Main Menu

Last movie watched...

Started by SmallBlueThing, 04 February, 2011, 12:40:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Professor Bear

First Man - the people in this are either boring or mean.  Neil Armstrong is boring and everyone else just makes fun of him for it, with his wife asking people if they got any interesting goss out of him and journalists sniping at him in press conferences with cruel jokes about his acting ability with questions like "how would you describe the feeling compared to buying a car?"  To be fair, Neil is probably bored by the lengthy and weightless SFX sequences and I can't say I blame him for checking out.
Buzz Aldrin is also a bit of a tactless chump in this, which for some reason annoyed me.  The stuff about Neil's dead daughter I found ghoulish.  This charts a course through a moment in history of no small significance and gluing on a dead kid subplot that basically amounts to some Michael Bay visuals seems out of order, though no doubt it will be cited as the emotional backbone of the film rather than just another of the borderline comical string of deaths that follows Armstrong around.  I don't feel I had a handle on Armstrong.  The film follows some threads about how the moon landings were a political stunt because the US kept getting cock-blocked by the commies, yet we don't see the American flag being planted on the moon, the whole point of the mission, or the decision processes by which Armstrong was chosen over the slightly more engaging Aldrin or... uh... the other one - was there a third guy?  Well anyway, we don't see why Armstrong - a block of wood whose value seemed to be entirely in his skillset and experience rather than his charisma - gets to be the first foot on the moon and the first voice to relate the experience back to a waiting Earth, and not Aldrin, who in later life wrote books and punched conspiracy nutters and advocated for Martian colonisation and developed new forms of trajectory to help do so - and he was on the Simpsons when it was still good.
I thought it was boring, so that probably means it's a classic.  The studio seems to be getting a good run out of the Gosling replicant, it's a shame it can't have more than a few months of life left.

TordelBack

#12781
This is going to be one of those alarmingly common situations where we disagree, Bear! I luuurved it, and didn't find a single minute of it boring (although I do agree that Aldrin was depicted as almost comic relief, rather than just the bluntly ambitious character he is, which was a pity).

I thought the film was very clear about why Armstrong was the man in the chair - he was shown as utterly calm and focused, as well as a proven pilot and fast-thinking engineer, best showcased in the Gemini 8 docking disaster (best scene in the film). 

Given that, in the event, the Eagle overshot its target by 4 miles and Armstrong had to had to manually select an alternative and bring the lander down right at the edge of its fuel range, that decision was shown to be correct. In an all-veteran crew he was the one who had successfully dealt with the first mission to be aborted in space. He was selected for pure technical competence, contrasting with the political weight surrounding the mission. 

The bits with his daughter are holdovers from the Hansen biography that the film is an adaptation of, and I thought they gave some needed speculative insight into the head of a notoriously private man.  The last bit with the bracelet was gratuitous (and not in the book, IIRC), but I suppose it acted as a visual symbol of the conclusion of his journey.

wedgeski

Quote from: Colin YNWA on 16 December, 2018, 10:04:43 PM
(Nu)Ghostbusters what was on the telly last night and I recorded... and was okay I guess.
We found this 'okay' as well...which I categorise as a big disappointment. I wish they'd let these scripts cook for a bit longer. Everything was in place for a great film.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: TordelBack on 16 December, 2018, 10:13:37 PM
I've a high tolerance for stupid movies,  but I'm being hard on Aquaman because I feel it wasted too many opportunities to be good.

I'll be honest — I'm probably giving it an easy ride because DC has set the bar so pitifully low. If this was a Marvel movie, I don't think I'd be even half as forgiving of its many idiocies.

That said, I thought there was a lot to like, and it passed the time very agreeably, and I'd happily see more films created in this vein than the abomination that lurched out of the editing suite calling itself Suicide Squad.

QuoteAll that said, there's no doubt it's at least as good as Justice League, which puts it in joint 2nd place as far as DC movies go.

I think it's objectively better than Justice League. It looks terrific, for a start. The plot, although linear and dumb, is comprehensible and broadly logical. I understood what both the primary and secondary villains wanted to achieve and why they wanted to do it and, in the case of [spoiler]Ocean Master[/spoiler] you even have to admit he has a point. I don't think I'd argue any of those things for Justice League.

(I also very much liked the fact that both the primary and secondary villains were very faithful to the look of their comic counterparts, and I loved the little touch of [spoiler]animating Ocean Master's mask[/spoiler].)
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

broodblik

Quote from: Paul faplad Finch on 16 December, 2018, 02:29:15 PM
New Spider-Man. Was worried it would all be lost on me because I don't know any of the characters (other than PP, obviously) but within minutes I was hooked and the whole thing was just joyous from start to finish.

Probably my favourite Spider-Man film, if I'm honest, and good enough that I wanted to sing it's praises so badly I actually engaged with other humans in something more than grudging grunts. That's powerful movie making.

Agreed this was a very good Spider-Man movie. The animation was certainly out of the top-drawer.
When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car.

Old age is the Lord's way of telling us to step aside for something new. Death's in case we didn't take the hint.

paddykafka

I'm in agreement with Tordelback re First Man. I've seen the movie twice now and I'm not ashamed to say that I've shed a few - albeit discreetly hidden - Man-tears at both screenings*. It is one of the most incredible and gripping cinema experiences I can remember in years. I am just in awe at what Armstrong, Aldrin and all their colleagues, scientists, engineers and back-room staff achieved in the face of such huge technical, logistical and natural odds.

