What movies made in the last five years are worth watching?

Fear and Loathing was awesome (movie), have yet to read the book, permanently away in my local library
I did read the Rum Diaries, though in Spanish, will have to read them again in English before watching the movie...

 

If you honestly like Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, you might enjoy Naked Lunch. It's not "accurate" to the book - it is, rather, a movie about the author's experiences of writing the book - while hallucinating like mad from all the drugs. I had a few really exciting revelations while watching the film - realizing what the different monsters were metaphors for, what the typewriters were, understanding the Russian checkpoints, what "bug powder" was about - good stuff. But you need to be willing to enjoy the surreal.

 

Just want to add to the list of movies to see -- I got back from "The Dark Knight Rises", and I recommend it to anyone who's liked the two previous Dark Knight movies. If you haven't liked the others, then you probably won't like this one either.

This is NOT the best of the trilogy (I thought Heath Ledger's performance in the second film put that one over the top). But I will say that I've dozed off in 3 out of 4 of the last films I saw in the theater (lights go off and I find it hard to keep my eyes open sometimes). But this film certainly kept my attention.

 

I wanted to resurrect this thread to mention two movies that I've seen recently.

The first, was recommended earlier in this thread -- "The Lives of Others" -- it was an enjoyable film, but while watching it, I realized that I'd seen it before, possibly a few years ago (inexplicably I had forgotten about it). Anyway, it's definitely worth watching. It tells a story set in East Germany before the wall came down, about a person who eavesdrops on citizens for the government, and a couple that he spies on.

The second is a Norwegian film called "Headhunters", about a headhunter for a corporation who, in his spare time, is an art thief. It's a crime thriller with some twists.

 

Anyone seen MiB3? I wonder if it lives up to the previous two movies.

It was good for the genre. Every bit as plausible as Star Trek/Star Wars. (And by that I mean not at all plausible.)

It was as good as the previous two. Although I liked the first one the most in hindsight. The third was better than the second, but I did not like the second too much. Unless this is the reality where.....

I remember a long time ago. I would have said the movie sucks unless you are high. In such an event, it could be greatly enjoyable. But legalities prevent me from enjoying such things.

It is nice to know people who waste huge amounts of money on movies.

 

I thought the first movie was just 'ok'. My big problem with it was that all of the best jokes were in the coming attractions. Don't get me wrong -- they were incredibly funny. The problem was that I had laughed at them already when they were in the commercials so I felt I had pretty much wasted my money by the time I saw it in the theater. For me, it was one of the worst cases of the publicity ruining a film.

The second movie I thought was just bad.

I really have no desire to spend money to see the third one, but I'll catch it if it comes on cable. I really do like Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin a whole lot -- Will Smith has made one or two good movies ("Ali", to name the only one that immediately comes to mind), imho, but I'm not a fan of his style of wisecracking.

 

I never saw the commercials/trailers. So it was all new to me. That may explain why I liked the first one more.

IMDB is a site I think is run by the same trolls selling crap as gold. They rated the second one very good for some reason. And they say the third is even better. I swear they would continue this trend forever. I do not think the people writing half the reviews even watch the films.

 

There are definitely people who review the movies on IMDB who are paid shills for the studios -- you can spot them every once in a while. Also, I do agree that a lot of people may not have actually seen the movie, or are kids who are far too easy to please (I don't mind that someone is easy to please -- that's certainly good for their enjoyment. But to give a fair rating that is actually meaningful to the rest of us, you really need someone with some film-viewing experience so they can tell what actually is 'good'). And then there are people who simply trash or praise a movie entirely on the basis of the trailer or the stars, or the look of the film, or the existence or absence of nudity, or because something is politically, morally or otherwise offensive to the individual.

Metacritic is probably a better measure of quality, but even that is no guarantee that you'll like or dislike a film. I suggest finding a movie critic who's taste is similar to yours and ignore the actual numeric grade that they give, and simply read the review for specifics to decide if it may appeal to you. I've been a fan of Roger Ebert, for example, for a long time. I don't always agree with his ratings, but if you read the actual review he gives, I think they are fair and can give me an often accurate reading as to whether I'd like a movie or not (not always, but better than most). As I said IGNORE the numbers and actually read the review.

