On Screen Now! The 2019 Movie Thread

12346»

Comments

  • Woooooo! No Time to Die starring Lashana Lynch, Léa Seydoux
    Ana de Armas and Naomie Harris!
    Oh, yeah, and some old dude in a suit.
    Hard to tell from the trailers, but Bond just might have made a step towards the 20th century.
    I do feel for Idris Elba, but Lashan Lynch would break the both the racist and sexist barriers if they bring her in as a replacement after this instalment.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    "Little Women" doesn't hew too closely to Louisa May Alcott's original, but it's still a lot of fun and has a splendid cast, including Saoirse Ronan (as Jo), Emma Watson (as Meg), Meryl Streep (having a wonderful time as dispeptic Aunt March), Timothée Chalamet (the excellent Laurie), and Laura Dern (as a much too attractive Marmee). Interestingly, none of the four sisters are American; there's one Irishwoman, two Englishwomen, and a Strine. I recommend it.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Yesterday

    Saw this a few months back. Written by Richard Curtis and directed by Danny Boyle, tells the story of a young musician who, after suffering an accident during some weird electrical event, wakes up in a hospital(yeah, sorta like Twenty-Eight Days later), to find himself now living in an alternate-world where the Beatles never existed, but he is one of the very few people with a memory of them.

    So, he finds a pretty surefire way to advance his musical career.

    Cute and clever, but I wouldn't say it's brilliant(certainly not by the standards of Boyle), and it actually misses what I thought would have been some obvious set-ups...
    For example, in this world, Coca-Cola has also disappeared from history, which leads to some mildly funny moments when the musician, who does remember the drink, asks people in the rock world if they have any "coke". But, since we know that there are a few other people in this new world who remember the original one, I thought that when he finally meets some of them, they would establish their affinity by asking him if he'd like a Coke. But, when he meets them, that doesn't happen, they just go straight into the Beatles.

    Kudos to the script for not making the byzantine logistics of alternate-reality a major part of the plot, as such stories(along with those about time travel) often do,
    eg. it is shown that the Rolling Stones still exist pretty much as we know them in our time-line, as opposed to going into excruciating detail about how and why a world without the Beatles would also be one without the Stones, or how that could be changed etc. The one other band that is shown as actually not existing follows a certain humourous logic: prize for anyone who can guess which band that is.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Kudos to the script for not making the byzantine logistics of alternate-reality a major part of the plot, as such stories(along with those about time travel) often do,
    eg. it is shown that the Rolling Stones still exist pretty much as we know them in our time-line, as opposed to going into excruciating detail about how and why a world without the Beatles would also be one without the Stones, or how that could be changed etc. The one other band that is shown as actually not existing follows a certain humourous logic: prize for anyone who can guess which band that is.
    The Monkees?

  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Kudos to the script for not making the byzantine logistics of alternate-reality a major part of the plot, as such stories(along with those about time travel) often do,
    eg. it is shown that the Rolling Stones still exist pretty much as we know them in our time-line, as opposed to going into excruciating detail about how and why a world without the Beatles would also be one without the Stones, or how that could be changed etc. The one other band that is shown as actually not existing follows a certain humourous logic: prize for anyone who can guess which band that is.
    The Monkees?

    Nope.
    Something more current than that.

  • BelisariusBelisarius Admin Emeritus
    Oasis?
  • Belisarius wrote: »
    Oasis?

    That's the one!

    It's not a brilliant film but it's a good film and the music elevates it. It is funny and emotionally satisfying.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Yesterday

    Saw this a few months back. Written by Richard Curtis and directed by Danny Boyle, tells the story of a young musician who, after suffering an accident during some weird electrical event, wakes up in a hospital(yeah, sorta like Twenty-Eight Days later), to find himself now living in an alternate-world where the Beatles never existed, but he is one of the very few people with a memory of them.

    So, he finds a pretty surefire way to advance his musical career.

    Cute and clever, but I wouldn't say it's brilliant(certainly not by the standards of Boyle), and it actually misses what I thought would have been some obvious set-ups...
    For example, in this world, Coca-Cola has also disappeared from history, which leads to some mildly funny moments when the musician, who does remember the drink, asks people in the rock world if they have any "coke". But, since we know that there are a few other people in this new world who remember the original one, I thought that when he finally meets some of them, they would establish their affinity by asking him if he'd like a Coke. But, when he meets them, that doesn't happen, they just go straight into the Beatles.

