• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

What Movies Are You Watching Lately

Hannerhan

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
365
Reaction score
44
Watched "The Grey" the other night. Don't read the below unless you're OK with spoilers. And if you haven't seen the movie, you should just read the below so you know to avoid it.


This movie had a 79% ripe rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it's about Liam Neeson kicking a bunch of wolves' asses around Alaska, so I figured it would be basically a can't miss.

First, it's not really a story about Liam Neeson kicking wolf ass, as much as it is a story about how a person or people both individually and collectively handle life and death struggles, and the prospect of their own death in certain cases. So far, so good actually...because I think it's interesting to frame the story in this light, and frankly the straight action approach to a movie like this would have been a little boring unless it was done perfectly. But here's the problem: the movie really, really sucks.

If you're going to make a brainless popcorn action movie, a plot hole here and there is acceptable to a point. But when the director decides to get a little more serious and ask some genuine questions in the movie, I think the viewer has the right to demand a little more in terms of the story. And if you're going to make a movie about wolves, maybe you should do at least a small amount of research on the creatures. So that's where this film really jumps the shark and had really lost me within 45 minutes. I have assembled a short list of plot holes, and these are just the major ones:
1. Liam Neeson's character believes for some reason that the survivors of the plane crash should leave the crash scene in order to get rescued. This runs counter to what any rational person would think.
2. Wolves start eating people immediately, the first night after the crash when fires are still burning. In reality wolves wouldn't go near a plane crash scene for days if not weeks.
3. These "super wolves" don't appear to be afraid of fire.
4. In the most climactic scene of the movie, the 4 surviving characters string clothes together and cross a gorge, with Neeson's character saying at one point "it's either over the gorge or stay here and deal with the wolves." The last guy ends up falling after he gets across, and miraculously several wolves immediately pounce on him and drag the body away, while the rest of the characters don't seem to think it's odd that the wolves somehow managed to cross the gorge faster than them.
5. 2 guys end up in an icy river for several minutes. One does actually drown (thankfully, because that meant we were down to one survivor...meaning it would be over soon), but Neeson's character makes it out. I was thinking "surely they'll at least make him take off his wet clothes and start a fire, because in real life he'd be dead in 10 minutes" but no. Cut to next scene and he's walking again with no ill effects or wet clothes.
6. The fear the men had at the beginning of the movie was that they were close to a wolf den, which might be the reason that the wolves were so aggressive. After 3 days of hiking, crossing gorges, going down icy rivers, etc, the movie ends with Neeson's character being surrounded by wolves and him realizing that he has in fact walked right into their den (it's made painfully obvious by the large mammal carcasses all around, as if wolves would drag a dead elk miles to their den to eat it).

And don't get me started on how the digital wolves look like **** and aren't even remotely realistic.

So in short, I really can't remember ever feeling more out of touch with an RT rating than I am on this one. I feel literally robbed after having spent $5 to rent this on-demand at the house, and I hold all these so-called critics responsible. I don't mind the fact that this really isn't an action movie. I don't mind the fact that it's pretty bleak and it's a pretty long movie. I do mind the fact that it is just a big pile of stinking wolf feces disguised as a film.
 

HORNS

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
18,393
Reaction score
9,011
It's very interesting the range of opinions among us on Cohen Bros movies and just like the rest of you I adore some and find others overrated. I'll throw this out there for discussion: I think they are one of the most avant garde filmmakes out there and one of the few that I know of that are masters of presenting to the viewer the absurd. I am very impressed with how they can be so commercially successful with the films that they have created.
 

imatlas

Saucy White Boy
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
24,802
Reaction score
28,632

It's very interesting the range of opinions among us on Cohen Bros movies and just like the rest of you I adore some and find others overrated. I'll throw this out there for discussion: I think they are one of the most avant garde filmmakes out there and one of the few that I know of that are masters of presenting to the viewer the absurd[/I]. I am very impressed with how they can be so commercially successful with the films that they have created.



