Jump to content
Detective

Recently watched movies

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Hikari said:

"Eddie the Eagle" (2016)

Loved that movie, better than I expected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

And having very much enjoyed seeing (on DVD) Kate & Leopold, a romantic time-travel comedy with Hugh Jackman as a Victorian duke,

Another good one, seen it several times.  One of my go-to films when I just want something light and familiar to pop in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen much lately, been very busy.  Almost convinced myself to take a chance on "IT: Chapter Two", but upon learning that it was even longer than "Infinity War", I decided to opt out and rent it at home in the future.  I didn't love the first one.  I just want to see a movie, lol.

I've recently seen "Tag" and "The Dilemma" with my HBO subscription.  "Tag" is based on a true story about a group of friends who've been playing tag since childhood.  I could have done without all the swearing and sexual humor, but other than than it was a really fun movie.  I especially loved "untaggable" Jerry's spoof of RDJ's Sherlock Holmes, the way he's shown anticipating his opponents' moves ahead of time.

"The Dilemma" is another (alleged) comedy about a man who doesn't know how to handle it when he finds out his best friend's wife is being unfaithful.  I actually found it more sad than funny, because I've been in that situation more than once and there is no good way to handle it.  You'll be damned if you do and damned if you do (or at least I was).  So I guess it just hit a little too close to home, brought up some buried pain.  But it wasn't a bad movie, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several Amazon reviewers compared it to Cool Runnings (about that memorable Jamaican bobsled team) -- I've added that to our wishlist as well.
Oh, so that's the name of that movie. I've been wondering about the name ever since I saw it at high school. Yes, I know I could've googled it, but I forgot about the movie until you mentioned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 3:51 AM, Fantasy Lover said:
On 9/16/2019 at 9:55 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:
Several Amazon reviewers compared it to Cool Runnings (about that memorable Jamaican bobsled team) -- I've added that to our wishlist as well.

Oh, so that's the name of that movie. I've been wondering about the name ever since I saw it at high school. Yes, I know I could've googled it, but I forgot about the movie until you mentioned it.

What did you think of the movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

What did you think of the movie?

I have not seen Cool Runnings for some years, but I remember it as being charming and funny as we accompany Jamaica's first-ever bobsled team on their Olympic journey.  Bobsled is now a proud tradition in Jamaica and I think they have improved exponentially since 1988.  They are always crowd favorites.  IIRC, Eddie Edwards was paired in some promotional events with the Jamaican bobsledders as sort of a 'Hopelessly Inept at their chosen Sport but Having a Great Time at the Olympics'! Tour.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw DOWNTON ABBEY over the weekend.

Written by show creator Sir Julian Fellowes, the film is a lushly photographed, beautifully scored parade of costumes and setpieces and very little else.  In endeavouring to include all of the characters audiences are expecting to see, the result is that all but a few characters get very little more than a cameo.  Matthew Goode, for example, playing Mary's husband, literally arrives at the very last minute and gets exactly one scene, though he's in the main credits with everyone else.  With pruning, this could have made a great one-hour episode of the series.  As it stands it's more than a little thin for the running time, but it looks and sounds fantastic.

It's 1926, a year after our show closed (three years in real time) . . and Downton is aflutter with the news that they will be receiving a royal visit from their Majesties King George V and Queen Mary (the current queen's grandparents) during their royal progress of Yorkshire.  The bulk of the action is spent in the preparations, giving more meaty roles to the belowstairs contingent than to the up.

The movie ties up some plot ends from the series.  I was gratified to see Branson (Allen Leech) get a second chance at love, after grieving Sibby for the last seven years . . and I was REALLY gratified to be reminded that second daughter Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael), after years of being abused by her sister, the snotty Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery), who acted like the sun shone out of her backside, is now a Marchioness, the rank of nobility second only to a Duchess, while Mary has settled for being the wife of the local car dealer.  It's a successful enterprise, but still . . .score major points to the younger sister.  The standout of the entire thing is ex-footman Moseley (Kevin Doyle), once again pressed into service for the great occasion, and Moseley gets so excited he entirely forgets his station while serving, with hilarious results.

Verdict:  A pleasant diversion for 2 hours, but really only for the hardcore Downton Abbey enthusiasts.  If you haven't seen the entirely of the series, you will be hopelessly lost.  There's no time for character introductions or backstories, as it is assumed that the core audience are all conversant in DA lingo and personnel.

