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

My main point was that pirating hurts the wrong people (plus it's stealing, plus it's always the guys at the bottom of the pay scale that get the raw deal cuz you know what always rolls downhill).

 

The point is that if enough damage is done the folks at the top will eventually be hurt too, and that's what's important. I do not personally regard the whole of the film and music industries as worth the time or the money of a single consumer; they've sown the wind, so now they must reap the whirlwind.

But to clarify my main point earlier wasn't that you should pirate movies; it was that you shouldn't watch commercially produced movies at all (or buy their merchandise , or otherwise patronize them) unless you can do so without benefitting the studio. And there are also legal ways of obtaining a copy without the studio profiting; you could videotape a movie off of TV or you could buy a secondhand copy, I only brought up bootlegging because it is more disrespectful to the industry.

 

Since I wrote the original post because I had not seen a movie in years, I understand your point Bohandas. But this thread was intended to help me figure out what films made recently are not a waste of time and money to spend a little money on.

Since then it has evolved into a thread of general movie discussion. This is good.

I never go to movie theaters. I only watch what has been out long enough that I can buy a cheap DVD/downloadable copy. I always pay to see them, and I feel no shame in supporting the movies that are good once they get cheap enough for me to afford.

 

When you do your gardening, do you get rid of your weeds by carpet-bombing your entire neighborhood? Or do you simply pull the weeds? If someone does something unethical, you deal with that specifically. If you think the MPAA is corrupt, you talk about it. You get it out in the public eye. THAT'S how we've dealt with problem until now, and it's worked. You have the SAME EXACT PROBLEM that the MPAA does, in that you are not dealing with the issues in a sensible and fair way. You are both using sledgehammers to do needlepoint. I know you don't see it, but you both have a lot in common.

When people try to pass stupid laws (and this is nothing new and has happened since laws were invented) don't overreact. You don't become a criminal because someone tried (UNSUCCESSFULLY, i MIGHT ADD) to do something dumb. There are checks and balances in the whole proces (and yes you and I are part of those checks and balances). And sometimes the wrong laws get passed and you just deal with it until things get fixed. What you don't do is react by becoming the very thing that you are accusing the MPAA of being -- a criminal. Not only because they aren't criminals but you aren't actually punishing them.

You ought to listen to the Beatles lyrics of their song "Revolution" because they are very appropriate to this discussion. We all want to change the world, but there's a way of going about it and Piracy is not it.

 

So, that Cloud Atlas film was pretty dang amazing, huh?

 

It was good. But I hated having to be force-fed some reincarnation BS. And I thought that one specific part was entirely unneeded. Call me old fashioned, or even call me a bigot. I just dislike seeing a man kiss another man. If they had hugged and told each other they loved one-another, I would have no problem with it, but I felt like they did not need to have that in the film. But then, I feel much the same for seeing a man kissing a woman. (Yet not for a woman kissing another woman. I guess that makes my ideas somewhat contradictory.)

Still the stories were generally good, and I especially liked the old folks getting revenge and the short scene about "Knuckle Sandwich".

 

It's not about reincarnation as such. It makes a little bit more sense if you've read the book, but the film/book are both widely open to interpretation. I think it's meant to be more about how lives throughout history are linked.

Also, you clearly did *not* understand why Robert Frobisher didn't tell Sixsmith that he loved him in that scene. That is not how Frobisher behaves. And yes, they needed that in the film to make it explicitly clear that Frobisher and Sixsmith were sexually intimate, because films like to be blindingly obvious (though even in the book it's very clear they were sexually intimate).

 

This morning while I was showering, I was thinking about what I wrote with regards to "Pleasantville", and I started to think about other movies that have connected with me for one reason or another, so as long as it's on my mind, I'll share.

