What have you been watching? (Cinema)

[tfactor]

I don't really know what kind of movies tfactor is into because he doesn't come here very often, so I can't really recommend him anything.

Wth? Um 9 years Dude, I was posting in the zone in its infancy. In what world is that "not often"?

FYI - I was the guy who picked Christopher Nolan as fav director, well before he did TDK movies. I was here when it was all Herc's fault. When Doc Falcon was hacking original xboxes, among other things. Back when Kirk was better medicated. When going Toshiro Lucas was a day long project and cool.

You cut me deep Span, with your words. I love the zone and all levels of geektatude it produces. Sure I am not nearly as active here as I once was but god damn it, saying I don't come here often is like saying; Charlie Sheen doesn't know winning, or Miley Cyrus doesn't know twerking, or Abe Lincoln doesn't know about equal rights, or Harry Knowles doesn't know about Star Wars or lasagna or the Drafthouse or devils tower or spaghetti Tuesday every Wednesday night.

My point here is: ... I ... We ... You ... Well ... Kirk sucks and The X-men would totally destroy the Jedi in battle!

Good day sir

King smarmy out *drops mic*

[Al Shut]

Wait a minute, often doesn't mean frequently?

Guys, stop trying to turn me into confused Pete.

[Spandau Belly]

Wait a minute, often doesn't mean frequently?

Oui, "often" est comme "souvent". Je pense que tfactor veut dire "depuis longtemps".

[tfactor]

Wait a minute, often doesn't mean frequently?

Oui, "often" est comme "souvent". Je pense que tfactor veut dire "depuis longtemps".

Pillow talk will get you nothing, except maybe a handy j. Still waiting on those recent movie recommendations. Over the last 2 years - what are your top ten movies.is there a thread for that. Might make for a cool thread, no?

[Spandau Belly]

Okay, since you're too tired to go through the zone and read, I can go through my movie diary and pick the movies that were released within the last couple years that I would recommend, here you go:

Her
Dallas Buyers Club
The Hunter (2011)
Stoker
Fast & Furious 6
Spring Breakers
The Act of Killing
Mud
Before Midnight
Blue Jasmine
The Thieves (2012)
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning
En Kongelig Affære
Jagten (2012)
World War Z
Iron Man 3
Man of Tai Chi
Prisoners (2013)
Ain't Them Bodies Saints
The Ides of March
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Young Adult
The Flowers of War
The Raid
Jiro Dreams of Sushi
Beasts of the Southern Wild
The Expendables 2
Ted (2012)
The Avengers (2012)
Snabba Cash
Compliance
Samsara
The Master (2012)
Skyfall
Cloud Atlas
Seven Psychopaths
Django Unchained
Life of Pi

[Ribbons]

Wait a minute, often doesn't mean frequently?

Oui, "often" est comme "souvent". Je pense que tfactor veut dire "depuis longtemps".

Hey, Al is German you racist! ...unless he also speaks French, in which case my bad.

[Spandau Belly]

Sprechen sie kein Französisch in Deutschland? Alles is ganz klar auf Französisch.

[so sorry]

Okay, since you're too tired to go through the zone and read, I can go through my movie diary and pick the movies that were released within the last couple years that I would recommend, here you go:

Her
Dallas Buyers Club
The Hunter (2011)
Stoker
Fast & Furious 6
Spring Breakers
The Act of Killing
Mud
Before Midnight
Blue Jasmine
The Thieves (2012)
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning
En Kongelig Affære
Jagten (2012)
World War Z
Iron Man 3
Man of Tai Chi
Prisoners (2013)
Ain't Them Bodies Saints
The Ides of March
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Young Adult
The Flowers of War
The Raid
Jiro Dreams of Sushi
Beasts of the Southern Wild
The Expendables 2
Ted (2012)
The Avengers (2012)
Snabba Cash
Compliance
Samsara
The Master (2012)
Skyfall
Cloud Atlas
Seven Psychopaths
Django Unchained
Life of Pi

....and Grown Ups 2.

[Al Shut]

Hey, Al is German you racist! ...unless he also speaks French, in which case my bad.

I know only one sentence

[tfactor]

Okay, since you're too tired to go through the zone and read, I can go through my movie diary and pick the movies that were released within the last couple years that I would recommend, here you go:

Her
Dallas Buyers Club
The Hunter (2011)
Stoker
Fast & Furious 6
Spring Breakers
The Act of Killing
Mud
Before Midnight
Blue Jasmine
The Thieves (2012)
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning
En Kongelig Affære
Jagten (2012)
World War Z
Iron Man 3
Man of Tai Chi
Prisoners (2013)
Ain't Them Bodies Saints
The Ides of March
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Young Adult
The Flowers of War
The Raid
Jiro Dreams of Sushi
Beasts of the Southern Wild
The Expendables 2
Ted (2012)
The Avengers (2012)
Snabba Cash
Compliance
Samsara
The Master (2012)
Skyfall
Cloud Atlas
Seven Psychopaths
Django Unchained
Life of Pi

....and Grown Ups 2.

Love it, except I haven't heard of like 80% of these movies. Life of Pi was a big old lie, which I didn't like. However Seven Psychopaths was great. Maybe I could selectively go thru this list. However would you kindly tell me honestly: are these all own worthy movies? Or did you perhaps pepper in some mediocrity?

Ok I have some trailer hunting to do.

What's up with the foreign language bits? If you want to tell me something - do it in American!

[Peven]

I don't get the ire directed at "Life of Pi", I thought the ending only added another layer to the storytelling and didn't feel lied to or cheated or let down at all, I thought it was a beautiful movie and liked that it asked the audience to think

[tfactor]

I don't get the ire directed at "Life of Pi", I thought the ending only added another layer to the storytelling and didn't feel lied to or cheated or let down at all, I thought it was a beautiful movie and liked that it asked the audience to think

The ending added a layer alright, a layer of LiES. I agree it was a cinematic spectacle, however IMHO all the detail that made it a good story having been reveled to be BS destroyed any significance the movie portrayed. Perhaps instead of making his story of survival about a cross species friendship, he should have told the actual story of how it really happened. The kicker here is everyone is drawn in about this grand True story of a boy and a tiger, come to find out: no such event ever happened. More so the horrific reality of being stranded at sea was these vicious people turned on each other. There was no inspiration, just imagination.

