What movies have you seen recently?

[Bellsprout]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

The Town: Damn excellent. I loved every second of it. Affleck's great, Renner's phenomenal, Hamm is awesome. Go rent it now.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

Midnight Run

By my standards this is a blast from the past, coming out the year I was born (1988). I'm glad a tracked back to it, though. An up-spirited De Niro picture with great comedy and action alike. The story itself served its purpose through the sake of the movie's title, but could have explored on some other plot points it introduced if it wanted to, though for pacing issues and runtime I'm sure they chose not to.

I was surprised I hadn't heard of Charles Grodin until I noticed he basically retired in the mid-90s, which is a shame. It was funny seeing Joe Pantoliano ten years removed from seeing him act in something back in the day, so this kind of movie really clicked home more seeing every actor I know in youthful form. It was enjoyable to say the least.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

Linewatch-Starring Cuba Gooding Jr. Entertaining thriller about an ex gangmember turned Border Patrol officer who is forced to help some people from his former gang smuggle drugs across the border. Worth a watch you can find it on Netflix Instant. 4/5.

[daflyboys]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

RED - very entertaining. Malkovich was great.

Rounders (again) - very entertaining. Malkovich was great.

The American -couldn't make it past halftime. zzzzzzzzzzz

Devil - very entertaining. The Devil was great.

[Jonesy]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

I have seen a bunch of movies lately:

How to Train your dragon : Loved it! A great family movie that i'll definetly need to pick up on BR. We watched the normal dvd version on a pretty small tv and it still looked amazing so i can't wait to see what it looks like on BR on my 55' LED. Great story and great fun for the whole family. (9/10)

Scott Pilgrim vs the World: I can see why this movie cost a bunch of money and i can also see why it bombed at the box office. I really enjoyed it personally but i'm a videogame guy and the other people i saw it with pretty much just thought it was weird and stupid. I have never read the comics so i had no idea of the story etc and while i thought it was very well done i can see why many people didn't like it. Cera was hilarious as usual. (7/10).

She Out of your league: pretty standard comedy with some great moments and pretty enjoyable. Pretty typical 'hollywood' ending but there were enough interesting characters and funny moments to make it worth watching imo. (6.5/10).

Repo men: I couldn't get through this and didn't find it very enjoyable at all. None of the main characters were likeable in any way i really didn't care if Jude Law's character lived or died. Not my kinda movie i guess. (4/10).

Despicable me: Pretty funny family movie. Not on the same level as some of the classics like the Toy Story movies and not as good as How to train your dragon but a harmless way to pass an hour and a half. (7/10)

I also watched Inception again and it just keeps getting better, love that movie.

I have The Other Guys and The Town sitting there waiting to be watched which i'm looking forward to.

[Whaaaazuuuuup]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

She's out of your league: nice warm hearted movie which makes a valid point some may be able to relate to.

I Love you Beth Cooper: i just love that girl. knew she'd be a looker from her remember the titans days.

The Other Guys: probably the funniest movie i've seen Will Farrel in and i can't stand him...

[Gibbz]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

i just love that girl. knew she'd be a looker from her remember the titans days.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

The Machinist-Outstanding. I can't believe how much weight Christian Bale lost for the role. He is becoming one of my favorite actors. 5/5

The Machinist
American Psycho
Rescue Dawn

All awesome roles by Christian Bale.


Anyway....

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace - Casino Royale is probably my favorite Bond movie and I love it. It is very tense, some nice action sequences, and its just cool seeing Craig essentially become Bond by the end. I guess I can understand why QoS gets slack, but after the slow-pacing of Casino Royale, QoS is a nice change of pace with a ton of action sequences. Personally, I think QoS compliments Casino Royale extremely well and the scene at the Opera is one of my favorite Bond scenes.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

The Machinist
American Psycho
Rescue Dawn

All awesome roles by Christian Bale.

Yeah American Psycho and Rescue Dawn he did awesome in, also in The Fighter he was phenomenal.

Knight and Day-My wife wanted to watch this so I thought I would suffer throughout it, but I was really surprised. It was entertaining with good action and a lot of humor. Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz had a lot of chemistry.

[Beantown]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

Personally, I think QoS compliments Casino Royale extremely well and the scene at the Opera is one of my favorite Bond scenes.

