The "last movie I saw" thread

[Northwestcoug]

A report on Concussion could go just as easily in the "I don't get why football is popular" thread, but since it's a short movie review, I'll put it here. It's a good but not great film, its potential greatness being undermined by some cliched storytelling and a soundtrack that tries a little too hard to let us know what emotion we should be feeling. But it's still a compelling story and, despite the flaws, nicely done. Will Smith, as always, comes off as almost too heroic as the whistleblower Dr. Omalu, but was surprisingly convincing as a Nigerian doctor. "Omalu" translates as "He who knows, speaks!", which Omalu did, though the NFL didn't listen until after the tragic death of Junior Seau. Roger Goodell and others in the League do not come off at all well in the film nor, I suppose, should they. Alec Baldwin and Albert Brooks (I always enjoy his sardonic take on things) are both very good in this.

The film did a nice job of helping deflect criticism for its attack on an American institution (just as Dr. Omalu was criticized for doing so) by including several references to how very American the Nigerian doctor was in trying to help others and to get at the truth. It gets a potentially hostile audience on his side while watching the beloved NFL take a major hit.

I was surprised to learn that despite being offered a job as the nation's top forensic pathologist, he's stuck in Lodi at his current position as San Joaquin County (Soccermom!) Coroner.

I had pretty much the same feeling about this movie. Good but not great, with the contrived moments being minor annoyances for me. I think Will Smith did a pretty good job acting. At this point in his career, it seems like he can do no wrong, unless he plays a serial murderer or something.

What I would like to talk about, however, is that pathology angle! Let me tell you, Dr. Omalu is the best dressed forensic pathologist I've ever seen! Impeccable taste in suits. And, I don't think I've ever seen a more caring pathologist performing an autopsy. Hand on the head, trying to make a connection. I never saw such compassion in the northeast when I did my forensics rotation. I wonder if my buddy in forensics does the same thing before he starts his autopsies.

I had to chuckle at the scenes where Dr. Omalu would show the clinicians something on the microscope, and they understood exactly what they were seeing without any of his verbal help. I work with some very good clinicians, but they're about as good interpreting microscopic slides as I am performing an appendectomy. Oh well, I guess in movieland all doctors retain all their med school chops.

That aside, they got a lot of pathology right. The way the slides were packaged when he took them home, how he picked up each slide before putting it on the microscope, and how he touched the focusing wheel. There was an incidental scene that showed some slightly out-of-focus pathology books. The movie took place right around the time I was in residency, and I had the same edition of those books in my library! I had a warm feeling each time seeing those details, and my wife and kids had to endure my smile and nod of approval each time I noticed them. Nice touches.

In all, it's a solid B for me. I'd even go for a B-plus.

[Mormon Red Death]

I had to choose yesterday between two brutal Westerns, The Hateful Eight and The Revenant, and I chose the latter because at a mere two and a half hours, it was the shorter one. And it was one tough slog. It’s beautifully, at times even breathtakingly, filmed, but it’s relentless in depicting the nearly overwhelming assaults (by weather, a bear, soldiers, Pawnees, Sioux, criminals, etc.) on Leonardo DiCaprio.

Leo used to bug me, a lot, but he’s become an outstanding actor. He was great in Wolf of Wall Street and Django Unchained, and now this. He doesn’t talk much, but he should get an Oscar nomination if only for the obvious abuse that’s heaped upon him over the course of the movie. Director Inarritu has a nice follow-up here to Birdman, but at times it seems like he focuses more on the technical aspects of filmmaking rather than just telling a story; still, he’s very good. Part of the reason is his cinematographer (Lubezki) whose outstanding work in Tree of Life, Gravity, The New World, Children of Men, etc. is apparent here, although the upward shots through trees become a bit tiresome, even if trees are an enduring theme through the film.

This movie will be nominated for Best Picture, and might even win, but don’t expect a fun, relaxing night at the movies. Of my expected nominees, The Big Short remains the choice for that kind of experience.

How can this not win for best picture? Everything about this film is top notch. The score the, cinematography the acting. What other movie this year was as good?

[PaloAltoCougar]

How can this not win for best picture? Everything about this film is top notch. The score the, cinematography the acting. What other movie this year was a good.

It has to be the frontrunner, but of course Oscars aren't always dished out to the most deserving. One of many notable things about The Revenant (a new word for me, btw, that means one who has come back from the dead) was how the movie seemed free of CGI or other special effects, although no doubt there were many. The harrowing bear attack was phenomenal--it didn't seem like some dude in a bear costume. And the attack on the trappers' camp was terrifying; perhaps oddly, it reminded me a bit of the beach landing in Saving Private Ryan, with arrows replacing the MG42 bullets. And they must have spent hundreds of hours doing the make-up on Leo--I certainly got my fill of open, festering wounds.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sicario

Kind of far-fetched, but I liked it.

Central Park Five

Mind-blowing documentary. Will post about in the netflix thread.

[jay santos]

The Revenant. Not sure. Definitely a good movie. Is it a great film or picture of the year worthy? hmm, I think no, but maybe I can be convinced.

Spoiler for lengthy discussion with some spoilers...:

The movie was very engaging. Leo did great job. Great story and characters. Beautiful imagery. I was left unsatisfied as I realized through the film that revenge was his motivation. For a long time, I assumed survival was his motivation, and for some reason when it dawned on me that revenge was his motivation, I felt like the whole thing was a little shallow. Then at the end, when he supposedly learns his lesson and repeats the line he learned from his Indian helper earlier "revenge is in God's hand" which is a beautiful line that moved me the first time they used it, it just didn't resonate.

I was thoroughly unimpressed and unconvinced that he learned anything about that or connected with that deep meaning. He had given this guy deadly wounds in the fight and threw in the river with no ability to recover, and headed straight down to the group of Indians that obviously were going to kill him. He had already killed him in at least three different ways. That wasn't any kind of act of mercy or moment of introspection and growth.

I don't like Revenge as a theme for a film, but I suppose it can be done well if you commit to it. But don't do a film with revenge as the theme and try to turn it all around with a half-assed redemption scene.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The Revenant. Not sure. Definitely a good movie. Is it a great film or picture of the year worthy? hmm, I think no, but maybe I can be convinced.

Spoiler for lengthy discussion with some spoilers...:

The movie was very engaging. Leo did great job. Great story and characters. Beautiful imagery. I was left unsatisfied as I realized through the film that revenge was his motivation. For a long time, I assumed survival was his motivation, and for some reason when it dawned on me that revenge was his motivation, I felt like the whole thing was a little shallow. Then at the end, when he supposedly learns his lesson and repeats the line he learned from his Indian helper earlier "revenge is in God's hand" which is a beautiful line that moved me the first time they used it, it just didn't resonate.

I was thoroughly unimpressed and unconvinced that he learned anything about that or connected with that deep meaning. He had given this guy deadly wounds in the fight and threw in the river with no ability to recover, and headed straight down to the group of Indians that obviously were going to kill him. He had already killed him in at least three different ways. That wasn't any kind of act of mercy or moment of introspection and growth.

I don't like Revenge as a theme for a film, but I suppose it can be done well if you commit to it. But don't do a film with revenge as the theme and try to turn it all around with a half-assed redemption scene.

I agree with you, Jay.

Spoiler for The ending:

In his acceptance speech for his Golden Globe award Sunday, Leo talked about his character and redemption. I said then and still believe it wasn't about redemption at all, but pure revenge, and there was nothing to suggest he had absorbed the lesson from his mentor. I thought the movie was superbly done but fell just a bit short of what it might have been.

BTW, the Oscar nominations are out and the best pic nominees are The Big Short, Brooklyn, Bridge of Spies, Mad Max, The Martian, The Revenant, Room, and Spotlight. I have yet to see The Room, but will. I liked all of the movies, but would probably pick The Big Shortsimply because I enjoyed it more, although I still think The Revenant will win.

[Uncle Ted]

The Revenant. Not sure. Definitely a good movie. Is it a great film or picture of the year worthy? hmm, I think no, but maybe I can be convinced.

Spoiler for lengthy discussion with some spoilers...:

The movie was very engaging. Leo did great job. Great story and characters. Beautiful imagery. I was left unsatisfied as I realized through the film that revenge was his motivation. For a long time, I assumed survival was his motivation, and for some reason when it dawned on me that revenge was his motivation, I felt like the whole thing was a little shallow. Then at the end, when he supposedly learns his lesson and repeats the line he learned from his Indian helper earlier "revenge is in God's hand" which is a beautiful line that moved me the first time they used it, it just didn't resonate.

I was thoroughly unimpressed and unconvinced that he learned anything about that or connected with that deep meaning. He had given this guy deadly wounds in the fight and threw in the river with no ability to recover, and headed straight down to the group of Indians that obviously were going to kill him. He had already killed him in at least three different ways. That wasn't any kind of act of mercy or moment of introspection and growth.

I don't like Revenge as a theme for a film, but I suppose it can be done well if you commit to it. But don't do a film with revenge as the theme and try to turn it all around with a half-assed redemption scene.

