What I've Been Watching: The Catch-All Film Thread

Mythica A Quest for Heroes (2015)
Watched it as a lazy Sunday afternoon flick, what with Kevin Sorbo in it and all (though he didn't have much of a role). Had hoped it was more like Hercules. All in all it was pretty bad ;) and I'd give it 5-6 of 10. Even so I might watch the sequel some other Sunday afternoon.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
3,486
Finally saw the Force Awakens yesterday. Nice large theater at the Hollywood Grauman's Chinese Theater complex with Dolby ATMOS sound and funky D-BOX motion seats. No 3D.

The sound was too loud, and the motion seats too distracting (so I turned mine off).

The movie itself was visually good but the overarching plot was a direct copy-paste from episode IV (which seems to be the norm for all "new" media nowadays) and the planetary settings mostly a copy paste from episodes IV, and V. A let down for me. The new characters and their stories were new and interesting (except for the bad guy). But, I found Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher's acting a bit wooden. The little comical bits with the new droid BB-8 and Chewie were mostly cute and well done.

Overall a fun romp. But not spellbinding like the original episodes. Too many things bothered me. In particular, how soon the main character learns to use the force and a lightsaber (without training).

Apparently this movie's success will lead to quite a few more offering in the Star Wars universe in the next few years. Let the milking commence. :)

Disney planning 10 new Star Wars films after The Force Awakens' huge success?
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Quite a few titles to mention this month, some well worth a watch that you likely have never seen or even heard of, but many duffers that left me cold, including ones many others find great.

Following on from my previous complaints about unwatchable movies directed by someone called Richard Lister I have found the exact same problem with someone called Paul Matthews. Just absolutely dire shite that would be hard to watch on a saturday morning as a child. I started watching The Little Unicorn (2002) only to give-up about half-way through which led to me not even wanting to try The Magic Door (2007). 4.7 and 4.2 respectively on IMDB.

For any of you ladies out there wanting to watch a good romance movie, but are forever demotivated by an unwilling male partner, I can recommend Charlotte Gray (2001) starring Cate Blanchett. It's set during the Second World War and sees Blanchett become a spy behind enemy lines in order to find her lover, who was shot down during a routine flight operation above France. She finds both physical and emotional danger as she becomes embroiled in the French resistance and especially its attractive leader. Also a good movie for guys to recommend to their partners without having to get too bored, especially fans of Michael Gambon (now famous for the Gambon Corner on Top Gear). 6.4 on IMDB

Now on to the controversy/rants:

Ben Hur (1959). Yeah, it's a good movie. It's also a really shite movie. It's two movies in one… literally. That's why it's so loooong. 3.5 hours! It's one half standard revenge story, just like Gladiator, but it's also one half Jesus movie, complete with a Sermon on the Mount scene and crucifixion scene. The regular bog-standard revenge movie was awesome, 10/10, with Charlton Heston vs Jack Hawkins being a true clash of the titans. The religious movie clap-trap was 1/10 unwatchable bilge. What's worse is that the revenge movie ends at the 2 hour 50 mark and then you get another 40 minutes of lepers because… well… why not? Any sane editor could make a near perfect 2 hour Gladiator-like movie out of this filmic gluttony, instead the great aspects were killed dead by over-dramatic prattle. 8.1 on IMDB and won 11 oscars at the time, I'd give it a 6.0 and maybe a few technical oscars.

I also saw Mr & Mrs Bridge (1990), 6.7 on IMDB and Darling (1965), 7.2 on IMDB, both of which turned out to be almost entirely plotless movies. Really… no central plot, just central themes amidst a sea of snippets of life. Movies about eras rather than movies about… well, anything. The former is an early Merchant Ivory production about the 1930s depression era USA with Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, and the latter is the swinging sixties in the UK with Julie Christie, Dirk Bogarde and Lawrence Harvey. In both cases its a classic case of being able to watch great actors read the phone book, there's no other enjoyment here, it's just great actors being great actors. Unless you have some personal experience of the eras of the lives depicted, there's nothing else to watch here. For me, the actors/settings are 10/10 in both, but the actual movies are both 5/10s. No idea what I'd rate them as a total, maybe base 6/10s.