I agree. While not as good as Casino Royale, it was the perfect follow-up to it.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

The Fighter

I thought this was a magnificent movie. I'm not sure how correctly anything or anyone was portrayed, but my man crush for Bale went up as he not only played a crack head role magnificently, but he is able to separate all of his roles from one another completely. Whether it's The Machinist, Equilibrium, Batman Begins, 3:10 to Yuma, American Psycho, The Prestige, it just doesn't matter. He's too good at what he does and that's why he's my favorite actor. I had no beef with Wahlberg. Maybe other people can't see him as Ward, but I guess I just wouldn't know so I accepted it.

The movie was pretty gripping too, I wanted to yell at the screen a lot because I wanted to slap some characters myself. Oh, and my movie experience was slightly hindered by this girl just to my left as she would stand up and cheer and clap during the fighting scenes. Strangely, no one bothered to tell her to shut up so I did the same. I can't believe I moved over so she and her boyfriend could squeeze in. I can't believe he didn't shut her up.

I don't know if I like the chance of a Best Picture nom as much as I'd like to say the movie was excellent and the acting was superb, but I wouldn't hate that nomination either. I can't really think of a top ten that should be on that list anyway, so go ahead and throw it in I guess. I don't see it winning anything though, except for Bale.


Despicable Me

Pretty much what I expected. Since I was with my friend and she was eager to show it to me I had to chuckle at things that I otherwise wouldn't. I thought the girls were adorable though and I think this would have been a good 3D movie to go to. Otherwise, it's a suitable kids movie but Dreamworks completely stands behind Pixar in every department of movie-making quality IMO, including the story and emotional impact. But if that's their aim, that's their aim and I can't blame them. I still haven't seen HTTYD though, so that should be jumping up my queue soon because I heard it's near Pixar quality. I will be the judge of that.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

Personally, I think QoS compliments Casino Royale extremely well

See, I really don't see it complementing it well. I will blame the director for this however.

Bond lost his wit and charm, man. Even the fact that the movie was like a half hour shorter changes everything overall. It puts action scenes too close to each other, it doesn't give us a likeness for too many characters, and it makes us have to catch up to the dialogue when a scene is changing ever so abruptly so that we aren't able to understand what's going on (I am, but that's not the point).

The action scenes were shot and edited so sloppy, it wasn't even like the two Bourne sequels in this regard. I liked how Greengrass stylized Bourne 2 and 3, but Forster just lost touch with us being "engaged" in the scene and instead had the camera way too close at times. This wasn't just once or twice, either. This was a similar problem with Spider-Man 3. Instead of just stepping back and letting us watch the movie from a mounted camera (barring a few nice camera effects here and there), they decide to go balls out with a lot of camera shots, which disengages us in a way. It reminds us that we're enduring something that was made and put together as opposed to an evolving story.

Don't get me wrong, the trailer had me extra excited. And also don't get me wrong, if there's anyone else that wanted a franchise reboot with no extra gadgetry, that would be me as well. But this still is Bond, not Bourne. I know he has a few more tricks up his sleeve with the boat and plane (though both of them seem to have fun on their bikes), but everything about Casino Royale, even with only like thirty seconds of driving action, made me cherish Daniel Craig's resemblance as Bond. It was an **** win, from the dialogue, to the girl, to the villain, to the accomplice (which reminds me, Leiter was kind of lacking in this one as well), to the musical score, to the climatic ending, etc. Campbell hit all of the right notes in CR.

That's not to say Quantum of Solace is a bad movie, and that's where I need to make sure that you don't get me wrong. In fact, I need to make sure that I don't "get myself wrong." As far as action movies go, this nearly topped the list of best balls out action in 2008. But the difference between the action in this and the action in The Dark Knight, for instance, is the way that it was directed. If we had TDK directed by Forster, it would just be painfully bad to watch. Not only is there not much action in the action scenes to begin with, but the overuse of CGI and quick-cuts for effects wouldn't make me feel like there was as much effort put into it. When I watch a truck really flip on the streets of Chicago, I go "holy ****!" If I get some Matrix-esque slowdown and rotation going on with nine different cuts of a CGI truck flipping and whooshing sounds everywhere, I go "ho hum." But I digress.

As I was saying, this movie is getting an unfortunate and unfair bad rap because of what held up against it. By that I mean Casino Royale, the past Bond movies, and our knowledge of the character himself. Let me put it this way: if a franchise movie is at least decently capable of being rewritten into a generic new grounds movie, then that probably deserves to happen. You can't look at Casino Royale and say that Bond didn't deserve to walk on the grounds of that movie, though we could have taken Quantum of Solace, made up some character named Trevor Bronson and did a few story rewrites, and we have one kick-*** movie meant for the action and not for the story. I think that most would agree.