Shortly after I graduated from college, I went back to New York to live with my parents until I could get a good enough job that I could live on my own . Three of my best college friends were also in that corner of the state. One was at M.I.T. Grad school, one was at Columbia Medical school, and another was working in Connecticutt. We all decided to get together one weekend in Manhattan to visit the friend at Columbia. We almost randomly picked out a movie to see together (I don't remember if there was any consideration or discussoin about which movie we'd see at all, it was playing so we went to see it).

The Movie was "The Big Chill", which is a film that takes place around a funeral. What I can still recall was that in the movie theater, whenever they were talking about the dead guy, three of us would turn to look at my friend Dave, and then realize that we were all looking at him and start laughing. Because it felt like in the movie they were talking about him specifically. Dave was an incredibly good Physics student, but he started getting bored, and I remember the last year or year and a half, he was doing all sorts of other things in college that were not Physics -- EXACTLY like the dead guy in the movie. To use a bad pun, the film was dead-on. And that's pretty much why it's a movie that I'll never forget.

Well, that's one of the reasons. Another reason is that it's a great film with a really good cast, and an excellent soundtrack.

So I do highly recommend it.

 

It's been a hot day, the AC in my house sucks, so I went to the movies this evening. I went to see "Pacific Rim".

I have to preface this review with my experiences with Japanese monster movies. Even as a kid, I was never a fan, but I enjoyed one or two, but most I just found to be unintentionally funny. I mean, between the absurdly poorly dubbed, horrendously badly written dialog, and the man in the big rubber suit stomping on clearly cheap manufactured toy buildings and sets. When I saw commercials for "Pacific Rim", I thought this is a Japanese thing, this will never catch on in the United States. We don't have the Giant Monster/Giant Robot love that exists in other parts of the world.

So it was really a surprise to me when I saw that it was actually getting some positive press. And there was nothing really better to see at the time.

I was very pleasantly surprised. This was a well-made, exciting, and enjoyable popcorn movie. If you want to have a good time at the movies, you should go and see it. The only thing I wish is that I'd sat further back in the theater, because the acoustics were horrible (and the movie is loud as hell) so I couldn't always make out the dialog. I had similar problems following some of the action scenes, and sitting further back I think would have lessened that. But regardless, go see it. You won't regret it.

/edit One more thing. I didn't see it in 3D, and you probably shouldn't either. 3D movies are nearly never displayed properly in theaters, and end up appearing too dark. Roger Ebert always complained about that as well. This is a very dark movie to begin with, and as I've seen happen with other dark 3D films, they can be nearly unwatchable because of that (that was the case with "Thor", for example).

So do yourself a favor, and see it in 2D. Unless you are one of the rare lucky people who has a theater that shows the films properly, you should stay away from 3D for anything except animation and brightly colored films (and even then, 2D is probably better for other reasons that I won't go into).

 

Also 3d movies generally fall into one of two categories, both of them bad; movies that rely on cheap 3d gimmicks and movies to which the 3d contributes nothing. It could even be argued that 3d movies always fall into (at least) one of these categories and that no other possibilities regarding the contribution of 3d presentation exist.

 

It used to be just a gimmick, but nowadays, most animated and action blockbuster films are released with 3D versions. But also, it appears that audiences have been getting more sophisticated and polls are indicating that most people actually prefer seeing films in 2D.

I wasn't going to go into it, but here's my argument against 3D (besides the brightness issue, which is probably more a problem with the theaters, rather than the film makers).

Our eyes and brains have adapted over the years to be able to look at 2D images and perceive the relative distances between objects in such images. In a 2D image there are all these clues as to what's close, and what's far away, and our brain properly (in most cases) creates a 3D picture anyway. Depth perception is irrelevant to this process since it's a 2D image, there is no REAL depth, it's all in your brain. In other words, the 3D process is totally unnecessary. Of course you can play with perspective also in 2D iimages. You can take advantage of this in order to fool your brain -- Escher is one example, of an artist who plays with perspective in unusual ways, but there are also optical illusions and so on that play with the brain's ability to perceive 3D out of 2D images.