The true story is very different...

Spoiler for How it really ended:

What happened there, however, was rather anti-climactic:


“In June he walked into the fort at last to face those who had deserted him. Reports of his superhuman journey and vengeful desire had already reached the fort; he was received with awe and expectation, but his rage had been completely exhausted by the nine-month trek. Nothing happened.”

http://time.com/4171001/revenant-1939-true-story/

[Sleeping in EQ]

I loved Pawn Sacrifice. It concentrated on Fischer's paranoia, and how he and Spassky were pawns for their governments. As a chess player, I was glad that Spassky was treated fairly. He's a nice guy, wasn't a communist hardliner, and has done much good for chess.

[Katy Lied]

After reading Jay's and PAC's review of Revenant, I dont want to see it at all. I can't stand movies that just tell the story of great suffering, from beginning to end. This is why I didn't watch Open Water either.

[Uncle Ted]

After reading Jay's and PAC's review of Revenant, I dont want to see it at all. I can't stand movies that just tell the story of great suffering, from beginning to end. This is why I didn't watch Open Water either.

My wife didn't want to see it either for about the same reason so I saw it without her. Now it is up for lots of awards she seems to be interested in seeing it. She may have to see it without me given I don't like paying for a movie twice. Of course, I didn't tell her about the parts were Glass eats raw buffalo parts and sleeps in a horse carcass yet.


Edit: BTW, they need to give Leo the Oscar for doing that for reals... http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...o-the-revenant

[Commando]

After reading Jay's and PAC's review of Revenant, I dont want to see it at all. I can't stand movies that just tell the story of great suffering, from beginning to end. This is why I didn't watch Open Water either.

That's why you don't click on spoiler tags!

[Armenag]

50 Shades of Grey - Caught this on TV intermittently. If I had to summarize it in one word: boring. The two leads are incredibly bland, particularly the guy. Not the worst movie, but in the running for dullest. Haven't read the book(s), but there were a few awful lines that particularly stood out, which I assume came from the it/them. I suspect that the upcoming spoof 50 Shades of Black will be more entertaining.

Restoration - Robert Downey Jr. as a hedonistic doctor who finds Charles II's favor by saving his favorite spaniel. The King (Sam Neill) sets him up in a sham marriage with his favorite mistress, RDJ falls in love with her, falls from grace, etc. David Thewlis plays his Quaker friend and Hugh Grant plays a foppish portraitist. In one of the more misguided castings of all time, Meg Ryan plays a crazy Irish woman with an appalling accent. On the whole, not a bad movie, but too rambling and erratic. Wouldn't dissuade anyone from seeing it, but wouldn't encourage seeking it out.

Trainspotting - Had never seen this one. Good movie. Very engaging (though very disturbing). Apparently they're working on a sequel -- not sure if that's a good idea or bad. Never read any of the books. Really liked the ending. Definitely worth seeing.

Dirty Pretty Things - Chiwetel Ejiofor as an illegal immigrant former doctor working at a hotel in London. Audrey Tautou is a maid at the same hotel. He discovers nefarious goings-on at the hotel. Decent but not great. Great actors (I really liked Benedict Wong in a minor role as Ejiofor's friend who works at a hospital mortuary) and good ending, but not particularly moving or interesting as a whole. The portrayal of illegal immigrant life in London is more interesting than the actual plot.

[Topper]

I agree with you, Jay.

Spoiler for The ending:

In his acceptance speech for his Golden Globe award Sunday, Leo talked about his character and redemption. I said then and still believe it wasn't about redemption at all, but pure revenge, and there was nothing to suggest he had absorbed the lesson from his mentor. I thought the movie was superbly done but fell just a bit short of what it might have been.

BTW, the Oscar nominations are out and the best pic nominees are The Big Short, Brooklyn, Bridge of Spies, Mad Max, The Martian, The Revenant, Room, and Spotlight. I have yet to see The Room, but will. I liked all of the movies, but would probably pick The Big Shortsimply because I enjoyed it more, although I still think The Revenant will win.

Interesting.

Spoiler for the movie:

My son had a different take, stating it was a poor movie of Leo mumbling a bunch of words while showing a lot of anger. Moreover, after researching the actual events, the ending is far from what is alleged to have happened.

[Katy Lied]

The true story behind The Finest Hours:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-finest-hours/

[RC Vikings]

Saw "13 Hours" Saturday. It was fair but I would just suggest that if you want to see this type of movie just find "Black Hawk Down" and watch it again.