Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Inception.

This film still boggles my mind.
I love this movie while acknowledging that, to enjoy it, the viewer has to go with the flow (suspend disbelief) regarding the concept/mechanism of insertion, and functioning in someone else’s dream. In reality, dreams are so fragile, I was glad they added the element of a drug that stabilizes the dream state to make it more believable. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: circatee
Hunter/killer

A Tom Clancy wannabe about an American sub in Russian waters. Not great, not horrible, just good enough to kill some time.
 
Watched this last night as I couldn’t sleep.
Not much in content. Just a chase from start to finish.
512840D4-1C12-4E35-9CE3-49E08AE8D9BA.jpeg
 
Watching "Mortal Engines". Sci-fi, armageddon , movie featuring mechanized, mobile cities in a dog-eat-dog world. The understanding of our cultural artifacts are amusing. Could this be the result of Brexit ;)
 
Just finished watching The Legend of Tarzan. Watched it after ages. Not a bad one for a chilled evening.

220px-The_Legend_of_Tarzan_poster.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: jazz1
Nixon (1995) by Oliver Stone. A 3 hour long movie that should never be used as basis for any historical conversation. Overall a decent Anthony Hopkins as Nixon, but more or less a failed movie in my opinion.
Much better are Our Nixon (a documentary made with previously unreleased videos by Nixon's aides), Kissinger and Nixon (a made for TV movie which I enjoyed), Frost/Nixon (a great movie on the famous interviews).
As for Elvis & Nixon ... a movie on the real Nixon/Elvis meeting at the White House; quite quirky but I wouldn't call it a great movie.
 
Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2.

I really enjoyed the first one, and was therefore cautious in my expectations for the sequel.

That said, I enjoyed Vol. 2 very much. Not as much as Vol. 1, but found it entertaining. Yes, it was a blatant merchandising vehicle (Baby Groot), and some of the humor fell flat. But was a lot of fun to watch. And, in some ways, I found it to be more thought-provoking than Vol. 1. Particularly some of the conversations between Quill and Ego.

Overall, worth watching, imho.
 
The Maltese Falcon (1942)- Dashiell Hammet Novel, John Houston film noir film.
I absolutely loved this movie from the first time I saw it in 1973 at college film night. Great cast, especially Bogart.

This is partially why I loved the STNG holodeck episodes when Picard assumes his alter ego, Dixon Hill which was modeled as a direct approximation of the Maltese Falcon. :)

48142140-66E9-461C-B874-C08619C9675C.jpeg







 
Last edited:
A Star is Born (2018)- Impressive performances by both Lady GaGa and Bradley Cooper, the power of the human voice, a tragic story (I already knew the ending), but this is a worthy remake of the story.

7EE93016-B5A8-4862-81FD-05E9044D61BB.jpeg

What I really disliked was the portrayal of the image, the music industry basically forces on singers, what it takes to be a pop star. At the beginning of the show she reminded me of a Carol King persona, and near the end she had been turned into a Diva.

Bradley Cooper, I remember him was Wedding Crashers and The A Team both good, then Silver Lining Playbook a serious story really impressed me. Stefeni Germanotta has an incredible voice, great music, and pulled off her acting gig like a Star. Thumbs up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay
Silver Lining Playbook a serious story really impressed me.

Movie is definitely good. Both Cooper and Lawrence are great.
Book is much much much better. One thing I did not understand is why they decided to change the "why" of his psychological breakdown. In the movie, it is revealed within the first five minutes, while the book reveals it at the end. If memory doesn't fail me, even the figure of his father (played by De Niro) is substantially changed to a more likeable figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn
Movie is definitely good. Both Cooper and Lawrence are great.
Book is much much much better. One thing I did not understand is why they decided to change the "why" of his psychological breakdown. In the movie, it is revealed within the first five minutes, while the book reveals it at the end. If memory doesn't fail me, even the figure of his father (played by De Niro) is substantially changed to a more likeable figure.
My impression is that movie makers invest a lot of $$ in a movie, run the movie by test audiences and alter the story for a more favorable audience response. Don’t know if that happened here.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.