What movies have you seen recently?

[Armor and Sword]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Finished up watching "The Dark Tower."

As a movie it's okay. Should've been so much better with the source material (can't make an hour and twenty minute movie, come on) and the lead actors they got but it just...wasn't.

As an adaptation, it's a piece of trash.

I have zero desire to ever watch this film. I am a big fan of the Dark Tower series.

Zero desire to see this.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Blade Runner 2049 punches you in the face with cinematography and score. Constantly thinking about different scenes and sounds from the movie. Denis Villeneuve is my favorite director at the moment, i think he's a genius. Ever since Prisoners, he's been knocking it out of the park.

You definitely need to find the best sound system in your town and watch it, wow. Sensory overload.






Sent from my VIE-L29 using Tapatalk

I am so giddy to see this tomorrow night (IMAX). I am a monster fan of the Directors Cut and the film in general. One of my favorite Sci-Fi films ever.

[Majingir]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

(Finally) saw Spiderman. So I'll update my "rankings" now of the MCU movies:

Captain America Winter Solider
Avengers 1
Captain America Civil War
Guardians 2
Ironman 1
Guardians 1
Captain America First Avenger
Spiderman
Thor 1
Avengers Age of Ultron
Ironman 2
Antman
Thor Dark World
Ironman 3
Hulk
Doctor Strange


Still not as good as the one from 15 years ago, but it still wasn't half bad. Comedic version of it with diff spin on stuff than past ones.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Goodbye Christopher Robin

This one certainly tugged at heartstrings, unfolding a somewhat cold narrative, sprinkled with its share of warm joyous moments of family banter and the creation of something we have all adored for the entirety of our lives. Although only rated PG, it was thematically mature in speaking to the audience as much as the characters spoke to themselves. Its power grew strongest when it beckoned the nostalgia of my childhood, telling a story as astonishingly real as I imagined Winnie the Pooh himself to be—whether it was from the books I read to the show I watched (plus the recent animated film), or my late father playing the Kenny Loggins song on guitar to my delight.

The plot may have moved somewhat slowly, but the flow of the film certainly did not. The pace of the scenes moved very fast, keeping strong engagement throughout. I'll say that it helped I am very familiar with the content material (as we all are), which kind of made it funny when you see the "origin" of a toy animal's name comes from, almost feeling contrived because we already know it... but even if this was a fictional tale with an unfamiliar background you couldn't help but be emotionally riveted. It was well acted all the way around, and we have a breakout performance by the adorable young Will Tilston.

As I said before, this film is not completely sunshine and rainbows. It does play on the idea of "in the darkness comes the light," to shine optimism on our main characters who have dealt with internal conflicts and the pains of the world wars, and to also let viewers leave not too distressed over what could have easily been told as a tale of tragedy. I think most of the right buttons were pressed for myself as I watched it, but I can't say that this is totally a children's movie where they will be riveted with joy and delight (not to mention I don't know how much influence Pooh has on children today compared to that of, say, Dora). Director Simon Curtis did this cool thing when Milne's books were being created that sometimes showed moments between young Christopher Robin and his stuffed bear literally jump off the page. Again, anything that could hearken back to my days 25 years ago were great brownie points for me.

There were only three things I did not much care for about this film. The first is the color timing. Skin tones were muddled in a red-pink hue as the entire palette had desaturated any oranges, and the only green that would appear was on the grass in the woods. Even Margot Robbie's irises lost their vivacity with every closeup of her, occurred was quite often. The second was the way PTSD was portrayed, although this is only speaking second-hand. The certain triggers, actions, and overall attachment to the story did not really latch onto the same track as the rest of the film, even if it was authentic. Finally, the timeline jumps would be obtrusive when we have to reestablish where we are at and where we are headed. I want to say it only happened twice, but both times threw me out for a good bit.

