What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186
Online now: Bing (sucks), Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
scorsese directed that??????
dv
User avatar
TOS posted:
scorsese directed that??????

Yup.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071115/
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Mary Poppins Returns.
I dunno. The lead actress (Emily Blunt) got very favorable reviews, but I found her too "posh" and stylish for the part.
I know the creator (PL Travers) of the character wanted her to be austere and dark, but imho, Disney and Julie Andrews got the character right--the character is mysterious, but charming and likable.
Blunt does a good job of singing and dancing, which is laudable as she has not made much of a career on either.
Lin Manuel Miranda is solid and a good fit.
The songs are overwritten (lyrics wise), perhaps too clever, but in the obvious comparison to the 1960s movie, they are totally forgettable. One thing so striking is the score from the original was anything but forgettable. I recall seeing it as a five year old in the High School, auditorium able to recall 4-5 tunes easily for days after.
The story is OK, but the resolution isn't near as good as the original either.
It's nice that they went with traditional animation, but I think the influence of super-kinetic busy CGI animation and effects of recent years was detrimental. Just because you can make these scenes overly complicated doesn't mean you should.

I ended up falling asleep 3/4 through it.
Star Trek Beyond (2016). Yeah, it finally appeared on free cable (and NOT commercial-free).

A lot of pleasant and even exciting eye candy but scarcely a coherent plot. Also, recall how I had objected to the transporters not fully working in "Star Trek into Darkness"? Well, apparently all of those problems were COMPLETELY fixed for "STBeyond" and for a transporter aboard a PRE-Federation starship dating from the mid-22nd century which--according to Scotty (who would KNOW)--were at THAT time back then used to transport only inanimate goods.

There were some touches that I liked:

Uhura was NOT a glorified receptionist who merely told Captain Kirk "Haling frequencies opened, Captain", but a fuller character with brains and brawn.

(and still thanks to Nichelle Nichols and Gene Roddenberry for her Uhura, a small but important step along that long road which made Zoe Saldana's Uhura at all possible).

That ending sequence showing the construction of the Enterprise-A was nice BUT y'know: enough already. Apparently they have developed such special effects so not only can it simulate that bullet-time effect first shown in "The Matrix" but add moving shadows as well to better simulate the passage of time. Nice but frankly enough; spend less time deliberately trying to wow the audience with such special effects and more on coherent plotting ("Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!").

Yeah, yeah...I will watch the next movie whenever it shows up.
An additional question for STBeyond: how does Uhura recognize Captain Edison of the Franklin in that crowd shot on the space station? This is just a small incoherence within many of such.

My suspicion is that somewhere on the virtual cutting room floor of Bad Robot there is a scripted segment where after being asked "How did you spot him in THAT?" by Kirk/McCoy/Sulu/Chekov Uhura explains something like: "Edison was...IS my multi-great grandfather. Our family had annual get-togethers where we celebrated our ancestral heroes and Franklin's picture projected 3D-image was one of the most prominent. In school I wrote a report about the disappearance of the Franklin."

And because the EDITORS of STBeyond knew of some version of the story above, when they cut out that scene (because they didn't want one of the heroes to be related to the villain?) they didn't realize how the omission of this exposition put another hole into the STBeyond plot.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
John Wick part 3

:up:

Much better than the second one. I'd say it may even rival the first one.

Halle Berry was really good in it so good IMHO, that I wish her part had been longer
TOS
User avatar
ad astra

very good, i liked it, though be warned it's very slow-paced

it does what i think sci-fi has to do (but which usually it doesn't) -- use a fantastical setting to look at humanity

there are a couple of moments where stuff happens for the obvious sole purpose of advancing the plot, and there's a central event that makes no goddam sense at all, but i enjoyed it nonetheless

bonus comment: i love ruth negga to pieces
Another thought concerning STBeyond: how could Krall (actually Edison) NOT know where the Franklin was grounded? That Jaylah was able to keep the Franklin hidden only makes sense while the viewer was unaware of Krall's connection to that ship.
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Saw the Downton Abbey movie. As expected it was grandiose in style and clever dialogue, but about as deep in plot and conflict as a network tv holiday special.
TOS
User avatar
fun fact: last weekend the downton abbey movie slaughtered brad pitt's movie and the rambo movie
dv
User avatar
Saw Shazam (2019) and Jonah Hex (2010) last night. Both were decent popcorn flicks. I don't know why everybody hated on Hex so much. It wasn't bad, just rushed.
Robert B. posted:
Saw the Downton Abbey movie. As expected it was grandiose in style and clever dialogue, but about as deep in plot and conflict as a network tv holiday special.


