICHAEL DOUGLAS can portray an on-screen relationship and make it look extremely touching and convincing. Kudos to them.

You think? I don't know. They're both talented actors, no reason to think they couldn't.

Anyways, I'm fairly conflicted about the movie. I thought it was a great piece of technical filmmaking and there are some amazing performances in the major and minor roles but, and I know that there's no requirement for a movie to be didactic in this way or anything, I thought it was a little distasteful how they presented this really awful relationship, as you say, as "touching" or in any way genuine. Could you imagine a movie about a heterosexual relationship between a wealthy and famous man in his 60's dating/sleeping with a 17 year old girl, pressuring her to get plastic surgery so that she looks more like him, talk openly about adopting her and then dumping her a few years later for someone younger and the guy not coming off as a complete monster? Or the relationship not being a terribly exploitative/borderline abusive one? I don't know, it seemed a little creepy to me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: KoHo on June 07, 2013, 08:43:19 AM
Saw HBO's Behind The Candelabra on the weekend. It was easily the best post-Oscar season movie I've seen this year. Not even close to any others.

Michael Douglas gave an impeccable performance as Liberace. He played the character perfectly, and it was one of those acting performances you really get in awe of. Matt Damon was great too, but Douglas absolutely stole the screen. The writing was also excellent. Both main roles were fairly complex characters and Douglas and Damon pulled it off. It's truly is amazing how MATT DAMON and MICHAEL DOUGLAS can portray an on-screen relationship and make it look extremely touching and convincing. Kudos to them.

You think? I don't know. They're both talented actors, no reason to think they couldn't.

Anyways, I'm fairly conflicted about the movie. I thought it was a great piece of technical filmmaking and there are some amazing performances in the major and minor roles but, and I know that there's no requirement for a movie to be didactic in this way or anything, I thought it was a little distasteful how they presented this really awful relationship, as you say, as "touching" or in any way genuine. Could you imagine a movie about a heterosexual relationship between a wealthy and famous man in his 60's dating/sleeping with a 17 year old girl, pressuring her to get plastic surgery so that she looks more like him, talk openly about adopting her and then dumping her a few years later for someone younger and the guy not coming off as a complete monster? Or the relationship not being a terribly exploitative/borderline abusive one? I don't know, it seemed a little creepy to me.
I didn't have knowledge of the true nature of the real-life relationship until after I watched the movie so obviously none of those thoughts took away from the movie while I was watching it. Either way, it didn't bother me since the actor playing Thorson was Matt Damon and not an actual 17 year old. THAT would have been creepy.

I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on June 07, 2013, 08:58:15 AM
I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.

That's not what I'm saying though. The reason I found the movie problematic isn't whatever liberties they took from the actual events, like you I'm not really familiar with their real-life relationship but the tone of what was being depicted and what . When Liberace is pressuring Scott to get plastic surgery so that he looks more like Liberace, it's played almost for laughs when I think we can all agree that those are the actions of a profoundly disturbed individual and we never really got more of just what made the guy such a nutcase/sleazy user of people.

I mean, it's like if in What's Love Got to Do With It, the scenes of Ike Turner beating Tina were scored to Yakety Sax. Tone matters.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: KoHo on June 07, 2013, 09:21:40 AM
I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.

That's not what I'm saying though. The reason I found the movie problematic isn't whatever liberties they took from the actual events, like you I'm not really familiar with their real-life relationship but the tone of what was being depicted and what . When Liberace is pressuring Scott to get plastic surgery so that he looks more like Liberace, it's played almost for laughs when I think we can all agree that those are the actions of a profoundly disturbed individual and we never really got more of just what made the guy such a nutcase/sleazy user of people.

I mean, it's like if in What's Love Got to Do With It, the scenes of Ike Turner beating Tina were scored to Yakety Sax. Tone matters.
To be honest when Liberace took out the picture in that scene I thought he was kidding. When I realized he was completely serious about wanting Scott to look like him I was like "oh..."

I suppose Liberace was quite disturbed in real life, but Steven Soderbergh did a pretty good job of towing the fine line of not making him seem TOO creepy/disturbed. He gave the audience enough to chew on without having it really affecting the audience in a way that would take away from the movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: riff raff on June 07, 2013, 02:47:48 PM
I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.

That's not what I'm saying though. The reason I found the movie problematic isn't whatever liberties they took from the actual events, like you I'm not really familiar with their real-life relationship but the tone of what was being depicted and what . When Liberace is pressuring Scott to get plastic surgery so that he looks more like Liberace, it's played almost for laughs when I think we can all agree that those are the actions of a profoundly disturbed individual and we never really got more of just what made the guy such a nutcase/sleazy user of people.

I mean, it's like if in What's Love Got to Do With It, the scenes of Ike Turner beating Tina were scored to Yakety Sax. Tone matters.
To be honest when Liberace took out the picture in that scene I thought he was kidding. When I realized he was completely serious about wanting Scott to look like him I was like "oh..."

I suppose Liberace was quite disturbed in real life, but Steven Soderbergh did a pretty good job of towing the fine line of not making him seem TOO creepy/disturbed. He gave the audience enough to chew on without having it really affecting the audience in a way that would take away from the movie.

I felt kind of 'meh' about the movie. I found that I just didn't care about either of the main characters. The acting was certainly good (although I'd give most of my kudos to Damon as he showed more of a 'transition' over the course of the film), but they both just seemed like such users.  I guess I just didn't feel any kind of depth to the story.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on June 07, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
I saw a movie called Teh Iceman. It was a true story about a serial kille rin NJ from the 70's. I thought it was very well done
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on June 12, 2013, 10:24:10 PM
Just got back from a screening of Man of Steel. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is and it's very watchable. If you like superhero movies and/or action movies, it's worth watching. If you're a stickler for superhero canon, you might have some issues.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 12, 2013, 10:20:45 PM
Just got back from a screening of Man of Steel. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is and it's very watchable. If you like superhero movies and/or action movies, it's worth watching. If you're a stickler for superhero canon, you might have some issues.

I enjoyed it though I've always crushed on Amy Adams. Nothing to do with the movie at all but my wife knows I like her and she asked me if I though she was 'hot.' I found it rather difficult to explain but in the end I came up with that (IMO) she's not really 'hot' but more 'pretty.' At the same time, I really haven't decided if she's a wonderful actor yet or not either. - Anyway, big crush nevertheless.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on July 12, 2013, 10:29:36 PM
Just got back from a screening of Man of Steel. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is and it's very watchable. If you like superhero movies and/or action movies, it's worth watching. If you're a stickler for superhero canon, you might have some issues.

I enjoyed it though I've always crushed on Amy Adams. Nothing to do with the movie at all but my wife knows I like her and she asked me if I though she was 'hot.' I found it rather difficult to explain but in the end I came up with that (IMO) she's not really 'hot' but more 'pretty.' At the same time, I really haven't decided if she's a wonderful actor yet or not either. - Anyway, big crush nevertheless.

She was awesome in Talladega Nights.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on July 13, 2013, 08:40:12 AM
...and in The Fighter.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on July 13, 2013, 08:44:23 AM
I haven't seen Talladega Nights but yeah, I thought she was at her best in The Fighter.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on November 28, 2013, 06:04:47 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 01, 2013, 10:08:05 AM
Would you believe until this morning I had never seen 'Bullitt'? - Time for an upgraded Man Card I think.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on December 01, 2013, 03:11:43 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WIGWALS_wifey on December 01, 2013, 05:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tigger on November 28, 2013, 06:04:47 PM






Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.




This has been the only movie that I've seen so far that is worthy of IMAX 3D.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on December 01, 2013, 07:15:23 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.

Neil Degrasse Tyson had ten tweets about its implausibility :) But still enjoyed the film overall.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 02, 2013, 11:49:57 AM
There were some pretty improbable and unbelievable things in The Avengers but I still enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on December 02, 2013, 12:16:11 PM
There were some pretty improbable and unbelievable things in The Avengers but I still enjoyed it.

Well one is in a different universe than the other :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on December 02, 2013, 12:57:09 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.

Jeez it's a freaking movie, not a documentary of the moon landing.

I loved it. Unbelievable visuals and non-stop suspense. Everything a blockbuster movie should be.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on December 02, 2013, 02:05:46 PM
There were some pretty improbable and unbelievable things in The Avengers but I still enjoyed it.

Like what?  ???
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 02, 2013, 02:10:51 PM
There were some pretty improbable and unbelievable things in The Avengers but I still enjoyed it.

Like what?  ???

Going to see Natalie Portman's character wasn't the very first thing Thor did when he got back to earth?

I mean come on.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on December 02, 2013, 02:14:51 PM

Going to see Natalie Portman's character wasn't the very first thing Thor did when he got back to earth?

I mean come on.

Sorry, but that would have been far too Thoring.

<taps cigar and wiggles eyebrows>
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: RedLeaf on December 02, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.

Jeez it's a freaking movie, not a documentary of the moon landing.

I loved it. Unbelievable visuals and non-stop suspense. Everything a blockbuster movie should be.

Yep. It was good in the way, say Jaws was good. My guess is it take home the Oscar for best picture.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 04, 2013, 05:19:01 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.

I bought in. Sure, if you want to question 'reality' then lots of movies can leave you feeling left out, take the first of the new Star Trek movies, good grief, black holes, timelines and red matter, oh my!

Did you ever see Sunshine by Danny Boyle? They even had physicist Brian Cox on board to help deal with 'believability' in that film, he said this...

"Sunshine is not a documentary. It's trying to just, in an hour and forty minutes, get across a feeling of what it's like – not only to be a scientist, because obviously there's much more in it than that. So, I found it interesting to watch the kind of people that get upset because the gravity is wrong."

 :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on December 04, 2013, 07:06:45 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.

I bought in. Sure, if you want to question 'reality' then lots of movies can leave you feeling left out, take the first of the new Star Trek movies, good grief, black holes, timelines and red matter, oh my!

Did you ever see Sunshine by Danny Boyle? They even had physicist Brian Cox on board to help deal with 'believability' in that film, he said this...

"Sunshine is not a documentary. It's trying to just, in an hour and forty minutes, get across a feeling of what it's like – not only to be a scientist, because obviously there's much more in it than that. So, I found it interesting to watch the kind of people that get upset because the gravity is wrong."

 :)

Hey, don't knock Star Trek! It could so happen! All of it!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on December 04, 2013, 10:14:45 PM
Sunshine might be one of the best movies of the last couple of years that no one has seen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on December 04, 2013, 10:17:35 PM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Mixed feelings on it.

The cinematography was incredible. Revolutionary IMO.

The story? One of the most improbable and unbelievable things I've ever seen. There was one thing after another to the point that, by the end, I was laughing out loud in the theatre.

The Estonian colleague I saw it with was heard saying "That's not possible" out loud more than a few times.

Jeez it's a freaking movie, not a documentary of the moon landing.

I loved it. Unbelievable visuals and non-stop suspense. Everything a blockbuster movie should be.

Good for you. I mean I went with it to a point but there was moment after moment after moment where the director/writer tried to manufacture suspense when it wasn't really necessary.

Case in point for me was the final moment in the Lake. I mean really? Tell me that was necessary after all the suspense/danger that came before.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 15, 2014, 11:01:52 PM

Oscar nominations are announced tomorrow. Anyone have any picks? Of the favourites I'd probably rank the ones I've seen like:

1. American Hustle
2. Her
3. Wolf of Wall Street
4. Inside Llewyn Davis
5. Nebraska

I haven't seen 12 years a slave, Gravity or Blue Jasmine yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 15, 2014, 11:41:53 PM
Oscar nominations are announced tomorrow. Anyone have any picks? Of the favourites I'd probably rank the ones I've seen like:

1. American Hustle
2. Her
3. Wolf of Wall Street
4. Inside Llewyn Davis
5. Nebraska

I haven't seen 12 years a slave, Gravity or Blue Jasmine yet.

As a parent of young kids, having seen seen all of Frozen, Thor, and Free Birds this past year, I say best picture goes to Thor.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 16, 2014, 07:41:47 AM
As a parent of young kids, having seen seen all of Frozen, Thor, and Free Birds this past year, I say best picture goes to Thor.

In fairness, none of the movies I mentioned have people being smashed by a hammer.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 16, 2014, 08:26:49 AM
As a parent of young kids, having seen seen all of Frozen, Thor, and Free Birds this past year, I say best picture goes to Thor.

In fairness, none of the movies I mentioned have people being smashed by a hammer.

I'm telling you, after the Academy Awards, flying hammers are going to become commonplace in movies and Hollywood code for "give me my Oscar, please".
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 16, 2014, 09:03:34 AM
I'm telling you, after the Academy Awards, flying hammers are going to become commonplace in movies and Hollywood code for "give me my Oscar, please".

Beta Ray Bill starring Meryl Streep is already slated for a Spring '16 release.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 16, 2014, 09:20:09 AM
All 3 Transformers movies are Oscar nominated and Pacific Rim isn't?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 16, 2014, 09:23:10 AM
All 3 Transformers movies are Oscar nominated and Pacific Rim isn't?

For effects you mean? I don't know. I didn't see all of the nominated movies but I wasn't blown away by how Pacific Rim looked.

Edit: Here's (http://oscar.go.com/nominees) the full list if anyone's interested. No love for Llewyn Davis, unfortunately. On the bright side Steve Coogan gets an Oscar nod.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 16, 2014, 10:20:21 AM
For effects you mean? I don't know. I didn't see all of the nominated movies but I wasn't blown away by how Pacific Rim looked.

Yeah, for effects, although I'm pretty sure one or two of the Transformers movies got sound nomination as well. I might be biased, but I was absolutely blown away by the VFX in Pacific Rim. I came into it with incredibly high expectations and while the story was a bit of a let down it made up for it in giant robots fighting in incredible settings.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on January 16, 2014, 10:23:51 AM
Yeah, for effects, although I'm pretty sure one or two of the Transformers movies got sound nomination as well. I might be biased, but I was absolutely blown away by the VFX in Pacific Rim. I came into it with incredibly high expectations and while the story was a bit of a let down it made up for it in giant robots fighting in incredible settings.

I'm not sure how they nominated Iron Man 3 ahead of it, but, it's a moot point, any way. Gravity is going to win that one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 16, 2014, 11:12:32 AM
I'm not sure how they nominated Iron Man 3 ahead of it, but, it's a moot point, any way. Gravity is going to win that one.

Yeah, Gravity's a lock.

I don't have a problem with the Iron Man 3 nomination. The mansion, airplane, and Iron Men scenes were all pretty impressive visually. But I feel like Star Trek, Hobbit, and Lone Ranger all got nominated just because of their final act scenes. The enterprise going down, Smaug, and while I didn't see LR I've heard there's a pretty good train sequence in it towards the end. Whereas Pacific Rim from start to finish was a special effects bonanza.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on January 16, 2014, 12:58:52 PM
Not happy about All is Lost being snubbed. Redford put on a great performance.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on January 16, 2014, 01:02:42 PM
I'm so behind in movies. I haven't even seen Frozen yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Chev-boyar-sky on January 16, 2014, 02:35:42 PM
I'm so behind in movies. I haven't even seen Frozen yet.

My wife and kids saw it without me  :'(
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on January 16, 2014, 02:39:38 PM
I think the last movie I saw in theatres was when I took my nephew to see TMNT.

2007?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 16, 2014, 03:28:20 PM
Not happy about All is Lost being snubbed. Redford put on a great performance.

Best Actor was a tough category to crack. No Hanks or Phoenix either. I hope Leo gets his first Oscar here. He's long overdue.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: iwas11in67 on January 16, 2014, 04:47:41 PM
I went into Frozen expecting Ice Age but it's Little Mermaid on ice, a musical.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on January 17, 2014, 08:31:24 AM
Frozen was classic Disney. They've been trending that way for a while with their kids movies. I think it's genius. The kids love them!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Wendel's Fist on January 19, 2014, 02:50:52 AM
Caught 'Gravity', pretty good all in all, and I don't even really like the Sandra that much.

Finally got to see it this week and if anyone is thinking of waiting for it to come out on Blu-ray or downloading it, do yourself a favour and see it in Imax 3d.

Fantastic movie. I wonder if all the aficionados about this movie would be as willing to investigate everything about the mafia, in order to make sure that a show like the Sopranos or a movie like the Godfather, were as authentic as could be.

An Estonian laugh was heard.............once.  :)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on January 19, 2014, 06:11:12 PM
Frozen was classic Disney. They've been trending that way for a while with their kids movies. I think it's genius. The kids love them!

The classic-iest of Disney is a short that they released last year that won the Animated short Oscar last year...Paperman.  If you haven't seen it, it is absolutely spectacular in capturing the emotion that Disney films used to be so good at.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QAI4B_2Mfc[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on January 21, 2014, 07:22:45 AM
I've watched Gravity, Captain Phillips, and Wolf of Wall Street since the nominations were announced. I'm going to watch American Hustle next unless someone suggests watching one of the other nominations first?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on January 21, 2014, 11:46:31 AM
I didn't enjoy American Hustle but it looks by the reviews that I'm in the minority on that one.

I found it tried to hard to be witty and outlandish.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on January 21, 2014, 12:25:45 PM
Frozen was classic Disney. They've been trending that way for a while with their kids movies. I think it's genius. The kids love them!

The classic-iest of Disney is a short that they released last year that won the Animated short Oscar last year...Paperman.  If you haven't seen it, it is absolutely spectacular in capturing the emotion that Disney films used to be so good at.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QAI4B_2Mfc[/youtube]

More feeling in those 45ish seconds than some films I think.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 21, 2014, 12:47:54 PM
More feeling in those 45ish seconds than some films I think.

I'm not sure why, but that clip goes from being 6:24 long to :58 when you click it. This is the full version of the short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxJkKiHXbw
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Arn on January 21, 2014, 05:01:36 PM
The only oscar nominees I've yet to see are Nebraska and Philomena. 12 Years a Slave stands head and shoulders above the rest of them I think.

After that I'd go Dallas Buyers Club and Wolf of Wall Street in 2nd and 3rd.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on January 24, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
I didn't enjoy American Hustle but it looks by the reviews that I'm in the minority on that one.

I found it tried to hard to be witty and outlandish.

Yeah I have no idea how that got nominated for an Oscar. Sub-par at best
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: iwas11in67 on January 24, 2014, 06:13:34 PM
I didn't enjoy American Hustle but it looks by the reviews that I'm in the minority on that one.

I found it tried to hard to be witty and outlandish.

Yeah I have no idea how that got nominated for an Oscar. Sub-par at best

I feel the same way about Gravity.
Saving Mr Banks was a much better movie to me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on January 24, 2014, 06:34:16 PM
I didn't enjoy American Hustle but it looks by the reviews that I'm in the minority on that one.

I found it tried to hard to be witty and outlandish.

Yeah I have no idea how that got nominated for an Oscar. Sub-par at best

I feel the same way about Gravity.
Saving Mr Banks was a much better movie to me.

Gravity had pretty good eye candy at least - did you see it in Imax?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: iwas11in67 on January 24, 2014, 07:01:48 PM
I didn't enjoy American Hustle but it looks by the reviews that I'm in the minority on that one.

I found it tried to hard to be witty and outlandish.

Yeah I have no idea how that got nominated for an Oscar. Sub-par at best

I feel the same way about Gravity.
Saving Mr Banks was a much better movie to me.

Gravity had pretty good eye candy at least - did you see it in Imax?

No just in old fashioned regular 2D.
American Hustle has eye candy as well.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 24, 2014, 07:07:25 PM

I think y'all are crazy re: American Hustle. The Louis CK bits alone make it the best movie of the year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on January 25, 2014, 03:13:39 PM

I think y'all are crazy re: American Hustle. The Louis CK bits alone make it the best movie of the year.

Louis CK was absolutely hillarious..I'll give you that. I'd say for the first 3/4's of the movie I was all in. The last half hour ruined it though.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on January 25, 2014, 04:50:02 PM
I thought American Hustle was contrived and boring. I also didn't care much about the characters except for Amy Adams, for obvious reasons.

I thought it was a bad attempt at making a Goodfellas type film.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on February 02, 2014, 02:06:51 PM
Phillip Seymour Hoffman was found dead in his apartment today.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Sarge on February 02, 2014, 02:12:54 PM
Probably the better thread to post this in. It's always something? to speak  of someone's death in the Useless Thread.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Potvin29 on February 02, 2014, 02:21:06 PM
Ah! Hadn't even checked that thread.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Dappleganger on February 02, 2014, 02:38:49 PM
Phillip Seymour Hoffman was found dead in his apartment today.

That sucks. He was a great actor.

He first caught my eye in "Happiness". Anyone who likes dark comedies should definitely check out that flick.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: mc on February 02, 2014, 08:22:00 PM
So sad...loved him as an actor. Too soon to go.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Corvette14 on February 10, 2014, 08:47:12 PM
We saw the Wolf of Wall Street when it came out and it was okay but definitely rated r for good reason
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: mc on February 10, 2014, 08:57:21 PM
Took the boys out to see The Lego Movie. Wanted to see the 4pm show. Huge line up. 4.40pm? Massive lineup! Finally had to get tix for the 3D version at 5.10, got in the lineup early and managed to get good seats.

Boys loved it. I hated it. Too long.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: A Weekend at Bernier's on February 12, 2014, 10:01:40 AM
We saw the Wolf of Wall Street when it came out and it was okay but definitely rated r for good reason

I don't consider myself a prude, or maybe I'm just showing my age, but I found 90% of that movie gratuitous and unnecessary.  Terribly long and sort of pointless, really.  In lieu of being able to capture the magic of Goodfellas, Scorsese seemed to default to the shock factor on this one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 12, 2014, 10:23:57 AM
In lieu of being able to capture the magic of Goodfellas, Scorsese seemed to default to the shock factor on this one.

I don't think the intention there is to shock, exactly. I think that if you're looking for a point to the movie I'd say that it's not a coincidence at all that the first movie that Scorsese, a filmmaker who seems as rooted and connected to New York as any filmmaker is to any city, chose to make after the financial collapse is a detailed litany of the kinds of people who perpetrate fraud in the financial markets and the rewards that are there for them if they do. It's certainly a frank depiction of those things but, I'd say, frankness is probably needed to drive the point home of the kinds of people they are and the reasons they do what they do and Scorsese has never been the kind of guy who shied away from depicting things as they are.

I think that's why the controversy that surrounded the movie as to whether or not it was glamorizing guys like Belfort was so telling. Personally, I thought that if someone left that movie thinking that Belfort and his gang were cool or awesome or whatever then that person is probably a sociopath. However the controversy arose because those people exist, they often have prominent roles within the financial industry and the public at large doesn't seem to learn anything from the consequences of their actions.

I think it's probably my favourite Scorsese movie since Goodfellas.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on February 12, 2014, 10:52:41 AM
In lieu of being able to capture the magic of Goodfellas, Scorsese seemed to default to the shock factor on this one.

I don't think the intention there is to shock, exactly. I think that if you're looking for a point to the movie I'd say that it's not a coincidence at all that the first movie that Scorsese, a filmmaker who seems as rooted and connected to New York as any filmmaker is to any city, chose to make after the financial collapse is a detailed litany of the kinds of people who perpetrate fraud in the financial markets and the rewards that are there for them if they do. It's certainly a frank depiction of those things but, I'd say, frankness is probably needed to drive the point home of the kinds of people they are and the reasons they do what they do and Scorsese has never been the kind of guy who shied away from depicting things as they are.

I think that's why the controversy that surrounded the movie as to whether or not it was glamorizing guys like Belfort was so telling. Personally, I thought that if someone left that movie thinking that Belfort and his gang were cool or awesome or whatever then that person is probably a sociopath. However the controversy arose because those people exist, they often have prominent roles within the financial industry and the public at large doesn't seem to learn anything from the consequences of their actions.

I think it's probably my favourite Scorsese movie since Goodfellas.

I haven't watched the movie yet but don't most movies of this type 'glorify' the lifestyle?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: A Weekend at Bernier's on February 12, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
In lieu of being able to capture the magic of Goodfellas, Scorsese seemed to default to the shock factor on this one.