Now my actual picks/recommendations for March:

The Prince and the Pauper (2000) might only be a TV movie, but it actually surprisingly entertaining. I started off thinking it would be shite as it seemed to project the same style as those first mentioned in this post. However, this movie had genuine charm, some genuine laugh out loud comedy and barely any forced contrivances. I wasn't a fan of Antony Quinn nor his story-line in this, but every other actor seems to be fantastic, from the twins themselves to the Alan Rickman-like comedy villain who presents himself towards the end. I'll be honest, I wanted to skip the last 10 minutes, as it was the usual contrivance shite dragged out for irritation reasons, but this only irked because the movie had done so well up until that point. 7 out of 10 movie for me. Has a 6.7 on IMDB.

The Wooden Horse (1950) is the original WW2 escape movie, the one pre-The Great Escape, pre-Escape From Colditz and pre-Escape To Victory. It hasn't aged particularly well, and even as a born and bred englishman I was thinking about turning the subtitles on for many of the characters, but other than that it is a very well made and acted piece made all the more relevant by its being based on a true story and the screenplay being written by the original book's author. The movie is a movie of two halves, the first being in the prison camp planning the escape and the second is the trial and tribulations of trying to get to Sweden. Some consider the camp half the boring half while others find the on-the-run half the boring half, but I found them both equally compelling. 7 out of 10 movie for me and also a dead 7 on IMDB.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Two films, separate stories, same duo:

Detective K: Secret of Virtuous Widow
(2011)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832381/

Detective K: Secret of the Lost Island (2015)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4505170/

Got to it because I'm Dal-su Oh #1 fan. He's one of those actors that are able to make even the most boring movie watchable because they have some charisma that makes things look more interesting than perhaps should be. I'm sure you know what am I talking about, but if not, tell me have you ever seen a boring movie with Vincent Cassel. Or Denzel Washington. Sure, not all are great, but none of them is boring.

Anyway, I hate animals in movies (pets or mobs, doesn't matter). Also, I avoid modern comedies like a plague, either they turn out to be a yawner or a tragedy.

The first movie contains dogs. Both movies contain comedy.
And I laughed like crazy (not all the time, these are supposed to be crimesolving puzzlers!), not to mention that I admit without those dogs the first movie wouldn't be half as fun.

In a time where theatres are full of mainstream mediocrity, usually stuff you are ashamed in front of friends if you didn't go alone or stuff you're defending in front of them just so they don't feel bad although your gut tells you it sucked, it's a rare thing to pinpoint a rental that can not only entertain you solo or in a company, but titles you can safely suggest anyone to see.

These are not masterpieces, but above average crimesolving comedies Hollywood seems forgot how to make (I mean I don't think Eddie Murphy died) and both deserve at least 7/10. As such are rare gems you should not skip.

Highly recommended for every occassion, even if it's only to cheer you up.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Deadpool. First Marvel movie in a long time that I have enjoyed. Very funny. Not for kids
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
92
Yeah, deadpool was a good movie for sure. I'm delighted it's been a huge success but I really hope that doesn't mean every man and his dog try to copy it, I would tire of that sense of humour very quickly if I was inundated with it.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Don't you worry, once you see Hentai Kamen (I've linked it in one of previous posts), you'll forget about Deadpool and everything similar.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Hentai Kamen is not a cartoon. And is certainly not pornography.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Batman Vs Superman

I knew going into this that reviews were awful. But I had some time to burn and wanted to satiate my curiosity.

Who the hell wrote this thing? The script jumps around so damn much between plot and dream sequences that you're left with not even wanting to get involved in the story (as it is). This is in between trying to make sense of multiple disparate plot lines that never converge into anything coherent. That Senate Hearing for Superman you've seen in trailers? That plotline just stops. Furthermore, entire scenes are obviously cut out and the movie is left with omniscient characters that know WTF is going on more than you do.

The Justice League references are contrived and forced into the film simply to lead up to DC's film universe. Lex Luthor has been turned into Joker 2.0. The only good part of the film that actually had me intrigued was Wonder Woman - and she's barely in it.

The worst part of all this? Despite being an awful movie, it is leeching off the Superman (and Batman) legacy - just like the mundane Man of Steel before it. People go to see this, as I did, because of what came before - not because of its inherent quality. If some decent writers aren't sought for the Justice League spinoffs, the whole DC comic universe will be a giant pile of this contrived and disjointed schlock.

A generous 6/10
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
Hail Caesar.

