Movies You've Watched Recently

I think there's many different types of Spielberg. Every now and then, he likes to make a movie he wishes he could have seen as a child. Then he'll do a movie like Saving Private Ryan or a movie like Catch Me if You Can. The guy is just amazing.

I like Spielberg but he's not one of my favorites, and I can't quantitatively say why. Like...his craft is excellent and when he hits he hits hard but there's just something about his films, maybe because he doesn't write his own stuff, that makes him feel so schizofrenic and just a general FEELING to his films that I don't like sometimes. Like AI...when I saw it I thought "there's good ideas in here, but it would have been AMAZING if Kubrick had lived to do it instead". I don't know...I am rambling.

I just saw The Wolverine. It's got the feel of the mini-series and series. I think that anyone who's a fan of what Claremont and Hama did in the comics will dig the movie. In contrast, my wife thought it was a little slow compared to the X-Men movies. Overall the movie was really good in adapting the character from the comic book.

Proof that big-budget films have better toys than you could ever imagine-



I'd call him an asshole, but that pic is pretty tame compared to what I would've taken if that were my toy. I mean, he isn't even giving the finger or grabbing his junk. Kind of makes me wish I had more ambition...

@avid- I consider you the resident film buff so I'm asking you this; Why is Woody Allen so loved? Is his stuff supposed to be annoying and pretentious? If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

I'm asking this because the wife wants to see his new movie and I'd like to be informed before I tell here there is no way in hell I will ever pay for Woody Allen to waste my time.

Well, I'm not sure I can turn your feelings around Allen with whatever I can say, but here goes:

I don't find him pretentious. I find that he has a particular style of writing/directing/comedy that won't impress everyone (maybe not modern audiences) but has been reportedly, consistently good since his landmark work in the 70s and 80s. For a guy in his mid-70s, I like that he still makes films (one every year) even though honestly, I haven't seen them all or made plans to do so (if the hype is strong enough, as it was with Midnight In Paris a couple of years back, I"ll seek it out). He's going to be a very prolific filmmaker by the time that he dies and the quality of his work (especially his later work) will be debated from here until the end of time in film snob circles. I've never heard/read about a film of this that's a true stinker; clearly, for admirers he's made lesser films but never a bad film (pretty much the same way I feel about, say, Scorsese).

I like that his style of comedy is dependent on dialogue and characters and mostly realistic setups, not the sitcom-level of rom-coms that we get today where people act like dicks and slapstick gets involved. Even the roles that Allen writes for himself don't paint him in the best of lights; he's usually a selfish schmuck that tries the best he can.

Basically, I love the fact that he still feels he has something to say about life, art, love, sometimes death and relationships. That's what his films are mostly about. So off he goes with small budgets and still manages to enlist A-list actors and the end results are usually effective but very rare to make best-of-year lists. I suppose Allen could care less. It makes me wonder if the tone of his work will change into something grimmer or death-related (although he has touched upon those areas long ago; he's a big fan of Ingmar Bergman) as he grows older. He's certainly made straight-up dramas before but his comedies will be remembered.

I'm not sure that helped. I'm writing this early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet. Here's what I think: should your wife convince you to take her to the film, you'll get a movie that's competently made and doesn't last very long (his films are usually in the 90-min to 2 hour range).

I'm not making any plans to see his new film but I've heard Cate Blanchett is good and even, of all people, Andrew Dice Clay is good.

And that is why you are the resident film buff! Thanks for the education. I'll give this one a shot with what you've said in mind. In other words I won't stare at my watch the whole time. There's a pub/cinema down the street so hopefully it shows there.

Sound City documentary is free for Amazon Prime. Haven't checked Netflix. David Grohl directs it. About the Cali studio where too many badasses to list recorded.


*edit* Watched it and it's really good. I identified with it as a music lover and as a musician who had a studio. So, enough stuff for enthusiasts and veterans. No reason to not watch it if you have Prime.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is damn incredible on Blu Ray. Visuals and sound are exceptional. Can't wait to watch the rest of the collection. Except for that extra movie they packed in for, I assume, frisbee purposes.

What's everyone's hatred for the last movie? I watched it in theatre and I had no beef with it. It's not my favorite, but I still thought it was good. Maybe it's because I grew up watching Shia Lawhatever on Even Stevens. was it the fact that there were aliens? The feel/tone of the movies were no different than the first 3 in my opinion.

What's everyone's hatred for the last movie?  I watched it in theatre and I had no beef with it.  It's not my favorite, but I still thought it was good.  Maybe it's because I grew up watching Shia Lawhatever  on Even Stevens.  was it the fact that there were aliens?  The feel/tone of the movies were no different than the first 3 in my opinion.

Oh shit! Avid's got another essay/list!

RUN FOR YOUR FUCKING LIVES!!!!

1. Every other film in the series has a macguffin (The Lost Ark, Shankra stones, Holy Grail) that is well-defined and explained just enough so you'll know how it'll benefit the good guys or the bad. The Crystal Skull didn't receive this treatment. Neither party (nor the audience) knows what it does or what will happen if they return it to where it belongs. It's convoluted and drains tension out of the movie.

