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

[purbeast0]

I've seen one movie in the theater in 6 years since I built my home theater, and it was like within a couple months of finishing it. Since then I haven't seen anything in the theater.

However 1917 is something I may break that streak for. Not that I feel I have to see it in a "real" movie theater, but just because I don't really want to wait 3-4 months to watch it in my home theater.

 

[Muse]

I've seen one movie in the theater in 6 years since I built my home theater, and it was like within a couple months of finishing it. Since then I haven't seen anything in the theater.

However 1917 is something I may break that streak for. Not that I feel I have to see it in a "real" movie theater, but just because I don't really want to wait 3-4 months to watch it in my home theater.

Understood. Myself, my hearing ain't great and I often rewind to get dialog and even turn on subtitles for a spell. Depends on the movie. Can't do those things in a theater. Another reason I wait to check out the DVD or BR from my local library (which is free).

 

[snoopy7548]

Rambo: Last Blood 2/10

Horrible. Words escape me.

Yep. Steaming pile of crap. Felt like a low-grade copy of Taken. They should have had the Mexican gang chase Rambo out of Mexico, but on the way out Rambo would be setting up traps and mowing them down with machine guns.

 

[clamum]

I just posted my review, then scrolled up and saw yours as well. Yeah the whole thing is just this filming masterpiece. Just crazy.
I noticed the same thing about the trenches as well! The Germans' were just more "permanent" and built to last. I think they looked "cleaner" too because they were empty. No people and their belongings loitering around

My sister saw it Saturday then tagged along with me on Sunday - she wanted to see it again in the theater. So I don't think you're alone in that train of thought either.

Yeah, the German trenches were def more permanent. They had concrete at the base. What I noticed were the sandbags in the German trenches, they appeared really neatly stacked. When I saw them I thought "huh, I don't remember the sandbags that neat in the British trenches." But I maybe they were the same, I can't say for sure unless I go back and see it. I figured it was that whole "German neatness/organized" thing.

Why a theater?

I like to think my bedroom is like a theater. I'm 7 feet from a 43" 4K display and my stereo system's decent. I can use headphones if I like and often do. I can darken the room completely.

I mean I have a 55" 4K TV in my living room and it's great, but it comes no where close to the 92 foot wide screen and 64 channel audio at the theater I go to. Not to mention the reclining la-z-boy type seats are way better than my crap ass desk chair.

The theater was full and there was no problem with people talking or phones going off. I don't mind seeing a movie with people around; most times it's fine.

 

[Homerboy]

Yeah, the German trenches were def more permanent. They had concrete at the base. What I noticed were the sandbags in the German trenches, they appeared really neatly stacked. When I saw them I thought "huh, I don't remember the sandbags that neat in the British trenches." But I maybe they were the same, I can't say for sure unless I go back and see it. I figured it was that whole "German neatness/organized" thing.


I mean I have a 55" 4K TV in my living room and it's great, but it comes no where close to the 92 foot wide screen and 64 channel audio at the theater I go to. Not to mention the reclining la-z-boy type seats are way better than my crap ass desk chair.

The theater was full and there was no problem with people talking or phones going off. I don't mind seeing a movie with people around; most times it's fine.

Yes - the sandbags were clearly more "organized" than the British trenches. Interesting that we both noticed it.
Honestly, maybe it's just where I live, but I've NEVER had an issue with people and phones in a theater. As you said, with the HUGE screen (Ultra Screens around here) and crazy Atmos sound and now the leather recliners, I love going to the movies. It helps that I usually don't have to pay for a ticket, but even so, I'd still find myself there for big block busters etc.

 

[Muse]

Yes - the sandbags were clearly more "organized" than the British trenches. Interesting that we both noticed it.

How does this compare with Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old? That was amazing.

Edit:
"The list of great films about World War I in Europe is surprisingly short: After the acknowledged masterpieces All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957), there aren’t many more worth discussing. 1917 is a splashy attempt to join the list that is well worth seeing yet suffers from comparison to the far better film covering the same ground that was released just eleven months ago." (i.e. They Shall Not Grow Old)

The above from here.

 

[Homerboy]

How does this compare with Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old? That was amazing.

Edit:
"The list of great films about World War I in Europe is surprisingly short: After the acknowledged masterpieces All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957), there aren’t many more worth discussing. 1917 is a splashy attempt to join the list that is well worth seeing yet suffers from comparison to the far better film covering the same ground that was released just eleven months ago." (i.e. They Shall Not Grow Old)

The above from here.

Jackson's is a documentary using real footage. 1917 is a fictional Hollywood movie. How can you compare to the two? If you're going take that leap, then I'd say the BBC Documentary "Apocalypse: WWI" is way better than Jackson's documentary.

