Movies you've seen recently

[willyum]

Recently watched a '90s movie called "The People Under the Stairs". I found it rather enjoyable; it had a good mixture of comedy and suspense.

[Oerwinde]

The general reaction across most of the internet is that its a bad movie, but largely enjoyable and much better than the first.

[ShadySands]

FWIW the pacing is definitely better in the new Hobbit movie

[LadyCrimson]

Prisoners

 

Not quite as awesome as reviews are saying it is. It's good, tho, don't get me wrong. I guess part of my problem is I found Hugh Jackman's chr. to be an extremely unlikable/unsympathetic chr, even if you understand where he's coming from. Perhaps that was part of the point (not necessarily to be unlikable, but to provoke a reaction) and for that I do give it points. Jake Gyllenhaal was low-key but quite a nice role for him I think. I saw the surprise end coming a mile away but it was done well.

 

Overall a well done, thought provoking (or horrifying) moral dilemma film that is a nice getaway from the usual movie fluff, but I won't be watching it again.

[ManifestedISO]

Hold the phone. A movie about falling in love ... with your personal computer? Who falls in love with you, too? With the voice of Scarlett Johansson? A computer operating system with the voice of Scarlett Johansson that laughs at your jokes and falls in love with you?! Oh man, okay. Plus Olivia Wilde, Amy Adams, and Rooney Mara? I'm down for some hot silicon personification. metacritic says they told this story well, with a score of 91. The name of the movie ... "her" 

[ShadySands]

Anchorman 2 - I was drunk and it was hilarious

[sorophx]

I guess part of my problem is I found Hugh Jackman's chr. to be an extremely unlikable/unsympathetic chr, even if you understand where he's coming from. Perhaps that was part of the point (not necessarily to be unlikable, but to provoke a reaction) and for that I do give it points.

that was intentional, I think. the movie's promotional materials said, "how far would you go to protect your children", or something in that vein.

 

I really liked it, even though all of its themes have been touched on before in other, better movies.

 

I also liked Don Jon. It's a bit wacky, but for a directorial debut it's a very solid effort. Loved Johansson's character, such a wonderful bitch.

[Blarghagh]

I'll admit it's been a long while since I read through the Silmarillion, but that's part of what Peter Jackson had said he was doing. Adding in chunks of background information from that to flesh out the story and lay elements that turned up in the LoTR stories.

 

While that is true, the orc army isn't quite in that ballpark.

These particular orc armies are coming into play in this trilogy, not the next. They're not from the Silmarillion, they're from The Hobbit - which climaxes with a massive battle referred to as "The Battle of the Five Armies". Take from that what you will.

 

[Raithe]

Heh, an interesting bit from an author's review of the new Hobbit:

 

 

Lovers of epic fantasy, or of any genre fiction in which deep, consistent worldbuilding is featured, owe a great debt to Tolkien, and most of us have a special fondness for his work. But for all that, epic fantasy has come a long way since his pioneering voyage into Middle Earth. Few, if any, modern epics boast world building on the level of Tolkien's, but these days they all include more details about the characters. We follow plots not because the narrator tells us what is happening, but because characters experience what is happening. We are shown, not told.

The Hobbit trilogy? It's showing us Middle Earth, not telling us about it.

Tolkien's The Hobbit weighs in at 95,000 words, and places fifteen characters on an arduous, adventure-filled trek from The Shire to Erebor. But those 95,000 words only show us Bilbo in any real detail. Most of the dwarves are short, stocky, bearded cardboard cut-outs. The story is a travelogue during which our protagonist finds an artifact, finds his center, awakens a dragon, and then watches as the greatest armies in Middle Earth march onto the same plain. It's a fine story, to be sure, but it only scratches the surface of what's going on. Who is Bard? Who is Fili? Can the enmity between Thorin and Thranduil be demonstrated, rather than offered as a data-point? Why didn't Gandalf show up when he was supposed to? Was he doing something important?

That's what The Desolation of Smaug gives us -- character after character after character to delve into, identify with, pity, or despise. We are immersed in Middle Earth, and like Bilbo above Mirkwood's canopy, we can see the forest and see all the trees. It's delightful.

Some will argue that the film's departures from the text are heretical. You know what else was heretical? Galileo's heliocentrism. So yeah, I'm down with the occasional heresy. Besides, the film's writers (Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, and Guillermo Del Toro) did not change Tolkien's book. That book is still there, text unchanged, a landmark piece of literature people will continue to enjoy and revere for generations to come. What the Wingnut Films team did was similar to what an author might do when an editor says "we love this short story you wrote. Turn it into a novel. No, wait... turn it into three novels."

[Maedhros]

I'll admit it's been a long while since I read through the Silmarillion, but that's part of what Peter Jackson had said he was doing. Adding in chunks of background information from that to flesh out the story and lay elements that turned up in the LoTR stories.

There's nothing from The Silmarillion (or Unfinishes Tales) in the movies, as they don't have the rights to it. Some of the background information comes from the appendices in Lord of the Rings, but it's mostly just fan fiction from PJ .

 

I just wish they'd make two movies instead of one. There's too much new material that makes little sense, and doesn't make the movies better. Gandalf going to High Fells (why?), Silly romance triangle, Radagast Binks, drawn out fights, etc. Bilbo says it best: "I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

 

I'm obviously arguing from a Tolkien fanboys' point of view, but I loved Lord of the Rings despite of all the changes they made there. Those actually made sense for the most part. I can't shake the feeling that the studio producers have had much more influence on this triology, sadly.

