NOW CLOSED ; List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

[purbeast0]

You're the first person I've heard say they have any interest in the movie that looks like a shit storm, Geostorm.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Man since I got my Moviepass subscription I've only seen one movie. At least that paid for it for the month but damnit I gotta see some more! There's four I'd be willing to see: LBJ, Only the Brave, Thank You For Your Service (sorry I think it's a dumb sounding title), and Geostorm.

Oh and I think I've heard of Westworld here and there on the Internet but I just read the Wikipedia description of it and dang, I gotta check this badboy out too. I like the people involved with it and the basic plot summary sounded interesting. Great, all I need is another show to frickin watch.

Since I got my Moviepass I've been going to the cinema to see about 2 movies a week when before I saw about 3 movies a year in theaters. One show that I went to see that I would probably never have went to is Suburbicon. It is getting destroyed in rating, but really I didn't think it was all that bad. You have to have a really dark sense of humor to appreciate it, and it really tries too hard at social commentary that ends up so over the top that it misses it's message and become a kind of meta-joke. I liked the period setting, and thought that the way the movie starts out with lots of the 'Leave it to Beaver' style 50's optimism and then just keeps getting darker and darker with out ever losing the humor of the situation was spot on.

My rating would be Suburbicon - 5.7/10

 

[Zanovar]

Killing ground 5/10.I have seen this film before.It was called Eden lake.dont bother,Eden Lake was better.

 

[DigDog]

i also watched Motherland (tv, uk) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6006350/reference
which .. apparently ... is from 2016. i mean, i LIVE HERE and i've never heard of it before. but whatever.

there's a woman who is a mother. and being a mother is hard. yes you have seen it before. Anna Maxwell Martin (who?) is not bad in the lead but the premise is really boring. Oh no, i need to throw a childrens party - how stressful !!

 

[DigDog]

so, i watched Paths Of Glory - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/reference

this is a 1957 film by Stanley Kubrick.
it's the story of a military action during the 1918 war. Kirk Douglas is the rough and tough commander of a french unit. the rest of the actors are unknown to me.
Somewhere in france, a general is told to take a fortified position, called Anthill. He initially says it's impossible, but once told he's up for a major promotion, he reconsiders.
The attack is launched, and it results in a massacre. The french troops cannot even get out of the trenches, and the situation is made worse by the general deciding to shell his own troops to "give them a bit of encouragement".
The next day, as the attack failed spectacularly, some heads must fall. Douglas angrily explains that the order was to blame, but the general instead blames it on cowardice by the troops.
Three random soldiers are chosen to be court marshalled for cowardice. The trial is a mockery, set up more to reinforce the ideal that the officers are always right.
As the three are killed, Douglas tell of how the general shelled his own troops. The general is also sent to trial.
There is a final confrontation which i'll leave out.

hmm .. i don't know what to think.

According to wikipedia, this film had quite a reception, as an anti-war film. Today its message would seem lame, we've got films about traitors and evil men everywhere and war still happens on a regular basis.
The film is well shot and well built, the acting is fine (except maybe on Douglas's part, he likes to chew that scenery), it's just .. not a lot of film. The story is very straightforward, the character's motivations are obvious and, well, the whole story can be summarized by "there was a general once who was a massive tool" and that's it.

i should probably go back to 1957 to fully appreciate this film, but unfortunately i can't.

6.5/10

 

[slayer202]

Call Me by Your Name is the best film of the year, fyi

You idiot, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is the best film of the year

 

[DigDog]

didn't know that was out, but wanted to see it. hopefully, it will get a UK release ... lol. lol as in "i actually believe that" but i know its not true.

 

[slayer202]

Shouldn't it? The dude is Irish!

 

[DigDog]

AFAIK Missouri is in the US

 

[KMFJD]

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency 8.5/10

 

[William Gaatjes]

1922, a movie based on a Stephen King on novel. 7/10

 

[DigDog]

The Hitman's Bodyguard - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1959563/reference

sadly, i have coined a new term: "so good, it's bad".

too many film lately have this thing going on; the film is good, but it tries to cram too much shit in there, and it winds up being bad.

The Hitman's Bodyguard is a film starring lead Ryan Reynolds and co-lead Samuel Motherfucker Jackson. Reynolds is a ex-CIA, now bodyguard for criminals, the typical trope of guy with 9mm who headshots russians with AKs. Jackson is a criminal, the typical trope criminal of someone who is hard, and headshots AK-wielding russians with his 9mm .. omg.

Anyway, these two guys headshot a whole bunch of token target bad guys in absurdly unrealistic settings, and eventually Reynolds has to help Jackson who, after all, is a nice guy.

Selma Hayak's tits star as Jackson's ex wife, and vaguely hot Elodie Yung stars as Reynolds' now-policewoman ex girlfriend who obviously is the one who brings him into this whole thing.

There's a ton of smart dialogue who is like, "we have to get this dialogue checked by those internet people", and while, sure, it's ok, but there's just too much of it. Too many smart quips, too much badassness, too many quickdraw kills, too many headshots, too many token russians, too many clueless policement, too much your key witness can testify if he is in court within 60 minutes, it's so predictable and seent it all before and just, so, damn, crammed, full, of, everything, that, was, ever, put, on, a, checklist, that you start to ask yourself if the writer actually wanted to tell a story, or if they were reading off of a cookbook called "how to make a Samuel L Jackson film".

