Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[Huntn]

Started Cloud Atlas last night and about 3/4 way through our streaming via Amazon froze. Will try to finish to day, but I will say, unless some revelation occurs, so far not impressed. The individual stories are not pulling me in. Did anyone read and like the book?

Cloud Atlas is a 2012 German drama and science fiction film written, produced and directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer. Adapted from the 2004 novel by David Mitchell, the film features multiple plotlines set across six different eras.

 

[firstrev360]

Loved World War Z. I didn't expect to enjoy the movie

 

[iBreatheApple]

Just watched Source Code. Great movie.

When decorated soldier Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up in the body of an unknown man, he discovers he's part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train. In an assignment unlike any he's ever known, he learns he's part of a government experiment called the Source Code, a program that enables him to cross over into another man's identity in the last 8 minutes of his life. With a second, much larger target threatening to kill millions in downtown Chicago, Colter re-lives the incident over and over again, gathering clues each time, until he can solve the mystery of who is behind the bombs and prevent the next attack.

There's rumors of a television series in the works.

 

[LadyX]

The individual stories are not pulling me in. Did anyone read and like the book?

Have not read the book, however a couple of my friends did and they did not enjoy it. They found it boring and confusing. I was planning on reading the book but then decided against it.

 

[Huntn]

Have not read the book, however a couple of my friends did and they did not enjoy it. They found it boring and confusing. I was planning on reading the book but then decided against it.

I got a refund and did not finish it. IMO, a story like this with so many parts, jumping around as it does, each part has to be really intriguing. Unfortunately I was not intrigued. As I said, maybe the end of the movie would have cleared things up, but I never made it to that point. Maybe I'll catch the end of it on one of the subscription channels someday.

 

[Dweez]

We just watched Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

I've not seen that particular flick yet, but I believe the term you are thinking of is called 'suspension of disbelief.' Or so I've heard anyway. We need that to be able to enjoy a lot of science fiction films, but sometimes, the film is so far gone, that you just can't not disbelieve it for a couple of hours.

That's a problem I have with a lot of movies. The suspension of disbelief thing can only go so far. Take a slightly older film: Independence Day. You suspend your disbelief for the whole aliens attack earth thing. What you can't suspend your disbelief for is the stuff that we know about and still doesnt make sense. How they use a mac to take down the shields. Don't buy it. That stuff have to work for me to make the movie more believable and therefore more fun. Its like the fine line in an action film. Must be crazy enough to be fun but still believable...

 

[S.B.G]

That's a problem I have with a lot of movies.

Much agreed. There are a lot movies that I either watched only once and will never again and many more that I won't watch at all because they seem so dumb. If I'm unable to invoke that suspension of disbelief on a movie, I won't watch it or I'll end up not enjoying it.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yesterday, I watched a superlative movie - actually a documentary - set in Indonesia, called 'The Act of Killing'. The film is a formidably intelligent, extraordinary and exceptionally powerful documentary shot in the 'cinema verité' tradition, where the individuals interviewed are allowed - uninterrupted - to say what they wish to say. This makes the movie, more, not less, powerful, as the film-maker does not judge, but allows the audience to do so.

Compelling, hilarious, horrifying and stupefying, - and ultimately silencing - all at once, this is an astonishingly brilliant piece of film making; by bearing witness and observing the construction of national myths, narratives (built on mass murder and horrific atrocities) lies, denials, (and reluctant encounters with the horrors of the past and the uncomfortable truths it both celebrates and masks) it makes for a powerful, thought-provoking and at times, an extraordinarily moving film. A very impressive and profoundly intelligent movie.

 

[Huntn]

That's a problem I have with a lot of movies. The suspension of disbelief thing can only go so far. Take a slightly older film: Independence Day. You suspend your disbelief for the whole aliens attack earth thing. What you can't suspend your disbelief for is the stuff that we know about and still doesnt make sense. How they use a mac to take down the shields. Don't buy it. That stuff have to work for me to make the movie more believable and therefore more fun. Its like the fine line in an action film. Must be crazy enough to be fun but still believable...

Well, they used a computer virus. It could be argued that by possession of an alien craft for 50 years they may have learned about alien programs, except the head scientist (Data ) said they did not know how it worked. One of those points in a movie like this that you have to be able to set aside and just go with the flow...They had a virus!

Yesterday, I watched a superlative movie - actually a documentary - set in Indonesia, called 'The Act of Killing'. The film is a formidably intelligent, extraordinary and exceptionally powerful documentary shot in the 'cinema verité' tradition, where the individuals interviewed are allowed - uninterrupted - to say what they wish to say. This makes the movie, more, not less, powerful, as the film-maker does not judge, but allows the audience to do so.