Again, Quantum of Solace wasn't a bad story, but it wasn't presented the right way. It definitely wasn't "story over action" like Casino Royale, and I thought the trailer was just misdirection to get people to go see the movie and then get engaged in a story. I was wrong. The trailer is the movie. I say if they take what they had and stretched out that material to 145 minutes, it would have been a better movie. But we have to keep in mind that this movie also takes place an hour after CR time line-wise, so for the tone to change entirely in that course makes it feel unbelievable also. Let me put it this way: If I wanted to have a movie marathon and I put one movie in after another (even without the aforementioned time line jump, or lack thereof), I would not have felt like I was watching the same series at all, and that it was just a coincidence the guy's name was James Bond.

All of that combined for me lists out the reasons why Quantum of Solace was a huge letdown; and all of that aside I still bought this on Blu-ray on day one and watched the living daylights out of it.

[GAMEC0CK2002]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

Dreamworks completely stands behind Pixar in every department of movie-making quality IMO, including the story and emotional impact. But if that's their aim, that's their aim and I can't blame them. I still haven't seen HTTYD though, so that should be jumping up my queue soon because I heard it's near Pixar quality. I will be the judge of that.

HTTYD is a game-changer, my friend.

I bought QoS when it was released on blu ray even though I was lukewarm on it after seeing it on the big screen. Nothing close to terrible, but not nearly as good as Casino Royale.

[dickey1331]

Saw easy a last night with the wife. I thought it was good. A good date movie.


Sent from space using Tapatalk

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: What movies have you seen recently? Part 1

See, I really don't see it complementing it well. I will blame the director for this however.

Bond lost his wit and charm, man. Even the fact that the movie was like a half hour shorter changes everything overall. It puts action scenes too close to each other, it doesn't give us a likeness for too many characters, and it makes us have to catch up to the dialogue when a scene is changing ever so abruptly so that we aren't able to understand what's going on (I am, but that's not the point).

Yes, Quantum of Solace is very action oriented. Casino Royale is basically the extreme opposite in that regard having very little action with only one or two truly classic sequences. Casino Royale was slowly paced because its feeling of action drew from tension created from the characters and feels more dynamic and dramatic than its follow up QoS.

I don't agree that Bond lost his wit and charm. It is still there, but Bond was on a manhunt and I simply saw him become more efficient whereas Casino Royale allowed him to dilly-dally for awhile. His exchanges with M show this. I think Quantum of Solace showcased Bond's cunning side, which I thought was awesome to see and play out over the course of the film.

The action scenes were shot and edited so sloppy, it wasn't even like the two Bourne sequels in this regard. I liked how Greengrass stylized Bourne 2 and 3, but Forster just lost touch with us being "engaged" in the scene and instead had the camera way too close at times. This wasn't just once or twice, either. This was a similar problem with Spider-Man 3. Instead of just stepping back and letting us watch the movie from a mounted camera (barring a few nice camera effects here and there), they decide to go balls out with a lot of camera shots, which disengages us in a way. It reminds us that we're enduring something that was made and put together as opposed to an evolving story.

I don't think the action sequences from Casino Royale and those from Quantum of Solace really need to be compared. Casino Royale obviously went with a more simplistic approach. The action sequences were never that long or very complex so it makes sense that there aren't that many angles and cuts during them. I really enjoyed the action sequences in Quantum of Solace. I never really felt the action sequences were sloppy in any way; a lot of cuts and switching angles doesn't automatically make something sloppy. I never got the feeling that the editing took away from the sequences because to be frank I never noticed the editing. I would take that to signify that the editing didn't prevent me from becoming engrossed in the sequences or get in the way of enjoying them. QoS's action sequences were amazing and as many as there were I remember most of them. Those first three minutes of car chasing to reveal that Bond is hauling Mr. White's dumb *** back to camp is an awesome opening.

Don't get me wrong, the trailer had me extra excited. And also don't get me wrong, if there's anyone else that wanted a franchise reboot with no extra gadgetry, that would be me as well. But this still is Bond, not Bourne. I know he has a few more tricks up his sleeve with the boat and plane (though both of them seem to have fun on their bikes), but everything about Casino Royale, even with only like thirty seconds of driving action, made me cherish Daniel Craig's resemblance as Bond. It was an **** win, from the dialogue, to the girl, to the villain, to the accomplice (which reminds me, Leiter was kind of lacking in this one as well), to the musical score, to the climatic ending, etc. Campbell hit all of the right notes in CR.

