Wife and I just watched Money Monster. Nothing earth shattering, but a good rainy-day movie. We both enjoyed it.
Watched Remember last night on demand. Very good movie as well.
Printable View
Wife and I just watched Money Monster. Nothing earth shattering, but a good rainy-day movie. We both enjoyed it.
Watched Remember last night on demand. Very good movie as well.
Another crummy afternoon forecast means another trip to the movies.
Yesterday was The Nice Guys. It was like a buddy cop movie written by Dashiell Hammett. Fun rainy day movie, but it felt like they left a few scenes on the cutting room floor that should have been included. Plot reminded me of LA Confidential meets Running Scared, set in the late '70s. The actor that played Ryan Gosling's daughter was the shining star of the movie.
Similar response to Nice Guys here; made the mistake of buying into the surprisingly good reviews, even after seeing the distinctly unremarkable trailers. Had a few moments, but the Costello moment when Sid's mangled corpse showed up was downright annoying.
I liked the second ankle gun scene.
Agreed! Just made the mistake of watching it during my jetlag-induced insomnia. Too wired now to sleep. Good thing it's the weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by NW_SKIER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripzalot
SPOILER ALERT:
Just watched it; recommended. Not what I was expecting at all; makes me curious what the third chapter will be about, as I assume the ending was a setup. Well done.
How is that a spoiler?
THE LOBSTER
It's like a Wes Anderson flick, but with a wicked, twisted, and nasty underbelly.
THE NEON DEMON
latest from Nicholas Winding Refn.
those folks who didn't cotton to his last film, Only God Forgives, may not like this one either.
he again name-checks/thanks Alejandro Jordorowsky in the end-credits; that should give you an idea of what you're getting into..
the film reminded me a lot of Rosemary's Baby, as well as The Sentinel (two understated and creepy horror classics, imho) crossed with elements of Cinderella and Snow White and the Bathory mythos.
but it's also a barbed swipe at the vapid, superficial trappings of not only Los Angeles, but the fashion world, as well as a commentary on the corruption of youth and the desire to remain youthful.
beautifully cinemagraphed, amazing score/sound design, and a bubbly sense of dread and uncertainty make it rather mezmerizing.
film was railed in Cannes for necrophelia and cannibalism; the former is a bit unnerving. the latter, well, let's just say i've seen worse on The Walking Dead.
visually arresting at the very least.
I thought 13 Hours was really good. Although it's hard to imagine Jim from The Office as a Navy Seal.
SWISS ARMY MAN
1. Quite possibly the most elaborate dick & fart joke ever committed to film (or any other medium, for that matter. If Guinness had an entry for such a feat, this film would be the most serious of contenders.
2. If that doesn't work for you, then this is the most searingly absurd endictment of California's mental health system I've ever seen.
3. or, if you will, imagine Where the Wild Things Are crossed with a Monty Python skit gone horribly awry.
4. Or perhaps Robinson Crusoe as re-imagined by John Blutarsky.
5. and if none of that makes any sense, then you can always go with the comment I overheard the portly Southern gentleman who attended the same screening I did say on the way out of the theater: "That was a helluva movie. It was like Las Vegas on acid."
Whatever the case may be, I laughed my ass off more than once during the duration. Harry Potter deserves some sort of film award nomination for his role, that's for sure.
Just watched the new Jason Bourne movie. If you get motion sickness take some Dramamine before you head to the theater because the director, Paul Greengrass, goes very deep to the shaky camera well. The only consistently stable shots in the whole movie were the aerial shots used to set the scene whenever they changed cities.
In addition to the overuse of the hand held shaky camera, Greengrass also uses zoom way too much. Whenever he changes to a different camera he goes from a wide shot to immediately zooming in on the actors face so your unable to see anything on the screen other than Matt Damon's 15' tall face.
The way this movie was filmed only detracted from the story, which wasn't all that great to begin with. IMO don't bother going to the theater to watch this motion sickness inducing piece of cinematic crap. You'd be better off waiting for it to come out on Netflix than wasting your money at the theater.
Fuck shaky cam. Fuck the overuse of zoom. And fuck Paul Greengrass. I'll never waste any more of my money on watching a film he directs.
Yeah, wife and I just saw JB as well.
Lots of shakey cam fight scenes. Too many. Definitely the weakest of the series. I preferred the Jeremy Renner film.
Julia Styles is no longer the girl from 10 Things I Hate About You.
