jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
and no christmas!!!!!!
Last Movie Watched
- Thread starter adgy-san
- Start date
and no christmas!!!!!!
R
roenick
Lurker
Just saw it today. Speaking as someone who grew up in that era I was always looking for Misty Moutains ...
C
chaingunsofdoom
Lurker
Watched "Burying the Ex" last night. Mainly for Alexandra Daddario. It seemed confused by it's own movie logic/rules at times. Predictable. No scares. Some funny parts. But the brisk 90 minute running time was good. I'd give it a 3/5.
C
chaingunsofdoom
Lurker
Watched "As Above/So Below" tonight. Pretty decent flick. Uses the shakycam but has some interesting things script-wise. I'd give it a 4/5.
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
Ok...so Wolf Trilogy
First off...bogus. NOT ONE WOLF. Seriously though, a movie I heard all kinds of good things about. End result, meh. The whole evil that men do...especially the good/righteous ones theme has been kinda done to death. One of the countless movies where the parent of a dead child does 'whatever it takes' to get a confession out of those they suspect. A few twists...a semi nice but not really worth the wait GOTCHA ending. Not bad considering it's Israeli, but even Starz THE MISSING was better.
Also on a lot of year end bests lists...Also, meh. Werewolves were ok. The blind veteran 'hero' was decent. But it just felt a little underdone. More SILVER BULLET than the HOWLING. Your mileage may vary...but I am a Werewolf mark and this is neither the best or worst I have seen.
the capper of the Trilogy
Ok. Low budget was responsible for both the good and bad of this flick. Runs a little long( the joke wears a wee bit by the end), still, enough good here that, if you are a fan of B movies, embrace the stupid, get high...etc., it's better than Sharknado.
NON WOLF SECTION
Underwhelming. Not terrible. But, they promised some irreverent kid related violence. And...they come close. BUT THEN they pull their punches. Probably better than I give it credit for, but I was disappointed. I want more kids getting wrung up and BLASTED. I saw a movie THE CHILDREN, about a school bus that goes through a radioactive cloud, 30 years ago. That movie was unapologetic about wrecking children. And it has stuck with me since.
Another well regarded flick. Another not bad, but not good as it should have been movie. Nice work by Rollins. Pretty good Biblical twist(that is terribly unexplored and soooooo deserving of a full movie dedicated to the concept). Not all of it is explained, which is ok. Another movie hampered by lack of budget/script development.
I had heard this was an unfilmable book. And this is either a great representation of a very ****ed up book...or it's not good at all. Never read the book...so I can't comment. Not terribly unlike Big Lebowski, except that it is much more disjointed. Not a bad movie, and I have rewatched snippets and think this may improve with repeated viewings, but the first time...not so much.
First off...bogus. NOT ONE WOLF. Seriously though, a movie I heard all kinds of good things about. End result, meh. The whole evil that men do...especially the good/righteous ones theme has been kinda done to death. One of the countless movies where the parent of a dead child does 'whatever it takes' to get a confession out of those they suspect. A few twists...a semi nice but not really worth the wait GOTCHA ending. Not bad considering it's Israeli, but even Starz THE MISSING was better.
Also on a lot of year end bests lists...Also, meh. Werewolves were ok. The blind veteran 'hero' was decent. But it just felt a little underdone. More SILVER BULLET than the HOWLING. Your mileage may vary...but I am a Werewolf mark and this is neither the best or worst I have seen.
the capper of the Trilogy
Ok. Low budget was responsible for both the good and bad of this flick. Runs a little long( the joke wears a wee bit by the end), still, enough good here that, if you are a fan of B movies, embrace the stupid, get high...etc., it's better than Sharknado.
NON WOLF SECTION
Underwhelming. Not terrible. But, they promised some irreverent kid related violence. And...they come close. BUT THEN they pull their punches. Probably better than I give it credit for, but I was disappointed. I want more kids getting wrung up and BLASTED. I saw a movie THE CHILDREN, about a school bus that goes through a radioactive cloud, 30 years ago. That movie was unapologetic about wrecking children. And it has stuck with me since.
Another well regarded flick. Another not bad, but not good as it should have been movie. Nice work by Rollins. Pretty good Biblical twist(that is terribly unexplored and soooooo deserving of a full movie dedicated to the concept). Not all of it is explained, which is ok. Another movie hampered by lack of budget/script development.
