What are you watching now?

GKarsEye said:

Did the ending of Unbreakable come as a surprise to you?

Click to expand...

It did, but it didn't. the comic nerd in me picked up on who Samuel L. Jackson might be the moment he started talking about how Bruce Willis was unbreakable and related that to comics. I knew right then and there that Jackson was his exact opposite in every way, but I didn't see the evil mastermind part coming until the moment his mom made a comment to Willis about the two types of villains in comics. And even then it was more of "No, she can't be saying what she's saying, that's not going to happen" and then it happened.

Singin' In The Rain (1952)
--The template for what a musical should be. If not for one completely unnecessary Broadway number that slows the movie down near the end this would be a masterpiece of cinema. As is, it's a great movie that shows how well musicals can work when they play naturally from the story around them and when they have the actors to pull it off.

Miller's Crossing (1990)
--One of the Coen Brothers best films, although one of their least remembered ones. It's a beauty to look at, the cinematography, wardrobe and set dressing is just perfect. This is also the movie that made me really take notice of John Turturro, his performance was something to behold, as was that of Gabriel Byrne and Jon Polito. Great mystery movie too, you always know something is up, but not quite what.

Philadelphia (1993)
--Some of the court room legalese slows the movie down, but the overall story is still choice. Tom Hanks delivers a tremendous performance. Most actors would have gone for big and grand in that type of role, but instead he plays a very subtle character, an almost quiet man that only lets you see the real him in certain moments. But, those moments are all you need, because in those moments you know all of his hopes, dreams, fears and failures, but you also know none of it matters because you know his ultimate end. Denzel Washington was also quite good, as was Mary Steenburgen as the defense attorney and Antonio Banderas as the boyfriend.

GKarsEye said:

Is season 2 better than 1? Frankly I felt the show and the character were empty, shallow and stupid and surprisingly uninteresting.

Click to expand...

In season 2, the characters are fleshed out, if that makes sense?

Cell is doing a great job of combating his reputation as the guy who doesn't like anything.

Seriously you got nice set of flicks you're viewing. Is this the first time you're seeing these?

Miller's Crossing rules, though I'm an admitted Coen Bros fan boy.

Believe it or not I've never seen Philadelphia. It just looks too much like a Hollywood Message Movie to me, which I have an aversion to.

GKarsEye said:

Cell is doing a great job of combating his reputation as the guy who doesn't like anything.

Click to expand...

Never quite understood why I have that rep (it's not just here, it's everywhere), I like a lot of stuff, I just happen to be critical of what I watch. Oh well...

GKarsEye said:

Seriously you got nice set of flicks you're viewing. Is this the first time you're seeing these?

Click to expand...

For some of them it is, such as Miller's Crossing and Singin' In The Rain. I've been spending most of my free time lately watching a bunch of movies that I've never seen. I'm a huge movie buff and decided I needed to really catch up on all kinds of great films that I have never seen so that I could judge, and enjoy, them for myself.

With others movies like Philadelphia, Unbreakable or Lilo & Stitch I've seen them before and wanted to see them again and get a better sense of what I thought about them and where I would place them in history, etc..

GKarsEye said:

Miller's Crossing rules, though I'm an admitted Coen Bros fan boy.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is that I heard from a lot of Coen fanboys that Miller's Crossing was one of their lesser films, but I enjoyed it immensely. I've only seen four Coens movies, but I'd put Miller's Crossing below No Country For Old Men, but above O Brother, Where Art Thou? and The Big Lewbowski.

GKarsEye said:

Believe it or not I've never seen Philadelphia. It just looks too much like a Hollywood Message Movie to me, which I have an aversion to.

Click to expand...

I could see how people would think it's a Hollywood message movie, but one key thing stopped it from being a message movie to me, and that was the main characters family. In a Hollywood message movie about homosexuality or AIDS I fully believe they would make sure to employ the cliched story of a man not only looked down upon by society but by his family as well. In Philadelphia his entire family supports him and rallies around him, as does the family of the boyfriend. I thought that was a breath of fresh air and combined with the very real take on the man and the disease that the movie provided it stopped Philadelphia from being a message movie.

Yeah, I can't say that Philadelphia was at all a "message" type movie. It was just created as content for the times. It's quite dark at times.