Yep, felt like one long episode.
It's always been about petty upper class drama, so I wasn't expecting an intricate plot. With so many characters in their own story I was impressed they could fit it all into one film.
Lord Grantham barely had any dialogue.
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
j_tso posted:
Robert B. posted:
Saw the Downton Abbey movie. As expected it was grandiose in style and clever dialogue, but about as deep in plot and conflict as a network tv holiday special.


Yep, felt like one long episode.
It's always been about petty upper class drama, so I wasn't expecting an intricate plot. With so many characters in their own story I was impressed they could fit it all into one film.
Lord Grantham barely had any dialogue.


It seemed like they sacrificed plot in order to give every show character their five minutes to please the audience. Any conflict would arise to be resolved in the next scene. When I say network tv holiday special, I really mean on the level of "Oh no! The Christmas star went missing! Whatever shall we do?" kind of plot.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
TOS posted:
fun fact: last weekend the downton abbey movie slaughtered brad pitt's movie and the rambo movie

Yeah, but in two weeks Rambo will still be making money, and Downton will be shown in the smallest theatre at the megaplex.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
It Chapter Two. Loved it...pure nightmare fuel. Creepier than the first.
TOS
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
TOS posted:
fun fact: last weekend the downton abbey movie slaughtered brad pitt's movie and the rambo movie

Yeah, but in two weeks Rambo will still be making money, and Downton will be shown in the smallest theatre at the megaplex.


downton will be done, sure, but it will have made a profit

and rambo will not be making money against upcoming releases like the joker, no way

the case of rambo is actually quite interesting .... it was basically an experiment, to see if there's a "far right" cinema market the way there is for christian movies

apparently there is not
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
I guess my point was that Downton's appeal will be short lasting, and that other movies will spend weeks at the top of the charts, raking in tons and tons of cash.
Pithecanthropus posted:
I guess my point was that Downton's appeal will be short lasting, and that other movies will spend weeks at the top of the charts, raking in tons and tons of cash.

That may be so, but I am not a Downton Abbey fan (as I suspect you are not as well) so I cannot understand why anyone would go to see that movie again. But then I had seen "Jaws" only once in a theater, and the ONLY movie I have seen more than once in any theater was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (a different group of friends compelled me), so perhaps I am not the best judge for repetitious movie viewing.
dv
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pithecanthropus posted:
TOS posted:
fun fact: last weekend the downton abbey movie slaughtered brad pitt's movie and the rambo movie

Yeah, but in two weeks Rambo will still be making money, and Downton will be shown in the smallest theatre at the megaplex.


downton will be done, sure, but it will have made a profit

and rambo will not be making money against upcoming releases like the joker, no way

the case of rambo is actually quite interesting .... it was basically an experiment, to see if there's a "far right" cinema market the way there is for christian movies

apparently there is not


We knew that years ago when the Ayn Rand movie-verse flopped.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Benji (1974)
I remember this coming out when I was in first grade and it was huge. Stayed in theaters for a very long time but I had never seen it.
It is sweet, made mostly for kids. it is not every well acted, but as far as these dog movies go, it's not half bad.
I was surprised that the dog actor was 16 when this was filmed. He kinda looked a little old (and I knew he was on 1960s tv shows), but man a 16 year old dog with that kind of mobility is pretty impressive.

I must say that Netflix's appeal has waned considerably for me over the last year or two. We were looking for a good 15 minutes for something we could all watch. Lots of meh and blah.
TOS
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
I guess my point was that Downton's appeal will be short lasting, and that other movies will spend weeks at the top of the charts, raking in tons and tons of cash.


that doesn't really happen anymore ... studios have a week or two to make money, then it gets forgotten

it's very rare for a film to have staying power beyond that
The Fugitive (1993) Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones. Great. Perfectly cast roles for both actors.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
Spider-man Far From Home

:spidey: :up:
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Into the Spiderverse. WOW! I didn't expect what I got. The story is pretty cool, but the visual style was just so amazing. I want to watch it again.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Joker

A work of art. But it means that if they make another Batman vs. Joker movie (which they will, inevitably) I'll probably be rooting for Joker to win.
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
Bublebee

It was fun, and the kids liked it
Death of Stalin (2017).