I had heard this was an unfilmable book. And this is either a great representation of a very ****ed up book...or it's not good at all. Never read the book...so I can't comment. Not terribly unlike Big Lebowski, except that it is much more disjointed. Not a bad movie, and I have rewatched snippets and think this may improve with repeated viewings, but the first time...not so much.
C
chaingunsofdoom
Lurker
Re-watched Hackers (but on BD for the first time) and it's just a 90s classic.
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
Pardon the preamble...but after a decent run of really memorable flicks (Everybody Wants Some, Nice Guys, Brothers Grimsby are a few that come to mind...) we have officially enetered into the portion of the year where it's all tentpoles and movies with numerals in the title. In the past, this has been a very green period...but either I am growing up and expecting more, or, more likely, the studios are turning out perfectly acceptable, yet ultimately unsatisfying fare...
Okay, so...
From the 'numerals' category. The first Conjuring was a bit of a surprise. Maybe due to a very clever ad campaign where positive critical response created a very favorable first impression...which subsequently faded upon repeated viewings. Biggest problem is that it was sold as a factual based almost biopic of the Warrens, famous paranormal investigators. The first movie teased and hinted for a good majority of it's running time...only to resort in the third act to jump scares and the same ridiculous tropes that possession movies always rely on. So the second...it pretty much dispenses with any attempt to create an actual 'could this be real' vibe, by going ridiculous often and early. Vera Farmigia, who is usually very good, is wasted here. Patrick Wilson continues to impress by being solidly likable despite a sketch of a character. A few moments...and a lot of the other actors do a good job...but it simply is just so mundane. Nothing to love here, nothing to hate. Just a solid little income generator virtually guaranteeing a #3.
And this. SmytheKing is not going to be happy...
Look, you want to play a video game...play it. This I just don't get. And it's not because I don't play Warcraft. It's not because I don't like sword and sorcery flicks. Hell, I grew up on them. I think, ultimately, why this is such a fail is because it took so damned long to produce. So many fine actors(Toby Kebbel, Clancy Brown among them) who's mo-cap performances are so inconsequential. Let me explain...it's not as if the same results, physically, could not be produced by(I assume) cheaper and much less time consuming animation. And their voices are soooo distorted that any trace of the actor's personality is unrecognizable as well. The humans fare even less well. Despite Travis Fimmel(Vikings) doing his strange lilting, almost questioning delivery(I like his work...but your mileage may vary) and Ben Foster...who proves in this movie, that he is one amazing actor, simply because he manages to maintain his dignity despite the shenanigans going on around him. The biggest problem this movie has is that the story never tries to be anything more than a underdeveloped tagline to hang a multi-million dollar franchise on. And, as visuals get more advanced, moviegoers should get a little more respect from these eye candy cgi show reels. I played D&D as a, let's say youth. And most of the time was taken up with silly banter containing a lot of thees and thous. In retrospect...it was embarrassing. This movie's dialogue showed me just how silly it was. I swear I wanted BonJovi to take me back in time to kick my own nerd ass. That isn't to say that a movie of this type should be Shakespeare. But at least try not to have the bulk of the script written by a 5 year old. And, the 'ending' is really just a set up for the sure to be sequel. Kind of a cheat, really.
I guess my biggest critique should be reserved for Duncan Jones. Almost 4 years of his young, and at one time, promising career spent on this. Why? This is a movie that really should have been directed by a video game designer. In fact, I probably wouldn't be soooo harsh if SOOOOOOOOO much time and effort by talented people hadn't been spent on such a 'meh' effort. This movie should have legitimized the phenomenon known as Warcraft. Yet all it really was turned out to be an open wank fest for fans and even more of a distance maker for non fans. Terribly wasteful and disappointing. Sorry SK. We still buds?
Okay, so...
From the 'numerals' category. The first Conjuring was a bit of a surprise. Maybe due to a very clever ad campaign where positive critical response created a very favorable first impression...which subsequently faded upon repeated viewings. Biggest problem is that it was sold as a factual based almost biopic of the Warrens, famous paranormal investigators. The first movie teased and hinted for a good majority of it's running time...only to resort in the third act to jump scares and the same ridiculous tropes that possession movies always rely on. So the second...it pretty much dispenses with any attempt to create an actual 'could this be real' vibe, by going ridiculous often and early. Vera Farmigia, who is usually very good, is wasted here. Patrick Wilson continues to impress by being solidly likable despite a sketch of a character. A few moments...and a lot of the other actors do a good job...but it simply is just so mundane. Nothing to love here, nothing to hate. Just a solid little income generator virtually guaranteeing a #3.
