Star Wars: The Force Awakens. 8/10.
Printable View
Star Wars: The Force Awakens. 8/10.
This BBC documentary corresponds pretty much to my own experience of a disastrous decade when infantile exhibitionism and political and economic irresponsibility led to the collapse of 1976.
It ushered in the age of charlatanry when millions were taken to the cleaners by singers who couldn't sing, politicians who couldn't govern and architects who couldn't design...... as witness the very gratifying last few minutes of this cautionary tale.
9/10
https://youtu.be/VJM-xA8PcQ8
If it is in theater then minions
I thought Minions was pretty good. Those happy little guys kept accidentally killing off the bad guy whom they wanted to help, but that didn't discourage them from trying again.
Room with Brie Larsen and Jacob Tremblay. This was an excellent movie about a very difficult subject, beautifully and delicately handled.
Irrational Man by Woody Allen: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/irrational_man/
This is the story of a famous, but burnt-out philosophy professor (the irrational man) who goes to a new school where one of the married female faculty members and one of his attached female students (the irrational women) try to get this dark, plump, life-defying, mystery man in bed with them in spite of their current relationships. He is able to avoid their attempts until he finds a reason for living.
If you like the Woody Allen style of trashing deep existential intellectuals, as I do, you should like this movie. It also should appeal to the crowd who are a little too mature for a rom-com, but like to watch men and women make life entertaining for their neighbors.
Those at Rotten Tomatoes didn't think much of the movie and admittedly the general anti-intellectualist plot did seem to have been done many times before. But I'm not as picky as most and I had a good time.
Score: 10/10
A rare excursion into post-studio system films for me, this didn't particularly impress and was more or less what I expected.
The body count was reminiscent of a minor war and much of the the dialogue was mumbled and almost required sub-titles.
The format was similar to that of 'The Terminator' with a practically indestructible villain who kills about 15-20 people while on the trail of a man who has stolen $2 million dollars of drug money.
Eventually he is involved in a car crash which apparently kills the other driver and leaves the villain badly damaged but, as with Arnold Schwarzenegger, he still continues staggering on in pursuit of the money: I actually laughed when he climbed out of the wrecked car and walked around like Frankenstein's monster.
Definitely a movie for (very) young men but no film for an older generation.
6/10
The Martian. Fun movie. 8/10
Anomalisa. Brilliant movie. 9/10
Directed by Robert Aldrich this is a remake of No Orchids for Miss Blandish that I reviewed recently.
Unlike the British version, Aldrich sets the action in the 1920s rather than the 1940s, so the film has a very different ambiance even though it adheres broadly to the original story.
Whereas the British film was a pastiche of the American gangster films of the period, the US version is a satire on the gangster films of the twenties with everyone killing everyone else and a Keystone cops motorcycle chase at the end.
Searching through some correspondence yesterday I came upon this missive that has some bearing on the British film:
Dear Emil,
The other day, as is my wont, I was sitting in the bath contemplating one of life's little absurdities ( No
not that one! ) concerning the unlikely prospect of seeing certain films again: one of which was that
outstanding example of cinematic crumminess 'No Orchids for Miss Blandish.'
You can imagine my surprise when, a few days later, I received the NFT programme for April which
showed that it will be screened on Friday, April 2nd at 8.30 pm.
As an aficionado of the genre, you might care to see it. If not, a glance at the following critique from
Halliwell's Film Guide may change your mind.
An heiress is kidnapped by gangsters and falls for their psychopathic leader.
Hilariously awful gangster movie from a bestselling shocker.
Everyone concerned is all at sea, and the result is one of the worst films ever made.
There, you can't say fairer than that!
Of course, it's not quite the same as seeing it in 1948, because one misses the effect of leaving the
cinema with popcorn and choc-ice all down the front of one's suit, but for £2.00 it's still a
bargain for all practising sado-masochists.
Should you be interested, please call me on 703 0911 ext.211, 9 am-6 pm and I will try to get a
couple of tickets with a gangway seat.
à bientôt
Willi
I saw "The Revenant" yesterday. This film has been nominated for a dozen Academy Awards, and Leo DiCaprio is the favorite to win "best actor", presumably due to his ability to groan as if in pain. He performs this feat for perhaps an hour of the 2 hour + movie, and, although he does it well, it began to bore this member of the audience.
The movie is based on a novel which is based on a legend which is based on (perhaps) a true story. It involves Hugh Glass, a mountain man in the 1820s. He gets attacked by Indians, mauled by a grizzly, and abandoned by his compatriots. I read an earlier version of the story, maybe 30 years ago, and the movie appears to spruce up the tale in predictable ways: the Indians are more noble (they are searching for one of their stolen women, even though she was stolen by a different group of white men than those that they massacre.). Glass is given a half-breed son whom the villain of the piece murders (in the book Glass is motivated by revenge for being abandoned, but it's unclear whether the abandonment was a reasonable triage, so his desire for revenge is not completely justified).