I don't think the intention there is to shock, exactly. I think that if you're looking for a point to the movie I'd say that it's not a coincidence at all that the first movie that Scorsese, a filmmaker who seems as rooted and connected to New York as any filmmaker is to any city, chose to make after the financial collapse is a detailed litany of the kinds of people who perpetrate fraud in the financial markets and the rewards that are there for them if they do. It's certainly a frank depiction of those things but, I'd say, frankness is probably needed to drive the point home of the kinds of people they are and the reasons they do what they do and Scorsese has never been the kind of guy who shied away from depicting things as they are.

I think that's why the controversy that surrounded the movie as to whether or not it was glamorizing guys like Belfort was so telling. Personally, I thought that if someone left that movie thinking that Belfort and his gang were cool or awesome or whatever then that person is probably a sociopath. However the controversy arose because those people exist, they often have prominent roles within the financial industry and the public at large doesn't seem to learn anything from the consequences of their actions.

I think it's probably my favourite Scorsese movie since Goodfellas.

Maybe I was expecting more, given the hype, hence my disappointment.  But I don't think anything about this movie was frank, or real.  Was it hoping to represent or depict the excesses of that industry?  Maybe, I just thought it wasn't necessary.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 12, 2014, 12:03:53 PM
I haven't watched the movie yet but don't most movies of this type 'glorify' the lifestyle?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "this type".
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 12, 2014, 12:07:10 PM
Maybe I was expecting more, given the hype, hence my disappointment.  But I don't think anything about this movie was frank, or real.

Then I'm a little confused. Do you not think that what was depicted happened? Or do you not think they depicted the realities of it?

Was it hoping to represent or depict the excesses of that industry?  Maybe, I just thought it wasn't necessary.

You thought the movie itself wasn't necessary? Or you thought that those excesses weren't relevant to the story?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: A Weekend at Bernier's on February 12, 2014, 01:38:16 PM
Maybe I was expecting more, given the hype, hence my disappointment.  But I don't think anything about this movie was frank, or real.

Then I'm a little confused. Do you not think that what was depicted happened? Or do you not think they depicted the realities of it?

Was it hoping to represent or depict the excesses of that industry?  Maybe, I just thought it wasn't necessary.

You thought the movie itself wasn't necessary? Or you thought that those excesses weren't relevant to the story?

Bingo, sort of.  I haven't read the book, nor am I particularly interested in doing so, and I'm declaring that bias.  But it seems to me that the filmmakers made a conscious attempt to abandon any nuance, any ambiguity, and subtlety for hit-you-over-the-head-until-you-bleed obviousness. 

Case in point (minor Spoiler Alter): the scene where Jordan meets his wife for the first time, at his house party.  Jordan is talking to this beautiful blond and Jonah Hill, completely inebriated, makes quite a scene with his, um, appreciation for her beauty.  Now, what purpose did it serve to show his (I assume) prosthetic, ah, 'device' dangle for all to see?  Same argument for the language, it was just too much.

Now, if the point of the whole thing was to show how over-the-top and off-the-wall life on Wall Street can be then, well, great.  Mission accomplished.  I'm not sure we needed more of the knowledge, however, given Wall Street (redux), Boiler Room, etc.  I think we have a pretty good handle on how wild and crazy those guys can be. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 12, 2014, 02:15:18 PM
Case in point (minor Spoiler Alter): the scene where Jordan meets his wife for the first time, at his house party.  Jordan is talking to this beautiful blond and Jonah Hill, completely inebriated, makes quite a scene with his, um, appreciation for her beauty.  Now, what purpose did it serve to show his (I assume) prosthetic, ah, 'device' dangle for all to see?  Same argument for the language, it was just too much.

Well, I can't speak to you but after that scene I certainly didn't look at Jonah Hill's character the same. I certainly took away a different sense of how these guys, who were clearly different than the fictionalized and sanitized guys in Boiler Room and Wall Street, acted. Likewise with the "language"(which I assume means the cursing). If that's how these guys actually talked what purpose does it serve to sanitize it for consumption?

I mean, unless you're talking about shooting the same scenes but showing less or getting the point across without being as graphic but, honestly, if that's the kind of thing you're looking for I would genuinely question at this point why you'd go into a Scorsese movie expecting anything other than stark realism(unless, I mean, you think his best film is Hugo). His films have always been graphic and never been designed to not offend sensibilities.

I'm not sure we needed more of the knowledge, however, given Wall Street (redux), Boiler Room, etc.  I think we have a pretty good handle on how wild and crazy those guys can be.

Man, if you thought that those movies depicted the same level of behaviour as this movie we were watching some very different cuts.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: brianmac on March 17, 2014, 11:18:53 AM
I'll have to agree with Nik. I found it almost painful to watch at times, and sure, it was very long and excessive, but I also think that all this is part of how Scorsese manages to portrait 'these people'. Most of it seems to be based on real events anyhow, the boat scene e.g. (which I thought was completely over the top while watching). Their lifestyle was (is) just so surreal, it sure makes it hard to watch, but I think that's part of the magic of the movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on March 18, 2014, 09:21:50 AM
I saw 2 movies over weekend. The first was Non Stop with Liam Niesson...Entertainning...  but not a great movie. Almost like Taken in the air.. Real dumb action scenes at times...Then Sunday I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel..Loved it. From Wes Anderson.. Loved  the story the acting and its comedy...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: A Weekend at Bernier's on March 18, 2014, 10:16:14 AM
Liam Neeson has sort of become the new action hero, hasn't he?  Sort of an anti-hero, at least if we use the Rock / Stallone / Vin Diesel archetype.

Recently I PVR'd Shutter Island and found the time to watch it on the weekend.  I didn't like it.  So I find myself completely torn when it comes to Scorcese's work.  I'll leave aside the obvious greatness: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, The Last Waltz (which, for me, was amazing, though The Band is one of my all-time favorites).  Some of his films have been clunkers or, at least, not as good as I thought they should have been.  I'd include Wolf of Wall Street, Gangs of New York, and Cape Fear in this group.

I don't know, I guess that, for me, his style works on some things and doesn't on others.  I do have to say, though, that I love Boardwalk Empire, which he has a pretty big hand in creating.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 18, 2014, 10:40:50 AM
Recently I PVR'd Shutter Island and found the time to watch it on the weekend.  I didn't like it.  So I find myself completely torn when it comes to Scorcese's work.  I'll leave aside the obvious greatness: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, The Last Waltz (which, for me, was amazing, though The Band is one of my all-time favorites).

Leaving aside the issue of the specifics of which ones you think are good and which you think aren't, why would that leave you torn on him? Are there any filmmakers who are batting 1.000? I'd think the fact that he made, conservatively, two or three of the best American films ever made would kind of answer that question for history's sake.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on March 18, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
Yea, Taxi, Bull, Goodfellas, Waltz, Casino, Mean Streets, King, have all cemented Scorcesse as one of the all-time greats. I haven't even seen other highly acclaimed films such as "Age of Innocence" or "The Aviator."

It's funny to me that he finally won for "The Departed" which, imo, was a very average (not to mention totally flawed) movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 18, 2014, 11:39:05 AM
Yea, Taxi, Bull, Goodfellas, Waltz, Casino, Mean Streets, King, have all cemented Scorcesse as one of the all-time greats. I haven't even seen other highly acclaimed films such as "Age of Innocence" or "The Aviator."

It's funny to me that he finally won for "The Departed" which, imo, was a very average (not to mention totally flawed) movie.

I agree(I think the Departed was a very good movie but not a classic or anything) but I think that speaks more to the year than it being a case of it being a case of it being a career achievement award. Unless you wanted to make a case for Paul Greengrass directing United 93 I don't know what was legitimately better.

Anyways, I think it's forgotten that as good as some of the ones you mention are(although I'd put Casino behind Wolf of Wall Street and some others) Scorsese has always made the odd clunker along with the greats. New York, New York and The Age of Innocence and so on.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: A Weekend at Bernier's on March 18, 2014, 12:17:57 PM
Are there any filmmakers who are batting 1.000?

I'd have to honestly say Christopher Nolan comes pretty darn close.

But, no, obviously not every project will be equally brilliant.  I would say, however, that you're exaggerating when you say he's made 2 or 3 of the greatest American films ever.  That's a pretty heavy statement to make, though I understand why you said it.  ;)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 18, 2014, 12:23:41 PM
I'd have to honestly say Christopher Nolan comes pretty darn close.

You definitely liked Inception, the third Batman movie and Insomnia more than I did then.

But, no, obviously not every project will be equally brilliant.  I would say, however, that you're exaggerating when you say he's made 2 or 3 of the greatest American films ever.

Really? You don't think Goodfellas and Raging Bull just about make that statement as uncontroversial as possible?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on March 18, 2014, 04:28:10 PM
I think it's all based on opinion no?

I mean, there's quite a few films that can push them down. The Godfather, Citizen Kane, The Graduate, Schindler's List, etc;
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on March 18, 2014, 04:34:45 PM
I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: A Weekend at Bernier's on March 18, 2014, 04:44:01 PM
I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

Thanks for posting.

Nik, all due respect, but I can't believe you had included Goodfellas as part of the top 2-3.  Goodfellas > Godfather???
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 18, 2014, 04:54:37 PM
Nik, all due respect, but I can't believe you had included Goodfellas as part of the top 2-3.  Goodfellas > Godfather???

You're really misreading what Nik said.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 18, 2014, 04:58:43 PM
I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

That list is a pretty good argument for Scorsese though. Throw in Taxi Driver at #52 and he's got three films on the list, putting him in the company of(at a glance) only Spielberg, Coppola and Hitchcock.

edit: It's also a list that uses a pretty loose definition of an American film. I guess it means "financed by Hollywood" on some level but that's a pretty shallow concept. Bridge on the River Kwai was made by Brits, starred Brits, is about British troops, was filmed in Sri Lanka...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 18, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
Nik, all due respect, but I can't believe you had included Goodfellas as part of the top 2-3.  Goodfellas > Godfather???

I mean, I don't even know if I'd say that The Godfather is my favourite Godfather movie but "two or three of the best American films ever made" isn't the same thing as saying "2 of the top 3".
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on March 19, 2014, 12:42:28 PM
I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

That list is a pretty good argument for Scorsese though. Throw in Taxi Driver at #52 and he's got three films on the list, putting him in the company of(at a glance) only Spielberg, Coppola and Hitchcock.



I'm not denying that Scorsese has made some fine films. Nor am I disagreeing that he's one of the best American film directors ever.

I'm just pointing out that opinions will vary.

I mean, the fact that you placed Raging Bull and Goodfellas as cementing him in that spot despite some of his other films coming in between those two on another 'American Film' chart goes to show that opinions are like.....you know the rest.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 19, 2014, 03:11:48 PM
I'm not denying that Scorsese has made some fine films. Nor am I disagreeing that he's one of the best American film directors ever.

I'm just pointing out that opinions will vary.

No, I got that. It's just a little odd to do so by seeing my opinion that Scorsese had made two or three of the greatest American films ever made and, as a counterpoint, replying with a list that claims that Scorsese made three of the greatest American films ever made.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on March 19, 2014, 04:00:12 PM
I'm not denying that Scorsese has made some fine films. Nor am I disagreeing that he's one of the best American film directors ever.

I'm just pointing out that opinions will vary.

No, I got that. It's just a little odd to do so by seeing my opinion that Scorsese had made two or three of the greatest American films ever made and, as a counterpoint, replying with a list that claims that Scorsese made three of the greatest American films ever made.

But by that list it's the 92nd best movie. That's like saying he was the 92nd best NHL player ever..which is nice and all but doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you..Just stating that many people have differing opinions of who is great, who isn't...It comes down to taste in the end. I'm not a huge Rollingstones fan. I wouldn't put them in the top 5 for rock acts ever but a good number of people would.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 19, 2014, 04:19:49 PM
But by that list it's the 92nd best movie. That's like saying he was the 92nd best NHL player ever..which is nice and all but doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

Yeah, the 92nd greatest of all time. Of the thousands and thousands of movies that have been made. I think that actually kind of means a lot, even if I think that's too low and that the AFI by it's definition isn't an opinion but rather a compendium of opinions which, by its concept, is going to weight their list towards the broad.

And, for what it's worth, when the Hockey News made their list of the 100 greatest hockey players of all time Darryl Sittler came in at #93. So, I don't know, I think Darryl Sittler is a pretty meaningful player. Pretty good benchmark of quality. If the low end of opinion of Goodfellas is that it's the Darryl Sittler of movies...again, I feel like that proves the point rather than disputing it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on March 19, 2014, 04:25:38 PM
And, for what it's worth, when the Hockey News made their list of the 100 greatest hockey movies of all time Darryl Sittler came in at #93.

Man, I loved Darryl Sittler: The Movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 19, 2014, 04:31:08 PM
And, for what it's worth, when the Hockey News made their list of the 100 greatest hockey movies of all time Darryl Sittler came in at #93.

Man, I loved Darryl Sittler: The Movie.

I feel like you and I are going to develop a really tight editor-writer relationship where I playfully call you by your last name.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on March 19, 2014, 04:53:46 PM
And, for what it's worth, when the Hockey News made their list of the 100 greatest hockey movies of all time Darryl Sittler came in at #93.

Man, I loved Darryl Sittler: The Movie.

I feel like you and I are going to develop a really tight editor-writer relationship where I playfully call you by your last name.

Clearly the next step will be to collaborate on writing and production of the Antropov movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Dappleganger on March 19, 2014, 05:44:42 PM
Let's end the debate here. James Cameron is the best director ever. His movies have the highest average gross revenue. Can't argue with the facts.

Scorsese's best worldwide gross is 'The Departed' with $289,847,354. Puh-Leese!
    
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 19, 2014, 06:16:28 PM
Clearly the next step will be to collaborate on writing and production of the Antropov movie.

One word for you: Musical.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on March 19, 2014, 06:38:14 PM
Win Butler in the lead role?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 19, 2014, 07:24:33 PM
Win Butler in the lead role?

Effin' brilliant. We don't even have to change the words to My Body is a Cage.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on March 20, 2014, 09:25:14 PM
Clearly the next step will be to collaborate on writing and production of the Antropov movie.

One word for you: Musical.

Holy crap, how is it possible that nobody has already done this?!?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on April 28, 2014, 03:27:50 PM
First there was "Miracle on Ice", now there is "Red Army", "the story of the world's most dominant team" -- the Soviet (Central) Red Army.

Produced by Greg Polsky (an American of Russian descent), with executive producers Jerry Weintraub and Werner Herzog, it tells the inside story in documentary style of the Soviet Red Army team of the era, as told by Viatcheslav Fetisov and others, their training methods, isolation from their families, totalitarianism of coach Tikhonov, life inside the "Iron Curtain", etc. 

Read all about it here: http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/hollywood-tackles-the-amazing-story-of-the-soviet-red-army/

Movie trailer:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZxiPwGjqAE[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on May 19, 2014, 08:52:43 PM
Birdemic 2 is out... for some reason 'I Ran ( so far away )' is stuck in my head...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 08, 2014, 01:29:27 AM
Caught a few good ones recently. Under The Skin with Scarlet Johansson. Low exposition sci fi art film that really grabbed me. Haven't read the book but locked up a copy for later.

What is.... Puscifer. If you're a fan, check it out, if not, definitely check it out.

Harry Dean Stanton, Partly Fiction. An interesting look at the man, his life in cinema and glimpses of what he appreciates and considers. Compelling to me in many ways.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on August 03, 2014, 10:14:34 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy made me smile quite a bit.  Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on August 03, 2014, 10:17:17 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy made me smile quite a bit.  Thoroughly enjoyed it.

I don't think I can recall a movie I enjoyed so much from start to finish.  Such a great balance of humour and action, and never a dull moment.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: LittleHockeyFan on August 04, 2014, 06:38:08 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy made me smile quite a bit.  Thoroughly enjoyed it.

I wanna see this one....

because. raccoon.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 05, 2014, 01:17:14 AM
GotG was great, Marvel really upped their game with this one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 26, 2014, 08:29:56 PM
Interstellar was sensational.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on November 27, 2014, 12:25:56 PM
Jurassic World trailer is up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4

And from what I've read there will be a star wars 7 teaser this weekend, but only in select theatres.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on November 27, 2014, 12:36:59 PM
The dialogue is painful in that trailer.  That and it looks like they didn't give up entirely in the militarized mutant dinosaurs angle. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 27, 2014, 12:59:37 PM
And from what I've read there will be a star wars 7 teaser this weekend, but only in select theatres.

It'll be up on iTunes, too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 27, 2014, 01:15:54 PM
The dialogue is painful in that trailer.  That and it looks like they didn't give up entirely in the militarized mutant dinosaurs angle. 

I was never the biggest JP fan, but yeah that trailer really didn't do anything for me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on November 27, 2014, 02:40:26 PM
And from what I've read there will be a star wars 7 teaser this weekend, but only in select theatres.

It'll be up on iTunes, too.

That's cool. I've been ignoring most of what's been going on, but I'm not going to lie, I am excited for this movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 27, 2014, 02:41:58 PM
That's cool. I've been ignoring most of what's been going on, but I'm not going to lie, I am excited for this movie.

I've only really checked out some of the official leaked stuff, and it looks pretty decent. I'm cautiously optimistic about it - especially since Lucas really isn't involved. The best Star Wars movies were those where he was kept at arm's length.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on November 27, 2014, 04:30:57 PM
It's fake but this was pretty well done:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwVRYEQG_I[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 28, 2014, 10:50:13 AM
Here's a link to the real teaser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erLk59H86ww

Not much given away, obviously. Seems like it has the right feel to it, even with the obvious JJ Abrams look and such.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 28, 2014, 10:55:59 AM
Can't believe people got up at 9am and bought tickets for a movie just to see that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on November 28, 2014, 12:20:08 PM
Well I'm excited.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on November 28, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
That's cool. I've been ignoring most of what's been going on, but I'm not going to lie, I am excited for this movie.

I've only really checked out some of the official leaked stuff, and it looks pretty decent. I'm cautiously optimistic about it - especially since Lucas really isn't involved. The best Star Wars movies were those where he was kept at arm's length.

I'm sorry I don't know the extent to which he was involved in all the films... but which ones are you referring to and why?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 28, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
I'm sorry I don't know the extent to which he was involved in all the films... but which ones are you referring to and why?

Of the original trilogy, Lucas only wrote and directed the first movie. He only has a "story by" credit on Empire and a co-Screenplay by credit on Jedi. He wrote and directed the second trilogy.

So I take it to mean that means Busta rates Return of the Jedi over A New Hope which I think is nuts.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Deebo on November 28, 2014, 03:56:18 PM
I've only ever seen "Attack of the Clones".
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 28, 2014, 04:47:22 PM
So I take it to mean that means Busta rates Return of the Jedi over A New Hope which I think is nuts.

Empire above all. Jedi's probably on par with A New Hope for me. It's the only Star Wars that Lucas directed that doesn't, you know, suck.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Kessel Run on November 28, 2014, 04:56:30 PM
So I take it to mean that means Busta rates Return of the Jedi over A New Hope which I think is nuts.

Empire above all. Jedi's probably on par with A New Hope for me. It's the only Star Wars that Lucas directed that doesn't, you know, suck.

It's because he wasn't as established as much as he was later on. It was more of a collaboration than the prequels, and I mean, who was going to question George Lucas then?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 28, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
So I take it to mean that means Busta rates Return of the Jedi over A New Hope which I think is nuts.

Empire above all. Jedi's probably on par with A New Hope for me. It's the only Star Wars that Lucas directed that doesn't, you know, suck.

I go back and forth on the first two. I think Empire's probably front to back the strongest of them but I really like how Gilbert Taylor got A New Hope to look and I sometimes think that Empire's only as good as it is because it didn't have to spend the time the first one did world-building which was clunky dramatically but really the meat and potatoes of the whole enterprise.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Deebo on November 28, 2014, 05:12:43 PM
[youtube]8iO5-ic0Ug4[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 28, 2014, 07:49:02 PM
That shot of the Falcon pulled
Me right in.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Kessel Run on November 28, 2014, 11:37:25 PM
That shot of the Falcon pulled
Me right in.

I was the other way around. CGI Falcon seems weird...
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 29, 2014, 12:10:33 AM

That shot of the Falcon pulled
Me right in.

I was the other way around. CGI Falcon seems weird...

Good news is they completely rebuilt it from scratch so there is a physical version for the non flying shots and according to Kev Smith it is glorious.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on November 29, 2014, 12:33:25 AM
I'm pretty sure George had the only executive producer credit on Empire and some pretty solid uncredited work in editing and directing (Marcia Lucas had some hefty influence, overall, on 4, 5 and 6) Empire is probably the best but Hope is pretty significant too.

George choosing to strangle the prequels with melodrama, crap writing ( characters I don't care about ) and wooden actors ( in spite of sweet, sweet eye candy ) leaves me hoping JJ's fidgeting camera work will save the day, well that and a cool new lightsaber.

It must have been all those sweet, sweet stormtroopers.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Highlander on November 30, 2014, 01:29:44 PM
An aside here, just watched a very funny movie called; "The Guru", funny and a heartwarmer as well. Doesnt hurt that Heather Graham is in it either.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on November 30, 2014, 04:22:39 PM
This just in, the "George Lucas Special Edition" Star Wars trailer:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v93Jh6JNBng[/youtube]

More is more.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on November 30, 2014, 05:18:20 PM
This just in, the "George Lucas Special Edition" Star Wars trailer:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v93Jh6JNBng[/youtube]

More is more.

What no Jar Jar?

Has anyone ever watched the Star Wars UNCUT movies on YouTube?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on November 30, 2014, 06:13:16 PM
Empire Strikes Back UNCUT • Official (http://youtu.be/GjsFAZWnA00)

Watch the full version of The Empire Strikes Back Uncut, a fan-made, shot-for-shot recreation of the Star Wars classic!

With more than 480 fan-made segments culled from over 1,500 submissions, The Empire Strikes Back Uncut (also known as ESB Uncut) features a stunning mash-up of styles and filmmaking techniques, including live action, animation, and stop-motion. The project launched in 2013, with fans claiming 15-second scenes to reimagine as they saw fit – resulting in sequences created with everything from action figures to cardboard props to stunning visual effects. Helmed by Casey Pugh, who oversaw 2010’s Emmy-winning Star Wars Uncut, the new film has a wonderful homemade charm, stands as an affectionate tribute to The Empire Strikes Back, and is a testament to the talent, imagination, and dedication of Star Wars fans.

To learn more about Star Wars Uncut and The Empire Strikes Back Uncut, please visit StarWarsUncut.com.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Madferret on November 30, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
I went into it with a "I'll give this 5 minutes" mindset and ended up being blown away and watching the whole thing. Check ca
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: riff raff on December 01, 2014, 10:02:10 PM
Anyone see Birdman?

I was looking forward to it, but it still hasn't come to T Bay.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 06, 2014, 02:12:24 PM
Mr. Turner was fantastic, Timothy Spall at his best.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on January 10, 2015, 07:10:01 PM
I just watched the documentary 'Jodorowsky's Dune' - very good watch - if you haven't seen it, then see it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935156/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 10, 2015, 10:50:42 PM
I really enjoyed the Judge with RDJ and Robert Duvall. It was not without cliche, but I thought overall the performances where really strong.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on January 11, 2015, 10:48:59 AM
Watched the Imitation Game a couple of days ago. Excellent film, I'd recommend almost anyone to go see it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Kessel Run on January 11, 2015, 11:53:38 AM
Watched the Imitation Game a couple of days ago. Excellent film, I'd recommend almost anyone to go see it.