So what happens is when you create a 3D image, it actually doesn't look as natural as a 2D image, because we are used to the 2D. Sometimes the 3D film actually looks LESS like real 3D and more like a paper cut out held in front of a 2D page. Maybe that's just bad 3D but that's how it sometimes looks to me. The purpose of 3D is to make things look more natural, and I feel that in the end, it fails at that.

There actually have been a few movies where the 3D actually looked good. But you can probably count them on the fingers of one hand. Personally, I saw Avatar in 3D and I thought that I didn't even see it as a 3D film. I think that actually may be a good thing. I didn't see the usual over the top games with layers like I described. But what that tells me if I couldn't see the process, is that I would have liked the look even in 2D. It was just a beautiful film. Another movie that was good in 3D but actually looked like a 3D film, was "Hugo", probably because a lot of the images were of turning gears and clocks, and there's something about those images that actually look good in 3D (plus it was a very brightly filmed movie). It's one of the only movies where I actually have told people that they HAVE to see it in 3D.

 

I've only seen a couple 3d movies. The best of those, ironically, was Thor. It wasn't too dark, and it didn't distract from the action; the only scenes that specifically made me think "oh yeah this is 3d" are when they're in the zoomed-out Frost Giant castle and the pillars are in the foreground, and there was one explosion scene where a brick flies toward the audience.

The worst was Pirates 4, which was in the dinky little screen in the room that used to be the arcade (would much rather have Xmen vs Streetfighter than this crappy screen)...they clearly didn't have the size/distance/lighting/whatever set up properly, because most of the movie was "double vision" blur rather than 3d. :/

 

Well, it's time for another movie review from me. As always, I'll refrain from spoilers.

I just got back from seeing "The World's End", the last movie in Simon Pegg's so-called "Cornetto Trilogy" (at least that's what he's calling it). And I have to say that it was the funniest comedy I've seen all year (at least that I can recall). The story is about 5 friends, who as teens, attempted to complete an epic pub crawl of 12 pubs in their home town, and failed. 20 years later, Gary King, played by Simon Pegg decides that that evening was the highlight of his life until then, so he arranges to get all of his friends together once again to attempt "The Golden Mile". And of course, Chaos ensues, as it does when much alcohol is consumed, but also the kind of other-worldly chaos as you might expect from a Simon Pegg film.

Anyway, go, watch, and enjoy. You'll have a lot of good laughs along the way.

 

I recently went to see the latest Woody Allen film, "Blue Jasmine". I'll preface this by saying that I've been a huge Woody Allen fan since my parents brought me to see "Bananas" as a kid. Not only was it my very first Woody Allen film, it probably also gave me my first view of a naked female breast lol. So thanks Mom and Dad

Anyway, "Blue Jasmine" is, I guess, what people have labeled nowadays as a "Dramedy", but I hate that word and I hate that label. More specifically, it is a drama with some definite funny moments. The story is primarily about the two sisters, Jasmine, played by Cate Blanchett, and Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, and the movie cuts back and forth between the early days when Jasmine is married to a wealthy, but totally dishonest businessman played by Alec Baldwin, and Ginger is married to a handyman/contractor played by Andrew Dice Clay, and the current day, when Jasmine and is now penniless and needs a place to stay, and seeks to reconnect with her sister.

From the very first scene, you see Jasmine telling her life story to a complete stranger that she met on the flight to San Francisco, so you know that something is not quite right with her, and as the story progresses, you learn more and more of the story, why she is penniless, what happened with her husband, and so on. It's primarily a character study of Jasmine, but also of her sister Ginger and the men in their lives.

First the good -- the acting and the cast overall is just perfect. Cate Blanchett is especially good portraying the somewhat unstable Jasmine. Even Andrew Dice Clay is unexpectedly good. The script is good, but not as good as many other Woody Allen films, which is not saying much. And there's definitely some humor, but nothing as boisterous as "The Worlds End" (or the more classic Allen Comedies).