Compelling, hilarious, horrifying and stupefying, - and ultimately silencing - all at once, this is an astonishingly brilliant piece of film making; by bearing witness and observing the construction of national myths, narratives (built on mass murder and horrific atrocities) lies, denials, (and reluctant encounters with the horrors of the past and the uncomfortable truths it both celebrates and masks) it makes for a powerful, thought-provoking and at times, an extraordinarily moving film. A very impressive and profoundly intelligent movie.

Killing in general or focused on a certain type of killing, say Honor Killing?

Watched one of my favorite WWII movies, In Harm's Way (1965) with a cast of major stars, stars like they don't have today, including my childhood crush Paula Prentiss.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

.......

Killing in general or focused on a certain type of killing, say Honor Killing?
......

At one level, it is a documentary about the perpetrators of the mass killings - a level of slaughter that can almost be termed a genocide - which took place in Indonesia in the mid 1960s.

Many of the perpetrators still hold high office, and some of these were interviewed. They spoke openly - in some cases - proudly - of what they had done, and were invited to assist in the making of a documentary about their activities in the past. So, it is a story of the killers (some now very senior indeed) making a documentary about their take on the past; they did reenactments of killings, with themselves playing - role-playing - both killers and victims. In some cases, this brought a dawning realisation of the import of what they had done, and with it, shock, and something approaching remorse. In others, utter denial, or worse, dismissal, were the responses.

It is an extraordinary, powerful, formidable and frightening movie; absolutely brilliant, compelling, unnerving, hilarious and horrific, and deeply, profoundly, intelligent and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

 

[S.B.G]

I just finished watching Behind Green Lights (1946) Staring Carole Landis, and John Ireland.

Police lieutenant Sam Carson investigates a political murder after the victim is dumped at the door of police headquarters.

I downloaded this film from the Free Film Noir Movies website and loaded it into iTunes so I could watch it on the big screen.

I liked it as it was a classic style 'who done it' murder mystery. The police lieutenant had to interview several suspects in the death of a prominent public figure only to find out it was the person he'd least expect.

The film was only an hour-long which was nice being that many contemporary movies seem to want to run 2 ½ to 3 hours, which is a long time for me to sit and watch anymore - as a rule, and there are exceptions of course.

I must say that Carole Landis was quite the stunning lady too. Very beautiful and supremely well dressed. It's too bad she committed suicide two years after this film in a fit of real life lovers rage.

 

[mscriv]

I saw Despicable Me 2 at the cinema - it was brilliant. I know it is aimed at kids, but it was the best movie I have seen in a while. I saw it at an 8:30pm showing and there wasn't a child in the screen, yet at points the whole audience was laughing out loud. Really worth a watch!

Yep, the wife and I took the kiddos to see Despicable Me 2 yesterday and it was a lot of fun. Seems like a winner of a franchise to me. Not sure how many they will make, but we'll keep watching.

 

[Huntn]

National Treasure- I really like this movie, kind of a fantasy historical settings. Reminds me of Divinchi Code which I enjoyed the way the author wrapped the story around historical places. Anyone else like it or echh? BTW, I did not care for the second one- Book of Secrets.

Ok, I might have to see the original Despicable Me.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

National Treasure- I really like this movie, kind of a fantasy historical settings. Reminds me of Divinchi Code which I enjoyed the way the author wrapped the story around historical places. Anyone else like it or echh? BTW, I did not care for the second one- Book of Secrets.

Image

Ok, I might have to see the original Despicable Me.

Ah, you've hit me on a tender spot.

I have not seen whatever movie the book 'The Da Vinci Code' may have given rise to, but I absolutely loathed, and detested the book. My background as an historian probably has a lot to do with it. Nonetheless, I must say I found the book superficial, trite, the usual clichéd two-dimensional characters, utterly banal and forgettable prose, poor plot......I remain mystified by its success and evident popularity. It is one of the few books I have started that I failed to complete.

However, it is not that I have a gripe against historical fiction; good, well-researched (and decently written) historical fiction is an utter pleasure to read and here, I'll take the opportunity to reference a few that I have especially liked: Ken Follett's excellent "The Pillars of the Earth", (by far the best thing he has written - nothing else penned by him has come close) comes to mind, Umberto Eco's spell-binding and utterly original "The Name of the Rose", almost anything by Guy Gavriel Kay, (a superb craftsman of the English language, his prose is a rare pleasure to read, who writes meticulously researched, thoughtful books where even the minor characters are fleshed out), Edith Pargeter's brilliant "The Heaven Tree" trilogy.

 

[Shrink]

Once again saw 1948 "Key Largo"...directed by John Huston, with Bogart, Bacall, Edward G Robinson, Claire Trevor, Lionel Barrymore and two of my favorite character actors - Marc Lawrence and Thomás Gomez.

