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

I've seen two movies recently that I have not mentioned. I'm not even sure if either of them belong in this particular thread, but I'll mention them nonetheless. You may have some interest in them, even though I'm not going to tell you guys to go out and see either of them.

First, I recently took my nephew to see "The Croods". That was not our first choice -- Aleksi had wanted to see the Oz movie, but he had to stay late at school for a play rehearsal, and so we missed the only early afternoon showing. He's a 4th grader, and Jurassic Park 3D was out (both he and his parents agreed that it would be too scary for him). The Croods was really the only 'appropriate' movie left as an option.

Anyway, on the good side, It actually had a few laughs in it, but it certainly was as juvenile style of humor as you might guess. I actually managed to stay awake for it.. for at least the first 3/4's of the film -- traditionally, I fall asleep in these sorts of movies within the first ten to fifteen minutes, but The Croods managed to hold my attention for a bit longer than most. I asked my nephew what he thought, and he said he liked it. But he didn't sound all that enthusiastic. He's a very polite kid, so I'm not sure how much he actually did enjoy it. He certainly has been more enthusiastic about other films in the past. But I was happy just to spend the afternoon with him in any case. If you have a pre-teen or younger teen in your life, "The Croods" might be a good choice.

The second film I saw recently was "Trance". I'm still trying to decide if I actually liked it or not, and how I would rate it. That's kinda why I have mixed feelings about it belonging in this particular thread. Trance is one of those kinds of films that has been growing in popularity lately with multiple layers of 'reality' where you aren't always sure just how much of what you are seeing is real.

Ewan McGregor plays an auctioneer at a high-end art auction, and during the auction, there is a robbery in which McGregor is knocked unconscious by one of the thieves. Somewhere along the way, the thieves realize that the robbery was a failure -- the nearly priceless painting that they thought they had stolen is not actually in their hands, and the secret of what actually happened to that painting is somehow locked in Ewan McGRegor's mind. They enlist the help of a hypnotherapist, played by Rosario Dawson to unlock the lost memories in his brain, to discover what happened to the painting.

The movie certainly has a lot of different twists to it, and there's a kind of style to it where memory mixes with fantasy created by the hypnosis, mixes with reality mixes with flashbacks, sometimes alternating rather quickly, none of which you, or the characters can trust nor necessarily easily untangle from one another. It was certainly kind of a mind-bending experience that you have to pay very close attention to. And even then, you might get lost, although that is certainly the intention of the film. I really did enjoy it and it's puzzling nature, up until the last third or so of the film, at which point I started to get annoyed at it. I can't go into why without giving too much away. But lets just say that the entire rhythm and style of the film kinda changes at some point and that's where it lost me.

You may want to see it anyway, and it does start out pretty good. But I'm not sure I can recommend it as a whole.

 

I want to strongly recommend a documentary film that has been running on PBS stations -- "The Central Park Five". This is a story that, even if you lived in the New York area at the time when it happened, as I did, that you may not know the truth about.

On April 19th, 1989, a white female jogger was attacked and raped. 5 black or hispanic teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 were convicted of that rape, both in the press and in the courts, after they all had confessed to the crime. It was one of the most publicized crime stories in New York City history.

Unfortunately, none of the five who confessed actually committed that crime. We know that because back in 2003, a man already serving time for attacks on other women, came forward and confessed as well, but this time the DNA matched, plus the story he told matched details that were never released to the public.

The film is an exploration of exactly what happened, why, in their own words, the five confessed, it has interviews with those people, attorneys, Mayor Koch, Mayor Dinkins, historians, relatives of the kids, one of the jurors, and so on. It also goes into the aftermath of the overturning of their conviction. It really is a fascinating tale about how the justice system can go horribly wrong, and the shared responsibility for that, between the police, the courts, and the press.

The film is by Ken Burns.

 

I've got another movie to recommend (surprise! lol. Yes, I see a lot of movies).

I just got back from seeing "Iron Man 3". I had a few preconceived notions of the movie, some from the trailers and previews, some from reviews (both positive and negative). I don't really 'read' reviews before I see a film (by anyone except for Roger Ebert, that is), because I don't want a movie to be spoiled. But I do scan them to get the general opinion of the authors. I really did not know what to think going into it, since the opinions seemed to be all over the place on this one.

