Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684017 times)

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #400 on: February 04, 2017, 05:19:08 AM »
I was worried there for a while. smirnoff will be distraught though.

Your review lost me at « This is a film that runs on emotions, not intellect ».
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #401 on: February 04, 2017, 08:04:11 AM »
smirnoff will be distraught though.

And the perfect gif to show it.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #402 on: February 04, 2017, 08:26:38 AM »
La Grande Illusion
Jean Renoir (1937)


The wistful Monsieur Gustave would have been at home in La Grande Illusion. Not only do the protagonists share his inclination for prison-breaking but the movie is also a celebration of the gentler, more civilised times he yearns for. In the midst of the barbarity of the trenches and the birth of modern warfare there was a space for civility and manners. Away from the butchery, Germans and French could deal with one another with respect and even kindliness, even separated by their roles of prisoners and gaolers. This was back when two people could go to war without believing each other to be minions of darkness, when a guard could take it upon himself to lift the spirits of an enemy confined in solitary, when two officers of opposite sides would share a moment to enjoy cigarettes and talk. It is not surprising that the movie was censored in Germany when it came out. It is a painful reminder of tenderness lost and of the bestialisation of that country during those preceding decades. Surely Renoir must be idealising to some extent ; I really couldn't care. This is how enemies should behave if enemies there must be, and whether it was ever truly real is immaterial. How far we have come when presidents consider torture acceptable. These Germans would never have fathomed it.

As I understand is the rule, much of the spirit of the movie is about class distinction. De Boeldieu and von Rauffenstein are the heart of the movie to me. They refuse to surrender their manners and refinement to war and the passage of time. They are committed to their duty but never eschew politeness in its business. Von Rauffenstein looks down on men of lesser breeding while Boeldieu befriends them and sees their valour. There always remains a distance between them however, even with the wealthy Rosenthal. Both aristocrats are vestiges of dying eras, artefacts of institutions that must crumble in democracy's unrelenting progress. No economy can provide ten pairs of white gloves for all its people ; it is the side downside of democracy that it must destroy the best in order to improve the many. It is a good thing that we should be born in societies of equals ; La Grande Illusion provides a melancholy reminder that that was achieved more by bringing the elite to the level of the people than the reverse and invites us to be the worthy descendants of those who gave the word gentleman its meaning.

The movie ends with the cutting of an orchid. 

8/10
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #403 on: February 04, 2017, 09:46:54 AM »
Bondo doesn't like Juliette Binoche, cinema, birthdays, free stuff, kittens and puppies, bacon, pie, keyboards, Hamilton, vacation, the 90s, the internet, mom's cooking and smirnoff's gifs.
The 90s?
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

Terrazine

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #404 on: February 04, 2017, 04:47:57 PM »
Caught a little Pokemon on TV today.

Zoroark: Master of Illusions (2010)

The problem with anime films that were adapted from their TV series is quite obvious. Unlike their TV-to-movie American counterparts (like "Serenity" continuing "Firefly", for example), these anime films are usually just annual promotion for the ongoing 500-episode series, and this is especially true for Pokemon over the past two decades. There's a very clear formula to Pokemon films, even:

- A megalomaniacal, power-hungry villain
- A legendary Pokemon from the next series of Pokemon games would usually appear
- There is some kind of sad scene, but don't worry - a deus ex machina will fix it all
- More than half of the times, there's an environmental message to it, as do most other anime films
- A "feel-good" pop song will appear at the end credits

Aside from the Pokemon factor, it's really not that different from the formula of others of its ilk, be it One Piece or Naruto. It's a tired formula that I got bored of seeing ever since movie 6, "Jirachi Wish Maker", the last "quality" Pokemon movie IMO. Adding to the fact that you could even see the cameo-appearance of characters from the TV series that didn't even have significant roles in the story, and you should know that you've just seen another cash-in promo from the Pokemon company, and that's not even mentioning the exclusive legendary Pokemon tie-in that you could transfer into the next series of Pokemon games (Pokemon Black and White in this case) that kids are sure to annoy their parents to pre-order immediately.