A very DARK comedy: there are scenes where the some actors are doing a comic walk-n-talk while in the background there are sounds of pistols being fired or gunflashes can be seen lighting the cellwalls as those actors pass by those cells.

While there many scenes that had to have been totally made up, the movie does have some direct quotes or recreations out of history although IMDB.com has a long list of goofs and historic/other inaccuracies.

Apparently the making of this movie was approved for filming within at least Moscow because there are several scenes featuring many prominent Russian/Soviet-era buildings and landmarks like Red Square and Moscow State University (I had to look that up because I only recognized its exterior but could not recall the name). On the other hand the movie's premier within Russia was cancelled within 3 days of its first showing and the movie was banned in Russia due to this quote of the Cultural Minister: "The film desecrates our historical symbols -- the Soviet hymn, orders and medals, and Marshal Zhukov is portrayed as an idiot" which isn't quite right: the entire Soviet Politburo of that time are portrayed as snivelling sycophants while Stalin was alive and as conniving backbiters scrambling for power afterward.

So, not light fare but worth 107 minutes of your time.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
After seeing the movie, I'm stunned it was ever allowed in Russia. It is obvious the censors didn't actually watch it prior to the premiere.
juice posted:
After seeing the movie, I'm stunned it was ever allowed in Russia. It is obvious the censors didn't actually watch it prior to the premiere.

I THINK that Putin and the other current Russian leaders ARE trying to separate themselves from that Soviet-era leadership portrayed in the movie, but considering recent actions by those same Russian leaders I'm pretty sure that considering the parallels this movie would reflect very badly upon them.
Watched the new Addams Family movie. It was delightfully twisted with the cliches having a modern spin. The mail villian is if the Stepford wife had a home renovation show.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Spider-Man: Homecoming

Disposable.
TOS
User avatar
juice posted:
After seeing the movie, I'm stunned it was ever allowed in Russia. It is obvious the censors didn't actually watch it prior to the premiere.


the satire is less about stalin than his sycophants-turned-successors, all of whom (except for zhukov) have been discredited in russia
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Am traveling internationally. 22 hours of flight time so far.

Spider-man: Far From Home
Dark Phoenix
Yesterday
Longshot
Tolkein

Some other stuff I can't recall. Getting delirious.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
Sleepwalkers. This popped up in On Demand. I haven't seen it in years!
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
Little Monsters
Aquaman (2018).

Again, lots of eye candy but...not exactly plot holes, but I was left largely unmoved by this movie as a whole.

Mind you: I did like the base plot of a boy then man split between two worlds trying to find his way back into his mother's largely alien world, but the rest? It left me with a lot of time thinking about problems like: yes, the surface world largely denies even the existence of Atlantis (much less the HUGE problem of MULTIPLE underwater but completely unknown civilizations, and many zones in the oceans where no one dare tread...um, swim/sail), but given that existence of just Atlantis would it make sense for any surface nuclear power to station nuclear weapons aboard submarines?

My list of such questions could go on for pages.

So not a complete waste of time, but given what I know now I wouldn't have bothered to record this movie.
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Aquaman (2018).

Again, lots of eye candy but...not exactly plot holes, but I was left largely unmoved by this movie as a whole.

Mind you: I did like the base plot of a boy then man split between two worlds trying to find his way back into his mother's largely alien world, but the rest? It left me with a lot of time thinking about problems like: yes, the surface world largely denies even the existence of Atlantis (much less the HUGE problem of MULTIPLE underwater but completely unknown civilizations, and many zones in the oceans where no one dare tread...um, swim/sail), but given that existence of just Atlantis would it make sense for any surface nuclear power to station nuclear weapons aboard submarines?

My list of such questions could go on for pages.

So not a complete waste of time, but given what I know now I wouldn't have bothered to record this movie.


Let me repeat what I had written earlier about this movie:

Robert B. posted:
Aquaman

10 minutes into the movie: Bad guy pinned beneath torpedo. Submarine filling up with water. Instead of breathing from the closed circuit rebreather that he's been wearing the whole time and buying himself a few hours, bad guy chooses to activate an explosive device and kill himself.

SO DUMB.

Calamity Jane.

Gods that was a blast from the past.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
John Wick. Not bad.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186