or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › What Movies Are You Watching Lately
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Movies Are You Watching Lately - Page 914

post #13696 of 14406

Blade Runner; The final Cut - Ridley Scott (2007)

 

 



Androids are returning to earth, they want immortality and are pissed. That is more than Harrison Ford can take and he goes after them.

 

This is the (so far) the final version, cut by Scott without any restrictions.  All there is to say about this movie have been said I guess.

I think the script is not that good but, the movie  is a visual pleasure to watch.

This movie is the lucky cooperation between Scott, the set designer Lawrence G.Paull and photographer Jordan Cronenweth. Together they create some very haunting and beautiful interiors where the light act almost as an actor it self: very skillful. The exteriors are nice, but the interiors are just better. Vangelis' score is just spot on in this movie. 

 

Make-up and cloths are hopeless 80-ies, and some of the women look just ridiculous in hair and shoulders. Don't know if I should laugh or cry, outdated as they are.

Casting is disaster, but I guess Scott had to play with what he had. Best part is Rutger Hauer, and even hin sucks.

 

This is a dark sci-fi noir movie about immortality, but too often I feel this is America trying to make an European movie; ending up with too much style and too little content.

Of course the yankees get cred for trying, but I think they try too hard here.

It's beautiful and thrilling like wrapping paper, but the movie makes me remember Christmas eve when I, exited, tear open the Christmas gift just to discover it's an electrical toy - but the batteries are missing. 

 

Here's a bit Fritz Lang and Metropolis, a splash Tarkovsky, some drops of Frankenstein set in a post apocalyptical Gotham on opium. It's a thin soup, a beautiful soup it is, but without any nutrition. Sorry to say, this movie tells me nothing.

 

Me thinks me has to find Thelma & Louise somewhere and rewatch it. Might have decayed over the years, or might show what Ridley Scott was able to when he wasn't trying so hard.

post #13697 of 14406


Interesting take on the morality or lack of it in modern warfare.A solid cast delves into the logistics, ethics and practicality of long distance warfare.

Is the War on Terror just about the propaganda war and its exploitation by politicians? The behaviour of the political class is put under the microscope and does not emerge smelling of roses.

Politicians prevaricate on the application of the law and the ethics of life and death while the military makes a pragmatic choice in relation to its efforts to rid the world of the threat of terror.
post #13698 of 14406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Nickels View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Been wanting to see this for a bit. Great flick if you're into martial arts and wing chun in particular. Not as good as 1 of course, but far better than 2. Good stuff.

I just saw it. Not sure how I feel about this one. I think they tried packing too much into it with the whole Mike Tyson trying to buy property, and young Bruce Lee wanting to be a student bits, but I guess compromises have to be made for these movies to get out there. Speaking of Bruce, I had no idea he was a cha cha dancer until seeing this.

post #13699 of 14406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Al View Post

Inside out - Pete Docter and  Ronnie del Carmen (USA, 2015)





Eleven years old Riley moves from Minneapolis to San Francisco with her parents and goes through a personal crisis. 

Pixar did it again; made a superb movie. This is a movie for children, but here is much to learn and experience for grown ups as well.
Fear, Anger, Disgust and Sadness leave Joy with a difficult job helping Riley cope with the adaptations she has to make.

This is about emotions, and Pixar solved the problem with how to show something abstract as feelings in a concrete media as animation. To me they did it pretty well.
It is a very moving movie about trusting your inner friends if you no longer have any externals. 
If you can not get emotional watching this; apply for work as a statue since then you are made of stone. 
Great movie. Got it for my three year old back in November. I heard something about it taking a couple of years to make. Anyway, I did get emotional during this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post

Saw this on a plane last week:





I'm quite embarrassed to admit that it's the first time I'd seen The Departed. A fantastic movie, based on an Andy Lau film from HK ("Infernal Affairs", which I had seen years ago) and also loosely based on the real-life story of James "Whitey" Bulger, an Irish-American criminal from Boston.

