Consider yourself lucky... I wish I could unwatch it.

Séamas wrote:

Ribtor wrote:

Whispering dialogue is certainly an annoyance. 30 Rock made fun of that pitting Will Arnett against Alec Baldwin.

Any scene with Will Arnett and Alec Baldwin is awesome.
The Liz / Jack scenes are also among the best scenes of the show.

That is one show where I could actually do without most of the side characters (I cannot stand anything about Jenna Mulroney's character or acting, Tracy Morgan is hit or miss).

But that's the whole point of Jenna. She never stops "acting" and over enunciating in her ever failing attempt at legitimacy.

"The Cincinnati Kid" starring Steve McQueen, Karl Malden, Edward G. Robinson and two of the most beautiful women in Hollywood, Ann Margret and Tuesday Weld. Not a bad little poker flick, but nothing too earth shattering.

I watched Abduction last night. The acting coulda been better, but it wasn't bad.

Séamas wrote:

That is one show where I could actually do without most of the side characters (I cannot stand anything about Jenna Mulroney's character or acting, Tracy Morgan is hit or miss).

She's not supposed to be particularly likable.

Also: What?

We saw 'Hunger Games' this week.

It was entertaining. The pacing was pretty uneven though, and the ending was rather weak. I also enjoyed the teaser trailer for the next Twilight movie, which looks like it will be the worst one yet.

Also, Snow White and the Woodsman looks badass (despite the fact that it stars Kristin Stewart).

bratboy wrote:

Séamas wrote:

That is one show where I could actually do without most of the side characters (I cannot stand anything about Jenna Mulroney's character or acting, Tracy Morgan is hit or miss).

She's not supposed to be particularly likable.

Also: What?

Sorry, I wrote the characters name --I meant I cannot stand Jane Krakowski.

I can't stand the way she portrays the character, I think her timing stinks.

It could be an awesome character if portrayed by someone with better comedic skills.

I see that they're releasing "Taken 2" at some point this year, so I thought I'd include my Rotten Tomatoes review of the first one:

Quote:

Liam Neeson, looking like he just stepped out of a Just For Men hair coloring ad, adds only star power to this tired, cliche ridden piece of crap. There are some good action sequences and several car chases, if that's all you need out of a movie. Apart from that you've seen it all in a million other movies, most of them starring Steven Segal.

Ol' Liam seems to have lost the power to say no to scripts. He's also in the battleship movie.

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

Ol' Liam seems to have lost the power to say no to scripts. He's also in the battleship movie.

Some actors just take anything that come their way. I mean, look at James Mason. He was in "Mandingo" for pete's sake.

"Work is work."

I'm enjoying all this late career fun Liam Neeson is having. He seems like he's having a good time.

Die Hard. First time.

The Kingdom.

Not much more than a shoot'em up.

Couple Hitchcock movies:
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Thought this was slow and uneven.

Vertigo (1958) Liked it, but had to wonder why it was so highly esteemed. Was good, but not terribly suspenseful. The reveal was almost an anticlimax and the (very) ending was almost comical. Seemed like it was a movie from "in-between' great eras.

Psycho (1960), Seeing this again gave me even more appreciation for Anthony Perkins. He was outstanding

Heh. Speaking of Hitchcock, I watched High Anxiety the other night. Mel really killed on the hitch spoof. It has everything: Vertigo, Psycho and Birds.

Matrix Reloaded, first time. I agree with others that it's not as good. I'll skip the third.

Macskeeball wrote:

Matrix Reloaded, first time. I agree with others that it's not as good. I'll skip the third.

Oh, yeah, they should have stopped about halfway through the second movie. #3 is a complete human waste fest.

I remember seeing the first Matrix with a group of like 14 guys (I believe I was a freshman in college) and being the only one who didn't really like it.

Double bill:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

I can see why George Lazenby only got one Bond film - it was like if in 1969 the Chinese did a low budget rip-off feature film based on The Monkees TV show.

The Year of Living Dangerously

I saw this one while I was in high school. As I recall I found it kind of dull and hard to follow, but that 25+ years ago and I was probably drunk. This time I enjoyed it, though some different editing choices might have helped it flow a little better. But that would probably have taken it past the two hour limit and that always make a film risky commercially.

Rocky I, II, III, and IV. III and IV were very good.

Mr. Deeds. I almost always dislike Adam Sandler movies, but that one was kind of ok. Amusing in some parts, stupid in others. I gave it a 3/5 on Netflix, but 2.5/5 would be more accurate.