It's allright, i guess. But after you watch this, watch Mr Right (2015), which is kinda the same, but actually has a story to tell.

6.5/10... eh, maybe 7/10. it's not that bad.

 

[nutxo]

War for the planet of the apes. 4/10

What a POS

 

[DigDog]

Valerian & The City Of A Thousand Planets

disclaimer: i am am, have been for 30 years, a fan of the original comic Valerian et Laureline https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valérian_et_Laureline
so expect my review to be as snotty and arrogant as those Game Of Thrones guys who "have read the books".

1. this isn't V&L. This is a "reimagining", reboot, or otherwise vaguely-inspired-by. the spaceship is the same, but that's about it. Also, not a single line of dialogue fits with the style of the books.
and, i mean, THEY COULD GET HIS NAME RIGHT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYJFtq8kVy8 at the very start of the video, about 5 seconds in.
2. the characters don't have any chemistry
3. the actors don't have any chemistry

the visuals are pretty nice, but not amazing, most of the detail is lost to the eye. i guess if you have to pay for physical sets, you use them, but CGI is throwaway.

Cara Delevigne .. mama mia. I could watch her paint a wall and i wouldn't get bored. Dane DeHaan (the kid who plays Valerian) instead is an annoying kid that should be punched in the face repeatedly. figuratively of course. Also he speaks like Keanu Reeves as John Wick, but 17yo.

the 1960s/1970s SciFi style costumes looked cool, well, 40 years ago, today they look weird and frankly quite campy and fake.

Luc Besson's direction is, as usual, garbage. The man knows how to make happen these weird and unusual films, all props to him. But, that's it. He's a better producer than director. The actions scenes - which abound, as this is primarily an action film - all have the same quality and style as the traffic chase scene in Episode II.

Style is a weak point here. You may disagree, but what i see is a film partly trying to be serious, and partly being forced to used giant plastic helmets for its SWAT teams because "that was in the books". V&L actually got to be pretty f grim, with people who have had their skin rot away, a deluded villain ripping himself to shreds in a faulty machine, heroes being poisoned to death, treason, violence, risk, failure, drugs, poverty, with the occasional comic relief being represented by what, essentially, are the Ferengi, and just as vile under their cloak of comedy.
Style was what was innovative for the time. We had barely gone to the moon, nobody had ever heard of quantum anything, and Meziere's drawings were waaay more sombre than the average 1960s comic book, where androids looked like Robbie The Robot. These points of style could have easily been updated and that would have actually helped maintain the feel of the original books, but instead someone decided to go full-on retro camp while trying to do a serious action film with kids in it (albeit one of the kids is really hot; if you watch carefully during the monster-chases-truck scene, there's a nice butt shot of Cara).

Seriously tho Dane's voice is a joke.

The story, is, a thing happens on a planet kinda of like Avatar that kills everyone, and there is 1 small animal left that everyone needs because it poops useful stuff. Valerian and Laureline make a big fuss of their relationship. Ethan Hawke and Rhianna have a 20-minute sketch that reads like a commercial break, and leads into what basically is a voice-over cartoon. There's a fight scene which isn't half bad and it's the first time that i felt like something happened during the whole film, and then rhianna's character is killed off and we are back to the serious bits. The end scene .. is pretty cool. Clive Owen makes a good bad guy and the supporting actors steal the scene. There's a little of what made V&L great at the the end with Laureline whaling on the bad guy and some evil robots trying to kill stuff.

You won't miss much if you don't see it. On the other hand, you will miss much if you don't read the books. If you really want, you can do both.

 

[DigDog]

woha, triple trouble!

Birth Of The Dragon - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2720826/reference

it's funny to read the reviews of this film. most of the are calling for an "asian boycott" because this film paints bruce lee in a different light, making him an obnoxious, aggressive, rude, violent, selfish thug. Which he was.
Almost every negative portrayal in the film is drawn from the interview and the books written by those close to him, including his students. Lee was a massive bastard but apparently the memory of that has faded and he's now simply a legend. But, i'm not detracting from his skill, and neither is the movie. Birth is a good film if you are interested in Bruce Lee as a person, and, you should be.
The story is unremarkable, and there is a token white guy but he serves as the pivot of the story, without being the hero. The story, and the fights, are realistic. I *do* recommend Birth Of The Dragon, although the film might have more meaning to you, or less, depending on who you are.

7/10

 

[DigDog]

Wind River - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/reference

pretty solid police story featuring Jeremy Renner (that guy that looks like a discount Gerald Butler) and .. Kelsey ... Asbille. yup.

A gurl policewumman from the FBI shows up on an indian reservation after a young girl has been murdered. Renner is the local guy who helps her solve the case. hmm.. that's it.