For me, John Huston has never directed a bad film. His oeuvre contains some of the best films ever made. This is no exception. The controlled direction, and his encouragement of the actors to play very internally, is terrific. A story about his handling of Claire Trevor below is an example of how he gets the best performances possible out of his already very talented actors.

This is supposed to be a Bogart/Bacall film (their last film together), but Robinson steals the movie. Not by any cheap scene stealing tricks, but by his amazingly powerful performance. The facial expression when the Bacall character spits in his face conveys a multitude of emotions...surprise, shock, disbelief, rage...all at the same time. And during the storm scene, his sudden realization that there are powers greater than he is remarkable. When he is on the screen, I can only look at him. And when he is off screen, I can't wait for him to return.

The Claire Trevor singing scene is a masterpiece of degradation, humiliation, and courage. Trevor tells the story of going to Huston early in the production and telling him that since she is not a singer so she wants to go to the music department for some coaching...both for voice, but also to get help in learning the body language and gestures used by saloon singers to better convey her character's experience. Huston tells her that there is plenty of time, and that he will set it all up.

A few days later, after finishing a scene, Huston tells Trevor that the next scene is her singing scene. Trevor is shocked, and tells him she has not yet received the coaching that she requested. Huston says they're shooting the scene anyway. Trevor, furious at him, then gives one of the most touching, brilliant performances I've seen. She said that having to sing, a cappella, in front of Bogart, Bacall, Robinson, Barrymore, and the others was unbelievably frightening and embarrassing. She realized that Huston intentionally deprived her of the coaching, which might have made her more confidant and relaxed, was what made the performance so believable.

This is a must see film for anyone interested in seeing what movies actually can be...a character driven, beautifully acted, wonderfully directed, piece of art with wonderful cinematography and lighting...and an enjoyable plot with some very interesting sub plots and remakable symbolism and sub texts.

No explosions...no CGI...a real film! For those raised on what passes for film making today, and have any interest in the history of film (actually containing a script and truly great performances)..this is a must see.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Once again saw 1948 "Key Largo"...directed by John Huston, with Bogart, Bacall, Edward G Robinson, Claire Trevor, Lionel Barrymore and two of my favorite character actors - Marc Lawrence and Thomás Gomez.

For me, John Huston has never directed a bad film. His oeuvre contains some of the best films ever made. This is no exception. The controlled direction, and his encouragement of the actors to play very internally, is terrific. A story about his handling of Claire Trevor below is an example of how he gets the best performances possible out of his already very talented actors.

This is supposed to be a Bogart/Bacall film (their last film together), but Robinson steals the movie. Not by any cheap scene stealing tricks, but by his amazingly powerful performance. The facial expression when the Bacall character spits in his face conveys a multitude of emotions...surprise, shock, disbelief, rage...all at the same time. And during the storm scene, his sudden realization that there are powers greater than he is remarkable. When he is on the screen, I can only look at him. And when he is off screen, I can't wait for him to return.

The Claire Trevor singing scene is a masterpiece of degradation, humiliation, and courage. Trevor tells the story of going to Huston early in the production and telling him that since she is not a singer so she wants to go to the music department for some coaching...both for voice, but also to get help in learning the body language and gestures used by saloon singers to better convey her character's experience. Huston tells her that there is plenty of time, and that he will set it all up.

A few days later, after finishing a scene, Huston tells Trevor that the next scene is her singing scene. Trevor is shocked, and tells him she has not yet received the coaching that she requested. Huston says they're shooting the scene anyway. Trevor, furious at him, then gives one of the most touching, brilliant performances I've seen. She said that having to sing, a cappella, in front of Bogart, Bacall, Robinson, Barrymore, and the others was unbelievably frightening and embarrassing. She realized that Huston intentionally deprived her of the coaching, which might have made her more confidant and relaxed, was what made the performance so believable.

This is a must see film for anyone interesting in seeing what movies actually can be...a character driven, beautifully acted, wonderfully directed, piece of art with wonderful cinematography and lighting...and an enjoyable plot with some very interesting sub plots and remakable symbolism and sub texts.

No explosions...no CGI...a real film! For those raised on what passes for film making today, and have any interest in the history of film (actually containing a script and truly great performances)..this is a must see.

Great post and a beautifully written, terrific review; I've never actually seen 'Key Largo' but you have convinced me that I ought to.

 

[Huntn]

Ah, you've hit me on a tender spot.

I have not seen whatever movie the book 'The Da Vinci Code' may have given rise to, but I absolutely loathed, and detested the book. My background as an historian probably has a lot to do with it. Nonetheless, I must say I found the book superficial, trite, the usual clichéd two-dimensional characters, utterly banal and forgettable prose, poor plot......I remain mystified by its success and evident popularity. It is one of the few books I have started that I failed to complete.