There are enough quips in this film to provide moments of laughter, and long-drawn sequences where I notice that I was smiling the entire time. However you may be evoked throughout, by the time the credits roll the only time you couldn't hear others' waterworks was when they were overshadowed by your own. Fantastic film, and if you get a chance you owe it to yourself to see it.

EDIT: After watching the trailer, I have to apologize for speaking on the color timing. While I still don't love it, it appears that my theater's projection was simply uncalibrated. Flesh tones are much better in the trailer and I see many more hints of orange/green where they naturally should be. It's still not my favorite timing I have seen, but I would not have made a fuss about it had it been corrected in theater.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Happy Death Day

First Groundhog Day, then Edge of Tomorrow, now this. Relive the same day, over and over again. I kind of like these movies, if more than anything else it really puts the director in the seat of: "How do I make things memorable for my audience?" The way they craft a shot, cue a sound, discern a character or piece of dialogue, portray a mannerism, arrange a sequence of events and what happens when somebody alters that course, or how our protagonist picks up on the nuances of that moment for the next occurrence... these little things might seem repetitive to some people, but it's almost as fun for the audience to wonder how that exact repetition will play out this time, perhaps to the point of not repeating itself at all.

Our lead is named Teresa (or "Tree" for short), and she is not exactly a saint. It's kind of nice how we start with her in a hole of a bitchy personality with some unfortunate connections between herself and her friends/family, and how she either chooses to dismiss or progress toward rekindling those relationships throughout the film. As it is a film about solving her murder every day, I like the whodunit aspect to it since there are a lot of characters worth covering. It's nice that there are twists and turns to the characters as well as the plot, almost in a Vantage Point kind of way (everything only is as it appears in that moment, and it takes more to see the whole picture), and even though you can see that things aren't done unfolding, you still don't know how things will unfold.

This film never quite takes itself seriously, and it is very aware of the fact. There is a great montage sequence in the middle that really highlights this point, and gets you to understand that: "This character will die, quite often... get used to it and enjoy the fact that there is more to uncover each time, or at least narrow down." Tree is rather unpredictable, somewhat to the point that I would have written myself to act differently in a lot of situations and probably saved myself a few lives, and honestly I would have wished for a different outcome (I'll explain what I mean in spoilers if anybody asks) but I can't fault Tree for going out the way she did.

Ultimately I was pretty well entertained, which is exactly what I think was intended. Never too hard on the horror and it certainly played out its PG-13 rating, but it doesn't seem very deep on the rewatch front. Still enough to get some butts in the seats though, as I heard it had a relatively strong opening weekend.

That being said, you know those things before the movie about cell phones with the "Step into the hallway or it can wait" disclaimer? Well, I had one of those moments where I had to jump out for about two minutes. I don't know how dire those two minutes were, but I still do have a question about the film that I don't know the answer to, and I feel like it was a time it was probably explained away that I missed. Not going to shell out money to see it again, and instead I'll just search for that answer online.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Why Him?

Ah, this is why I like watching movies without seeing the trailers. One look at the poster, and I thought James Franco's character was basically supposed to be similar to his Pineapple Express character; I was even expecting as much from the first scene. Not nearly the same, but he of course operates without a filter or general sense of cultural awareness. It was nice to be provided a fresh perspective of a character who is already at an upper-echelon in his life and still requires validation from others to be at his happiest.

It has a similar plot structure to Meet the Parents or Guess Who (a film I did not see), but the point of view is more on the father than the potential son-in-law. It was hard to see past Franco's financial success and determine an actual reason why he should have been right for Bryan Cranston's daughter, but at the same time I was willing to give the writer the benefit of the doubt and see if I could do more than judge a book by its cover. I didn't see much character development at the end, so if I was a father to give my blessing I would definitely need some serious overhauls before someone would possibly alter the course of my daughter's already set and promising life. Why him? Indeed, I'm still wondering.