The film is actually well made; think of The Revenant, but less monochrome, which is funny because here almost everything is white, but due to the actual landscape being snowed in, not because of some filter tint.
Life on an indian reservation ain't fun. The film will explain exactly why and how. And that's the whole plot.
The ending is average, but all in all the acting and direction make up for it. It's not, however, a character drama. It's just a simple police story, and i quite liked it; in fact, i found it soothing.
Recommended if you are in a meditative state of mind.

7/10

oh and there is a groundbreaking scene of a bad guy using a SMG and actually hitting something.

 

[DigDog]

The Girlfriend Experience (TV) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3846642/reference

if your 24 minute show has a 14 minute full-on lesbian sex scene, your tv show is not a tv show, it's a porno.

 

[Muse]

Watched Arrival last night. (2016) 7/10

My feeling/thinking about this is that it aimed very high but had limited success. Casting Amy Adams was a great choice. I was OK with the casting. The execution, the story, IMO very lacking. Playing the time travel card, it's such a stupid cliche, they do it again and again, I wish they'd give up already. Time travel is bullshit, it has been proven, I've seen the proof, not that I needed one, I've always known this.

The idea of working on the notion of communication issues if and when confronted with ETs is fine. How they handled it, well, to me it was very cumbersome and ultimately a head scratcher.

They spent way way way way too much time in that goddamn custom made tunnel with the tank of aliens.

There was way to much emphasis on the military involvement in the project.

The drama such as they depicted it was too reliant on media involvement. I don't want to see how the media portrays goings on so much as direct representation.

The movie had a lot of weaknesses, is my point. They get kudos for aiming high, but the result was very flawed. It was nominated for ~8 Oscars, won one for sound editing.

On my home theater system (projection to white screen) it was super dark. I never do this but I turned off ECO mode. It was still dark but not so noticeably. I watched the Blu-ray.

The first extra helped convince me that I'd seen an exceptional movie, however it couldn't make up for my misgivings.

 

[Muse]

12 Angry Men: ok, i'm not saying that it's not good, but it's trying too hard, and if you snap out for a moment, you see the film desperately trying to mount the tension. it's just brute force. Reminds me of Luzin's Defense, which makes the end super-obvious as it constantly pulls in the same emotional direction. To me, it's just a really good Twilight Zone episode. 7/10

I watched it for 2nd time, 1.5 years ago. Yeah, I like that comparison to The Twilight Zone. Good take. It has that same kind of one dimensional arch. I think it had a moral compass in asking people to have an open mind in judging things. It's too easy to come to conclusions about things especially when you are lazy.

 

[Papagayo]

Blade of the Immortal (2017)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5084170/

I would rate it 7/10..

 

[shortylickens]

Elizabeth Banks might be giving us a new Charlies Angels

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/elizabeth-banks-talks-direct-new-823441

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/charlies-angels-reboot-elizabeth-banks-release-date-1202442278/

I wonder what it would be like to have a female director.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Watched Arrival last night. (2016) 7/10

My feeling/thinking about this is that it aimed very high but had limited success. Casting Amy Adams was a great choice. I was OK with the casting. The execution, the story, IMO very lacking. Playing the time travel card, it's such a stupid cliche, they do it again and again, I wish they'd give up already. Time travel is bullshit, it has been proven, I've seen the proof, not that I needed one, I've always known this.

There's no time travel in Arrival. It's about

Spoiler

finding out there's a mode of thought that allows you to perceive the past and the future. You no longer live in just the present. But with this perspective comes an overwhelming desire to fulfill the future already laid out. So seeing the future does not cause you to want to change it.
This is where the movie deeply fails compared to the short story because it contradicts this in action and contradicts itself. She uses her ability to resolve the military conflict by knowing something she couldn't have known; but doesn't avoid having her daughter knowing she will die, but she admits this to her husband causing him to leave her. The short story only has, "Doesn't avoid having her daughter knowing she will die," thus being consistent. There is no military cliffhanger or admission with castigation.

The short story is mind blowing. The movie just blows.

Pacific Rim
6.5/10
Pretty fun.

War for the Planet of the Apes
7/10.
Solid all around, but I didn't get invested in it at all. Maybe if I had watched the others first.

M (2007) (and since there was more than one) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889615/
11/10. Maybe 13. Basically it breaks logic.
There are so many ways in which this movie could've gone wrong. Just one wrong look. Just one wrong word. Just one wrong movement and it would have all fallen apart. But it didn't. Every single frame is exacting and perfect.

 

[DigDog]

i just realized my review for M (1931) isn't actually for M, i confused it with another B&W film .. something about black market medicine trade and espionage ..

 

[Muse]

There's no time travel in Arrival. It's about... (Spoiler)

I think it can be called a kind of time travel. In any case, it's absurd, a fruitless mental exercise. Nobody knows the future -- like the song says: Que Sera Sera. The "future" such as it is is just a projection from the present, as is the past. Maybe I'll read the short story if I can find it.

Why do science fiction movies (or books) so often indulge in impossible fantasies? People enjoy them, but the best sci fi is a tool to imagine what the future holds (could hold) by virtue of what we know today.

 

[slayer202]

i just realized my review for M (1931) isn't actually for M, i confused it with another B&W film .. something about black market medicine trade and espionage ..

The Third Man?