I'm happy to say that any apprehensions I had about the film going into it were shattered. Simply put, I found "Iron Man 3" to be greatly entertaining, and extremely clever. Anyone who knows me knows that what I prize and appreciate more than anything else when I see it, whether it's in a movie or book or game, or device, or back when I was working, a piece of code. If I call something clever, it means I'm really impressed. And I was really impressed with this film.

I don't want to give too much away, but I will say that if you want to have a good time at the movies (I mean actually watching the movies -- you all have dirty minds), you should go see it, particularly if you like superhero movies in general, or Iron Man specifically.

I will mention that, in as far as the Marvel movie traditions:
1. Yes, Stan Lee does have a brief cameo in it, and
2. Yes, there is a brief scene after the credits, so if you enjoy those scenes, you know to keep watching until the very end.

I'd love to say more, but I'm resisting, so I don't spoil it. It's a great start to summer blockbuster time.

 

Just saw Iron Man 3 myself, and wow, totally awesome. Want to see it again soon! It was a big jumbled at times but that came from the issue there being a lot of story to tell as opposed to "what do we do here to fill in time" jumbled. So it was a good thing. I'll have to see it again to get all the little details, and I love that in a movie.

 

* 3 Idiots.

It's an awesome movie about friendship and maturity: doing what you want instead of what's expected. It promotes free and original thought. Thinking for oneself. At the same time, it's funny at times and romantic at times.
The characters are so awesome and the acting is great.

The story is about 3 student-friends at an engineering college, one of whom has vanished. I won't spoil more

* Ghost Dog.

Great movie from Jim Jarmusch with great music. It's very laid back, although there is quite some violence. Forest Whitaker should have gotten an Oscar for this role as well: he plays a modern-time silent assassin who decided to follow the Way of the Samurai. He gets in some trouble with his boss/retainer/lord.

This movie has great oneliners.

 

I saw "Star Trek: Into Darkness" this afternoon, and I'll tell you about it without giving any spoilers.

Let me preface my review by stating up front that I'm a science fiction fan. But I'm NOT a Trekkie, Trekker, or any permutation of that word. I enjoyed The original series because it was good television, by the standards of television of that day,not because it was good science fiction. And Television was not especially good then (heck, it's not especially good now, but it's still on average, better than it used to be). At its best, Star Trek was fun, and thought-provoking -- certainly not up to the quality of the best literary SF, and it was simplistic and occasionally silly or just plain bad. But still better than 90% of what was on the air. And it occasionally attracted some really good writers, such as Harlan Ellison and David Gerrold. I'm not among those who think of Gene Roddenberry as a genius. But what WAS important about him was that was able to get a show with some intelligence on the air, in spite of being in a time when the worst thing you could do was to overestimate the intelligence of your audience.

Well let me now say that "Star Trek: Into Darkness" in no way overestimates the intelligence of the audience the way the original series did. And I don't mean that in a good way.

First the criticism: I personally felt kind of annoyed by too many things in it, all the constant reminders of things that were actually better than the movie I was watching -- references to the original series, catch-phrases repeated far too often by actors who clearly were chosen due to a physical resemblance to the actors who they are replacing, rather than the ability to create or recreate those characters. Why is James Kirk now being portrayed as a stupid buffoon, and who can I shoot to fix the problem, I wondered. I had similar problems with the previous film. They sometimes come off as being more charicatures or people doing their impressions of those characters. The plot is twisted specifically to make reference to the plot of other things, rather than actually being formed to tell a good story. IT comes off as being too forced and contrived in that way.

One of the highlights of the film was Benedict Cumberbatch, who's also been really good in "Sherlock" and "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", and probably some other things that don't immediately come to mind. He's a good actor, and partly saves the film from being just plain mediocre.

If you like Star Trek, you'll probably go and see the film like I did. I do LIKE Star Trek. Well, some of it. This is not one of the best examples of what a Star Trek film can be. But again, it's a popcorn movie. Don't think too much and you might have some fun. My problem is I always think too much (or so everyone keeps telling me).

 

Well, we're in a middle of a heatwave here in New York, and because of a long story I can't stay cool in my house in places where I need to go to be unstressed. Central is great if your house was designed for it (the house I live in is about 50 years old, and has terribly small vents, so only the downstairs gets cool. So the movies it is yet again!