    Kudos to the script for not making the byzantine logistics of alternate-reality a major part of the plot, as such stories(along with those about time travel) often do,
    eg. it is shown that the Rolling Stones still exist pretty much as we know them in our time-line, as opposed to going into excruciating detail about how and why a world without the Beatles would also be one without the Stones, or how that could be changed etc. The one other band that is shown as actually not existing follows a certain humourous logic: prize for anyone who can guess which band that is.
    Meta :wink:
  • Hey, thanks lilbuddha. I think I had somehow misses your post, or neglected to read it. (Sometimes if I get miffed about people having access to films that I don't, and so as not to enhance my agony, refrain from reading their reviews until I've had the opportunity myself, by which point, I might have forgotten about their post.)
  • Oh, and speaking of reviews I'd missed earlier...
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
    To roughly quote one critic; the film is good, depending on how much work you wish to put into it.
    The film is a ostensibly a buddy film about an ageing actor and his stuntman with fading careers in the late 1960's. With a Manson Family tie-in. It's not about Manson, says Tarantino, but about the loss of innocence...
    It's about Manson. Many adults buy toys from their childhood,Tarantino is buying his childhood fantasies*. He's murdered Hitler, killed slavery and now he gets to stop the Manson murders. Interestingly, he doesn't kill Manson, just a few of his followers.
    The main characters, played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, are likeable, but not perfectly. Tarantino plays with their sins as well.
    DiCaprio's character, as written, is a little flat. DiCaprio himself adds dimension. Whilst Pitt's character has a little more depth, his portrayal doesn't add any. A good performance, but the character does not vary, even during an acid trip.
    The story. Ageing actor only getting guest appearances and his stuntman buddy who acts as his chauffeur/odd-jobber as he cannot get work after killing his wife which was ruled an accident, but many think he did on purpose. DiCaprio's next door neighbours happen to be Roman Polanksi and Sharon Tate.
    Long story short, chance encounters change the Manson family murder plans and they try to kill our heroes who kill them in typical Tarantino gratuitous fashion including smashing a woman's face to pulp against a mantle and table and barbecuing another with flamethrower. yea.
    But the violence is OK, because they were baddies.
    In the middle of the film, DiCaprio's character Rick muses that could maybe get work from the currently hot Polanksi, seeing as they are neighbours. The film ends with Rick hanging out with the now not gruesomely ,murdered Tate and her friends. Happy days.
    I know that makes the film sound awful, but it is actually good, unless one hated Tarantino's films.

    *Well, we are buying it for him.
    It is a good film, if one likes Tarantino. It is loooooong. Tarantino likes Tarantino, that is certain.

    Your synopsis is good, and I largely agree with your analysis.
    Yeah, childhood toys. Tarantino is a little older than I am, and I imagine his impressions of Manson were the same as mine growing up in the 70s, ie. someone I'd been too young to know about when he was actually in the news, but who held a fascination for me as a small kid, being someone that everyone talked about as having done Really Bad Stuff a few years earlier.

    One thing I may or may not have detected in OUATIH is a reactionary valorization of Old Hollywood, against New Hollywood, symbolized by, among other things, the transition from straight-ahead Hollywood westerns, to the Revisionist variety then being made in Italy(IIRC, the main character is initially reluctant to get involved with the latter.)

    So, basically, "If only the Manson family had decided to take on a bunch of old-school action-heroes and stuntmen, they'd have been stopped dead in their tracks with a flamethrower. But, of course, they went after a bunch of rich hippies and effete eurotrash, and we all know how that ended up".

    I could probably confirm or refute my analysis with a second-viewing, but, like you, I find Tarantino overlong, and he's one of the few directors I emjoy, but whose films I am not inclined to watch twice.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Some brilliant film making from South Korea: "Parasite". It might actually be a dark horse in the run for Oscar best picture nominations imo. It's a darkly comedic story about class. A very poor but smart family gets a toe hold into the world of a very rich family, who are not totally stupid people but oblivious. Everything seems to be going hunky-dory for the gutter snipe family until overstepping causes the situation to tailspin. A beautifully filmed and surprisingly intense movie written and directed by Bong Joon Ho.
  • stetson wrote: »
    I could probably confirm or refute my analysis with a second-viewing, but, like you, I find Tarantino overlong, and he's one of the few directors I emjoy, but whose films I am not inclined to watch twice.
    Hadn't though about that, but I cannot recall making any effort to see any of his films a second time, either. Even those I regard as his best.
    An aside:
    I watched a vid talking about Mad Max: Fury Road and they called it a very good film and my first reaction was 'What?!'. I mean, I enjoyed it, but "good"? But as they went through the vid, I began to agree. Sure, the script was basic,* the dialogue merely fine and the characters a bit flat, but it told the story well. Its use of film language to tell the story was outstanding.
    Whilst I'd call Tarantino's finest works "better" films, I think I'd watch Fury Road again before those.

