The "last movie I saw" thread

[LA Ute]

I'm interested in this. I just finished the book with my son and have really mixed feelings about it.

I honestly am not sure what to make of the movie. I do think it is worth seeing, however.

[ERCougar]

I can definitely see that. You are not supposed to like Don Jon at first at all. If you do, then there is something wrong with you. I wish they would have devoted more time to the second part with Julianne Moore. That scene near the end was the only one that was erotic at all. By design, no doubt.

I did completely crack up at the review that called it A Very Special Episode of Jersey Shore.

It's not that I think he should be likable. It's that he is just...too much. He and ScarJo are like caricatures. I too love the Julianne Moore character. She's not made up, she doesn't dress provocatively, she's older, she's interesting, and she's crazy sexy in a so not-porn (and not-Hollywood) way--a great character that buttresses the message of the movie. ScarJo, on the other hand, is like the porn star she hates, only with clothes on. It's more than a little ironic that she typifies the Mormon response to porn--she's correct in a few of her thoughts, but she's so self-righteous, judgmental, and self-assured in her opinions that she ends up never "getting it", unlike Jon. I wish more Mormons would see this. I think porn addicts (and yes, I think they exist) should see this. Unfortunately, there's a lot of porn, so I doubt they will. It's too bad, because the porn isn't glorified--it's actually ridiculed.
It's really a smart film--too smart for the caricatures of the beginning.

[Pheidippides]

It's not that I think he should be likable. It's that he is just...too much. He and ScarJo are like caricatures. I too love the Julianne Moore character. She's not made up, she doesn't dress provocatively, she's older, she's interesting, and she's crazy sexy in a so not-porn (and not-Hollywood) way--a great character that buttresses the message of the movie. ScarJo, on the other hand, is like the porn star she hates, only with clothes on. It's more than a little ironic that she typifies the Mormon response to porn--she's correct in a few of her thoughts, but she's so self-righteous, judgmental, and self-assured in her opinions that she ends up never "getting it", unlike Jon. I wish more Mormons would see this. I think porn addicts (and yes, I think they exist) should see this. Unfortunately, there's a lot of porn, so I doubt they will. It's too bad, because the porn isn't glorified--it's actually ridiculed.
It's really a smart film--too smart for the caricatures of the beginning.

Based on the time I lived in NJ, I'm not convinced they were caracatures. But there was definitely an 'aha' moment for us when we realized how emotionally crippled she was. Not just him.

Not a perfect movie by any stretch, but I agree - Mormons would do well to see this film. The rating and content will ensure that most do not.

[LA Ute]

I should add that if you see "The Giver," you need to stay past the credits. There's a short bonus feature about the making of the movie.

[Commando]

I can definitely see that. You are not supposed to like Don Jon at first at all. If you do, then there is something wrong with you. I wish they would have devoted more time to the second part with Julianne Moore. That scene near the end was the only one that was erotic at all. By design, no doubt.

I did completely crack up at the review that called it A Very Special Episode of Jersey Shore.

[LA Ute]

I haven't seen "Calvary" yet, but this review makes me want to see it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tinselt...-from-calvary/

The trailer:

[Donuthole]

I haven't seen "Calvary" yet, but this review makes me want to see it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tinselt...-from-calvary/

The trailer:

<clears thoat> If it's not good enough for its own thread, and/or you haven't seen it . . .

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...trailer-thread

[LA Ute]

<clears thoat> If it's not good enough for its own thread, and/or you haven't seen it . . .

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...trailer-thread

I plead nolo and will gladly pay the fine.

[jay santos]

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy. Two thumbs up. The action scenes weren't too long and drawn out. The plot was slightly above average, given the genre. The settings and characters were above average for the genre. The comedy totally made the film. The racoon was awesome.

[Donuthole]

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy. Two thumbs up. The action scenes weren't too long and drawn out. The plot was slightly above average, given the genre. The settings and characters were above average for the genre. The comedy totally made the film. The racoon was awesome.

I saw it this weekend, and I completely agree. It's how I remember summer blockbusters being when I was a kid.

[MarkGrace]

I plead nolo and will gladly pay the fine.

The fine is to GTFO of here.

[Katy Lied]

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy. Two thumbs up. The action scenes weren't too long and drawn out. The plot was slightly above average, given the genre. The settings and characters were above average for the genre. The comedy totally made the film. The racoon was awesome.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy. Two thumbs up. The action scenes weren't too long and drawn out. The plot was slightly above average, given the genre. The settings and characters were above average for the genre. The comedy totally made the film. The racoon was awesome.

