Author |
Message |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 5:50 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: I saw The Adjustment Bureau. It was OK but I wasn't too impressed. Damon was good in his role and the visuals were good.
Can't believe you weren't blown away by Emily Blunt, and by her chemistry with Damon. This was everything Duplicity wasn't. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 6:56 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I never saw Duplicity. Emily Blunt was good, but I never got into their romance. They just didn't seem to me like they would be a credible couple. I found the movie pretty shallow and lacking punch. I didn't regret seeing it. I had no problem sitting through it, but I guess it just didn't involve me emotionally. It seemed like a sci fi chick flick.  |
|
|
Back to top |
|
daffy |
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 7:07 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1939
Location: Wall Street
|
Hey, I actually saw a movie in the theater!
Water for Elephants = The Notebook with animals and Hans Landa, but none of Gosling and McAdams' chemistry.
That's about it. |
_________________ "I have been known, on occasion, to howl at the moon."
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/index.html |
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 7:29 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Nice to see you visit, daffy. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marc |
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:08 am |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: They just didn't seem to me like they would be a credible couple.
Exactly. I didn't buy that relationship at all. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:03 am |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
daffy wrote: Hey, I actually saw a movie in the theater!
Water for Elephants = The Notebook with animals and Hans Landa, but none of Gosling and McAdams' chemistry.
That's about it.
In the book, the owner was Jewish, so the choice of Chris Waltz to play him was an interesting one. I was pretty "meh" about the movie, too. |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
carrobin |
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:03 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
Well, my 91-year-old mother and my sister and I went to see "Bridesmaids" while I was in South Carolina, and we all loved it. My sister tried to get her husband to come along but he grumped that he wasn't going to see any movie called "Bridesmaids." When she tells him more about it, though, maybe he will. (Odd that Jon Hamm was uncredited. I had to check IMDb for the cast because people were leaving the theater in front of me when the list came onscreen.) |
|
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:51 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Carol--Often, actors would rather be unbilled than take the lower billing the role would require. At this point in his career, Hamm would probably prefer to be seen as "doing the filmmakers a favor" by appearing unbilled than to take fourth or fifth billing.
He was hilarious, anyway. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
carrobin |
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:22 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
Hamm's role in "Bridesmaids" was too true--what some women will put up with just because the guy is gorgeous! |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:54 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Just got back from Source Code. I liked it more than TAB. SC held my interest much more and the, sort of, love story made sense in a paranormal kind of way. Both films had similar rap-ups but I was moved a lot by SC's and not moved a whole lot by TAB's.
Some gorgeous shots of Chicago. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:10 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
carrobin wrote: Hamm's role in "Bridesmaids" was too true--what some women will put up with just because the guy is gorgeous!
Word. And Hamm is (and has been for some time now) willing to send up his own dreamboat image in seditious ways unknown outside of George Clooney--and Hamm has even trumped Clooney in the "I can play sleazy" sweepstakes.
Exhibit B: the "John Ham" sketch on SNL.
Exhibit C: his character on 30 Rock.
Exhibit A for the time being is Bridesmaids.
The guy is becoming one of my heroes. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:29 am |
|
|
Guest
|
The new X Men (a prequel) has been getting rave reviews from every critic I've read, in entirety or capsule. The reviews of The Tree of Life tend to all say that it is wonderful and terrible in equal measure. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:40 am |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
The X-Men franchise bores my tits off. Tree of Life seems to be limited release in the U.S. and I wonder if it'll make it from Boston to Stixville. I think the distributors look at stuff from Cannes and then at the heartland and say "hmmmm...." and then flip a coin. Ten years ago, the mere presence of Pitt would have made the coin unnecessary. Personally, I'm glad to see him continue to evolve beyond heartthrob. (though, to be fair, I guess he was on his way with roles as far back as Snatch and Kalifornia...) |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:45 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
No interest in the new X-Men here, either. A reboot is pretty stupid, especially so soon. But then, I'm a superhero fan who doesn't much care for superhero movies. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:14 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Of all the superhero franchises, none of which exactly knock my socks off (except for the first two Spider-Men), X-Men is the least interesting to me of them all. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|