The "last movie I saw" thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here's a lil' treat for ya!

[MarkGrace]

Tell No One

A french thriller/murder mystery from '06. Really liked it and I'm quite surprised there's been no American remake to this point. Available on Netflix Instant Streaming!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ne_le_dis_a_personne/

[Jeff Lebowski]

Tell No One

A french thriller/murder mystery from '06. Really liked it and I'm quite surprised there's been no American remake to this point. Available on Netflix Instant Streaming!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ne_le_dis_a_personne/

Yeah, that is a good one. I happened to read the book too (Harlen Coben).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Watched Moonrise Kingdom with the family over the weekend. Everybody loved it.

[LA Ute]

We saw "Silver Linings Playbook" Saturday and I was entertained but underwhelmed. That surprised me because of all the critical acclaim. In the end I found the story just too unbelievable and a bit cluttered -- with an OCD father, a seriously mentally ill protagonist and a seriously emotionally damaged love interest. Still funny and fun, worth seeing, but a "meh" for me.

Also saw "The Impossible" last night and highly recommend it. Naomi Watts is great in perhaps the most unglamorous role she'll ever have. There is heart-wrenching sadness but overall it's a great and uplifting story (also a true story, which makes it all the more amazing). I'll be thinking about this movie and what I took from it long after "Silver Linings" is only a dim memory.

[jay santos]

Saw Django. Great film. I thought Samuel Jackson's character was BRILLIANT.

Spoiler for on that:

Him going from the yes massa old fool to the scheming mastermind sitting in the library swooshing his wine glass like a cultured gentleman was very cool

Spoiler for plot question:

Why did the German guy shoot Dicaprio at the end?

comment on Tarantino:
He's in love with this stylized fantasy violence. I think it takes away from his films more often than not. His brilliance (at least IMHO and I admit maybe it's just my preference of what I like in film) is in his dialogue and storytelling and suspense building. When the story is lifelike, he can be breathtaking. When it goes into the fantasy world, it's like taking all the air out of the balloon.

[MarkGrace]

We saw "Silver Linings Playbook" Saturday and I was entertained but underwhelmed. That surprised me because of all the critical acclaim. In the end I found the story just too unbelievable and a bit cluttered -- with an OCD father, a seriously mentally ill protagonist and a seriously emotionally damaged love interest. Still funny and fun, worth seeing, but a "meh" for me.

I felt very similarly to SLP as I do to Friday Night Lights. And that is I was so charmed by its lead characters and so much wanted to root for them that I was more forgiving of its problems than I otherwise would have been. Of all the movies I saw this year, I think this is the one that will get the most repeat viewings from me. Which is not to say I thought it was the best or even my favorite, but I liked it a lot.

[LA Ute]

I felt very similarly to SLP as I do to Friday Night Lights. And that is I was so charmed by its lead characters and so much wanted to root for them that I was more forgiving of its problems than I otherwise would have been. Of all the movies I saw this year, I think this is the one that will get the most repeat viewings from me. Which is not to say I thought it was the best or even my favorite, but I liked it a lot.

Excellent point. It was funny and moving and definitely worth the time and the price of admission. Just not all that and a bag of chips. We went with another couple and afterwards I told the husband, "Hey! This is a twofer. We see this movie and we get points with our wives for seeing a chick flick with them. And the flick is partly about guys obsessing about football. Not bad!"

[Blueintheface]

Saw Django. Great film. I thought Samuel Jackson's character was BRILLIANT.

Spoiler for on that:

Him going from the yes massa old fool to the scheming mastermind sitting in the library swooshing his wine glass like a cultured gentleman was very cool

Spoiler for plot question:

Why did the German guy shoot Dicaprio at the end?

comment on Tarantino:
He's in love with this stylized fantasy violence. I think it takes away from his films more often than not. His brilliance (at least IMHO and I admit maybe it's just my preference of what I like in film) is in his dialogue and storytelling and suspense building. When the story is lifelike, he can be breathtaking. When it goes into the fantasy world, it's like taking all the air out of the balloon.

Spoiler for Plot answer:

Pride. Didn't he say "I just can't/couldn't resist" before being shot?

[fusnik]

QT addresses this in an interview, he basically says that Waltz can't let anybody have the upper hand on him because his arrogance and thus, can't help himself.

The disguises were his way of being dramatic and his way of controlling situations, once Candie took that away he had no choice but to end his life. In the interview QT also says that Candie would have parted with Boonhilda for 5k if asked straight forward.

I loved the show, except the ending. I thought it was unnecessarily 20 minutes too long. It didn't make sense that Django had to be caught to subsequently return, it should have ended at the shoot out at the home.

I also thought we were going to get payoff with the signature stamp via Steven, bugged me that we didn't.

[jay santos]

QT addresses this in an interview, he basically says that Waltz can't let anybody have the upper hand on him because his arrogance and thus, can't help himself.

The disguises were his way of being dramatic and his way of controlling situations, once Candie took that away he had no choice but to end his life. In the interview QT also says that Candie would have parted with Boonhilda for 5k if asked straight forward.