However, it is not that I have a gripe against historical fiction; good, well-researched (and decently written) historical fiction is an utter pleasure to read and here, I'll take the opportunity to reference a few that I have especially liked: Ken Follett's excellent "The Pillars of the Earth", (by far the best thing he has written - nothing else penned by him has come close) comes to mind, Umberto Eco's spell-binding and utterly original "The Name of the Rose", almost anything by Guy Gavriel Kay, (a superb craftsman of the English language, his prose is a rare pleasure to read, who writes meticulously researched, thoughtful books where even the minor characters are fleshed out), Edith Pargeter's brilliant "The Heaven Tree" trilogy.

Well, I never claimed Da Vinci Code was historical fiction, that's why I included the word fantasy in describing both works. They take something with a historical basis or elements and run it off the tracks while maintaining a veneer of plausibility. And obviously I have higher tolerance for shallow two dimensional characters and banal prose as long as each chapter ends with a bang. That's why I maintain that Da Vinci Code is a fast, fun read.

Not to start an argument, but what in your mind makes for a 2 dimensional character? One of the characteristics of a fast paced story is that the author may not allow for development of the characters likes, dislikes, etc other than how they are reacting to story elements. I do not feel it a requirement that the author explain to me all of the character's motivations. It could be a conscious choice or it could be perceived as the author's lack of talent.

When I view something like Da Vinci Code (movie and book) or National Treasure (only the movie), you see characters making decisions and reacting to situations, but otherwise you might not know anything about them other than a sense of their character which in a movie is in the hands of the actor portraying the character. As a book critic, you might demand the author gives you more information, but I'll submit that in most cases, for action style stories, my primary focus is the story at hand with some minimal interest on how the character became who they are, unless it has a direct bearing on the plot. In many cases, when the story diverges to explain a characters background, most times for me, it's something I have to wade through, but don't mind if it is a brief description.

 

[ucfgrad93]

My family just watched the first 2 Harry Potter movies. I liked them both.

 

[Huntn]

My family just watched the first 2 Harry Potter movies. I liked them both.

You had not see them before? Years ago, I borrowed the Sorcerer's Stone (Philosopher's Stone in Europe) from a friend's daughter and started out thinking what a good kid's story with a simple plot. To my delight, each story got better and better, more intricate and adult in nature. A real treat.

 

[Plutonius]

You had not see them before? Years ago, I borrowed the Sorcerer's Stone (Philosopher's Stone in Europe) from a friend's daughter and started out thinking what a good kid's story with a simple plot. To my delight, each story got better and better, more intricate and adult in nature. A real treat.

The later books in the series are definitely not children books . I don't see how some parents let very young children watch the last few Harry Potter movies.

 

[Huntn]

The later books in the series are definitely not children books . I don't see how some parents let very young children watch the last few Harry Potter movies.

I could be mistaken, but my impression is that Rowling adopted an attitude that the kids who started with her first book, had matured into teenagers and this was her audience.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

My family just watched the first 2 Harry Potter movies. I liked them both.

And, in common with the books, they just get better and better the further you get in the series......

You had not see them before? Years ago, I borrowed the Sorcerer's Stone (Philosopher's Stone in Europe) from a friend's daughter and started out thinking what a good kid's story with a simple plot. To my delight, each story got better and better, more intricate and adult in nature. A real treat.

I couldn't agree more; the books got better and better, and, in terms of plot, character, and world creation were all fleshed out in greater detail in each successive book. The final book - so often an anti-climax in classical story-telling - was a real tour de force and the strongest and most powerful of the lot. A real treat, indeed, and a terrific example of spell-binding story-telling at its best.

The later books in the series are definitely not children books . I don't see how some parents let very young children watch the last few Harry Potter movies.

I think young children might find them by themselves, if driven by curiosity, - and the books are probably beyond very young children - but I see no reason why nine, ten and 11 year olds would not be able for the later books, if their language skills were up to it; emotionally, too, most 10-11 year olds would be able for the later books; of course, it could be rather useful to have an adult around to help out with explanations........

I could be mistaken, but my impression is that Rowling adopted an attitude that the kids who started with her first book, had matured into teenagers and this was her audience.

I seem to recall reading an interview with J K Rowling where she made that very point.

 

[Huntn]

True Lies (1994)- Wonderful tongue-in-cheek Spy caper, with Arnold's finest performance, and Director Cameron's outstanding face paced direction, taught editing, and (as always) superb attention to detail. Includes outstanding acting and dancing by Jamie Lee Curtis and comic relief from Bill Paxton and Tom Arnold.

 

[ucfgrad93]

You had not see them before? Years ago, I borrowed the Sorcerer's Stone (Philosopher's Stone in Europe) from a friend's daughter and started out thinking what a good kid's story with a simple plot. To my delight, each story got better and better, more intricate and adult in nature. A real treat.

This was the first time seeing them for myself, wife, and son. My daughter had seen them before.