Some effort should be commended for the cast's location-hunt to incorporate into their animated setting, but a merchandising-promo like this is, unfortunately, as forgettable as they come, and it really doesn't help that most of the Pokemon films are noncanonical anyway, giving you all the more reason to forget the money you've just spent on this. It's a decent way to keep your kids occupied for an hour and a half, but nothing more.

2.5/5
« Last Edit: February 04, 2017, 04:49:51 PM by Terrazine »

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #405 on: February 04, 2017, 04:53:03 PM »
We don't get enough Pokemon in here. Thanks.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #406 on: February 05, 2017, 01:11:55 AM »
Hunt for the Wilderpeople  (Taika Waititi, 2016)
A nice little movie, however slight, more amusing to me than laugh-out-loud funny. It's exceedingly well made, with highest marks going to the editing, which is not only technically sharp but also a strong source of humor.
Grade: B-

I love this review. Two sentences and I relate to each of them. :)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #407 on: February 05, 2017, 01:14:35 AM »
Green Room  (Jeremy Saulnier, 2015)

Grade: B-
NOW, you're curious about Blue Ruin? What's held you back? Just not enough time or did you read a bad review from someone you trust?
Oh snap, is that who directed Blue Ruin? Now I'm interested in Green Room. :))

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #408 on: February 05, 2017, 01:33:52 AM »

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #409 on: February 05, 2017, 02:29:51 AM »
Jason Bourne

First James Bond, then Ethan Hunt... now Jason Bourne. Of the three spy franchises driven off a cliff this year, this is the one that hurts the most. Ugh, could this have felt more stale? All the elements were tired... none more so than the main; Jason Bourne getting dragged back into another globetrotting pursuit as he learns in drips and drabs yet another "important" part of his past. Ultimatum was already getting a little tired in this formula, but worked because it felt like the resolution we had been building towards for so long. And it was! It was resolved! We're gonna dredge it back up again to learn about Jason's dad? Who gives a fart?

What BORING casting Tommy Lee Jones is. And Vincent Cassell. And that actress who I've never seen before. And they're given such boring and typical roles to play. There is nothing surprising that happens with any of them, or in any of their choices.

The scoring is a travesty. As the film first begins you are teased with terrific familiar sounds. They are so distinctive and have always given the series a wonderful atmopshere and depth. There's SO much promise in that first 50 seconds. So much history! What a great resource for a film to be able to draw on. To bad the film abandons it, never to be heard again, and replaces it with unmemorable generic action drivel. The film, per tradition, is bookended with the equally familiar and distinctive Moby track. But after such an unexciting film experience that usually wonderful exclamation point felt more like a slap in the face. I yelled "UNEARNED!" when it played.

I didn't enjoy any of the sequences. Especially not the driving in Vegas stuff. What was that?

I felt the film's biggest shortcoming was in failing to give that sense of zeroing in on Bourne. All the other films are masterful in how they shoot those scenes with all the techies in front of their computers crunching data, and someone pacing around the room giving orders, and how that cuts between them and Bourne, and how it feels like a real chase. The failings here come back to Tommy Lee Jones... he is  such a statue in these scenes. I don't think he plays this part as well as Brian Cox or Straitharn or Joan Allen. He just doesn't seem to react to anything. He gets duped, nothing. He gets a new lead, nothing. He gives the scenes none of the tension needed. Seems like a directing problem. Like everyone turned up to try and crank out another film, but nobody really stopped to think about why the previous films worked.

Julia Stiles character, who I've always really enjoyed throughout the series, feels like a completely different character. Again, too much time away? I didn't like how they shoe-horned her into being a sort of catalyst for this movie, and then very predictably kill her. If felt like it was done out of simplicity. Like nobody wanted to try and keep that many balls in the air.

Mad disappointing! I can see why it isn't nom'd for anything.

In hindsight it seems like a REALLY bad sign when a film like this doesn't have a thread in the Spoiler Edition subforum. Really bad.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 02:51:18 AM by smirnoff »