You can see efforts by JJ Abrams and other directors of a similar age to pay homage to the late 70s - 80s blockbusters, particularly those from Spielberg. Clearly that was on display in Super 8 and Abrams pretty much said it was also his goal in the new Star Trek movies. The twin faults of most current blockbusters is either trying to be too "gritty" and coming off looking kind of dumb and joyless, or going full Michael Bay and relying on the quick rush between sequential action sequences to tell a really dumb story.

I think the five greatest action movies (sci-fi action and conventional action) are The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Aliens, Die Hard and Terminator 2. Nothing has come out in the last 20 years, with the possible exception of The Fellowship of the Ring, that can match any of these movies. CGI was just barely starting when Terminator 2 came out and it certainly didn't dominate the movie. But the limitations given the technology available to filmmakers at that time forced them to rely more upon the characters and story. A perfect example is exemplified by the first Star Wars trilogy vs. the terrible prequels. While a big part of that is George Lucas's total ineptitude at directing and screenwriting (which was not always the case with him, but while he was building his special effects empire along with tending to the business side of Star Wars and other ventures between 1989 and 1999, a significant amount of rust obviously set in), the other part was an over-reliance on CGI and thinking that sensory overload is what audiences are looking for. Simply put, no single spaceship sequence from the prequels are memorable at all, especially compared to the original trilogy.

Kevin Smith was allowed to tour the production of the new Star Wars movie and raved about how "tactile" everything seemed. To me, this sounded like very good news and confirms that Abrams is taking Star Wars in the same direction that he took the Star Trek movies. I got the same sense of things out of the Guardians movie, although it of course has plenty of CGI. More comedy, more interaction between the characters. Less Michael Bay crap, and less trying to be an "important" movie seeking to make some insufferable comment on the human condition like a Christopher Nolan blockbuster.

[LA Ute]

But the limitations given the technology available to filmmakers at that time forced them to rely more upon the characters and story.

Couldn't agree more. I love Superman movies and will go to all of them, just because he was a huge part of my childhood before i graduated to Marvel. The latest one, "Man of Steel," was downright boring because of the 30 minutes of Superman and his (forgettable) foe throwing each other through buildings. I hope you're right about Abrams and others turning that trend around.

Jay, the raccoon (Rocket, a great name and Beatles reference) was my favorite. After I saw the movie I found myself telling people "The raccoon in the best character," and then responding to their skeptical looks with "Well, you really have to see the movie."

[Donuthole]

I had a couple of trips for work last week, so I was able to knock out a few movies.

Grand Budapest: Hrm. I liked it more than I thought I would, mainly because the story was worth telling. Definitely better than Moonrise Kingdom, which fell flat for me (mainly because the story wasn't worth telling). That said, I stand by my assertion that Wes Anderson is this decade's version of Tim Burton. His schtick was amazing enough to grab hold of a large group of people, who immediately became fanboys. If you are a fanboy, you love his stuff. Period. The schtick is enough for you, and if the story is good, that's just a bonus. If you're not a fanboy, you realize all of his movies look/seem/feel the same and are only worth viewing if the story is worthwhile. This story was worthwhile. Fantastic Mr. Fox had a worthwhile story. Moonrise? Not so much. Royals? Meh. I'm not through his entire library yet (mainly because some of them are just so lame) but I think in 15 years we'll be catching wind of a new Wes Anderson flick and most of us will wonder why he's still cranking out Frankenweenies and Dark Shadows.

Snowpiercer: I liked this a lot, but I have to agree with L_S--this isnt' a 90% fresh movie. The dialogue was ok for the most part, but man, the one extended conversation in the entire movie (well, I guess there were two--one right near the end as well) was so brutally awkward. Some really terrible lines and forced delivery. Also, the bad dye job on the main character's beard was really annoying. I can suspend belief on the premise and the ending. I enjoyed it. But it felt more like a 75-80% movie to me. So in that respect, I disagree with L_S.

Rounders: I've been meaning to watch this one for a long time, but only finally got around to it. It hasn't aged well, and Malkovich's Teddy KGB seems really over the top. I really enjoyed it in spite of those problems, and Damon, Norton, and Tuturro were all fantastic.