If you have not caught up on your Downton Abbey and have no desire to, I recommend a viewing of Gosford Park instead.  You'll get your complement of Maggie Smith quotations without needing a scorecard.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hikari said:

Saw DOWNTON ABBEY over the weekend.

Written by show creator Sir Julian Fellowes, the film is a lushly photographed, beautifully scored parade of costumes and setpieces and very little else.  In endeavouring to include all of the characters audiences are expecting to see, the result is that all but a few characters get very little more than a cameo.  Matthew Goode, for example, playing Mary's husband, literally arrives at the very last minute and gets exactly one scene, though he's in the main credits with everyone else.  With pruning, this could have made a great one-hour episode of the series.  As it stands it's more than a little thin for the running time, but it looks and sounds fantastic.

It's 1926, a year after our show closed (three years in real time) . . and Downton is aflutter with the news that they will be receiving a royal visit from their Majesties King George V and Queen Mary (the current queen's grandparents) during their royal progress of Yorkshire.  The bulk of the action is spent in the preparations, giving more meaty roles to the belowstairs contingent than to the up.

The movie ties up some plot ends from the series.  I was gratified to see Branson (Allen Leech) get a second chance at love, after grieving Sibby for the last seven years . . and I was REALLY gratified to be reminded that second daughter Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael), after years of being abused by her sister, the snotty Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery), who acted like the sun shone out of her backside, is now a Marchioness, the rank of nobility second only to a Duchess, while Mary has settled for being the wife of the local car dealer.  It's a successful enterprise, but still . . .score major points to the younger sister.  The standout of the entire thing is ex-footman Moseley (Kevin Doyle), once again pressed into service for the great occasion, and Moseley gets so excited he entirely forgets his station while serving, with hilarious results.

Verdict:  A pleasant diversion for 2 hours, but really only for the hardcore Downton Abbey enthusiasts.  If you haven't seen the entirely of the series, you will be hopelessly lost.  There's no time for character introductions or backstories, as it is assumed that the core audience are all conversant in DA lingo and personnel.

If you have not caught up on your Downton Abbey and have no desire to, I recommend a viewing of Gosford Park instead.  You'll get your complement of Maggie Smith quotations without needing a scorecard.

Hello Hikari,

My mom absolutely loves Downton Abbey. My brother and his wife plan on taking her to the cinema to see it but I’m pretty sure that I’m going to be ill on that day unfortunately.☹️ I can feel a bout of Bubonic Plague coming on.

In all seriousness I’ve never watched it. It’s certainly incredibly popular so I’m sure that it must be very good. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Julian Fellowes decided to write another series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the movie Tolkien?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Has anyone seen the movie Tolkien?

Yup, and there's been some discussion on the General Tolkien Discussion thread, starting about here.  Please head over there and let us know what you thought of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Yup, and there's been some discussion on the General Tolkien Discussion thread, starting about here.  Please head over there and let us know what you thought of it!

I haven’t seen it yet Carol. I was wondering what the general feeling was. I’ll have a look later on as I’m preparing for my annual London visit on Thursday.👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, has it been a whole year since your last one?  Doesn't seem that long!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hustle 7/10

 

It was very amusing, Rebel Wilson is always a delight to watch, and Anne Hathaway speaks a bit Dutch in this movie, I didn't expect that.

 

IT: Chapter 2

5/10

 

Last time I go to a horror movie, I swear to God! My friend was like: "It's a funny horror movie, you should see it." While it had some funny moments in it, it wasn't watchable. Gremlins is a funny, watchable horror movie, as is The haunted mansion and both Scooby-doo movies. The most funny thing about it is was that Bill's character was based on Steven King and they made repeated jokes about Steven King's inability to write satisfying endings, Steven King even made a cameo! There's something deeply amusing about the author of the book making fun of his own writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

Anne Hathaway speaks a bit Dutch in this movie, I didn't expect that.

That's one language that I hardly ever hear, either in real life or on film.  There was a sentence or two in one episode of Friends.  And, back a number of years ago, I had a boss from the Netherlands.  He generally spoke English around us, of course, but he would swear in Dutch, so I did pick up a bit of vocabulary!  And that's about it, I think.  I probably come across Portuguese more often than Dutch.

