Last Movie You Watched

[Karl Henning]

It looked and sounded great on the big screen too, complete with that wonderful Bernard Herrmann score.

I'll bet.

[Karl Henning]

Separately . . . I do not believe I have ever seen 8½.

And I am only saying this, now, because I am resolved to address that.  Possibly even this side of Easter.

[NikF]

Separately . . . I do not believe I have ever seen 8½.

And I am only saying this, now, beacause I am resolved to address that.  Possibly even this side of Easter.

Good stuff.

[Karl Henning]

Good stuff.

My relatively recent discovery of how much I do like Stardust Memories is perhaps the single largest factor.

[Omicron9]

Last night, I re-watched "Melinda and Melinda."   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378947/?ref_=nv_sr_1

As much as I love most of Woody Allen's movies, this sadly is not one of those.  For some reason, and this is just me, but the vast majority of his post-2000 work just leaves me saying "Really?"  when the final credits roll.  Again, maybe it's just me.

Cinematic regards,
-09

[Karl Henning]

Parenthetical, only (I mean, I have no intention of watching The Matrix Reloaded) . . . Roger Ebert warns us:

The speeches provide not meaning, but the effect of meaning: It sure sounds like those guys are saying some profound things.

[Mahlerian]

Parenthetical, only (I mean, I have no intention of watching The Matrix Reloaded) . . . Roger Ebert warns us:

The speeches provide not meaning, but the effect of meaning: It sure sounds like those guys are saying some profound things.

Having seen it and its sequel, I can say that Ebert is completely correct...and the third one is even worse in that regard.

I've studied philosophy, and it does not consist of people throwing words together in an attempt to emit a patina of profundity.

[NikF]

My relatively recent discovery of how much I do like Stardust Memories is perhaps the single largest factor.

Cool - I can just imagine you at numerous points recognising and acknowledging, perhaps with a knowing, sagely nod. 

It's one of a handful of films I've viewed from a projection booth. I'd been tipped off about the scene where Cardinale dressed in white almost pads from right to left and back, her face lit by faux candlelight; and when this is viewed from the booth the screen reflects the projected light as if her presence is passing like a wave over the audience. At best whimsical, at worst a gimmick, but a beautiful one nonetheless.

In any case, I hope you find the film interesting and that you enjoy it.

[Madiel]

Having seen it and its sequel, I can say that Ebert is completely correct...and the third one is even worse in that regard.

I've studied philosophy, and it does not consist of people throwing words together in an attempt to emit a patina of profundity.

This IS the sequel.

[Mahlerian]

This IS the sequel.

I was referring to the sequel to The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions.

[SimonNZ]

The stories of three very different whistleblowers of the drone program

[Madiel]

I was referring to the sequel to The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions.

Then why did you then talk about "the third one"? If Matrix Revolutions is "the sequel", which movie is "the third one"?

[North Star]

Dheepan (2015)
Jacques Audiard

A Tamil Tiger decides to flee the civil war, and takes a woman (Yalini) and a girl with him in order to appear as a family and thus claim asylum more easily. In France, Dheepan finds work as the caretaker of a block in the suburbs, as does Yalini, cleaning and cooking for an old, demented man. There's a gang in the neighbourhood, and the violence will draw Dheepan in as he tries to insulate himself from it. Palme d'Or winner and a fine movie.

[Mahlerian]

Then why did you then talk about "the third one"? If Matrix Revolutions is "the sequel", which movie is "the third one"?

Having seen it (the second movie) and its sequel (the third one), I can say that Ebert is completely correct (about the second movie)...and the third one is even worse in that regard.

It's a parallel construction.  The sentence doesn't make sense any other way, as the "it" in the first half has to refer to the movie Ebert discusses in order not to be an ambiguous referent.  I'm sorry if it was unclear, but surely a third entry in a series is a sequel to the second just as much as the second is to the first.

[Madiel]

Having seen it (the second movie) and its sequel (the third one), I can say that Ebert is completely correct (about the second movie)...and the third one is even worse in that regard.

It's a parallel construction.  I'm sorry if it was ambiguous, but surely a third entry in a series is a sequel to the second just as much as the second is to the first.

Right.

It was ambiguous, because ordinary language is to refer to the 2nd and 3rd movies as both "sequels" to the 1st. I don't think I've ever heard someone describe the 3rd movie in a trilogy as a "sequel" to the 2nd before, however sure you are.

Anyway, movie no.2 is not very good, and movie no.3 is downright awful. I walked out of the 3rd, having dozed off slightly a couple times which is basically unheard of for me in a cinema, knowing for certain that I could then go and buy The Matrix on DVD and make no effort whatsoever to remember that they'd ever tried to expand beyond that.

[Madiel]

The sentence doesn't make sense any other way, as the "it" in the first half has to refer to the movie Ebert discusses in order not to be an ambiguous referent.

Which presumes that you had actually got right which movie Ebert was discussing. This was why I pointed out which movie it was. It wasn't obvious to me that it was ordinary meaning of words you were screwing with, rather than mixing up films.

[Baron Scarpia]

The speeches provide not meaning, but the effect of meaning: It sure sounds like those guys are saying some profound things.

Brings to mind the final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where the cute dialog and action sequences were replaced by Buffy, endlessly ruminating on what it means to be "the slayer," how it is her destiny although she would rather have been a cheerleader.

But that brings up the thorny issue of whether the final season of Buffy was the sequel to the penultimate season, or to the first season. These questions make my brain hurt.

[Madiel]

Brings to mind the final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where the cute dialog and action sequences were replaced by Buffy, endlessly ruminating on what it means to be "the slayer," how it is her destiny although she would rather have been a cheerleader.

Yes, it did get rather like that. Though "Conversations with Dead People" was still pretty good.

But that brings up the thorny issue of whether the final season of Buffy was the sequel to the penultimate season, or to the first season. These questions make my brain hurt.

Neither. Because people don't talk about seasons of TV shows like that.

[Madiel]

120 Beats Per Minute



The fight against HIV/AIDS in Paris in the 1990s. LGBT activists wanting treatments and awareness campaigns and coming up against government apathy, pharmaceutical companies with an eye on profits as much as medicine, and gay men who don't want to be scared about sex.

I... liked it. It has a lot to say, but just occasionally it felt like an essay more than a film. At other times it was very personal and moving. Friend I saw it with absolutely loved it, and it did win a whole bunch of awards at Cannes last year including the "Grand Prix" (essentially 2nd place at the festival).

[Turner]

"GRAVITY", on television. Watched about half of it, but the dialogue was so poor and kitschy that just turning the sound off and keeping the Danish subtitles eventually wasn't enough. Also, the course of events was hopelessly unrealistic. However, the visual effects were impressive. But overall, an awful movie, IMO.