And this. SmytheKing is not going to be happy...
Look, you want to play a video game...play it. This I just don't get. And it's not because I don't play Warcraft. It's not because I don't like sword and sorcery flicks. Hell, I grew up on them. I think, ultimately, why this is such a fail is because it took so damned long to produce. So many fine actors(Toby Kebbel, Clancy Brown among them) who's mo-cap performances are so inconsequential. Let me explain...it's not as if the same results, physically, could not be produced by(I assume) cheaper and much less time consuming animation. And their voices are soooo distorted that any trace of the actor's personality is unrecognizable as well. The humans fare even less well. Despite Travis Fimmel(Vikings) doing his strange lilting, almost questioning delivery(I like his work...but your mileage may vary) and Ben Foster...who proves in this movie, that he is one amazing actor, simply because he manages to maintain his dignity despite the shenanigans going on around him. The biggest problem this movie has is that the story never tries to be anything more than a underdeveloped tagline to hang a multi-million dollar franchise on. And, as visuals get more advanced, moviegoers should get a little more respect from these eye candy cgi show reels. I played D&D as a, let's say youth. And most of the time was taken up with silly banter containing a lot of thees and thous. In retrospect...it was embarrassing. This movie's dialogue showed me just how silly it was. I swear I wanted BonJovi to take me back in time to kick my own nerd ass. That isn't to say that a movie of this type should be Shakespeare. But at least try not to have the bulk of the script written by a 5 year old. And, the 'ending' is really just a set up for the sure to be sequel. Kind of a cheat, really.
I guess my biggest critique should be reserved for Duncan Jones. Almost 4 years of his young, and at one time, promising career spent on this. Why? This is a movie that really should have been directed by a video game designer. In fact, I probably wouldn't be soooo harsh if SOOOOOOOOO much time and effort by talented people hadn't been spent on such a 'meh' effort. This movie should have legitimized the phenomenon known as Warcraft. Yet all it really was turned out to be an open wank fest for fans and even more of a distance maker for non fans. Terribly wasteful and disappointing. Sorry SK. We still buds?
C
chaingunsofdoom
Lurker
Watched "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" for the first time in ages last night. From a technical standpoint of 1988... top notch. But, it doesn't really stand the test of time in any other category.
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
Saw it in a theater...4:20(heh) show at the Chinese. So for 2 people, with drinks, $40 bucks at least. Parking...etc. SOOOOOOOOOOO not worth it. And it colored my appreciation. When I saw **** like this back at the Panorama City Americana, I was paying 8 bucks for a 2-fer and 6 bucks for snacks. If I watched this at home and paid $4.99, I might not have been so disappointed. But, as good as the fake trailer that inspired this was...it was only 90 seconds. And they did NO developing of the story to stretch it into 90 minutes. Hints of a better movie. Peter Stormare struggles valiantly to rise above a character whose sole purpose is exposition...but, well...at least he got paid. Hints of a better movie in the 5 minutes that they actually spent trying to actually backstory the reason for the transformation. But even that, it seems like they tried to make sense of it...and mid explanation just said...'Because I told you, that's how".
Practical fx were a sad argument for practical fx. And the wife, main character, is old school 80's horror bad.
Extra points for killing kids. At least they didn't try to pretend they were something better.
L
LetTigerIn
Lurker
Lesson taken. I'll watch this at home to lower my expectations. I recently watched Urge and Cash Only at home, both of which had a simultaneous theatrical and home release, and both of which I'd considered seeing in the theater. While I was not overjoyed with either of them (although I still could recommend Cash Only), neither did I feel I wasted my money, especially with Cash Only.
Urge has an interesting premise and look, despite a somewhat ham-fisted set-up, but rapidly succumbs to budget limitations as well as disappointing storytelling shortcuts and general laziness.
Cash Only, on the other hand, has a very banal premise and look, but it delivers with a very natural style and an interesting perspective of Albanian-American culture in an area of Detroit. In terms of acting tone, it reminded me of Spring, so in that sense it was very refreshing, and it very much lent to the sensation of experiencing this neighborhood. However, not every actor is able to deliver in the style needed for Cash Only, so that hurts, and, apparently, some people were taken aback by where the story goes (I was not).
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
heh...you are still thinking about Spring. Nice.
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
Saw this yesterday. Not sure if I liked it, but I sure didn't hate it. Look, if you want linear/cohesive/complete...see something else. This is a movie people walk out of, and two of the people in our audience walked out. Serious. And good thing they did, because 'aberrant sexual behavior' still hadn't happened. Soooo many questions. and that's ok.