2 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

Last time I go to a horror movie, I swear to God! My friend was like: "It's a funny horror movie, you should see it." While it had some funny moments in it, it wasn't watchable.

I'm with you!  I can watch the old-style horror movies just fine because they're so obviously fake, but I swore off the realistic horror movies ages ago.  And as you say, there's a big difference between a horror movie with some humor and a comedy with some horror.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t consider either version of “IT” to be a “funny horror”.  :blink:  I can’t understand why anyone would, that is so strange.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing Downton Abbey last week, I was feeling like I wanted to stay in the 1920s awhile longer.  So I queued up a golden oldie, just to see what my feelings about it were some two decades after I watched it the first time

CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981)

This Oscar winner for Best Picture follows (with considerable dramatic license) the path to the 1924 Paris Olympics for two rival track stars from Britain who, despite sharing a similar athletic gift, down to the same events, couldn't have been more different.  Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross, aka Spock's father in the JJ Abrams Star Trek for anybody here under 40) arrives at Cambridge University with a gift for running fast and a huge chip on his shoulder;  as a Jew, and a small minority in a sea of white Anglo-Saxon culture, he both studies for the bar and runs out of the intense need to prove that Jews are not an inferior race.  He's a talented man, but not a happy one, nor especially popular, except to his best mate Aubrey (Nicholas Farrell), who functions in this story as the nominal narrator at times, in the manner of Nick Carroway to Jay Gatsby, his more enigmatic friend.

As Abrahams and other members of the future British men's track and field team make their undergraduate progress through Cambridge, the narrative switches over to the Highlands of Scotland, where we meet Eric Liddell, aka, 'The Flying Scotsman' (Ian Charleson), the China-born son of Church of Scotland missionaries, whom God has blessed with a sublime gift of speed.  Young Liddell is on his way to becoming a master orator as he prepares for a career in missionary service back in China, but he is persuaded to use his gift to represent Scotland at the Games.  His form is all his own, but he runs for the sheer unadulterated pleasure in running well.  "God made me fast, and when I run, I feel his pleasure," he said. In Paris, these two men and their diametrically opposed philosophies of running will collide, and their showdown is meant to be one of the highlights of these Games. Until, on the steamer over to France, Eric discovers that the heats for the 100-meter dash, his signature event, will be held on a Sunday.  He takes a stand for his faith, and  . . .the rest is history. 

*******

Is it a worthwhile view?  Yes.  Just don't expect it to move fast except for the parts where people are actually running.  The pace is very sedate, but if the iconic scene of young men at the peak of their powers running in barefoot slo-mo on the beach to Vangelis's equally iconic score doesn't stir you, you should check your pulse.

Ben Cross has remained active over the years; Nicholas Farrell is a familiar face as a frequent guest star in British TV dramas--he was the baby of this group at only 26.  Sadly, Ian Charleson passed away in 1990 from complications of AIDS, virtually the first celebrity death in Britain attributed to the epidemic.  Before his untimely death, he'd had a triumph on the stage as what many critics consider to be the definitive Hamlet.

Learning of his death puts me in mind of the A.E. Houseman poem that has stuck with me since senior year of high school.

"To an Athlete Dying Young" 

The time you won your town the race
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.
 
Today, the road all runners come,
Shoulder-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.
 
Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay,
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.
 
Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears.
 
Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.
 
So set, before its echoes fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.
 
And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl’s.
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I haven't been around, been really busy lately and still will, I barely catch a breather.

But I want to talk about Joker.

I have been waiting for this, I am quite indifferent about other superheroes movies, was probably only looking forward to Venom, and although I enjoyed it, it didn't leave a trace after I left the theatre. But Joker is different. How to put it, I dreadfully wanted to see it. Really really want, but dreadful, especially when it's going to be played by Joaquin Phoenix (can't say I was a fan, but I know he is intense and very very committed). The dread comes from that combination; the joker character, the actor and my imagination of how it should be, those are the reasons, it has nothing to do with the controversy (I barely knew anything until I had watched it since I always celibate from reading anything from something I want to watch).