I could point out all the little flaws in Casino Royale, but that would be pointless and I don't want to ruin my enjoyment of the film. Yes, Casino Royale was an amazing film, but it was more than just Campbell there. I don't think you seriously feel like Campbell hit everything right on the head while Forster completely missed the targets, but it sounds like it. I don't think Forster falters too much in QoS because for what QoS is, it works.

That's not to say Quantum of Solace is a bad movie, and that's where I need to make sure that you don't get me wrong. In fact, I need to make sure that I don't "get myself wrong." As far as action movies go, this nearly topped the list of best balls out action in 2008. But the difference between the action in this and the action in The Dark Knight, for instance, is the way that it was directed. If we had TDK directed by Forster, it would just be painfully bad to watch. Not only is there not much action in the action scenes to begin with, but the overuse of CGI and quick-cuts for effects wouldn't make me feel like there was as much effort put into it. When I watch a truck really flip on the streets of Chicago, I go "holy ****!" If I get some Matrix-esque slowdown and rotation going on with nine different cuts of a CGI truck flipping and whooshing sounds everywhere, I go "ho hum." But I digress.

As I was saying, this movie is getting an unfortunate and unfair bad rap because of what held up against it. By that I mean Casino Royale, the past Bond movies, and our knowledge of the character himself. Let me put it this way: if a franchise movie is at least decently capable of being rewritten into a generic new grounds movie, then that probably deserves to happen. You can't look at Casino Royale and say that Bond didn't deserve to walk on the grounds of that movie, though we could have taken Quantum of Solace, made up some character named Trevor Bronson and did a few story rewrites, and we have one kick-*** movie meant for the action and not for the story. I think that most would agree.

I don't get the relevance to TDK because while it was a pretty amazing film, the action sequences do feel sloppy at times (the hand to hand combat scenes especially). It is known that Nolan is not the best when it comes to shooting action scenes (at least he's improving) and as I remember that chase/truck-flipping sequence features some heavy cuts and embellishes that flip just a tad. Again, I don't want to put it all under microscope because I love TDK and don't want to ruin that, but as much as I love it and think its one of the best films of the past 20 years I know its not close to perfection.

Back to QoS. I don't really understand where that second example is going because it seems like you go in a circle there. Casino Royale could have just as easily been another dramatic film with different characters. It works both ways. The movies are going for and achieving different things. Casino Royale builds up the characters and relationships, creating more tension through character interactions than dynamic action sequences and also has a much slower, more deliberate pace. On the otherhand, Quantum of Solace already uses that character development and established relationships (ie: Bond and M's interactions in QoS are amazing) and intertwines them with the action. Casino Royale was starting from scratch, while QoS already has a base and doesn't need to devote nearly as much time to character development. Again, the movies are completely different beasts and I still feel they compliment each other perfectly.

Again, Quantum of Solace wasn't a bad story, but it wasn't presented the right way. It definitely wasn't "story over action" like Casino Royale, and I thought the trailer was just misdirection to get people to go see the movie and then get engaged in a story. I was wrong. The trailer is the movie. I say if they take what they had and stretched out that material to 145 minutes, it would have been a better movie. But we have to keep in mind that this movie also takes place an hour after CR time line-wise, so for the tone to change entirely in that course makes it feel unbelievable also. Let me put it this way: If I wanted to have a movie marathon and I put one movie in after another (even without the aforementioned time line jump, or lack thereof), I would not have felt like I was watching the same series at all, and that it was just a coincidence the guy's name was James Bond.

All of that combined for me lists out the reasons why Quantum of Solace was a huge letdown; and all of that aside I still bought this on Blu-ray on day one and watched the living daylights out of it.

I don't remember the trailer so I cannot comment about that specifically. I don't think every single movie has to be 2 hours or more or its "too short." The pacing of Quantum of Solace and its length were great for what was going on in the film. As I said above, Casino Royale is essentially two movies put together as there is a definite shift in the middle of the film.

Considering the story of Quantum of Solace, the sudden shift in pace works. Casino Royale allowed Bond to dilly-dally and prepare because they had information and they had a plan. Bond uncovers this global terror ring and M16 and Bond are suppose to take their time about things? No. Bond was on a manhunt and wanted to and needed to gather as much information as possible on these people as quickly as possible. Not to mention with the way Quantum was working and constantly trying to frame Bond, he couldn't just sit back and let M16 restrict his movements and bring him in and I didn't really want the movie to turn into M16 hunting Bond down. Again, I think Quantum of Solace just compliments Casino Royale really well and I think people had already written it off after how amazing Casino Royale was.