"Revenant is directed by Alejandro Inarratu, who took home some Oscars for "Birdman" last year. It is spectacularly pretty (Emmanuel Lubezki is the cinematographer). But Glass's test of endurance in crawling back to civilization while badly injured becomes a test of endurance for the audience. It reminded me of "Gravity", another movie about a solo survival. Gravity was also pretty -- but movies are essentially "dramatic" -- that is, as in dramas, characters are best elucidated through dialog. DiCaprio relies on grunting and moaning in pain instead of talking to further his (apparently considerable) Oscar hopes.
In addition, Inarratu seems to enjoy shock for shock's sake. The grizzly mauling continues endlessly; at one point, Glass eviscerates a dead horse and crawls inside it (eeewww, gross!) for no better reason than to keep warm (whats wrong with his buffalo pelt?). When Glass catches a fish, he stands in the icy water eating it raw (shouldn't the master survivalist, however hungry, worry about freezing his feet off?).
Inarratu employs some magical realism (as he did in Birdman), but it seems a mere flourish, and is not essential to the movie. I skipped "The Martian" earlier this year, because I though that, like Gravity or Castaway, movies about people surviving on their own tend to be dull. They lack interpersonal drama. I'm not sorry I saw "The Revenant" -- but it's not a great candidate for the Best Picture Oscar.
I agree with you about Gravity. I'll postpone seeing The Martian as well.
I was thinking a bit more about my preference for dialog in delineating character. I'm not a big Cormac McCarthy fan (for example) possibly because he prefers description and action to dialog. IN the last five years we've seen critically acclaimed, award winning movies like "Silent Movie", "Gravity". "The Martian (which I haven't seen) and now "The Revenant". Are modern "auteur" directors trying to eliminate "competition" from screen writers and playwrights for the "auteur" title? Thinking further, I'm a big Terrence Malick fan -- so I like SOME visually exciting movies lacking good dialog. I don't get Leonardo DiCaprio as a favorite for "best actor", though.
I saw "Creed" the other night. It's the seventh (I think) Rocky film -- I didn't see 5 or 6, but enjoyed the others, especially the original. In addition, "Creed" has been mentioned as one reason to boycott the Oscars for racism, because Michael Jordan (no, not the shoe salesman) wasn't nominated for best actor (despite, supposedly, being deserving). Sly Stallone gave a decent performance as Rocky, redolent of nostalgia, but the movie didn't quite cut it. Why root for a millionaire who takes up boxing? It lacks the "underdog" panache of the original "Rocky". There was no reason to nominate Jordan for best actor -- the role is slight. Save your money.
Whatever Works: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/whatever_works/
This is a delightful Woody Allen movie. The main character is an anti-social, depressed, negatively spun quantum physicist and the three women in his life. Although he is supposedly brilliant, an almost Nobel Prize winner, the easiest way he can think of to leave a woman is by jumping out the window. That would work, but his suicide attempts are never successful. He always falls onto something that breaks his fall right at the bottom sort of like the universe sparing him for his next ordeal or wife. Of course he doesn't believe the universe cares enough about him to waste its time plotting against him, or that it could care at all, but for someone who doesn't believe in the significance of coincidences, his life is full of them pairing him with women whose views of reality oppose his own.
Score: 10/10
Went to see Deadpool, pandering to my love of all things spandex-clad.
I felt rather let down by it actually, having expected to enjoy it. Though stylish, it was nowhere near as clever as it thought it was, the plot was non-existent, and it rapidly fell into the tired narrative tropes that it had initially set out to mock. For all its big Holywood budget, it somehow felt cheap and nasty.
"Mustang"
A film about 5 girls (sisters)that live in Turkey and what they do to escape repression.
Lovely, sad and revolting. Rate:8,5
lokasenna, have you seen kick-***?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
its overly vulgar, ridiculously violent, and tremendously absurd, but I found in spite of that, I still liked it...
that's funny---the forum software's editing out "mass" minus the "m."
Yes, I've seen Kick-(m)*** - I really enjoyed it, thinking it a clever riff on superhero films. The second film, though, was utterly awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by bounty
i agree, and given how much i liked the original, i soooo wanted it to be good. i enjoyed snippets, but on the whole boy it was a movie that probably shouldn't have been made.
We were planning to see Deadpool, but when we had the opportunity the weather kept us home.
I've seen a couple of the Marvel movies: Ant-Man and The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Ant-Man was the best of the two, because the underlying conflict in the human relationships seemed better done. They both deserved an 8 out of 10.
I saw Victor Frankenstein, the new take on the old story with Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy. McAvoy, of whom I am generally a fan, overacted his way through this evening constitutional as the the title character. Daniel Radcliffe was impressive enough, I've come to discover he's actually rather good in his post-Potter life (see Horns if you haven't.) Jessica Brown Findley is loveliness itself, and Andrew Scott was his characteristic self. Not all bad, but ultimately leading nowhere and tedious. Too little of Jessica and too much of James McAvoy vying for Ham of the Year.
Deadpool, I enjoyed it a lot
The Clouds of Sils Maria. Very meta, I gather. I loved it, being a fan of Kristen Stewart (who won a Cesar for her trouble) and Juliette Binoche.