And it's fun to see Antonio Banderas as Tom Hanks' lover. Apparently, Banderas didn't even speak English at this point and was memorizing the lines by sounding them out. I think he later got help, but I recall an interview where he stated he didn't speak a lick of English at that point in his career.

The River Wild (1994)

It's a little heavy on the cliches, and they take the easy route far too often when it comes to moving the plot forward. But, it's still a very fun movie with some beautiful cinematography. I'm also a fan of Kevin Bacon as the subtle psycho, he's quite brilliant in that type of role and it's in stark contrast to the straight to video movies that have dominated most of the rest of his career. So yeah, fun movie, worth your time, but pretty forgettable in the long run.

Platoon (1986)
--Not so much an anti-war film as most people have pegged it, but rather a story of a group of soldiers and how the war affects each of them in different ways. It is shot in a very awkward style, but it is a style that fits the tone and mood of the movie. The acting was superb all around, and really any movie that has John McGinley, Tony Todd and Keith David as supporting actors can't go wrong. My one complaint with the movie would be that while it strives to present an accurate representation of the war it falters at points when Stone goes for too sensationalistic of a shot to try and get his message across. Still, a great movie.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
--The best war movie ever, period. The acting is tremendous, everyone melts into their roles, and their is so much A level talent that are relegated to back story characters and they don't for a second try to outshine the main characters and simply play their roles to a T. Of course the cinematography and action scenes are gorgeous and well crafted. The opening Omaha Beach scene is beautiful in its savagery while perhaps the most amazing shot of the movie is the one of the soldiers walking across a darkened terrain as bombs are dropped in the background and that serves as their only illumination. SPR is both the most accurate representation of what it was like to be in WWII, and about the idea of brotherhood between these soldiers and how it did exist, even if they tried to deny it. But, most surprisingly it is one of the most anti-war movies you'll ever see. Yes, the main characters are presented as heroes, but they aren't presented as glorious and neither is the war. SPR shows the war to be a dirty and ugly thing that can change even the most innocent man into something ugly, into something he would never be under different circumstances. Powerful film making, and while I know a lot of people prefer Schindler's List, I think this is not only Spielberg's best movie but his most powerful one as well.

Cell said:

...and while I know a lot of people prefer Schindler's List, I think this is not only Spielberg's best movie but his most powerful one as well.

Click to expand...

I consider those two films part of a Spielberg "gravely serious issue" trilogy along with Amistad. The latter is just as powerful IMHO. It's another film that people left the cinema with but a single noise... a collective "tut" of disappointment at man's inhumanity to man at the final line of written dialogue onscreen.

Galahad said:

I consider those two films part of a Spielberg "gravely serious issue" trilogy along with Amistad. The latter is just as powerful IMHO. It's another film that people left the cinema with but a single noise... a collective "tut" of disappointment at man's inhumanity to man at the final line of written dialogue onscreen.

Click to expand...

I have yet to see Amistad, some day I will, but who knows when.

Eastern Promises (2007)

Wow, what a movie. I once lauded No Country For Old Men for it's portrayal of ultimate evil and claimed it to be the movie of the year for 2007. That has now changed thanks to Eastern Promises, because it presents something worse than ultimate evil, someone who may or may not be the ultimate evil, and he's so cold about all of his actions that you have no idea what he is or why he does what he does. Viggo Mortensen is boss in this, completely fricking boss. His performance is so cold and chilling that he both appears as a desolate man full of no remorse and no life and as a man that hides true remorse and a lust for life underneath it all. I'm usually not a big Naomi Watts fan, but she was quite good here, and Armin Mueller-Stahl as Semyon was able to hold his own against Viggo, and that was no small task in this movie. The big twist was truly surprising and there's the whole homosexual subtext that is never full explored because it doesn't need to be explored, it's one giant question, just like the rest of this movie. Tremendous, tremendous film.

I think Platoon is an excellent film. One thing that set it apart, for me, from other war films is that it is the only one that has ever actually made me feel fear, as its protagonists were feeling.