 

I saw The Expendables 2 a few days ago, it was mindless fun. I watched and found the first one a bit meh, good for a boy's night with lots of beer and silliness.
The second was just like that, only a lot better. I've seldomly laughed like that in the cinema, and it's not even supposed to be a comedy. It's grossly violent, to the point of satire, and there are tons of awesome one-liners. Guns, guns, muscles, explosions and testosterone. Did I mention guns? I had a really good time, didn't expect it. It also has a lot of references to the past lives of everyone involved

 

I really have to recommend a British television series that I discovered for the first time last night -- I know it's not a movie, but it does have a kind of cinematic feel to it: http://www.hulu.com/the-promise. It tells two stories, one set in modern day Israel, from the point of view of a young woman who goes there as a tourist. the other in Palestine after WWII. from the point of view of her grandfather, who was a British soldier.

It covers similar ground as the film "Exodus", but from the point of view of the British. They are both Historical Fiction and I'd be very curious to know which of the two stories are more historically accurate. Regardless, they are both worth seeing.

 

I just got back from the movies this afternoon, and I want to recommend the film I saw (while it's still fresh in my mind), "End of Watch". One warning is that it's pretty intense in spots, with graphic scenes of gang violence, and so on.

Anyway, it's a kind of buddy cop film starring Jake Gyllenhal, and Michael Pena (I don't know how to make the n with a tilde over it). It's about these two relatively good cops in a bad part of Los Angeles, and their everyday lives. There is kind of a story here, but the focus is mostly on the relationship between the two cops and their fellow cops, and their wives/girlfriends, etc. It's VERY good. This is not your usual buddy-cop movie. It's directed by the same guy who did "Training Day", so that should give you some idea of the intensity of it.

If you liked "Training Day" (which is an excellent film), you should like this as well.

 

I see a lot of movies, which you may have guessed.

Anyway, just got back from seeing "Seven Psychopaths" -- it's a film both written and directed by Martin McDonagh, the same guy who wrote and directed "In Bruges" (another truly excellent film, and ever bit as good as this one).

Anyway, the movie is about a writer (played by Colin Farrell) who has an idea for a new movie called... "Seven Psychopaths", based on a collection of stories that he's either heard or thought up about various psychopaths. His life starts getting complicated when one of his friends (played by Sam Rockwell) who's a struggling actor, who makes money by kidnapping dogs and returning them for a reward, kidnaps a Shih Tzu that happens to belong to a big crime boss (played by Woody Harrelson).

Anyway, the film is very funny, has hundreds of great lines in it, and is kind of meta in that it involves stories within the story, some of which may actually be true, some of which are simply out of the imaginations of the various characters and may or may not be part of the film that Colin Farrel is writing called "Seven Psychopaths". Because of the odd structure of the film, characters get a chance to comment on things in the movie in almost a Woody Allen style, since some of the story is actually within other stories, so to speak. I'm not sure how well I'm explaining it, but lets just say that I really totally enjoyed the movie.

All of the actors in the film do an excellent job playing extremely quirky characters, including Christopher Walken, who plays Sam Rockwell's partner in crime in the dog-napping business.

If you've seen "In Bruges", then I don't need to warn you that there is some over-the-top bloody violence in the movie. If you haven't seen "In Bruges" then go and see it right now. And if you like it, go and see "Seven Psychopaths".

 

I've been thinking about seeing Seven Psychopaths. Christopher Walken's character seemed awesome in the trailer, it's good to hear that it turned out well. I'll see it sometime in the next few days.

 

Christopher Walken is great in this and many other films, as are all the main characters in the cast. I would say more only I don't want to spoil it. An even better film he was in (though not a comedy) was "The Deerhunter", imho, one of the best Vietnam war movies ever made. He also has a relatively short, but truly memorable scene in "Pulp Fiction". No doubt, he's a good actor.