Not even sure what I would rate this movie. I have always been a fan of the Coen brother movies but this. Anyways I am sorry I watched it.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
As usual I refused to go watch it.

Coen brothers, good. A movie about Hollywood's past, bad. I just avoid movies about history, and this is supposed to be it.
I'm kinda bored with history, if I wanted it, I'd have studied archaeology. Gimme fantasy instead.
And it's about Hollywood, a place that was capable of making Casablanca and One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest then degenerated into hundreds of Transformers. Why should I watch an evolution of decadence?

Maybe I rent it sometime in the future because Coens make best movies.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
As usual I refused to go watch it.

Coen brothers, good. A movie about Hollywood's past, bad. I just avoid movies about history, and this is supposed to be it.
I'm kinda bored with history, if I wanted it, I'd have studied archaeology. Gimme fantasy instead.
And it's about Hollywood, a place that was capable of making Casablanca and One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest then degenerated into hundreds of Transformers. Why should I watch an evolution of decadence?

Maybe I rent it sometime in the future because Coens make best movies.

Yes it is about old Hollywood and evil Communist but there is nothing to the story. I don't know if they needed 8 more hours of film time. Just not what I expect from them at all. It was unpolished, nothing special and just lost in general.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
I've seen some great movies recently, but I'll cover those another day, once I've let my memory help me decide which are the ones best worth highlighting.

Today I just want to complain about The Wolf Of Wall Street (2013).

I've wanted to see this since it was released but have just not got round to it. I missed the cinema release for reasons I've long since forgotten and I don't buy new DVDs/rentals at $10/$20 unless it's a gift. What I have managed to do is go this whole time without catching a single spoiler. All I knew was that it was about a Wall Street character starring Di Caprio and made by Martin Scorsese, to which it was lauded as a worthy Oscar movie and has a blindingly good IMDB rating/reviews (currently 8.2).

Now having watched it I'm a bit flabbergasted as to what all the positivity is about. It's a thoroughly uninteresting biopic of someone who doesn't really warrant a biopic. Well, I say that, but a good movie maker can make a good biopic of anyone. Literally anyone. That isn't what we have here. What we have here is lots of swearing, drug taking and nudity padding out a short story of a salesman who got rich quick.

I would have been more interested if the movie had tried to be an insightful look into the culture of Wall Street. And this is what it promised with its opening section. But that gets dropped like a stone and the story ceases being a window into Wall Street and what we did see of Wall Street was just a couple of brokers hyperboling each other - while taking drugs.

I would have been more interested if the movie had tried to be an insightful look into the concept of wealth and how we acquire it and what the boundaries are for this activity. And this is what is promised in the next part of the movie as Di Caprio enters full used car salesman terratory. But this gets dropped like a stone and the movie ceases to be interested in the fine details of where his money comes from.

I would have been more interested if the movie was about how the FBI finally caught up with him and what the workings of the state are in relation to characters like this. And this is what is promised with the inclusion of an introduced character from the FBI. But this is dropped like a stone and the movie ceases to be interested in the on-going investigation of the Wolf.

I would have been more interested if the movie was just about the daily life of the Wolf, his likes and loves, his pains and hatreds, his general motivation and, heck, even just his viewpoint generally, which the movie does try to touch on. But this tends to form background asides to whatever the main thrust of the 'story' is.

While all the above is touched upon with various scenes, there's no specific focus on any of it. The main focus of the movie's rather unwarranted 3 hour run time is just swearing, drugs and nudity, no different to a filler episode in Game of Thrones.

Some of the drug taking scenes are warranted, but mostly it's just a Cheech and Chong movie - Cheech and Chong Take Wall Street. It's played for laughs and only laughs and there's never any indication of downers, you only ever see the highs. Even when something excruciatingly tragic happens, it's played for laughs. That's fair enough, but then why not make the whole movie in the same style? We interrupt this supposedly serious Oscar bait movie to bring you Cheech and Chong?

Some of the sex/nudity scenes are warranted, but mostly it's just titillation for the sake of titillation, as if a 14 year old was given access to the script and told to add bits that he might find 'hilarious'. There are no female characters in the movie who provide non-sexualised content. Even the domestic situations are always played out with the overhang of either sex or drugs. When, near the end, we get a brief glimpse of Di Caprio possibly 'caring(?)' about his daughter it's a case of "oh, where did that come from? Are we suddenly supposed to think he has life motivation from his daughter?".

