Last Movie You Watched

[aligreto]

Sicario....





Enjoyable; a film with a different take on an old topic.

[SonicMan46]

Film below available for Amazon streaming - watched last night on my 42" HDTV w/ den stereo speakers:

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) w/ Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, et al - first, the film is TOO long (2 hrs 44 minutes), and the reviewers I read seemed to have much preferred the 1.90:1 (vs. 2:40:1) aspect ratio used in the IMAX theaters (LINK) - ratings: 8.4/10, IMDB; 87%, Rotten Tomatoes; 3.6*/5*, Amazon - second, the scenes of a 'destroyed' earth (and the cities of LA, San Diego, & Las Vegas) w/ varied other worldly colors were a joy to watch; the story was fine but drag in part.  I own Blade Runner (1982) and enjoy, plus at 2 hrs the length is much more enjoyable - I don't plan to watch or buy this LONG widescreen new version - but (unlikely) if a shorter well edited 1.90:1 BD was released, I might consider?  Bottom line, I would do 3.5 to 4 on Amazon, knocking my rating down for length and intermittent boredom -   Dave

[Draško]

Interesting. I'll check it out.
Also, welcome back.

Thank you!



Columbus is one of my favorite movies of last year. It's a small, quiet, immaculately shot and composed film about two very different people becoming friends over their admiration (real and begrudging) for modern architecture in this small town where they both are stuck (literally and metaphorically) dealing with different problems with their respective parents.

It's a really beautiful film shot in this incredible small town of Columbus, Indiana.

https://www.npr.org/2012/08/04/157675872/columbus-ind-a-midwestern-mecca-of-architecture

[mc ukrneal]

So I finally saw:
[asin]B074ZVMJYS[/asin]

I know a lot of you really liked it, but I found it pretty disappointing. I'm still trying to figure out why, but here are a few things that I didn't enjoy: 1) The first section (the build up) seemed too slow. I liked certain aspects of it, but I found myself looking at the clock, which is always a bad sign for a movie, 2) It seemed like some scenes cut from day to night and back again. Perhaps it wouldn't have appeared that way on a bigger screen? It was distracting (interrupted the flow). 3) I found it difficult to figure out some of the characters, in part because they cover the face at times and there is a lot of cutting from one event to another. As a result, there were a few times I wasn't sure which story was being continued at a certain point. 4)The bleakness and despair was sometimes too much. Maybe some people liked it, but I thought is was misjudged and needed better balance. I suppose one could say that it was successful in its bleakness and that's what they felt, etc. And even if you are right, I still feel it was overdone in this aspect. 

There are some things I liked too: 1) The sense of survival vs loyalty to one's country/values/humanity was nicely done. 2) the sense of danger was well done in terms of all the different things you had to worry about. 3) Some of the acting is well done. 

I would definitely not vote this as best picture. Maybe a 5-6 out of 10. For comparison, I think that is roughly where I put the new Star Wars film. By the way, the Churchill vs actor thing just doesn't matter to me. The way it is done here makes total sense and fits. Not sure why anyone would really care.

[Ken B]

So I finally saw:
[asin]B074ZVMJYS[/asin]

I know a lot of you really liked it, but I found it pretty disappointing. I'm still trying to figure out why, but here are a few things that I didn't enjoy: 1) The first section (the build up) seemed too slow. I liked certain aspects of it, but I found myself looking at the clock, which is always a bad sign for a movie, 2) It seemed like some scenes cut from day to night and back again. Perhaps it wouldn't have appeared that way on a bigger screen? It was distracting (interrupted the flow). 3) I found it difficult to figure out some of the characters, in part because they cover the face at times and there is a lot of cutting from one event to another. As a result, there were a few times I wasn't sure which story was being continued at a certain point. 4)The bleakness and despair was sometimes too much. Maybe some people liked it, but I thought is was misjudged and needed better balance. I suppose one could say that it was successful in its bleakness and that's what they felt, etc. And even if you are right, I still feel it was overdone in this aspect. 

There are some things I liked too: 1) The sense of survival vs loyalty to one's country/values/humanity was nicely done. 2) the sense of danger was well done in terms of all the different things you had to worry about. 3) Some of the acting is well done. 

I would definitely not vote this as best picture. Maybe a 5-6 out of 10. For comparison, I think that is roughly where I put the new Star Wars film. By the way, the Churchill vs actor thing just doesn't matter to me. The way it is done here makes total sense and fits. Not sure why anyone would really care.