I think many of the jokes landed, but I was in right field and they were in left field. Not much was meant for me. I personally would have liked for even more of that uncomfortable humor that MtP offers, but Franco's personality didn't make for anything like that because he was just comfortable with everything. I think a theater viewing would have brought in a few more laughs working with the audience. There were some comedic bits that dragged, but it relied more on one-liners than anything else. Not really a spoiler, but there is a running bit about Franco having a paper-free household, and is earlier contradicted with a dinner scene where they are eating edible newspaper cuts, which just makes me wish they did another draft of this thing. Keegan-Michael Key is a funny individual, but much like John Turturro's servant counterpart in Mr. Deeds all I saw was the actor and not the character.

At any rate, the first half of the film was definitely funnier and better than the last half, but overall it wasn't that good. It's a lot of potty humor and not really raunchy, and nothing is ill-willed so it's not the worst waste of time, but I'm glad I only caught it on an HBO-free weekend and didn't pay for it.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

The Silence of the Lambs

I did not see the extended cut, just the theatrical cut.

I'll just go ahead and say that my favorite part about this film is how everything seems to be a deep character study, which serves perfectly for the two main characters who specialize in investigative analyses: one as an FBI trainee and one as a former psychiatrist. Their words matter, their thoughts pour out, their motives have weight, their actions are calculated, they execute to precision, and they continually raise each other's bars, trying to get a leg up or be one step ahead.

Now, personally I do not think this works for every character, even if they intended for that to be the case. I could see various essay topics being written about Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter (or even the title of the film), but I think a character like Buffalo Bill is given numerous quirks in an intelligently written movie but has no rhyme or reason. He is a large kiddie pool. It was great though because he is all of the crazy that Lecter is not, and now we get a film where one antagonist helps out (for lack of a better term) our protagonist against yet another antagonist. I probably haven't seen that kind of screenplay play out correctly on film since 3:10 to Yuma (or less weakly so in Thor: The Dark World). However, I do think they intended for him to be more than he was, and I couldn't ever really get a beat on him.

No matter, back to what worked so well. First of all, it began right, something that movies are unable to convey as well: a young Jodie Foster is able to show a woman who is very smart and confident, but at the same time vulnerable to manipulation and trustworthiness. You feel what she feels because of the first-person perspective, which is so important every time she meets Hannibal as Anthony Hopkins stares deeply back at the camera lens and subtly operates his lower jaw with direct verbage and intent. This was very riveting, mesmerizing cinema. It even worked because of how sparsely these scenes showed up, and this is where a film like True Story fails so deeply. Hannibal Lecter was also crafted so well. Before getting the first glimpse of him, you are told his story as if he was some sort of mythical creature: very threatening if confronted, but at the same time almost so impossible sounding that it gives you enough reason to doubt it. This kind of setup allows foreshadowed elements to become believable later and deliver with the right suspension of disbelief.

There is one twist in this film that just got me. It got me so badly, that my mouth literally fell agape, I paused the film, and exclaimed: "Holy ****!" After processing what I just saw for a minute, I could finally resume it. Well done. Perhaps I don't give earlier films enough credit, not in the writing but in the directing that even I still haven't seen everything in film before and not be surprised. But it worked, and it was right in front of me too (and I'm sure all of you). In fact, this film is literally fluttered with moments: moments which remain in the general consciousness and in pop culture everywhere. It is kind of great to see their origin, even if you have heard it everywhere else before that.

This is psychological thrill at its finest, and although I was not unsettled after watching the film I certainly was while watching it. Everything that you see is just "real enough" that you can't help but ensure the good guys get their recompense. I don't know what I missed in the extended cut, but I do know that I certainly wanted more to this universe. So, I took action...


Hannibal

There are two sides to argue whether a sequel was actually warranted or not. For story purposes, I would say that it is less than so, though I think we were all somewhat curious what would happen between Hannibal and Clarice... yet at the same time I think that curiosity is exactly what made the ending of Lambs so perfect. Then of course others might argue that we didn't get enough visual affirmation as to what makes Hannibal so dangerous, but again the imagination can already do so much for you. More on that later.