Some of the bad language is warranted, it's even given a justification in the first part of the movie, but, buy the end of the movie, you can't help but have this insatiable desire to hear just one line of regular dialogue. Anything. Heck, just buying a burger or something where he would speak without swearing. It's like Tourrettes - The Movie.

Add on top of this the fact that none of the characters are likeable. They're not even crime-caper likeable rogues. It's a case of just watching asshats be asshats.

And some people claim this is the whole point. The movie isn't crappy because… it's a metaphor for our crappy world therefore it's genius, not crappy. Well, no, no it's not. It's not anything, and when it does try to be something it uses the cop-out of ambiguity to avoid making any kind of point.

There are entertaining scenes, but the whole is not entertaining. There are dramatic scenes but the whole is not at all dramatic, it's not a drama unfolding. There are hilarious scenes, but it's not a comedy, it asks you to take it seriously. But what exactly am I supposed to take seriously? I have no idea.

Is it just a fun romp of a movie? Yes. But at 3 hours long…. again, no it's not.

Now, don't get me wrong, the acting is superb, Di Caprio was perfect in the role, as were his friends and wives, even the FBI guy. The sets were great and some of the set-pieces were superb. Many scenes are perfect youtube videos to be replayed for eternity. But the whole movie?

It's a textbook example of a movie not being the sum of its parts. A disparate collage of random scenes bunched together and presented as a whole unit leaving you wondering why anyone bothered to make a movie about this bloke, the Wolf of Wall Street, at least, make it in the way that they did. I agree with one post I read where someone described it as Scorsese does Adam Sandler… 6.5/10
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Wow, that is a bit rough, I actually do think they managed to get several good points across with this movie. I can totally understand if you think it didn't get into the depth on one topic and jump around a lot. But it is tough if you make a 3 hours movie, and want to cover a story which could easily be 30 hours of material.

Here are some examples:

1. They explained in a very good way so almost anyone could understand how brokers from wall street trick normal workers who know nothing about finance out of their money.

2. They explain how the brokers earned money by buying stocks in a IP they themselves are introducing.

3. They explained the culture of the company, and how those people all were hard to crack by the gouverment.

4. They showed a life totally de-attached from normal peoples reality, where everything is about entertainment and earning money. Not about taking responsibility for anything. It gives a good picture of what wall-street was like at that time.

5. I think the "Sell me this pen" anthology works very well in explaining in how some people by using the right words can sell anyone anything, and they tied it off very well in the end too.

All in all I still see what you mean, but I think you give it a bit too little credit, I would think it deserves at least 7/10. It does still tie off the key moment of the guys life in a good way as well.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Any biography of anyone could be 1 hour long or 30 hours long. It depends entirely on what you want to use the time for and which aspect of their life you're concentrating on. A 'proper' biography would be 80 years long...

1 - That took all of 5 minutes of movie time, and the thrust of that section of the movie was showing how amazing a salesman he was which made all the crappy salesmen worship him. The details of what he was actually doing was literally a few lines of dialogue.

2 - Again, they gave you a few lines about Madden shoes, five minutes of movie time max. The main thrust of that section was to provide Di Caprio more opportunities to make speeches and show how the crappier salesmen worshiped him.

3 - It didn't explain at all why it was hard for the FBI to crack down on them, I have no idea what you're referencing here. They had a few scenes showing a basic broad brushstroke of how the company works, but, no, you never saw anything beyond broad brushstrokes.

4 - I didn't see it as a life detached from reality, there are no scenes or direction which suggest they are separated from humanity, that is something you've inferred from something unknown to me. There have always been rich playboys, always, what's 'unreal' about that?

5 - The ending was a collection of unending epilogues. I have no idea why "sell me this pen" was the closing scene, it's a standard speech you'd hear if you go to any sales seminar. Glengary Glenross did that whole seminar thing 100x better decades ago. So he's a good salesman? So what?

I appreciate what you're saying, I agree with you that it's not a top rated movie, but I don't really understand what you're saying in your points.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Today I just want to complain about The Wolf Of Wall Street (2013).
Do you live or work at Wall Street?
No?