The only negatives are that the story itself kind of left me feeling a bit empty at the end. It's not by any means a 'feel-good' movie. It's certainly not intended to be and that may not be an actual negative to the film, but I went hoping for something a bit more 'upbeat' (I won't go into why, but let's just say I needed a break from some personal drama), and while it had its moments, by the end, I didn't feel like my mood had been lifted. But it would be unfair to blame the movie for that. It was a really well-made, well-acted film.

 

This evening I saw the indie film "Butter". I actually was interested in seeing the movie when I first heard about it, but it never made it my local theaters (either that, or I just missed it).

Anyway, "Butter" is a very charming comedy about an Iowan butter-carving competition. Ty Burrell plays the reigning champion butter carver who is asked to step down from the competition to give someone else a chance (after all, he's won 15 years in a row). His obsessed wife, played by Jennifer Garner, can't stand the thought that her family will no longer be reigning champions, and decides that she ought to try her hand at butter-carving. Meanwhile, 10 year-old Destiny, played by a very talented young actress named Yara Shahidi, is an African American foster child who's been shuttled from home to home, until she finds herself with foster parents played by Rob Corddry and Alicia Silverstone. She discovers that she has artistic talent and wants to join the competition as well. Adding to the fun are Olivia Wilde playing a stripper, and Hugh Jackman as a former flame of Jennifer Garner's character.

Anyway, it's fun little movie -- I laughed and I smiled a whole lot, and I really enjoyed it.

 

Here's yet another movie review.

I went to see "Prisoners" this evening, the new movie starring Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal, with supporting roles by Terrence Howard, Viola Davis, and Maria Bello.

First the good -- this was a very intense and spellbinding mystery/thriller about two young girls who go missing. Two couples and their families get together for thanksgiving, and sometime over the course of the afternoon, the two youngest daughters, one from each of the families, mysteriously disappear. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the cop in charge of the investigation.

On one level, this is a police procedural/mystery about the search for the children, with some definitely well-done plot twists. But on another level, it's also a psychological thriller about parents who feel helpless and maybe do the wrong thing in order to try to take control over their situation. This is not your typical kidnapping thriller like Taken or any number of others, with action heroes. Instead, this is a dark and grim look showing what people are capable of when bad things happen.

Now the not so good: My main issue with the film is just how dark it gets. I don't know what it is -- I have no problems watching dark fantasy like "The Walking Dead". But when things start getting too real, that's when I have problems watching. I have problems even watching some of the darker crime dramas on television, such as Criminal Minds. The movie enters some very disturbing territory. There are movies that I appreciate, but I could never watch a second time because of how dark or intense they get. This is one of those movies.

Seeing as how I gave you the trailer for "Butter", I may as well make it a tradition:

 

I just recently saw the movie "Gravity", and it's certainly a film that is worth your time. A lot of people have been comparing it to "2001: A Space Oddysey" (which happens to be one of my all-time favorite movies). And there are good reasons for comparison because of the space scenes and the technical aspects. But in many ways, they are entirely different sorts of films. "2001" really is a movie of ideas, whereas "Gravity is almost completely a survival story, more akin to a story about a shipwreck than of a space journey.

Technically, the film is amazing. I can only imagine how everything was filmed. I had assumed that it many of the scenes were done in free-fall. But based on an interview I saw by John Stewart of Sandra Bullock, that's not the case. Apparently, the film was delayed for years because the technology to film it adequately did not even exist until now.

As far as the acting is concerned, there's only two actors in the movie of note, ony two faces you see, other than in photos, and that is Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Bullock plays a novice astronaut and medical engineer on her first voyage into space to the International Space Station, and is consequently both amazed and terrified from the start. George Clooney plays a charming veteran astronaut, who loves telling stories, and who actually knows how to deal with calamity and the consequent stress, and how to prioritize and solve problems and tries to impart his wisdom to Bullock's character when things inevitably start going to crap. Honestly, I've never been a huge fan of Sandra Bullock, but she does a good job here, and Clooney essentially plays his usual charming self.