Well, it's 3 stories of different time periods braided: a week on the mole, a day in the boat, and an hour in the fighter, Inevitably night must juxtapose with day.
I think you missed something with the bleakness and despair. I don't want to make a spoiler *semispoiler alert* but when Branagh says one certain word in close up  I think it's an extraordinary moment of non-despair. And since the whole shebang is about realizing the hope in that word I think you wonder if you might have just missed an important aspect of the movie. I agree (as I've said) about Churchill.

[mc ukrneal]

Well, it's 3 stories of different time periods braided: a week on the mole, a day in the boat, and an hour in the fighter, Inevitably night must juxtapose with day.
I think you missed something with the bleakness and despair. I don't want to make a spoiler *semispoiler alert* but when Branagh says one certain word in close up  I think it's an extraordinary moment of non-despair. And since the whole shebang is about realizing the hope in that word I think you wonder if you might have just missed an important aspect of the movie. I agree (as I've said) about Churchill.

The Branagh character seemed somewhat out of place to me. Maybe as a result, his impact is lessened.

[SimonNZ]

I'll have to admit I was a little disappointed with Dunkirk as well.

Many of the battle scenes and effects were very good, but I thought there was never a real sense of the numbers on the beach, certainly not of the numbers of the civilian fleet. And they were heavy-handed with the sentimentally in script (and music) in quite a number of places, so the actors had little to work with. And, sorry, but I cringed at Branagh's one word line swelling to a slowed down version of Elgar's Nimrod.

And if Tom Hardy can do all that fuelless gliding then his friend needn't have ditched in the channel.

[ritter]

...And, sorry, but I cringed at Branagh's one word line swelling to a slowed down version of Elgar's Nimrod.

+1. I generally thought the film well made and worthwhile, but that moment (I almost knew for certain that Nimrod would be heard at some point) almost ruined it for me. I hate being manipulated that way in the movies....

[arpeggio]

Just saw The Post. 

[SimonNZ]

Thank you!



Columbus is one of my favorite movies of last year. It's a small, quiet, immaculately shot and composed film about two very different people becoming friends over their admiration (real and begrudging) for modern architecture in this small town where they both are stuck (literally and metaphorically) dealing with different problems with their respective parents.

It's a really beautiful film shot in this incredible small town of Columbus, Indiana.

https://www.npr.org/2012/08/04/157675872/columbus-ind-a-midwestern-mecca-of-architecture

That sounds really interesting. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Karl Henning]

A Serious Man

[mc ukrneal]

Just saw The Post. 

Did you like it? That's one I want to see.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

So I finally saw:
[asin]B074ZVMJYS[/asin]

I know a lot of you really liked it, but I found it pretty disappointing. I'm still trying to figure out why, but here are a few things that I didn't enjoy: 1) The first section (the build up) seemed too slow. I liked certain aspects of it, but I found myself looking at the clock, which is always a bad sign for a movie, 2) It seemed like some scenes cut from day to night and back again. Perhaps it wouldn't have appeared that way on a bigger screen? It was distracting (interrupted the flow). 3) I found it difficult to figure out some of the characters, in part because they cover the face at times and there is a lot of cutting from one event to another. As a result, there were a few times I wasn't sure which story was being continued at a certain point. 4)The bleakness and despair was sometimes too much. Maybe some people liked it, but I thought is was misjudged and needed better balance. I suppose one could say that it was successful in its bleakness and that's what they felt, etc. And even if you are right, I still feel it was overdone in this aspect. 

There are some things I liked too: 1) The sense of survival vs loyalty to one's country/values/humanity was nicely done. 2) the sense of danger was well done in terms of all the different things you had to worry about. 3) Some of the acting is well done. 

I would definitely not vote this as best picture. Maybe a 5-6 out of 10. For comparison, I think that is roughly where I put the new Star Wars film. By the way, the Churchill vs actor thing just doesn't matter to me. The way it is done here makes total sense and fits. Not sure why anyone would really care.

My friend didn't like it either. He found the soundtrack intolerable. As for me, I haven't seen it - yet. However, I usually like Christopher Nolan's films.

[Karl Henning]

[...] And, sorry, but I cringed at Branagh's one word line swelling to a slowed down version of Elgar's Nimrod.