I saw this as well and loved it as well.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 11, 2015, 08:56:26 PM

I got to see Selma today. It's Oscar-y but of the Oscar contenders it's probably my favourite so far.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on January 18, 2015, 12:29:28 PM
The Interview was funny.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: RedLeaf on January 18, 2015, 12:39:21 PM
If you're a fan of rock and roll documentaries, you need to catch Supermensch: the story of Shep Gordon. What a career.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on January 18, 2015, 07:20:26 PM
I'm watching into the woods with the kids... That ummm... Johnny depp wolf thing was... Um... Not right.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 24, 2015, 10:12:48 PM
Mad Max: perfect movie. Literally every single shot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on June 28, 2015, 09:49:58 PM
Just finished predestination. Good movie worth watching.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on July 13, 2015, 04:39:28 PM
So the first Suicide squad trailer leaked/was released after Comic-Con.  They are going ahead with the short hair, metal grill and tattooed Joker motif.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 13, 2015, 04:50:03 PM

Admittedly I'm not the world's biggest fan of comic book movies to begin with but between that and the new Superman trailer it looked like they were pitching me on 5+ hours or so of stuff where I wasn't supposed to have a lot of fun.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 13, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
So the first Suicide squad trailer leaked/was released after Comic-Con.  They are going ahead with the short hair, metal grill and tattooed Joker motif.

As much as I understand the dislike for the look, it's not that far out of line with some of the Suicide Squad book portrayals.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 13, 2015, 09:57:02 PM
Admittedly I'm not the world's biggest fan of comic book movies to begin with but between that and the new Superman trailer it looked like they were pitching me on 5+ hours or so of stuff where I wasn't supposed to have a lot of fun.

I don't know. Suicide Squad at least looks like it's going to have some lighthearted moments. Superman vs Batman just looks like a dark, dystopian nightmare.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on July 14, 2015, 04:48:38 PM
Admittedly I'm not the world's biggest fan of comic book movies to begin with but between that and the new Superman trailer it looked like they were pitching me on 5+ hours or so of stuff where I wasn't supposed to have a lot of fun.

I don't know. Suicide Squad at least looks like it's going to have some lighthearted moments. Superman vs Batman just looks like a dark, dystopian nightmare.

I don't mind a dark, dystopian nightmare if it turns out anything like the Injustice (http://www.denofgeek.us/books-comics/injustice/242678/the-25-best-moments-from-tom-taylors-injustice-gods-among-us-dc-comics-series-superman-batman) series.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Stebro on July 18, 2015, 03:44:32 AM
I love movies about the medieval times, ancient Rome and Greece, and sci-fi, but I've pretty much watched everything there is :-\ I'm constantly going through lists of the best movies within these categories so it's hard to find something new.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on July 22, 2015, 07:29:46 AM
Have you seen the Viking series? I absolutely love it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on July 22, 2015, 07:31:11 AM
I really enjoyed this simple documentary about four bands touring from Austin to Boston:

http://austintobostonfilm.com/

It's on Netflix. I'm a big fan of Ben Howard, but those Staves are majestic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Boston Leaf on July 22, 2015, 08:45:10 AM
Finally saw Foxcatcher and Gone Girl... Foxcatcher was good but it seem to not develop the characters too well for me. Something missing. I did like ruffalo... Gone girl I though was ok but poor ending
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Darryl on August 01, 2015, 01:35:30 PM
Finally saw Foxcatcher and Gone Girl... Foxcatcher was good but it seem to not develop the characters too well for me. Something missing. I did like ruffalo... Gone girl I though was ok but poor ending
Foxcatcher was basically how I imagined Jeff Loria runs the Marlins you know minus the murder.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on August 03, 2015, 09:08:59 AM
Admittedly I'm not the world's biggest fan of comic book movies to begin with but between that and the new Superman trailer it looked like they were pitching me on 5+ hours or so of stuff where I wasn't supposed to have a lot of fun.

I don't know. Suicide Squad at least looks like it's going to have some lighthearted moments. Superman vs Batman just looks like a dark, dystopian nightmare.

I don't mind a dark, dystopian nightmare if it turns out anything like the Injustice (http://www.denofgeek.us/books-comics/injustice/242678/the-25-best-moments-from-tom-taylors-injustice-gods-among-us-dc-comics-series-superman-batman) series.

Yeah, Injustice or Death of Superman would be my picks for WB to forward with.  They are setting up the Doomsday in Dawn of Justice.  Not sure I like how they are setting it up though.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 03, 2015, 03:39:30 PM
The Deadpool trailer trailer is out, and it's perfect. Contains adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZHBjyUGhQ
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on August 03, 2015, 04:49:38 PM
The Deadpool trailer trailer is out, and it's perfect. Contains adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZHBjyUGhQ

I'm still not sure if I actually like the whole Deadpool concept, but I have to admit they are pretty much bang on with doing everything right in presenting it so far.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on August 03, 2015, 05:01:39 PM
Yeah, Injustice or Death of Superman would be my picks for WB to forward with.  They are setting up the Doomsday in Dawn of Justice.  Not sure I like how they are setting it up though.

Dawn of Justice seems to have some of the themes of Injustice nested in there (power and the balance of power, cost of peace), a mini arc of post-"A Death in the Family" for Batman, and more than a passing resemblance to Marvel's Civil War arc where two philosophies of heroism are held in tension. Whatever it is will have to set up an impending disaster great enough to for them to set aside their differences and unite as a Justice League (and all their disparate themes of vengeance/madness, godhood, alien isolation, regal responsibility, etc.).

The Deadpool trailer trailer is out, and it's perfect. Contains adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZHBjyUGhQ

The full trailer had better be Deadpool ripping apart the trailer over voiceover, a la Honest Trailers.

Edit: it isn't an Honest Trailer, but it has some bon mots.
PG-13 trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHBaC-pfsk
Redband trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKWUTwSYAs
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 06, 2015, 11:55:22 PM
Funny what you find, Maynard James Keenan discussing the movie Manhunter.

[youtube]F7KGhXGz2n8[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on August 12, 2015, 01:47:49 PM
Shaun the Sheep is an astounding 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and flat-out dying at the box office.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on August 12, 2015, 03:05:33 PM
The Source Family on Netflix was interesting. I'm on a real documentary kick lately.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Dappleganger on August 12, 2015, 04:02:33 PM
The Source Family on Netflix was interesting. I'm on a real documentary kick lately.

It's pretty much all I use Netflix for recently. All the ESPN 30 for 30 are on American Netflix.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on August 12, 2015, 04:40:15 PM
Shaun the Sheep is an astounding 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and flat-out dying at the box office.

My daughter absolutely loved it!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on August 14, 2015, 10:56:22 PM
Just finished Jonestown: Paradise Lost on Netflix. I found it riveting. I have to agree with the reviews: they could or should have interviewed Stephan Jones even more. He's captivating.

Such a sad story.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on August 17, 2015, 03:37:36 AM
Spring. Unconventional yet successful love story with smart writing and all in lead performances.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Guru Tugginmypuddah on August 17, 2015, 05:27:19 AM
Two movies that are a piece of junk;

1. Fantastic Four
2. Vacation

Fortunately, took the kids to the Drive In so that was fun in itself.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on August 17, 2015, 07:35:35 AM
I just watched Rambo: First Blood Part II for the first time in 15 years. I should not have watched it and just relied on my memories.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: hockeyfan1 on August 17, 2015, 08:55:56 AM
Anybody seen "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: RedLeaf on August 17, 2015, 09:02:12 AM
Best movies of 2015 so far according to CBC...

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2673582626/

I could agree more with their top selection. And I wasn't even a fan of the original franchise.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 17, 2015, 09:40:09 AM
Two movies that are a piece of junk;

1. Fantastic Four
2. Vacation

Fortunately, took the kids to the Drive In so that was fun in itself.

That's too bad. I was hoping that Vacation would at least be somewhat good. I love the original Vacation movies.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on August 17, 2015, 11:56:19 AM
Just finished Jonestown: Paradise Lost on Netflix. I found it riveting. I have to agree with the reviews: they could or should have interviewed Stephan Jones even more. He's captivating.

Such a sad story.

If you're browsing through documentaties - watch Jodorowsky's Dune. Honestly it's mind bending-ly good.

I keep trying to get people to watch it, but no one does!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on October 20, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
Just take my money now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAUxw4umkdY[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 20, 2015, 12:37:21 PM
I was very hesitant about the new Star Wars movies when the news first broke, but the more they release, the more excited I get. I'm now in full-fledged geek out mode.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on October 20, 2015, 12:58:10 PM
I'm one of the few people who enjoyed the prequels, so clearly I'm not hard to please.

Watching them now is a little tough, because clearly there are some terrible things in those movies, but there's also so much that I like, so in the end, I usually don't really get into conversations with anyone about them.

If you want something fun to get into leading up to this movie, check out the podcast 'Star Wars minute' - it's a fun listen. They review the original trilogy minute by minute. It sounds crazy, but it's actually pretty funny.

http://www.starwarsminute.com/
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 20, 2015, 03:04:20 PM
I enjoyed the prequels too. I just try to look past the terrible stuff (like the acting, dialogue, and directing.)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 20, 2015, 03:16:37 PM
The prequels weren't entirely terrible. Just like 95%. They good elements, like Darth Maul, Yoda fighting, Natalie Portman and . . . ummm . . . I'm sure there were others.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 20, 2015, 03:24:42 PM
The prequels weren't entirely terrible. Just like 95%. They good elements, like Darth Maul, Yoda fighting, Natalie Portman and . . . ummm . . . I'm sure there were others.

The fight scenes were all pretty good I thought. Casting was great, aside from the one obvious one. Portman, McGregor, Jackson, Lee, Neeson were all great choices. It was really just the writing and directing that was god-awful, unfortunately those are 2 pretty big aspects of a movie though of course.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 20, 2015, 03:51:29 PM
The fight scenes were all pretty good I thought. Casting was great, aside from the one obvious one. Portman, McGregor, Jackson, Lee, Neeson were all great choices. It was really just the writing and directing that was god-awful, unfortunately those are 2 pretty big aspects of a movie though of course.

The writing was bad on so many levels. The dialogue was bad, major aspects of the story were bad, a lot of the new characters were bad . . . it was a mess. Also, the over-reliance on digital effects, which falls on Lucas in one of his roles - not sure if that's director, producer, studio head or whatever else.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on October 21, 2015, 08:40:29 AM
Happy Future Day! Where's my hover board?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on October 22, 2015, 06:34:56 PM
Happy Future Day! Where's my hover board?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0VGRlEJewA[/youtube]

I don't care that Michael J Fox has Parkinsons and Christopher Lloyd doesn't appear to be doing well.  I would watch them make another movie.  I would pay double if they did a Rick and Morty sketch.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on October 23, 2015, 08:50:37 AM
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7_qW4pPrc[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on October 23, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Just watched two movies

Inside Llewyn Davis

Great movie from the Coen brothers. I love the melancholic aspect of being a musician, and it felt more real than many I've seen. I would place it favourably with Crazy Heart.

Beasts of No Nation

Great movie about a war torn state in Africa and child soldiers. Utterly heartbreaking and you feel awful afterward. Do not watch this if you are squeamish or don't like watching heavy movies. This was the heaviest I've seen in a good, long while.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on October 23, 2015, 12:19:57 PM
Just watched two movies

Inside Llewyn Davis

Great movie from the Coen brothers. I love the melancholic aspect of being a musician, and it felt more real than many I've seen. I would place it favourably with Crazy Heart.

Beasts of No Nation

Great movie about a war torn state in Africa and child soldiers. Utterly heartbreaking and you feel awful afterward. Do not watch this if you are squeamish or don't like watching heavy movies. This was the heaviest I've seen in a good, long while.

Beasts of No Nation is great.  It was made by Netflix so it might not be in your theatre but is available to stream.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on October 23, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
I saw Everest, did not feel bad at all for any of them, it just felt so abstract to me.

I contemplated shutting it off after an hour and I never do that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on December 11, 2015, 11:00:27 AM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COvnHv42T-A[/youtube]

On the one hand: standard blockbuster movie trailer soft creepy singing over title, moving into BRRRAAAAAAAAAAMMMMs (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/braaam-10-trailers-that-use-abuse-the-inception-braaam-20130412) punctuated by expository dialogue. Are all trailers made by one Inception fan? Are all movie posters designed by one guy on Photoshop with an affinity for Orange/Blue (http://www.slashfilm.com/orangeblue-contrast-in-movie-posters/)? Also: Apocalypse looks like Ivan Ooze.

On the other hand: Bald Xavier! Jubilee! Olivia Munn Psylocke! Mohawk Storm! Jean Grey Stark! Archangel with flechette feathers!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on December 11, 2015, 11:14:54 AM
I saw Krampus last night and as a fan of the old Joe Dante movies I really enjoyed it.  A nice gateway movie into horror films.  Some great sound and puppet design.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on December 30, 2015, 07:28:53 PM

I really enjoyed The Hateful Eight. Though I thought the Lightsaber battle at the end was an unfortunate bit of pandering.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 30, 2015, 07:35:05 PM
The Big Short was excellent. Well written and directed, with a lot of high quality performances. Not exactly the most uplifting movie, but had some nice humorous moments.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on December 30, 2015, 07:38:19 PM
The Big Short was excellent. Well written and directed, with a lot of high quality performances. Not exactly the most uplifting movie, but had some nice humorous moments.

It's really kind of astonishing that Michael Lewis books are so consistently being turned into excellent movies. I can't ever remember reading one and thinking that it would translate onto the screen.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on December 30, 2015, 07:53:19 PM
It's really kind of astonishing that Michael Lewis books are so consistently being turned into excellent movies. I can't ever remember reading one and thinking that it would translate onto the screen.

Yeah, though, when you take interesting real world stories and put task talented people to write, direct and perform in the movies . . . I can't say how faithful the movies are to the books (I imagine they're not, really), but they focus on engaging true stories. That's a big first step in the process.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 04, 2016, 02:11:22 PM

Documentary fans might want to look for Best of Enemies. It's not the weightiest of subject matters(a series of debates between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal at the 1968 political conventions) but the ending is so good, and the case they make for its eventual impact on modern media so compelling, that it stuck with me for quite a while afterwards.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on January 04, 2016, 05:15:47 PM
I saw The Lobster recently.  Weird movie.  Still not sure if I liked it or not.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on January 23, 2016, 03:36:46 PM
I just watched the new 30 for 30 doc four falls of  Buffalo.

Whether your a bills fan or not this is a great watch. You can make fun of the bills all your want but this doc does put what they achieved in a much better perspective.

I'd say this is a must watch even if you're a casual football fan.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Highlander on January 27, 2016, 06:43:10 PM
Bit late but The Martian was excellent. In the Heart of the Sea should have stuck closer to the book.
Brooklyn was nice period piece (nice to see a movie with no guns, violence or car chases).
Revenenent is next on the list.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: McGarnagle on January 27, 2016, 08:37:42 PM
Revenant was good imo, but not great. One of the few movies that really needs to be seen in the theater/IMAX. Won't translate well to the small screen.

I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, but I thought hateful 8 was the best movie I've seen for awhile.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Crucialness Key on January 28, 2016, 11:16:31 AM
Revenant was good imo, but not great. One of the few movies that really needs to be seen in the theater/IMAX. Won't translate well to the small screen.

I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, but I thought hateful 8 was the best movie I've seen for awhile.

Agreed on both counts---if it were up to me, Hateful 8 and Revenant would kind of swap their awards treatment---I'd give Revenant a supporting-actor nod for Tom Hardy and pretty much stop there, then nominate Hateful 8 for pretty much everything (Jackson, Goggins, Leigh, QT, etc etc)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 28, 2016, 11:21:57 AM
Revenant was a tricky movie for me to judge. Leo deserved a nom, Hardy deserved a nom, the director deserved a nom. Cinematographer, effects, make up, all that stuff was fantastic too. But I just couldn't give it a nomination for Best Picture.

I loved Hateful 8. QT should have definitely gotten at least a writing nomination for that. I don't think anybody else could have pulled that movie off. It was quintessential Tarantino.

I should add that there's a fair amount of movies I haven't caught yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 30, 2016, 02:15:13 AM
It's been out for a while, but "Road Hard" from Adam Carolla was a bit of a sleeper hit in my opinion. I caught it on Amazon video the other night and it really struck a chord with me. I'm not someone who listens to the podcast, but the story of the struggling road comic was really enjoyable.

I don't think it was critically or commercially acclaimed but if you're looking for something worth watching with a few laughs I'd recommend it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 10, 2016, 12:20:41 PM
Set aside 50 minutes to watch Funny or Die's "Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal", starring Johnny Depp as Donald Trump (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ad38087bac/donald-trump-art-of-the-deal-movie?_cc=__d___&_ccid=3867960635d6e588).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on February 23, 2016, 11:08:09 AM
I loved this:
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TzAT9z9YspIHL1CDsFjfX14_U2I=/0x0:2048x1152/1600x900/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48799355/deadpool-DMC_2670_v068_matte.1045_rgb.0.0.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 23, 2016, 11:21:23 AM
I loved this:
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TzAT9z9YspIHL1CDsFjfX14_U2I=/0x0:2048x1152/1600x900/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48799355/deadpool-DMC_2670_v068_matte.1045_rgb.0.0.jpg)

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on March 10, 2016, 02:34:17 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrVegVI0Us[/youtube]

Looks like some of the effects developed for Deadpool are going to be used to good effect in this next MCU offering.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 10, 2016, 06:23:38 PM
Anyone have a pillow handy...umm yeah, that looks great.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 10, 2016, 07:05:31 PM
Underoos!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on March 11, 2016, 12:03:38 PM
These eyes... (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/ggkqttuhz5tyo9zvlcwi.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 11, 2016, 03:37:28 PM

I got to see The End of the Tour last night. If anyone is a fan of David Foster Wallace I'd recommend it pretty highly.  Jason Segal was a lot better than I'd assumed he'd be in the role.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: McGarnagle on March 12, 2016, 09:02:06 PM
I saw deadpool the other night; truth be told, I thought it was more juvenile than clever. But no doubt I'm not the target demographic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 22, 2016, 07:45:50 PM
So, this likely won't surprised many, but BvS is apparently a dud. As one of the few people out there who liked Man of Steel, I was very much looking forward to this. And maybe I personally still enjoy it, but I have no idea how the DCEU is going to move forward with two movies in a row being critically panned. They've already lined everything up too. Justice League part 1 is due out in a year and a half, there's no time to fix things (which likely has to start with removing Snyder from the director's chair) if they want to make that release date. And if they push that movie back they have to push back everything.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on March 22, 2016, 08:01:52 PM
So, this likely won't surprised many, but BvS is apparently a dud. As one of the few people out there who liked Man of Steel, I was very much looking forward to this. And maybe I personally still enjoy it, but I have no idea how the DCEU is going to move forward with two movies in a row being critically panned. They've already lined everything up too. Justice League part 1 is due out in a year and a half, there's no time to fix things (which likely has to start with removing Snyder from the director's chair) if they want to make that release date. And if they push that movie back they have to push back everything.

Well, admittedly I don't know a ton about this stuff but critical reception is  secondary to global box office these days, right? And if the Transformers movies have taught us anything it's that you can still make big money on a blockbuster despite people not liking it even on the sliding curve of blockbusters.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Palmateer29 on March 22, 2016, 08:22:18 PM
So, this likely won't surprised many, but BvS is apparently a dud. As one of the few people out there who liked Man of Steel, I was very much looking forward to this. And maybe I personally still enjoy it, but I have no idea how the DCEU is going to move forward with two movies in a row being critically panned. They've already lined everything up too. Justice League part 1 is due out in a year and a half, there's no time to fix things (which likely has to start with removing Snyder from the director's chair) if they want to make that release date. And if they push that movie back they have to push back everything.

Hmmm everything I have read says the complete opposite. You must be reading the Marvel web sites. Here is a review from someone who has already seen the movie:

http://heroichollywood.com/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-review/

There are spoilers so you can skip past the parts about the action but here is a quote of what the reviewer said:
 I love this film so much. The story is very complex and you need to pay very close attention to every detail. For certain things you’d really have to know DC Comics lore to understand. Especially the [redacted ;)]. I wasn’t too sold on Affleck until seeing this film. He is the definitive Batman and his performance blew me away. Wonder Woman is the star of this movie and the entire crowd agreed by screaming each time she appeared. Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor was the perfect mix of insane, evil and downright brilliant. Jeremy Irons was a great Alfred and was the perfect comedic presence in the film, if you like sarcasm. Last but not least, Superman. Henry Cavill gave us one hell a performance. They redeemed Superman. This film is everything you want it to be and then some. You will laugh. You will cry. Go see it. Grab your tickets and take your kids. They will love it. I know I did. I’m taking my nephews this weekend!

SCORE: 8.5/10

mod edit: just removed a small spoiler some people might not have known about
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 22, 2016, 08:25:44 PM
Well, admittedly I don't know a ton about this stuff but critical reception is  secondary to global box office these days, right? And if the Transformers movies have taught us anything it's that you can still make big money on a blockbuster despite people not liking it even on the sliding curve of blockbusters.

Yeah, box office is going to be ultimate test - but, if it's as big a dud as some people fear, that could very easily be underwhelming, as well. Man of Steel wasn't exactly a huge win for Warner - Less than $300M domestic on a $225M production budget, and an estimated ~$43M in total profit after worldwide ticket sales and all expenses were considered. If Batman vs Superman ends up following a similar path on its $250M budget, there's going to be real trouble for the DC film universe.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 22, 2016, 08:27:11 PM
Hmmm everything I have read says the complete opposite. You must be reading the Marvel web sites. Here is a review from someone who has already seen the movie:

http://heroichollywood.com/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-review/

That paragraph reads like someone was paid a substantial chunk of money to write it.

For what it's worth, it currently has a "solid" 41% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Palmateer29 on March 22, 2016, 08:28:29 PM
Well, admittedly I don't know a ton about this stuff but critical reception is  secondary to global box office these days, right? And if the Transformers movies have taught us anything it's that you can still make big money on a blockbuster despite people not liking it even on the sliding curve of blockbusters.

Yeah, box office is going to be ultimate test - but, if it's as big a dud as some people fear, that could very easily be underwhelming, as well. Man of Steel wasn't exactly a huge win for Warner - Less than $300M domestic on a $225M production budget, and an estimated ~$43M in total profit after worldwide ticket sales and all expenses were considered. If Batman vs Superman ends up following a similar path on its $250M budget, there's going to be real trouble for the DC film universe.

More reactions:

http://www.gamesradar.com/batman-v-superman-fan-reactions-nyc-premiere-ben-affleck-henry-cavill-gal-godot/

And BVS has presold 400 Million in ticket sales. It sold out here in less than a day for what was available
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 22, 2016, 08:34:46 PM
Hmmm everything I have read says the complete opposite. You must be reading the Marvel web sites. Here is a review from someone who has already seen the movie:

http://heroichollywood.com/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-review/

That paragraph reads like someone was paid a substantial chunk of money to write it.

For what it's worth, it currently has a "solid" 41% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Yeah Heroic Hollywood is a huuuuuugggeeee DC fanboy site. I read them because they have good stuff sometimes, but it doesn't change that. And the fan reactions are nothing more than just excited fans leaving the auditorium seeing a movie before everyone else. The new Fantastic 4 movie had great fan reactions after their initial screening too.

I follow a ton of film blogs on twitter, the second the embargo time passed my feed was flooded with poor reviews.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 22, 2016, 08:38:06 PM
And BVS has presold 400 Million in ticket sales. It sold out here in less than a day for what was available

No idea where you're getting that number from. Every article I see put that number more in the $25M-$50M range. $400M would be almost four times the pre-sale numbers of Star Wars - and that shattered the existing record. There's absolutely no way that number is even close to accurate.

It's also pretty meaningless. Man of Steel made $120M in its opening weekend. Lots of people were excited for it - until they saw it. It didn't get people back to the theatre, and it didn't attract the people who weren't already interested. Dawn of Justice feels like it could easily trend the same way.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 22, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
Yeah Heroic Hollywood is a huuuuuugggeeee DC fanboy site. I read them because they have good stuff sometimes, but it doesn't change that.

Figures. Also, after reading the first few lines of the review after clicking on the link, it was painfully obvious that, outside of completely re-writing the main characters, this guy was absolutely going to love this movie. Definitely not an unbiased, critical review by any means.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 22, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
And BVS has presold 400 Million in ticket sales. It sold out here in less than a day for what was available

No idea where you're getting that number from.