    *It didn't really have a script, but if one made a script from the story it would be basic.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I regard as his best.
    An aside:
    I watched a vid talking about Mad Max: Fury Road and they called it a very good film and my first reaction was 'What?!'. I mean, I enjoyed it, but "good"? But as they went through the vid, I began to agree. Sure, the script was basic,* the dialogue merely fine and the characters a bit flat, but it told the story well. Its use of film language to tell the story was outstanding.

    Yeah, maybe. I thought it was one of those sci-fi movies that didn't wanna stay within the limitations set up by the script itself. For instance, we're supposed to be looking at a post-apocalyptic dystopia, where scarcity is the order of the day, and these guys are traveling around with a fully electric rock band.

    Though I do understand the experience of having your view of something changed by an incisive review. I liked the movie Barton Fink when I first saw it, and then I read a review by Stanley Kaufmann that tore it to shreds, and I thought "Yes, yes, he's absolutely right", and have disliked the movie ever since. Along with everything else I've seen by the Coen Brothers. (And please, no one post to tell me how brilliant they are, I know am in the minority on this.)

  • stetson wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I regard as his best.
    An aside:
    I watched a vid talking about Mad Max: Fury Road and they called it a very good film and my first reaction was 'What?!'. I mean, I enjoyed it, but "good"? But as they went through the vid, I began to agree. Sure, the script was basic,* the dialogue merely fine and the characters a bit flat, but it told the story well. Its use of film language to tell the story was outstanding.

    Yeah, maybe. I thought it was one of those sci-fi movies that didn't wanna stay within the limitations set up by the script itself. For instance, we're supposed to be looking at a post-apocalyptic dystopia, where scarcity is the order of the day, and these guys are traveling around with a fully electric rock band.
    Pretty much nothing in the Mad Max world makes any logistical sense, so there is a set of parameters to the suspension of disbelief going in. For me, anyway.
    stetson wrote: »
    Though I do understand the experience of having your view of something changed by an incisive review. I liked the movie Barton Fink when I first saw it, and then I read a review by Stanley Kaufmann that tore it to shreds, and I thought "Yes, yes, he's absolutely right", and have disliked the movie ever since. Along with everything else I've seen by the Coen Brothers. (And please, no one post to tell me how brilliant they are, I know am in the minority on this.)
    I have not read that review, and probably won't. Nearly any film can be taken apart. Especially, IMO, the work of those infusing symbology or meaning into the work. I tend to be wary of critics, because the reviews are often missing the forest for the trees.
    And if I miss something, but enjoyed the film, why do I want to know and ruin the experience?
  • Knives Out

    Rated 8.1/10 on IMDB was enough to get me to spend two plus hours with a riff on the Agatha Christie whodunit.

    Surprisingly smart, didn't see it coming ending, and very entertaining with many cast members playing against type. Depending on your viewpoint of Daniel Craig, his American accent will either amuse the heck out of you or drive you screaming for the exit. Your call. I found it hilarious.

    Toni Collette once again the most beautiful woman in the room cast as the ugliest with a bad Trump tan and even more heinous hairpiece.

    Just - so much amusing. The set pieces and the set dressing, the persiflage on all the whodunits you ever grew up with.

    All in all a highly entertaining two hours and ten minutes.

    AFF

  • bunnywithanaxebunnywithanaxe Admin Emeritus
    I offer with no apology— Dolomite Is My Name

    Let’s get the warnings out of the way— language. Oh, so much language. Language arranged in such vivid, baroque ways that the resulting mental images makes you want to lie down with a cold rag on your head.

    Scattered brief nudity. One simulated simulated sex scene that kind of gets a bit Buster Keaton. Or Three Stooges. Really effin hard to describe, in any case.

    Eddie Murphy and a select number of his peers modeling some of the bolder choices in 1970’s pimp couture. Truly a sight to see.


