Last Movie you Watched?

Sharky wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I can always hope against hope GOMORRAH and ANTICHRIST get quietly forgotten. ;)

Fucking amen.

I think a speaking fox is quite remarkable. There's just no pleasing some people.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I can always hope against hope GOMORRAH and ANTICHRIST get quietly forgotten. ;)

Fucking amen.

I think a speaking fox is quite remarkable. There's just no pleasing some people.

Did you see FANTASTIC MR. FOX?

tiffanywint wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

MONEYBALL (2011)
directed by Bennett Miller

I have heard this film described as an "onion film". Different layers where there's something for everybody. I'd agree with that assessment, and while I'm sure this was done to get the film to appeal to all audiences (not just baseball fans), it's also the film's biggest weakness. One part baseball movie, one part docu-drama, and one part sentimental underdog story, MONEYBALL isn't quite the sum of all it's parts.

The docu-drama parts, with real baseball footage from that 2002 season, are really great and very well done (particularly the introductory sequence detailing the 2001 ALDS between New York and Oakland). Similarly, the sentimental stuff is effective, even if it does feel a bit rushed and heavy-handed towards the end. (And by heavy handed, I mean Jonah Hill literally says at the end: "Billy...it's a metaphor.") Loved the use of the radio broadcasts throughout the flashbacks and the end scene with John Henry. In fact, the film's entire conclusion is nearly pitch-perfect. The actual recreated baseball scenes (the main story) were fine, I just didn't care for the way they were done with the super bright lighting, fake looking sets, and terribly generic Hans Zimmer-lite score. Overall, the results of the film are a lot of great little scenes, but if you take a step back and look at the film as a whole, it feels a bit unfocused. I think it's a pretty good film, just uneven.

It seems like it's been forever since there's been any good baseball movies, and I think this one fits the bill rather nicely. That being said, even with the film trying to cater to different audiences, I can't really see anyone really enjoying it if you don't have at least passing interest in baseball, SABR, advanced metrics, or Bill James.
7.5/10

OK I'm sold. You've actually convinced me to pay cinema money for this film. I can't in good conscience, with the baseball playoffs about to start, pass up the chance to watch Major League baseball drama on the big screen. Sounds like there is plenty going on in this movie to keep me interested, seeing as I remember the 2002 season like it was yesterday. Although I think A's were more about their starting-pitching than overblown moneyball-theories. It's just that I am really trying not to pay cinema-money for anything with Pitt, Damon or Clooney. I guess I will make this one exception for Pitt, and then I shall re-dedicate to avoiding the terrible trio.

Yeah, you should go see it. Any baseball fan shouldn't deny themselves the chance to watch it on the big screen. There are two scenes that I can think of right now that just wouldn't have the same impact on a small screen that they do in the theater. I agree mostly about the A's being great because of Zito, Mulder, and Hudson, but the premise of Moneyball (from what I understand, haven't read the book) isn't necessarily to guarantee success and winning, but rather to use SABRmetrics to build a team with a small payroll that can compete with teams that have enormous payrolls (the film directly addresses this). Hell, I believe Billy Beane himself even has said something along the lines of "My shit doesn't work in the playoffs".

Regarding Pitt...I think he's good in this one. Not great, but good. I can understand hating Clooney and certainly Damon...but what do you have against Pitt?

Moneyball definitely has merit. But ideally its not what you want to have to do. It's an option for teams that are stuck with a low budget but you got to get beyond it at some point. Major league sport is ultimately about what you do in the playoffs, not just squeaking your way into the post season. I remember the two World Series teams we had in Toronto. They were stacked teams, built via development, scouting, good trades, free agency and finally a big payroll to make sure all the talent was properly compensated. I wouldn't trade those two years for a longer Moneyball run of reasonable success, but little championship hope.

I won't argue with Moneyball in the sense that the A's did have an impressive stretch of making the playoffs for a low budget team, however I think the rest of baseball has caught up. Every team has piles of stats to wade through, but nothing beats good scouting IMO - that ability to identify talent, project accordingly and develop.

Pitt btw, lost me a long time ago.Probably the whole Brangelina and Pitt/Aniston thing. Benifer was it? Gag. Can't take the guy seriously.

I dont know if you can blame a man for the names the tabloids give him.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I dont know if you can blame a man for the names the tabloids give him.

I do blame him. The man is a soap-opera and he's a lame actor, IMHO of course. I reserve the right to simply not like.

The Moneyball trailers are real scary IMO. Pitt singlehandly ruins them. The trailers were enough to put me off seeing the film in cinema, but I'll probably see it this weekend, despite Pitt, just for the baseball side of things.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I think in general we also tend to see old school Hollywood through rose-tinted glasses simply because what we remember and what has survived are the classics. Golden Age Hollywood put out a ton of schlocky unwatchable crap too, it was just a different kind of schlocky unwatchable crap. Its why "Sullivan's Travels" has that quality of "as true today as it was when it was written".