Yes! This is a common theme in just about all of their films, to a great extent, but especially in O Brother Where Art Thou, Big Lebowski, Hudsucker Proxy, and even in No Country for Old Men. Very few directors have as deft a touch with asurdity - although Jean-Pierre Jeunet comes to mind, I think he hits the absurd notes a bit harder than necessary at times.
 

in stitches

Stylish Dinosaur
Spamminator Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
66,397
Reaction score
33,106
the cohen bros film that i like, i love. and the others, i think are pretty bad. very hit or miss for me. they are clearly reaching for an extreme, and depending on your taste, i think you end up loving, or hating their works.

re: the grey - i think i will see it just to see what everyone is complaining/raving about.
 

studio253

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
132
Reaction score
11

How old is your daughter? House of a Thousand Corpses is pretty intense for younger viewers I would think.
My younger one is 17. She was the one that requested to go see that one. I took her and her sister, 21, to see the original Friday the 13th a few weeks back.
 

imatlas

Saucy White Boy
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
24,802
Reaction score
28,632
True Story: when I was in high school i used to buy weed from the kid who played Jason in the original Friday the 13th - he was the body that popped out of the lake at the end.
 

ter1413

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
22,101
Reaction score
6,033

Watched "The Grey" the other night. Don't read the below unless you're OK with spoilers. And if you haven't seen the movie, you should just read the below so you know to avoid it.
This movie had a 79% ripe rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it's about Liam Neeson kicking a bunch of wolves' asses around Alaska, so I figured it would be basically a can't miss.

First, it's not really a story about Liam Neeson kicking wolf ass, as much as it is a story about how a person or people both individually and collectively handle life and death struggles, and the prospect of their own death in certain cases. So far, so good actually...because I think it's interesting to frame the story in this light, and frankly the straight action approach to a movie like this would have been a little boring unless it was done perfectly. But here's the problem: the movie really, really sucks.

If you're going to make a brainless popcorn action movie, a plot hole here and there is acceptable to a point. But when the director decides to get a little more serious and ask some genuine questions in the movie, I think the viewer has the right to demand a little more in terms of the story. And if you're going to make a movie about wolves, maybe you should do at least a small amount of research on the creatures. So that's where this film really jumps the shark and had really lost me within 45 minutes. I have assembled a short list of plot holes, and these are just the major ones:
1. Liam Neeson's character believes for some reason that the survivors of the plane crash should leave the crash scene in order to get rescued. This runs counter to what any rational person would think.
2. Wolves start eating people immediately, the first night after the crash when fires are still burning. In reality wolves wouldn't go near a plane crash scene for days if not weeks.
3. These "super wolves" don't appear to be afraid of fire.
4. In the most climactic scene of the movie, the 4 surviving characters string clothes together and cross a gorge, with Neeson's character saying at one point "it's either over the gorge or stay here and deal with the wolves." The last guy ends up falling after he gets across, and miraculously several wolves immediately pounce on him and drag the body away, while the rest of the characters don't seem to think it's odd that the wolves somehow managed to cross the gorge faster than them.
5. 2 guys end up in an icy river for several minutes. One does actually drown (thankfully, because that meant we were down to one survivor...meaning it would be over soon), but Neeson's character makes it out. I was thinking "surely they'll at least make him take off his wet clothes and start a fire, because in real life he'd be dead in 10 minutes" but no. Cut to next scene and he's walking again with no ill effects or wet clothes.
6. The fear the men had at the beginning of the movie was that they were close to a wolf den, which might be the reason that the wolves were so aggressive. After 3 days of hiking, crossing gorges, going down icy rivers, etc, the movie ends with Neeson's character being surrounded by wolves and him realizing that he has in fact walked right into their den (it's made painfully obvious by the large mammal carcasses all around, as if wolves would drag a dead elk miles to their den to eat it).

And don't get me started on how the digital wolves look like **** and aren't even remotely realistic.

So in short, I really can't remember ever feeling more out of touch with an RT rating than I am on this one. I feel literally robbed after having spent $5 to rent this on-demand at the house, and I hold all these so-called critics responsible. I don't mind the fact that this really isn't an action movie. I don't mind the fact that it's pretty bleak and it's a pretty long movie. I do mind the fact that it is just a big pile of stinking wolf feces disguised as a film.


wow^^^
You could have just rated it btwn 1 and 4 stars...
 

hoozah

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
2,703
Reaction score
991
Just got back from Spiderman. It was a good movie. A lot different than the previous 3 spiderman movies. I am iffy on the web slinging device he built (not in a bad way, but after seeing 3 movies where spiderman is genetically able to cast a web it's hard to just forget all that). I sort of like the direction of the new spiderman, and can't wait to see the next one.
 

Texastyle

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
55

Watched "The Grey" the other night. Don't read the below unless you're OK with spoilers. And if you haven't seen the movie, you should just read the below so you know to avoid it.
This movie had a 79% ripe rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it's about Liam Neeson kicking a bunch of wolves' asses around Alaska, so I figured it would be basically a can't miss.

First, it's not really a story about Liam Neeson kicking wolf ass, as much as it is a story about how a person or people both individually and collectively handle life and death struggles, and the prospect of their own death in certain cases. So far, so good actually...because I think it's interesting to frame the story in this light, and frankly the straight action approach to a movie like this would have been a little boring unless it was done perfectly. But here's the problem: the movie really, really sucks.