Whether you agree with me or not doesn't change that this guy is famous and the movie a success solely because the story teller is a big studly liar. Based on the Untrue story of a liar who experienced the horror of human nature.

Instead of Life of Pi perhaps they should have called it; Lies of Pi

[Spandau Belly]

However would you kindly tell me honestly: are these all own worthy movies? Or did you perhaps pepper in some mediocrity?

No, these are not all solid gold classic films (although many are). I would say all of these films represent at least a good one time viewing. They all succeed in doing what they're trying to do. Well, I guess I probably shouldn't have included SPRING BREAKERS on that list since it's probably the most divisive and the hardest to classify. The rest of them, if you watch the trailer and it looks like the type of thing you would like, then I would say it's worth a rent.

What's up with the foreign language bits?

French is not a foreign language in my country.

The ending added a layer alright, a layer of LiES. I agree it was a cinematic spectacle, however IMHO all the detail that made it a good story having been reveled to be BS destroyed any significance the movie portrayed.

No, the movie presents you with a choice of believing it or not. You chose not to. The whole movie is about how faith is about believing something without obvious proof. LIFE OF PI is not just a disaster movie like GRAVITY about one person overcoming physical obstacles. The first part of the movie, in which the title character joins every religion he can, sets the stage for the film's themes of faith and being open-minded.

[tfactor]

There is no choice, he tells you what really happened. He explains the truth and that the "story" as told was just a better version and was more interesting & inspiring. I question the motivation of some one who joins every religion he can, as how can he be truly devoted not committing to any one faith but that is not the core of my point

Is a New York Yankees player still a Yankee if he plays for every team in the MLB?

Look while I understand your take away, I don't agree with it. This doesn't make me a man of no faith or close minded. My interpretation of the movie was simply different than yours. While yours may be closer to what was intended, it's still open to interpretation.

I suspect that I am not the only person disappointed by this movie. I wanted the story to be real, as advertised. So when they told me it was BS - I was disappointed. What is wrong with that?

Let me ask you this, if at the end of the movie 42 - the written text said "none of this actually happened" instead of the true details of JR's life and accomplishments: would the movie still pack the same punch? Think about it

Edit; I'm watching Life of Pi again right now to reassess, more to follow...

[tfactor]

Ok so over this weekend we watched a bunch. Spoilers ahead!

Lego Movie - was disappointing, but they showed the funniest clips in the trailer and I wish some of Batman had been saved. As he was the best part of the movie. Plus if this is any indication of all that Chris Pratt has to offer, not looking forward to GOTG as much as I initially thought.

On DVD:

Carrie, it was well done and I liked some of the improvements but found myself asking "did this movie really need to be redone or is SK just flexing his movie making muscle" and wth was up with the grave cracking, was that the tall chick or her baby?

Monsters Inc - loved it, however not as much as the first movie. It was cool and obviously prequel was the only option considering they established that a child's laughter was more powerful than their screams but still definitely good stuff. Want to own this one.

Ender's Game - this movie had so much awesome going for it but that ending was such a let down. Honestly I felt like the movie just showed that humans are this shitty species as a whole. Plus really the queen was just hanging out within walking distance of the base the humans took over from the rachni or whatever, how lame is that ending? So now what this kid who committed genocide & blows up the whole planet is going to solo find a new world for this species to rebuild everything from scratch. Wth? I get how he could only win thinking it was a game but as the movie pointed out, they didn't attack. So the movie basically laid the groundwork for the exact opposite as Star Trek. Excepts it is to boldly go we're no one has gone before and commit genocide. Real nice! A huge disappointment, I didn't read these books. So don't know how much the movie bastardized the plot but can't say I'm interested based on the movie.

On Ang Lee's Life of Pi rematch ... Deep breath - it's a beautiful film, visually stunning and the concepts presented are so unique that it is no surprise that this movie experienced the success it did. That said - Richard Parker was pure imagination. It wasn't even like he was symbolically one of the actual survivors. Yes I get that RP was metaphorically a part of Pi's survival /personality but he was also made up. They didn't believe him when he told the truth so he made up a fantastic story.

The Life of Pi is an amazing depiction of how strong faith can contribute to someone's perspective and how they view this horrible world and it's horrible inhabitants. I get it. This man got stuck on a boat with a racist murderer cannibal and had to watch his mother and another be killed & eaten, his faith and godly views allowed him to not let this spoil his view of the world. The bulk of this movie content is a farce but After watching a 2nd time - I forgive it's lies and accept it for what it was intended to be.

No hard feelings, glad I watched it again and I'm glad my judgement was questioned to prompt me to do so. This was definitely better the 2nd viewing. So ... Moving on

[Spandau Belly]

CHEAP THRILLS

This is a movie about two losers in their 30s who were childhood friends, but don't see each other much anymore. One of them is played by Pat Healy, he's a failed writer with debt problems who just lost his job and has no way of supporting his baby son. The other is Ethan Embry, an ex-con who now works a high risk low pay job. The two bump into each other in a dive bar and catch up and chat until they meet a rich dude (played by David Koechner doing a more toned down version of the same guy he always plays) who is out celebrating with his trophy wife. The rich guy starts offering money to these guys to pull off various dares. Over the course of the evening the dares and the financial incentive escalate. Koechner even points out that this is basically his own private game show.