Many stand-out performances - Di Caprio was perhaps the best I've ever seen him, Nicholson chewed the scenery a bit but was great in his usual charming, menacing, maniacal way, Matt Damon was great and the supporting cast of Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin did a great job, too. I really enjoyed it.

This just made a run again on one of the movie channels. I forgot how good it was. Leo was great. So was Damon. Almost wanted to kill Matt Damon myself by the end. Supporting cast was good but they all had their hangups (Sheens accent, Wahlbergs demeanor, Baldwin trying to act half incompetent)
It also made me look up the video for Comfortably Numb with Van Morrison signing. Quite good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Al View Post

And I will put Aliens on my watchlist, some day I will watch it.

FWIW, Alien is a sci-fi suspense/horror movie. Aliens is a sci-fi action movie. Aliens has machine guns.

I'm not sure I'd agree with Kaplan about Alien holding up better than Aliens. Alien might hold up better to someone who was around at the time and is appreciating what it did for film...but I'd guess that if you brought in a 25 year old who hadn't seen either, they would much prefer Aliens.
I agree with most of the others here that both are must watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post

Speaking of 80's action movie bravado, this seemed like the thing to put on:



John McTiernan really had a spectacular hat-trick in the late 80's with this from '87, Die Hard ('88) and The Hunt for Red October ('90). Almost every line from this one is quotable and with very well made creature effects and no bad CGI to date it, it still holds up really well. Great score too. 4/5

That was a great stretch. Ive seen most of the Predator series and Alien series. I like how the two meshed together. Series info spoilered. Do not read if you dont know the full Alien series Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
But the prequel of Prometheus blew my mind. Ok, so maybe I watched Prometheus and didnt know it was the prequel and maybe I was quite bored through the movie but man, that ending!
post #13700 of 14406

 

We Have Only One Life. Nice 50's Greek comedy film. A bank clerk discovers an accounting error and absconds with an accounting excess and woos a beautiful gold digger. The film has a 'Golden Age of Hollywood' quality to it - it gets to the point and has a satisfactory ending that ties up the story very well.

post #13701 of 14406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Al View Post

Blade Runner; The final Cut - Ridley Scott (2007)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Androids are returning to earth, they want immortality and are pissed. That is more than Harrison Ford can take and he goes after them.

This is the (so far) the final version, cut by Scott without any restrictions.  All there is to say about this movie have been said I guess.
I think the script is not that good but, the movie  is a visual pleasure to watch.
This movie is the lucky cooperation between Scott, the set designer Lawrence G.Paull and photographer Jordan Cronenweth. Together they create some very haunting and beautiful interiors where the light act almost as an actor it self: very skillful. The exteriors are nice, but the interiors are just better. Vangelis' score is just spot on in this movie. 

Make-up and cloths are hopeless 80-ies, and some of the women look just ridiculous in hair and shoulders. Don't know if I should laugh or cry, outdated as they are.
Casting is disaster, but I guess Scott had to play with what he had. Best part is Rutger Hauer, and even hin sucks.

This is a dark sci-fi noir movie about immortality, but too often I feel this is America trying to make an European movie; ending up with too much style and too little content.
Of course the yankees get cred for trying, but I think they try too hard here.
It's beautiful and thrilling like wrapping paper, but the movie makes me remember Christmas eve when I, exited, tear open the Christmas gift just to discover it's an electrical toy - but the batteries are missing. 

Here's a bit Fritz Lang and Metropolis, a splash Tarkovsky, some drops of Frankenstein set in a post apocalyptical Gotham on opium. It's a thin soup, a beautiful soup it is, but without any nutrition. Sorry to say, this movie tells me nothing.

Me thinks me has to find Thelma & Louise somewhere and rewatch it. Might have decayed over the years, or might show what Ridley Scott was able to when he wasn't trying so hard.

I agree with the part about the soundtrack.
post #13702 of 14406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post


I agree with the part about the soundtrack.

