love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 530375 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22967
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3320 on: March 10, 2019, 06:32:10 PM »
The Lovers (2017)

It was interesting watching this on the heels of the 1921 films of Lois Weber as in a sense all these years later it stems from a similar place. We find Mary and Michael (Debra Winger and Tracy Letts) at a particular low point in their marriage, each in affairs and the intent to break off their marriage shortly once their son has visited. But a funny thing happens on the way to a separation, and they fall into a new affair...with each other. Of course, it was my original belief that In The Mood For Love similarly involved a couple acting like they were having an affair with each other as a way to add spice. But where my (probably unsupported) interpretation of that film was a victimless kink, there are of course other people whose emotions are at stake here (played by Aidan Gillen and Melora Walters), in addition to their son.

It is an effective meditation on the odd ways of the heart that aren't always logical or pleasing. Though I become a broken record in seeing this type of story and responding "this is where ethical nonmonogamy would be extremely useful." So much trauma resulting from our self-imposed requirement that we have failed if we cannot make one person be everything we need.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)

This is definitely a film that should be considered for its Art Direction because the setting of the film, this peculiar little motel with the California-Nevada border running straight through it, is such a captivating character, beautiful but sinister in its quiet, much like the Outlook Hotel in The Shining. The ride itself is interesting but I found it a little incoherent. A mishmash of mysterious characters whose pasts and motivations are revealed over time, I am not quite sure if there was a broader message to be taken from it. Comparing it to The Cabin in the Woods, the meta-commentary felt particularly relevant to social mores. Admittedly I am less honed to noir motifs and thus might miss some things here, it felt more of its own world than thematically linked to ours.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35726
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3321 on: March 10, 2019, 09:48:24 PM »
2 Guns (2013)
★ ★
Comic book Sicario has a brisk pace, colorful dialogue and a plot that keeps on twisting, but there's nothing memorable about it. It's overly macho, but not aggressively so. Even the chemistry between Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg is neither here nor there. Good to see Edward James Olmos with a large part and while I got nostalgic seeing Bill Paxton, he's the one actor who plays it like a comic book. (This is based on a graphic novel and the difference between the two is enormous.)

Most memorable thing about the film remains the unused sequel titles.
2 Guns 2: Guns 2 Guns
2 Guns 3: Guns 4 Guns

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3322 on: March 11, 2019, 05:16:55 PM »
Prospect (2018)

Finally saw this on iTunes and it's a shame this ambitious little sci-fi film didn't get real theatrical distribution. The film's visuals are its biggest strengths, both the cinematography which captures lush Pacific Northwest landscapes, and in production design that is retro, rickety, and grounded. The story leans into the Western-ness of it all. It's a full on after the Gold Rush-style prospecting adventure. It suffers from a few pacing issues even though the story itself is quite eventful. And since so much dialogue occurs through radio communication the audio can be hard to decipher. I'd recommend watching with subtitles even.

Still, Pedro Pascal is very good and the film just feels wonderfully real and alive in a way very little sci-fi does these days.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3323 on: March 11, 2019, 07:56:47 PM »
Thirteen Days (Roger Donaldson, 2000)         6/10

It's fine. Not at all hard to sit through. A very straightforward adaptation to film. Some of the military figures come off as cartoonish, but maybe that's how they really were. No bad scenes, no great scenes. Not much else to say about it really.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3324 on: March 11, 2019, 08:17:47 PM »
I liked a lot of the individual parts of El Royale, but it felt like an inverse of Cabin In The Woods to me in the sense that, while CitW starts conventional and 'goes places,' this one starts in 'places' and goes conventional.

Antares

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3325 on: March 11, 2019, 09:42:21 PM »
Thirteen Days (Roger Donaldson, 2000)         6/10

It's fine. Not at all hard to sit through. A very straightforward adaptation to film. Some of the military figures come off as cartoonish, but maybe that's how they really were. No bad scenes, no great scenes. Not much else to say about it really.

Have you seen The Missiles of October?
Masterpiece (100-91) | Classic (90-80) | Entertaining (79-69) | Mediocre (68-58) | Cinemuck (57-21) | Crap (20-0)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35726
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3326 on: March 12, 2019, 12:52:47 AM »
Thirteen Days (Roger Donaldson, 2000)         6/10

It's fine. Not at all hard to sit through. A very straightforward adaptation to film. Some of the military figures come off as cartoonish, but maybe that's how they really were. No bad scenes, no great scenes. Not much else to say about it really.
I never got past Costner's terrible accent. He sounded like Elmer Fudd crossed with The Waterboy.


I liked a lot of the individual parts of El Royale, but it felt like an inverse of Cabin In The Woods to me in the sense that, while CitW starts conventional and 'goes places,' this one starts in 'places' and goes conventional.
Well said.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35726
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3327 on: March 12, 2019, 01:01:27 AM »
Annabelle: Creation (2017)
★ ★
I could rate this higher because a lot of the scary bits work, but it's a pretty crappy script (not The Nun crappy, just typical Horror film crappy). There's none of the lingering nightmarish feel like last year's The Haunting of Hill House, something to give a lasting fright instead a bunch of good jolts, but this would be a good Halloween choice after some drinks and bar food.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3328 on: March 12, 2019, 09:51:24 AM »
Thirteen Days (Roger Donaldson, 2000)         6/10

It's fine. Not at all hard to sit through. A very straightforward adaptation to film. Some of the military figures come off as cartoonish, but maybe that's how they really were. No bad scenes, no great scenes. Not much else to say about it really.

Have you seen The Missiles of October?

I haven't. The Fog of War is the best telling of the story I've seen so far.

Antares

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3329 on: March 12, 2019, 04:28:53 PM »
Thirteen Days (Roger Donaldson, 2000)         6/10

It's fine. Not at all hard to sit through. A very straightforward adaptation to film. Some of the military figures come off as cartoonish, but maybe that's how they really were. No bad scenes, no great scenes. Not much else to say about it really.

Have you seen The Missiles of October?

I haven't. The Fog of War is the best telling of the story I've seen so far.

Oh, it's much better, remember Chuck's marathon many years ago...http://forum.filmspotting.net/index.php?topic=11349.msg706993#msg706993
Masterpiece (100-91) | Classic (90-80) | Entertaining (79-69) | Mediocre (68-58) | Cinemuck (57-21) | Crap (20-0)

 

love