It's tracking to do $350mil worldwide this weekend, $150mil domestic. Also, as it's been said, there really was never a question of whether people were going to watch this movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 22, 2016, 08:44:21 PM
It's tracking to do $350mil worldwide this weekend, $150mil domestic. Also, as it's been said, there really was never a question of whether people were going to watch this movie.

Yeah, but that's not pre-sale numbers. That's estimated total box office. And, like I said, Man of Steel made big money opening weekend, too. And, then, no one went back.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 22, 2016, 08:45:44 PM
It's tracking to do $350mil worldwide this weekend, $150mil domestic. Also, as it's been said, there really was never a question of whether people were going to watch this movie.

Yeah, but that's not pre-sale numbers. That's estimated total box office. And, like I said, Man of Steel made big money opening weekend, too. And, then, no one went back.

Sorry, yeah, I was just backing up how insane that pre-sale figure was.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on March 22, 2016, 08:50:07 PM
Sorry, yeah, I was just backing up how insane that pre-sale figure was.

Okay, yeah. I mean, seriously, if Star Wars only came in just over $100M, there's no way this was coming in that high.

It also wouldn't surprise me if this movie doesn't meet the estimates, now that all the reviews are out. A good number of people who were thinking about going this weekend will now be thinking about waiting until they hear what some of their friends think.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on April 08, 2016, 03:16:15 PM
So, in light of the poor reviews, and the unsurprising slowdown in ticket sales after opening weekend, Zach Snyder has "left" the Justice League movie and has been replaced by George Miller.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on April 08, 2016, 03:19:02 PM
So, in light of the poor reviews, and the unsurprising slowdown in ticket sales after opening weekend, Zach Snyder has "left" the Justice League movie and has been replaced by George Miller.

er, April 1st was last week man.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on April 08, 2016, 03:25:42 PM
So, in light of the poor reviews, and the unsurprising slowdown in ticket sales after opening weekend, Zach Snyder has "left" the Justice League movie and has been replaced by George Miller.

er, April 1st was last week man.

Stupid legitimate news sources picking up April Fools articles . . . and late, at that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on April 09, 2016, 03:50:47 PM
I saw Batman V Superman.  It was not horrible.  It fails to deliver the emotional response that I think it is trying to deliver.  Also it appears as though they said to Eisenberg "Hey Jesse, you know how Ledger played Joker, do that", which is wrong for Lex Luthor.  He is a cold calculating sociopath.  Honestly, he would have done better just reprising the role of Zuckerberg.

If you are a comic fan, and/or you liked Man of Steel, you probably won't leave the theater completely upset, but go on cheap night just to be on the safe side.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Joe S. on April 17, 2016, 09:41:48 AM
Saw dawn of justice last night... And I was excited to see this... I was expecting something along the lines of dark Knight returns... And man... What a jumbled mess this movie is...

I will say this though,  Ben Affleck did fine as batman. I have no issues with his acting or portrayal.

It's the story that's just all over the place.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: louisstamos on April 28, 2016, 09:57:40 AM
I went to an advanced screening of Keanu last night, and laughed my ass off.  If you're a Key & Peele fan, you'll like the movie!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Dappleganger on April 28, 2016, 12:29:37 PM
I saw Batman V Superman.  It was not horrible.  It fails to deliver the emotional response that I think it is trying to deliver.  Also it appears as though they said to Eisenberg "Hey Jesse, you know how Ledger played Joker, do that", which is wrong for Lex Luthor.  He is a cold calculating sociopath.  Honestly, he would have done better just reprising the role of Zuckerberg.

If you are a comic fan, and/or you liked Man of Steel, you probably won't leave the theater completely upset, but go on cheap night just to be on the safe side.

I just don't know how you don't cast Billy Zane as Lex Luther. Seems like a no brainer.

(http://orig13.deviantart.net/39f9/f/2013/096/1/5/billy_zane_as_lex_luthor_by_poumap-d60nlgr.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 05, 2016, 01:20:15 PM
http://screenrant.com/power-rangers-movie-2017-costumes-images/

*weeps
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 05, 2016, 01:37:07 PM
http://screenrant.com/power-rangers-movie-2017-costumes-images/

*weeps

The set photos of Elizabeth Banks as Rita made me question whether this is a real movie or not. I think we're being punk'd guys.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on May 05, 2016, 02:32:06 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 05, 2016, 02:51:37 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.

Nah you're just being a reasonable human being.

I don't like these costumes at all.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 05, 2016, 02:56:24 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.

I didn't even look long enough to notice. Boob armour? So stupid, but (unfortunately) somewhat expected. Heels though? What the hell?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 05, 2016, 03:10:24 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.

I didn't even look long enough to notice. Boob armour? So stupid, but (unfortunately) somewhat expected. Heels though? What the hell?

Wedge heels at that.

Regular heel spikes might be argued as weaponry (http://collider.com/lindy-hemming-dark-knight-rises-interview/) (and ankle breaking potential (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Jurassic-World-High-Heel-Controversy-Finally-Put-Rest-By-Bryce-Dallas-Howard-88047.html)), but a wedge heel literally serves only the ankle breaking purpose.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 05, 2016, 03:28:33 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.

Nah you're just being a reasonable human being.

I don't like these costumes at all.

The heels bother me, and the boob armour thing is . . . well, I don't think there's a problem with acknowledging the femininity of the characters, but it does look like it's being done poorly here. There's no need for the armour to accentuate their breasts like that.

Other than that, I like the costumes. I dig that they're more armour than simply spandex body suits. There might be a little too much going on in terms of the design, but I'll wait to see them in action before I make my final judgement.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 05, 2016, 03:56:43 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.

Nah you're just being a reasonable human being.

I don't like these costumes at all.

The heels bother me, and the boob armour thing is . . . well, I don't think there's a problem with acknowledging the femininity of the characters, but it does look like it's being done poorly here. There's no need for the armour to accentuate their breasts like that.

Other than that, I like the costumes. I dig that they're more armour than simply spandex body suits. There might be a little too much going on in terms of the design, but I'll wait to see them in action before I make my final judgement.

Not sure if you watched the 1995 film, but those costumes, when they showed up for the first time, blew me away for the same reason you just mentioned (armoured). They kept the spirit of the spandex design and beefed it up for the big budget movie look.

(https://fsmedia.imgix.net/ee/26/c4/3e/0bc5/4ce5/9fc3/c5728fcea659/thats-more-like-it.jpeg?dpr=1&auto=format&q=75)

Probably a noisy and sweaty costume to wear though!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 05, 2016, 04:08:12 PM
Not sure if you watched the 1995 film, but those costumes, when they showed up for the first time, blew me away for the same reason you just mentioned (armoured). They kept the spirit of the spandex design and beefed it up for the big budget movie look.

Those costumes are super-90s. They'd look pretty low budget by today's standards. Gotta at least try to make it look like they're not covered in plastic.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on May 05, 2016, 06:40:49 PM
Probably a wet blanket here, but the addition of heels and such revealing "boob armor" on the girls is a bit much.

Nah you're just being a reasonable human being.

I don't like these costumes at all.

The heels bother me, and the boob armour thing is . . . well, I don't think there's a problem with acknowledging the femininity of the characters, but it does look like it's being done poorly here. There's no need for the armour to accentuate their breasts like that.

Other than that, I like the costumes. I dig that they're more armour than simply spandex body suits. There might be a little too much going on in terms of the design, but I'll wait to see them in action before I make my final judgement.

Agreed there's nothing wrong with acknowledging femininity, but it seems too obvious they're sexing them up. The heels are the clincher.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 09, 2016, 10:35:31 AM
Civil War was unsurprisingly amazing. Spider-Man, Ant-Man, and Black Panther stole every scene they were in.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 09, 2016, 11:15:55 AM
Civil War was unsurprisingly amazing. Spider-Man, Ant-Man, and Black Panther stole every scene they were in.

I haven't seen it yet, but I think Black Panther might have my favourite superhero movie costume to date, supplanting Captain America's Winter Soldier stealth suit.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 09, 2016, 11:31:08 AM
Civil War was unsurprisingly amazing. Spider-Man, Ant-Man, and Black Panther stole every scene they were in.

I haven't seen it yet, but I think Black Panther might have my favourite superhero movie costume to date, supplanting Captain America's Winter Soldier stealth suit.

They cast the perfect actor to play him and got the perfect director to do his solo film. It's too bad we gotta wait 2 years for it now.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 09, 2016, 11:50:36 AM
Civil War was unsurprisingly amazing. Spider-Man, Ant-Man, and Black Panther stole every scene they were in.

I haven't seen it yet, but I think Black Panther might have my favourite superhero movie costume to date, supplanting Captain America's Winter Soldier stealth suit.

They cast the perfect actor to play him and got the perfect director to do his solo film. It's too bad we gotta wait 2 years for it now.

Also pretty cool: they chose Xhosa to be the Wakandan language because the actor who plays BP/T'Challa's father (T'Chaka, played by John Kani) already spoke it, and taught Chadwick Boseman.

Source: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/05/black-panther-language-wakanda-xhosa
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 09, 2016, 12:13:14 PM
They cast the perfect actor to play him and got the perfect director to do his solo film. It's too bad we gotta wait 2 years for it now.

That's one of the big things Marvel has done so much better than DC - especially when it comes to directors. They're really focused on making sure they get the right actors for parts, and finding the right directors to tell the stories they want to tell. Other than Joss Whedon, most of the Marvel movies have been directed by people who hadn't hit it big yet or were known for very different types of movies. DC, on the other hand, went with Zach Snyder.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Frank E on May 09, 2016, 12:23:33 PM
(http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b455/fvanderveen1/nerds_zps1iy6slzi.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 09, 2016, 12:39:06 PM
They cast the perfect actor to play him and got the perfect director to do his solo film. It's too bad we gotta wait 2 years for it now.

That's one of the big things Marvel has done so much better than DC - especially when it comes to directors. They're really focused on making sure they get the right actors for parts, and finding the right directors to tell the stories they want to tell. Other than Joss Whedon, most of the Marvel movies have been directed by people who hadn't hit it big yet or were known for very different types of movies. DC, on the other hand, went with Zach Snyder.

Kenneth Branaugh was an inspired choice to helm Thor.

Zach Snyder has the ability to maintain the visual faithfulness to the original comic medium. Unfortunately that does not extend to characterization. I feel like he read entirely different comics than what most people did when researching. Still, he has a few gems within the miasma of his work: Man of Steel's emphasis on getting the fight physics right, BvS' alt-POV of MoS' final battle being the trigger point, Wonder Woman... Sadly that's it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on May 09, 2016, 02:20:35 PM
Zach Snyder has the ability to maintain the visual faithfulness to the original comic medium. Unfortunately that does not extend to characterization. I feel like he read entirely different comics than what most people did when researching. Still, he has a few gems within the miasma of his work: Man of Steel's emphasis on getting the fight physics right, BvS' alt-POV of MoS' final battle being the trigger point, Wonder Woman... Sadly that's it.

I haven't seen BvS, so I can't comment, but, I agree that visuals are absolutely his strong suit. He's very good at making things look stylized and eye-popping. Unfortunately, that seems to be where his talent ends. He's kind of like Michael Bay, without the "stooping to the lowest common denominator" thing.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 23, 2016, 01:17:13 AM
Nice Guys: anyone who's liked Shane Black's stuff in the past obviously needs to see it. But even if you haven't it's still a blast from start to finish.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 23, 2016, 01:21:23 AM
Nice Guys: anyone who's liked Shane Black's stuff in the past obviously needs to see it. But even if you haven't it's still a blast from start to finish.

Oddly, not set during Christmas, but yes, it is still awesome-sauce.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 23, 2016, 01:22:07 AM
Nice Guys: anyone who's liked Shane Black's stuff in the past obviously needs to see it. But even if you haven't it's still a blast from start to finish.

Oddly, not set during Christmas, but yes, it is still awesome-sauce.

He threw in a bit of Christmas at the end!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on May 23, 2016, 01:56:20 AM
Nice Guys: anyone who's liked Shane Black's stuff in the past obviously needs to see it. But even if you haven't it's still a blast from start to finish.

Oddly, not set during Christmas, but yes, it is still awesome-sauce.

He threw in a bit of Christmas at the end!

I am trying to recall this now, as I just watched the movie over the weekend, but I can't :(

http://www.gq.com/story/shot-callers-shane-black-the-nice-guys
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 23, 2016, 10:46:22 AM
I am trying to recall this now, as I just watched the movie over the weekend, but I can't :(

http://www.gq.com/story/shot-callers-shane-black-the-nice-guys

It was that last scene in the bar! There was a bit of a time jump.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on June 13, 2016, 11:53:22 PM
Dinosaur 13, a documentary movie about the legal travails surrounding the discovery of the most complete T-Rex fossil ever discovered ( a Rex named Sue... ).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on June 25, 2016, 07:44:45 PM
The Fear of 13, a documentary on Netflix about Nicholas Yarris, who wrongfully spent 21 years in prison, was fantastic! It's interesting because the film consists solely of Yarris sitting down and telling a story with some visuals interspersed. He's so engaging as a story-teller.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on July 16, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
Just watched "The Invitation," a suspense/thriller just added to Netflix. Mesmerizing film. Great suspense and continually kept me on edge despite not much actually happening. Felt like a modern-day classic Hitchcock film, if that makes any sense.

Netflix has some really cool films that are not exactly commericial or widely known. "Blue Ruin," "The Drop," "Locke," "Tall Tales," and "Hush" are all fairly recent gems I've seen.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 16, 2016, 01:33:41 PM

I don't know if this is technically a movie or TV but via Crave TV I was able to watch the 5 part ESPN documentary about OJ Simpson. It's really, really good. I was only 12 when the trial was going on so I didn't entirely grasp it at the time and the look back was pretty great.

Incredibly it sort of leaves you without any real doubt that he did it while at the same time understanding completely why he wasn't convicted.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 16, 2016, 05:44:24 PM

I don't know if this is technically a movie or TV but via Crave TV I was able to watch the 5 part ESPN documentary about OJ Simpson. It's really, really good. I was only 12 when the trial was going on so I didn't entirely grasp it at the time and the look back was pretty great.

Incredibly it sort of leaves you without any real doubt that he did it while at the same time understanding completely why he wasn't convicted.

It was amazing, I viewed it as one big documentary spliced into five parts. I was in the same boat as you regarding being younger at the time and I remember the trial, but not a lot of the cultural things that had been going on in LA at that time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 16, 2016, 05:45:11 PM
Anyone check out the first episode of HBO's "The Night Of"?

I thought it was excellent, based on a good BBC show.

[youtube]7ROl6IGdQnk[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 16, 2016, 06:01:01 PM
Anyone check out the first episode of HBO's "The Night Of"?

I thought it was excellent, based on a good BBC show.

Thanks for bring it up. I read a really good review of it a few days ago and earlier today tried to remember the show title but was drawing a blank. I'll check it out. I really wanted to watch the BBC version a few years ago when I was in a Ben Whishaw kick but couldn't find it anywhere.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 16, 2016, 07:55:09 PM
Just watched "The Invitation," a suspense/thriller just added to Netflix. Mesmerizing film. Great suspense and continually kept me on edge despite not much actually happening. Felt like a modern-day classic Hitchcock film, if that makes any sense.

Netflix has some really cool films that are not exactly commericial or widely known. "Blue Ruin," "The Drop," "Locke," "Tall Tales," and "Hush" are all fairly recent gems I've seen.

The Invitation was decent enough.

I'm looking forward to The Childhood of The Leader and In Order of Disappearance when I get the chance ( not even sure if they've been released yet )

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 19, 2016, 11:52:21 AM
The new Ghostbusters: pretty good actually. I laughed a lot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on July 19, 2016, 01:13:33 PM
The new Ghostbusters: pretty good actually. I laughed a lot.

I had the exact opposite feeling on it.  It felt nothing like the originals to me.  I found the supposed "chemistry" between the leads to be lacking.  Maybe I'm just not a fan of Kate MacKinnon but I found her attempt to be eccentric went too far a lot.    It was a perfectly fine summer movie but it did nothing to scratch the Ghostbusters itch for me.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 19, 2016, 01:25:24 PM
I had the exact opposite feeling on it.  It felt nothing like the originals to me.  I found the supposed "chemistry" between the leads to be lacking.  Maybe I'm just not a fan of Kate MacKinnon but I found her attempt to be eccentric went too far a lot.    It was a perfectly fine summer movie but it did nothing to scratch the Ghostbusters itch for me.

Admittedly my comments are from somebody who doesn't really give a rats ass about the originals. I just didn't grow up with them as others obviously did. So I'm judging it entirely on it's own merits and not comparing it to something else. Which quite frankly I think is how it should be viewed but obviously not everyone feels that way.

I also wasn't a fan much of McCarthy/McKinnon/Jones going into it and while it took all 3 a few scenes they all won me over. Chris Hemsworth also just crushed it in his role.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 02:16:48 PM
Which quite frankly I think is how it should be viewed but obviously not everyone feels that way.

The problem I have there is, if that's how the creators meant to have it viewed, they shouldn't made it a Ghostbusters movie. Any comedy about catching ghosts would obviously lend itself to comparisons to the original Ghostbusters movies, but, by sharing the branding, they removed the argument for separation, as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 19, 2016, 02:38:30 PM
The problem I have there is, if that's how the creators meant to have it viewed, they shouldn't made it a Ghostbusters movie. Any comedy about catching ghosts would obviously lend itself to comparisons to the original Ghostbusters movies, but, by sharing the branding, they removed the argument for separation, as far as I'm concerned.

It seems weird to me that a movie would have to be set to the same standards as a movie that came out 32 years ago. This Ghostbusters movie was made for an entirely different generation of people.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on July 19, 2016, 04:41:22 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOBXuCYB4jQ[/youtube]
I haven't seen this, but by all accounts, this starts out as a plucky documentary about the world of competitive Endurance Tickling and winds up in WTF town.

The subjects of the doc confronted one of the creators during a live Q&A and threatened legal action | link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/81212098/Tickled-creator-Dylan-Reeve-confronted-by-subject-of-movie-at-premiere).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 04:51:56 PM
It seems weird to me that a movie would have to be set to the same standards as a movie that came out 32 years ago. This Ghostbusters movie was made for an entirely different generation of people.

Standards of quality for humour, storywriting, etc., don't change all that much - the subject matter does, sure, but that's a separate discussion. There's a level of quality that Ghostbusters established for the brand, and anything that proclaims to be part of that brand needs to meet. It's the same with any other established brand/franchise - future Star Wars movies are judged on the standards set by the original trilogy, same with Indiana Jones, the various horror franchises, etc. If a new Police Academy movie were to come out, it would have to hold up against the originals in terms of quality. It should be no different for Ghostbusters.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 19, 2016, 05:14:54 PM
Standards of quality for humour, storywriting, etc., don't change all that much - the subject matter does, sure, but that's a separate discussion. There's a level of quality that Ghostbusters established for the brand, and anything that proclaims to be part of that brand needs to meet. It's the same with any other established brand/franchise - future Star Wars movies are judged on the standards set by the original trilogy, same with Indiana Jones, the various horror franchises, etc. If a new Police Academy movie were to come out, it would have to hold up against the originals in terms of quality. It should be no different for Ghostbusters.

But aren't those standards basically the same as any other movie? If it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable. If a movie makes you laugh and entertains you, is it really relevant if it does so comparably to any other movie?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 05:44:33 PM
But aren't those standards basically the same as any other movie? If it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable. If a movie makes you laugh and entertains you, is it really relevant if it does so comparably to any other movie?

Yes and no. Something being enjoyable is often relative to the expectations one has of said thing. Movies that are part of a franchise or attach themselves to a franchise have different expectations of them than movies that stand alone.

I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters yet, so I can't comment on my feelings toward it specifically. I'm just saying that, as far as I'm concerned, judging it in comparison to the quality of the originals is perfectly justifiable.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 19, 2016, 05:45:28 PM

Something that's become quite clear over the last little while is other people liked the original Ghostbusters movies a lot more than I did.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 19, 2016, 07:49:15 PM
I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters yet, so I can't comment on my feelings toward it specifically. I'm just saying that, as far as I'm concerned, judging it in comparison to the quality of the originals is perfectly justifiable.

We talking the sequel too then? Because isn't that one generally considered to have been quite the disappointing follow-up?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 07:57:16 PM
We talking the sequel too then? Because isn't that one generally considered to have been quite the disappointing follow-up?

By some, yes. I happened to really enjoy it, but, it did suffer from many of the problems that plague comedy sequels.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TML fan on July 22, 2016, 03:23:56 PM
Star Trek Beyond was really good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 22, 2016, 03:39:30 PM
Legend was pretty good, Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both the notorious Kray brothers. There's even a De Palma-esque steadicam shot of almost 6 minutes early on.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 22, 2016, 03:45:43 PM
Legend was pretty good, Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both the notorious Kray brothers. There's even a De Palma-esque steadicam shot of almost 6 minutes early on.

I enjoyed it and I was surprised how good Hardy was, I know the source material very well and his portrayal of Ron was something to behold.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 22, 2016, 03:48:30 PM
Legend was pretty good, Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both the notorious Kray brothers. There's even a De Palma-esque steadicam shot of almost 6 minutes early on.

Was that the fight scene in the Pub? I thought that was pretty great.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 22, 2016, 03:52:09 PM
Legend was pretty good, Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both the notorious Kray brothers. There's even a De Palma-esque steadicam shot of almost 6 minutes early on.

I enjoyed it and I was surprised how good Hardy was, I know the source material very well and his portrayal of Ron was something to behold.

I've been a fan of Hardy really since Bronson ( also Winding Refn, saw the 'Pusher' trilogy after that ), but even as young Picard in Nemesis too. I've seen the other movie about the gangsters, 'The Krays', but I don't really know that much about them past that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on July 22, 2016, 03:53:30 PM
Legend was pretty good, Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both the notorious Kray brothers. There's even a De Palma-esque steadicam shot of almost 6 minutes early on.

Was that the fight scene in the Pub? I thought that was pretty great.

The one I'm thinking of was when he takes her out to his club for the first time, from the time they walk in the door to the time they kiss is one long fantastic take. Not sure about the fight seen, which was really good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 22, 2016, 04:12:28 PM
Legend was pretty good, Tom Hardy brilliantly playing both the notorious Kray brothers. There's even a De Palma-esque steadicam shot of almost 6 minutes early on.

I enjoyed it and I was surprised how good Hardy was, I know the source material very well and his portrayal of Ron was something to behold.

I've been a fan of Hardy really since Bronson ( also Winding Refn, saw the 'Pusher' trilogy after that ), but even as young Picard in Nemesis too. I've seen the other movie about the gangsters, 'The Krays', but I don't really know that much about them past that.

Yeah, I had a family member in Glasgow that had regular dealings with them and I would hear a lot of stories about their antics back in the day. I've read a lot of the books on them and watched most of the movies portraying them too.

Perhaps it was just me, but after a half hour or so, I was no longer really aware that it was Tom Hardy playing two roles, it was great.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on August 02, 2016, 03:14:34 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/suicide-squad-movie-review-w432204

Not a great start.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on August 03, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/suicide-squad-movie-review-w432204

Not a great start.

I haven't seen it myself yet.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693

Quote
A source with knowledge of events says Warners executives, nervous from the start, grew more anxious after they were blindsided and deeply rattled by the tepid response to BvS. "Kevin was really pissed about damage to the brand," says one executive close to the studio. A key concern for Warners executives was that Suicide Squad didn't deliver on the fun, edgy tone promised in the strong teaser trailer for the film. So while Ayer pursued his original vision, Warners set about working on a different cut, with an assist from Trailer Park, the company that had made the teaser.