The movie is being sold as a dark comedy, and I would tend to say the emphasis is more on the dark. There's some funny parts, but it's not trying to be a laugh a minute. I think people expecting the dares to be really imaginative or shocking will be disappointed. If you just want to see guys doing outrageous stunts then rent a JACKASS or CRANK movie. This isn't like that. The movie is more about the tension between the two guys and how the competition of pulling off these dares brings out their old resentments and creates new ones. I found the movie to be pretty good. The acting was good across the board. I really liked this Pat Healy guy in COMPLIANCE and found him really good again here. He's one of those actors who may reach that Sam Rockwell status of everybody wondering why he isn't bigger. I remember this Ethan Embry guy from 90s teen movies where I think he always played the nice sweet guy, he did a good job playing a somewhat trashy loser here. And like I said, Koechner plays the same guy he always plays but in this movie he plays him more like a real guy than like the cartoon version he plays in ANCHORMAN or whatever. The movie's direction shows an excellent mastery of tone. The tone is always able to recover from the funny parts and become dark and tense again. So all and all, a good movie. A good little story.

[Spandau Belly]

THE RAID 2: BERANDAL

After redemption, comes the berandal. What is a berandal? Don't look at me, how the fuck would I know? Just because that word is in the title doesn't mean anybody ever says it or makes reference to it in the movie. I figure it's probably the name of the sleigh that the top gangster guy played with as a child or something. Oh, and I don't think there's really anything that qualifies as a raid in this movie either. But there is a kitchen staff of 20 to serve three guys.

This sequel is more ambitious in every way. The first film was just pure videogame exploitation of violent fighting, and with the sequel you get the feeling they're trying to make a real movie. This time you can tell they think they're making THE GODFATHER or something. There's a lot of plot and characterization, and most of it is done much better than you'd expect. It's just a long a movie, and looking back, it was longer than it needed to be. A lot of the scenes retread certain plot points or further enforce characterization that was already shown elsewhere.

They waste a bit too much time with undercover cop shit when the audience knows full well that this movie is not going to end in court. The audience really only has so much patience for watching the hero build his case and amass evidence when we know he's going to end up settling everything with his fists anyway. There's also this guy Reza who I think you see briefly at the start of the film, but then he's gone most of the movie but everybody keeps talking about him and I was trying to figure out who he was and if that was the last name of one of the guys we do see regularily. Then Reza comes back at the end and he's not really important. But like I said, seeing as I don't even remember the first film actually having any dialogue, it's impressive to see Evans growing as a filmmaker and being able to handle these types of non-fighting scenes. And the actors are generally pretty good considering.

There's also some artsy shit thrown in this time. Evans stages things more for stylistic effect this time. Again, not something you'd expect in a sequel to the first film. The most obvious example being when a character (Remorseful Hobo Estranged Father With A Machete [played by Mad Dog from the first film]) is assassinated in a night club. He looks down at his drink and then looks up to find the crowded night club has magically been evacuated. Assassins all pile in to fight him and he ultimately ends up dying outside on the street, which is covered in snow like a winter wonderland even though everything was green and tropical earlier that day and tropical again the next day.

But most importantly, the fighting is just insane. I have never seen such violent and so much fighting on screen in my life. These guys just fuck each other up without mercy or limits. The guy who serves as the final boss battle just has insane skills and these guys go at each other with little curved blades carving each other up like turkeys. I thought it was just going to be two skeletons fighting by the end the way they would slice each other's flesh off.

There's lots of funny action movie stuff. The funniest being a gangster who can afford ten bodyguards, yet still takes the metro. What, was a van too expensive? And when an assassin is sent to kill him, he's standing in the exact same funny pose hugging his briefcase like he is in her assassin file photo. Like if he just stood up straight and held his briefcase by his side, he might even go unrecognized.

I think the first film is overall better because it kept it simple, but this sequel is a fun movie. The fighting is just so crazy and Evans mixes it up with new environments and more stylish ways of staging scenes. If you liked the first one you should check out this one.

[Spandau Belly]

LOCKE

This is a movie in which Tom Hardy plays a construction site manager dealing with a crisis through the telephone in his car while driving. The entire movie is set in the car and Hardy is the only actor whose face you see, the rest are just voices calling him. With a setup like this, the film obviously hinges on Hardy's performance and the writing of the various exchanges he has over the telephone. I have somewhat mixed feelings about both those aspects of this movie.

The movie does a good job of establishing Hardy's character and how this particular crisis is the perfect storm. It hits him where he's emotionally the weakest at the worst possible time: on the eve of his greatest professional accomplishment. Hardy's character has major issues with his absentee loser drunk, now dead, father and bases his entire sense of self worth on being the exact opposite. Hardy has established himself as a reliable, hardworking man who loves his family. However he got drunk and had sex with a middle aged coworker for whom he felt sorry, and now the birth of the pityfuck baby happens to fall on the night when he should be at a construction site for a huge concrete pouring. Since Hardy was abondoned before birth by his own father, so he will not miss the birth of this child for anything because doing so would make him like the father he despises.

The writing is fairly natural, which brings with it the disadvantage that it isn't terribly memorable. In his dealings with his furious colleagues, things never get to that GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS type of stylized exciting shoutfest. The various problems that come up at the construction site are fairly realistic and not complicated movie thriller stuff. I can definitely see how many people would find some of it banal. The movie does do an effective job of putting pressure on this guy as he attempts to minimalize the consequences of his actions. Hardy's character is obviously driven by duty, and you can feel his personal responsibility and professionalism tugging him in opposite directions. But the problems aren't interesting in themselves.

That brings us to Hardy's performance. Hardy has for some reason tried to give this character a Welsh accent and ends up sounding like a weirdo vampire sometimes. So I guess this movie has the advantage of giving you an idea of what Vincent Price would be like as a construction foreman. I like Hardy as an actor, and I like that he frequently brings eccentric touches to his characters. He might be one of those actors for whom playing a normal guy is the hardest thing. And in this movie, Hardy's odd speech pattern is sometimes what makes the movie engaging and other times it feels like its throwing the movie off.

