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

Speaking of SH, my son went to see the latest movie with that name and thought it was utter crap. Any other opinions?

I thought it was a good ride - but I really am not a huge Conan Doyle fan … I love Robert Downey, and think Jude Law does a good job, and it was well put together. As is too often the case these days, don't think too much But as for the story, compared to the other hyped movie in theaters (Avatar) it is like comparing the Mona Lisa to a toddler scribbling with crayons (but in 3D!!!!1111one)

"Utter crap" might be a little strong. If you're looking for a faithful recreation of Doyle, iz gonna disappoint. If you take it as a generic action flick with a dash of whodunnit and some decent atmosphere, it's decent entertainment.

It's a Bruckheimer production. So it should be fast, colourful and contain a lot of spectacular action. I wouldn't intuitively see Holmes as a perfect fit.

Originally Posted by Corwin
Speaking of SH, my son went to see the latest movie with that name and thought it was utter crap. Any other opinions?

I haven't seen it yet but was looking forward to it when I read Robert Downey Jr. was cast in the role - he's such an amazing actor, especially his performance in Chaplin.

However, the trailers and clips I've seen have put me off. It does not seem like it's very faithful to the source material. Especially Jude Law's Watson.

Not surprised though with a director like Guy Ritchie (Lock Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels and Snatch). I mean I actually loved Snatch but he seemed like a bad choice for a Sherlock Holmes film, it just looks too over the top.

Originally Posted by Gorath
It's a Bruckheimer production. So it should be fast, colourful and contain a lot of spectacular action. I wouldn't intuitively see Holmes as a perfect fit.

Joel Silver produced.

Yes, you're right. Let me rephrase:

It's a Joel Silver production. So it should be fast, colourful and contain a lot of spectacular action. I wouldn't intuitively see Holmes as a perfect fit.

I also saw the latest Sherlock Holmes and liked it a lot. Robert Downey Jr. did a great job imo. Of course I'm a great fan of mr. Downey's acting skills. Indeed it was fast, smart, witty and funny. I'm also of the opinion that it's better than the ultra-hyped Avatar.

Come to think of it, I'm looking forward to Ironman 2.

Rushmore:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128445/

The Odd Couple:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063374/

Rented Inglourious Basterds this weekend and glad to say, enjoyed it a whole lot more than the last contemporary nazi movie we rented (Valkyrie with the unspeakably wooden Tom Cruise) This is the first Tarentino flick I've actually seen from beginning to end, and despite the too-graphic violence aspects, makes me want to go back and revisit what I've missed. In many ways it's a film-maker's film, a pastiche of a subject usually seen as too serious and daunting for pastiches (well, other than The Producers) and a supremely competent film on all levels. And Brad Pitt showed me once again why I consider him an actor and not a 'celebrity.'

Originally Posted by magerette
This is the first Tarentino flick I've actually seen from beginning to end, and despite the too-graphic violence aspects, makes me want to go back and revisit what I've missed. '

Two words mags…. Pulp Fiction.

I've always wanted to catch that one and it's going in the queue. I've seen parts of the Kill Bill movies, but the violence was just a little too stomach turning for me. I think I've finally become desensitized enough to appreciate them as film though. What about Reservoir Dogs?

Reservoir dogs is similar to Pulp Fiction. A bit simpler, rougher. Good movie, well acted, but a lot of bad guys doing bad things. First time he tried the formula.

I like Jackie Brown. Very slow, great actors - especially the ones you don't have on the list. Calm, interesting, close to no action (just a few seconds here and there). Same structure as Pulp Fiction and Reservoir dogs, but Tarantino left out most of the aggressive coolness and the posing. Also less cynical jokes and more of a consistent story. Even though it lacks the many memorable moments Pulp Fiction had, Jackie Brown is IMHO the better movie.

edit:
The difference between Kill Bill and his earlier movies is that Kill Bill has long, violent action scenes. RD, PF and JB (more harmless) only have short bursts of violence, often as a hook for whole scenes. The whole screen explodes for 10 seconds and then the characters have to deal with the bloody consequences for the next 10 minutes. JB only uses violence as normal part of the story, like every other crime flick.

Originally Posted by magerette
Rented Inglourious Basterds this weekend and glad to say, enjoyed it a whole lot more than the last contemporary nazi movie we rented (Valkyrie with the unspeakably wooden Tom Cruise) This is the first Tarentino flick I've actually seen from beginning to end, and despite the too-graphic violence aspects, makes me want to go back and revisit what I've missed. In many ways it's a film-maker's film, a pastiche of a subject usually seen as too serious and daunting for pastiches (well, other than The Producers) and a supremely competent film on all levels. And Brad Pitt showed me once again why I consider him an actor and not a 'celebrity.'

Cool … I want to check that out at some point. How is the content level. Older son wants to see it with us, really haven't done homework on it.

Originally Posted by magerette
I've always wanted to catch that one and it's going in the queue. I've seen parts of the Kill Bill movies, but the violence was just a little too stomach turning for me. I think I've finally become desensitized enough to appreciate them as film though. What about Reservoir Dogs?

The Kill Bill movies were disappointing compared to his earlier works, it felt like he was trying too hard to do something epic with them. I didn't care for the acting in them either, other than David Carradine and Michael Madsen, I found most of the performances to be sub-par.

Reservoir Dogs is excellent, maybe his 2nd best film after Pulp Fiction, I still haven't seen Inglourious Basterds though.

From Dusk till Dawn is also worth checking out if you haven't seen it yet. It was directed by Robert Rodriguez, but the screenplay was written by Tarantino, who also acts in it.

@JDR: Thanks for the info. I've walked through the room several times while my husband was watching them (the KB's) and they just never grabbed me, but I was very impressed with Inglorious Basterds. I'll be giving yours and Gorath's recs a look.

@Mike; I wouldn't recommend it for children on any level, Mike. It's very violent, with lots of graphic blood and sadism. I would say strictly for the over 18 audience to appreciate the ironies and social commentary; though an older teenager growing up in today's environment could probably handle it, I don't know if they would really get it.

Thanks for the warning! We are slowly allowing some R movies and M games … but there are reasonable limits

Yeah, you have to be pretty old and jaded to

Originally Posted by magerette
Yeah, you have to be pretty old and jaded to

Spoiler

not mind watching people get scalped—though I did cover my eyes for most of that.

Funny enough - I think my older son would do better than my wife on that stuff

Rented District 9 the other night. Not bad, but I think I'm glad I didn't pay theatre prices. I probably would have enjoyed it a little more if I was more receptive to the not-so-subtle sermon.