The "last movie I saw" thread

[MarkGrace]

I started the book about 2-3 years ago and was really into it, then just lost the book. I found it when we moved and started over and just finishing. Very entertaining read.

For me the movie felt the same way. I thought it was riotously entertaining. It was 40 mins longer than American Hustle but felt about half as long.

[MarkGrace]

Robbie - Not enough

But when she swings open those doors on their first date! :rockon2:

Cas- Covered in money nude

Hope you were paying attention at the end because, uh, that shot was spectacular too!

[TripletDaddy]

But when she swings open those doors on their first date! :rockon2:



Hope you were paying attention at the end because, uh, that shot was spectacular too!

lets get a little more detail about both scenes please.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Saw Frozen today. As has been reported, both the movie and music are excellent.

I am not yet able to comment on the nudity in WOWS. Sorry.

[PaloAltoCougar]

We enjoyed Walter Mitty more than the 48% critics rating (79% audience) would suggest. Sure, some of the plot points are absurd, and it's a bit sentimental, but there were a lot of good things that entertained, starting with the clever titles at the beginning and the stunning scenery and cinematography throughout. Viewing the whole thing as a kind of Mitty-esque daydream rather than a real-life drama helps as well. I'd be happy to watch it again, something I wouldn't say about a lot of movies that I'd concede are better films.

[Commando]

OK I just saw The Wolf of Wallstreet. I can see that it was shot in the narrative style of Goodfellas, but that's about where the similarities end. I'm thinking it's closer to a shot-for-shot remake of Caligula. Topper did not understate the profanity/obscenity factor on this one. It was so over the top that it had to be intentional for some reason (maybe comedy purposes? I was laughing pretty good thinking 'is anybody else seeing how ridiculous this movie is?'). The movie clearly could have done without all the extra dirty words/naked bouncing bodies scattered liberally throughout and not suffered at all. Jonah hill cracks me up and kept me laughing, but I wanted to punch him in the face through most of the movie, too, for being so careless. Maybe that's my OCD coming out.

It was very entertaining, but stressful to watch somehow. Maybe I was uncomfortable because the audience was mostly older folks- i dunno. I know that if I saw this in Utah there would be people streaming for the doors during the movie, which also makes me uncomfortable.

[MarkGrace]

OK I just saw The Wolf of Wallstreet. I can see that it was shot in the narrative style of Goodfellas, but that's about where the similarities end. I'm thinking it's closer to a shot-for-shot remake of Caligula. Topper did not understate the profanity/obscenity factor on this one. It was so over the top that it had to be intentional for some reason (maybe comedy purposes? I was laughing pretty good thinking 'is anybody else seeing how ridiculous this movie is?'). The movie clearly could have done without all the extra dirty words/naked bouncing bodies scattered liberally throughout and not suffered at all. Jonah hill cracks me up and kept me laughing, but I wanted to punch him in the face through most of the movie, too, for being so careless. Maybe that's my OCD coming out.

The movie is so over the top because the memoir is so over the top. People love this dude because he has stories without end and they are all whoppers. These are Belfort's tales comes to life, and a lot of the madness is clearly some type of projection of his subjective fantasies based on the way he views himself. I think this is where the "character" Topper complained about came out, but Leo wasn't always in that space. That's what made the performance so fun for me -- Leo plays some of the character as more grounded, and then at times dials it up through the roof to project this larger than life persona, which from what I can gather is consistent with the way Belfort portrays himself. Some of the events seem so outrageous they can't possibly be true, but based on what I've read nearly everything in the movie comes straight from the book. The question is, how full of shit is he in his book? That's what great about the decision to have Belfort break the 4th wall and speak directly to the audience instead of doing a straight up voiceover. Belfort didn't know shit about stocks and finance, he knew sales, and most importantly, he knew how to sell himself. So the 4th wall approach is Scorcese letting Belfort try and sell himself and his tale to the audience. Are you buying the stories? Are you buying him? Are you a sucker like the people he swindled?

Topper also complained about the lack of nuance, but this isn't a story of nuance at all. It's a tale of crazed excess in every possible way. And what's great about the way it's told is that nobody seems to have a clear read about how it's being conveyed. I've read several articles about what's being projected, and people seem equally divided between those who think he's celebrating the excess, those who think he's condemning the excess, and those who don't think he's doing either of these things at all, but rather just putting it out there sans judgement for the audience to decide. That there seems to be no clear read on it is really terrific to me. It ignites the debate and very few recent movies have as many people going back and forth as this one does.

[dabrockster]

Frozen with the family.. My little girl (3 years old) has been going around the house singing she "Wants to build a snowman". It's pretty darn cute.. Lots of cute tunes in this movie..


I think this Disney movie is done really really well. I thoroughly enjoyed it.. In fact, we saw it a second time due to our kids unrelenting pestering to see it again... It got better a second time..