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here: for consistency purposes alone, it is very unfortunate that Jodie Foster did not return to play Clarice Starling, though they did not do much worse with Julianne Moore. Both of them can show the right amounts of fear and feistiness all in one scene or moment, and if you suspend disbelief right you can also just pretend that Moore is who Foster's Starling grew into after so many years passed by. I know there were scheduling conflicts, but seeing these films back-to-back I can see why Foster may have had been hesitant in the first place.

Simply, now the gloves are off. When before they would only provide quick flashes, off-angles, or completely shy away from the carnage and brutality of human deformations and sadistic torturous entities, Ridley Scott puts that notion to pasture and wants to give you reason to both fear and respect the cannibal at work, even when he can come off as less hungry (both figuratively and literally) for why he is most wanted. And let me give them credit where it is due, they did visually stunning work on the practical gore effects and makeup. I think it would even trump what we would see today because I would expect more CGI and quick-cuts now. They played it right. But there are times where "tell, not show" feels best, and I'm just glad that we had one film prior to that we were able to have that. I'm not about to fault a film for upping the ante with a sequel, so I'll just say that Scott did his thing well but it might not be why people liked the original in the first place.

Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal was the saving grace in the film though. Taut dialogue and wittily spoken, he just oozed this character both as a psychiatrist and psychopath. Adding ten years and even more pounds changed a bit of the scariness he had in the original, but keeping us out of the know of his thoughts still worked out great. He didn't seem to have as many tricks up his sleeve as I would have hoped and they definitely played things close to the chest with him when toying with others, but it worked. The next best thing about this film was its score, but there was one problem of familiarity: it kept sounding like the score from The Ring! So I looked it up, and low-and-behold it was Hans Zimmer who scored both films. In all fairness, this film actually came out a year before The Ring, but I sat there going: "Why isn't this as original as I would have hoped?" Thankfully, no matter which way he rips himself off, at least he did it with a good score and for the right setting.

Didn't love it, didn't hate it. Sat somewhere in the middle, but the payoff here was a bit of a dud in comparison to how I think they could have taken it, especially with no chronological sequels since (or ever). I have no current interest in seeing Hannibal Rising, but if the opportunity presents itself I'd rather see it while the first two are still fresh in my mind, rather than later. Yet still, I will just expect more carnage candy and probably less psychological tension, which would simply be unfortunate.

[DJ]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Not sure what's going on with me, but this year has been awful in terms of me finding anything to watch ... new or old. Shoot, I couldn't even make it through all of the Rocky movies and I LOVE that franchise.

Might need to just take some fliers on movies I know absolutely nothing about and see if that helps break me out of this rut.

[LambertandHam]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Not sure what's going on with me, but this year has been awful in terms of me finding anything to watch ... new or old. Shoot, I couldn't even make it through all of the Rocky movies and I LOVE that franchise.

Might need to just take some fliers on movies I know absolutely nothing about and see if that helps break me out of this rut.

I've done this with the MGM channel if I see something that looks interesting.

[daflyboys]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Joe Dirt. For good stupid humor it holds up!

Still one of my favorite scenes:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jXGV-MT-TmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Jigsaw

(these impressions are spoiler-free, but they speak a little bit about the previous films, in which case they also lead you into which content you should expect in this film and which you shouldn't)

From 2004 to 2010, we were greeted with a Saw film once every Halloween. Each film built on the foundation of the previous film, literally deeming them as iterations of one another. Now that time has past between films and new films and ideas have come out since then in the torture porn genre (I hate using that phrase, especially to describe the first film), new ground had to be broken. There are die- hard Saw fans like myself who know most every little intricacy of the first seven films, but nobody cares about the old formula anymore. It tired itself out. Instead of reiterating, it was now time to innovate. Enter co-writers Josh Stolberg & Pete Goldfinger and co-directors Michael & Peter Spierig, and in Halloween of 2017 you get Jigsaw.