    Briefly summarized, it’s the rags to riches tale of legendary comic, proto- rapper, and midnight movie legend Rudy Ray Moore, who creates the persona of Dolomite in a scathingly profane one man act in which he tells endless tales of his badassery in rhymed couplets. He eventually decides that the world at large needs to behold his genius, and winds up making one of the best worst movies in blaxploitation history.

    It reminded me a lot of the film Ed Wood, if Ed Wood had decided his movies needed more fake guts and real titties. Jaw droppingly impressive in a ten car pile up sort of way, leaving you impressed with the unshakeable genius and optimism of the subject. The end was even kind of heart warming.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I regard as his best.
    An aside:
    I watched a vid talking about Mad Max: Fury Road and they called it a very good film and my first reaction was 'What?!'. I mean, I enjoyed it, but "good"? But as they went through the vid, I began to agree. Sure, the script was basic,* the dialogue merely fine and the characters a bit flat, but it told the story well. Its use of film language to tell the story was outstanding.

    Yeah, maybe. I thought it was one of those sci-fi movies that didn't wanna stay within the limitations set up by the script itself. For instance, we're supposed to be looking at a post-apocalyptic dystopia, where scarcity is the order of the day, and these guys are traveling around with a fully electric rock band.
    Pretty much nothing in the Mad Max world makes any logistical sense, so there is a set of parameters to the suspension of disbelief going in. For me, anyway.

    I can suspend disbelief in order to get an overall plotline going, eg. Earth is attacked by space aliens from the Andromeda galaxy who have evolved humanoid bodies and an advanced form of Earth-like flying techonology. But that's basically a one-time offer, and I still expect a certain modicum of verisimilitude in regards to plot-development after that, eg. the president can't order his scientists to devise a missile capable of hitting the Andromeda galaxy from Earth, and the scientists just do that in a day, with no evidence presented that they had anything close to that sort of technology before.

  • Knives Out

    Rated 8.1/10 on IMDB was enough to get me to spend two plus hours with a riff on the Agatha Christie whodunit.

    AFF:

    Would you recommend this movie to someone who doesn't much care for old-school whodunits of the Agatha Christie variety? Because I find those kind of cheezy and irrelevant to any of my interests, though I have heard that Knives Out knowingly references old genre films from the 1970s, and I'm usually in the mood for cinematic nostalgia.

  • Kelly:

    Thanks for drawing my attention to Dolomite Is My Name. Sounds interesting, but I doubt it will make it over here.

    And for something that did...

    Ford Vs. Ferrari

    This is well-enough made to be enjoyable, and somewhat informative if(like me), you don't know much about the racing industry. But if you're NOT a huge racing fan, AND if you have a choice of other films of interest to you, I can't really recommend you go out of your way to see it.

    Good performances from Damon and Bale, but it's not exactly a news flash that they're talented actors. Interesting to see Tracy Letts, the playwright, seeming to do a lot of acting these days.
  • bunnywithanaxebunnywithanaxe Admin Emeritus
    I love Tracy Letts. He tends to kick the ass of any role he’s in.
  • I love Tracy Letts. He tends to kick the ass of any role he’s in.

    Well, you might wanna check out Ford Vs. Ferrari then. He plays Henry Ford II. Can't say the film is exceptionally recommendable on any other grounds, however.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Doctor Sleep

    Saw this a few weeks back. The official sequel to The Shining. Based on Stephen King's own sequel, but clearly meant to follow the 1980 film.

    I think this suffered a little from trying to be both a tribute and a sequel, eg. one scene, set in a New England doctor's office, is a clear visual quote of this, complete with Old Glory on the desk, but then
    the climax of the film takes us literally back to the Overlook Hotel itself, thus making any earlier allusions kind of superfluous.

    The story, set in the present time or close enough anyway, involves a wandering gang of evil psychics trying to lure the now-adult Danny into a lethal confrontation. Kinda hokey, but fairly typical of what I've seen in King adaptations.

    Interestingly, most of the original characters appear as either flashbacks or ghosts, and are played by actors closely resembling the old cast, with one very noticable exception. I'm assuming the creators figured that the original performance would have been too iconic to re-create without prompting chuckles from the audience(sort of the way that I've heard that audience for Hamlet sometimes chuckle when "To be or not to be..." kicks in).

    Or possible leaving changing the style of performance was meant as a sop to King, who famously disliked the original?

    One other omission(link possibly NSFW)...