The film is made by Steven Knight, who typically writes movies that satisfy the checklists of action/thriller movies but also have a bit more thought put into them than other films of those genres. His last film before this was HUMMINGBIRD: REDEMPTION, an attempt at a more middlebrow Jason Statham flick. And now that I think of it, I think Statham is a more natural fit for the main character in LOCKE. I mean, the main character in LOCKE is a workingclass guy who's become a highly sought-after professional because he lives his life by a code and always delivers. Basically the type of character known as 'The Jason Statham Character'. I get that LOCKE has the gimmicky concept of one actor, one car, 90 minutes; and you need a prestige actor to sell that type of thing to the critics, but I think Statham would've been better.

All and all this movie is pretty good. I am glad I watched it. Like I said, none of the exchanges are particularly memorable. It's not a movie that is about its lines or its scenes or its twists, it works only as a whole and not as parts. That's fine by me.

[Spandau Belly]

TRACKS

In 1977 Robyn Davidson, a 27 year old woman, decided to make a trek across the deserts of West Australia. Her motives for this journey were vague even to herself. She supposes it was inspired by stories her father told her of treks he'd made across deserts in Africa when he was younger. Davidson was somewhat of a drifter, unable to complete any post-secondary education or hold a steady job. She had an anti-social character and didn't have a lot of friends. The research she did on her trek led her to the conclusion that she would require four camels and some gear, which she could not afford. She wrote a letter to National Geographic asking for sponsorship and they agreed on the condition that their photographer, an American named Rick Smolan, could meet up with her at various points in her trek and take photographs for a story in their magazine. Davidson's trek struck a cord with people around the world, and she expanded the National Geographic article into a full memoir. This film is an attempt to adapt that memoir and Rick Smolan's photography.

I quite liked this movie. Mia Wasikowska (speaking in her real accent) does a very good job of playing Davidson and the portrayal of her as difficult and anti-social but never self-pitying is what made this film engaging for me. In many ways it reminded me of GORILLAS IN THE MIST and the way that film portrayed Dian Fossey. Rick Smolan is played by Adam Driver doing a Dustin Hoffman impression. The film mostly show Davidson's journey as an internal one. She uses her trek for time and space to process feelings she has about her childhood, and the trek is a test of her mettle to actually do something seeing as she's been a slacker so far in her adult life. The film does also paint a portrait of Australia, although I don't feel like it's trying to make a big commentary about the state of the nation the way that American road trip films like EASY RIDER or TWO LANE BLACK TOP did.

The cinematography is very beautiful. They do a great job bringing Smolan's photography to life. Davidson makes for an interesting character and Wasikowska's performance is very strong, but I imagine a lot of people will have trouble relating to her. So I would say this is a really good journey movie.

[Spandau Belly]

A MOST WANTED MAN

Caught this last night and I can't believe how well John Le Carré's novels keep turning out as film adaptations. His work always feels like the type of stuff that will get mangled when they try to turn it into a movie. I mean, TAILOR OF PANAMA, THE CONSTANT GARDNER, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY? They're all top notch. A MOST WANTED MAN continues the winning streak.

This one deals with a small German espionage team in Hamburg, led by Phillip Seymor Hoffman. Hoffman's team are tracking two persons of interest while facing constant disruption from rival espionage groups, some of which are working against Hoffman's team because of ideological differences and some simply because of sheer ego.

The film is spoken almost entirely in English even though most of the characters are Germans, as are most of the actors. The non-German actors who are playing Germans affect German accents. Hoffman gives an excellent performance in the lead role as a man who is quick thinking, decisive, and confident in his actions but never showy.

So, like the other Le Carré adaptations, this is a tight, down to earth, slowburn espionage thriller with none of the silly twists or grandstanding theatrics you normally see in espionage films.

[TheBaxter]

GONE GIRL

i loved the book (like a lot of people) so was really looking forward to the film. and it lived up. it's hard to say how it plays for people unfamiliar with the book, especially when some of the surprises begin happening. i will say that, as someone who read the book, it really felt like they downplayed the "twist". like the book, the story takes a major change in direction at about the halfway point. at least, in reading the book, it felt like a much bigger switch than in the film. part of that is probably due to the fact that it just takes longer to read to that point of the book, so there's more buildup and more time spent with the characters up to that point, whereas in the film it's only like an hour before you get the rug pulled out from under you, and there's less time to absorb all the mounting evidence and think about all the red herrings. and some subplots out of necessary are left out or seemingly dropped on the cutting room floor (i'm thinking especially of nick's dad who in the book is a major red herring in the first half of the book, but in the movie has only one seemingly out of nowhere bizarre scene where he happens to be picked up by the police the night of amy's disappearance, and then we never see or hear from him again the rest of the film). but that said, it also seemed to me like a conscious style choice in how that change of direction is presented to make it feel as un-twisty as possible. i think in particular, the way the evidence of nick's guilt mounts up in those final pages before the switch, the whole time you're thinking "he CAN'T be guilty, it's too obvious" but by the time the truth of what really happened is revealed, it's almost impossible to think he's not guilty based on all the proof against him at that point; in the movie it still never reaches that point of near certainty.

but at the same time, the effectiveness of the film doesn't depend on how twisty the plot revelations feel. and maybe for someone unfamiliar with the story it really does come as big a surprise as it does in the book. this film is VERY true to the book, minus of course a few dropped subplots, minor characters and background detail that's inevitable in any adaptation. even the supposedly new ending is still essentially the same ending, just in a different context. they did a good job of handling the "he said/she said" aspects of the first half, without getting overly wordy with it; amy's journal entries begin with showing her writing in her journal, and then a flashback with some minimal narration, so it's clear we're getting her version of events. fincher's direction is spot-on as usual, the casting and acting is on the mark, everyone does a good job but especially carrie coon as nick's sister. so everything is well done. not as satisfying overall as the novel (and never expected it to be) but all in all i can't really imagine a better adaptation being done.