As regards the portrayal of Neil Armstrong, I felt that it was precisely because - as played by Gosling in such a restrained manner - he revealed so little of his inner thoughts and kept his emotions in such check, that on those rare occasions when he does give vent to what he is feeling, those moments have real power and emotional impact.

I'm actually old enough to vividly recall the day of the moon landing itself. It was a defining event for me at such a young age, and to see it replicated so faithfully in First Man was an absolute pleasure. I was hooked from the thrilling opening seconds all the way through to the haunting, beautifully rendered lunar scenes.

A wonderful, thought-provoking and inspiring cinematic experience.


*My first time seeing the movie was alone at a quiet, afternoon screening which is generally my preferred time to visit the cinema.

Unfortunately, the second time around I saw it with a friend at an evening screening. She thought that it was good, but what took away from the experience were the fuck-wit couple a few seats down in the row behind us. Bad enough that they couldn't just shut the fuck-up talking among themselves at certain times. But it takes a special kind of thoughtless, selfish, brain-dead muppet to MUNCH and CRUNCH on a tube of funking PRINGLES during those SILENT moments of the lunar landing itself.

I was sorely tempted to shout out "IN SPACE, NO ONE SHOULD HEAR YOU SNACK!"

Professor Bear

#12786
Quote from: TordelBack on 17 December, 2018, 02:10:21 AM
This is going to be one of those alarmingly common situations where we disagree, Bear!

That's okay, they told Jesus he was wrong, too.

QuoteI thought the film was very clear about why Armstrong was the man in the chair

I got why he was the man to pilot the mission, I just didn't get - in the context of the movie story - why he was the public face of the mission given the singular importance of PR to the project, for which the film even provides the welcome period contextual colour of Gil Scott-Heron's spoken word performance and politicians talking about the cost of the project in negative terms (although this rings particularly untrue given how we know politicians view public coffers as an infinite resource and their concern is only where industry gets its slice of the pie, and the film's efforts to impress the importance of a propaganda win against the Sovs).  The whole point of the mission is overlooked in the final act in favor of the dead child stuff, which as I mentioned above, I found ghoulish and unwelcome.  Possibly the modern language of movies and how they communicate emotion through slow motion sepia-tinted flashbacks to that time the characters were running in front of some lens flares is just not my bag, daddio.

radiator

Anna and the Apocalypse

A film that very much transcends it's fairly hack premise* with surprising levels of creativity, heart, an amazing young cast and a standout soundtrack of original and insanely catchy pop songs. An absolute winner, and it's a great shame that it's been pretty roundly ignored at the box office. This is a future (Christmas) cult classic if ever I saw one. I'd literally watch it again right now - see it if you can.

*'Zombie Christmas Musical' admittedly sounds like one of those witless late 2000s Shaun of the Dead knock-offs

Mattofthespurs

Quote from: Professor Bear on 17 December, 2018, 02:50:44 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 17 December, 2018, 02:10:21 AM
This is going to be one of those alarmingly common situations where we disagree, Bear!

That's okay, they told Jesus he was wrong, too.

QuoteI thought the film was very clear about why Armstrong was the man in the chair

I got why he was the man to pilot the mission, I just didn't get - in the context of the movie story - why he was the public face of the mission given the singular importance of PR to the project, for which the film even provides the welcome period contextual colour of Gil Scott-Heron's spoken word performance and politicians talking about the cost of the project in negative terms (although this rings particularly untrue given how we know politicians view public coffers as an infinite resource and their concern is only where industry gets its slice of the pie, and the film's efforts to impress the importance of a propaganda win against the Sovs).  The whole point of the mission is overlooked in the final act in favor of the dead child stuff, which as I mentioned above, I found ghoulish and unwelcome.  Possibly the modern language of movies and how they communicate emotion through slow motion sepia-tinted flashbacks to that time the characters were running in front of some lens flares is just not my bag, daddio.

That's cool. You didn't get it. No worries  :)
Move along. Daddio.

Funt Solo

Open Range

Somehow this passed me by on its release back in 2003, but it's a satisfying western where Kevin Costner wisely lets Robert Duvall do most of the talking, and provide the moral compass of the movie.  Beautifully shot, with a great action set piece in the third act, it suffers a little from Western cliche (as the bad sheriff dresses in black and has a thin mustache, which he only just manages to avoid twirling).
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

von Boom

To get into a more festive mood we watched Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Again. One of those rare films that is nearly perfect in every respect.

Funt Solo

Without wanting to get into an "I liked it", "Well, I didn't" cycle, I have never been able to watch more than five minutes of Planes, Trains and Automobiles without leaving the area.

The weird thing is that I know it's highly regarded and it's got two of my favorite comedy actors in it: but it's like watching paint dry.  I'm the same with Spaceballs.  No laughs at all.  Both movies just flat-line for me.

I love The Jerk, The Man with Two Brains, Uncle Buck, Stripes, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein.  It's not like I'm not a comedy fan.  Oh well...can't laugh at 'em all.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

von Boom

I get that. I don't care for Spaceballs either. But I'm not fond of any spoof films.

radiator

I'm in the 'Planes, Trains' is a perfect movie camp. It's not even a film I grew up with or have nostalgia for - I only saw it for the first time a few years ago, but watch it every year now.

TordelBack

#12794
Passengers. SHIIIIIIIIIIIITE. I could watch Jennifer Lawrence doing laps all day, and Pratt, Sheen [spoiler]and Fishbourne [/spoiler] can all turn in a good performance,  but it's just not enough to save this poorly thought-out insult to a staple SF premise. The complete absence of chemistry between the leads only focuses attention on a setup by writers whose sole reference for interstellar travel appears to be Wall-E. It's actually making me cross thinking about it.