[Topper]

The movie is so over the top because the memoir is so over the top. People love this dude because he has stories without end and they are all whoppers. These are Belfort's tales comes to life, and a lot of the madness is clearly some type of projection of his subjective fantasies based on the way he views himself. I think this is where the "character" Topper complained about came out, but Leo wasn't always in that space. That's what made the performance so fun for me -- Leo plays some of the character as more grounded, and then at times dials it up through the roof to project this larger than life persona, which from what I can gather is consistent with the way Belfort portrays himself. Some of the events seem so outrageous they can't possibly be true, but based on what I've read nearly everything in the movie comes straight from the book. The question is, how full of shit is he in his book? That's what great about the decision to have Belfort break the 4th wall and speak directly to the audience instead of doing a straight up voiceover. Belfort didn't know shit about stocks and finance, he knew sales, and most importantly, he knew how to sell himself. So the 4th wall approach is Scorcese letting Belfort try and sell himself and his tale to the audience. Are you buying the stories? Are you buying him? Are you a sucker like the people he swindled?

Topper also complained about the lack of nuance, but this isn't a story of nuance at all. It's a tale of crazed excess in every possible way. And what's great about the way it's told is that nobody seems to have a clear read about how it's being conveyed. I've read several articles about what's being projected, and people seem equally divided between those who think he's celebrating the excess, those who think he's condemning the excess, and those who don't think he's doing either of these things at all, but rather just putting it out there sans judgement for the audience to decide. That there seems to be no clear read on it is really terrific to me. It ignites the debate and very few recent movies have as many people going back and forth as this one does.

Interesting read.

I might have to try to see it again. Belfort may believe this stuff, but the excesses just turned me off.

One item, where Belfort was starting up his own firm Oakmont Stratton, and teaching the salesmen how to sell, I have received exactly those lines from guys in New York. Each time, I knew these guys were full of crap and refrained.

Again, I did not watch to the end because my wife was so turned off, as was I.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I went solo to see The Wolf of Wall Street, and was glad the missus didn’t join me. There was a lot to like about the movie: e.g., Leo’s performance is really good, great even; there are some truly excellent scenes (I loved the conversation between Leo’s character and the FBI agent on the boat); and the many crowd scenes of the company were superb. And I thought of DDD when Dujardin was stripped down in the sack with Katarina Cas (waist up nudity only, though—sorry). There were lots of laughs, although one came at the cost of a quick glimpse of Jonah Hill’s dong.

Perhaps because I have a fair amount of experience in corporate securities law, it was hard to play along with the absurd way in which they presented the actions of the bucket shop that Belfort ran or the crimes he committed, but I accept the fact that a more realistic depiction would have been too dull or too time-consuming to present. Boiler Room, a somewhat underrated movie from over a decade ago, provides a more accurate view, if I recall correctly.

And while I agree with Grace that having questions to mull over (e.g., is Scorsese celebrating or condemning the excess?) is often great, this film left me feeling a bit empty, even dispirited, perhaps because I’ve seen too often the lives that have been ruined by truly evil people like Belfort. It’s a very well done film but look elsewhere if you want to leave the theater feeling uplifted or enlightened--but perhaps entertained is enough.

[TripletDaddy]

Dujardin nudity and Cas nudity in the same scene!!?!?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Dujardin nudity and Cas nudity in the same scene!!?!?

Briefly, but yes. You could tell that Jean really relished his role. And roll.

[UVACoug]

Saw Philomena a few days ago. The theater was packed with octogenarians who were hard of hearing. Found the movie pretty mediocre, although the acting by Dench and Coogan was superb. I will admit that my impression of the film may have been affected by hearing the dialogue repeated by half the audience members for the other half who couldn't hear at all.

[Katy Lied]

Saw WOWS. I was prepared to see carnal carnage but I didn't think it was that bad. Most of the nude scenes involved crowds and were brief. Lots of it all at once, though. I didn't think it was Scorsese's best, in the sense that he innovates new camera angles, or proportions, etc. It was more like a run through of his greatest hits; everything that worked for him in earlier films, he included snippets of those techniques. Like the paranoia that's all over The Departed and Raging Bull-- he also did a scene of it in Good Fellas-- he uses that in scenes in WOWS, but instead of marveling at how adept he is at portraying paranoia, I just thought about how it reminded me of his earlier work.

Also the sudden danger you feel when you glimpse that poor fellow with the fish and the bow tie. You know he's going to get crucified because as he unsuspectingly brushes up against a very dangerous bear. This same vignette was in Good Fellas when Tommy shoots the waiter, first in the foot and then through the heart. Agains, Scorsese's greatest hits.

I also thought that Scorsese missed out on portraying the losses to the everyman; most of Oakmont Stratton's victims were small time business owners. And yes, it doesn't have to be preachy, but he could have shown one tragic result of his conniving- something Boiler Room did very well in its portrayal of Oakmont Stratton.

I own a copy of Boiler Room and have seen it multiple times (I really like it) and it even has scenes that Scorsese could have seized upon and made his own- like the scene in Boiler Room where the guys from the office get together and watch the movie Wall Street over and over and mouth all the words along with Gordon Gecko. Because even though they were earning millions and had the fancy suits and shoes and cars, they still shlubs from jersey and had nothing interesting about their lives, and Boiler Room makes this poignant point.

Plus, that whole scene with Matthew McCounnaghey should have been cut. But they couldnt cut it because Scorsese already envisioned the ending credits with that song in voiceover so he wouldn't let it go. McConnaghey was great, but the movie was too long already.

WOWS is a fun movie but it isn't a personal movie that Scoresese makes.

[Topper]

Interesting that two critics I respect in PAC and Katy liked the movie.

Did either one of you find it the least bit tedious, ponderous and slow moving?