Edit: and for what it's worth, there are a bunch more WWI Hollywood movies: War Horse, Beneath Hill 60, Journey's End etc

 

[Muse]

Jackson's is a documentary using real footage. 1917 is a fictional Hollywood movie. How can you compare to the two? If you're going take that leap, then I'd say the BBC Documentary "Apocalypse: WWI" is way better than Jackson's documentary.

Edit: and for what it's worth, there are a bunch more WWI Hollywood movies: War Horse, Beneath Hill 60, Journey's End etc

I compared them only because I watched the Jackson documentary a few months ago and is a point of reference, also haven't seen 1917. Looking this up I did find that linked review which DOES compare the two and IMO interestingly. Of course, I'm trying to decide if I should see 1917 and now I'm not too sure. The criticisms leveled are ones I frequently have with films. I'm not as tolerant as many people of flaws in movies. Jackson's documentary is nothing short of mind-blowing. Here's a quotation from my favorite quotable seer:

“The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity, too great for the eye of man.” - William Blake

 

[DigDog]

i have tried to watch all of The Lighthouse - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7984734/

currently sitting at 7.9 on IMDb
but then again, if you make an all-B&W, 4:3 aspect ration film, you know WHO is gonna watch it, pretentious cinephile pricks.

The Lighthouse has a complete cast of three. Robert Pattinson (who was good), and William Defoe (who plays an over-the-top angry seadog). There is briefly also a naked woman who screams(Valeriia With Two iis Karaman).
Pattinson and Defoe are two wicks taking a tour of lighthouse duties, circa 1800s. 4 weeks of isolation, they are bound to drive a man mad (lol).
For no good reason at all they immediately come at odds and throughout, the film tries to generate conflict where there is none, and resolve it in unrealistic ways. As this essentially *IS* the core of the film, i would straight away not recommend this film.

To make a far too long and inconsequential story short, the film starts with a narrative of "isolation could drive 2 men to attack and kill each other", then clumsily proceeds to tell you a straight up story of two men attacking and killing each other because of isolation.
(ill take a second to chip in that 4 weeks of isolation: amateurs)
The story tries to jam in there some weird hallucinations which come without explanation, and some maritime myth, but it never really manages to feel "mysterious".

The film does have some artistic merit when it comes to the visuals, and for that alone, i would say, watch it until you get bored, then shut it off because nothing more is coming your way. But don't be expecting any Shutter Island semblance of a plot.

6/10

 

[GibbyPruchesi]

A bit late to the party but I don't care. I watched The Mandalorian a couple of weeks ago and it was honestly pretty fun. It is Star Wars so it's kind of lighthearted, rather predictable and by no means groundbreaking. But the atmosphere was great, I liked the space travelling and adventuring vibe.
It was also rather small in scope which was nice. What I mean is that it focused on only a handful of characters and did not try to explain some grand story or super galactic narrative, just a small adventure that sort of has some larger meaning but that's kept a mystery.
Overall it's worth a watch if you're somewhat familiar with the SW franchise, probably less so if you're not a fan. 7/10

 

[slayer202]

anyone watch the first two episodes of The Outsider? I thought they were pretty good. Critics aren't too high on it though, not sure why

 

[Homerboy]

anyone watch the first two episodes of The Outsider? I thought they were pretty good. Critics aren't too high on it though, not sure why

I hope to get around to it. Admittedly I was put off a bit by the critic reviews.

 

[slayer202]

I hope to get around to it. Admittedly I was put off a bit by the critic reviews.

I'd definitely suggest giving it a try. I'm very picky, and while it's not mind-blowingly great, I thought it was a pretty good start.

 

[DigDog]

i finished watching all of Dracula 2020 and i gotta say, that was one wild ride. It managed to both modernize the original story, while remaining faithful to it. I would strongly recommend this to anyone who likes both strong acting characters, and to those who like intricate and accurate plot writing.

8/10

 

[TeeJay1952]

HBO showing Signs again.
Great Flick!

 

[purbeast0]

HBO showing Signs again.
Great Flick!

One of the worst movies ever. I think that is when I started to be like "... WAIT A MINUTE ..." while watching M Night Shamalayadingdong's movies, that none of them are at all even remotely close to what they are advertised as being on their trailers. Thankfully I am at the point now where if his name is credited anywhere on a flick, I will pass.

 

[JujuFish]

One of the worst movies ever. I think that is when I started to be like "... WAIT A MINUTE ..." while watching M Night Shamalayadingdong's movies, that none of them are at all even remotely close to what they are advertised as being on their trailers. Thankfully I am at the point now where if his name is credited anywhere on a flick, I will pass.

I also was not a fan of Signs. I did enjoy Split a lot though.

As for me, I finally watched Star Wars IX, and oh boy was that not very good. Maybe better than Episodes 1 and 2 but that's it.