I'm a bit worried for the Justice League and Wonder Woman movies, but their trailers were still quite compelling. Looks like DC is targeting a cinematic run at the Injustice storyline too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on August 03, 2016, 05:33:59 PM
Their movies are just so bogged down to me.  They try and cover weightier topics than Marvel but do it in such an over the top but simplified way that they come across as faux intelligent.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: LittleHockeyFan on August 03, 2016, 06:16:00 PM
Star Trek Beyond was really good.

yep.
 :'(  Anton
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on August 03, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
Their movies are just so bogged down to me.  They try and cover weightier topics than Marvel but do it in such an over the top but simplified way that they come across as faux intelligent.

Agreed.  To me they focus on the wrong points.  BvS was really two movies merged in to one, and because of that they fail to deliver the payload that they are intending to deliver.  For those that have read the comic that the ending of BvS is based on, it delivered the emotional impact and because of the way that they structured the movie, it just couldn't do that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on August 08, 2016, 11:23:04 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpMvXd5UsAAH8ho.jpg)

It's happening!!!!!
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 29, 2016, 03:54:32 PM

Gene Wilder died, which is a bummer. The Mel Brooks movies he was in are probably second only to the Marx brothers stuff in terms of the greatest comedies of all time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on September 08, 2016, 03:09:57 PM
http://io9.gizmodo.com/geoff-johns-on-the-future-of-dc-movies-relax-were-cha-1786394751

Quote
In their first interview since taking over the DC Films, the men put in charge of righting the ship after Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad admitted that the tone of the previous films has been wrong—and as a result, many changes are being made.

Those men are Geoff Johns and Jon Berg, the DC Comics chief creative officer and Warner Bros. executive, respectively, who are now in charge of the DC Films slate, which includes Justice League, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and many others.

“In the past, I think the studio has said, ‘Oh, DC films are gritty and dark and that’s what makes them different.’ That couldn’t be more wrong,” Johns told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s a hopeful and optimistic view of life. Even Batman has a glimmer of that in him. If he didn’t think he’d make tomorrow better, he’d stop.”

[...]

That film will also “directly address Batman’s extreme actions in [Batman v Superman], such as torturing criminals and nearly killing the Man of Steel, rather than accept them as par for the course.” That’s similar to what happened in Batman v Superman, which addressed Superman’s inadvertent destruction of the city of Metropolis during Man of Steel for its first act.

Oh good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on September 08, 2016, 03:45:33 PM

Is tone really the issue. The Dark Knight was plenty, well, dark and gritty and it was as good a super hero movie as has been made.

It seems to me that the problem with the movies they've been putting out is that they're just not good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on September 08, 2016, 03:59:10 PM

Is tone really the issue. The Dark Knight was plenty, well, dark and gritty and it was as good a super hero movie as has been made.

It seems to me that the problem with the movies they've been putting out is that they're just not good.

I think much like a hard-nosed coach generally has a limited shelf life in any job before being tuned-out, superhero movies can only give you so many gut punches before you're just longing for someone to crack a smile.

Nolan's Batman was the Deer Hunter of comic book films and if every film tries that, it wears an audience down.

This post has been brought to you by Stretch Armstrong.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on September 08, 2016, 04:05:53 PM

Is tone really the issue. The Dark Knight was plenty, well, dark and gritty and it was as good a super hero movie as has been made.

It seems to me that the problem with the movies they've been putting out is that they're just not good.

Tone change might just be a gentle euphemism for ousting Snyder.

I recently saw the extended cut of BvS. It wasn't good, but it wasn't unwatchably terribad. A lot of characterization didn't make much sense, but apart from Superman, we haven't really received a full story from anyone else yet, so they're free to augment the story after the fact. Not really good film making, per se, but it's a punt on the 4th down sort of thing.

One thing I appreciated about the Whedon Avengers films was that table setting scene early on to re-establish the characters, if even in broad strokes, without spelling it all out with exposition (both taking place literally at a table). For all its flaws, the Mjolnir scene at the dinner party in Age of Ultron was brilliant at accomplishing this (including setting up the revelation that allows them to progress in the third act).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on September 08, 2016, 04:06:36 PM
Huh. Maybe it's just me but I didn't think the Dark Knight was, you know, Raging Bull in terms of tone or anything. There's still a bunch of big action set-pieces and Ledger gets some good jokes in there.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on September 08, 2016, 04:13:38 PM

Also, I highly recommend The Nice Guys. Legitimately funny, the right amount of stupid. Sad it couldn't be a 13 hour miniseries.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on September 08, 2016, 04:25:38 PM

Also, I highly recommend The Nice Guys. Legitimately funny, the right amount of stupid. Sad it couldn't be a 13 hour miniseries.

Easily one of my favourite movies of the year.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on September 08, 2016, 07:42:40 PM
Is tone really the issue. The Dark Knight was plenty, well, dark and gritty and it was as good a super hero movie as has been made.

It seems to me that the problem with the movies they've been putting out is that they're just not good.

They haven't been good, but, I do think tone has been part of that problem. When you're dealing with established characters, the tone needs to reflect who that character is. Dark and gritty works well for Batman, because, well, that's Batman. It doesn't work for Superman, or the Justice League as a whole. That's something that Marvel seems to understand to some degree, but DC hasn't, yet.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on September 09, 2016, 09:31:35 AM
They haven't been good, but, I do think tone has been part of that problem. When you're dealing with established characters, the tone needs to reflect who that character is. Dark and gritty works well for Batman, because, well, that's Batman. It doesn't work for Superman, or the Justice League as a whole. That's something that Marvel seems to understand to some degree, but DC hasn't, yet.

Admittedly I'm less familiar with DC comics than I am Marvel and so I don't entirely know how a thing like Suicide Squad should be tonally to be faithful to stuff but just personally I'm relatively familiar with Superman on a grand scale and, sure, if I'd come out of the Superman movie thinking "That was really good but too grim" I'd probably like it less than if they'd nailed it tonally too but still the lousy Marvel movies did alright tone wise, they just weren't well put together flicks.

I guess the Iron Man and Avengers sequels did decent business which is a studio consideration but just for me some sort of allegiance to any one book's tone(considering just about any comic has had incarnations of various tones) seems like a minor deal compared with just making a decent movie.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on September 09, 2016, 10:42:38 AM
They haven't been good, but, I do think tone has been part of that problem. When you're dealing with established characters, the tone needs to reflect who that character is. Dark and gritty works well for Batman, because, well, that's Batman. It doesn't work for Superman, or the Justice League as a whole. That's something that Marvel seems to understand to some degree, but DC hasn't, yet.

Admittedly I'm less familiar with DC comics than I am Marvel and so I don't entirely know how a thing like Suicide Squad should be tonally to be faithful to stuff but just personally I'm relatively familiar with Superman on a grand scale and, sure, if I'd come out of the Superman movie thinking "That was really good but too grim" I'd probably like it less than if they'd nailed it tonally too but still the lousy Marvel movies did alright tone wise, they just weren't well put together flicks.

I guess the Iron Man and Avengers sequels did decent business which is a studio consideration but just for me some sort of allegiance to any one book's tone(considering just about any comic has had incarnations of various tones) seems like a minor deal compared with just making a decent movie.

The tone of Batman vs. Superman didn't bother me.  It's the fact that they tried to do too many stories in one movie.  That disjointedness is what caused it's problems in my opinion.  All they had to do was stay true to the original plot line.  Batman doesn't trust Superman.  This is the reason he is going to take him down.  Man vs. god battle ensues, and at some point you figure out a way to have Batman and Superman reconcile, that doesn't involve a poorly played Lex Luthor. 

I've said it before and I will say it again.  Lex Luthor is a cold, calculating, sociopath that only cares about world domination.  He is in some ways the moral mirror opposite of Batman.  He is not a wealthier version of the Joker.  All the director had to do was look at Eisenberg and say "You know what you did in Social Network?  Do that again" and not "You know Heath Ledger did an awesome Joker right?"

At it's core though, Batman vs. Superman was probably a bad direction to go for a lead in to the Justice League movie.  Simply because at the end of the day, there isn't a case where Superman *needs* Batman, so there isn't a threat that they can create, where Batman doesn't feel somewhat superfluous.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on September 09, 2016, 11:03:53 AM
If you want a good DC movie, hit up their animated stuff. They get it right.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on September 09, 2016, 11:13:17 AM
If you want a good DC movie, hit up their animated stuff. They get it right.

It's weird, because, they definitely get the animated stuff right, and their TV shows are also usually very much on the mark. It's just, outside of the Nolan Batman movies, their recent releases have all missed the mark (though, they're getting closer than they were with Green Lantern).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on September 09, 2016, 11:37:29 AM
If you want a good DC movie, hit up their animated stuff. They get it right.

It's weird, because, they definitely get the animated stuff right, and their TV shows are also usually very much on the mark. It's just, outside of the Nolan Batman movies, their recent releases have all missed the mark (though, they're getting closer than they were with Green Lantern).

Their cinematic operation has been, as all eyeball evidence has since confirmed, largely tone-deaf; perhaps more of a cacophony of executive meddling than true tone-deafness, but that is the result of backing the wrong horse in Synder (set-piece > story > character, which is the exact opposite of what it should be). DC live action movies generally have had no heart to speak of.

Where they have succeeded, in my opinion, is casting.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on September 23, 2016, 12:11:49 PM
Power Rangers update for the two people who might have nostalgia for this:

Bill Hader has been cast as Alpha-5, along side Elizabeth Banks as Rita and Bryan Cranston as Zordon. Wut is happening?
Zords teased in latest posters (http://www.cbr.com/new-power-rangers-character-posters-reveal-zords/). They look like... bicycle helmets.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on October 08, 2016, 05:24:26 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-C4qqsgs8w[/youtube]

So they've gone with a Breakfast Club meets Chronicle take (and a bit Sam Raimi Spiderman with bestowed intrinsic abilities).

Edit: A YouTube commenter beat me to the same assessment by an hour.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on October 17, 2016, 05:02:08 PM
This isn't new, but I don't remember seeing it here
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5PYZR30sG4[/youtube]


(http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/c/r/e/h/t/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1cre52.png/1467937150427.jpg) (https://www.instagram.com/p/BHjgzOfBxGL/?taken-by=taikawaititi&hl=en)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 17, 2016, 05:25:10 PM
The director doing Thor 3 has a couple of must-watch movies under his belt: Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016) and Boy (2010).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on October 17, 2016, 05:40:26 PM
The director doing Thor 3 has a couple of must-watch movies under his belt: Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016) and Boy (2010).

Also What We Do in the Shadows, a vampire documentary.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv568AzZ-i8[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on October 17, 2016, 06:23:33 PM
That was a quick ascendence

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on October 30, 2016, 11:15:38 PM

I don't know if this is technically a movie or TV but via Crave TV I was able to watch the 5 part ESPN documentary about OJ Simpson. It's really, really good. I was only 12 when the trial was going on so I didn't entirely grasp it at the time and the look back was pretty great.

Incredibly it sort of leaves you without any real doubt that he did it while at the same time understanding completely why he wasn't convicted.

It was amazing, I viewed it as one big documentary spliced into five parts. I was in the same boat as you regarding being younger at the time and I remember the trial, but not a lot of the cultural things that had been going on in LA at that time.

Just finished watching it. Really good indeed. There's no doubt he's guilty.

I'll admit, I felt strange about the sentencing for his armed robbery convictions. It was very clearly unjust sentencing for the crime, but on the other hand, the bastard deserved something for what he's done.

I feel so badly for the Brown and Goldman family's. They got caught up in a racial issue and were denied justice partially because of it. Johnny Cochran was despicable.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 27, 2016, 09:13:10 PM
I saw Arrival yesterday. It was quite a (hopeful) mind bender. Very well done.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Highlander on December 02, 2016, 05:32:57 PM
I saw Arrival yesterday. It was quite a (hopeful) mind bender. Very well done.
Its on the top of my list but have traveled to AZ again. Looks like it is a mindful film. Last one I saw was Hacksaw Ridge, right before Remeberance Day, what those men (and women) went through is beyond belief.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Highlander on December 10, 2016, 04:28:40 PM
I saw Arrival yesterday. It was quite a (hopeful) mind bender. Very well done.
Herman, I agree, just saw it a few days back and I am still trying to sort it all out. the synopsis at Wikipedia helped a great deal, but there is so much going on in that film that I want to see it again and soon.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 10, 2016, 06:20:45 PM
I saw Arrival yesterday. It was quite a (hopeful) mind bender. Very well done.

I enjoyed the heck out of that.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Tigger on December 21, 2016, 02:03:20 AM
Rogue One, pretty good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on December 21, 2016, 09:33:38 AM
I saw Suicide Squad finally and now I must live with that regret for the rest of my life. The books are waaaaay better.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Highlander on December 22, 2016, 11:39:37 AM
Even though he has a film in Oscar contention and another in production, “Blade Runner: 2049” director Denis Villeneuve looks ready to jump into another classic fixture in the sci-fi world.

Sources tell Variety that Villeneuve is in early talks to direct Legendary’s “Dune” reboot for the company.

Dune is a hard movie to tackle.  If you have not read the Dune Series, I can highly recommend them.  I have probably re-read the series 3 times (and I never re-read anything).  Strange that a highly evolved alien universe can explain a lot of the madness in todays world.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: TML fan on December 22, 2016, 11:51:56 AM
Arrival was terrible. Thankfully I didn't pay to see it.

Rogue One was great.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: digdug on December 22, 2016, 12:53:19 PM
I thought both Arrival and Rogue One were excellent movies.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: madkenstalin on December 23, 2016, 05:31:00 AM
I haven't seen Rogue One yet - I have booked to see it on the 27th, but it wouldn't let me book the film again for an earlier showing :( I've had to avoid spoilers. I've heard good things.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: madkenstalin on January 15, 2017, 08:39:33 AM
The last two films I've seen are "A Monster Calls" and "Manchester by the Sea". I'm in need of a comedy - both films very sad and one of them very close to home! (With less tree monster)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on January 19, 2017, 10:02:29 AM
"Logan" is/will be the Wolverine movie we deserve.

Thanks be to Deadpool.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QEN9fyhJa4[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 24, 2017, 09:03:41 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/entertainment-arts-38725372

Amy Adams didn't even get a nomination, I'd have given her the statue for Arrival.

Biggest snub of the year by far.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 24, 2017, 09:21:40 AM
Admittedly, I wasn't the biggest fan of Arrival, but yeah I don't really get that one. She carried the movie and it was nominated for Best Picture.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 24, 2017, 09:22:42 AM
Also, while I didn't expect it to get nominated for anything, the total lack of 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople' is a downright travesty. Best movie of the year in my opinion.

'Sing Street' also at least deserved a Best Original Song nomination.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 24, 2017, 02:01:30 PM

This is the first year in a while where I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the nominated movies so I don't have particularly strong opinions on nominees or snubs but doesn't it kind of feel like just a crazy down-year for movies in general? Short of maybe Moonlight or Manchester by the Sea I can't think of any of these movies really generating a ton of critical buzz and it's a year largely lacking in the bigger budget middlebrow Oscar bait.

I hope the OJ movie wins for best Documentary though.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on January 24, 2017, 02:04:20 PM
Admittedly, I wasn't the biggest fan of Arrival, but yeah I don't really get that one. She carried the movie and it was nominated for Best Picture.

In regards to this, and forgive me if maybe I'm joining the conversation late after just recently seeing it, but SPOILER: does it kind of seem after movies like Contact and Interstellar that there's a weird sameness to some of these high-concept sci-fi movies especially revolving around the concept of time?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Highlander on January 25, 2017, 10:47:56 AM
Just saw La La Land.  For me I started out kind of cold with it and was wondering what all the hoopla was about and all of a sudden it grabbed me and took me to a place where movies seldom go.  Just magical and wonderful.

Also agree that Amy Adams should have been at least nominated for Arrival.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 27, 2017, 09:12:30 AM
So, how bout dem Oscars eh.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 27, 2017, 09:51:41 AM
So, how bout dem Oscars eh.

In general pretty boring I thought. My only two thoughts on the ending are:

1. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.

2. It's interesting to see how many people are saying it was Beatty who announced the wrong winner and not Dunaway.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Coco-puffs on February 27, 2017, 09:59:32 AM
So, how bout dem Oscars eh.

In general pretty boring I thought. My only two thoughts on the ending are:

1. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.

2. It's interesting to see how many people are saying it was Beatty who announced the wrong winner and not Dunaway.

He totally threw her under the bus though.  He knew he had the wrong envelope (there is a clip of him saying "it says Emma Stone" right after Dunaway announced La-La-Land).  He should have said "we have the wrong envelope" and waited for the right one to be given to them on stage.

I thought it was boring too.  My wife always wants to watch... half-way through, I was doing chores instead of watching.  My main interest was to see how much Trump-bashing there was going to be and there was a fair amount of it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 27, 2017, 10:21:21 AM
He totally threw her under the bus though.  He knew he had the wrong envelope (there is a clip of him saying "it says Emma Stone" right after Dunaway announced La-La-Land).  He should have said "we have the wrong envelope" and waited for the right one to be given to them on stage.

I thought it was boring too.  My wife always wants to watch... half-way through, I was doing chores instead of watching.  My main interest was to see how much Trump-bashing there was going to be and there was a fair amount of it.

It seemed more to me like he wanted her to see that they had the wrong envelope too, but she took it as "here you announce it" and she saw "La La Land" written somewhere and went with it. Admittedly the whole thing was a little bungled. Here's a good explanation of what happened for anyone not totally aware: http://screenrant.com/oscars-2017-la-la-land-moonlight-best-picture/
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on February 27, 2017, 10:22:44 AM
He totally threw her under the bus though.  He knew he had the wrong envelope (there is a clip of him saying "it says Emma Stone" right after Dunaway announced La-La-Land).  He should have said "we have the wrong envelope" and waited for the right one to be given to them on stage.

That seems like a crazy harsh interpretation. I think we was confused, you can see him checking and rechecking the envelope, and handed it to her without necessarily expecting her to blurt out the first thing she saw.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Coco-puffs on February 27, 2017, 11:42:45 AM
He totally threw her under the bus though.  He knew he had the wrong envelope (there is a clip of him saying "it says Emma Stone" right after Dunaway announced La-La-Land).  He should have said "we have the wrong envelope" and waited for the right one to be given to them on stage.

That seems like a crazy harsh interpretation. I think we was confused, you can see him checking and rechecking the envelope, and handed it to her without necessarily expecting her to blurt out the first thing she saw.

I still think he put her in a difficult spot.  He didn't warn her when he was pretty sure there was an error.  I agree that my interpretation is too harsh though- it was a difficult spot to be in and the fault clearly lies with whomever handed them the incorrect envelope.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on March 06, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
I caught Logan over the weekend.

I remember being a huge fan of the Wolverine as a kid. Shorter, Canadian, kinda mouthy, but always did the heroic thing in the end (reluctantly sacrificially). He's basically a hockey enforcer dialed up to infinity with skate blades on his fists.

As I grew older and he became oversaturated in the comics landscape, I set him aside for his lack of character depth and overburdening weight of tragedy. He came back to the forefront with the advent of X-23 and his relationship with her as a reflection of his coming to terms with his own identity.

This movie captured all of that in the guise of an urban (Mid-)Western. It's not 100% perfect (logic and plot gaps as usual), but it's a beautiful rendering of the interdynamics of family, aging, and purpose. All the principals walk the line deftly between pathos and humour. Dafne Keen is a revelation as the film's catalyst.

Go see it, but don't bring your kids.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on April 10, 2017, 10:39:28 AM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MGUNV8MxU[/youtube]

I love Taika Waititi
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on April 10, 2017, 10:44:31 AM
I love Taika Waititi

The fact that Hunt for the Wilderpeople wasn't anywhere to be seen at the Oscars is a downright travesty.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on April 10, 2017, 11:04:39 AM
I love Taika Waititi

The fact that Hunt for the Wilderpeople wasn't anywhere to be seen at the Oscars is a downright travesty.

If we agree that the Academy Awards actually award excellence in the performance art of film making rather than the mutual backscratching of a curmudgeonly cabal, then yes that is an absolute travesty. It was such a majestical film.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on June 05, 2017, 03:44:07 PM
Original: https://www.instagram.com/p/BU9urTtBl55

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8qJoZUEx1s[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on June 07, 2017, 10:41:45 AM
I haven't seen WW yet, but it'll happen soon!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i0Vr6DiBCQ[/youtube]
Amber is a delight.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 01, 2017, 11:35:40 AM
So I guess "The Dark Tower" is going to suck? 95 minute run time, mediocre trailers and not being screened for critics until 24hrs prior to release date are all pretty bad signs.

I would have loved to have seen this series get the Game of Thrones treatment.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 01, 2017, 11:44:33 AM
So I guess "The Dark Tower" is going to suck? 95 minute run time, mediocre trailers and not being screened for critics until 24hrs prior to release date are all pretty bad signs.

I would have loved to have seen this series get the Game of Thrones treatment.

I just finished reading this interview with the director when I saw your post: http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/

I didn't realize that the movie is a sequel to the books. It sounds confusing. I don't really know what they're trying to do here. I only read the first two books, a long time ago, I'll have to read the entire series soon.

Apparently a TV series is still in the works that will be canon with the movie: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/31/dark-tower-tv-series-still-in-the-works
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bill_Berg on August 01, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
So I guess "The Dark Tower" is going to suck? 95 minute run time, mediocre trailers and not being screened for critics until 24hrs prior to release date are all pretty bad signs.

I would have loved to have seen this series get the Game of Thrones treatment.

I just finished reading this interview with the director when I saw your post: http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/

I didn't realize that the movie is a sequel to the books. It sounds confusing. I don't really know what they're trying to do here. I only read the first two books, a long time ago, I'll have to read the entire series soon.

Apparently a TV series is still in the works that will be canon with the movie: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/31/dark-tower-tv-series-still-in-the-works

It can make sense that this is a sequel to the books and you wouldn't have had to read the books to understand it. I won't give any spoilers, but if it's what I think it is, it makes sense that this is a sequel.

Also would prefer the Game of Thrones treatment. It is an epic series and while I understand the sequel part, I don't see how it can all fit in 93 min, unless there are more movies to come, or it's not what I think it is at all.

I'll see it for sure since it's one of my favorite novel series, but I am not getting my hopes up.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on August 01, 2017, 02:13:09 PM
Saw Dunkirk the other day. Might be one of the best war films ever made.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 01, 2017, 02:18:10 PM
So I guess "The Dark Tower" is going to suck? 95 minute run time, mediocre trailers and not being screened for critics until 24hrs prior to release date are all pretty bad signs.

I would have loved to have seen this series get the Game of Thrones treatment.

I just finished reading this interview with the director when I saw your post: http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/

I didn't realize that the movie is a sequel to the books. It sounds confusing. I don't really know what they're trying to do here. I only read the first two books, a long time ago, I'll have to read the entire series soon.

Apparently a TV series is still in the works that will be canon with the movie: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/31/dark-tower-tv-series-still-in-the-works

Yea, it sounds like they either didn't have a clear interpretation of what to do in the movie or were simply just concerned about a lucrative budget. This one was made for only 60 million and only features a couple of main characters from the books. I'm not sure what the point of it is, really; why not just stick only with the tv series?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 01, 2017, 02:24:35 PM

I'll see it for sure since it's one of my favorite novel series, but I am not getting my hopes up.

It's one of my favourites too. My hopes are immeasurably low though.

I'm a lot more optimistic on "It" and "Mr. Mercedes." Brendan Gleeson for the lead on the latter is perfect casting and Dennis Lehane wrote a number of the episodes.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 01, 2017, 02:37:27 PM
Yea, it sounds like they either didn't have a clear interpretation of what to do in the movie or were simply just concerned about a lucrative budget. This one was made for only 60 million and only features a couple of main characters from the books. I'm not sure what the point of it is, really; why not just stick only with the tv series?

I think they recognized they couldn't really do the books justice in terms of a movie - or, maybe even with a TV series - so they decided to go the sequel/alternate timeline thing as a way to tell stories from the world without the burden of having to cut parts from the books, combine characters, and the various other things that happen when a series like this is put on screen.