Wife enjoyed it, but she likes Matt Damon.
Star Trek: Beyond - weak script and plot, formulaic. Solid special effects, set design and cinematography. Definitely the weakest of the 3 reboots but worth seeing if your a fan.
Tell us how you really feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kopi_Red
Thanks for the review, I think I felt the same way from just seeing the trailers.
cool movie. i would have chosen an eagle myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67
not new but did anyone see Hardcore Henry? not sure how this one got by me. not for fans of shaky cam or first person continuous shoots but the stunts, shots, and choreography were amazing.
I have to disagree with the previous review(s) of Jason Bourne. Yes, Paul Greengrass uses the shaky handheld camera a LOT. Doesnt distract from what I thought was an otherwise excellent film with a good story that continues the story arc of the character. Great performance by Matt Damon as well as a stellar job by Tommy Lee Jones. Everything you want in a Bourne film - pretty good fights, lots of whos-side-is-that-guy-really-on, expounded really well on the Bourne back story, and one of the best car chases I've seen in a movie in recent history. (Charger vs SWAT van through the streets of Las Vegas!!!)
I'll stop just short of giving it the Hustler fully erect stamp of approval, but it was a solid 3/4, and holds up very well to any of the other movies in this series, in my opinion. Full disclosure I am a big Bourne fan, since the 90s - I read and loved many of the Robert Ludlum books..
Saw Hell or High Water last night. Best movie I have seen in a while, and we go every Tuesday....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQoqsKoJVDw
I agree. Hell or High Water is a solid flick.
HoHW: I'm going to see it, but I'm curious of there was a scene, probably near the end, of a tv reporter talking while a body was dragged off the hill?
I was an extra and played one of the coroners in the scene. Just wondered if it made it into the final cut. It seemed pretty ragged-ass.
Wife and I went and saw War Dogs last weekend.
Not a bad flick, the fat kid from Superbad still likes to party. The only thing that got I my nerves was when they were talking about ammunition, they referred to it as "AK-47 ammo", instead of what caliber it is. I'm not buying Beretta bullets, I'm buying 9mm rounds.
There was a reporter snippet at the end. I don't remember what was going on behind her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
DON'T BREATHE
I liked it and hated it in equal measures. there was a lot to like: the pacing, the excellent use of cramped space (though, in reference to confined space use in film, The Green Room is superior). But back to DB, on the plus side, there was some serious "Eww" factor moments that come out of nowhere, raising the cringe quotient a tad. On the acting side of things, the main kids in the film were a bunch that i had little to no sympathy (or empathy) for, so you kind of don't care what happens to them. I also felt the ending was a bit trite, leaving it open for a sequel, then again, I like enigmatic, downer endings.  That said, I'd still give it a strong 3 out of 5 stars, as it definitely was intense and had some bugged out twists.
*interesting aside: I once saw Stephen Lang portray a burglar tormenting a blind woman in a Broadway production of Wait Until Dark (based upon the Audrey Hepburn thriller from the '60s). Was interesting to see him in a reversed role here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
Yup, I would concur (that it is one of the best films I've seen in awhile--definitely this year)
I saw HoHW back on Sept. 6th. While I found the overall story to be a bit cliche, damn if the acting wasn't beyond top-notch. Ben Foster absolutely kills it and Jeff Bridges, whilst channeling just a tad of Rooster Cogburn, is mesmerizing.
What really sold it for me, though, was the dialogue. It was crisp and amazing, teeming with off-kilter dry wit and sly asides. Worth seeing the film again just to catch all the things that are said.
4 out of 5, perhaps even 4.5 out of 5, easily.
MORGAN
This one came and went with the quickness, which may be due to the confusing title, but still surprising since it was produced by Scott Free (Ridley Scott's production company) and directed by Scott's son, Jake.
At any rate, it's a semi-halfway decent little sci-fi thriller, although it brought to mind Ex Machina, Splice, The Fly II, Species, and elements of Alien; utilizing familiar genre tropes such as the presence of an evil “Corporation” funding genetic research, a secret lab buried in the woods, and others. The cast is pretty solid and there are some decent moments of acting lurking onscreen (Michael Yare was gratingly annoying, Paul Giamatti was bristling, Kate Mara was ice cool). There were a few red herrings tossed about that provided a bit of slight-of-hand/misdirection for those who are easily distracted, but sadly I figured out the real twist about a 1/4 of the way in, so the rest of the film was just waiting for the inevitable show-down. The film wasn’t anything like the trailer, which was nice, but in the end too much of it fell victime to the “seen it all before” malady.