 

[clamum]

I actually like Signs. It's a little ridiculous (aliens invading a planet 75% full of water, with no protection, and are deathly vulnerable to water?) but I still like it.

Just saw this. JACK MIGHT BE COMING BACK. As much as I liked the show I was ok with it ending because I thought it went downhill after season 5. I'd love to see it back if it's written well though.

 

[ondma]

How does this compare with Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old? That was amazing.

Edit:
"The list of great films about World War I in Europe is surprisingly short: After the acknowledged masterpieces All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957), there aren’t many more worth discussing. 1917 is a splashy attempt to join the list that is well worth seeing yet suffers from comparison to the far better film covering the same ground that was released just eleven months ago." (i.e. They Shall Not Grow Old)

The above from here.

Both my wife and I fell asleep during "They Shall Not Grow Old". Course we are old farts, so that happens quite a bit in movies.

But, I agree with others, it is a different kind of movie than 1917. (Havent seen it yet, but definitely on my list.)

 

[KMFJD]

Looks interesting


In regards to the trenches in WW1 , Germany purposely retreated to a new trench line in 1917, purpose built by a lot of russian pow labour (and all cement production for 6 months of western Germany)

 

[ondma]

Looks interesting


In regards to the trenches in WW1 , Germany purposely retreated to a new trench line in 1917, purpose built by a lot of russian pow labour (and all cement production for 6 months of western Germany)

Think I'll pass on that one. (the Radcliff one)

 

[DigDog]

i've taken some me time and watched films i had already watched and knew i liked;

Equilibrium - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/

Where Sean Bean dies.
This film doesn't really hold up to repeated viewings .. which is funny, as i had grown to appreciate it more *after* a couple viewings. In reality the story is rather thin, being a heroic rework of 1984, but what is really striking about Equilibrium is the aesthetics, and those will wear out after a few viewings. Still, this is a great to-rent film that i recommend to everyone.

7/10


Andromeda Strain - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/

I must have watched this film maybe 4 or 5 times now, and i keep coming back to it every few years. It has an unique quality, being one of the few sci-fi semi-realistic films that does best the "mystery/action" thing. Despite the antagonist being made obvious from the very beginning of the film and having no real conflict with the protagonists, the "trying to figure it out" factor is very high.
I also like the 1970's scifi, THX-like visuals of the underground base.

7/10


Margin Call - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/

This film is in fact better than it would seem at the first viewing. It makes no concession to the audience ... at all. Unless you have already watched 2-3 times and now understand everything that's going on, you'd probably just come out thinking it was about a bunch of people talking, and not sure about what.
Demi Moore still badly miscast - i wonder how much she was paid to be in this.
Jeremy irons is good but the initial impression is that he's over the top, when in fact it's his character who's over the top.
You reeeeally need to make films the way film are meant to be made, if you want people to actually ENJOY your film. Still, if you *do* have time for repeated viewings, this is an ok film to spend some time on.

7/10

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Started watching the The Witcher and I'm on ep. 5. I have no knowledge of the games or any backstory to this show, but it's pretty good so far. The back and forth between present and past is kinda confusing though. Cavill is pretty great and the Bard guy cracks me up. 7.5/10 for now.

 

[JEDI]

Knives Out (Daniel Craig of James Bond fame)

only saw the beginning so far.
7/10 because of early plot hole (see below)

rich murder victim after his bday party, all relatives have motives.
a comedic whodunit.
but what I don't get is why the police is letting a private investigator (Daniel Craig) run the show, and why the various family members are ok with this?!

finished the movie. 8.5/10

took off another .5 points for another plothole:
why did the old man tell the grandson his plans but not his daughter (grandson's mom)?
heck, why didn't the grandson tell his mom afterwards??

 

[dainthomas]

1917 - 9/10

Truly an excellent movie from start to finish, but not for the traditional reasons. There's very little plot. Very little character development (hell, there are only 2 characters). So if you're expecting a great "war movie" like Private Ryan or something similar, you won't get that. This movie is however an absolute testament to incredible and sometimes seemingly surreal movie making from a technical (and editing) standpoint. If you're not familiar it was shot as a "single shot" real-time movie. You basically never stop following the main protagonist for the 2 hours. I've heard several people now say they thought it was like a video game where you're over the shoulder of the character for the whole thing (granted the camera does move around quite a bit).

It's just really an amazing piece of work. The quality of everything is top notch and amazing as well. I certainly feel too this is one of those movies you "have to see in a theater"

Agreed about the plot, but this is one of the few cases where the plot exists merely as a framework to hang the cinematography on. It's perfection. Every scene is framed and shot flawlessly. I can't comprehend how much planning it took to pull that off using a single-shot style.