I loved the show, except the ending. I thought it was unnecessarily 20 minutes too long. It didn't make sense that Django had to be caught to subsequently return, it should have ended at the shoot out at the home.

I also thought we were going to get payoff with the signature stamp via Steven, bugged me that we didn't.

Spoiler for Django discussion:

I understand that Candie likely would have parted with her for less. They knew that going in. But the risk would be that he would say no, no matter the cost. Going in, if Schultz says to Django, how much is she worth? $500? yes $5,000? yes $12,000? yes $20,000? yes.

And Schultz was a good guy and wanted to help Django, and Django had made a lot of money for him already, so he was down for it no matter the cost. He came up with an idea to eliminate the risk of Candie being irrational and saying she's not for sale no matter the price, and secondarily to minimize the price.

So it all goes bad, but Schultz and Django are still winners. They got what they came for. Schultz isn't out any money because Django had made him so much and likely would have stayed on another year or longer to recoup the cost if necessary.

Schultz loses it for seemingly no reason. He'd been cool, calm, and collected all movie and was two steps ahead of everyone. It didn't go exactly as he wanted, but he still was going out a winner, they had the girl.

I read an explanation on the IMDB board that made a little more sense. That Schultz started cracking seeing how evil Candie was. He wasn't ready for that level of inhumanity. And after seeing the mandingo fight he cracked. Then seeing the dogs rip the guy apart he further cracked. And then Candie hacksawing the skull and dropping the hammer down on the table, put him over the edge. So at that point he was kind of driven insane.

[Donuthole]

Spoiler for Django discussion:

I understand that Candie likely would have parted with her for less. They knew that going in. But the risk would be that he would say no, no matter the cost. Going in, if Schultz says to Django, how much is she worth? $500? yes $5,000? yes $12,000? yes $20,000? yes.

And Schultz was a good guy and wanted to help Django, and Django had made a lot of money for him already, so he was down for it no matter the cost. He came up with an idea to eliminate the risk of Candie being irrational and saying she's not for sale no matter the price, and secondarily to minimize the price.

So it all goes bad, but Schultz and Django are still winners. They got what they came for. Schultz isn't out any money because Django had made him so much and likely would have stayed on another year or longer to recoup the cost if necessary.

Schultz loses it for seemingly no reason. He'd been cool, calm, and collected all movie and was two steps ahead of everyone. It didn't go exactly as he wanted, but he still was going out a winner, they had the girl.

I read an explanation on the IMDB board that made a little more sense. That Schultz started cracking seeing how evil Candie was. He wasn't ready for that level of inhumanity. And after seeing the mandingo fight he cracked. Then seeing the dogs rip the guy apart he further cracked. And then Candie hacksawing the skull and dropping the hammer down on the table, put him over the edge. So at that point he was kind of driven insane.

Spoiler for My thoughts:

I don't think Schultz was certain they were going to make it out of Candie Land alive. Just because Candie says he's going to let them go, doesn't mean he can't have them all killed once they're away from the mansion.

[MarkGrace]

I loved the show, except the ending. I thought it was unnecessarily 20 minutes too long. It didn't make sense that Django had to be caught to subsequently return, it should have ended at the shoot out at the home.

This sort of thing, like in The Dark Knight, is exactly what makes a movie feel long to me. As soon as the story has had a big climax, to me it should be wrapping up for there, not extending into another portion of the story or additional climax. For me when movies drag, it's almost always this type of scenario.

[Green Lantern]

Spoiler for Django discussion:

I understand that Candie likely would have parted with her for less. They knew that going in. But the risk would be that he would say no, no matter the cost. Going in, if Schultz says to Django, how much is she worth? $500? yes $5,000? yes $12,000? yes $20,000? yes.

And Schultz was a good guy and wanted to help Django, and Django had made a lot of money for him already, so he was down for it no matter the cost. He came up with an idea to eliminate the risk of Candie being irrational and saying she's not for sale no matter the price, and secondarily to minimize the price.

So it all goes bad, but Schultz and Django are still winners. They got what they came for. Schultz isn't out any money because Django had made him so much and likely would have stayed on another year or longer to recoup the cost if necessary.

Schultz loses it for seemingly no reason. He'd been cool, calm, and collected all movie and was two steps ahead of everyone. It didn't go exactly as he wanted, but he still was going out a winner, they had the girl.

I read an explanation on the IMDB board that made a little more sense. That Schultz started cracking seeing how evil Candie was. He wasn't ready for that level of inhumanity. And after seeing the mandingo fight he cracked. Then seeing the dogs rip the guy apart he further cracked. And then Candie hacksawing the skull and dropping the hammer down on the table, put him over the edge. So at that point he was kind of driven insane.

Spoiler for Reasons for Shultz's actions:

I saw it less as Schultz going insane and more as the natural of culmination of his character's nobility. In some ways it ends up becoming his tragic flaw. He is so disgusted by Candie's inhumanity that in the end, killing Candie and dying in return is preferable to walking out of there without the villain getting his comeuppance. I sympathized.

[MarkGrace]

btw, QT needs to stay out of his own movies. At first I thought it was just a quick cameo, which was fun. But then when he was an actual character it was distractingly bad.