For what exact reason you watched that movie then?
Because DiCaprio? You loved him in Titanic?
Or because the story is (according to imdb) "Based on the true story of Jordan Belfort". You plain adore films based on true stories, wait, ain't that Titanic again?
I've never watched Titanic nor will. The same thing goes for Wall Street Wolf.

Man, if you'll blindly follow mainstream, your choice, but you shouldn't complain then.
It's still possible you deliberately watched a mainstream drama just to complain knowing it just can't be good as if was ment for niche audience like Inception or Shutter Island, but I don't think your trolling skills are on that level. Currently. :p
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I know you have language issues joxer, but that post was bad on all kinds of levels, even by your standards. I explain quite clearly in my original post what I would have enjoyed watching in the movie and why the movie doesn't work in that way. And, yes, movies about Wall Street are an interesting topic for movies and, yes, having good actors and directors is appealing, and, no, the Wolf of Wall Street is not a mainstream movie. I'm delighted you're still having personal problems with Titanic and that you're still posting about it in discussions 20 years later, but the world's moved on…
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Any biography of anyone could be 1 hour long or 30 hours long. It depends entirely on what you want to use the time for and which aspect of their life you're concentrating on. A 'proper' biography would be 80 years long…

1 - That took all of 5 minutes of movie time, and the thrust of that section of the movie was showing how amazing a salesman he was which made all the crappy salesmen worship him. The details of what he was actually doing was literally a few lines of dialogue.

2 - Again, they gave you a few lines about Madden shoes, five minutes of movie time max. The main thrust of that section was to provide Di Caprio more opportunities to make speeches and show how the crappier salesmen worshiped him.

3 - It didn't explain at all why it was hard for the FBI to crack down on them, I have no idea what you're referencing here. They had a few scenes showing a basic broad brushstroke of how the company works, but, no, you never saw anything beyond broad brushstrokes.

4 - I didn't see it as a life detached from reality, there are no scenes or direction which suggest they are separated from humanity, that is something you've inferred from something unknown to me. There have always been rich playboys, always, what's 'unreal' about that?

5 - The ending was a collection of unending epilogues. I have no idea why "sell me this pen" was the closing scene, it's a standard speech you'd hear if you go to any sales seminar. Glengary Glenross did that whole seminar thing 100x better decades ago. So he's a good salesman? So what?

I appreciate what you're saying, I agree with you that it's not a top rated movie, but I don't really understand what you're saying in your points.

Ahh, well, here we go again, let us see if we can try to understand each other :)

I was trying to bring across the point that while the movie do have the problem of being divided into "sketches" that appear quite disconnected to each other. I do still think it does manage to tell the whole story, although you might need to do some of the connecting yourself, I don't really mind that, if I movie is to explain everything in great detail to the viewer it becomes quite dull in my opinion, on the other hand it can't feel too lose either.

1. I don't think the amount of lines is what matters here, a good director don't need a lot of lines to explain something in a good way. I think it was brilliantly done in showing how, he made out a small startup, look like the next McDonalds, what more would you need here, a record of each such a call, it'd basically be the same thing over and over again.

2. Is connected to one, because he realised that people who know finance and have a lot of money, can be tricked in a quite similar fashion to the ordinary workers with little money, and it can be much more profitable. But he is not even satisfied there, he also want to trick the wall-street system by using companies that could not be connected to his main company.

3/4. In order to do this he needed to create a following of people, who kept everything among themselves, and if their free-time where focused on wild partying drugs and hookers they'd not have much time to reflect, or build a stable family or other things, which could give people second thoughts and perhaps make them talk to the FBI. In order to this he created a lifestyle and culture, which is quite far from most people's everyday life, of course you could be living such a life and for you it does not appear detached from the life of normal people. The idea is that his firms would have the craziest party and do the crazies stuff and so on, and the people should always hunt the next thrill and need more money to pay for it. Of course they took this part over the top, but it is not detached from the rest.

5. The end part is after he was released from prison, without any money, companies, or family that care about him. People are still instantly interested and want to learn from him how to sell, without regards to that he used very unethical methods to do it. People are willing to pay huge sums of money to have him on their seminaries and so on.

I do think things are quite connected. But you needed perhaps to know a bit of Jordans background and the entire affair and connect the bits and pieces yourself to get how it all fitted together. Ok I tried, perhaps you still don't get it at all :) but it wouldn't be the first time we don't get each others points!
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Back
Top Bottom