Music/make-up/colors...award caliber. This movie is like weird Tangerine Dream/The Keep era Michael Mann meets Black Swan meets this even weirder thing. Not for everyone. At all. May not be for anyone.
By the way, I suggest pairing this with Excision
Last edited:
L
LetTigerIn
Lurker
Dammit, man. I may have to shift my priorities again. However, I will say I'm bent on seeing three movies this week: The Neon Demon; Swiss Army Man; and Eat That Question: Frank Zappa in His Own Words.
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
I was torn 'tween this and Swiss Army Man...gonna hope that SAM is still up at Arclight next weekend.
Full Disclosure. I expected to HATE Neon Demon. Nicholas Wynding Refn can be a mastabatory narcissist but this was good despite...
L
LetTigerIn
Lurker
Swiss Army Man
So, yeah, I'm not sure what exactly is to be expected of a movie about a stranded man who befriends a flatulent corpse, but this movie probably defies those expectations in some way. It is bizarre, but not in some wonder-evoking way; it is crass, but not in a rude way; and it is sweet at times, but not in a profound way. This could turn out to be a special movie for some. To me, it was not quite that, but I really appreciate the unapologetic uniqueness of the movie, which questions whether a movie like this that is sweet and strange also necessarily must be redemptively smart, which this was not enough. Personally, I put it just below another strange film from this year — The Lobster — which is to say, despite my gripes, I enjoyed it.
One of the treats of the film turned out to be the filmed interview with the directors that ran after the show (an Arclight thing). Bonus supplemental materials in the theatre. Ha! I like it!
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
Swiss Army Man
So, yeah, I'm not sure what exactly is to be expected of a movie about a stranded man who befriends a flatulent corpse, but this movie probably defies those expectations in some way. It is bizarre, but not in some wonder-evoking way; it is crass, but not in a rude way; and it is sweet at times, but not in a profound way. This could turn out to be a special movie for some. To me, it was not quite that, but I really appreciate the unapologetic uniqueness of the movie, which questions whether a movie like this that is sweet and strange also necessarily must be redemptively smart, which this was not enough. Personally, I put it just below another strange film from this year — The Lobster — which is to say, despite my gripes, I enjoyed it.
One of the treats of the film turned out to be the filmed interview with the directors that ran after the show (an Arclight thing). Bonus supplemental materials in the theatre. Ha! I like it!
Soooo gonna see this this weekend. Guess you didn't make it to the trifecta you had planned?
L
LetTigerIn
Lurker
It's still on. I saw Eat That Question tonight, and it was very good, more just because of Frank Zappa himself than anything else, but that's enough. It may not necessarily provide any extra insights, but I think it's a more than solid account for both Zappa superfans and neophytes. I went with someone who is not a Zappa completist but has a good handle on most of the catalog, and he said he hadn't seen a lot of the footage before. For me, it cemented the relationship between the man and the music. So, it looks like the trifecta will turn out to be well-created as a trifecta of unapologetically unique artists.
The Neon Demon is lined up for Wednesday night.
Oh, and the snack bar at the Nuart is outstanding.
Last edited by a moderator:
jerseydevil
I'llPutPenniesOnYourEyes
It's still on. I saw Eat That Question tonight, and it was very good, more just because of Frank Zappa himself than anything else, but that's enough. It may not necessarily provide any extra insights, but I think it's a more than solid account for both Zappa superfans and neophytes. I went with someone who is not a Zappa completist but has a good handle on most of the catalog, and he said he hadn't seen a lot of the footage before. For me, it cemented the relationship between the man and the music. So, it looks like the trifecta will turn out to be well-created as a trifecta of unapologetically unique artists.
The Neon Demon is lined up for Wednesday night.
Oh, and the snack bar at the Nuart is outstanding.
Love the Nuart, haven't been there in ages.
L
LetTigerIn
Lurker
Depending on how long it's been, you may be surprised by it. The seats are comfy with ample legroom.
Michel Gondry's new film plays there for a week starting Friday, so I may be back sooner than later.
Last edited by a moderator:
L
LetTigerIn
Lurker
I forgot to mention about Eat That Question, since it's basically all old video footage, the aspect ratio is 1.33:1 a.k.a. 4:3 a.k.a 4x3 a.k.a. old standard definition television dimensions or very, very old theatrical film dimensions. What a blast! (from the past)