 

And disagree with the rest, I assume. 

post #13703 of 14406
Well, not the part about it being a visual pleasure to watch ;-)

But yes, pretty much. For instance, I think the script is great. The starting dialogue for instance (between Holden and Leon) has one of my favourite things in writing - when people are talking past each other. Here, one is nervously asking questions, the other ignoring them and instead giving blunt directions, which very economically tells a lot about each of the characters and the specific situation they're in.

I also think the cast is pretty much perfect and that Rutger Hauer very far from sucks here. Does part of the hair and wardrobe date it to the 80's? Sure, but I have no problem with that, it doesn't distract me at all.

As for it being more style than substance, that's probably true, but again, that's not a critique for me, especially when the style here is oh so good. A lot have been said and written about the substance of Blade Runner, and while I do believe there is some interesting subtext here * it's not my main reason for loving this movie - the style and overall mood is.

* - stuff about desire for immortality, but maybe more interestingly, how the humans are behaving more like feelingless automatons and the replicants are the ones showing human emotions (which is one of the reasons why Ridley's decision to cement Decard as a replicant - opposed to the script and the Philip K. Dick novel it's based on - is a bad idea).

But I also believe that we're looking for rather different things in movies (and this is obviously perfectly fine), with you being much more interested in how well a movie can shine a light on some part of the human condition and me being primarily aesthetically driven.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.
Edited by Kaplan - 4/18/16 at 6:58am
post #13704 of 14406

I like Blade Runner, but I like hearing negative feedback about films because I don't think our thoughts are binary (we like or didn't like with no scale of inbetween).

 

In fact, the other day I finished watching both Red Beard and Children of Paradise. I thought they were ok - but I think there has got to be some correlation with film length and film ratings somewhere. It seems every 2.5+ hour film is so highly rated and I just wonder how much of that is some sort of bias. I guess I prefer tighter stories.

post #13705 of 14406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post


But I also believe that we're looking for rather different things in movies (and this is obviously perfectly fine), with you being much more interested in how well a movie can shine a light on some part of the human condition and me being primarily aesthetically driven.
 

That is very true for me. 
But thank you for taking the time to write such a long and detailed reply. You gave me some new perspective on this movie:

* - stuff about desire for immortality, but maybe more interestingly, how the humans are behaving more like feelingless automatons and the replicants are the ones showing human emotions (which is one of the reasons why Ridley's decision to cement Decard as a replicant - opposed to the script and the Philip K. Dick novel it's based on - is a bad idea).

 

This is a good observation and gives the story an extra dimension; the humans are emotionally more crippled  then the replicants.

And the use of mechanical dolls and dummies in Sebastian's apartment also gives associations to life- and emotionless beings in stead of genuin human contact.

The central humans seem more or less depressed too; the replicants just desperate, witch is a sign of the desire to live.

post #13706 of 14406

Into the white (​ aka Comrade, lost in the snow. UK release: Cross of honour) - Petter Næss (2012)

 

 


German and British pilots shoot each other's air crafts down over Norwegian mountains during early days of WWII, and the survivors have to build trust and cooperate to survive in the harsh winter. 

 

This movie is casted with German and British actors in the main roles, and some few Norwegians in minor parts. Spoken language is English (and few parts in German).

Some parts are filmed in Norwegian mountains, but most of it is made in Swedish studios.

 

This move has several weaknesses; it isn't particularly well photographed; it feels outdated and doesn't utilize the marvelous scenery that the mountains have to offer. The nature feels added, and not integrated in a sufficient way. There is but one nice scene; when the characters one night sings Some day over the rainbow against the northern light, that is clever.

 

Else this is like filmed stage play, too much taking place inside the cabin where they seek shelter for the blizzard. The instruction is too theatrical, i.e. boring in a movie.

 

The script is unbelievable in many parts and the main thesis of this movie; we are all dependent of each other and just under the surface we are all alike, is so naiv and simplistic. It leads to several situations that is just helpless; people don't behave like that, and certainly not enemies.

In one situation the German and British officers together have to hold up the cabin roof since it's about to collapse. How painful embarrassing is it possible to show the meaning of the movie? And when the proud German in the same situation starts to tell the Brit his secrets and vulnerabilities it is not the roof that collapses, it my faith in this movie. Enemies just don't behave like that.