Most of what TCM runs during the day I couldn't be arsed to watch. But I will turn it while cooking lunch or something.

Inception (2010)

Sorta like watching a puzzle. I was somewhat stimulated, but didn't give a damn about anything that I saw. It was interesting, though. Just didn't really grab me.

I liked how it was shot and edited more than TDK. I really prefered the editing of this film. Hell, the dialogue too.

2010 Best Picture nominiees

1. INCEPTION
2. WINTER'S BONE
3. TRUE GRIT
4. 127 HOURS
5. THE KING'S SPEECH

I thought it was well put together. Marion Cotillard is amazing. Wish she'd played Rachel in BB and TDK, but at least she's in TDKR.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Marion Cotillard is amazing.

I like her a lot. Regardless of the quality of the film she's in, she's always worth watching.

Erica Ambler wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Marion Cotillard is amazing.

I like her a lot. Regardless of the quality of the film she's in, she's always worth watching.

She's even enjoyable in that terrible Taxi movie that signified her breakthrough in France.

Looking very much forward to "Rust and Bone". She plays opposite talented young Belgian actor Matthias Schoenaerts in that.

Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose is absolutely phenomenal. She's fantastic in Nine as well, and one of the only highlights of Public Enemies. Definitely one of the better actresses of today. I'd love to see her as a Bond girl or a villainess.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, it's unrealistic to expect EON ever to cast an established actress in that role.

I know, I'm merely expressing an interest. That said, they did cast Halle Berry and Grace Jones in a Bond film.

Grace Jones was hardly an established actress. Much better known back then for her fashion modelling and music. Check out her covers of 'Private Life' and 'She's Lost Control'. Good records both.

Re Halle Berry, I think UA got lucky and signed her before her Oscar nomination was announced. Of course, her win meant she was given equal billing on the posters. Was that a first and last for a Bond film?

Seven Samurai

A very fine film, with a big heart for its characters, all of which are played sensitively. Every part of the story, the recruiting of the samurai, the preparations for the attacks, the love stories, the repulsion of the actual attacks, were told and pictured wonderfully. The cinematography was fine throughout, as was the comparatively varied music, and the humorous elements were pleasantly amusing; it seems the Japanese, at the very least Kurosawa, have a better humour than big parts of the Western folk. SEVEN SAMURAI is much, much better than THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. A truly great watch.

I am already looking forward to Kurosawa's other films. I bought the Samurai Box for 6.99 €; an offer I simply could not refuse. In order to get the original version of Seven Samurai, here having a running time of 193 minutes, I also bought a 3-DVD box of it with both the long and the edited (and dubbed) version, which I will see some day, just because I am curious as to which scenes were cut out. I can think of very few scenes that could be cut without doing the film noticeable harm, but 38 minutes? (PS: the mentioned box was 6.99 also; I thought it wasn't too much to invest for the original version).

SALO (1975)

I don't return to this film often. I think I've only watched it a total of three times. However, it really touches upon a variety themes through the use of it's graphic, violent scenes. Tarantino and the gang need to work on that. It's astounding that many denounce this as a repulsive, pointless film, but will watch Eli Roth bash a Nazi's skull in with a baseball bat for no reason.

Aside from the themes of the film, the set design is great. I think it even works to contrast (or even contradict) the personalities of the administrators in the film, and the film's overall atmosphere. Morricone's main theme is very desensitizing, as well. It's a really catchy piece, and played between all of the atrocities, it's almost eerie.

I like SALO for what it says. The violence is hard to handle, though.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Grace Jones was hardly an established actress. Much better known back then for her fashion modelling and music. Check out her covers of 'Private Life' and 'She's Lost Control'. Good records both.

Re Halle Berry, I think UA got lucky and signed her before her Oscar nomination was announced. Of course, her win meant she was given equal billing on the posters. Was that a first and last for a Bond film?

Agreed about Grace Jones; she was certainly well known, but she was more of a celebrity/singer than an established actress. However.....Halle Berry was definitely an established actress, well known, and with a strong following. In mid-to-late 2001 she was getting strong buzz for her performance in MONSTERS BALL, and I'd been reading in the trades from people who had sneaked a peak at the film that she was a strong Oscar contender. Don't forget that before MONSTERS BALL Halle had already won an Emmy and a Golden Globe for INTRODUCING DOROTHY DANDRIDGE, had co-starred in several successful films (The Flintstones, X-Men, Swordfish), and had also gotten "buzz" for her gratuitous nude scene in Swordfish. UA signed Berry for $4 million dollars, then got "lucky" when she was nominated for an Oscar shortly after having signed on to DIE ANOTHER DAY. She got top billing in some of the posters and the trailers (one of the best tv spots had that voice-over artist with the deep voice saying "Brosnan...Berry...Bond..."), but not all of them.