All of this follows an eerily similar path to the Jurassic Park franchise. JP had sequels that, while in-name they hold their own, after a while started turn away some moviegoers and even got close to jumping the shark if it continued down the beaten path. So they created some space between themselves for some years, and came back with a re-branding. Both films (Jigsaw and Jurassic World) serve as standalone films if you so want to treat them as such or jump into them anew, play off their respective first films in terms of content and paying proper homage, modernize themselves and play more to a general casual audience (Jigsaw domestically, JW globally), can and probably will churn out its own set of sequels, and let veterans of the franchises appreciate the small bits that played off any one of the previous installments. Jurassic World lives in a PG-13 setting though and caved in to more Hollywood tropes (including CGI), plus is a much higher budget film, but Jigsaw still breaks a lot of new ground that will not play familiarly to the Saw films of old.

When Darren Lynn Bousman jumped on board to direct Saw II, he noted in the commentary track what some of the 'staples' were for the franchise, including quick-cuts. While I don't agree with that assessment, this continued for his next two films in the franchise, and directors David Hackl and Kevin Greutert followed up with a similar format. The films also found themselves in flashback haven, remained almost exclusively within interior settings, and centralized a set of characters to connect within a small universe. Jigsaw opens up to the feeling that this is taking place in a larger city and environment, letting characters in and out of the games explore more and be realer people (in that they do not just serve the purpose of the film alone, like they have lives outside of what we see). The framing of the film has changed, the color palette has widened, Charlie Clouser's score is not as in-your-face, and the production simply doesn't feel as cheap. Right steps were made in making this film much more accessible, and I see this continuing in the future.

While Jurassic World actually seems to remove the sequels from canon (we will see if that's true with Jeff Goldblum's appearance in Fallen Kingdom), Jigsaw plays strongly in the sense that if you go without seeing, recalling, or keeping in mind Saw 4-7, you will be okay. Hoffman is completely out of the picture in Jigsaw, never once mentioned or concerned about. The only traits to be aware of in those films was that John lost a child, was once in a relationship with Jill Tuck, and there was an autopsy performed on his body. In fact, you could just as easily disregard specifics about Saw II and Saw III, and you will probably be okay. Knowing that John Kramer was killed in the third film just might be enough.

This one really mostly plays off the first film to be most effective, though. Aside from the elaborateness of the traps and games being made (which could transition more smoothly seeing the other seven films first), we can leave the first film understanding that a cancer- stricken individual puts victims in life-or-death scenarios because of moral sins they have committed, and if killed get a puzzle piece cut out of their bodies. Seasoned individuals will also find some of the twists in the new film somewhat predictable simply because they know how Jigsaw thinks (or really, how the writers think). There were over a half-dozen twists, and I probably guessed or suspected the majority of them. Didn't make the film any inferior because I'm sitting and thinking about the casual moviegoer experiencing this film, and I think the best thing you can do for yourself now is at least see the first film and heck even at most know the outcome of the original trilogy. Saw IV, V, VI and The Final Chapter now all end up being fan- service flicks, unless any Jigsaw sequels end up coming back to them more than they have now.

I liked this movie. It could've been a complete garbage escapade like the seventh film was, and it wasn't. This reignites the franchise after it had stalled out and breathes fresh air. Maybe we will get a couple more within the next few Halloweens, because there is something to explore but I don't know how they'll want to do it. It is literally up to their creative bones now, and I like that facet of it because they can make good films if they try their darnedest in doing so.

If this film interests you enough that you want to give the first film a chance and haven't yet, go to Netflix right now to check it out, consider completing the original trilogy if you loved it enough to see what happens next, and check out this film when you're able to. I've reached my word limit, so I'll leave you here with my franchise ranking:

1, 3, 6, 2, J, 5, 4, 7

[daflyboys]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Watched Ghost Town again. Awful name for this movie, but unique premise and great blend of comedy and drama. Not generally liked Gervais in movies, but he fits perfectly here.