    Almost all the original ghosts from the Overlook make an appearance, with the exception, of these two. I'm guessing that scene was considered too homophobic for contemporary audiences. If so, I'd agree it suffers from that typical prejudice of the era, though it's also one of the most effectively eerie scenes in the film, IMHO.

    Overall, as someone who thought that the tribute in Ready Player One probably should have been the last word on Shining references in popular culture, I found this film a little redundant. I suppose it is testimony to just how much Kubrick's film, despite its original negative reception, has been entered in the horror canon for subsequent generations.
  • Sorry, the fourth paragraph from the bottom of that post should read...

    "Or possibly changing the style of performance was meant as a sop to King, who famously disliked the original?"

    I'll also add in this addendum that, for me anyway, it was hard not to think about King's famous aversion to the original while watching this sequel, and that sort of became the lens through which I viewed it.
  • Did you read the book, "Doctor Sleep"? I thought some of it was tired. The villains have all been seen in various guises throughout most of King's novels. The book felt played out. Now that we have "Stranger Things" and that show borrows heavily from King's books, I think horror writers need to step back and maybe rethink some things. I enjoyed the book but wish I had bought it used. It was an impulse buy to see if ol' Stephen still had the capacity to scare the crap out of me. It didn't. I could see several plot points coming a mile away.

    I don't imagine the movie is going to be any better. Ah, well. Perhaps I'm getting tired of horror in fiction, as it seems that real life is a horror-fest all by itself.
  • "Cats".

    Dear God in Heaven...is the world going to end now?!! Oh, I hope so! When I saw the previews for this pile of cat crap, I wanted to run, run to the shower and wash myself over and over, using my own tongue, if necessary. I also wanted to wash my mind's eye to purge it from the dreadful sight of Judi Dench in a tight cat costume.

    Christ on a bike! Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy?! Why, Judi, whyyyyyyyyyy?! She's hardly the worst of the cast in this horrid hairball of a movie but she signed up for it with her own free will...ohhhh, I cannot write any more. It's a sign of The End Times, I just know it.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Here in Australia, with temperatures over 40 degrees (i.e. >100F) , it's a good time to visit an air-conditioned cinema , provided one is not immediate danger from the many large bushfires. That applies to me and Mrs T, though when the wind comes from the "right" direction, we have plenty of smoke hanging in the air like a smog.

    Films we have seen so far this week include:

    > Official Secrets . I agree with @The Organist that this is a fine and gripping film, about a woman who leaks proof that the Bush/ Blair push to wage war on Iraq was basically a glory-seek by them without any evidence of the ostensible reason ("weapons of mass destruction"). Although I didn't know about this real case and its trial, the film connected with us because (a) the then Australian Prime Minister dragged Australia into that war because he wanted to brown-nose Bush, and (b) the scenes set in the Spy Agency where the heroine worked as a translator. One of our close relatives was similarly employed once upon a time, but resigned not on a matter of principle like the heroine, but because of dreadful working conditions (harassment of various kinds).
    An amusing sidelight was the Judge in the case at the end, who tried to argue a case for the prosecution, was played by the same actor who portrayed Judge Bullingham, Rumpole's bete noir in the old TV series.

    > Knives Out. A fun whodunnit in the Agatha Christie tradition, in which almost all of a family had a motive to kill their rich father/ grandfather/ FiL,...Good ensemble acting and story, but I was unimpressed by Daniel Craig's attempt at a Louisiana accent, especially when it occasionally slipped.
  • The5thMary wrote: »
    "Cats".

    Dear God in Heaven...is the world going to end now?!! Oh, I hope so! When I saw the previews for this pile of cat crap, I wanted to run, run to the shower and wash myself over and over, using my own tongue, if necessary. I also wanted to wash my mind's eye to purge it from the dreadful sight of Judi Dench in a tight cat costume.

    Christ on a bike! Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy?! Why, Judi, whyyyyyyyyyy?! She's hardly the worst of the cast in this horrid hairball of a movie but she signed up for it with her own free will...ohhhh, I cannot write any more. It's a sign of The End Times, I just know it.

    You always make me laugh. I heard a review on NPR yesterday and, while trying to be NPR-nice, they were also seeming to ask, "Whyyyyyyyyyy?"
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    I know y'all were waiting for this.
    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
    :blush: :heart: :heartbreak:
    Daughter-Unit and I went to the pre-opening showing on Thursday evening. Both of us liked this one much better than VII and VIII. I have to tell you that I cried in several places, the first time was
    when Carrie Fisher was Leia once again.