2. I never thought any of the anyone was in danger. For example, I think the jungle chase scene was well-shot and choreographed but over-dependent on CGI. The fact that Vic Armstrong, a legendary stuntman and stunt coordinator (who worked on all previous films and was Ford's stunt double), was not hired for this movie hurt it. The Indiana Jones films are notable for its life-threatening, crazy stunts, the variety of which you only see now in Indonesian action films. Here, you miss that and it doesn't really help that some actors (Karen Allen in particular) are not taking it seriously and are grinning the whole way. Is it surprising that the only "good guy" that dies is the Winstone's backstabber?

3. The script is basically a Frankenstein monster of other ideas, rather than a single, laser focused vision where the plot elements come together. A lot of writers submitted scripts for a 4th film, like Frank Darabont or M. Night Shymalan, but it looks like Lucas took elements out of them and cobbled them together for the final draft. (I think Darabont's script may still be available as a pdf file) It has a "too many cooks in the kitchen" feel. An impressive thing about "Raiders" is Lawrence Kasdan's masterful ability to deliver enough exposition and action beats and keep a steady pace. It's very focused. On "Crystal Skull", people were bitching left and right about how there's too much exposition. I think the film is structured to be a slow-burn for it's first hour and then ramp up for the remainder but its so uncharacteristic for an Indiana Jones film.

4. Ill-defined supporting characters. I could've sworn they'd go somewhere with Blanchett's supposed psychic ability. Nope. I like Ray Winstone but I never gave a shit about his character (C.I.A. my ass, he's a greedy, back-stabbing prick and nothing more). It was great to see Karen Allen again but Marion is given nothing to do here, other than grin a lot.

Then there's Shia. Look, I don't think he's a bad actor. I think he chooses roles where he often feels miscast. The guy looks like he'd be great in a comedy and he's always doing darker, mature drama or action films where he sticks out like a sore thumb. I've recall some reviews of Crystal Skull where some people felt Mutt didn't make sense on a conceptual-level (and to have him related to Jones made many cringe) but all I think about is how he's not really necessary. I loved the '50s setting and Mutt's a tie to that (especially in his Marlon Brando/The Wild Ones entrance) but I don't feel that he makes much of a difference. He quit school but he's a fencing master?  Short Round, he's not.


Those are big things for me. Do I think the film overall is horrible? Absolutely not. (not once did I mention the nuke or the fridge) It's just that there's a difference between this and Raiders: one is a competently well-made actioner that has some flaws; the other is a classic that I'll be watching years/decades from now.

Most of the action scenes are great. Spielberg knows how to stage these sequences (with or without CGI) and I thought the motorcycle chase scene in the first half was fun. Harrison Ford's performance is great, his best work in a long time. The way that Jones accepts his old age and outsmarts everyone puts a smile on my face.

As you can see, I got carried away here. Just one of those things.

For me, the movie is just a mess with rarely a sense of adventure and zero emotional connection. I cant blame the actors or Spielberg since they were doing what the script asked. When the character was introduced as "Mutt" and the way Indy says "son" is pretty cringeworthy.

If it were called something else and not "Indiana Jones" I would be more forgiving. That's a HUGE IP and should be scrutinized. But Lucas just seems to think "These are my toys and everyone else can piss off". The movie jumped the shark and is only OK. Which doesn't cut it for an Indy film.

Also, I didn't mention the fridge/nuke thing either. That was fine and fits in an Indy movie.

I understand that it's not the best, but it isn't as horrid as people make it out to be. Shia would be really good in a comedy, he's got a great eye for comedy. Maybe they'll make another Even Stevens movie!

Finally knocked Super out of my Netflix queue. If Guardians of the Galaxy is anything like it, I'm in.

Just got back from seeing Elysium. It's a fun ride, full of violence, heart, black humor and satire just like District 9 (although I think that's the better film). Damon is good as always but Sharlto Copley steals the movie; he clearly had a good time playing a demented soldier of fortune.

I'm on the fence about Elysium. It looks like a cool movie but between the last 1/3 of Wolverine and all of Star Trek, I think I'm full on CGI and shaky camera action. Unless you can tell me it doesn't go overboard with those things, I think I'll wait for Blu-Ray.

Hello, I return. While I was gone I saw two movies (this is writing a lot like a high school essay now =p):

1. Kaze Tachinu (no idea what the English title is): Hayao Miyazaki's new film is unlike any of his previous stuff. Ghibli has always been led by two directors, Miyazaki who's always done the more fantastical/crowd pleasing stuff and takahata who's always done the more down to earth, quiet stuff and it looks like they switched places. Kaze Tachinu is a quiet, contemplative, biopic. Very good, but very different for Miyazaki. The writing and pacing feel a bit...off in places, but overall it feels like a very personal movie for Miyazaki (whose father designed aircraft) and an interesting casting choice of getting another director to voice act the main character. Beautiful animation as always, few finer details I probably missed do to language barriers but overall I want to see it again.