Giving it 2.5 out of 5...making it an okay rental choice for those starving for sci-fi action thrillers.
LIGHTS OUT
First up, this feature-length film is based on a really creepy short film:
When I first learned that they would be expanding the above into a longer film my initial thoughts were "WTF, why would they want to do that? And more importantly, how are they gonna pull that off?"
When I saw the initial trailer for the feature film, I was left saddened, as it looked as if they had turned a great, enigmatic, and severely creepy short into another Grudge/Ring/Sinister/Insidious reip-off. I vowed not to see it. Then a film critic buddy of mine mentioned that it was easily one of his favorite horror films of the year. Then I noticed that it had been playing on numerous screens in Reno for 2 months (films don't usually last that long around here). So, with a bit of hesitation, I decided to give it a shot, mostly because I had a day off, hadn't been to the movies in a spell, and generally prefer to watch stuff, no matter how mediocre, on the BIG screen as oppossed to the small one at home.
I gotta say, it was pretty decent.
Lottsa scares and some genuinely creepy moments.
the back story they created for the original short film wasn't terribly bad, either.
Sure, there were some hokey moments, some rushed character development, but the creeps and scares well outweighed those slights.
Maria Bello is genuinely freaky, too.
Only downside? Billy Burke looks like he's joined the Nic Cage Hair Club For Actors...
if you dig Old School horror that utilizes shadows and darkness and cheap thrills over gratuitious gore, this is a nice little number.
I would agree. It felt like I'd seen this film 2X before: angry male alien pissed off at Starfleet takes it out on Kirk and crew, destroys Enterprise, everybody survives, except for the requisite ensigns, they rebuild the Enterprise and prepare for another similar adventure... That and the complete lack of any further character development. I think Star Trek was better served on television, where they had the room to explore the characters with more depth. Also, imho, everybody is going a bit far with the over-the-top homage to the original actors, so much so that it's become a bit too hammy (Karl Urban and Simon Pegg seem to be taking their characterizations of Bones and Scotty, respectively, so far into goofball humor terrain that it's a tad excruciating to watch).Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond Joe
I agree to some degree. The filming matched the pacing, though, which was quick and flurried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kopi_Red
That said, it felt like I'd already seen this exact movie, what 3X before? Jason Bourne emerges from the dark, tracks down the government folks who messed him up, and gets revenge. I mean, c'mon? How many times can they make this movie? (granted, I've yet to read any of the books, so have no clue as to how true they are to the source material).
That said, I actually found the filming to be energizing while it was annoying. It definitely was kinetic.
However, I do like a broader view during fight scenes--this has always been a Western technique, to have extreme close-ups and quick edits, as oppossed to the Eastern style (Hong Kong, for example), where they tend to pan out so you can actually see all the fighting moves.
DJ, I find this interesting since above you slagged Star Trek for being cliche and pointless (or, more to the point: "weak script and plot, formulaic."), yet JB, imho, suffered from exactly the same things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond Joe
as for the car chase in Vegas? I kept having flashbacks to The French Connection and To Live and Die in L.A.
i did, however, find Alicia Vikander's character to be intriguing for the very reasons you mentioned above (whose side is that guy really on?).
For a "popcorn" summer flick, it delivered, and again the shaky cam and non-stop pacing made for not having much time to really wrap your head around the basic plot. I'd give it perhaps a 2.5 or 3 out of 5.
Saw it last week and concur. Really a solid flick.Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67
Spoiler Alert!:
I mentioned earlier that I did some extra work in it. That turned out pretty funny. During a casino scene near the end, there is a bank of tv screens over a bar playing the news story about the guy's brother. On the tv screens during the news story there's a two second shot of me coming off a hill, dressed in black but it's only from my neck to my thighs. My wife laughed, my movie career stumbles.