Rango

First time for each of these. Only one movie left before I switch Netflix from streaming and 1 DVD to no streaming but 2 DVDs.

Restrepo

Ribtor wrote:

Restrepo

Ugggh...that's uplifting.



(Especially considering the videographer himself has since been killed.)

I worked with some members of your 10th Mountain Div. who were at the Korengal prior to the events in that documentary. It's a landscape I would have preferred operating in.

rjprice wrote:

Double bill:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

I can see why George Lazenby only got one Bond film

I had heard that he got some really bad advice that he might get typecast if he did another Bond...and then his career flopped.

I don't understand why actors fear typecasting. It's probably the best thing that can happen to your career.

Underworld Awakening

Kate Beckinsale

Rear Window.

Perhaps it is the huge amount of critical acclaim this film always gets that made it a let-down for me.
It's a cool story and all, the pacing is a bit slow, but not unusually show for movies of that time.
It can be pretty corny though, and I just don't get much chemistry between Grace Kelly and Jimmy Stewart. I like Stewart enough, but I just didn't see him as very believable as the "adventuring photojournalist" at all.
Grace Kelly was somewhat believable as the high-society lady, but almost as if she was to be in a different movie. She is likable and somewhat magnetic, tremendously poised.

Loved Thelma Ritter, she was excellent and had the best lines. Humorous without being the typical comedy relief of the movies of that time.

I'd say that most of the characters in the movie had a cartoon-like, one dimensional quality.

It was my fourth Hitchcock movie in about three weeks and I must say that out of any film craft, the one style/genre that really doesn't "stay fresh" over time is suspense.
The "master of suspense" just didn't touch my nerve at all, and I though the resolves at the end to be a let-down.

But, did the visuals hold up ?

DukeofNuke wrote:

But, did the visuals hold up ?

Hmm. I usually don't care about that stuff--especially in older movies--but:
It was filmed on a soundstage and looks it. There is one special effect part towards the end that just looks almost comical.

But the visual of Grace Kelly does hold up.

user wrote:

Heh. Speaking of Hitchcock, I watched High Anxiety the other night. Mel really killed on the hitch spoof. It has everything: Vertigo, Psycho and Birds.

One of Mel's best ones ever.
Cloris Leachman is a riot.
I always liked the crappy "rock" music that kills Dick van Patten. I imagine that is what all of my music sounded like to my parents.

Ice Age, second time. Ok, but I didn't really like it. I only watched because I'd forgotten it and was going to watch the sequel that I hadn't seen. Now I don't know if the sequel would be worth watching. I don't need more of the same.

Séamas wrote:

Rear Window.

Perhaps it is the huge amount of critical acclaim this film always gets that made it a let-down for me.
It's a cool story and all, the pacing is a bit slow, but not unusually show for movies of that time.
It can be pretty corny though, and I just don't get much chemistry between Grace Kelly and Jimmy Stewart. I like Stewart enough, but I just didn't see him as very believable as the "adventuring photojournalist" at all.
Grace Kelly was somewhat believable as the high-society lady, but almost as if she was to be in a different movie. She is likable and somewhat magnetic, tremendously poised.

Loved Thelma Ritter, she was excellent and had the best lines. Humorous without being the typical comedy relief of the movies of that time.

I'd say that most of the characters in the movie had a cartoon-like, one dimensional quality.

It was my fourth Hitchcock movie in about three weeks and I must say that out of any film craft, the one style/genre that really doesn't "stay fresh" over time is suspense.
The "master of suspense" just didn't touch my nerve at all, and I though the resolves at the end to be a let-down.

Agree with everything.

Kelly is nice to watch but Stewart was just coasting through it. People involved in that film have done better work. I liked the little dramas going on across the way with one being notably poignant.

Metacell wrote:

I don't understand why actors fear typecasting. It's probably the best thing that can happen to your career.

Not if you like doing a lot of different types of roles.

These are artists we're talking about here.

Yes, they'll always be able to make money doing X, but then they decide they want to try Y or Z for a change, and they can't do it because nobody already doing Y or Z will give them a chance, since they're the X guy.

Consider this:

http://www.contactmusic.com/news-articl ... gest-enemy

Quote:

He says, "I'd read scripts that would say, 'This guy's a David Hasselhoff type,' and I'd turn up and they'd reject me saying, 'You are David Hasselhoff.' They wanted a David Hasselhoff-type guy - but not the real one.

Ribtor wrote:

Séamas wrote:

Rear Window.