Cell said:

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
--The best war movie ever, period. The acting is tremendous, everyone melts into their roles, and their is so much A level talent that are relegated to back story characters and they don't for a second try to outshine the main characters and simply play their roles to a T. Of course the cinematography and action scenes are gorgeous and well crafted. The opening Omaha Beach scene is beautiful in its savagery while perhaps the most amazing shot of the movie is the one of the soldiers walking across a darkened terrain as bombs are dropped in the background and that serves as their only illumination. SPR is both the most accurate representation of what it was like to be in WWII, and about the idea of brotherhood between these soldiers and how it did exist, even if they tried to deny it. But, most surprisingly it is one of the most anti-war movies you'll ever see. Yes, the main characters are presented as heroes, but they aren't presented as glorious and neither is the war. SPR shows the war to be a dirty and ugly thing that can change even the most innocent man into something ugly, into something he would never be under different circumstances. Powerful film making, and while I know a lot of people prefer Schindler's List, I think this is not only Spielberg's best movie but his most powerful one as well.

Click to expand...

i disagree on it being the best war film ever, due to its lack of a balanced perspective, this is why as good as this film is as well as "come and see", i believe that the longest day is the best war film ever.

Jade Jaguar said:

I think Platoon is an excellent film. One thing that set it apart, for me, from other war films is that it is the only one that has ever actually made me feel fear, as its protagonists were feeling.

Click to expand...

platoon is outstanding but for the fear factor i would have to recommend a film called "84 charlie mopic" i once read a review on amazon.com written by a veteran who said it was so realistic it gave him flashbacks and shit.

Le Scaphandre Et Le Papillon (The Diving Bell And The Butterfly) (2007)

I realize this was a big foreign hit last year, but I really don't see it. The narrative is all kinds of messed up. The idea of him only seeing events through his eye is rather innovative, but story wise it appears to function as a sign of his taking pity upon himself. I had problems with the fact that the film would cheat quite regularly in the first act, it showed everything through his vision until the moment that it couldn't quite express what it needed to that way and then it would jump to a third person view. The movie appeared to shift when it switched to a full third person view, almost as if to say, he's no longer taking pity upon himself so now you're not only seeing his narrow eye view but the view of the world around him. Unfortunately that isn't the case as the film would randomly switch back to the "eye view" for the rest of the movie. Finally, there's the subtitles, which at points were hard to read and at others were near impossible because of how much they would blend in with the background.

My other biggest gripe with the movie is the scene with the wife at the train station and the father after their phone call. For the entirety of the movie the camera only focuses on Jean sees himself, what is happening around him while he's present, or what he sees in his dream state. But, when the film decides it wants to exploit the viewer emotionally it focuses on the dad all by his lonesome crying when Jean is not seeing his dad or hearing his dad. Poor, poor film making in that regards.

Finally, there's also the story, and while I understood the story of re-self discovery that they were going for I couldn't connect with it and didn't completely buy it. A man that has supposedly rediscovered his love for life even in his debilitated state, and has done so with the help of his wife then tells his ex-mistress that he still misses her every day right in front of his wife, and that didn't jive with me.

All in all a movie that was overhyped and isn't all that good.

The Final Cut (2004)

An interesting premise, but ultimately a very flawed and distant movie. When Robin Williams plays the role as a complete loner you need others to bring you into the movie, and The Final Cut has no one that is willing to do that. Every actor in The Final Cut plays their part as cold and distant, making it where you have no connection to the story or the events that are transpiring. As interesting as the premise may be, it is riddled with plot holes all over the place. The main character of Hakman is almost inhuman in how he treats people and views relationships, and that is another way in which it's nearly impossible to connect with the movie. A movie that set its sights high but missed the mark most of the time and failed to deliver.

The Purple Heart (1944)

Boring, boring movie. It presents every event, every turn, every piece of action with such a blase attitude that you end up not caring about what is happening. The Americans and the foreign reporters are all caricatures, they have no reality to them (ironic since this is based on a true story) and nothing in their plight or travails captures you and makes you want to see what will happen to them next. If you're looking for a WWII movie, look elsewhere.

I fell asleep during "The Final Cut." At least you made it through all the way.

Alluveal said:

I fell asleep during "The Final Cut." At least you made it through all the way.

Click to expand...

It wasn't easy, trust me, and I followed it right up with The Purple heart, and that was a chore to stay awake during.