Say what you will of her character (I think Jinx was neither the best nor the worst of the lot, but probably a Top 10 Bond Girl), but getting Berry was a great coup for the series at the time, and it also represented about 125-130 million dollars more in box office receipts for DAD than the average of Brosnan's previous three Bond films.

Well, she had a pretty big part in CONAN THE DESTROYER.

Prominent role too.

Mr. Brown wrote:

I like SALO for what it says.

I wish SALO actually said something worth saying.

Sophie Marceau was a pretty well known French actress when she was cast. We knew her from Braveheart.

Denise Richards was certainly prime Maxim Mag fodder after her cinema role in Wild Thing.

If TV stars count, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg and Teri Hatcher were all top TV stars.

But, no, Hollywood A-listers aren't likely to be offered such roles.

But is Marion Cotillard really a big name? Film buffs know her, but does the name resonate with the average guy on the street. I don't think so.

She was excellent in Woody Allen's latest, as well, Midnight In Paris, maybe my top-rated movie so far this year. The part was made for her. She was forgetable in Contagion though, which is still in theatres, but that whole film was rather forgetable. Mind you it wasn't a bad film. Its just that only so much can be done with the subject matter and the filmmakers took a realism approach, so the whole presentation had a rather sombre, sobering effect.

SKYLINE

I remember watching the trailer thinking this looked like an OK sci-fi actioner.

Instead, it's essentially a TV movie with no real story. It's not particularly offensive ... then the ending happens, which is an utterly laughable one.

Awful.

Sharky wrote:

Well, she had a pretty big part in CONAN THE DESTROYER.

Prominent role too.

She was actually very effective there; the part in VIEW was morel like an intended reprise that went as limp as nearly everything else in that pic.

Harmsway wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

I like SALO for what it says.

I wish SALO actually said something worth saying.

What's your take on it?

I think it has a variety of messages, ranging from dangers of Fascism to the pure evil that can exist among humans. Even evil that emerges for the sake of pleasure.

I want to analyze the film completely, but it's just too much to handle.

tiffanywint wrote:

Sophie Marceau was a pretty well known French actress when she was cast. We knew her from Braveheart.

Denise Richards was certainly prime Maxim Mag fodder after her cinema role in Wild Thing.

If TV stars count, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg and Teri Hatcher were all top TV stars.

Agreed.

Quote :

But, no, Hollywood A-listers aren't likely to be offered such roles.

Eh....but it's also unlikely that most Hollywood A-listers would qualify to be Bond Girls. Sandra Bullock is, I believe, the highest paid actress that is currently still bringing in an audience large enough to justify her salary; followed by Angelina Jolie, whose box office track record is hit or miss. It seems Julia Roberts days as a box office draw are behind her, and Reese Witherspoon is not far behind. Of the four actresses I mentioned, only one was beautiful enough to be a Bond Girl (Jolie) and she turned down the role of Vesper.

I don't think the Bond Girl role is cursed or anywhere near as "thankless" as it used to be in the 60's and early 70's....but it's also not a co-starring role either on par with the Bond character, so unless you are looking for a film to launch your career and/or give you some visibility, the Bond Girl role(s) wouldn't necessarily be something an established actress would need. Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie could turn down the role of Vesper because they already had successful careers and didn't need it, but Eva Green wasn't well known at the time and would have benefited from the role far more than Jolie or Theron could/would have (and she did). Same with Gemma Arterton.

Quote :

But is Marion Cotillard really a big name? Film buffs know her, but does the name resonate with the average guy on the street. I don't think so.

No, she's not a big name, but she's known. Her name wouldn't resonate on the street with the average person, but most average people in the United States don't even know the name of their Senator or Vice-President, so..... I don't put much stock in that. However, there are very few A-list actresses anyway as compared to A-list actors (and even that list is shrinking) to begin with, so the fact that Cotilliard is not "A-list" doesn't bother me. What does bother me is some anti-American comments she made a few years ago which I can't recall off-hand.

Harry Potter and the Philiosopher's Stone (2001)

I'm gonna be Harry Potter at the Louisville Zoo's Halloween party for a few weeks, so I figure I should see these things. I saw this one years and years ago. Sheer torture. Two and a half hours of misery.

Took me 30 years and a couple months, but I finally saw THE WOLFEN. Oddly enough, worth the wait.

I think it must have been more influential than history would allow for; the picture really reminded me of later films, especially PREDATOR 2 and EXORCIST 3 (I think this was shot by the guy who shot EX3), but the really annoying aspect was the Horner score, which I've heard in ALIENS and elsewhere just so many times. For a thoughtful movie, the score was out of place. Maybe that is the one area Warner felt they could mess with successfully (apparently they tried to recut the movie unsuccessfully and had to put the director's version out.)

The vision effect (which is what kept me from seeing it in the first place, back when I was 20) doesn't usually work, but it isn't as cringe-inducing as I thought it would be.

Very pleasant surprise, just wish there was a director commmentary, because I'd really like to know more about this (hadn't ever seen Olmos looking so Travolta-lost-an-acid-fight!)