[so sorry]

Up until now I've considered this a "girl" movie, but that's based solely on my personal involvement with the book, which is to say my wife's book club read this book and she gushed about it, and they've all been talking about seeing the movie together (and of course they all love Ben Affleck). So its got that Book Club Book stink on it for me. That said, from everything I've read, its a good movie! I'm not invited to see it with the wife and her friends, so I'll have to check it out when it hits the cable market.

[caruso_stalker217]

This hasn't come to my little theater yet, which pisses me right off.

[Al Shut]

Up until now I've considered this a "girl" movie,

How could it not be, it even has the word in the title

[TheBaxter]

Up until now I've considered this a "girl" movie, but that's based solely on my personal involvement with the book, which is to say my wife's book club read this book and she gushed about it, and they've all been talking about seeing the movie together (and of course they all love Ben Affleck). So its got that Book Club Book stink on it for me. That said, from everything I've read, its a good movie! I'm not invited to see it with the wife and her friends, so I'll have to check it out when it hits the cable market.

well, it's written by a girl, and one of the main characters is a girl, and it has the word 'girl' in the title. but outside of that, i'd say it's definitely not a "girl" book or movie (by which i'm thinking shit like twilight or 50 shades of gray). i wouldn't let the "book club stink" scare you away. if book clubs are like a broken clock (they're still right twice a day), then this book would represent one of those two times.

[so sorry]

Up until now I've considered this a "girl" movie, but that's based solely on my personal involvement with the book, which is to say my wife's book club read this book and she gushed about it, and they've all been talking about seeing the movie together (and of course they all love Ben Affleck). So its got that Book Club Book stink on it for me. That said, from everything I've read, its a good movie! I'm not invited to see it with the wife and her friends, so I'll have to check it out when it hits the cable market.

well, it's written by a girl, and one of the main characters is a girl, and it has the word 'girl' in the title. but outside of that, i'd say it's definitely not a "girl" book or movie (by which i'm thinking shit like twilight or 50 shades of gray). i wouldn't let the "book club stink" scare you away. if book clubs are like a broken clock (they're still right twice a day), then this book would represent one of those two times.

Yeah apologies if my description was taken as an insult. I didn't mean it like its a chick flick per se. The books my wife reads for book club are never ones that interest me (think along the lines of Oprah books, or at least that's my perception). Like you said, written by a Girl, Girl in the title, featuring a Girl favorite actor...
If she wasn't intent on seeing this with her friends I'd probably go with her (looks like good "date night" fare).

[Ribbons]

SPOILERS BELOW

I can't remember whether this was covered in more detail in the book, but one of the things I was thinking while I was watching the movie is that I have a hard time believing that Amy's husband, and *especially* Amy's parents, were completely oblivious to the fact that she is literally a psychopath. I do understand that that's part of the point, she was a fantasy wife that didn't exist, her parents used the Amazing Amy books to make her into the daughter they wanted rather than the girl she was, etc., but just logistically, there were no red flags? Hell, even as the criminal mastermind adult she grew into, she couldn't resist spitting in a stranger's drink. I feel like there must have been a lot of visits to the principal in her past. But the only people who seem to realize that she's ill are her exes, and Nick's sister I guess. Again, yes, the point, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the story, but it's right on the edge for me.

[Spandau Belly]

Oh, and I caught THE DROP on the weekend. It was a solid little noir flick. It's fairly predictable, it's based on a short story and has that short story feel, but it's well-executed with excellent actors in the four main roles. Tom Hardy measures his performance out like a pro. It's the type of performance that is so well done you almost don't notice how well he's pulling it off. Matthias Schoenaerts is becoming the go-to guy to play these rage monsters. He's great at these types of roles, but I hope he's able to get roles beyond that typecasting because I know he has a broader range. Noomi isn't able to shake her Swedish accent, but she's good as the former crackhead who tried to commit suicide by stabbing herself in the neck with a potato peeler. She's the love interest. And Gandolfini plays a role we all knew he could play with his eyes closed.

Oh, and next time they adapt 'The Good Soldier Svejk', I want Tom Hardy to play Svjek.

Okay, go back to discussing GONE GIRL now.

[Tyrone_Shoelaces]

OK.

I liked the film a bunch but the second half doesn't work for me very well. After Ann gets to the cabin that part of the narrative loses focus and slows down. When Ellen Abbott is introduced it feels like they're going for a To Die For vibe but can't quite it get over It's OK To Laugh At This Hill and that's when I thought, "I wonder what John Waters would have done with this." I'm a huge Fincher fan and think his cold, analytical approach is great for procedurals and thrillers but when the flick hits the half-way mark the tone changes up a bit and not smoothly. In fact, I thought it was very jarring the way they switched narrators to make the big reveal. I haven't read a word Gillian Flynn has put to paper but I thought she did a fantastic job with the script. I loved the dialog. There are some excellent performances. Rosamund Pike. Holy shit, where have they been keeping her? Totally runs away with the show. Carrie Coon is fantastic as Margo. Casting Affleck is a bit of a stroke of genius. That smarmy guy from Mallrats who lost weight and got new teeth from Bruckheimer for Armageddon and was photographed every waking moment while dating that girl from the block? Yes, the proprietor of Fashionable Male got the trophy wife and is now in an extremely uncomfortable place and has to face the press. Great move there. So, yeah, I liked it but it's not one of my favorites from Fincher.