Anyway, I saw "Now You See Me", a caper film involving Magicians. It was fun, though implausible, and I didnt quite like the ending. But on the plus side, the film had a good cast, including Michael Cain, and Morgan Freeman, Jesse Eisenberg, and Woody Harrelson. And even better, the movie theater was so much more comfortable. And now I'm back at home and sweating.

Anyway, I'm often a sucker for movies that involve magicians, including two that have been discussed in this thread previously -- "The Prestige", and "The Illusionist". There's also a charming french animated movie called "The Illusionist" (no relation to the American film). And some of you older people may recall a television series starring Bill Bixby called "The Magician" (a very fun series and unfortunately not as well remembered as his two previous series -- "The Courtship of Eddie's Father", and the more famous "The Incredible Hulk").

 

Wreck-It Ralph

It's just AMAZING. IT'S SUPER AWESOME I LOVE IT I LO*glitches*IT

 

I mentioned earlier (when it was in the theaters) that I was taking my nephew out to see it. I think my nephew liked it (or at least he said he did). I won't comment since I fell asleep near the start and missed nearly the whole thing.

Anyway, I just got back from seeing "Mud", and it was an excellent movie. It takes place in rural Arkansas along a river. There are two young friends who come across a guy named Mud, played by Matthew McConaughey, who's living alone on an island.

I've seen the film described as a modern Huckleberry Finn, and I can see, sort of, why. A large part of the movie is about one of the kids, Ellis, and his education and learning that love is more complicated than it is in the movies and fairy tales.

Anyway, I strongly recommend it. It has a very strong sense of location and reality to it, especially the rural setting. If you've ever driven through some of the more depressed rural areas of the U.S., particularly in the south, you'll recognize that in the film. I feel like I've seen places like this.

 

I finally got around to watching Avatar. I remember putting it off due to what looked to me to be cartoon graphics. How very wrong I was. Very well done, even if it had the usual flaws such a movie has.

By that I mean that in the early parts of the film, arrows deflected harmlessly off the windows of the ships. At the last battle, the same arrows went through them like a hot knife through warm butter.

There were other problems, but all in all they are trivial and the movie is good.

 

I agree that Avatar was an entertaining film, extremely well done. There have been a couple of really good science fiction stories that use similar concepts (it's conceivable that Cameron was not aware them -- I'm not saying in any way shape or form that the story was plagiarized, just that others have utilized the same ideas). The closest one that I can recall is Poul Anderson's "Call Me Joe", which involves remote-controlled life forms used to explore Jupiter (which is essentially what the Avatars are). I'm not calling him a plagiarist, but some people are: http://io9.com/5390226/did-james-cameron-rip-off-poul-andersons-novella
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/10/james-cameron-stole-avatar-question-mark

 

Oh and if you want to read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Call-Collected-Short-Works-Anderson/dp/1886778752/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370916972&sr=1-1&keywords=call me joe poul anderson

It's very good, but I haven't read it since I was a kid. (Amazon Kindle edition is only $0.99)

 

Ah! Plagiarism. The mother of all modern invention. You cannot make a toaster-oven without plagiarizing someone, much less any book/movie that the audience would understand.

Since the book in question suggests that Jupiter has a solid surface, I entirely discount anything potentially novel about the idea.

Besides, the first book about automatons was well over two thousand years back. And no-one really understood it until just a few hundred years ago. Novel concepts are difficult even for intelligent people to understand.

As for Humans controlling the automatons, I am unsure where the first occurrence of the idea came up, but I could likely spend my lifetime researching and find bits of stories that suggest or imply the concept in a number of forms. (After all, if we are speaking of a Human taking over the body of another biological organism, would possession not count? That may well be three thousand years back before the languages of the times becomes too uncertain to really know what they meant.)

But this could be a whole new thread. I will shut my pie hole now.

 

Actually, Dances With Wolves in the Fern Gully in Space! Avatar also took the idea of the main character being a paraplegic and wanting a new life on an alien world from Timothy Zahn's "Manta's Gift," which was a tribute to "Call me Joe" I believe.