My friend didn't like it either. He found the soundtrack intolerable. As for me, I haven't seen it - yet. However, I usually like Christopher Nolan's films.

Well, if you cringe, you cringe.  Maybe it's being a composer . . . but while I saw just how the soundtrack was being employed, I found the whole well done on its own terms.

[Omicron9]

Screened "Loving Vincent" over the weekend:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3262342/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Truly wonderful.  You could even turn off the sound and still be captivated by the incredible art.  Each frame in the film was hand-painted, and it shows.  Recommended.

More info here:  http://lovingvincent.com/

Regards.
-09

[SonicMan46]

Screened "Loving Vincent" over the weekend:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3262342/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Truly wonderful.  You could even turn off the sound and still be captivated by the incredible art.  Each frame in the film was hand-painted, and it shows.  Recommended.

More info here:  http://lovingvincent.com/

Just to add to the above - some other reviews from late last year - the film is beautiful and worth a watch!  Dave

We saw Loving Vincent tonight.  A really wonderful film.  Essentially what they've done is make the movie, and then frame by frame paint over the actors and scenery in the style of Van Gogh.  The script follows the Steven Naifeh and‎ Gregory White Smith biography, which presents evidence of him dying from being shot instead of a self-inflected wound.  But the film makers also leave it up in the air offering credible evidence of a suicide as well.

I would recommend the film, especially for those who have a special interest in the paintings and life of Van Gogh.  It is definitely not gimmicky, at least not imo.

Hi SanAntone - wife and I saw Loving Vincent this afternoon and enjoyed - I was surprised by the 4:3 aspect ratio having gotten use to my 16:9 HDTV; also, the UK accents of the actors was a little incongruous for the late 19th century in southern France - BUT, completely agree a beautiful and certainly a unique (one of a kind?) film - for those interested, take a look at the Rotten Tomatoes Critic Reviews, both the good and bad ones - their critics averages were 78% & 6.8/10 vs. audience at 90% & 4.3/5 - I'd easily do a 4*/5* rating - Dave

 

[SonicMan46]

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) w/ Spencer Tracy and many other stellar actors; Stanley Kramer, director - blu-ray comments HERE - long film (3 hrs) - we are watching over 2 nights - likely familiar to many and recommended.

Hanging Tree, The (1959) - Gary Cooper, Maria Schell, Karl Malden, et al (including George C. Scott in his first film role) - one of Coop's last films (he died in 1961, just 60 years old) - kind of against his grain of characters and a prelude to similar anti-hero westerns - excellent blu-ray restoration (review HERE) - Dave    

 

[Karl Henning]

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) w/ Spencer Tracy and many other stellar actors; Stanley Kramer, director - blu-ray comments HERE - long film (3 hrs) - we are watching over 2 nights - likely familiar to many and recommended.

Hmm, I should probably scare this up at the BPL.

Separately . . . it looks as if I should probably watch the original True Grit, it seems.  (I have seen the Coan Bros remake, which I like very well.)

[LKB]

Separately . . . it looks as if I should probably watch the original True Grit, it seems.  (I have seen the Coan Bros remake, which I like very well.)

Some of John Wayn's better work, one of the few films in his later years in which he was focused on delivering a character as opposed to simply delivering lines as John Wayne.

Kim Darby was probably the best choice available, though a bit old for the part. While her performance is nowhere near the wonderful offering of Hailee Steinfeld, she gets the job done.

Glen Campbell... barely tolerable, imho.

But we get Robert Duvall's Ned Pepper as compensation, which is more than enough.

It's a product of its time, with some beautiful cinematography. I think the recent version is a superior film overall, but the earlier version is worth seeing.

Cheers,

LKB

[Ken B]

Some of John Wayn's better work, one of the few films in his later years in which he was focused on delivering a character as opposed to simply delivering lines as John Wayne.

Kim Darby was probably the best choice available, though a bit old for the part. While her performance is nowhere near the wonderful offering of Hailee Steinfeld, she gets the job done.

Glen Campbell... barely tolerable, imho.

But we get Robert Duvall's Ned Pepper as compensation, which is more than enough.

It's a product of its time, with some beautiful cinematography. I think the recent version is a superior film overall, but the earlier version is worth seeing.

Cheers,

LKB

I pretty much agree. The book is well worth reading too.