Even More Movies You've Watched This Week

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
The Skin I Live In - Antonio Banderas plays a plasic surgeon who pioneers a revolutionary, though illegal synthetic skin following the death of his wife. His research focuses around a mysterious woman who has been a captive for 6 years, during which time she has become a bizarre combination of prisoner, guinea pig, prototype, lover and muse -thanks to her uncanny resemblance to his wife.

But did he choose her for her looks or do his experiments run deeper than medical curiosity?
[/quote]

Oddly enough I just lost the disc of this before I could even watch it. It was just in the theater here too. I’ll have to order another one, thanks for the reminder.

james[/quote]

Definitely worth watching. It’s like David Cronenberg was asked to adapt Pygmalion.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I liked Skyfall and especially the lack of gadgets. It had some flaws but every Bond movie does. I am sorry to see Dame Judy Dench go. I thought Bardem was very good and comparing him to Kahn is a but unfair. Wrath of Kahn is one of the greatest movies of all time, so obviously its gonna be tough to compare favorably with Ricardo Montalban. [/quote]

I was referring to his Ahab-like obsession with M. Silva begs for comparisons with Khan and Nolan’s Joker. I also mentioned Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem) who’d have been a more fitting adversary to Daniel Craig’s Bond, so it’s not the actor I have a problem with, just the confused tone.

The blond hair and gaudy wardrobe were flat out of place in a Daniel Craig Bond movie and worked against the darker aspects of Silva’s past: his handy pest extermination tips and the cyanide anecdote were great, but they could’ve toned down the appearance. Silva was supposed to be a ghost but he didn’t exactly blend in.

His look actually reminded me of Cesar Romero’s Joker more than Ledger’s.

Also, let’s get some spoilers in here if we’re going to discuss the finer points of the movie. [/quote]

You know your movies, so respect. But I’m still not sure a true Coen-brothers bond movie would work for most people, which is what an Anton-Chigurh style character would require to make it work, IMO. Personally, I’d love to see the Coen brothers take a crack at a bond flick.

[/quote]

I meant that Chigurh was a less conspicuous antagonist than Silva, but played by the same actor, so they didn’t have to make him as far out as they did (we’re not talking about Nicolas Cage here, and they certainly shouldn’t have taken so much inspiration from Nolan’s Joker)… Casino Royale made a bold move towards stripping the Bond formula right back and it worked. The villains were all business then but now it seems that they’re picking elements from the previous Bonds (a pinch of Connery here, a soupcon of Brosnan there).

There’s always a shift in tone when they bring in a new Bond. But for my money Daniel Craig found his niche the first time out. I don’t see Craig as an actor with much of a lightness of touch anyway (he usually comes across as pretty morose), but he made the role his own in Casino Royale and I think it’s a mistake to move away from that into more traditional Bond territory (like adding in more humor).

The whole point of Craig’s Bond was to get away from that since it was so overdone by the end of Brosnan’s run.

They can’t go back to that after this so their going to have to keep moving forward with the next movie. Can’t really be helped, though: they came up with the concept of a meta-Bond movie for the 50th anniversary and had to transplant the character into a different world to do it. [/quote]

~stick fingers in ears~LA LA LA LA LA LA LA** I’n not listening to yooooo…

Seriously though I can’t diagree with anything you posted. I’m going to see Skyfall when my boy gets back from school soon. My wife has seen it and she loved it but she won’t say much about it because she knows I’m pissed that she went to see it before me.

[quote]bond james bond wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I liked Skyfall and especially the lack of gadgets. It had some flaws but every Bond movie does. I am sorry to see Dame Judy Dench go. I thought Bardem was very good and comparing him to Kahn is a but unfair. Wrath of Kahn is one of the greatest movies of all time, so obviously its gonna be tough to compare favorably with Ricardo Montalban. [/quote]

I was referring to his Ahab-like obsession with M. Silva begs for comparisons with Khan and Nolan’s Joker. I also mentioned Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem) who’d have been a more fitting adversary to Daniel Craig’s Bond, so it’s not the actor I have a problem with, just the confused tone.

The blond hair and gaudy wardrobe were flat out of place in a Daniel Craig Bond movie and worked against the darker aspects of Silva’s past: his handy pest extermination tips and the cyanide anecdote were great, but they could’ve toned down the appearance. Silva was supposed to be a ghost but he didn’t exactly blend in.

His look actually reminded me of Cesar Romero’s Joker more than Ledger’s.

Also, let’s get some spoilers in here if we’re going to discuss the finer points of the movie. [/quote]

You know your movies, so respect. But I’m still not sure a true Coen-brothers bond movie would work for most people, which is what an Anton-Chigurh style character would require to make it work, IMO. Personally, I’d love to see the Coen brothers take a crack at a bond flick.

[/quote]

I meant that Chigurh was a less conspicuous antagonist than Silva, but played by the same actor, so they didn’t have to make him as far out as they did (we’re not talking about Nicolas Cage here, and they certainly shouldn’t have taken so much inspiration from Nolan’s Joker)… Casino Royale made a bold move towards stripping the Bond formula right back and it worked. The villains were all business then but now it seems that they’re picking elements from the previous Bonds (a pinch of Connery here, a soupcon of Brosnan there).

There’s always a shift in tone when they bring in a new Bond. But for my money Daniel Craig found his niche the first time out. I don’t see Craig as an actor with much of a lightness of touch anyway (he usually comes across as pretty morose), but he made the role his own in Casino Royale and I think it’s a mistake to move away from that into more traditional Bond territory (like adding in more humor).

The whole point of Craig’s Bond was to get away from that since it was so overdone by the end of Brosnan’s run.

They can’t go back to that after this so their going to have to keep moving forward with the next movie. Can’t really be helped, though: they came up with the concept of a meta-Bond movie for the 50th anniversary and had to transplant the character into a different world to do it. [/quote]

~stick fingers in ears~LA LA LA LA LA LA LA** I’n not listening to yooooo…

Seriously though I can’t diagree with anything you posted. I’m going to see Skyfall when my boy gets back from school soon. My wife has seen it and she loved it but she won’t say much about it because she knows I’m pissed that she went to see it before me.
[/quote]

A hardcore Bond fan like yourself would love it. I actually thought the concept of a self-referential Bond movie was great (I like those kinds of movies) and of course if they didn’t do it now, they’d have to wait a decade. The pre-credits sequence in Budapest absolutely fucking destroys the main chase in The Bourne Legacy and everything in the Budapest-set Taken 2 combined. I just think it took the franchise off in a diffrent direction than was intended with Casino Royale.

I’m lamenting the missed opportunity but at the same time understand there wasn’t much to be done about it since the anniversary year fell during Craig’s stint as 007…Still, I don’t think they are playing to Daniel Craig’s strengths by making Bond ‘lighter’ now.

^^Roybot: My son did a school presentation in grade six on James Bond lol. He won an award and had to go in front of the whole school. He was thinking about wearing a tux but changed his mind when it occured to him only the adults would get it and his classmates would think he’s a dick…his words.

At work last night I recommended Ghost Dog: Way of the Samuri to co-worker. You probably have seen it but if you haven’t you should. Fantastic kill scenes. Little heavy at times but excellent imo.

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
Anyone seen the new Red Dawn, Ive heard it was horrible. I dont want this movie to ruin the original for me. (a childhood favorite) So are there any kind words to be said about it?[/quote]

I’m sure watching the original on Betamax while smashing your balls with a hammer would be a similar experience to seeing this remake.

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
Anyone seen the new Red Dawn, Ive heard it was horrible. I dont want this movie to ruin the original for me. (a childhood favorite) So are there any kind words to be said about it?[/quote]

I’m sure watching the original on Betamax while smashing your balls with a hammer would be a similar experience to seeing this remake.[/quote]

Sigh… I loved that movie.

Fuck you hollywood.

[quote]roybot wrote:
The Skin I Live In - Antonio Banderas plays a plasic surgeon who pioneers a revolutionary, though illegal synthetic skin following the death of his wife. His research focuses around a mysterious woman who has been a captive for 6 years, during which time she has become a bizarre combination of prisoner, guinea pig, prototype, lover and muse -thanks to her uncanny resemblance to his wife.

But did he choose her for her looks or do his experiments run deeper than medical curiosity?
[/quote]

Damn this movie, damn this movie straight to hell. I knew what was going on, just didn’t want to admit it to myself. Then, BAM! No choice but to face the facts.

Girlfriend loves Almodovar movies. I think the dudes obsession with women is unhealthy.

[quote]kothreat wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
The Skin I Live In - Antonio Banderas plays a plasic surgeon who pioneers a revolutionary, though illegal synthetic skin following the death of his wife. His research focuses around a mysterious woman who has been a captive for 6 years, during which time she has become a bizarre combination of prisoner, guinea pig, prototype, lover and muse -thanks to her uncanny resemblance to his wife.

But did he choose her for her looks or do his experiments run deeper than medical curiosity?
[/quote]

Damn this movie, damn this movie straight to hell. I knew what was going on, just didn’t want to admit it to myself. Then, BAM! No choice but to face the facts.

Girlfriend loves Almodovar movies. I think the dudes obsession with women is unhealthy. [/quote]

They said the same thing about Hitchcock. FWIW, the film follows the plot of the book pretty closely …and it is a story about a guy who is driven by an unhealthy obsession with the women around him.

[quote]bond james bond wrote:
^^Roybot: My son did a school presentation in grade six on James Bond lol. He won an award and had to go in front of the whole school. He was thinking about wearing a tux but changed his mind when it occured to him only the adults would get it and his classmates would think he’s a dick…his words. [/quote]

Lol, yeah. Tuxes only become socially acceptable attire from Prom night onwards.

Great movie.

REC 3 - weakest movie in the series so far, by far. It was promoted as a prequel but it takes place at more or less the same time as the original movie, as indicated by a news report on a tv screen which shows the quarantined apartment block.

A smattering of other references, like the vet who treated the dog from the infected apartment block being the uncle of the groom, were meant to “uncover information hidden in the first two movies and leaves the door open for the final installment”, but they only really expand on the nature of the “virus” as established in REC 2 (if you’ve seen it you’ll know that it isn’t a virus at all)…

So if you didn’t like the direction they took in REC 2, you won’t like this.

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
Anyone seen the new Red Dawn, Ive heard it was horrible. I dont want this movie to ruin the original for me. (a childhood favorite) So are there any kind words to be said about it?[/quote]

I’m sure watching the original on Betamax while smashing your balls with a hammer would be a similar experience to seeing this remake.[/quote]
Well with that said I will not be watching this, even though the masochist in me is telling me it couldnt be that bad lol. Sad because as far as remakes go it had potential.

Fright night remake was pretty fun.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]bond james bond wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I liked Skyfall and especially the lack of gadgets. It had some flaws but every Bond movie does. I am sorry to see Dame Judy Dench go. I thought Bardem was very good and comparing him to Kahn is a but unfair. Wrath of Kahn is one of the greatest movies of all time, so obviously its gonna be tough to compare favorably with Ricardo Montalban. [/quote]

I was referring to his Ahab-like obsession with M. Silva begs for comparisons with Khan and Nolan’s Joker. I also mentioned Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem) who’d have been a more fitting adversary to Daniel Craig’s Bond, so it’s not the actor I have a problem with, just the confused tone.

The blond hair and gaudy wardrobe were flat out of place in a Daniel Craig Bond movie and worked against the darker aspects of Silva’s past: his handy pest extermination tips and the cyanide anecdote were great, but they could’ve toned down the appearance. Silva was supposed to be a ghost but he didn’t exactly blend in.

His look actually reminded me of Cesar Romero’s Joker more than Ledger’s.

Also, let’s get some spoilers in here if we’re going to discuss the finer points of the movie. [/quote]

You know your movies, so respect. But I’m still not sure a true Coen-brothers bond movie would work for most people, which is what an Anton-Chigurh style character would require to make it work, IMO. Personally, I’d love to see the Coen brothers take a crack at a bond flick.

[/quote]

I meant that Chigurh was a less conspicuous antagonist than Silva, but played by the same actor, so they didn’t have to make him as far out as they did (we’re not talking about Nicolas Cage here, and they certainly shouldn’t have taken so much inspiration from Nolan’s Joker)… Casino Royale made a bold move towards stripping the Bond formula right back and it worked. The villains were all business then but now it seems that they’re picking elements from the previous Bonds (a pinch of Connery here, a soupcon of Brosnan there).

There’s always a shift in tone when they bring in a new Bond. But for my money Daniel Craig found his niche the first time out. I don’t see Craig as an actor with much of a lightness of touch anyway (he usually comes across as pretty morose), but he made the role his own in Casino Royale and I think it’s a mistake to move away from that into more traditional Bond territory (like adding in more humor).

The whole point of Craig’s Bond was to get away from that since it was so overdone by the end of Brosnan’s run.

They can’t go back to that after this so their going to have to keep moving forward with the next movie. Can’t really be helped, though: they came up with the concept of a meta-Bond movie for the 50th anniversary and had to transplant the character into a different world to do it. [/quote]

~stick fingers in ears~LA LA LA LA LA LA LA** I’n not listening to yooooo…

Seriously though I can’t diagree with anything you posted. I’m going to see Skyfall when my boy gets back from school soon. My wife has seen it and she loved it but she won’t say much about it because she knows I’m pissed that she went to see it before me.
[/quote]

A hardcore Bond fan like yourself would love it. I actually thought the concept of a self-referential Bond movie was great (I like those kinds of movies) and of course if they didn’t do it now, they’d have to wait a decade. The pre-credits sequence in Budapest absolutely fucking destroys the main chase in The Bourne Legacy and everything in the Budapest-set Taken 2 combined. I just think it took the franchise off in a diffrent direction than was intended with Casino Royale.

I’m lamenting the missed opportunity but at the same time understand there wasn’t much to be done about it since the anniversary year fell during Craig’s stint as 007…Still, I don’t think they are playing to Daniel Craig’s strengths by making Bond ‘lighter’ now.

[/quote]
If you can, try and find the BBC Top Gear Bond special where they show the making of that chase, the bike section is nuts -pretty much all for real, no helmets worn and tiny paths laid out for the stunt guys

Watched “Carnage” last night. In light of some of the posts about marriage and relationships it was pretty timely. Definitely worth seeing if only to watch how Jodi Foster’s character gets more and more intense as the visit goes on.

james

I watched “Killing them Softly” last Sunday.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Three criminals decide to rob a poker game ran by a ganster (Ray Liotta) for gangsters. The gangsters who were robbed want the offenders taken care of, so they hire Brad Pitts’ character to carry out the operation.

I hated this movie. I’ll typically find things to appreciate about the vision of the director or an actors performance but this film is nothing short of hot garbage.

Here’s why:

Dull, overacted and way too much dialogue. The actors clearly weren’t allowed to go that far off the page, and the conversations inbetween characters were way too long. Single shot back and forth camera angles surely proved to be a challenge for the performers, but on screen it’s tedius to the point of the director making the statement of “I know this is uncomfortable for you the audience, but I don’t care and I’m not going to let you up for air.”

Many of these conversations take place in cars or in back room offices, and bars. There’s nothing else to look at while two actors banter back and forth. In key scenes where Brad Pitts’ character is speaking with the liaison, it’s literally taking place in a Lexus where half the screen at each angle is swarmed by the headrest of the driver or passenger seat. Very annoying.

None of the characters are anywhere near likeable. One might be relieved to see Brad Pitt finally come on screen, but it’s anticlimactic and too wordy for him. He’s best when he’s reacting, not when he drives the scene.

Though the story is supposedly taking place in New Orleans, everyone kind of sounds like they are from Boston. One of the main characters is a white unshaven brunette dude who drags on like an idiot, and clearly borrowed the essence of his character from Casey Affleck in Good Will Hunting. Later I learned that this director also did “The Killing of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” which leads me to believe that the director initially wanted Affleck because of his chemistry with Pitt, but Affleck told him “no thanks” and he found a direct replacement.

It seemed through casting that the producers intended on dissapointing it’s audience all together and trolling us into believing this is a heavy gangster movie being portrayed by lauded actors. Ray Liotta’s character turned out to be a humongous pussy, James Gandolfini played a slovenly alcoholic hitman 10 years past his prime who ultimately is removed from his duty because he can’t keep himself together. His storyline literally ends in the front seat of that fucking Lexus during a conversation ABOUT HIM and we never see him again.

Toward the end of the film, Pitts character carries out a complex execution of three of the characters in what critics are calling brutal violence and heavy action, but it’s not. It’s murder porn and not much more. Pitts character takes advantage of the bumbling so-called gangsters weakness and handles them accordingly. Zero payoff for the bullshit this movie puts the audience through up to that point.

Like I said, you can’t attach yourself to any one character, the hits that happen at the end aren’t based on anything personal, it’s strictly business, and the business that’s completed weren’t really even very high stakes. Just a bunch of low level gangsters getting payback for losing 100k at a poker game.

Lastly, the thing that bothered me most about this film is the less than subtle reminder of Americas financial issues in November of 2008, when this film takes place. In every scene where there was a TV playing in the background, President Bush was giving a speech about the economy or Obama was campaigning for office. In scenes in cars (which were abundant), the radio played news reports and talkshow discussions regarding the economy and the presidential race. One of the scenes even concluded with a character looking up into a bleak sky with a billboard half populated with Obama and the other half with McCain.

It’s as if the filmmaker was saying “Remember how fucked up 2008 was? Remember that financial collapse where people lost their homes and jobs? Remember? REMEMBER??? If not, it’s ok because we’re going to FUCKING BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH IT FOR TWO HOURS UNTIL YOU DO!!!”

I spend my movie going dollar to escape for a couple hours and have a good time with my wife, who also loves seeing movies. We don’t go to get bummed out or reminisce about bullshit from 4 years ago, ESPECIALLY during the Holiday season. This movie SUCKED man. Please save your money on this one. Rotten Tomatoes is WRONG. This movie is tanking hard and deservedly so. If I’ve kept at least one of you from spending your money, then I’ve done my job here.

The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.

Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.

Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.[/quote]

I know what you’re saying, but I don’t do movies like that. The last movie I walked on was “A Good Man in Africa” in the Mid 90’s.

I stick it out, watch it through, write a review like I wrote above, and carry on. I so rarely make a mistake that big that it’s punishment for me to endure it the whole way through.

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.

Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.[/quote]

I know what you’re saying, but I don’t do movies like that. The last movie I walked on was “A Good Man in Africa” in the Mid 90’s.

I stick it out, watch it through, write a review like I wrote above, and carry on. I so rarely make a mistake that big that it’s punishment for me to endure it the whole way through.[/quote]

I worked in a cinema for years and watched films for free.

I avoided films like the plague and even fell asleep in them sometimes.

You might not care for the cash and you may be stubborn but why waste precious hours on bad films that make you fed up and angry?

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
The walk out of the movie and get your cash back.

Most chains have a policy regarding this. Dont watch an hour and then come out. 20 minutes tops is a good call on whether a film is utter shit or worth the dollars you paid.[/quote]

I know what you’re saying, but I don’t do movies like that. The last movie I walked on was “A Good Man in Africa” in the Mid 90’s.

I stick it out, watch it through, write a review like I wrote above, and carry on. I so rarely make a mistake that big that it’s punishment for me to endure it the whole way through.[/quote]

I worked in a cinema for years and watched films for free.

I avoided films like the plague and even fell asleep in them sometimes.

You might not care for the cash and you may be stubborn but why waste precious hours on bad films that make you fed up and angry?[/quote]

Because then I’ll at least feel… SOMETHING

hahaha

I’m right there with you, it makes no sense, but that’s what I do. Last movie I hated this bad was Strange Wilderness which I believe was 4 years ago. I’ve got a pretty good track record, this kind of seething happens very rarely.

I agree, Brad. I sit through and sometimes I’m surprised by the end.

Then there are those films which are fantastic UNTIL near the end.