SUICIDE SQUAD
The trailers and pre-hype for this fiick were pretty cool. I mean most of the various trailers I saw (they were virtually unavoidable, especially during July) made me want to see the film, which otherwise I didn't have that much inclination to do so. I gotta say, watching all the trailers is probably better than watching this film; saves you some $$$, too. :)
Basically, it's starting to feel like all the DC and Marvel films are blending together. We had Iron Man vs. Captain America, then Batman vs. Superman. The latest X-Men had that team fighting an ancient god-like creature, now Suicide Squad fights an ancient witch-god. It’s no secret that each of the comic giants pretty much ripped off each other’s characters over the years, with a few exceptions, but having tentpole movies that pretty much seem to be delivering the same story, but with slightly different characters is getting boring. That aside, the film was okay, albeit a bit choppy during the second act, but it features some good zings, some decent acting; Jared Leto is pretty sick as The Joker (no Heath Ledger, mind you, but he put his own twisted spin on the grinning ghoul of Gotham). The Harly Quinn actress, though, is like a weak version of Jaimie Presley; same scratchy voice, similar facial features, just about 10 years younger.
The action in the first act was solid, and the characters are intriguing, but deserve a bit more development. I will concede that the quick backflashes on the origins/motives of each member of the Squad, was done well.
In the end, the trailers felt like they were crafted much better than the film itself, a case of where the marketing of the project eclipses the actual project itself.
Giving it a 2.5 out of 5.
BLAIR WITCH - 2.5 - 3.0 give or take a smidgen of a point.
Went and caught a screening of the new Blair Witch flick today. Was mostly intrigued by it due to it being directed by Adam Wingard and written by Simon Barrett. I have really enjoyed their two previous efforts--You're Next and The Guest--so I was expecting pretty great things. I purposely avoided reading any reviews or watching trailers. I had seen a couple of stills on the Net, though. I was mistakenly under the impression that it was going to be in the vein of Book of Shadows (which I actually really dug), but when I purchased my ticket the lady behind the counter warned me about shaky cam and asked if I got motion sickness; my heart sank a tad upon learning that Wingard and Barrett were going the "found footage" route. Last-minute preconceptions aside, although it is a found footage flick, it was pretty decent. The duo did a good job of tossing in some nice twists, there was a least one moment of serious WTF?!?!ness, plus they used sound and light (or lack of) to good advantage, and seemed to build upon the original a bit (I have to admit, I have only seen the original film once and it was on a sh!tty VHS dub and I don't really remember much of it, other than they used sound and light (or lack of) to decent effect). While there were some genuine jump-out-of-your-seats moments and some interesting effects, on the whole this "sequel" didn't change much or offer too many new insights. It was decent enough, but was sorely missing any of the cool humor and vintage '80s redux of the duo's previous efforts. I have to wonder why they chose to essentially remake what is more or less a modern classic rather than continue with their unique vision of familiar genres. Interestingly enough (or sadly speaking, depending on your viewpoint), their next film is also a remake...wondering why they are resorting to this tract rather than pushing for original material?
Went and saw The Accountant this afternoon.
When I first saw previews for this movie, I initially wrote it off. I had no interest in seeing a movie that looked like Forrest Gump meets Shooter. But then I saw a few reviews that spoke quite highly of it, and that the previews were didn't really go into what the movie actually was because that would ruin the film. I managed to sell the wife on that theory, and went in hoping for something better than awful.
We were pleasantly surprised at how good the movie was. Far better than the most recent Bourne film. I'm not going to get into it too deeply, because it would ruin the film, but it was very enjoyable.
My only gripe was the casting of the villain. I wanted to be surprised at who the baddy was, and as soon as I saw him, I knew he was the bad guy. He played his part well, it's just that he's always the bad guy. There were a couple twists that I saw coming, but completely baffled my wife.
4 stars out of 5.
Here's a better review:
Looking forward to seeing this...
Hell yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Racist, cranky old bastard makes good movie (Hacksaw Ridge)!
Pretty tricky, making a period piece where it's OK to push religion - yeah I know, based on a true story, but still .....
Regardless, nobody left the theater unhappy, several stood and clapped. Battle scenes were truly gripping.
I'm excited to watch Dr strange in imax3D. Reviews have been outstanding.
Run, don't walk to see Dr strange in imax3D! Holy shit, it's the Most amazing thing I've ever seen on a screen. Solid story as well.
Serve up stoned out of your mind
I really enjoyed it too. Not sure the 3D was really worth it or necessary - would have to watch again in 2D to compare. The 3D glasses give me tunnel vision, and kept reflecting the exit light into the corner of my eye thanks to our seats.Quote:
Originally Posted by My Pet Powder Goat
In most cases I've come to that same conclusion about 3D; too many shaky cam fight sequence and CGI in many marvel movies are distracting, but strange is a different kind of movie, with mostly spells and alternate dimensions that worked well in 3D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Did you see it at a IMAX? Because it's a whole different experience.