If you're going to make a brainless popcorn action movie, a plot hole here and there is acceptable to a point. But when the director decides to get a little more serious and ask some genuine questions in the movie, I think the viewer has the right to demand a little more in terms of the story. And if you're going to make a movie about wolves, maybe you should do at least a small amount of research on the creatures. So that's where this film really jumps the shark and had really lost me within 45 minutes. I have assembled a short list of plot holes, and these are just the major ones:
1. Liam Neeson's character believes for some reason that the survivors of the plane crash should leave the crash scene in order to get rescued. This runs counter to what any rational person would think.
2. Wolves start eating people immediately, the first night after the crash when fires are still burning. In reality wolves wouldn't go near a plane crash scene for days if not weeks.
3. These "super wolves" don't appear to be afraid of fire.
4. In the most climactic scene of the movie, the 4 surviving characters string clothes together and cross a gorge, with Neeson's character saying at one point "it's either over the gorge or stay here and deal with the wolves." The last guy ends up falling after he gets across, and miraculously several wolves immediately pounce on him and drag the body away, while the rest of the characters don't seem to think it's odd that the wolves somehow managed to cross the gorge faster than them.
5. 2 guys end up in an icy river for several minutes. One does actually drown (thankfully, because that meant we were down to one survivor...meaning it would be over soon), but Neeson's character makes it out. I was thinking "surely they'll at least make him take off his wet clothes and start a fire, because in real life he'd be dead in 10 minutes" but no. Cut to next scene and he's walking again with no ill effects or wet clothes.
6. The fear the men had at the beginning of the movie was that they were close to a wolf den, which might be the reason that the wolves were so aggressive. After 3 days of hiking, crossing gorges, going down icy rivers, etc, the movie ends with Neeson's character being surrounded by wolves and him realizing that he has in fact walked right into their den (it's made painfully obvious by the large mammal carcasses all around, as if wolves would drag a dead elk miles to their den to eat it).

And don't get me started on how the digital wolves look like **** and aren't even remotely realistic.

So in short, I really can't remember ever feeling more out of touch with an RT rating than I am on this one. I feel literally robbed after having spent $5 to rent this on-demand at the house, and I hold all these so-called critics responsible. I don't mind the fact that this really isn't an action movie. I don't mind the fact that it's pretty bleak and it's a pretty long movie. I do mind the fact that it is just a big pile of stinking wolf feces disguised as a film.


But how do you REALLY feel?
 

Teacher

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
407

Yes! This is a common theme in just about all of their films, to a great extent, but especially in O Brother Where Art Thou, Big Lebowski, Hudsucker Proxy, and even in No Country for Old Men. Very few directors have as deft a touch with asurdity - although Jean-Pierre Jeunet comes to mind, I think he hits the absurd notes a bit harder than necessary at times.


I agree completely. I don't think I've (yet) seen every Cohen brothers movie, but I've seen most, and there isn't one that I don't at least like. Most I find great, and they get better with repeated viewings, mostly because there's so much subtlety that can be masked by all the absurdity that's happening.

And remember, kids: "Jyou don't **** with de Jesus, mang!"
 

Steve Smith

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
3,333
Reaction score
950

I had a bit of an odd experience at the theater. There were about 20 of us there, and right behind me were 3-4 old people who kept chewing their popcorn loudly, making crazy old people comments, and laughing at every single thing that happened in the movie. So, I got up and moved down to the third row about 15 minutes into the movie. When I got up to leave at the end, they were craning their necks to see me, perhaps worried, maybe insulted. Are people really that clueless?


It's not an old person thing. Self centered pricks exist in all age groups.
 

Teacher

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
407

in stitches

Stylish Dinosaur
Spamminator Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
66,397
Reaction score
33,106

Just got back from Spiderman. It was a good movie. A lot different than the previous 3 spiderman movies. I am iffy on the web slinging device he built (not in a bad way, but after seeing 3 movies where spiderman is genetically able to cast a web it's hard to just forget all that). I sort of like the direction of the new spiderman, and can't wait to see the next one.


interestig. did not know that.

And remember, kids: "Jyou don't **** with de Jesus, mang!"


see ed! how can you doubt the BL is a classic for all times! harumph. :mad:
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 92 37.6%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 90 36.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 26 10.6%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 41 16.7%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 38 15.5%

Forum statistics

Threads
506,939
Messages
10,592,980
Members
224,338
Latest member
Antek
Top