Anyway I keep thinking about it days after I watched it. It leaves prints and impression (my scale on whether a movie is good, great, or just a popcorn is from how long I'd be affected by it), it's haunting.
Maybe if you guys remember, I'm always more interested in the mind of villains (the one 'hero' I'm curious more is Sherlock), well not the type of cartoony villain, but actually, exactly, the type that is potrayed by Joaquin Phoenix.

To put it brief, Joker is not an action, it's not fast-paced, no NO, it's barely has the comic book feel, it's not a superheroes movie and unlike what people were worried about, I'd argue there is no glorification and fantasy. It's very real, it's not what it seems yet it could really be what it seems, there are many layers and angles to view it. One thing I'd like to emphasize though, not every villain in real life has a backstory, too bad some are pure evil. And even villains with back story shouldn't have it as justification to harm others. But as said, I probably able to see it from that side of coin more than others. Sometimes I find myself understand why people do bad things more that my ability to understand why people do nonsensical or moronic things.

Not sure if I had high or very high expectation, but pretty sure it's not low once they fixed the choice actor. But it was fulfilled. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but if psychological thriller drama (is it a genre) is your thing, give it a try.
It's a 9/10 for me.


Some parts of the story that really intrigues me will be in spoiler box. Don't spoil yourself if you intend to watch.
 

 


There are three ways Arthur imagined/experienced the Murray's show, and I think it shows a very interesting character's desires and changes. Some are subtle some are not. Not even sure if I understand all of it.

The first one would be when Arthur daydreamed about being picked from the audience, went to stage with Murray and it was perfect. There was a passing mention/scene about Arthur embracing Murray as father figure. It seems like a passing, didn't pay much attention for it until later scene pulled me back to realize how important the scene was. That was a foreshadowing of how he was longing for father figure and how desctructive and damaging it is at the end when he found out that he had none of it, from the one he thought as his father, the crushing humiliation intention from Murray and the actual childhood condition he had no memory of that probably damaged and caused him, as he mentioned, had never felt happy in his life to the soul crushing of a filial son. .

Second one would be when he imagined how he would performed when he actually got the invite to be the guest in Murray's show. The scene showed him trying to imitate other constestant, trying to be others, trying to be graceful, entertaining with the hopelessness of what he had done and his decision to take his own life, perhaps based on the emptiness of his 'bad day', perhaps when he decided that he chose, as he mentioned to his unattentive social worker, not to exist. He has lost every purpose and the will to live, he didn't even acknowledged his own identity and style anymore.

The third would be the actual Murray show. This was a very different Arthur, the one who was confident and assertive. He embraced his own style, no longer felt the need to imitate what is 'proper'. And I'm still unsure when he changed his mind about the final act, perhaps even before he reached the place, when he did the epic dancing that he finally free and knew his purpose, or when he saw his clip being played, or when he was triggered by his conversation with Murray.

I think these three scenes, showing three different stage in Arthur's development, is really brilliant and very powerful.

I still have more to say, especially how the movie parallels to real life but I have to keep it 'short' because of lack of time. I am very impressed and grateful that this would be a stand alone DC and have new admiration to the actor that hopefully, Joaquin would still be Joaquin, who rejects multi contract style blockbuster and prefer to commit to quality character. No sequel please, unless they can persuade him to reprise his role and top this one, which will be really hard to do.
 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with most of the philosophy that you expressed in that post, but would like to question this comment:

1 hour ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

... not every villain in real life has a backstory, too bad some are pure evil.

Maybe I'm just naive, or possibly lacking imagination, but I don't think that's true -- or at least I don't want to believe that it's true.  It seems to me that who you call a villain often depends on your own point of view, while from their point of view they may actually be heroes.  (I'm still appalled by what they do, but I think that describes a lot of terrorists, for example.)  Then there are people who do bad things in order to get even (with a specific person, or a specific group, or with the world in general), which would of course imply there's a backstory.  And there are a certain number of just plain nut jobs, but I assume that either they think what they're doing is justified (because of their delusions) or else they don't really understand what they're doing, and in either case, I wouldn't call them evil, just nuts.

You apparently disagree with what I've just said and/or would like to point out that I'm overlooking something.  I'm interested to know your reasons, so please disagree right back at me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not VBS (obviously :smile: ) but  I would agree with the idea that some people are just pure evil, know it, enjoy it, and make no excuses for it … someone like Ted Bundy comes to mind. Thankfully, I think that sort of person is extremely rare;  but I do believe they exist.