Jack shit. UK TV sucks at the moment, and my digital reception is terrible in my new house. Waiting for the return of Ashes to Ashes.

Jerry Maguire (1996)

I will readily admit to being a fan of Tom Cruise as an actor, and films like this are why. When you strip away the mans religion or politics and look at him simply as an actor, you are left with a man that shows range in a wide variety of roles and someone that is willing to take chances. He will make fun of himself in a movie, he will play the sports jock, the gung ho heart throb, the too cool for school guy, the tough *expletive deleted* warrior, etc.. Cruise is a man that is willing to play many different roles, and Jerry Maguire highlights that. Here he is willing to play the man that is at a crossroads in his life, a man that is losing it all. In steps a woman that appears to save all that, but he's not ready for that yet and like man at a crossroads he runs away, yet again. That is where Jerry Maguire most excels, in the life and times of Cruise's character , and mainly in his interactions with his only remaining client, Rod Tidwell. Renee Zelwegger is good in her role, and that is a rarity indeed. Outside of the kid being a tad too cute the cast does work well together, and the story does gel together rather nicely. Perhaps a bit too long, and a bit too schmaltzy in parts, but still a very good movie that delivers in every way it intends to deliver.


Marie Antoinette (2006)

Marie Antoinette is a movie that could have been so much better than it was, but it fails on too many levels. I will give major props to MA for the gorgeous visuals and costumes and for taking someone that I usually don't find attractive at all in Dunst and making her look very good. And, the story was interesting to a point, but it was also a bit too shallow and attempted to both paint Marie as a misunderstood teen while somehow ignoring the damage that her excesses did cause. That part wasn't misunderstood at all, she was excessive in her spending and in her actions (not as much as history tries to say, but still too the point where it was detrimental to the people around her). So, in that regard the movie both succeeds in painting a misunderstood girl, and also fails in ignoring the role the girl played in bringing about a great deal of her own problems. Probably my biggest complaint with MA would be the soundtrack/score. I've never been a fan of modern music put into classical settings, and this is no different. Especially in the case of MA, where most of the time the modern music is excessive and screams out, "Hey, here this trippy music, that means this movie is special, so pay attention." A classical score would have suited the film much more.

Also, while I thought Dunst looked the part I envisioned someone along the lines of Reese Witherspoon in the role. She's more of the classical beauty that the role needed and I believe her acting would have greatly benefited the movie in comparison to Dunst's (But, I do realize that her age would probably preclude her from the part). Finally, I was not a fan of the ending. I didn't need to see MA's head cut off, but I do feel it would have been better served to at least show her approaching her fate, rather than an abrupt cut that leaves you feeling flat at the end of the movie.

Even with the above being the case MA is a good movie despite its many faults. It looks beautiful and presents an interesting take on a classic figure. Worth your time, and if you can overlook the faults a good movie experience.

Cell said:

Jerry Maguire (1996)

I will readily admit to being a fan of Tom Cruise as an actor, and films like this are why. When you strip away the mans religion or politics and look at him simply as an actor, you are left with a man that shows range in a wide variety of roles and someone that is willing to take chances. He will make fun of himself in a movie, he will play the sports jock, the gung ho heart throb, the too cool for school guy, the tough *expletive deleted* warrior, etc.. Cruise is a man that is willing to play many different roles, and Jerry Maguire highlights that. Here he is willing to play the man that is at a crossroads in his life, a man that is losing it all. In steps a woman that appears to save all that, but he's not ready for that yet and like man at a crossroads he runs away, yet again. That is where Jerry Maguire most excels, in the life and times of Cruise's character , and mainly in his interactions with his only remaining client, Rod Tidwell. Renee Zelwegger is good in her role, and that is a rarity indeed. Outside of the kid being a tad too cute the cast does work well together, and the story does gel together rather nicely. Perhaps a bit too long, and a bit too schmaltzy in parts, but still a very good movie that delivers in every way it intends to deliver.

Click to expand...

this film is a testament to the genius of Cameron Crowe, it is gloriously cynical, but clearly you weren't paying proper attention because you felt it was "schmaltzy in parts". if you watch the ending you will notice that all he is doing is telling the poor cow what she wants to hear, so he can get what he wants.