 

One positive thing though, I loved Thranduil! Lee Pace being impressive as always.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Thingolfin

[Blarghagh]

I doubt the movie studios had that much to do with it. This is Peter Jackson's doing. For example, Tauriel is exactly what Arwen was going to be before the internet blew up at Xenarwen (she was going to be fighting at Helm's Deep, among other things).

 

For me personally, the draw of these films and even these books has always been the world rather than the story so I'm more than happy to stay for more films. I also highly disagree with the notion that movies need to have a certain length - why can people binge watch a TV show on Netflix but if a movie is more than two hours we'll never hear the end of it.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with all changes - but they don't ruin the movie for me thus far. I'd have liked more Beorn and more Thranduil, and while I don't hate the idea of this particular love triangle, the execution was completely bungled. On the other hand, Smaug was everything I wanted him to be and more, I love how much stuff this world has, and I have no problem with the addition of more action because I'll never get tired of seeing orcs getting murdered.

 

I think what really clinches it for me, though, is that even Tolkien thought the Hobbit, as is, no longer fit in with his universe. He set out to rewrite the book to be more in step with Lord of the Rings. Not saying this is what he would have had in mind, but I'm just saying that Tolkien was open to changing this story. I find most of the smaller changes to The Lord of the Rings more grating than the major changes to The Hobbit.

 

EDIT: I sound a little bit like trying to stir up debate, so I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to change your mind and I understand your view. I just happen to enjoy this take very much. Having read The Hobbit far after I read The Lord of the Rings, I always felt it was out of place and I didn't like it that much.

Edited December 24, 2013 by TrueNeutral

[Undecaf]

A friend had rented Lone Ranger the other night. We had some pizza and beer and wanted to try out his new home theather system. The beer and pizza (and my friends dog begging for scraps) saved that night. The movie was absolutely horrible. It felt like it was scribbled together by a six-year-old with severe case of ADHD. A disjointed, confusing and forcibly over long circus, where the actors and actresses were visibly and audibly bored, Verbinski's direction was as awful as ever, and the score tried hard to redeem itself from complete and total mediocrity by ripping off Morricone's work from Once Upon a Time In the West at certain points. The movie isn't even good for background noise. An absolute disaster.

[Oerwinde]

I really enjoyed Lone Ranger. I don't get where all the hate comes from.

[Raithe]

Heh. A screenwriter threw down a comment regarding all the "why are movies so similar these days?" discussions...

 

 

I can tell you why: development executives. 2013 was the year my screenwriting career finally started to take off, which meant constant meetings with development executives, and they all seemed to have the same notes. 1) the main character has to be the only person who could possibly be the hero of this script. They have an epic destiny or a very specific set of skills that make them perfect. Gone are the days when a protagonist could be an anybody who happened to be in the right place at the wrong time. 2) the stakes have to be raised. No matter how high the stakes are now, they need to be higher. This can't be about one small town, it has to have the possibility to leak into the whole world. It can't be about one man or woman saving their child. In the process, they also have to stop the villains from taking over the government. Any successful film that didn't meet these two points is considered an "fluke." It's like they all got a checklist of what to ask when it comes to story pitches. I'm probably like most other screenwriters, in that I now develop my pitches so they hit these bullet points.

[Raithe]

For those who might be interested, some behind the scenes of Gravity.  Note - potential spoilers as well for those who haven't seen it yet.

 

The technical side doesn't really start till around the 1:40 mark

 

http://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c

[LadyCrimson]

Interesting, thanks Raithe. I always like hearing/seeing insight into what goes into stuff like that.

[Raithe]

Caught a bit of High Society on tv.  It's nice enough and has some entertaining ditties, but it does make me want to pull out my copy of A Philadelphia Story to watch the original version with Grant and Hepburn.

[Hiro Protagonist]

The Hobbit, Desolation of Smaug. Fantastic, really enjoyed it. Can't wait for the last one.

[Labadal]

Outrage.

 

Japanese yakuza movie that at times was over the top violent. Need to watch the sequel someday.

[Undecaf]

The Reef came from TV yesterday. It was actually quite decent when watched with half an eye. Dunno if I'd watch it again any time soon (so not that good), but it managed to not bore me in tears.

[Raithe]

Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars.

 

More of a special done a few years ago then a proper movie, one of those BBC two-part specials. With Jonathan Pryce as Holmes, and more centred around the gang of street kids acting as the Irregulars and acting as his eyes, ears and hands around London when the detective is framed for murder and put under house arrest.

 

Entertaining in it's way, maybe a touch watered down for a younger audience then is normal for most Holmes adaptions.

although the end sequence of the Irregulars walking in a line down a gritty London street as an instrumental version of "Little Green Bag" plays was perhaps just a touch too cheesy.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Raithe

[Agiel]

Watched "Her" tonight. Another great Spike Jonze film.

 

Think it hits a little too close to home for a lot of folks here though?

[Oner]

Saw *gasp* The Hobbit 2!

 

It was pretty good I think.

[Monte Carlo]

Elysium

 

I don't think it was as political as everyone else seemed to, but some explanation as to why all the hyper-bastards got away with shooting off to space would have been helpful. anyhow, modified Kalashnikovs, brain implants, robot cops, camouflaged anti-grav gunships and comedy Seth Efrikkan (man) commando psychos are thoroughly entertaining.

 

Decent pop-corn sci-fi. 7/10

[Oerwinde]

Saving Mr Banks

 

If the portrayal was at all accurate, P.L. Travers was a very unpleasant woman. They left out her distaste for the final product and refusal to trust Disney with any further adaptions as well. Otherwise it was a pretty good movie. I didn't even realize Colin Farrell was in it, but I really liked his character.

 

Saw Ted as well. With that and Dads, I'm officially a fan of Seth McFarlane's live action work.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Oerwinde