Doing movies and a TV series actually allows them to tell more stories, assuming that's the idea behind it. The movies will likely stick the main story, while the show will be able to expand the universe, and tell stories that enrich the experience - and that may be referenced in the movies, or impact events indirectly - but aren't essential to the plot.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Arn on August 01, 2017, 02:41:14 PM
Saw Dunkirk the other day. Might be one of the best war films ever made.

Absolute stunning piece of work. Some parts of it genuinely difficult to watch. Music score superb. Can't wait to go see it again.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on August 01, 2017, 04:17:30 PM
So I guess "The Dark Tower" is going to suck? 95 minute run time, mediocre trailers and not being screened for critics until 24hrs prior to release date are all pretty bad signs.

I would have loved to have seen this series get the Game of Thrones treatment.

I just finished reading this interview with the director when I saw your post: http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/

I didn't realize that the movie is a sequel to the books. It sounds confusing. I don't really know what they're trying to do here. I only read the first two books, a long time ago, I'll have to read the entire series soon.

Apparently a TV series is still in the works that will be canon with the movie: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/31/dark-tower-tv-series-still-in-the-works

Yea, it sounds like they either didn't have a clear interpretation of what to do in the movie or were simply just concerned about a lucrative budget. This one was made for only 60 million and only features a couple of main characters from the books. I'm not sure what the point of it is, really; why not just stick only with the tv series?

This may not add much but I would say that over the years I've met a lot of people who like the series of books and whenever I've asked them what they're about I've never really gotten an answer that either made me want to read them or that I entirely understood.

Admittedly, that may be a flaw on the part of me or my friends but I understand why that might translate into a situation where the larger apparatus of Hollywood is reluctant to sink too much into something that doesn't have an obvious hook.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 01, 2017, 07:32:27 PM
So I guess "The Dark Tower" is going to suck? 95 minute run time, mediocre trailers and not being screened for critics until 24hrs prior to release date are all pretty bad signs.

I would have loved to have seen this series get the Game of Thrones treatment.

I just finished reading this interview with the director when I saw your post: http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/

I didn't realize that the movie is a sequel to the books. It sounds confusing. I don't really know what they're trying to do here. I only read the first two books, a long time ago, I'll have to read the entire series soon.

Apparently a TV series is still in the works that will be canon with the movie: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/07/31/dark-tower-tv-series-still-in-the-works

Yea, it sounds like they either didn't have a clear interpretation of what to do in the movie or were simply just concerned about a lucrative budget. This one was made for only 60 million and only features a couple of main characters from the books. I'm not sure what the point of it is, really; why not just stick only with the tv series?

This may not add much but I would say that over the years I've met a lot of people who like the series of books and whenever I've asked them what they're about I've never really gotten an answer that either made me want to read them or that I entirely understood.

Admittedly, that may be a flaw on the part of me or my friends but I understand why that might translate into a situation where the larger apparatus of Hollywood is reluctant to sink too much into something that doesn't have an obvious hook.

You know it is a pretty odd series to describe really. It incorporates elements of science fiction, horror, adventure, fantasy all the while kind of living in a full out western movie. The later books get a little odder, add some ill-fitting meta elements to it and certainly wouldn't be easy to adapt. I completely get the trepidation on Hollywood's part; I just think that if they decide to adapt it then just go all the way in. Or don't adapt it at all. A watered down 95 minute movie with barely an iota of the main characters probably isn't going to hook anybody in. 





Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on August 01, 2017, 10:06:32 PM
A watered down 95 minute movie with barely an iota of the main characters probably isn't going to hook anybody in.

That's entirely on purpose, though. Since they're not adaptations, but a sequel to the entire Dark Tower series (likely picking up after the point King intends to end the books), the main characters from the books aren't going to be the main characters in the movies. Their stories will have happened in the past. The whole point of what they're doing is to develop new main characters for what is a new series set in the same world.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bender on August 02, 2017, 09:53:50 AM
Saw Dunkirk the other day. Might be one of the best war films ever made.

Absolute stunning piece of work. Some parts of it genuinely difficult to watch. Music score superb. Can't wait to go see it again.

It's one of the few movies I would pay money again to see in the theater. It's rare that a movie has had be nervous pretty much the whole way through.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 03, 2017, 09:27:10 AM
So reviews for Dark Tower have been, er, less than good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on August 04, 2017, 06:18:43 AM
Agree with the Dunkirk praise. That was a rousing, intense experience from start to finish. Unbelievable sound too. Just loved it.

As for Dark Tower, 20% on rottentomatoes, 34 on metacritic. Yea, I think I will wait for 'It.'
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 04, 2017, 11:46:13 AM
The Big Sick was fantastic, best romcom since About Time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bill_Berg on August 05, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
So reviews for Dark Tower have been, er, less than good.

If you're a fan of the novels, skip it.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Andy on September 07, 2017, 06:04:25 PM
'It' currently sitting at 89% at rottentomatoes. Looking forward to this!

Saw a few good ones recently: 'Baby Driver' and 'Logan'. The former was particularly great; just really entertaining from start to finish.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on October 10, 2017, 12:37:44 PM

I'm reading more and more of the Harvey Weinstein stuff and while the depths of how bad it is certainly is a bit of a shock the fact is that Weinstein has for years had a reputation of being such a jerk that it's been openly lampooned in various shows.

Weinstein will face consequences, one hopes, but it's largely meaningless if we don't combine that with a hard look at the culture that allows this to thrive. Not exclusively in film either. The idea that being good at what you do excuses lousy behaviour is a toxic one. That we accept it in so many fields(entertainment, sports, politics) is something that needs a huge change.

Be a good person. What you make is not more important than who you are. Don't support bad things. None of these are hard concepts.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: L K on October 11, 2017, 04:58:56 PM

I'm reading more and more of the Harvey Weinstein stuff and while the depths of how bad it is certainly is a bit of a shock the fact is that Weinstein has for years had a reputation of being such a jerk that it's been openly lampooned in various shows.

Weinstein will face consequences, one hopes, but it's largely meaningless if we don't combine that with a hard look at the culture that allows this to thrive. Not exclusively in film either. The idea that being good at what you do excuses lousy behaviour is a toxic one. That we accept it in so many fields(entertainment, sports, politics) is something that needs a huge change.

Be a good person. What you make is not more important than who you are. Don't support bad things. None of these are hard concepts.

The "I'm shocked and outraged" talk from the Hollywood types right now is grating.  It was openly lampooned and the rumours were going around forever.  Weinstein is also one of those guys who you piss off and your career is toast if you don't have enough clout so it isn't like we are talking about a small executive.  EVERYONE knew what he was doing and kept quiet about it.  Stop pretending like you didn't know.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 11, 2017, 10:33:05 PM
https://www.facebook.com/vanityfairmagazine/videos/10155313579727572/

This is a video of Taika Waititi breaking down a scene from Thor: Ragnarok (spoiler alert).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 12:52:48 PM

I'm reading more and more of the Harvey Weinstein stuff and while the depths of how bad it is certainly is a bit of a shock the fact is that Weinstein has for years had a reputation of being such a jerk that it's been openly lampooned in various shows.

Weinstein will face consequences, one hopes, but it's largely meaningless if we don't combine that with a hard look at the culture that allows this to thrive. Not exclusively in film either. The idea that being good at what you do excuses lousy behaviour is a toxic one. That we accept it in so many fields(entertainment, sports, politics) is something that needs a huge change.

Be a good person. What you make is not more important than who you are. Don't support bad things. None of these are hard concepts.

The "I'm shocked and outraged" talk from the Hollywood types right now is grating.  It was openly lampooned and the rumours were going around forever.  Weinstein is also one of those guys who you piss off and your career is toast if you don't have enough clout so it isn't like we are talking about a small executive.  EVERYONE knew what he was doing and kept quiet about it.  Stop pretending like you didn't know.

I'm having a hard time reconciling all of this.  I don't know how we can come back from it, at least not this generation.  Men just treat women horribly on the grand scale.  Changes need to be made to our society, and I am just not sure how those changes are going to get made.  Women have to be seen as people and not as sexual objects, but then where do we draw that line?  This means that we have to get rid of things like the Carl's Jr. ads, things like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, and the Sunshine girl in the paper.  We have to get rid of them, not because it's wrong for women to do them, but because it's clear that men can't handle that sort of stimulation.  Somehow we have to teach men that when a women is looking attractive it is because she is trying to feel good about herself and not because she is actually trying to attract attention from men.  I just feel horrible being a male these days.  I just don't know where things went off the rails, or if it was always that way, and the men that are in the world today are just the ones left holding the bag and have to clean this mess that the previous generations of males made up.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 13, 2017, 01:03:26 PM
I'm having a hard time reconciling all of this.  I don't know how we can come back from it, at least not this generation.  Men just treat women horribly on the grand scale.  Changes need to be made to our society, and I am just not sure how those changes are going to get made.  Women have to be seen as people and not as sexual objects, but then where do we draw that line?  This means that we have to get rid of things like the Carl's Jr. ads, things like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, and the Sunshine girl in the paper.  We have to get rid of them, not because it's wrong for women to do them, but because it's clear that men can't handle that sort of stimulation.  Somehow we have to teach men that when a women is looking attractive it is because she is trying to feel good about herself and not because she is actually trying to attract attention from men.  I just feel horrible being a male these days.  I just don't know where things went off the rails, or if it was always that way, and the men that are in the world today are just the ones left holding the bag and have to clean this mess that the previous generations of males made up.

The bolded is the issue. We need to educate men at a young age how to handle these stimuli. All removing them really does is enforce the perception that women being comfortable with their sexuality is somehow wrong and needs to be hidden (some of them should probably be removed, yes - like the Sunshine girl - others need to be reframed or retained).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 13, 2017, 01:08:06 PM
I know you mean well SI, but it's a slippery slope towards becoming the kind of puritan ultra-religious/conservative society we mock the far-right for and lambast some of the middle eastern countries for. I don't think the solution is to get rid of all traces of sexuality, that seems very backward and something that would lead to more repression and deviancy.

I agree that we need a complete societal shift, but on an individual level make sure you're the best version of yourself, project that attitude in all your interactions and teach your children to be the same, past that you cannot really be asked to do more.

If we can all do that the tide will change and the good news I think is that young people today seem much more kind and thoughtful than they ever did in the past.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 13, 2017, 01:09:38 PM
The bolded is the issue. We need to educate men at a young age how to handle these stimuli. All removing them really does is enforce the perception that women being comfortable with their sexuality is somehow wrong and needs to be hidden (some of them should probably be removed, yes - like the Sunshine girl - others need to be reframed or retained).

Agreed.

As usual, busta says what I was trying to, much more eloquently than I could.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 01:13:03 PM
I'm having a hard time reconciling all of this.  I don't know how we can come back from it, at least not this generation.  Men just treat women horribly on the grand scale.  Changes need to be made to our society, and I am just not sure how those changes are going to get made.  Women have to be seen as people and not as sexual objects, but then where do we draw that line?  This means that we have to get rid of things like the Carl's Jr. ads, things like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, and the Sunshine girl in the paper.  We have to get rid of them, not because it's wrong for women to do them, but because it's clear that men can't handle that sort of stimulation.  Somehow we have to teach men that when a women is looking attractive it is because she is trying to feel good about herself and not because she is actually trying to attract attention from men.  I just feel horrible being a male these days.  I just don't know where things went off the rails, or if it was always that way, and the men that are in the world today are just the ones left holding the bag and have to clean this mess that the previous generations of males made up.

The bolded is the issue. We need to educate men at a young age how to handle these stimuli. All removing them really does is enforce the perception that women being comfortable with their sexuality is somehow wrong and needs to be hidden (some of them should probably be removed, yes - like the Sunshine girl - others need to be reframed or retained).

Yeah, I see your point.  I just don't know how we go from one to the other.  I don't necessarily disagree with you, because I do believe that the root of the problem is in the way men perceive women.  It's just that if your primarily portray something as a sexual object, then how do you get around not seeing that thing as a sexual object. 

For example, women who go to strip clubs, will treat the men at the strip club as if they are a sexual objects, but that is what they are being portrayed as.  So in that scenario there is this social contract that everyone has agreed that this is the norm in that situation. 

However in society, portraying women as sexual objects doesn't seem to stop at a strip club.  Men not so much in normal society.  Women get objectified in everything, because of several reasons, but I would say primarily because sex sells.   So I agree that men have to learn how to handle it.  I guess what I am trying look at is, can you have that solution, when there is an over abundance of material that is presenting one of the sexes in that light?  If the tables were turned, and every movie had a guy with his parts hanging out, instead of a women, and every add showed a mans buttocks, would the women then perceive men as purely sexual objects?  Or do women perceive stimuli such as that differently and it wouldn't be a problem?  We can change the amount of the stimuli, or we can change the way the stimuli are mapped in the male brain.  If we change the mapping though, I wonder if we run in to other problems.     
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 13, 2017, 01:21:24 PM
Yeah, I see your point.  I just don't know how we go from one to the other.  I don't necessarily disagree with you, because I do believe that the root of the problem is in the way men perceive women.  It's just that if your primarily portray something as a sexual object, then how do you get around not seeing that thing as a sexual object. 

Perception is definitely the primary issue, as it colours your interpretation of portrayal. For example, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue could be perceived as either portraying women as sexual objects or admiring the beauty of the female form (or, most likely, both). The shift needs to be from the former to the latter - and that can really only come about with proper education and less puritanical societal attitudes towards sexuality. Obviously, it won't get rid of all the problems - at the end of the day, assholes are going to continue to act like assholes, regardless of how frequently and emphatically society tells them they're being assholes - but it should reduce it quite drastically.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 01:28:06 PM
Yeah, I see your point.  I just don't know how we go from one to the other.  I don't necessarily disagree with you, because I do believe that the root of the problem is in the way men perceive women.  It's just that if your primarily portray something as a sexual object, then how do you get around not seeing that thing as a sexual object. 

Perception is definitely the primary issue, as it colours your interpretation of portrayal. For example, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue could be perceived as either portraying women as sexual objects or admiring the beauty of the female form (or, most likely, both). The shift needs to be from the former to the latter - and that can really only come about with proper education and less puritanical societal attitudes towards sexuality. Obviously, it won't get rid of all the problems - at the end of the day, assholes are going to continue to act like assholes, regardless of how frequently and emphatically society tells them they're being assholes - but it should reduce it quite drastically.

I hope so, because right now it feels like we are all assholes.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: bustaheims on November 13, 2017, 01:45:58 PM
I hope so, because right now it feels like we are all assholes.

There are a lot of assholes being exposed, yes, and we've all probably been guilty of being a certain degree of jerk in the past. all we can really do now is our best to not be assholes in the future, teach the younger generations to not be assholes, and support women when they come out and expose the behaviour of assholes.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 01:50:19 PM
I agree a lot with what busta is saying. Hiding from is not the same as learning to navigate difficult situations.

I'd also caution against trying to figure out the male brain/female brain difference, because a) it gives license to treat genders differently; b) there is no scientific basis that male brains are intrinsically different than female brains, other than size (which is also a non-factor because it's gray-to-white matter ratio stuff). The differences you see come about because of societal/cultural conditioning. Don't be that butthole who wrote a manifesto to his high-profile Silicon Valley workplace about it.

Thoughts I've been mulling:
How do you compliment your son, or young boys, in general? How do you compliment your daughter, or young girls, in general? "Great job! It was very smart how you solved that problem" or "Wow you look so pretty in that whatever you're wearing"? Those interactions teach kids what is normal and expected and what is valued about them.

Not obstructing women from having a voice in the public sphere (media, movies, ad direction, higher level education, politics, etc.) will go a long way.

Not blaming women for the failures of those who predate and abuse them will go a long way. Believe people who call out this behaviour.

Teaching boys and men how to respect girls and women (and anyone different really) as much, if not more than we teach girls and women how to protect themselves from harm will go a long way.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 13, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
I'm having a hard time reconciling all of this.  I don't know how we can come back from it, at least not this generation.  Men just treat women horribly on the grand scale.  Changes need to be made to our society, and I am just not sure how those changes are going to get made.  Women have to be seen as people and not as sexual objects, but then where do we draw that line?  This means that we have to get rid of things like the Carl's Jr. ads, things like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, and the Sunshine girl in the paper.  We have to get rid of them, not because it's wrong for women to do them, but because it's clear that men can't handle that sort of stimulation.  Somehow we have to teach men that when a women is looking attractive it is because she is trying to feel good about herself and not because she is actually trying to attract attention from men.  I just feel horrible being a male these days.  I just don't know where things went off the rails, or if it was always that way, and the men that are in the world today are just the ones left holding the bag and have to clean this mess that the previous generations of males made up.

I don't think it's quite as grim as all that. You're right, we do need a considerable shift in the way we approach this issue but I tend to be pretty optimistic that we can go a ways towards getting things correct.

In fact, I think a lot of the solutions here exist and have existed for a while, they've just tended to been rejected because they threatened entrenched power structures.

Look at what's happening with the Wonder Woman movie right now. The star of it, who has a considerable amount of leverage as she's negotiating her next deal, has said she won't sign unless if Brett Ratner is completely disassociated from the film. That is a by-product of women having more power within the industry something that women have been advocating for for quite some time. The problem has been every time diversity is brought up as something that would create a better atmosphere or environment you get a lot of "BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MENS?" or your slightly more urbane appeals to the idea of a meritocracy(in which merit is, of course, defined by the mostly white mostly male established power structure).

And that filters down. Some of the examples you use about stimulation are valid examples of how stupid society can be at times but really they're just examples of how female beauty and female sexuality is so often defined by and distorted for the appetites of men. Again, have more women making commercials or editing magazines and newspapers and that dominant narrative holds less sway.

The really reprehensible actions of people like Louis CK and Weinstein represent a failure/criminality on their part, sure, but we shouldn't lose a focus from reforming the system that not only allowed them to persist but actively shielded them from the consequences of their actions(and seeked to silence and punish the people they abused).

So I think there's a way back from this but I think it chiefly involves radically re-examining the way power is structured and a lot less dismissing of valid complaints and concerns as "political correctness". It's a long way to go, sure, but I think the responsible thing for us to do in the service of that goal is to work towards it, even if it means us guys might be in charge a little bit less.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 02:07:45 PM
I agree a lot with what busta is saying. Hiding from is not the same as learning to navigate difficult situations.

I'd also caution against trying to figure out the male brain/female brain difference, because a) it gives license to treat genders differently; b) there is no scientific basis that male brains are intrinsically different than female brains, other than size (which is also a non-factor because it's gray-to-white matter ratio stuff). The differences you see come about because of societal/cultural conditioning. Don't be that butthole who wrote a manifesto to his high-profile Silicon Valley workplace about it.

Thoughts I've been mulling:
How do you compliment your son, or young boys, in general? How do you compliment your daughter, or young girls, in general? "Great job! It was very smart how you solved that problem" or "Wow you look so pretty in that whatever you're wearing"? Those interactions teach kids what is normal and expected and what is valued about them.

Not obstructing women from having a voice in the public sphere (media, movies, ad direction, higher level education, politics, etc.) will go a long way.

Not blaming women for the failures of those who predate and abuse them will go a long way. Believe people who call out this behaviour.

Teaching boys and men how to respect girls and women (and anyone different really) as much, if not more than we teach girls and women how to protect themselves from harm will go a long way.

I understand what you are saying Herman.  It's just that there are some differences between men and women.  I would never say that a women thinks differently than a man or is incapable of thinking like a man.  I would say that people in general care about different things based on what there own goals are in life.

However, at our cores, we are biological entities.  We had a new years eve party once with a group of married couples.  We played a game called Battle of the Sexes.  In it one of the questions to the guys was "What sense is the biggest turn on for women?"  The listed touch, sound, or sight.  I picked sound.  I always thought women respond to auditory cues.  But, according to this game, and the women we were playing the game with, they aren't, and they react to touch.  Men, for the most part, react to visual cues.

Now this isn't to paint all men and women with the same brush, but generally speaking, it would appear that we react differently to different stimuli based on our sex.  So what impact does that have on people in their day to day lives?  I don't want to live a puritanical life.  But understanding how media affects peoples minds can go a long way to helping us how we shape the message that we actually want to be sending.  I think right now, we are sending messages with the sole goal of trying to generate revenue, and that lack of forethought is seen in a lot of our ad's and movies.  Look at James Cameron's comments on Wonder Woman.  Do you agree with them or disagree with them?
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 02:22:03 PM
I'm having a hard time reconciling all of this.  I don't know how we can come back from it, at least not this generation.  Men just treat women horribly on the grand scale.  Changes need to be made to our society, and I am just not sure how those changes are going to get made.  Women have to be seen as people and not as sexual objects, but then where do we draw that line?  This means that we have to get rid of things like the Carl's Jr. ads, things like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, and the Sunshine girl in the paper.  We have to get rid of them, not because it's wrong for women to do them, but because it's clear that men can't handle that sort of stimulation.  Somehow we have to teach men that when a women is looking attractive it is because she is trying to feel good about herself and not because she is actually trying to attract attention from men.  I just feel horrible being a male these days.  I just don't know where things went off the rails, or if it was always that way, and the men that are in the world today are just the ones left holding the bag and have to clean this mess that the previous generations of males made up.

I don't think it's quite as grim as all that. You're right, we do need a considerable shift in the way we approach this issue but I tend to be pretty optimistic that we can go a ways towards getting things correct.

In fact, I think a lot of the solutions here exist and have existed for a while, they've just tended to been rejected because they threatened entrenched power structures.

Look at what's happening with the Wonder Woman movie right now. The star of it, who has a considerable amount of leverage as she's negotiating her next deal, has said she won't sign unless if Brett Ratner is completely disassociated from the film. That is a by-product of women having more power within the industry something that women have been advocating for for quite some time. The problem has been every time diversity is brought up as something that would create a better atmosphere or environment you get a lot of "BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MENS?" or your slightly more urbane appeals to the idea of a meritocracy(in which merit is, of course, defined by the mostly white mostly male established power structure).

And that filters down. Some of the examples you use about stimulation are valid examples of how stupid society can be at times but really they're just examples of how female beauty and female sexuality is so often defined by and distorted for the appetites of men. Again, have more women making commercials or editing magazines and newspapers and that dominant narrative holds less sway.

The really reprehensible actions of people like Louis CK and Weinstein represent a failure/criminality on their part, sure, but we shouldn't lose a focus from reforming the system that not only allowed them to persist but actively shielded them from the consequences of their actions(and seeked to silence and punish the people they abused).

So I think there's a way back from this but I think it chiefly involves radically re-examining the way power is structured and a lot less dismissing of valid complaints and concerns as "political correctness". It's a long way to go, sure, but I think the responsible thing for us to do in the service of that goal is to work towards it, even if it means us guys might be in charge a little bit less.

Thanks for the post Nik.  I may be a little on the dark side right now.  I read this article this morning:

https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/rebecca-traister-on-the-post-weinstein-reckoning.html

and it got me thinking, and it got me trying to remember every interaction that I have had with a female.  I'm sure I have told an off-color joke, or invalidated a women in some way with something that I have said at some point through my life trying to be funny, but failing miserably.  I mean probably not through my adult years, but more than likely when I was a teenager.

After reading that article above, there really isn't an excuse for it.  And that's not to say that I fit in to the Weinstein/Sex Monster grouping, but it probably mean that I'm not a "good guy" either.  As WIGWAL said, at this point all I can do is teach my three boys to be a better man than I am and hope that the world gets better, but it doesn't seem like it's enough.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 13, 2017, 02:26:13 PM
SI, the fact that you are looking at all of this in great detail, analyzing your actions and trying to be better, means that you certainly are a good guy, you're part of the solution.

Nobody is perfect, but we can all try to be, give yourself a break and keep fighting the good fight.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 02:31:02 PM
James Cameron's comments (http://collider.com/james-cameron-wonder-woman/) were off base. Beauty and strength of character are not mutually exclusive (see Chris Evan's Steve Rogers portrayal, which no one has any such problems with). There are more than a handful of movies in which Gal Gadot (as well as the character of Wonder Woman) is sexualized, but Jenkin's Wonder Woman was not one of them. Cameron had a lot to say about Gadot's body, but oddly had nothing to say about the character's motivations, optimism/hopefulness, sense of justice and compassion, etc.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 13, 2017, 02:34:37 PM
and it got me thinking, and it got me trying to remember every interaction that I have had with a female.  I'm sure I have told an off-color joke, or invalidated a women in some way with something that I have said at some point through my life trying to be funny, but failing miserably.  I mean probably not through my adult years, but more than likely when I was a teenager.