    It's a pretty rollicking film, and something about the sound and lighting reminded me very much of the first Star Wars, which was, of course, number IV. The film score encompassed all the previous movies, which was enough to put a lump in my throat. As a musician, music makes me emotional...especially when it reminds me of my younger days long ago.

    I was 23 years old when the first Star Wars film opened, (it hadn't been named "A New Hope" yet) which tells you exactly how old I am now! I remember reading an interview of George Lucas, probably within a year of that film opening. I was thrilled to read that he planned nine films altogether , then years later, devastated when it looked like the final six films would not be made. OK, some of those six were real stinkers, but still...I wanted to see the whole saga!

    I don't want to spoil anything for any of you who haven't seen it yet. But I have to say
    it was tons of fun seeing most of the old gang (and villain!).

    I really liked the ending. And there are questions! Dare I hope for some spin-offs? :wink:
  • The5thMary wrote: »
    Did you read the book, "Doctor Sleep"? I thought some of it was tired. The villains have all been seen in various guises throughout most of King's novels. The book felt played out. Now that we have "Stranger Things" and that show borrows heavily from King's books, I think horror writers need to step back and maybe rethink some things. I enjoyed the book but wish I had bought it used. It was an impulse buy to see if ol' Stephen still had the capacity to scare the crap out of me. It didn't. I could see several plot points coming a mile away.

    I don't imagine the movie is going to be any better. Ah, well. Perhaps I'm getting tired of horror in fiction, as it seems that real life is a horror-fest all by itself.

    No, I have a short attention-span for fiction, and all I've read by King is the first few chapters of The Shining, and that was back in elementary school, shortly after the film came out.

    But I've seen quite a few adaptations of his work, and there are enough similarities to conclude that they must reflect something common to all the books. It wouldn't surprise me if he's in the decline of his powers right now, though honestly, and again, based almost entirely on the films, I never thought he was all that much of a creative powerhouse. I'll admit the parts I read of The Shining were kinda spooky.

    I think King these days tends to merge in my mind with Garrison Keillor. Possibly to do with a broad physical resemblance, but also maybe something a little more sinister.



  • stetson wrote: »
    Knives Out

    Rated 8.1/10 on IMDB was enough to get me to spend two plus hours with a riff on the Agatha Christie whodunit.

    AFF:

    Would you recommend this movie to someone who doesn't much care for old-school whodunits of the Agatha Christie variety? Because I find those kind of cheezy and irrelevant to any of my interests, though I have heard that Knives Out knowingly references old genre films from the 1970s, and I'm usually in the mood for cinematic nostalgia.

    I saw it yesterday and honestly think it's one of those films anyone would enjoy, except for the very squeamish or those who are really triggered by human nastiness (even when played mostly for dark comedy).
  • Thanks, Columba. Unfotunately, I think that film might not be playing anymore here in my city, but if it is, I might give it a look.
  • Wet KipperWet Kipper Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    I've now seen Star Wars 9 as well

    I enjoyed it, but wasn't exactly a whoopin' and a hollerin'

    some of the loose ends were tied up too neatly for my liking, and a few things which seemed a bit of a "MacGuffin" just to keep the story going.
  • edited December 2019
    We watched The Two Popes on Netflix. Depicts conversations between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, who are Pope Benedict XVI succeeded by Francis as Roman Catholic Pope.

    Obviously fictionalized. Very good however about 2 living people which the movie depicts as discussing the future of the RC church. Very human. Some may find it boring as there's only action in some flashbacks and not a lot of it. We enjoyed it very much.
  • Wildlife

    Directed by actor Paul Dano, about a young teen in Montana witnessing the disintegration of his parents' marriage.

    Not bad, though I'm not sure it stepped much outside the boundaries of Small Town Domestic Psychodrama. It's something in the general vicinity of This Boy's Life, though with the dysfunction more heavily weighted toward the mother. Not that the father is entirely a model of stability, either.

    I also was not entirely sold on the mothers' motivations for some of her more extreme actions, eg.
    bringing her son on an adulterous dinner-date with a local businessman, and consumating the affair while the boy waits in the car.
    Granted, she was rather estranged from her husband by that point, but it still seemed as if the writers were justifying the plot-twist because it conforms to the conventions of Small Town Domestic Psychodrama, rather than that it flows logically from anything previous in the script.