I tend to detest Dances With Wolves in the Fern Gully in Space! Avatar with a vengeance, but do not begrudge those who like it. After all, everybody has an opinion. It was certainly pretty, I'll give it that, and was probably worth the price of admission. But it wasn't the greatest thing on earth that everybody seemed to think it was.

BUT! To add to the discussion: "The Man Who Knew Too Little" is an excellent spy thriller spoof with Bill Murray. Had it on my watch list for ages, finally got around to seeing it. Laughed almost the entire movie

 

Give the guy a break, he got it published in 1957. Jules Verne had space ships being fired out of large cannons, it didn't make his science fiction any less important or prescient.

 

I'll have to see that -- I've loved Bill Murray since he first appeared on Saturday Night Live. Is that a spoof of the Hitchcock films ("The Man who Knew Too Much" ) -- I've never seen the early Black and White version, but the second version he made is worth seeing. It's not among my favorites of his, but it's still entertaining. "Notorious" is still my favorite of Hitchcock's films. I just love Ingrid Bergman.

 

My take on Avatar: "The graphics are fantastic, and the story isn't bad enough to detract from the graphics very much."

The arrow thing, I seem to remember the second time they were using larger bows, on diving mounts, attacking from above; rather than firing smaller bows upward. Buuut it's also possible he didn't plan that far ahead and just wanted the smurfs to win the second fight somehow.

 

As much as it pains me to admit this, I've never seen "The Man who Knew Too Much," which is most obviously the title that is being spoofed.

However, to redeem myself, I -am- in love with "Rear Window," which is my favorite Hitchcock (of the four I've seen) and a movie I'd recommend to anybody

 

I got back from "Man of Steel". I hesitate to put this into this particular thread, since it's regarding movies that are worth seeing. But it still might be worth seeing. My mini review follows (again, I'll try to leave out any spoilers).

I was not a fan of Christopher Reeve's "Superman", mostly because I didn't like him as an actor, and I found most of the writing silly. I'd seen him in other things, and I didn't like him in those movies either. He wasn't terrible actor, I just never thought he was a very good actor. I thought back then that he was average, at best, getting roles based on his good looks. Essentially like most actors. Except that he was a handsome guy with leading-man good looks. So he got roles that would have been better served with better actors. But he really did look like he could be Superman. So there is something to be said about that. And the traditional thoughts were that 'hey, it's a comic book movie -- you don't need good acting to play a comic book character'. Which is why there really weren't any really good comic book movies back then.

That said, like it or not, that movie has become the definitive story of Superman's origins for most of the general public (and for me too, I should add).

And yet, this new movie has me longing for those days of mediocre acting and corny dialog.

First the good parts:
I like Henry Cavill in the lead role -- he does look like Superman.
I like Amy Adams -- I can't really picture her as Lois Lane after seeing so many other actresses play the part, but she's cute and she's a good actress (better than Margot Kidder for sure).
I love Michael Shannon. He's been GREAT in at least two other things he's done. He was great in "Take Shelter", and he is great in "Boardwalk Empire" (at least in the first season, second season his role became a lot less interesting). I'm not that familiar with his earlier work but those two put him on my radar.
Russell Crow is not bad as Jor-El

It's just a shame that this is the movie that they are in.

What I don't like is how dark the film is (thank GOD I'm smart enough to no longer see films in 3D because the worst types of movies to see in 3D are ones that are dark, because they look horrible, even darker than they should be. But I don't just mean the darkness of the film, but the darkness of the story itself.

The second problem is that the film has a short, fragmented introduction, followed by non-stop action where it's sometimes difficult to figure out what the point of it all is (other than to level Metropolis, then notice that there are still buildings left standing, so you know that the fight isn't over yet). This was a film that I would have been happy had a lot more of it had a narrative, linear style, and a lot more story and less action. And if the action were better filmed, and more brightly lit and a bit less... over-accelerated... I might have been a bit happier. I want more story, and I know there's going to be action, so the least you can do is film it better.

Now It's also difficult to complain about logic in a movie about a man who can fly and is solar-powered, much like a plant (and we all know just how super-powered rhododendron's get from all that sunlight). But they manage to outdo themselves (I can't go into detail without a spoiler, but lets just say that it's not just Kryptonian bones that seem to be made of steel in the film.

 

Superman sucks.