I think the last few weeks have probably inspired a lot of similar introspection. Which is a good thing. Reflection and a genuine desire to be better in our future behaviours should be a continuous process for all of us.

But let's also acknowledge we're talking about a super-low bar to clear here(mainly it just involves not showing your genitals to anyone who doesn't want to see them). None of these scandals are about women objecting to being politely and respectfully asked out or an occasional off-colour comment.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 03:11:06 PM
and it got me thinking, and it got me trying to remember every interaction that I have had with a female.  I'm sure I have told an off-color joke, or invalidated a women in some way with something that I have said at some point through my life trying to be funny, but failing miserably.  I mean probably not through my adult years, but more than likely when I was a teenager.

I think the last few weeks have probably inspired a lot of similar introspection. Which is a good thing. Reflection and a genuine desire to be better in our future behaviours should be a continuous process for all of us.

But let's also acknowledge we're talking about a super-low bar to clear here(mainly it just involves not showing your genitals to anyone who doesn't want to see them). None of these scandals are about women objecting to being politely and respectfully asked out or an occasional off-colour comment.

True.  I guess I think of all the guy "locker room talk" and the comments that get made in there, and everyone is okay with it.  It seems that some of these comments speak to the core individual that they are.  I also think of some of the stories that I heard about some of the football players that I went to highschool with.  I remember this one class that I had, where the guy behind me in my business class told everybody that the girl behind him let an entire hockey team sleep with her.  This happened in the middle of a class.  He said it to a teacher, out loud.  The teachers response was "Oh c'mon, that's gross",  and no one else said anything.  I was a part of that group.  I said nothing.  They're just words, but think about the impact that must have had on her life at that time?  I also think of the rumours that circulated about this other girl that went to my highschool, and the nicknames that they called her as she walked through the halls.  Again, I said nothing.  There is a lot of rage associated with everything that is going on right now, and I look at my own actions, and I feel like I should have done more in my own life.  In retrospect, this seems like something that shouldn't have had to have been "learned".   

Although, I guess I should also focus on some of the positives as well.  I remember going to a restaurant where the women are provocatively dressed.  Some of the guys at are table made some comments, not directly to the women, but sort whispering among themselves.  One of the older gentlemen at the table put a stop to it by basically saying "Easy guys, you will want to be gentlemen from now on, and not schoolboys forever."  The statement worked, but maybe it seems a touch light in hindsight.

We'll attempt to move forward with these social issues, but it just feels like we never get anywhere.  I look at the race situation in the states, and I am not sure that I hold out much more hope for gender relations, but we'll see. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 13, 2017, 03:19:18 PM
We'll attempt to move forward with these social issues, but it just feels like we never get anywhere.

Maybe but I don't think that's because we've tried a lot and it hasn't worked, I think it's because we really haven't prioritized it as something to shift about our society.

Someone made a good point on twitter yesterday about how with everything going on right now, with race and gender, it can seem like everything is getting worse or that progress isn't getting made. But the fact that these things are out there, that we're learning about these things, aren't a sign that things are getting worse but that our standards are rising and are finally being applied.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
James Cameron's comments (http://collider.com/james-cameron-wonder-woman/) were off base. Beauty and strength of character are not mutually exclusive (see Chris Evan's Steve Rogers portrayal, which no one has any such problems with). There are more than a handful of movies in which Gal Gadot (as well as the character of Wonder Woman) is sexualized, but Jenkin's Wonder Woman was not one of them. Cameron had a lot to say about Gadot's body, but oddly had nothing to say about the character's motivations, optimism/hopefulness, sense of justice and compassion, etc.

So just to play Devil's advocate here, why is it that female super heroes are dressed the way they are?  Watch the movie King Arthur, the one with Keira Knightly and Clive Owen.  Warning, it's not the best movie.  Near the end there is a big battle.  My wife flat out said in the middle of the movie "What the hell is she wearing to a battle?"

It's not that beauty and strength of character are mutally exclusive.  It's that you don't have to accentuate one to have a person accept the other.  Gal Godot would still be a powerful female lead if she wore a suit that cover her arms and her legs, much like Batman and Superman.  If Wonder Woman is saving the world in what she is wearing, why isn't Superman fighting crime in a loincloth?  I mean the hole in that argument may be "Well look at Tarzan", which is probably valid, but still.

Look, you know I am a comic book fan, and I like them, but one of the complaints levelled against comics when it comes to female characters is:
3. Sexist Costumes
Look, there's nothing wrong with the occasional leather catsuit. But when every female character in comics is wearing some kind of skin-tight, high-heeled, cleavage-bearing nightmare ensemble, it starts to feel like objectification. Sure, the men might be wearing tights too, but they definitely aren't heading into battle with bare midriffs and exposed breast bones (looking at you, whoever designed poor Powergirl's outfit).
taken from here: https://www.bustle.com/articles/136980-10-struggles-all-female-comic-book-fans-understand

It just seems that in order for the world to accept a powerful women, she has to be dressed in a skin tight outfit, and I think Cameron's comments were "Look at Linda Hamilton in T2.  Powerful woman.  Wore normal women's clothes." which I don't think are completely off base.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 03:42:14 PM
We'll attempt to move forward with these social issues, but it just feels like we never get anywhere.

Maybe but I don't think that's because we've tried a lot and it hasn't worked, I think it's because we really haven't prioritized it as something to shift about our society.

Someone made a good point on twitter yesterday about how with everything going on right now, with race and gender, it can seem like everything is getting worse or that progress isn't getting made. But the fact that these things are out there, that we're learning about these things, aren't a sign that things are getting worse but that our standards are rising and are finally being applied.

This is true.  And probably a good way to look at it.  However keeping your dick in your pants or don't grope people who don't want you to touch them, as you would say, seems like a pretty low bar to get too.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 03:56:07 PM
So just to play Devil's advocate here, why is it that female super heroes are dressed the way they are?  Watch the movie King Arthur, the one with Keira Knightly and Clive Owen.  Warning, it's not the best movie.  Near the end there is a big battle.  My wife flat out said in the middle of the movie "What the hell is she wearing to a battle?"

It's not that beauty and strength of character are mutally exclusive.  It's that you don't have to accentuate one to have a person accept the other.  Gal Godot would still be a powerful female lead if she wore a suit that cover her arms and her legs, much like Batman and Superman.  If Wonder Woman is saving the world in what she is wearing, why isn't Superman fighting crime in a loincloth?  I mean the hole in that argument may be "Well look at Tarzan", which is probably valid, but still.

Look, you know I am a comic book fan, and I like them, but one of the complaints levelled against comics when it comes to female characters is:
3. Sexist Costumes
Look, there's nothing wrong with the occasional leather catsuit. But when every female character in comics is wearing some kind of skin-tight, high-heeled, cleavage-bearing nightmare ensemble, it starts to feel like objectification. Sure, the men might be wearing tights too, but they definitely aren't heading into battle with bare midriffs and exposed breast bones (looking at you, whoever designed poor Powergirl's outfit).
taken from here: https://www.bustle.com/articles/136980-10-struggles-all-female-comic-book-fans-understand

It just seems that in order for the world to accept a powerful women, she has to be dressed in a skin tight outfit, and I think Cameron's comments were "Look at Linda Hamilton in T2.  Powerful woman.  Wore normal women's clothes." which I don't think are completely off base.

We both know why female 'armour' in most comic book movies is designed that way, and it's stupid. Initially, skin-tight costumes were primarily for ease of repeated hand drawing in comics. Now, it's clearly for other reasons with certain artists.

What's off base about Cameron's comments here are that what Jenkin's Wonder Woman is wearing is not really the point of the movie or the character. What's also off base about Cameron's comments is that he is purporting to be feminist by telling Wonder Woman what she should wear and should not look like.

Let's see here:

Trace the thread in the tweet above and you get to:
http://www.core77.com/posts/67334/Breaking-Down-the-Design-of-the-Amazonian-Armor-in-Wonder-Woman

If he took the time to actually watch the movie, and read up on the research the costume department put into their work, maybe he'd see that Jenkin's Wonder Woman actually portrayed a Wonder Woman, for the first time in media, wearing what a strong woman of her time and context actually wore.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 04:02:49 PM
While we're on the topic of the Male Gaze: check out the Hawkeye Initiative (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com)*.

* when you get home. Because you will be a workplace distraction for how loudly you laugh.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 04:09:50 PM
We both know why female 'armour' in most comic book movies is designed that way, and it's stupid. Initially, skin-tight costumes were primarily for ease of repeated hand drawing in comics. Now, it's clearly for other reasons with certain artists.

And it's got to change.  If you can't sell a female lead to a male audience without exposing cleavage or bare legs, there is a problem there.  That seems to be part of the problem with having men accept women as equals.   

What's off base about Cameron's comments here are that what Jenkin's Wonder Woman is wearing is not really the point of the movie or the character. What's also off base about Cameron's comments is that he is purporting to be feminist by telling Wonder Woman what she should wear and should not look like.

Well if you see it that way, I see your point.  I don't take his comments that way.  I see him as saying you should have changed the outfit more, and made it less about how she looked, and more about the person she was.  I think he was saying she could have done even more to advance the perception of women in movies, because he was able to successfully do it in T2.

Now I realize this will all fall apart when Cameron gets accused of some sort of heinous crime in the next couple of hours, and at that point I will have to eat my words, but at this point I don't think that he's trying to tell Wonder Woman to cover up.  He's asking why as a society does Wonder Woman have to be dressed that way for us to accept her.


Let's see here:

Trace the thread in the tweet above and you get to:
http://www.core77.com/posts/67334/Breaking-Down-the-Design-of-the-Amazonian-Armor-in-Wonder-Woman

If he took the time to actually watch the movie, and read up on the research the costume department put into their work, maybe he'd see that Jenkin's Wonder Woman actually portrayed a Wonder Woman, for the first time in media, wearing what a strong woman of her time and context actually wore.

Joan of Arc wore a full suit of armour.  Know why?  Cause arrows to the arms and legs suck.  If you have the metal to make the breast plate, don't stop there. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 13, 2017, 04:11:30 PM
Yeah, the idea of "practical" armor for women(or anyone) being covered head to toe in metal and/or leather chiefly comes from so much of our concept of "fantasy" being based on Norse, Celtic and Frankish traditions where the climates allowed for that. Mediterranean or African traditions wouldn't call for fully armored warriors of either gender because they'd boil to death(think of our ideas of Roman Centurions).

Now, you could maybe read something into Wonder Woman's origin being Mediterranean and the...uh, salty nature of her creator's predilections being questionable but I don't think we should think of Northern European traditions as being the norm for everyone either.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 04:31:18 PM
Well if you see it that way, I see your point.  I don't take his comments that way.  I see him as saying you should have changed the outfit more, and made it less about how she looked, and more about the person she was.  I think he was saying she could have done even more to advance the perception of women in movies, because he was able to successfully do it in T2.

Now I realize this will all fall apart when Cameron gets accused of some sort of heinous crime in the next couple of hours, and at that point I will have to eat my words, but at this point I don't think that he's trying to tell Wonder Woman to cover up.  He's asking why as a society does Wonder Woman have to be dressed that way for us to accept her. 

James Cameron has been married 5 times, so he's definitely an expert on women. One of them being Linda Hamilton! Who is a strong woman that he apparently made, according how he's going on and on about Sarah Connor.

Anyway, I get what you're saying; I'm just saying it doesn't exactly apply to this particular movie, which pretty much got it right (and at the same time managed to pay homage appropriately to a design that was originally sourced from fetishwear). Themyscira is, as Nik mentioned, in the Mediterranean Sea. They did not have pants, or even sleeved shirts, let alone full body armour.

This is how Jenkin's responded to Cameron, btw:
Quote
“James Cameron’s inability to understand what Wonder Woman is, or stands for, to women all over the world is unsurprising as, though he is a great filmmaker, he is not a woman. Strong women are great. His praise of my film Monster, and our portrayal of a strong yet damaged woman was so appreciated. But if women have to always be hard, tough and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we. I believe women can and should be EVERYTHING just like male lead characters should be. There is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman. And the massive female audience who made the film a hit it is, can surely choose and judge their own icons of progress.”

Strength in women is not for James Cameron to decide.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 04:35:41 PM
Further to all of that, Wonder Woman pushed back against how women were portrayed in movies with the masterful casting of Robin Wright:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/robin-wright-1497040467.jpg)
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 04:38:54 PM
Yeah, the idea of "practical" armor for women(or anyone) being covered head to toe in metal and/or leather chiefly comes from so much of our concept of "fantasy" being based on Norse, Celtic and Frankish traditions where the climates allowed for that. Mediterranean or African traditions wouldn't call for fully armored warriors of either gender because they'd boil to death(think of our ideas of Roman Centurions).

Now, you could maybe read something into Wonder Woman's origin being Mediterranean and the...uh, salty nature of her creator's predilections being questionable but I don't think we should think of Northern European traditions as being the norm for everyone either.

Fair points.  So I guess that blows a hole in that theory.  I guess I just feel that even though Wonder Woman was a step in the right direction, if you do compare her to the Sarah Connor character, there is some merit in saying that the Connor character relied less on looks than the Wonder Woman character.

However, it is a comic book movie, and to be fair, there are lots of scenes in other comic book movie's where one of the Chris's is walking around without a shirt.  So maybe it's more of a genre thing than it is a sexism thing.  I guess it comes down too, would those movies still have a big following if they weren't shown as these physical specimens?  Would Wonder Woman have done as well as it did if they had taken more of an approach that is being suggested by Cameron?   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 04:55:33 PM
James Cameron has been married 5 times, so he's definitely an expert on women. One of them being Linda Hamilton! Who is a strong woman that he apparently made, according how he's going on and on about Sarah Connor.

I've been married for 15 years to one woman.  I am also not an expert on women.

Anyway, I get what you're saying; I'm just saying it doesn't exactly apply to this particular movie, which pretty much got it right (and at the same time managed to pay homage appropriately to a design that was originally sourced from fetishwear). Themyscira is, as Nik mentioned, in the Mediterranean Sea. They did not have pants, or even sleeved shirts, let alone full body armour.

Yeah, I'd have to rewatch the movie again.  I'm going on memory, which is usually pretty good.  I typically only remember the fight scenes though.  A coworker of mine made a comment on how he didn't like that there was a scene where she was naked ( they didn't show anything) and how it didn't have anything to do with the plot.  He's a little more sensitive to these things as he has a young daughter and he focuses on these things when he watches movies.  It was shortly after his comments that I read the Cameron comments, so I guess they just stuck.  I don't really remember the scene that he is talking about though.   

This is how Jenkin's responded to Cameron, btw:
Quote
“James Cameron’s inability to understand what Wonder Woman is, or stands for, to women all over the world is unsurprising as, though he is a great filmmaker, he is not a woman. Strong women are great. His praise of my film Monster, and our portrayal of a strong yet damaged woman was so appreciated. But if women have to always be hard, tough and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we. I believe women can and should be EVERYTHING just like male lead characters should be. There is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman. And the massive female audience who made the film a hit it is, can surely choose and judge their own icons of progress.”

Strength in women is not for James Cameron to decide.

No it's not, and she makes some fair points.  Again we get in to the dicey areas of how things are perceived by individuals though.  Not everyone is going to see things the same way.  Strength in anyone really is not for anyone else to decide, but we all have opinions.  We are what our actions define us as.  There are some actions that are completely indefensible.  There are some actions that require no explanation as to why you did them.  Then there are a whole bunch of actions that sit in the grey and are open to interpretation based on a persons point of view.  And from that angle, in someones else's opinion, you could be a strong person or not,  and at that point, you will need to believe in yourself if you feel you are a strong person.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 13, 2017, 05:00:41 PM
Fair points.  So I guess that blows a hole in that theory.  I guess I just feel that even though Wonder Woman was a step in the right direction, if you do compare her to the Sarah Connor character, there is some merit in saying that the Connor character relied less on looks than the Wonder Woman character.

However, it is a comic book movie, and to be fair, there are lots of scenes in other comic book movie's where one of the Chris's is walking around without a shirt.  So maybe it's more of a genre thing than it is a sexism thing.  I guess it comes down too, would those movies still have a big following if they weren't shown as these physical specimens?  Would Wonder Woman have done as well as it did if they had taken more of an approach that is being suggested by Cameron?

I'm not the biggest fan of these superhero movies(I don't hate them, they're ok for the most part) so I don't remember Wonder Woman that well but I don't remember there being anything overtly sexual in it. Unless you're just referring to Gal Gadot being a good looking woman in which case I'll defer to Jenkins on that one.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 13, 2017, 05:09:20 PM
While we're on the topic of the Male Gaze: check out the Hawkeye Initiative (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com)*.

* when you get home. Because you will be a workplace distraction for how loudly you laugh.

I'll be in my bunk.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 05:18:32 PM
Yeah, I'd have to rewatch the movie again.  I'm going on memory, which is usually pretty good.  I typically only remember the fight scenes though.  A coworker of mine made a comment on how he didn't like that there was a scene where she was naked ( they didn't show anything) and how it didn't have anything to do with the plot.  He's a little more sensitive to these things as he has a young daughter and he focuses on these things when he watches movies.  It was shortly after his comments that I read the Cameron comments, so I guess they just stuck.  I don't really remember the scene that he is talking about though.   

Perhaps your co-worker was talking about Chris Pine's nude scene in the healing pool, as that is the only (semi-)frivolous 'nudity' I can recall.

Speaking of thing being open to interpretation and having actions define who we are, I alluded to this earlier, but where's the backlash on Marvel casting Chris Evans* as Steve Rogers? Can't we do better than to cast super attractive white males as heroes? Where's the grit and complexity and strength in that? I'm being facetious, but when you put these comments on the other foot, it makes the stupid more obvious.

Why can't strong women also be attractive? Or is it because being a gorgeous woman means no one will take you seriously? Oh she must only get by on her looks? Cameron's comments are just a different way perpetuating that women should be judged by their appearance, while men are judged by their achievements.

* Chris Evans captured Steve's essence perfectly.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 07:18:03 PM
Yeah, I'd have to rewatch the movie again.  I'm going on memory, which is usually pretty good.  I typically only remember the fight scenes though.  A coworker of mine made a comment on how he didn't like that there was a scene where she was naked ( they didn't show anything) and how it didn't have anything to do with the plot.  He's a little more sensitive to these things as he has a young daughter and he focuses on these things when he watches movies.  It was shortly after his comments that I read the Cameron comments, so I guess they just stuck.  I don't really remember the scene that he is talking about though.   

Perhaps your co-worker was talking about Chris Pine's nude scene in the healing pool, as that is the only (semi-)frivolous 'nudity' I can recall.

Speaking of thing being open to interpretation and having actions define who we are, I alluded to this earlier, but where's the backlash on Marvel casting Chris Evans* as Steve Rogers? Can't we do better than to cast super attractive white males as heroes? Where's the grit and complexity and strength in that? I'm being facetious, but when you put these comments on the other foot, it makes the stupid more obvious.

Why can't strong women also be attractive? Or is it because being a gorgeous woman means no one will take you seriously? Oh she must only get by on her looks? Cameron's comments are just a different way perpetuating that women should be judged by their appearance, while men are judged by their achievements.

* Chris Evans captured Steve's essence perfectly.

So the fact that men are judged by their achievements means that it is easier for them to be successful without being attractive.  So much so that Brad Pitt reportedly took roles in Califonia and Twelve Monkeys to downplay his looks so that he would be taken as a serious actor.  You also have actresses like Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates, and Melissa McCarthy who have managed to have great careers and be taken seriously as solid actresses.

The thing with super hero movies is that there is a certain physique that they need to go with.  However, I think they can get away with an ugly male (see Deadpool after burning) and still have the movie be successful.  I'm not saying that a super heroine can't be beautiful and strong.  She definitely can be.  I'm just saying that I don't think they can make a successful super heroine movie with a female character that is considered less than attractive.  When they can accomplish that, then that will be ground breaking.   

I also don't think that there was backlash particularly on the casting of Gal Godot, I think it was more on what the film was appealing to.  Cameron's expanded his comments:

"Linda looked great. She just wasn't treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn't there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, "letting" a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn't think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn't get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they've got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. Look, it was probably a little bit of a simplistic remark on my part, and I'm not walking it back, but I will add a little detail to it, which is: I like the fact that, sexually, she had the upper hand with the male character, which I thought was fun."

See from my part, I didn't view Wonder Woman as this ground breaking film for women, mainly because of some of the stereotypes that I attach to comic books and the history that I have with them.  I was more shocked that the DCEU was able to put together a great movie. 

Also, I sense you really don't like James Cameron.  Here's an article on him from Linda Hamilton's eyes.  Read it, the title is a bit misleading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/7345843/Linda-Hamilton-life-with-James-Cameron-was-terrible-on-every-level.html

I get the guy is a self obsessed prick, but I don't think he is as bad as Weinstein.  However I don't know the guy, and he could have been doing evil things all this time.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: OldTimeHockey on November 13, 2017, 08:10:22 PM

 However, I think they can get away with an ugly male (see Deadpool after burning) and still have the movie be successful.   

It was still Ryan Reynolds under that costume. They also made sure that his 'package' was large and on display.

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 08:36:13 PM
So the fact that men are judged by their achievements means that it is easier for them to be successful without being attractive.  So much so that Brad Pitt reportedly took roles in Califonia and Twelve Monkeys to downplay his looks so that he would be taken as a serious actor.  You also have actresses like Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates, and Melissa McCarthy who have managed to have great careers and be taken seriously as solid actresses.

The thing with super hero movies is that there is a certain physique that they need to go with.  However, I think they can get away with an ugly male (see Deadpool after burning) and still have the movie be successful.  I'm not saying that a super heroine can't be beautiful and strong.  She definitely can be.  I'm just saying that I don't think they can make a successful super heroine movie with a female character that is considered less than attractive.  When they can accomplish that, then that will be ground breaking.   

This is another example of the power differential Nik mentioned earlier today being a root cause of the state of affairs we currently have today. Beauty is power, much the same way money and racial privilege are. The fact a small handful of female actors are being lauded for their ability to overcome their lack of traditional beauty is a symptom of that systemic toxicity. The sure fire way for a woman to gain Oscar buzz is to gain weight and prosthetically mar her natural features in a serious movie (e.g. Monster).


I also don't think that there was backlash particularly on the casting of Gal Godot, I think it was more on what the film was appealing to.
See from my part, I didn't view Wonder Woman as this ground breaking film for women, mainly because of some of the stereotypes that I attach to comic books and the history that I have with them.  I was more shocked that the DCEU was able to put together a great movie.   

I understand how you would consider Wonder Woman to not be groundbreaking as it is a largely vanilla comic book movie — The Dark Knight* it is not.

* How many Batman films did it take to get there though?

Let me ask you: can you name 5 female leads that young girls who are of an age to watch TV or movies might be encouraged to view as role models? How many of them have identities that are not defined by men? How many of them even talk to other women in their stories? Did those films or shows pass the Bechdel Test (https://bechdeltest.com)?

Chances are, girls grew up with Disney princesses as their role models, who, for the most part, are a) defined by their beauty in men’s eyes; b) waiting for a man to save/marry her; c) victims in their stories. Sure, there were also Linda Hamilton and Sigourny Weaver and Carrie Anne Moss’s characters in the Terminator and Alien and Matrix franchises, but are those movies for pre-teens? Heck, how about for young girls who aren’t white?

That’s the context Wonder Woman (and the Supergirl TV show) are operating in, and shows like Buffy before them. In them girls now have live action role models who are first and foremost a) inherently good and strong; b) smart and capable; c) beautiful but not either virginal victims or lascivious temptresses. Why do you think Frozen was so unbelievably popular?