    That said, this is well-acted and nicely filmed, so if it sounds interesting to you, and maybe if you haven't sat through quite as many genre films as I have, you might want to check this out.
  • Re: Star Wars #9 If a person missed out on seeing #8, what should they (me!) do? Is it a must to see it first as too much would be missed or would it be okay to just go to the new one? I've seen all of the others more than once and was one of those young teens who lined up more than one night to get in to see the original back in 1977.
  • MarkDMarkD Shipmate
    jedijudy wrote: »
    I know y'all were waiting for this.
    Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
    :blush: :heart: :heartbreak:
    Daughter-Unit and I went to the pre-opening showing on Thursday evening. Both of us liked this one much better than VII and VIII.

    Yay! I so want to agree with you but am waiting for my cough to die down before I go.
    jedijudy wrote:
    I was 23 years old when the first Star Wars film opened, (it hadn't been named "A New Hope" yet) which tells you exactly how old I am now! I remember reading an interview of George Lucas, probably within a year of that film opening. I was thrilled to read that he planned nine films altogether , then years later, devastated when it looked like the final six films would not be made. OK, some of those six were real stinkers, but still...I wanted to see the whole saga!

    I was just a year older. I wonder if you went to see it expecting to like it? I went with a friend who was jazzed to see it and of course liked it very much. I can die in peace provided I get over this cough in time to see the final installment. But when I first started seeing trailers at the movies for it I have to admit I had a very negative reaction. It looks too stupid to believe. Thankfully my friend saved me from my harsh preconceptions.

    Thanks for the review. Perhaps you would like to host a discussion thread for the movie/series at some point? I've not read any of the books and don't know if I'll be interested in spinoffs, but I definitely am looking forward to seeing how trilogy of trilogies pans out.
  • Lily Pad wrote: »
    Re: Star Wars #9 If a person missed out on seeing #8, what should they (me!) do? Is it a must to see it first as too much would be missed or would it be okay to just go to the new one? I've seen all of the others more than once and was one of those young teens who lined up more than one night to get in to see the original back in 1977.
    You could read the plot synopsis on wikipedia and be caught up, though I do think The Last Jedi worth seeing. Warts and all.

  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You could read the plot synopsis on wikipedia and be caught up, though I do think The Last Jedi worth seeing. Warts and all.

    @Lily Pad , I agree with lilbuddha! Number 8 will give you a lot of insight as to what is going on in Number 9.

    I hope I'm not giving the impression that I didn't like Numbers 7 and 8! I did like them very much! And they are so much better than the prequel! I think my main problem was that I had so much affection for Luke, Leia, Han and the droids in the original three, that I didn't quite feel the same about Rey, Poe and Kylo Ren. Finn did come close, however! Analyzing it a bit, it just might have a little bit to do with being older and more crotchety than I was a long time ago (in this same galaxy.)

    @MarkD , I had not seen any trailers or advertisements for the 1977 film, so I had zero expectations. I do remember the first time I saw 3PO and R2 I was a bit alarmed, but by the time they got to the Lars homestead I was in love with them! They reminded me a bit of Laurel and Hardy. Anyhow, y'all know I'm a big Star Wars fan/nut!
  • MarkDMarkD Shipmate
    jedijudy wrote: »
    Anyhow, y'all know I'm a big Star Wars fan/nut!

    I do now. I enjoy them too.
  • Initial notes on The Rise of Skywalker
    Kinda sucks really hard that they sidelined Finn and turned Rose into a glorified extra. Seriously, WTF? And they stole India and Holi and turned an earth culture into aliens again. Was racism written into the contract when Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney?
  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    I was about 16 when the first film came out. It was a big thing to go to the Odeon in the middle of Manchester with my little sister, by ourselves! I knew a bit about the film because there had been an item on Look North (or possibly Look North West), the early evening news programme, about the huge queues for the film - most people seemed to think at the time that cinema was slowly dying because of TV.
    I remember them interviewing one lady who had seen the film, who wasn't impressed at all, and they showed the clip of Luke and Leia swinging across the chasm in the Death Star.
    We had to queue round the block to get in, and I came out completely dazzled by the climactic space battle.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Since we're on mid-70s memory lane now...

    I would have been 8 when the first Star Wars came out, and my dad took me to see it in Winnipeg, where we were visiting my mom's family. Having heard that it was a great film, I think I was impressed, though I don't really know if I had the right to be, since I hadn't seen a lot of high-tech movies to that point, and wouldn't have had much to compare it to(I think 2001 would have been a sine qua non for the context.)