 

I may as well also talk a bit about "In Bruges" -- it's a film about a pair of hit men played by Colin Farrell, and Brendan Gleeson (another really great actor). They've been sent to Bruges (a beautiful, historic city in Belgium) by their boss (played by Ralph Fiennes), partly as a vacation, and partly to await further instructions. Colin's character is depressed because his previous job went horribly wrong, and Brendan's character is just trying to get him to enjoy all of the sights of the city. It's a dark comedy, and very funny (if you like Dark comedy, that is). And as in "Severn Psychopaths", the main characters all do excellent jobs.

As I'm thinking about it, McDonagh's skill with dialog is reminiscent to that of Quentin Tarantino, though McDonagh's dialog is stronger as far as emotional content is concerned. (Tarantino is more about being retro-cool, for better and for worse). I like them both -- McDonagh definitely has his own voice, but you'll probably notice some of the similarities. And both have worked with Christopher Walken, so there is that lol.

 

Recently revisited one of my favorite horror movies ever- Noroi: The Curse. it's a sprawling, two hour long "found footage"/documentary style japanese horror film, with multiple threads that at first seem totally unrelated,but eventually come together. it's a bit slow at times, but the payoff is worth it. a psychological kind of scary more than blood and guts. highly recommended!

I also watched another found footage horror film by the same director, Occult/The Unidentified. it's nowhere near as complex and interesting as Noroi, but it has it's moments. the last thirty minutes are kind of a big joke, but it was actually pretty funny to me (though others may be disappointed).

 

I quite enjoyed A Monster In Paris, a French CGI film.

 

It's me again talking about movies (one of my favorite subjects to blather on about).

This evening I went to see the latest James Bond film, "Skyfall".

In the interest of total honestly, I missed part of the film right in the middle, because of a fire alarm at the mall where the theater was. You couldn't actually hear the alarm in the theater itself, but all the lights went on. The theater was packed. There was lots of confusion and mumbling at that point, some people left the theater to see what was happening, to get the lights turned back off, etc. Eventually someone came in and asked everyone to evacuate single-file (never was going to happen, but that's what they said -- instead it was a semi-orderly evacuation through the theater to the mall, and then towards the parking lots. I got someone to sign my ticket so if I want to I can come back and see the film again at no charge (I may actually do that).

Anyway, the following comments are based, therefore, on the majority of the film that I actually did see.

It was great -- one of the better movies I've seen this year, and certainly one of the best Bond films since the early Sean Connery. Bond is back to basics. Javier Bardem makes a great villain. The fight and action scenes felt real. It's definitely a more personal story than is typical for, at least, the films. Also, there's some tribute paid to the earlier films which you'll get if you are a fan. I thought that Casino Royale was a good Bond film -- this is much better. I'll admit that I had my doubts about "Skyfall", after "A Quantum of Solace". But my doubts were unfounded.

I've seen every single James Bond movie, plus I had a really poor VHS copy of the 1954 television show of "Casino Royale" -- it was... kind of awful, but a must see for any Bond afficionado. I haven't read ALL of the books, but I've read most of the originals, plus a few mediocre ones by John Gardner. So I've been kind of a fan of all things Bond. I know some people who grew up with the Roger Moore Bond don't like Daniel Craig's Bond. I'm not going to argue about that. I like Roger Moore, but he's my least favorite Bond. Plus a lot of the writing during his tenure as as Bond seemed more like a parody, and I always preferred the more serious Bond.

Anyway, tomorrow, I'm taking my nephew out to the movies since he's off from school. He wants to see Wreck-it Ralph. That's the easy part. The hard part is lunch, since he's allergic to EVERYTHING. (Well, that's the way it seems to me).

 

Having just seen Brave...

Brave is definitely worth seeing.

 

I recently watched the new "Total Recall" movie. I am unsure what to think. I liked it, but it was too twitchy. Too many impossible action scenes. Every bullet fired by the main or his GF hits exactly where it should, while everyone trying to kill them is apparently using blanks anytime they actually point the weapon at them.

I was like they took the original and moved it from Mars to Earth, and then decided it was that awful "Borne Idiot" stuff.