[TheBaxter]

SPOILERS BELOW

I can't remember whether this was covered in more detail in the book, but one of the things I was thinking while I was watching the movie is that I have a hard time believing that Amy's husband, and *especially* Amy's parents, were completely oblivious to the fact that she is literally a psychopath. I do understand that that's part of the point, she was a fantasy wife that didn't exist, her parents used the Amazing Amy books to make her into the daughter they wanted rather than the girl she was, etc., but just logistically, there were no red flags? Hell, even as the criminal mastermind adult she grew into, she couldn't resist spitting in a stranger's drink. I feel like there must have been a lot of visits to the principal in her past. But the only people who seem to realize that she's ill are her exes, and Nick's sister I guess. Again, yes, the point, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the story, but it's right on the edge for me.

from what i remember, everybody except her previous "victims" are pretty much oblivious to her sociopathology. they left out one character, a former childhood friend of Amy's who also eventually became a target of hers, and that backstory gave a lot of the insight into Amy's psychology in the book. her parents i'm pretty sure were aware of some of her early issues, they were former psychologists who became rich authors, but i think there was a willful denial too see how severe it was, and the books were part of that. also, i think the books may have partly caused or worsened her psychosis, something that is alluded to in the film too, because Amy saw this alternate version of herself who could be whatever she wanted to be, and so when she applied that to her own life, she basically changed her personality and identity to whatever suited her at the time, and then discarded it whenever it became inconvenient, like an old suit of clothes. she is very smart and very pretty and very manipulative and puts all that to good use. the planning of her disappearance alone (which definitely takes some suspension of disbelief, especially how eerily accurate her predictions of Nick's behaviour are and how much of her plan depends on him doing certain things exactly the way he does them) demonstrates the extent of her intellect. as for Nick himself, his character is very oblivious and just not very smart. he is easily fooled, and he sees in her what he wants to see. he also has a pathological need to please others and to be liked, and that plays a part in it as well, since he's more concerned with keeping up his own (less deceptive) persona than seeing through the cracks in hers.

OK.

I liked the film a bunch but the second half doesn't work for me very well. After Ann gets to the cabin that part of the narrative loses focus and slows down. When Ellen Abbott is introduced it feels like they're going for a To Die For vibe but can't quite it get over It's OK To Laugh At This Hill and that's when I thought, "I wonder what John Waters would have done with this." I'm a huge Fincher fan and think his cold, analytical approach is great for procedurals and thrillers but when the flick hits the half-way mark the tone changes up a bit and not smoothly. In fact, I thought it was very jarring the way they switched narrators to make the big reveal. I haven't read a word Gillian Flynn has put to paper but I thought she did a fantastic job with the script. I loved the dialog. There are some excellent performances. Rosamund Pike. Holy shit, where have they been keeping her? Totally runs away with the show. Carrie Coon is fantastic as Margo. Casting Affleck is a bit of a stroke of genius. That smarmy guy from Mallrats who lost weight and got new teeth from Bruckheimer for Armageddon and was photographed every waking moment while dating that girl from the block? Yes, the proprietor of Fashionable Male got the trophy wife and is now in an extremely uncomfortable place and has to face the press. Great move there. So, yeah, I liked it but it's not one of my favorites from Fincher.

the ellen abbott character is definitely over the top and a bit tonally dissonant with the rest of the film. she's obviously meant as a nancy grace surrogate, and a satirical take on the media, but they played her a little too broad.

[Spandau Belly]

LUCY

I caught this movie and I quite enjoyed it. This film follows Lucy, a modern day monkey (played by model/singer/actress/avenger ScarJo). She's an American party girl in China. She parties a bunch and wakes up standing in front of a hotel in mid-conversation. She then becomes a drug mule, but the drugs give her superpowers, which level up throughout the movie.

Though a series of gunfights and car chases she progesses towards supreme enlightenment. Supreme enlightment happens to be the films BARAKA and SAMSARA, which I've already seen, so no homework for me, bitchez!!! She ultimately transforms into a USB device, so this might just be a prequel to HER, in which case this is one of the best prequels ever. If not, they can save on the sequel by not having to pay ScarJo to come back. Maybe the sequel will be a KNIGHTRIDER thing with Morgan Freeman driving around in a car and ScarJo speaking to him through the sound system.

This movie has lots for me to love. For starters, it's violent. I don't know if it's what they call "a hard R", but it was rated 'R' and I was hard, and that's good enough for me. When people get shot and stabbed, blood comes out, just like it should. Also, Luc Besson. This guy knows how to film action. He knows just where to place a camera and when to make a cut. Besson can build a scene and a sequence like few others. His understanding of kinetics is just so natural. He knows how to handle escalation to keep things engaging. The opening scene you watch things go from annoying to creepy to dangerous to terrifying for poor Lucy and I was just sold from there on out. And he can also change tone on a dime without it feeling jarring. When Michael Bay tries to insert broad comedy into intense action I just find it clashing and brash, but Besson can do it and it works.

I'm going to also say that ScarJo really impressed me this time out. I've never liked her in action roles or big blockbuster movies. I find her acting style very low energy and she usually lacks the intesity needed to stand out among lots of noise. I thought she was miscast in THE ISLAND. I thought she was miscast in THE AVENGERS. But she really delivered here. This is the most energetic I've ever seen her. I also thought she got Christopher Walken's delivery down pat for the DEAD ZONE moment that happens late in the film.

The supporting cast is made up of Oh-Dae "Oldboy" Su and Morgan Freeman. Oldboy isn't given the quarks usually assigned to a Luc Besson villain, but his screen presence is put to good use and he flaunts his arrogance in style. Freeman's performance (finish this sentence yourself, you know how).

I'm really surprised at what a hard time this movie got from critics. Mostly they bashed the movie science premise. It seems a movie about a teenager who gets bit by a radioactive spider and becomes super strong with heightened senses is plausible. A movie about a monkey who sprays other monkeys with alzheimers medication and they take over the world is plausible. A movie where Leonardo DiCaprio uploads himself into videogame scenarios in people's brains to play with a dreidel in front of his dead wife is plausible. But for some reason a movie about a chick who gets superpowers from a drug overdose is beyond some people's suspension of disbelief. That's not to say that this movie isn't as ridiculous as most other superhero/sci-fi blockbuster movies. It is just as ridiculous. I think if LUCY had been based on some comic book or something, people would've just walked into this movie having already accepted the premise.

So I definitely liked this movie a lot more than most. Maybe Besson's sensibilities really speak to me more than other audiences. I found this to be a fun superhero action flick.