    The next year, my family went to see Superman, and as we drove away from the theatre afterwards, my parents had the only argument I can ever remember them having about cinema: my mom was impressed, but my dad said, with a distinct note of impatience in his voice: Yeah, that was okay, but if you had seen Star Wars, you wouldn't think it was anything special."

    Which is probably true. I don't think Superman is known as any sort of cinematic landmark.
  • I rate Star Wars 9 at 5.5/10. We saw it in 3D. I actually found my mind wandering and nearly dozed off at one point. It gets 0.5 above 5 because it's the end of this saga.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    "Little Women" doesn't hew too closely to Louisa May Alcott's original, but it's still a lot of fun and has a splendid cast, including Saoirse Ronan (as Jo), Emma Watson (as Meg), Meryl Streep (having a wonderful time as dispeptic Aunt March), Timothée Chalamet (the excellent Laurie), and Laura Dern (as a much too attractive Marmee). Interestingly, none of the four sisters are American; there's one Irishwoman, two Englishwomen, and a Strine. I recommend it.

    I'm going to see it this evening with some girlfriends.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    The5thMary wrote: »
    "Cats".

    Dear God in Heaven...is the world going to end now?!! Oh, I hope so! When I saw the previews for this pile of cat crap, I wanted to run, run to the shower and wash myself over and over, using my own tongue, if necessary. I also wanted to wash my mind's eye to purge it from the dreadful sight of Judi Dench in a tight cat costume.

    Christ on a bike! Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy?! Why, Judi, whyyyyyyyyyy?! She's hardly the worst of the cast in this horrid hairball of a movie but she signed up for it with her own free will...ohhhh, I cannot write any more. It's a sign of The End Times, I just know it.

    You always make me laugh. I heard a review on NPR yesterday and, while trying to be NPR-nice, they were also seeming to ask, "Whyyyyyyyyyy?"
    Forgive me: any Shippies that have actually seen it... and live to cough up the furball, I mean, tell the tale?

    Somewhat similar to the 5th Mary, all I saw was stills.... not even a preview. But those were eyebleach-worthy enough! I shall abstain from moving images. Truly ghastly stuff, this!
  • stetson wrote: »
    Since we're on mid-70s memory lane now...

    I would have been 8 when the first Star Wars came out, and my dad took me to see it in Winnipeg, where we were visiting my mom's family. Having heard that it was a great film, I think I was impressed, though I don't really know if I had the right to be, since I hadn't seen a lot of high-tech movies to that point, and wouldn't have had much to compare it to(I think 2001 would have been a sine qua non for the context.)

    The next year, my family went to see Superman, and as we drove away from the theatre afterwards, my parents had the only argument I can ever remember them having about cinema: my mom was impressed, but my dad said, with a distinct note of impatience in his voice: Yeah, that was okay, but if you had seen Star Wars, you wouldn't think it was anything special."

    Which is probably true. I don't think Superman is known as any sort of cinematic landmark.
    Star Wars was visually impressive for its time and pulled from from literary, cinematic and cultural sources. It involved world building and became a fantasy that one could imagine oneself being a part of.
    Superman was a mediocre film about a comic book character that added nothing to either the character or the culture. Visually, it was meh. It was a predictable love story, adequately written, set on a comic book backdrop.
    As a further example, the first Star Trek film was at least as visually impressive as Star Wars. However, if it were not part of an iconic franchise, it would not have any resonance today. By itself, it actually doesn't; except as a footnote in how to fail when you have everything in your corner.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Initial notes on The Rise of Skywalker
    Kinda sucks really hard that they sidelined Finn and turned Rose into a glorified extra. Seriously, WTF? And they stole India and Holi and turned an earth culture into aliens again. Was racism written into the contract when Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney?
    And furthermore
    The excuse the filmmakers give for the disservice done to Rose is that her scenes were with Leia and the CG of Carrie Fisher just didn't look right. Which is bullshit. If a character is that easily minimised, she wasn't written into the script in any important way. And Fisher died BEFORE the film began filming. Plenty of time to rewrite Rose. Especially when they took the time to write in a superfluous character for Dominic Monaghan because of a football bet. And, because Monaghan is recognisable but basically does fuck all, it is actually a detriment to the film.
    I'm beginning to want my money and time back.
  • TrudyTrudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    Closing this thread now so that we can open the shiny new 2020 Movie thread. Discussion can continue there!
This discussion has been closed.