Anyway, it's an amazing and beautiful film from a purely technical standpoint. I actually saw it in 3D. I'm not sure, as others have said, that it's essential to see it in 3D, but it certainly benefited from it (unlike most other 3D films I've seen). If nothing else, you need to see it on a big screen. If you wait for it to come to television, that would be a huge waste. So go see it while it's in theaters.

 

Today, I was reminded of a movie that I'd seen a while ago, "Rushmore", a great film which I loved and I was constantly recommending to people. But also, I was always surprised that so many people didn't share my love of it.

Rushmore starred Jason Schwartzman, who was an unknown actor at the time, with supporting roles played by Bill Murray, and Olivia Williams. Schwartzman plays Max Fischer, a 15 year old prep school student who is master of all things at his school, except for the classes themselves. He has a crush on the new young teacher Rosemary (played by Olivia Williams) and becomes friends with Herman Blume, a lonely older man who recognizes maybe a kindred Spirit in Max.

It's an unusual and quirky story with lots of warmth and humor, and also with sly tributes to various other films. It's certainly one of my favorite movies of all time.

For those who have seen it, here's the video commentary on the movie which brought it to mind. DO NOT WATCH IT if you haven't seen the movie, as it contains spoilers.

Spoiler

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-wes-anderson-collection-chapter-2-rushmore[/spoiler]

 

I just got back from seeing "Ender's Game", and my feelings about the movie are complicated. But I'll do my best to explain them. I don't think I can do that without talking about the book as well, so in order to avoid spoilers, I may have to be very general.

The general concept of the movie (and to some extent, the book, since many small and large details have been changed or omitted) is that 50 years ago, Earth was invaded by an alien race known as the Formics, and we managed to fight off their invasion by the skin of our teeth. The hero of that war was a man named Maser Rackham. It's not clear just how we beat them, but we did. In the 50 years since that invasion attempt, mankind has been preparing for another war. Special schools have been set up to train children, found through testing, to be soldiers and hopefully find the next Maser Rackham. We don't want to just defend ourselves. This time we want to totally eliminate the threat.

One of the primary problems of the movie is that it tries to compact so much of the book into less than 2 hours. There are things that are mentioned but get lost. There's a bit too of exposition in the battle room to explain something that they could have much more effectively demonstrated. The relationships between the characters are compressed and changed. Some of those changes are fine and understandable, but having read the book, it can be disappointing. Some of what's left out is perfectly understandable (like the political story involving Ender's brother and sister, which I won't spoil). Some of it isn't.

The movie isn't all bad. Asa Butterfield, who plays Ender, in spite of the age difference between the characters in the book and in the movie, was well-cast. The last section of the film is very well done -- it's compressed and changed from the book, but it does manage to capture the same concept and feeling, so I can't complain. I wasn't sure how they would handle the battle room, and I was pleased by it (even though 2/3rds the book is missing from that section lol). And I was surprised to see that they had included the whole 'mind game' subplot (well, a compressed version of that), and that they had actually successfully communicated its general concept and meaning, if not faithfully, at least in its proper spirit.

All in all, I'd say that it was an honorable attempt at making a film out of a book that may actually be unfilmable (at least without turning it into an animated miniseries). I don't think it's a complete success, I rated it 6 out of 10 on IMDB. On the other hand it is successful in one very important aspect, and that's communicating the overall theme of the book (or at least, the theme of the end of the book). So I recommend it, but with some serious reservations.

As an aside, it's been pointed out that Orson Scott Card is NOT getting any money from ticket sales. So if that's of any concern, you don't have to be worried. He got his cut at the front end, as is often done with writers who aren't prone to risks.