So yes, I see them as absolutely groundbreaking. I’m not female, but I am trying to see through their lens and it’s an obviously uphill climb. If we want to break society out from this current state where sexual abuse is rampant, rape is handwaved away as ‘boys will be boys’, then it begins by changing the narrative that girls and women grow up in, and boys and men building that space with them.

As an aside, Gal Gadot’s casting was absolutely panned by fans and media (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/gal-gadot-cast-as-wonder-woman-comics-world-reacts-on-twitter/) when it was initially announced 4 years ago. Synder cast her for BvS, so that was the first strike against her (because he’s known for his visual flair and utter lack of depth). She’s a model, with model proportions, so she was immediately judged for not being muscular (by the Amazonian purists), not having the acting range (by those who looked through her IMDB and only saw Fast and the Furious and Date Night), and for having too small a chest (by the lowest common denominator). Even Patty Jenkins initially bemoaned the casting (https://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-gal-gadot-casting/).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 08:54:26 PM
So the fact that men are judged by their achievements means that it is easier for them to be successful without being attractive.  So much so that Brad Pitt reportedly took roles in Califonia and Twelve Monkeys to downplay his looks so that he would be taken as a serious actor.  You also have actresses like Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates, and Melissa McCarthy who have managed to have great careers and be taken seriously as solid actresses.

The thing with super hero movies is that there is a certain physique that they need to go with.  However, I think they can get away with an ugly male (see Deadpool after burning) and still have the movie be successful.  I'm not saying that a super heroine can't be beautiful and strong.  She definitely can be.  I'm just saying that I don't think they can make a successful super heroine movie with a female character that is considered less than attractive.  When they can accomplish that, then that will be ground breaking.   

This is another example of the power differential Nik mentioned earlier today being a root cause of the state of affairs we currently have today. Beauty is power, much the same way money and racial privilege are. The fact a small handful of female actors are being lauded for their ability to overcome their lack of traditional beauty is a symptom of that systemic toxicity. The sure fire way for a woman to gain Oscar buzz is to gain weight and prosthetically mar her natural features in a serious movie (e.g. Monster).


I also don't think that there was backlash particularly on the casting of Gal Godot, I think it was more on what the film was appealing to.
See from my part, I didn't view Wonder Woman as this ground breaking film for women, mainly because of some of the stereotypes that I attach to comic books and the history that I have with them.  I was more shocked that the DCEU was able to put together a great movie.   

I understand how you would consider Wonder Woman to not be groundbreaking as it is a largely vanilla comic book movie — The Dark Knight* it is not.

* How many Batman films did it take to get there though?

Let me ask you: can you name 5 female leads that young girls who are of an age to watch TV or movies might be encouraged to view as role models? How many of them have identities that are not defined by men? How many of them even talk to other women in their stories? Did those films or shows pass the Bechdel Test (https://bechdeltest.com)?

Chances are, girls grew up with Disney princesses as their role models, who, for the most part, are a) defined by their beauty in men’s eyes; b) waiting for a man to save/marry her; c) victims in their stories. Sure, there were also Linda Hamilton and Sigourny Weaver and Carrie Anne Moss’s characters in the Terminator and Alien and Matrix franchises, but are those movies for pre-teens? Heck, how about for young girls who aren’t white?

That’s the context Wonder Woman (and the Supergirl TV show) are operating in, and shows like Buffy before them. In them girls now have live action role models who are first and foremost a) inherently good and strong; b) smart and capable; c) beautiful but not either virginal victims or lascivious temptresses. Why do you think Frozen was so unbelievably popular?

So yes, I see them as absolutely groundbreaking. I’m not female, but I am trying to see through their lens and it’s an obviously uphill climb. If we want to break society out from this current state where sexual abuse is rampant, rape is handwaved away as ‘boys will be boys’, then it begins by changing the narrative that girls and women grow up in, and boys and men building that space with them.

As an aside, Gal Gadot’s casting was absolutely panned by fans and media (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/gal-gadot-cast-as-wonder-woman-comics-world-reacts-on-twitter/) when it was initially announced 4 years ago. Synder cast her for BvS, so that was the first strike against her (because he’s known for his visual flair and utter lack of depth). She’s a model, with model proportions, so she was immediately judged for not being muscular (by the Amazonian purists), not having the acting range (by those who looked through her IMDB and only saw Fast and the Furious and Date Night), and for having too small a chest (by the lowest common denominator). Even Patty Jenkins initially bemoaned the casting (https://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-gal-gadot-casting/).

So I figured it's two guys arguing about another guys comments.  I thought I would see what a woman thought of them:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2017/08/26/james-cameron-wonder-woman/#16ba55aa40aa
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 13, 2017, 09:20:34 PM
So yes, I see them as absolutely groundbreaking. I’m not female, but I am trying to see through their lens and it’s an obviously uphill climb. If we want to break society out from this current state where sexual abuse is rampant, rape is handwaved away as ‘boys will be boys’, then it begins by changing the narrative that girls and women grow up in, and boys and men building that space with them.

And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles? 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 13, 2017, 09:51:25 PM
If we are just going to throw articles at this of women responding to the film, here’s one:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/7/15740804/wonder-woman-amazons-feminist

And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles? 

That’s a pretty shallow read on the film and is exactly what Cameron was saying. Gadot’s beauty is presented as a matter of fact, not the defining trait of the character she portrayed. She doesn’t get the Michael
bay treatment. I can pretty much guarantee that the only people getting hung up that Wonder Woman was too beautiful are the ones who are judging women based on their appearance.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 14, 2017, 09:43:17 AM
And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles?

It's probably worth mentioning that Gadot, in addition to being an ex-model, is also an Israeli army veteran. So you'd like to think that anyone who saw her in the movie might have picked up that she wasn't just a nice looking woman but also credibly carried off the warrior element to it. And I think that if you look at the shots of the other women on her island you do see a variety of women who don't all fit into any conventional model of attractiveness.

But this is where we should probably take a step back and remember we're talking about a big budget tentpole summer movie made from a comic book and that a lot of the things we'd like to see from things like that(inclusiveness, intelligence, etc) are sort of at odds with the source material and the aims of the studio(mass appeal, making bank). Like I said earlier putting more women in charge of productions and directing movies probably means we'll get some of the diversity you're talking about but we shouldn't expect solutions to these problems to come from the massive corporations that churn out these teenage power fantasies for adults.

Supporting movies that deal with other things besides people in spandex throwing trucks at each other is another way to get more diversity in theatres.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 10:03:52 AM
If we are just going to throw articles at this of women responding to the film, here’s one:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/7/15740804/wonder-woman-amazons-feminist

And I think building that space should be based around a pillar that a girl shouldn't be defined by what she looks like.  So many girls in today's society define themselves by how others perceive them and whether or not they are attractive.  There was a study done on the affects of Facebook and how women and young girls are posting photos of themselves just to get the likes.  This extends to other forms of social media such as instagram and twitter.  They believe that this is being driven by a desire to be found attractive.  How does casting super models in to roles of strong women help to alleviate that?  How do we shift the focus off of how a woman looks and on to what she is able to accomplish if all she sees is what society sees as beautiful women in those roles? 

That’s a pretty shallow read on the film and is exactly what Cameron was saying. Gadot’s beauty is presented as a matter of fact, not the defining trait of the character she portrayed. She doesn’t get the Michael
bay treatment. I can pretty much guarantee that the only people getting hung up that Wonder Woman was too beautiful are the ones who are judging women based on their appearance.

The movie is no different than Tomb Raider.  Hey look girls, it's a video game for you, because there is a woman in it.  Don't worry, we spent two months getting the "jiggle algorithm" correct. 

It smacks of men standing there and saying "Hey look feminism.  We get it now."  And we don't.  We are the problem.  Wonder Woman is an issue because she was created by man as an offering up to women.  It's flawed from the beginning.  Lets run a super hero movie that has been created by women, for women, directed by women and released to the world and then celebrate that as we all support it for what it is regardless of how it does financially.  Lets get out of the way, and let them dictate what feminism is or isn't, and what they want a strong woman to be.  Sure the movie is directed by a woman, but the movie studio still controlled the message.  It didn't get the Micheal Bay treatment?  Oh great, Wonder Woman doesn't seductively pose on a motorcycle.  High bar has been reached.  She still is lead around World War 1 by a bunch of men who essentially use her for their own gains.  Steve Trevor flat out lies to her so that they can "win the war", because that's what she wants.         

But sure, I'll take the hit and be called shallow just because I think we can do better. I'll stand by the premise that this movie isn't ground breaking.  It could have been that if they had decided to take a different direction and cast Rhonda Rousey or Serena Williams as Wonder Woman, because regardless of what they look like, they are strong women who have achieved the pinnacle of their profession.  You could argue that maybe they wouldn't have acted as well, but I think you could have worked with them.  Sure, I'll be called shallow, because I imagine that if you queried the 18 - 25 male demographic about what they liked about the film, I'm sure the comment "She's hot" was in there more than a couple of times.  I would hope that if they had casted someone like Rousey, the narrative would have been more "She kicks ass", which is what the movie should be about to males.  It should be about what the female lead accomplishes, and not about what she looks like, but when you cast a super model as the lead, you inevitably make it about what she looks like, because her job is literally to be looked at.  That's not ground breaking.  We've seen that.  If you want, I'll use the Tomb Raider movie with Angelie Jolie as an example. 

Also that scale you linked too.  That's the scale that trumpeted Iron Man 3 as being this great movie for women because there was a car ride which had two women in it, and they didn't talk about their boyfriends for the whole entire ride.  Can you imagine that?  I still think we can do better.  And maybe that's part of the problem.  Here I am saying what I think would be better for women. 

Really it gets back to Nik's comment about putting women in power and letting them dictate the direction that they want the movie/ad/article go.  Make it about what they want.  You even said, the studio didn't even let Jenkins cast her own Wonder Woman.  Why is that?  Because the studio still wanted to make a movie that would attract males, because they want to make more money.  Men are still dictating what the movie is going to be about.  And now that they did that they are standing back and men are saying "This is ground breaking feminism people."  All Cameron, who is also a man, is saying is that he doesn't think it is.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 14, 2017, 11:12:32 AM
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this, SI, so correct me if I'm wrong here. You believe Wonder Woman is equivalent to Tomb Raider because it is a female lead crafted for men, by men, to placate women and fulfill the male gaze fantasy? And therefore is problematic, anti-feminist, etc.?

Your description of the film doesn't really jive with how I remember it, so perhaps I'll watch it again, particularly where men use Diana for their own gains. I remember them trying to, and I remember her just doing her own thing anyway and working with the ones that chose to fight alongside her. They literally destroyed the film's most phallic symbol that was touted to be the McGuffin that will solve all the problems.

I mean, I agree with you that we can do a lot better. What I don't understand is why you're so interested in the male response to gauge whether or not the film is feminist. I provided several examples of women responding very positively (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-easter-egg-father-zeus-clay-bondage) to the message of the movie and you probably saw it demonstrated at Halloween in kids' costume choices and comic conventions with more people opting for WW's bracer pose, than Leia's RotJ slave-kini. Yes, it is shallow to say that a strong feminist needs to look a certain way. The implication there is that strong women need to look like men.

What I also don't understand is why the standard it sounds like you're holding to the feminist ideals of this film outstrip its context in reality. Women already have so many extra rungs to climb to be taken seriously, and Cameron's comments are saying this didn't climb enough.

The Bechdel Test is not a scale that rates movies' greatness, by the way. It's merely a check to see if the movie or show fulfills the following criteria:
Quote
1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man
If you scroll through the list, something as simple as two women interacting for their own sake is astonishingly rare.

Men got the writing credits for Wonder Woman as a function of how screenwriting credits (http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-credit-screenplay-ampersands-ands/) work, and how WB wanted the DCEU to come together under Snyder's vision, but it is quite clear women were behind a good number of the story (https://screenrant.com/justice-league-gal-gadot-wonder-woman-was-changed-batman-v-superman-retcon/), costume, and directorial choices (which they, naturally/ironically, barely got recognition for).
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Bullfrog on November 14, 2017, 11:45:58 AM
...
It smacks of men standing there and saying "Hey look feminism.  We get it now."  And we don't.  We are the problem.  Wonder Woman is an issue because she was created by man as an offering up to women.  It's flawed from the beginning.  Lets run a super hero movie that has been created by women, for women, directed by women and released to the world and then celebrate that as we all support it for what it is regardless of how it does financially.  ....

I've been watching this conversation with great interest, but have been reserving comment because -- in truth -- I really want to take time to form an opinion. However, I just wanted to make a quick comment on this quoted part. While I'm good with what you're proposing, I think there's a danger in suggesting that one side can't understand the other or that they can't assist in the solution.

I get your view that men are the problem, but I don't think to cut them out is the solution.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 11:54:41 AM
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this, SI, so correct me if I'm wrong here. You believe Wonder Woman is equivalent to Tomb Raider because it is a female lead crafted for men, by men, to placate women and fulfill the male gaze fantasy? And therefore is problematic, anti-feminist, etc.?

My problem is that you can't serve something up as ground breaking if it isn't really ground breaking.  It doesn't move the needle forward as far as the perception of women.  Diana is still a princess.  She's a princess with powers.  Same as Frozen.  Or look, princessses, but one has powers.  Tangled, princess, but her hair is powerful.  All of these princesses are now solving their own problems.  No need to wait for a prince anymore.

The standard should be higher.  We've got to actually look at things and call a spade a spade if we want to advance things.  Saying we are making advances, when we might actually not be making advances will cause us to stall.     

Your description of the film doesn't really jive with how I remember it, so perhaps I'll watch it again, particularly where men use Diana for their own gains. I remember them trying to, and I remember her just doing her own thing anyway and working with the ones that chose to fight alongside her. They literally destroyed the film's most phallic symbol that was touted to be the McGuffin that will solve all the problems.

Which in and of itself is great.   A woman saved the day.  How is that ground breaking.  In Tomb Raider, Laura Croft saves the day too, fighting off a whole bunch of evil men to boot.  What about the above story line is ground breaking?

I mean, I agree with you that we can do a lot better. What I don't understand is why you're so interested in the male response to gauge whether or not the film is feminist. I provided several examples of women responding very positively (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-easter-egg-father-zeus-clay-bondage) to the message of the movie and you probably saw it demonstrated at Halloween in kids' costume choices and comic conventions with more people opting for WW's bracer pose, than Leia's RotJ slave-kini. Yes, it is shallow to say that a strong feminist needs to look a certain way. The implication there is that strong women need to look like men.

The way males perceive women is part of the problem.  We view them as sexual objects.  Part of what needs to happen is that men need to start viewing women as human beings, with hopes, dreams, and feelings.  Placing a good looking women in front of a male crowd and then saying look she's also strong doesn't do anything.  I get the angle your coming from.  Hey guys she's good looking, just ignore that, and focus on her accomplishments.      We've already done that in several films in Hollywood.  How does continuing to do that break new ground?  Why not come at it from the other angle?  Hey guys here's this women that has accomplished a lot in field X.  You should accept her because she knows what she is doing.  Don't allow looks to come in to the equation. 

I don't see what the problem is with saying that the bar should be higher if we are going to break new ground for the representation of women in mainstream media?   

What I also don't understand is why the standard it sounds like you're holding to the feminist ideals of this film outstrip its context in reality. Women already have so many extra rungs to climb to be taken seriously, and Cameron's comments are saying this didn't climb enough.

We shouldn't be calling something ground breaking if it doesn't move the needle towards the end goal.  If we don't move the needle, but we all act like we did, then we aren't really making progress.  We are just spinning our tires in the same spot doing the same thing over again.   

As Nik mentioned this movie does help because of it's financial success, so it has given Gal Godot the power to dictate some of what is going to happen with the next film, which is great.  That's a positive to be taken from that.  But that has more to do with the financial success of the movie than it does with the overall message that the movie is trying to portray.   

Taking the movie content as it is and offers up and then saying "Yes now Women have someone they can look up to.  It's a super model princess who is a demi-god." and saying that this is a ground breaking moment in cinametic history for women seems like an overstatement of what has happened.  It's kind of like calling a hockey player generational because you want everybody to know just how good he is.  It may be that he isn't actually generational but he still is pretty good.         

The Bechdel Test is not a scale that rates movies' greatness, by the way. It's merely a check to see if the movie or show fulfills the following criteria:
Quote
1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man
If you scroll through the list, something as simple as two women interacting for their own sake is astonishingly rare.
[/quote]

I knew what the scale was.  I had heard about it during Iron Man 3.  The article that I read about it in was about how comic book movies are good for women because they pass the checks.  Again, if that is the scale that we are using to measure how well a movie represents women, Wonder Woman didn't really break any ground there, because Iron Man 3 passed those check in 2013, 3 years prior to the release of Wonder Woman.  The big difference being that main characters genders switched places (Steve Trevor <--> Pepper Potts, Tony Stark <--> Princess Diana).

Men got the writing credits for Wonder Woman as a function of how screenwriting credits (http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-credit-screenplay-ampersands-ands/) work, and how WB wanted the DCEU to come together under Snyder's vision, but it is quite clear women were behind a good number of the story (https://screenrant.com/justice-league-gal-gadot-wonder-woman-was-changed-batman-v-superman-retcon/), costume, and directorial choices (which they, naturally/ironically, barely got recognition for).

Well hooray for those women.  They did the work and got very little credit.  Sounds fair.   
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 14, 2017, 12:20:36 PM
I don't think I'll keep reiterating my points, because that's boring, but I'll make some point form notes, and we'll see if anything there makes sense:

- Beautiful people with incredible physiques as leads in movies, especially action movies, is par for the course. Name an action movie where they are not.

- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

- Do you know why studios have been hesitant to run female-led comic book movies? Because Catwoman flopped, and is therefore not financially viable. How many male-led comic book movies have flopped? Other than Burton Batman and Superman 1, 2, pretty much all of them before Iron Man. Nevertheless, they persisted in making garbage male-led comic book movies, or male-run female-led comic book movies for male audiences (Catwoman, Elektra).

- WW has now earned over 800M (http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Wonder-Woman-(2017)#tab=summary) worldwide.

- As steam picked up on the audience response to Wonder Woman in BvS, Marvel finally felt safe enough to fire up their own female-led entry into the MCU in Captain Marvel, casting Brie Larson in the titular role, and she'll be sporting the flight suit uniform instead of the mid-90s swimsuit and sash.

- Marvel's toy division subbed out Black Widow in toy sets (https://news.avclub.com/an-avengers-toy-cut-black-widow-out-of-one-of-her-coole-1798279599) depicting an Age of Ultron scene where she was the primary actor and replaced her with Cap. Because girls don't play with action figures or Lego, apparently.

- You can't fix male gaze issues by not forbidding people from seeing attractive women doing good work. You show them, and then highlight the good work.

- Perfect is the enemy of good.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 12:22:23 PM
...
It smacks of men standing there and saying "Hey look feminism.  We get it now."  And we don't.  We are the problem.  Wonder Woman is an issue because she was created by man as an offering up to women.  It's flawed from the beginning.  Lets run a super hero movie that has been created by women, for women, directed by women and released to the world and then celebrate that as we all support it for what it is regardless of how it does financially.  ....

I've been watching this conversation with great interest, but have been reserving comment because -- in truth -- I really want to take time to form an opinion. However, I just wanted to make a quick comment on this quoted part. While I'm good with what you're proposing, I think there's a danger in suggesting that one side can't understand the other or that they can't assist in the solution.

I get your view that men are the problem, but I don't think to cut them out is the solution.

Yeah, my fear there would be that men would eventually take it over an make it about them.

Here's a story from my life.  My wife used to come home each day and tell me about her day and the problems that she as having.  Being the loving husband that I am, I figured that I needed to solve all these problems for her.  So each day I would tell her what she should do.  You should do this, or you should do that.  Why don't you say this. 

Finally my wife had enough.  She said to me "Look, I don't want you to solve my problems.  I just want you to listen to them and understand what I go through at work.  I'll take care of the solution."

It was kind of an eye opening moment for me.  I'm a problem solver at heart.  It's what I try and do.  I get singularly focused on something and I have a hard time letting go of it.  It's part of who I am.  I thought I was doing the right thing, but I never took the time to ask her what it is she actually needed from me.  I just assumed that I knew best.     
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 12:23:18 PM
- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids. 
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 14, 2017, 12:28:42 PM
- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 14, 2017, 12:30:01 PM
We shouldn't be calling something ground breaking if it doesn't move the needle towards the end goal.  If we don't move the needle, but we all act like we did, then we aren't really making progress.  We are just spinning our tires in the same spot doing the same thing over again.   

I don't really get this. By definition "breaking ground" isn't about finishing something but starting something. You can acknowledge the way in which this movie was a step forward(a big budget superhero movie that made a ton of money while starring a woman and being directed by a woman) while acknowledging that it wasn't the be all and end all for dismantling an oppressive patriarchy.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 12:30:48 PM
- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

You assume I haven't done so.  I don't tell people what they should, could or must do with their kids.  I expect the same respect back.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 12:34:16 PM
We shouldn't be calling something ground breaking if it doesn't move the needle towards the end goal.  If we don't move the needle, but we all act like we did, then we aren't really making progress.  We are just spinning our tires in the same spot doing the same thing over again.   

I don't really get this. By definition "breaking ground" isn't about finishing something but starting something. You can acknowledge the way in which this movie was a step forward(a big budget superhero movie that made a ton of money while starring a woman and being directed by a woman) while acknowledging that it wasn't the be all and end all for dismantling an oppressive patriarchy.

Which is fair.  However, would you say that what Gal Godot portrayed as Wonder Woman was in fact ground breaking as far as a women character on the screen, which is really the comment that started the whole conversation.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: herman on November 14, 2017, 12:41:36 PM
- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

You assume I haven't done so.  I don't tell people what they should, could or must do with their kids.  I expect the same respect back.

Please accept my apologies for that oversight. The use of 'you could' was for rhetorical purposes as an appeal to ethos and not as a presumption about your specific parenting situation.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 14, 2017, 12:43:57 PM
- Wonder Woman does not move the needle: we are having a 2-3 day conversation in a hockey forum about this film's feminist merits; name another film that has done this. You could be having this conversation with your sons about the perception of women and what they like or not like about this movie.

Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids.

I know you know the difference between could, should, and must.

You assume I haven't done so.  I don't tell people what they should, could or must do with their kids.  I expect the same respect back.

Please accept my apologies for that oversight. The use of 'you could' was for rhetorical purposes as an appeal to ethos and not as a presumption about your specific parenting situation.

Look.  if you have kids, you'll understand where I am coming from.  If you don't then you won't.  Leave it at that.  You don't know my life, or what challenges I have to face when it comes to my boys.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 14, 2017, 12:51:53 PM
Which is fair.  However, would you say that what Gal Godot portrayed as Wonder Woman was in fact ground breaking as far as a women character on the screen, which is really the comment that started the whole conversation.

Sure, in some ways. Not in others. That the movie is about her as opposed to, say, Linda Hamilton in T2 being the 3rd or 4th most important character of the movie seems like a pretty big step.

But this is where I think it's important to point out that I'm not and never have been one of those "If women ran the world there'd be no wars" kind of people. WW was a super hero popcorn flick. It was not a massive revolution in the way women are portrayed. If and when women are somewhat evenly represented in terms of acting/writing/directing/producing there will be women making bad, or at very least simple, movies that aren't especially progressive. The important thing is that won't be the only stuff out there. 

Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: Nik the Trik on November 14, 2017, 01:07:12 PM

In slightly less contentious movie news, Rotten Tomatoes has announced they won't be releasing the Justice League score until the day before the film:

http://www.slashfilm.com/justice-league-rotten-tomatoes-score/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/justice-league-rotten-tomatoes-score/)

I've never heard of this before. I know it's a big thing in Hollywood these days to blame Rotten Tomatoes' scores for being too influential but this seems like overkill even if it isn't unduly influenced by Warner Brothers having a stake in the site.
Title: Re: The Official Movie Thread
Post by: