(Un)Official Movie thread

[StudioStu]

I really enjoy the Oceans trilogy...11, 12, and 13.

 

But I only know of 2 other people who liked Oceans 12. Everybody seems to hate this movie and I don't know why. I love the plot twist, to me it was like these guys are so good they even fooled the audience. But, to each his own. Anybody else like them?

[masterded]

After work today I am going to go see The Thing on the big screen. I love October for late night movie showings. I just need a theater by my house to do a Dawn of the Dead late night showing.

[Gabbo]

Anyone here seen The Social Network?

 

SPOILER.

 

The star is Sorkin's script, it's so crisp and biting. Fincher gives it so much respect and really tones down his directing to allow the script the air to breathe. It succeeds and again so much of that is down to Sorkin.

 

There were a few needless scenes, somewhat understandably to spruce up a film about building a website. Some of it was unnecessary, others just looked so pretty you just had to let go and enjoy.

 

The same attitude can be applied to the film's ability to play fast and loose with the truth. That said the film never purports to be a documentary, it's a dramatisation of events and as Sorkin puts it 'can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?' What would you rather see - the ****y, smug and mildly entertaining Zuckerberg of the film or the shy, socially backwards Zuckerberg of real life?

 

I do feel the weak point of the film is Timberlake. He isn't awful and by all accounts probably better than you'd expect. Which doesn't mean much. His character of Sean Parker should be the axis upon which Zuckerberg's transformation and expansion hinges instead it falls flat because Timberlake has no weight and can't inspire any sort of reaction. Even in what should be the power scene of the movie where Saverin is ousted out of his own company, Timberlake fails to inspire any anger from the viewer (that isn't directly related to his performance).

 

I felt like Eisenberg was in an oscar winning performance as I watched it but upon reflection maybe not. One qualm that is festering in me right now is that I feel the film is potentially Avatar #2. in that I'm not sure it will age well, Avatar hasn't and will only seem more outdated and literal as time goes on. A large part of the attraction of this is Facebook and when Facebook means very little to us I wonder if the film will follow?

 

All in all, a great watch and a Friday night well spent.

[lazorbeak]

Completely disagree on Timberlake. I thought he did a great job playing Parker as a nerd rock-star (which he was/is). You weren't supposed to boo and hiss when his character behaves badly, because he didn't do it to be a "bad guy." The story paints Eduardo as lacking vision for the potential of facebook, and considering the huge financial success following Parker's influence on the project (making Zuckerberg a billionaire and Parker and Eduardo hundred millionaires), it's hard to see his decision as one that should inspire anger. We already know the outcome, and it's an outcome that couldn't have occurred without Parker. I think accusing a scene like that of "falling flat" is asking for mindless melodrama where it's not warranted.

 

My favorite characters were the Winklevoss brothers, though. While the story casts them as elitist Aryan supermen, their scenes had a fun energy that the film lacked when it focused on Eisenberg. I love the bit with them and the president of Harvard.

 

No way does Eisenberg even get nominated for a best acting oscar because 1. he hasn't been turning in virtuoso performances for a half decade the way other actors have (it's a crime that Leo doesn't have an oscar yet), and 2. he's basically played this exact character multiple times before. Yes, he's good at it, but nobody is going to reward him for being dramatic Michael Cera twice a year. Well, MTV probably will.

 

Sorkin's script is impressive at making a borderline autistic comp sci major into an even somewhat relate-able protagonist. The film is constantly excusing Zuckerberg's bad behavior because he's a genius, damnit, and he doesn't have time to follow society's dumb "rules"!

 

I liked it, but it's over-simplified to fit a basic plot structure and is a little too long.

[Gabbo]

Film's are designed to provoke a reaction and if you think we aren't supposed to think Parker is a **** for the way he acted when Eduardo is ousted you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

No-one is asking for mindless melodrama, I'd just rather not feel numb when Timberlake is on screen. The only time he was remotely interesting was the very end when he got caught and tried to claim he was framed.

 

I had no idea Oscar nominated performances were no longer the result of one film, but rather a decades worth of work. Thanks for letting me know.

 

So what if he's played the same character before, a million actors are boring and typecast and get Oscars awards and nominations for it. How very naive of you.

 

Lastly, I disagree. I could have watched it for another hour at least.

 

Guess we really just didn't see the same film.

[BurningHamster]

Driving to work about 2 hours ago I go past my local discount theater The Riverview. What do I see on the marquee? Ghostbusters 1130 PM. My night just got made as I get off at 11 and I am only 15 minuets away. I called up a bunch of friends and I am totally pumped. Never thought I would get to see my favorite movie on the big screen.

 

That's pretty cool. Where I am I was able to catch Ferris Bueller's day off on a big screen for free.

 

Something so cool about seeing an old favourite playing somewhere.

[lazorbeak]

Film's are designed to provoke a reaction and if you think we aren't supposed to think Parker is a **** for the way he acted when Eduardo is ousted you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

No, I'm not. It's not a simple morality play, despite your continued insistence that we're supposed to vilify a character or that the actor, not the writer, director, DOP, whoever, is ultimately responsible for what's on the screen.

 

I had no idea Oscar nominated performances were no longer the result of one film, but rather a decades worth of work. Thanks for letting me know.

 

Well now you know. It took Kate Winslet 10 years and what, 5 nominations to win one oscar. It's a popularity contest voted by members of the academy. In no way, shape or form is it some objective measure of an actor's performance in one film.

 

So what if he's played the same character before, a million actors are boring and typecast and get Oscars awards and nominations for it. How very naive of you.

 

Is there any reason you are saying that I'm being "obtuse" and "naive" for disagreeing with you? Heaven forbid intelligent people could reach contrary conclusions in interpreting art!

 

I'm not trying to be "deliberately obtuse," I have a contrary point of view based on my reaction to the same film. At no point did I say anything disrespectful to you or your opinions, I just disagreed with you. There is absolutely no reason to behave so defensively.

 

And again, I liked it. I just didn't love it. From your response, you'd think I had called it awful.

[Gabbo]

I don't mean to come across so defensively whatever your opinions on you film, you're entitled to them but trying to defy fact to make me look silly is unnecessary.

 

Case in point the Oscar thing.

 

Jamie Foxx or Adrian Brody never had a decades worth of excellent work when they won in 2002 and 2004. Or Jennifer Hudson who won with her film debut. Nor did nominees like Ryan Gosling, Jeremy Renner, Edward Norton,Matt Damon, Natalie Portman or Queen Latifah et al have an impressive body of work to fall back on.

 

If you didn't think his performance was anything special or too close to his real personality: fine, but don't change the criteria of something to condescend me.

 

 

If you thought Timberlake did a great job, then fair enough I felt he didn't do his job and that scene was dramatised to make Parker seem like a little ****. In a film I liked so much it just felt like an obvious letdown.

[lazorbeak]

I apologize if you took my statements about the Oscars being a popularity contest and not an objective measure of one performance to be some sort of insult or attempt to make you look silly; that certainly wasn't my goal. I still don't see Eisenberg being nominated because although he is playing a real-life person, it's not really an oscar-bait type performance. There's not a big range of emotion, he didn't try to make the performance larger than life, and that's what the academy likes to look for. My point though is that even if it was a great performance, it doesn't mean he was going to get an oscar, because while voting is a popularity contest, Eisenberg isn't an "outsider" the way Marissa Tomei or Jennifer Hudson or Halle Berry is; he actually has been turning in dramatic performances for 5 years now (since 2005's Squid and the Whale).

[BHK1978]

<p>I don't know why but I just read this and find it awesome!<img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/gibson-out-clinton-hangover-2-adds-former-president-cast" rel="external nofollow">Bill Clinton is going to be in the Hangover 2!</a></p>

[BurningHamster]

If anyone likes movies that fit into the category of "weird japanese crap" go over to youtube and search for clips of "Funky Forest".

 

I ain't linking to it because quite frankly I am not sure what counts as NSFW for you guys, but consider this a warning of possible adult or just disturbingly strange content.

[Gabbo]

I felt like Eisenberg was in an oscar winning performance as I watched it

 

No way does Eisenberg even get nominated for a best acting oscar because 1. he hasn't been turning in virtuoso performances for a half decade the way other actors have (it's a crime that Leo doesn't have an oscar yet), and 2. he's basically played this exact character multiple times before. Yes, he's good at it, but nobody is going to reward him for being dramatic Michael Cera twice a year. Well, MTV probably will.

 

I had no idea Oscar nominated performances were no longer the result of one film, but rather a decades worth of work. Thanks for letting me know.

 

So what if he's played the same character before, a million actors are boring and typecast and get Oscars awards and nominations for it. How very naive of you.

 

I still don't see Eisenberg being nominated because although he is playing a real-life person, it's not really an oscar-bait type performance. There's not a big range of emotion, he didn't try to make the performance larger than life, and that's what the academy likes to look for

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12278412

 

 

Good for him. Looks like a close awards ceremony this year. Lots of great nominees in each category. Hoping Toy Story 3 wins best picture, but it's unlikely.

[lazorbeak]

Haha, well good for him that he got nominated, despite not deserving it. I still like Colin Firth to win, as he was absolutely amazing in the King's Speech.

[hellboy2]

i like my films i like them weird and obscure

 

but i found a film called A Serbian Tale and i found it genuinly disturbing, i phoned up my mate and said to him i cpould happily lived my life without seeing that film but not as disturbing as The Hottie or the Nottie

 

anyone seen Book of Eli not sure what i really think of it at the moment

[jesterx7769]

I thought book of Eli was good for what it was, not the best ever but decent action and a decent twist without going over board.

[hellboy2]

i don't know about Book of Eli, i enjoyed it for what it was just something didn't click with me

 

has anyone seen The Black Hole i think it is called, released in late seventies i think anyone's thoughts on the ending would be cool its very bizarre

[1234]

i like my films i like them weird and obscure

 

but i found a film called A Serbian Tale and i found it genuinly disturbing, i phoned up my mate and said to him i cpould happily lived my life without seeing that film but not as disturbing as The Hottie or the Nottie

 

What has been wikipedia'd cannot be un-wikipedia'd. Seriously just from reading what that film is about I am probably going to have nightmares. I feel sorry for you that you watched it.

[hellboy2]

What has been wikipedia'd cannot be un-wikipedia'd. Seriously just from reading what that film is about I am probably going to have nightmares. I feel sorry for you that you watched it.

 

honestly i bought it from HMV after my mate had said he got about half way through and couldn't watch anymore and said he was never going to watch it, i decided to buy it and in all honesty it has really disturbed me

 

in saying that i watched a french film (i think its french) called Martyrs and was surprised by how good it was

[brashleyholland]

honestly i bought it from HMV after my mate had said he got about half way through and couldn't watch anymore and said he was never going to watch it, i decided to buy it and in all honesty it has really disturbed me

 

Count yourself lucky, because if you bought the movie from HMV then you only saw a massively, massively cut version - it's actually the most cut film to be released in the UK in the last 15 years.

 

I was lucky (unlucky?) enough to get hold of a pre-release Serbian copy of the movie; the full, uncut version that did the rounds at the European film festivals last year. Good lord, it made for difficult viewing.

 

I've seen the UK release version - obviously the disturbing nature of the film is derived from the subject matter and you don't actually need to see anything to be disturbed by it. But damn, it was a whole lot worse...particularly the 'baby' scene and the scene with the two bodies under the sheets. I'd explain the differences between the cut and uncut version for you...but I'm not sure that I want to and it's certainly not for this board!

 

Mark Kermode said it best about this film - there was nothing wrong with it, it was well made for what it was...but there was nothing to like about it whatsoever. One of the most abjectly miserable films I've ever seen.

 

in saying that i watched a french film (i think its french) called Martyrs and was surprised by how good it was

 

Martyrs is excellent and again, heavily cut in the UK.

 

If you're into this kind of film (you sick freak ) then I'd suggest these as well...they all fall under the 'New French Extremity' genre, and are some of the most bleak films I've ever seen.

 

"A' l'interieur" (Inside) - Another French film with an incredibly dark tone. Pound for pound possibly the most unrelenting, graphic and sadistically violent film I can think of. It's about a pregnant woman who survives a car crash that kills her husband. The day before she is due to go to hospital to give birth, a strange woman breaks into her house with the intention of stealing her unborn baby.

 

"Ils" (Them) - A typical "couple away in a county retreat, harassed/tortured/hunted by a group of locals" type deal. Again, a very dark tone, similar to the American movie "The Strangers" but with an interesting twist on the attackers toward the end.

 

"Sheitan" (Satan) - Stars the awesome Vincent Cassel, and is another fairly textbook take on the American slasher, but with a typically dark French undercurrent. It's about a group of 'degenerate' kids who get lured back to a county house by a sexy barmaid, where they meet a shepherd and his pregnant wife. Cue Satanic worship and some pointlessly graphic sex scenes.

 

"Frontiers" - This is the story of a bank robbery gone wrong, which leaves the robbers stuck hiding out at an Inn near the French/German border. The family that runs the Inn are not all that they seem, and much chasing, capture, torture and imprisonment ensures. Oh, and there are ****'s.

 

"Calvaire" (The Ordeal) - An interesting twist on the captured by a "nutter/crazed locals" genre, this is a Belgian film, but still technically falls into the New French Extremity genre. It's the story of a struggling up and coming pop singer, who lives in the van he uses to get to gigs. When his van breaks down in the middle of nowhere in a storm (of course), he is taken in by a strange old man who claims to be a former entertainer, thus understanding his plight. Needless to say, all does not go well and his stay turns into a disturbing ordeal involving some crazed villagers. And sodomy.