 

It has an ideological point of view that is too wanted, too far off from historical realities, the movie shows a parody of both Germans and Brits, a parody of the war mentality, and try to get away with it. 

 

The story is build over actual happenings during the war. I bet one month's salary that in real life the story was different. 

post #13707 of 14406

Incendies - Denis Villeneuve (2010)

 

 

 

Opening their mother's last will starts a journey to find out who they are. They are going to be surprised - so are we.

 

I was pretty sceptic after the disappointing Sicario, but I had to eat the dust. This is just sooo good and this movie has it all; intellectual challenge, great beauty, a superb script, emotional moving (yes, it is possible to cry in this movie), and the casting is good.  The actors are doing a fine job and if you don't find Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin a real beauty, you can go and eat a muffin.

 

The camera work is quite good since it seems to me that there are no artificial light, which makes it difficult to film under all kind of conditions. This gives the movie an ambience of authenticity and since much of the plot is unclear, the photos supports this. There is much uncovered in this story, and bright light would be so wrong. 

 

It's a movie that explores identity; who do we think we are?  But it explores the histories we tell, or even more: the histories about our self we don't tell. Many families have secrets, so do these. 

 

At the same time it is a movie about the insanity of war, in this case religious war. The primitiveness and brutality of war is all the same. People may change, time may change, but violence is the same. (But luckily so is also passion.)

 

Much love from me to this movie. I was moved.

post #13708 of 14406


Last night on cable, saw it during its cinema release, not only is it a good film its also very well dressed and sartorially inspiring.
post #13709 of 14406

Re-watching this, really great use of shadows and geometry in some of the shots.

 

Like this one:

 Or this one:

post #13710 of 14406

The Martian - Ridley Scott (2015)

 

 

This is the story about an astronaut (Matt Damon) who has to cope all alone on Mars and at the same time about how NASA tries to save him. He is rescued by the woman that abandoned him, but in between Matt Damon let us know that he is some kind of a MacGyver.

 

There are some nice landscape pictures here, but much too often I feel like back in school learning stuff where the points are lost in all the details. I was never into science, that can be the explanation,  but here is too many things going on at the same time. The story becomes fragmented and the suspension in the movie looses, so do my interest. Even thought the poster more than indicates that this can be Save private Ryan of our time, this movie is on an other planet...

 

I have never really liked the hype about Matt Damon as an actor, and have often felt the movies were better then him. In The Maritan he is just everydayish. I don't mean to say that he is an lousy actor, he is just not brilliant when it comes to emotionally troubled parts. And for real - he is not that good looking, come on.

 

Direction here is annoying; we meet too many characters and try to get to know them, but it turns out many of them have minor roles in the movie. There are in general to many persons in this movie, it is confusing and I have problems figuring out the function many of them have here. I know the movie is based on a book, and here it seems that mr Scott had to make too many short cuts an compromises, the movie would benefit from having a better and tighter script. 

 

The editing is also irritating, the scenes are almost consequently cut too early. This creates an uneasiness and make it difficult to digest the emotional sides of the situations. There is a kind of restlessness and impatience in this movie that I don't like. 

 

The scenography is messy and too much is going on in the decoration. There are exceptions; on Hermes there are peace and tranquillity and more then one scene is hommage to Kubrick's 2001: A space Oddysey. Some nice photos from inside the ship, there is.

 

I guess Ridley Scott has a message to us in here somewhere; something about being lost and found, something about conquering the wild west, having ability to sustain, and that everything ends well for the individualist. But this message is buried deep down under piles of potatoes and technical gear that our brave man has to cope with. Me gets bored. 

 

More then once I long to watch Interstellar again; the movie that has it all: very good script, good casting, profound meaning and real beauty, sincere sorrow and true emotions. 

 

The Martian is like having sex with not just one condom on, but two; one never really get in contact with what's going on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › What Movies Are You Watching Lately