I appreciate your point about moral relativity, but I hope the concept of evil is not entirely relative … that is, I hope we can universally agree that certain acts are unjustifiable under any and all circumstances. Child molestation, for example. But I'm aware that moral boundaries can get pretty blurry in some circumstances (such as war). But I'm more comfortable believing some things are still absolutes, even in this day and age. That's probably considered pretty old fashioned, eh? :unsure: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... some people are just pure evil, know it, enjoy it, and make no excuses for it … someone like Ted Bundy comes to mind. Thankfully, I think that sort of person is extremely rare;  but I do believe they exist.

OK, I hadn't thought of those people, perhaps because (as you say) they're mercifully so rare.  I assume they would be classified as psychopaths, meaning that they lack any concept of good / evil, in which case can their actions be classified according to that spectrum?  Their behavior toward their fellow humans might be considered analogous to a scientist's behavior toward lab rats -- not that I condone either one, but the latter is generally accepted as normal.

6 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I'm more comfortable believing some things are still absolutes, even in this day and age.

I'm more comfortable with that belief myself, by and large.  I don't think there's any point in tailoring one's worldview to include psychopaths.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I would agree with the idea that some people are just pure evil, know it, enjoy it, and make no excuses for it …

I too would agree with this.  Long story, but I have met them and have (much too personal) experience with them.  There are some truly sadistic people in this world, beyond what most people imagine.  Thankfully for the rest of the world, my experience is very rare.

I've recently seen the Joker movie and the Downton Abbey movie.  Both were great, "Joker" was exceptional and extremely well done.  Joaquin Phoenix deserves an Oscar for that performance.  I saw it with my dad, who normally hates psychological thrillers/drama, and even he thought so.  When it was over he just sat there going "Wow... wow...".  I've never heard him "Wow" a movie, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a bunch of new movies coming out soon that I'm very interested in seeing.  "Harriet", "Doctor Sleep", "1917", and "Gemini Man" are a few that come to mind, but I know there are more.  I'm very excited to see "The Current War", I'll probably go on Halloween.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I assume they would be classified as psychopaths

Not as high-functioning sociopaths? :D 

That brings up an interesting point … if we began accepting psychopathic behavior as "normal", would that also make it "okay?" I mean … I was raised to think homosexuality was a sin, but now that it's widely accepted, I accept it too and think the sin is to demonize it. I just had to see the other side of the story to see it another way, but I'm well aware that many people still see it as a sin. Can we both be right at once? Or is one side actually "wrong" to believe what they do? If psychopathy became widely acceptable, would people like me start to think it's okay? Interesting to think about, eh? (Don't look to me for answers, though! This is the kind of crud my philosophy professors used to torture us with. Thank God it was my minor and not my major. :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Artemis said:

I'm very excited to see "The Current War", I'll probably go on Halloween.

So it's finally coming out? I'd all but forgotten about it. I admit I've lost my enthusiasm for it.

I saw the trailer for 1917, and even if BC weren't in it, it looks like something I might be tempted to see. As long as it's not too graphic. Plotwise, it reminds me of Saving Private Ryan, which I barely survived.

In defiance of my rant (elsewhere) about not putting much faith in "people's" reviews, here's my review of Ad Astra: save your money! It's pretty slow and my poor friend was sooooo bored! For myself, I thought Brad Pitt did okay, and I appreciated the metaphorical overtones … but the failures of science and logic that permeate the script … OMG. If I hadn't been in a theater I would have been shouting back at the screen most of the way through it. Aggghhhh!  An exercise in frustration from start to finish. Zero stars. Maybe even minus a few stars.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

... if we began accepting psychopathic behavior as "normal", would that also make it "okay?"

I think it's OK to be a psychopath.  After all, if the psychiatrists are right, those people can't help being what they are.   But I do think they need to conform to the same laws as the rest of us, even if they sometimes don't see the point.

5 hours ago, Artemis said:

I'm very excited to see "The Current War", I'll probably go on Halloween.

Oh, good, it's finally coming to the theaters.  I don't much care for all the shouting and drum-beating in that trailer, and Rotten Tomatoes is barely lukewarm for it, but I may want to see it anyhow, probably on DVD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.