 

Still, 'A Serbian Film' tops the lot, for being the only movie I have ever seen that has made me think "I shouldn't be watching this!"

[hellboy2]

 

 

 

"A' l'interieur" (Inside) - Another French film with an incredibly dark tone. Pound for pound possibly the most unrelenting, graphic and sadistically violent film I can think of. It's about a pregnant woman who survives a car crash that kills her husband. The day before she is due to go to hospital to give birth, a strange woman breaks into her house with the intention of stealing her unborn baby.

 

"Ils" (Them) - A typical "couple away in a county retreat, harassed/tortured/hunted by a group of locals" type deal. Again, a very dark tone, similar to the American movie "The Strangers" but with an interesting twist on the attackers toward the end.

 

"Sheitan" (Satan) - Stars the awesome Vincent Cassel, and is another fairly textbook take on the American slasher, but with a typically dark French undercurrent. It's about a group of 'degenerate' kids who get lured back to a county house by a sexy barmaid, where they meet a shepherd and his pregnant wife. Cue Satanic worship and some pointlessly graphic sex scenes.

 

"Frontiers" - This is the story of a bank robbery gone wrong, which leaves the robbers stuck hiding out at an Inn near the French/German border. The family that runs the Inn are not all that they seem, and much chasing, capture, torture and imprisonment ensures. Oh, and there are ****'s.

 

"Calvaire" (The Ordeal) - An interesting twist on the captured by a "nutter/crazed locals" genre, this is a Belgian film, but still technically falls into the New French Extremity genre. It's the story of a struggling up and coming pop singer, who lives in the van he uses to get to gigs. When his van breaks down in the middle of nowhere in a storm (of course), he is taken in by a strange old man who claims to be a former entertainer, thus understanding his plight. Needless to say, all does not go well and his stay turns into a disturbing ordeal involving some crazed villagers. And sodomy.

 

Still, 'A Serbian Film' tops the lot, for being the only movie I have ever seen that has made me think "I shouldn't be watching this!"

 

seen Inside thought it was brilliant, Calvaire was weird that was the one where they think he's the wife isn't it or something and about a pig if i remember correctly, haven't heard of Sheitan but Vincent Cassel is awesome

i'll be honest i didn't like Them, just couldn't get into it, that is the one where they say "play with us" or "why won't you play with us"

 

Frontiers is that the one where a guy gets put into a boiler, and a cave or mine full of children, if it is yeah i liked that one

 

will check out the satan one

[hellboy2]

Brashley you seem to be the sort of happy go lucky guy who would have watched Anti-Christ what do you reckon about the end of that film or what does anyone else think of it for that matter

[djthefunkchris]

<p>So, I took my wife out to watch Batman vs. Superman. She loved it, I wanted to love it... I guess I did, I don't know though, I was hoping for more.</p><p> </p><p>

I won't say any spoilers yet, but I will say that I don't get the critics response to it. I could possibly rate it kind of like they are, but for much different reasons. I seem to be opposite of the critics, loving what they hated and not really digging what they loved. I feel like the roles were mostly spot on for example. X wouldn't do that, and why isn't X doing this..... Well, that's how they are in the comics, at least back when i read them. I think I've even seen some of the better cartoon versions act in similar ways, so I don't get it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

Anyways, I figure midweek or something will be fair game to talk about it.</p><p> </p><p>

I loved Deadpool, or maybe I just loved the GL joke so much I think I loved it, lol.</p>

[bigtplaystew]

I kinda hated BvS. I cant get into why without spoilers... but they took some pretty huge liberties with Batman that I wasn't nuts about.

[LordJaguar]

I'm getting ready to drop a Batman V Superman review, but for now let me just say.... 4/10

 

edit: Just finished my thoughts on the movie...

 

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice thoughts and spoilers!

 

 

 

http://thegeekgetaway.blogspot.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html

[milamber]

I enjoyed Batman vs Superman about as much as Age of Ultron. Good but not quite great (about an 8-8.5/10). But I'm easily pleased as it's my favorite genre by far. My main criticism is at the marketing team. 90% of the movie was spoiled by the trailers (basically everything but the Justice League teasers and ending, and even they weren't hard to predict). The editing could have been a little better as a few scenes were obviously strung together with bits missing. Also I hope Superman lightens up a little in the Justice League movies as he will no longer need to shoulder the burden of being the only superpowered hero.