Perhaps it is the huge amount of critical acclaim this film always gets that made it a let-down for me.
It's a cool story and all, the pacing is a bit slow, but not unusually show for movies of that time.
It can be pretty corny though, and I just don't get much chemistry between Grace Kelly and Jimmy Stewart. I like Stewart enough, but I just didn't see him as very believable as the "adventuring photojournalist" at all.
Grace Kelly was somewhat believable as the high-society lady, but almost as if she was to be in a different movie. She is likable and somewhat magnetic, tremendously poised.

Loved Thelma Ritter, she was excellent and had the best lines. Humorous without being the typical comedy relief of the movies of that time.

I'd say that most of the characters in the movie had a cartoon-like, one dimensional quality.

It was my fourth Hitchcock movie in about three weeks and I must say that out of any film craft, the one style/genre that really doesn't "stay fresh" over time is suspense.
The "master of suspense" just didn't touch my nerve at all, and I though the resolves at the end to be a let-down.

Agree with everything.

Kelly is nice to watch but Stewart was just coasting through it. People involved in that film have done better work. I liked the little dramas going on across the way with one being notably poignant.

It seemed like Hitchcock phoned it in a bit as well.

I mean, they establish that there is a heatwave in the first scene.
But other than a single mention after the rain, there is no real hint that it is hot out at all in the movie (only at the end are we told that the heatwave has just passed.)

Everyone seems pretty comfortable, fully dressed (except Stewart, I suppose) there aren't fans running,etc. Stewart is sweating in the first scene, but after that, not at all.
Hell, in one part Grace Kelly is warming up some brandy.

You think a director would sink his teeth in the heatwave imagery*--especially in a suspense driven film.



* Spike Lee did this to excellent effect in Do The Right Thing.

John Carter :thumbsup: FX a bit cartoonish but ok.

Wrath of Titans :meh: FX were good but did Clash really need a sequel? Or a remake for that matter.

Hunger Games :meh: From all the raves I expected more. I thought the movie just dragged on and on.

War Horse :meh: Way too sappy and having grown up on a horse farm I've seen what a horse looks like after it plows through a barb wire fence. Oh and you don't plow a field by hand that's full of rocks. You take a day and pick the rocks out, add'em to your rock wall. Spielberg Fail!

Yeah, I didn't like War Horse either.

Séamas wrote:

Ribtor wrote:

Séamas wrote:

Rear Window.

Perhaps it is the huge amount of critical acclaim this film always gets that made it a let-down for me.
It's a cool story and all, the pacing is a bit slow, but not unusually show for movies of that time.
It can be pretty corny though, and I just don't get much chemistry between Grace Kelly and Jimmy Stewart. I like Stewart enough, but I just didn't see him as very believable as the "adventuring photojournalist" at all.
Grace Kelly was somewhat believable as the high-society lady, but almost as if she was to be in a different movie. She is likable and somewhat magnetic, tremendously poised.

Loved Thelma Ritter, she was excellent and had the best lines. Humorous without being the typical comedy relief of the movies of that time.

I'd say that most of the characters in the movie had a cartoon-like, one dimensional quality.

It was my fourth Hitchcock movie in about three weeks and I must say that out of any film craft, the one style/genre that really doesn't "stay fresh" over time is suspense.
The "master of suspense" just didn't touch my nerve at all, and I though the resolves at the end to be a let-down.

Agree with everything.

Kelly is nice to watch but Stewart was just coasting through it. People involved in that film have done better work. I liked the little dramas going on across the way with one being notably poignant.

It seemed like Hitchcock phoned it in a bit as well.

I mean, they establish that there is a heatwave in the first scene.
But other than a single mention after the rain, there is no real hint that it is hot out at all in the movie (only at the end are we told that the heatwave has just passed.)

Everyone seems pretty comfortable, fully dressed (except Stewart, I suppose) there aren't fans running,etc. Stewart is sweating in the first scene, but after that, not at all.
Hell, in one part Grace Kelly is warming up some brandy.

You think a director would sink his teeth in the heatwave imagery*--especially in a suspense driven film.

Rear Window is still my favorite Hitchcock flicks. If you want to enjoy them, you can't pick out all the little missing details and inconsistencies. It's Hitchcock and it was the 50's.

Even bad Hitchcock is still good. A testament to his talents.

I recently watched The 39 Steps, the original and the BBC remake. I think it holds up very well.

Old films do have the element of charm which enables a modern audience to see past what we too often call flaws.

The heat wave was the excuse for everyone to have their windows and drapes open, which allowed Stewart to spy on them. Once that was established, it was no longer necessary.