Meant to ask you if this includes Scarlett Johansson's rear end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Watched Solace last week and liked it. Anthony Hopkins was great and so was Colin Farrel. 7/10
Harry and the Hendersons: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harr...he_hendersons/
This is an old movie from the 20th century, but entertaining. It was the best Bigfoot movie I've ever seen as well as the only Bigfoot movie I've ever seen unless those Messing with Sasquatch ads count as movies. I know Rotten Tomatoes thought it was rotten.
Score: 9/10
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam_Stories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ZimujeJzk
I enjoyed it very much.
Score: 9/10
The trailer looked interesting. I'll see if I can find Macadam Stores / Asphalte in the library.
I've been having a hard time trying to find a movie I can tolerate finishing. This is unusual for me since I can sit through most anything. However, one movie I was able to finish, "Not Another Teen Movie": http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/not_another_teen_movie/
Rotten Tomatoes thought it stunk, but what do they know? I give it a 10/10. Get the uncensored director's cut.
My wife sent me a YouTube clip of Rudolph Nurejev in Swan Lake. If you like ballet, and especially if you don't, this might be worth three minutes of your time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHbGqJ_MonU
I give that a score of 10/10.
LOL The "pig" dances wonderfully! 10/10 for the pig and 10/10 for Nurejev.
I hope you find and enjoy Asphalte. End of times relationships with drama and humour.
I saw Captain America: Civil War, probably the best Avengers movie, if Loki had been there it would have been perfect...
Black Panther was brilliant, easily the best part of the movie
Taken from a celebrated stage play, this British film concerns the poisoning of the wealthy wife of a village school teacher in Victorian England and the quest by a Scotland Yard police inspector to uncover which of three suspects, who all stood to gain from the deceased's will, administered the poison. The director skillfully keeps one guessing by showing that each suspect was equally likely to have been the murderer only to subsequently sow doubt in the viewer's mind.
The ending has a twist that shows not only who killed the victim but why, and it has nothing to do with money.
9/10
I have started watching Sherlock ( TV Series). It's quite good.
Also watched X-Men: Days of Future Past and liked it. I really enjoyed the scene where Quickslive shows off his powers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NnyVc8r2SM
Jennifer Jones, who must surely have been one of the most beautiful women ever, gives a good performance as a gypsy girl in 19th century England.
The famed partnership of Powell and Pressburger, who produced a number of outstanding films, should have avoided this one however, for the wild gypsy girl is pursued by a rampant Squire: the very stuff of Victorian melodrama and reminiscent of a Barbara Cartland bodice ripper.
The camerawork and scenery are outstanding but the plot leaves much to be desired.
http://i.imgur.com/CaEVgId.jpg
At 71 minutes duration this film has been made by the vote to leave the European Union side of the forthcoming UK referendum.
It's a compelling series of grounds for getting out of what is a ragbag of internationalist wishful thinking, working principally for an axis of power centered on Berlin and Brussels.
The film shows how EU restrictive trade practices keeps Europe from acting in its best interest, but perhaps the biggest eye-opener is the sheer size of the bureaucracy and the salaries that are paid to those running it. According to the film, 10,000 EU personnel earn more than the UK Prime Minister, with all kinds of additional perks added to their salaries. This massive bureaucracy has impoverished large parts of southern Europe to the benefit of the north: principally Germany.
The film also gives the lie to the idea that the UK would lose trade by leaving. The UK already does far more trade with the rest of the world than with the EU and imports more from Europe than it exports.
UKIP notwithstanding, it defies belief how anyone, who wasn't in on this costly racket, would vote to remain after seeing this film.
10/10
I just saw Brexit the Movie. I didn't realize that Switzerland was not part of the EU. This was very informative overall. Score 10/10.
Switzerland with its cantons and decentralised (and German-speaking) was the refuge of ordoliberals fleeing from Nazi Germany, several got chairs in Swiss Universities, gave them many ideas that were new at the time. Nor is Norway in the EU, nor is Iceland. Nor are any of the Balkan countries, though they are applying. Nor is Turkey, nor Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I would add Russia to the countries not in the EU, and Belarus.
The US and China aren't there either, but since Switzerland is in the middle of what I imagine Europe to be I assumed it would have been swallowed up by the EU by default. I thought Norway was in the EU, come to think of it. Turkey and Israel seem a little far from Europe in my naive map of that part of reality and Iceland is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
The movie did present an interesting idea that if Britain were not in the EU it would be prosperous because it wouldn't have a self-serving bureaucracy manipulating it. That may be true for all I know and it is as good a reason to leave the EU as the justification the US made to leave Britain a couple centuries ago. And doesn't Scotland keep trying to leave Britain? Maybe social mood today favors decentralization?
I would be surprised about Belarus. Why some would want two incompetent tyrannies is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamwoven
I don't think the Eurocrats want them, but my point was that Russia west of the Urals is larger than the rest of Europe put together. There is a website called "the other side of Europe": http://www.oseweb.org/. Let us also remember that Ukraine isn't part of the EU either, it will be interesting to see if they are accepted once they apply in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...nion_relations.