[so sorry]

From what I remember, the criticism about the "science" behind this movie was over that "people only use 10%of their brain" business. Science-type people hate that false claim.

[Al Shut]

I must confess I never really understood the difference between 'people only use 10% of their brain, let's imagine if it were more' and 'let's imagine people would use only 10% of their brains and then discover how to use more'.

And Lucy looks sounds more and more like a movie I'll check out as soon as it hits DVD and not wait until it gets cheap.

[Spandau Belly]

I get that if you actually work in neuroscience this theory presents a point of contention. But, it just seems like an odd thing to make a dealbreaker when watching a superhero movie.

[Peven]

Probably because it perpetuates a commonly believed falsehood that affects how people understand how their own mind works how see their potential, which furthers an inaccurate concept of how the brain works and ignorance of our true nature and ability. To my knowledge there isn't that much of a problem with people being misinformed about the effects of a radioactive spider bite.

[Ribbons]

It's definitely not a dealbreaker for me; I think Lucy looks like dumb fun and plan on seeing it eventually.

But speaking as one of the people who is annoyed by the basic premise, I think it's because people in general seem to think that whole 10% thing is true, which is kind of scary. The idea that using every part of your brain at once would make a god or something is such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the brain actually is that it's insane. The beauty of the radioactive spider scenario in Spider-Man is that they don't even bother to explain how or why it works. It's just the bare minimum needed to move the plot along. So why couldn't they have just made the drug in Lucy some kind of unspecified wonderdrug? Because the people who wrote it probably think the 10% thing is true, too. But I'm still interested in the movie, like I said.

[TheButcher]

The beauty of the radioactive spider scenario in Spider-Man is that they don't even bother to explain how or why it works. It's just the bare minimum needed to move the plot along.

Spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man & The Amazing Spider-Man 2:
Parker's blood made the spider special.

[Spandau Belly]

I think it's because people in general seem to think that whole 10% thing is true, which is kind of scary. The idea that using every part of your brain at once would make a god or something is such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the brain actually is that it's insane.

Meh. Earlier this year I saw the film NOAH well aware that half the world thinks it's a true story. I find that crazy, but I don't really care, and it didn't get in the way of me enjoying the story. It's just that for me it was fantasy. So if there's a bunch of people out there who think that if they concentrate or something that they can become Yoda, it doesn't really bother me.

But I realize different people draw the line at different places as to responsible filmmaking or responsible fiction.

So why couldn't they have just made the drug in Lucy some kind of unspecified wonderdrug?

They do and they don't. The drug in the movie is fictitious. However, the drug itself is also overly explained as being a synthesized version of a hormone active in babies while they're in the womb. They explain that the overdose has stimulated a stage of rapid developement in Lucy similiar to a baby in the womb. So you'd think that would maybe mean that by the one hour point in this film, that Lucy would either be 8 metres tall or look one thousand years old. It makes for a very funny scene in which drug mules' handler asks for input on the marketing campaign of this new drug, but I think the movie would've been better off to leave the new drug unexplained seeing as the explaination just leads to more nonsense movie science.

the people who wrote it probably think the 10% thing is true

Besson has stated during promotion for the film that he is well aware that the 10% theory is bogus, he just felt it made for a good story the same way you don't have to believe in ghosts to write a good ghost story.

Spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man & The Amazing Spider-Man 2:

Lucy's parents worked for Oscorp!!!

[Ribbons]

I think the thing that bothered me most at the time was that commercial with Morgan Freeman explaining all the milestones of Lucy's evolution: "At 24% she can control matter, at 40% she can time-travel, yadda yadda." What!? Where are you even getting that from!? Is he supposed to be like a brain percentage-ologist or something?

[Spandau Belly]

He's played a lot of videogames to fine tune those levelling up theories.

Seriously though, I think this movie would really piss you off the same way it seems to have pissed most people off and maybe you shouldn't even bother watching it.

[Ribbons]

It might, I don't know. I'm exaggerating my annoyance a little bit. As long as the action's on-point I probably won't be too pissed off.

[TheBaxter]

ScarJo harnessing 100% of the power of her brain doesn't seem that impressive.
ScarJo harnessing 100% of the power of DAT ASS, on the other hand...

[caruso_stalker217]

JOHN WICK

Pretty damn good. This John Wick fellow (like another John we know) is quite the death artist and makes Creasy look like the slow kid eating fingerpaint at the back of the classroom. He shoots a lot of people in the head and does the MMA moves like people do in movies these days. The film is stylish and full of nice colors to look at, like when Mr. Wick goes to Ian McShane's social club for People-Fucker-Uppers. Lots of greens and reds. There is also a well-executed shootout/asskicking scene set in a techno club with lots of flashing lights and lasers like they have in the movies these days.

The story is about as unoriginal as they come, but it's all in the execution. This is just a really well made movie and they pile on the silliness gradually. Unfortunately, the line "That dog was a final gift from my dying wife" does not make it into the film. A less ludicrous version is used instead, but that's okay. The villain is the guy who played Daniel Craig in the original DRAGON TATTOO GIRL pictures, playing a Russian like the badguys tend to be in the movies these days (see THE EQUALIZER). He is a much better Russian here than he was in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 4 where he played a boring guy doing boring things. Here he gets to have a personality and some funny reactions and he gets to punch Keanu Reeves and stuff.

Willem Dafoe.

One of my favorite moments was when I realized one of the Russian henchman was played by a guy I just saw playing a Russian henchman in THE EQUALIZER and I only recognized him because he has the same crazy mustache in both movies.

Keanu gives a better-than-Keanu performance here. He's really good at playing unkillable dudes that the very mention of his name makes mob bosses want to shit themselves. There is an early scene where he has to cry and look at a puppy and he can really only do one or the other so he just looks at the puppy and makes crying sounds but no tears come out. Not a bad effort, but I think he could have squeezed out one tear at least.

Everyone is really well-dressed in this movie.

So clear shot action, not taking itself too seriously, a cold-blooded professional taking motherfuckers out in highly-choreographed fight sequences, good performances across the board, stylishly-shot, and with one of those good driving soundtracks with the UNH-UNH-UNH and the GSH-GSH-GUH-GSH-GSH and occasional Marilyn Manson song make this a must-see for all OLEGers and Keanu-enthusiasts.

[Spandau Belly]

Willem Dafoe.

I saw THE FAULT IN OUR STARS a few weeks ago. It's the movie where two teenagers dying of cancer get to go on this dream vacation to Amsterdam and meet their favourite author because a charity pays for it. The movie progresses along like a Diablo Cody version of BEFORE SUNRISE with them saying cutsie-poo things as they stroll around romantic European scenary. But then they meet their favourite author and he's played by Willem Dafoe. It turns out he's a bipolar asshole who tells them the world coddles sick kids too much, he calls them a pair of retarded walking abortions, then puts on Swedish rap music and dances around. I haven't been caught off guard by a scene in a movie like that in a long time.

[caruso_stalker217]

Willem Dafoe.

I saw THE FAULT IN OUR STARS a few weeks ago. It's the movie where two teenagers dying of cancer get to go on this dream vacation to Amsterdam and meet their favourite author because a charity pays for it. The movie progresses along like a Diablo Cody version of BEFORE SUNRISE with them saying cutsie-poo things as they stroll around romantic European scenary. But then they meet their favourite author and he's played by Willem Dafoe. It turns out he's a bipolar asshole who tells them the world coddles sick kids too much, he calls them a pair of retarded walking abortions, then puts on Swedish rap music and dances around. I haven't been caught off guard by a scene in a movie like that in a long time.

Sounds like a gas.

[TheBaxter]

Willem Dafoe.

I saw THE FAULT IN OUR STARS a few weeks ago. It's the movie where two teenagers dying of cancer get to go on this dream vacation to Amsterdam and meet their favourite author because a charity pays for it. The movie progresses along like a Diablo Cody version of BEFORE SUNRISE with them saying cutsie-poo things as they stroll around romantic European scenary. But then they meet their favourite author and he's played by Willem Dafoe. It turns out he's a bipolar asshole who tells them the world coddles sick kids too much, he calls them a pair of retarded walking abortions, then puts on Swedish rap music and dances around. I haven't been caught off guard by a scene in a movie like that in a long time.

i had no interest whatsoever in this film.... until now.

[Spandau Belly]

NIGHTCRAWLER

I caught this film last night. The trailer gave me a BRINGING OUT THE DEAD kind of feeling. The film had a bit of Scorcese in it, the main character definitely has a Rupert Pupkin quality to him. But NIGHTCRAWLER is not quite as goofy and overthetop as BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. The movie had more of a David Ayer feeling I would say. A lot more like HARSH TIMES and TRAINING DAY than it was Scorcese.

The film is a character piece revolving around Jake Gyllenhaal as a weirdo who speaks in a mishmash of business school lingo and motivational speaker jabber that he has picked up from spending his days reading on the internet. He stumbles upon the world of independent news footage gathering. He scans police frequencies and shows up at scenes of crimes and disasters to film them, then sells the footage to local news shows. The film doesn't waste much time before he starts manipulating events to make them more sensational. The film wisely keeps the commentary on the backburner and focuses on the character. Gyllenhaal's performance is committed and sincere. He really plays this guy with no irony and mostly carries the movie by seeming like he really believes his own delusions.

I found this film very engaging. It does an excellent job of staging dangerous situations in a way that feels realistic. The various shootouts and car chases feel like the real thing and not like something from an action movie. These scenes are always tense and thrilling, usually played out in real time.

The cinematography is the same as prettymuch every movie about driving around Los Angeles that has been made since HEAT. You've seen this city shot this way a million times before in every Michael Mann and David Ayer joint, but why mess with success?

I would say this is a very good movie. It builds well and achieves tension many times, but also has some very humorous exchanges between Gyllenhaal and the hobo he hires to be his assistant. The social commentary about media sensationalism is not too preachy. I would recommend this film to most people.

[Ribbons]

JOHN WICK

Pretty damn good.

I found myself pretty out of the loop on this one. It's been getting a lot of hype, not just here, but everywhere it seems. I went to see it about a week ago and thought it was just okay. The action was well-choreographed and filmed, but it's like how many people can you watch get shot in the head in one movie and not start to go cross-eyed. Keanu was Keanu.

Am I missing something here? I did like the secret society of hitpersons, with their swanky hotel. That part was fun.

[so sorry]

JOHN WICK

Pretty damn good.

I found myself pretty out of the loop on this one. It's been getting a lot of hype, not just here, but everywhere it seems. I went to see it about a week ago and thought it was just okay. The action was well-choreographed and filmed, but it's like how many people can you watch get shot in the head in one movie and not start to go cross-eyed. Keanu was Keanu.

Am I missing something here? I did like the secret society of hitpersons, with their swanky hotel. That part was fun.

So the last two Keanu flicks (John Wick and that 24 Ronin thing) have both managed to get me excited from their trailers, but ultimately I haven't seen either, and the more reviews I read the more I'm happy I didn't. Maybe Keanu should just make 2 minute trailers, not feature length movies?

[caruso_stalker217]

JOHN WICK

Pretty damn good.

I found myself pretty out of the loop on this one. It's been getting a lot of hype, not just here, but everywhere it seems. I went to see it about a week ago and thought it was just okay. The action was well-choreographed and filmed, but it's like how many people can you watch get shot in the head in one movie and not start to go cross-eyed. Keanu was Keanu.

Am I missing something here? I did like the secret society of hitpersons, with their swanky hotel. That part was fun.

Maybe I just watched it at the right time and in the right frame of mind and very soon after watching the similarly similar THE EQUALIZER, which I felt didn't quite live up to its potential.