[Lieutenant Dan]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Watched Prometheus with my son (big Ridley fan) when it first came out a few years ago, we were both knocked out by it's beauty (SO well shot) but underwhelmed by the mythos.

Fast forward to Alien Covenant...I was hesitant to even watch because Prometheus seemed so meh, but it really brought Ridley's ideas into focus for me and how David is really the central figure here. Fassbender is mesmerizing. Alien Covenant was so much more thought provoking for me that I went back and rewatched Prometheus and it was a much better film for me. I get where Ridley is going with this.

Now, I'm still of the mind that Alien first-timers should just watch Alien films in order of release (whichever ones they want to watch; I would only suggest Alien, Aliens, Prom and Covenant). I think the prequels still can't match the tones Ridley and Cameron established in their films, but I am coming around to the ideas being presented.

Finally my exception to the prequels is that, for prequels, the tech that is presented is far more advanced that what is seen on the older films and I would have really preferred they kept technological continuity with the systems displays and no hologram displays. The originals were much more analog/solid state. The justification I can come up with is the difference between a 'truck' in space (Nostromo) and a science research vessel...but, the Sulaco was military and should have had as good or better tech than Prometheus by any measure so... I'll just have to live with it.

TLDR: IMO, Prometheus is made considerably better by Alien Covenant, and they are grim but beautiful films and Michael Fassbender's character of David is remarkable. Don't look for a Ripley in these movies as Ridley didn't intend for you to find one...keep your eye on David.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Daddy's Home 2

I caught a pre-screening. This flick is silly and over-the-top, and much like the first film isn't short of a few eye-rollers and missteps; there may not be a dance-off, but they don't shy away from that level of comicality. This sequel contains more slapstick humor, but in turn that also means more laughs. It never got me rolling on the floor so to speak, and most of the comedy was provided through actions rather than words, but that doesn't mean I didn't have a good time smiling throughout either.

The themes of relationship sabotage and reclamation continue here, with less satisfying results than its predecessor. I do kind of wish that Brad and Dusty weren't too bothered with harboring internal conflicts as that is what the first film was all about, but it did connect to the overall story so I understand its necessity. Character involvement is plenty spread out with highlights from Mel Gibson, though due to a short run time there is a lot of underdevelopment juggling ten characters. The absence of Hannibal Buress was also noted (and hey, where were the dogs?).

As far as PG-13 pure comedies go this may near atop the 2017 list, though that's not saying much. Even if the film's quality might not be worth all of your hard-earned dollars, its value is still best served as a theater viewing experience with the family (age not being a factor), especially as we near the holiday seasons.

Minor note: There is a short after-credits scene that is not worth your time. I don't know what it was there for.

[Lieutenant Dan]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Spiderman: Homecoming

Took a bit of a chance and blind-bought the 4k bluray, and it was so worth it. I enjoyed this film a LOT, and feel it's the best Spidey since Spiderman 2. I also feel like this one is the most 'Marvel' and truest to Peter Parker.

Excellent casting, and I liked the Tony Stark/Happy mentoring and Civil War/Avenger tie-ins. It all came together really well. Michael Keaton was excellent as the villain, and as usual, make sure to stay after the 'first set' of credits for a solid little closer that I liked. The post-credits one is good for a chuckle.

QUESTION for Marvel Cinematic Universe fans; why is Cap in the school PSA's? Even one of the kids noted that's he's sort of an outlaw (Civil War)? I was a bit confused since things seemed, mending but unfixed after Civil War between Tony and Cap.

Spoiler

When Happy was moving all the stuff out of Stark Tower to the new Avenger's facility he even listed Captain America's new prototype shield, so is this meaning everything's okay again between the two 'factions' from Civil War?