2. Pacific Rim - I REALLY wanted to like this movie more than I did. Giant robots, giant monsters, yay! THe first 10 minutes was AWESOME, it had bitchin' moments but it just REEKED of script rewrites. They should have gone full-silly, full over the top on this movie but instead we get these moments of half baked drama. Character arks that are happening independent of the action scenes instead of working through them during. A weak premise that is paced a bit funky, a total lack of whacky robot powers. Also, the editing of the fight scenes at times was awful. I'll say it once, I'll say it again, action directors, you cut close to hide an actor's lack of talent or to create tension. You don't just do it because that's what you do in an action sequence. I got lost during some of the ifght scenes spacially because it was super close cut, which is odd considering we're supposed to be watching giant behemoths fighting.

Charlie Day is the only reason I want to watch Pacific Rim.

I love Charlie Day. Still want to see PR for many other reasons though.

pspiddy wrote:I'm on the fence about Elysium. It looks like a cool movie but between the last 1/3 of Wolverine and all of Star Trek, I think I'm full on CGI and shaky camera action. Unless you can tell me it doesn't go overboard with those things, I think I'll wait for Blu-Ray.

Like District 9, there's handheld camerawork in the action scenes but I think the director is one of the handful (like Paul Greengrass or Kathryn Bigelow) who knows how to shoot action with that equipment (more importantly they know how to edit that footage). I haven't seen The Wolverine but I did see Into Darkness and I wasn't bothered by the camerawork (although the previous Star Trek did have that problem, I'll admit).

I think the world-building (between the look of cities on Earth and Elysium) is creative and immersive and the CGI was well done. And I was never lost during the action scenes.

In Pacific Rim, I can recall one shot during the final underwater fight that I can't make out which Jaeger is shown. Otherwise I found the action scenes comprehensible.

Yeah, I don't know, both me and my GF had the same problem. Maybe it was just us. What'd you think of the movie over all avid?

Pacific Rim? I really enjoyed it. It has a good balance between campy fun and the right amount of drama and tension. Some have said it has bad acting or writing but I disagree.

I would be one of those people. Just going to throw this all in a spoiler tag to be safe:

Spoiler:

It's been a couple of weeks since I've seen it so I'll try my best to remember certain things in formulating a response. Also, I've commented on some points with a spoiler tag if I felt it was necessary. There's a link later on that I think people interested in the film (or have seen it) should read. I include it to make a point, yes, but it's good all on its own.

Spoiler:

In a time where most movies feel they need to have cliffhangers or leave setups for sequels (in case the initial film is really successful financially) it felt good that Pacific Rim seemed to have a definitive end. I really don't know what can be said after this one and Del Toro has so many projects on his plate (and he's not getting any younger) that I think he'd want to move on. There was some talks about a sequel but until anything is official, I feel I can breathe easy.

Spoiler:

Now, the character development on part of the other teams. Here comes the tricky part and I have two ways of responding to this:

1. Their development is purely visual. I'm not sure if the script ever had more material for them or if additional footage was shot or that the shooting schedule didn't allow for more/equal attention to the other Jaeger pilots. It could be one or two of those possibilities or all three. The decision to focus on Raleigh/Mako, Stacker and the two Aussie pilots could've been an economical choice, in that you wouldn't have so many personalities to juggle (case in point: in The Hurt Locker, the EOD unit is 3 soldiers when in reality its usually 10-11 soldiers; by paring it down to 3, you have 3 distinct personalities to focus on). The Russian and Chinese pilots are defined entirely by their look, posture and behavior during battle. The film also takes place in a period where these teams have been operating for some time and we're just dropping in at a certain point.

2. On another private message board, there was a debate on this very issue and one member linked this article, which touches upon how on the film conveys information visually about characters, especially Mako. It's a well-written article and it makes a better case than I can (especially given its context).

Spoiler:

There you have it. *smokebomb*

I didn't really get the sparring scene. Like they didn't establish what they were going for. Again, I'm all for stupid action movies, but like so many action movies these days I see the dialogue and the stuff that makes one invested in the fight scenes getting neglected. Movies like Die Hard work because everything around the fight scenes builds up that character and the villains so you get more invested (as one of many examples of a good action movie). I just felt this one couldn't decide what tone it wanted to take. And trust me, I am happy it ended and didn't sequelize itself, I just felt the build up was underwhelming.

I'm watching Final Fantasy VII Advent Children, and it's one of the most confusing movies ever. The music is awesome though.

Watching Skyfall on Epix. God, I love this movie.

Advent Children kind of ignored all of the character's actual story arks from the game and kind of changed them. They made Cloud into a whiny bitch because they felt that's what the kiddies respond to these days.

Saw 2 movies today. Not in the mood to go into depth but

1. This is the End - was very pleasantly surprised by this movie. Expected nothing and laughed quite a bit. Danny Mcbride...nailed it.

2. Wag the Dog - very unimpressed with this. I'm someone who can suspend disbelief pretty easily but when it's political stuff or drama/dialogue heavy stuff I want things to make sense and this film was just too far off the mark for me.