| Author |
Message |
|
| Marc |
 Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:54 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:51 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12921
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
Marc wrote: Current movies anyone?
Monsters University was very enjoyable. I especially liked the interfraternity scare contest in the second half, with our heroes as the nerds. A mild comeback for Pixar in my eyes.
I think I forgot to mention I saw Now You See Me, which is a cute, glossy, energetic caper movie that is really pretty clever sometimes and pretty shallow a lot of the time. It's got Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Mark Ruffalo, Mélanie Laurent as well as Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, so you've got more acting power than you might expect in a caper film about magicians. It's fine if you need to escape for a couple of hours. |
_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:10 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| The acting was the only major virtue of Now You See Me, but watching Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, and Isla Fisher (even when they're slummng) is a genuine pleasure. The story is kinda meh, but it's a fun movie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:17 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Half the year gone and I've barely started on 2013 films. I do have Side Effects loaded in the playa.
I did watch Things To Come which is partially set in 2038, but we don't have a Future Films forum .... |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Went to see Much Ado About Nothing this afternoon. Not too thrilled with it. The beginning drags and I find the Shakespearean language a bit much in our modern era. It finally picked up and the scene that Yambu and Bart wrote about was funny. There were other funny scenes, but as a whole, it wasn't very entertaining and it was way too repetitive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| yambu |
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:07 am |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
marantzo wrote: Went to see Much Ado About Nothing this afternoon. Not too thrilled with it. The beginning drags and I find the Shakespearean language a bit much in our modern era. It finally picked up and the scene that Yambu and Bart wrote about was funny. There were other funny scenes, but as a whole, it wasn't very entertaining and it was way too repetitive.
The Benedick in this latest production was disappointing. The "double meaning" gag, probably the funniest bit in the play, he swallowed whole. Branagh makes sure you don't miss it. |
_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:57 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Thought Side Effects was just okay.
The early part focuses too much on the drugs.
With everything revolving around them.
The psychiatrist's practice and life falling apart seemed rather overdone. Adn then he goes all detective. Didn't really work for me.
The opening scene was a nice mis-direction.
The plot made no sense.
Spoilers:
Quote: The husband was away in jail for 4 years. Why couldn't the woman just simply divorce him -- justifiable since their life hit bottom and he's in jail -- and the other two simply get together?
The one has a good successful job. And how did they engage in insider trading? It seems they say the affair started after the hubby went to jail, and the wife told her friend what she knew? How does that make sense? And insider trading info gets stale quickly. Also unclear how they cash in on the husband's death. So their motives to make an elaborate murder plan, where one might go to jail for life, seems awfully attenuated. While they had a pretty clear path to get together. So all in all it makes no sense. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
| My first, and only, viewing of Side Effects was focused more on the performances and visuals, which I thought were quite good. I want to see the DVD, see if the plot holes are as wide as you suggest. I don't know about you, but my mood watching a film seems to make a difference in how much I accept plot irregularities and bloopers. IOW, I can be conned. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
bartist wrote: My first, and only, viewing of Side Effects was focused more on the performances and visuals, which I thought were quite good. I want to see the DVD, see if the plot holes are as wide as you suggest. I don't know about you, but my mood watching a film seems to make a difference in how much I accept plot irregularities and bloopers. IOW, I can be conned.
That's part of the joy of watching a movie; why shouldn't we allow ourselves to be conned for a while? Shakespeare was a master at it. Do we really believe people can see ghosts? That witches can conjure up magic? Please. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:19 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
The Heat is a fun movie which is trying to be another Bridesmaids but doesn't make it to that level (no comments, Gary).
By rights, Melissa McCarthy (in the showier and more laugh-centric role) should steal the show lock, stock, and barrel--but Sandra Bullock isn't having any. Bullock also scores heavily in one of her most grounded and professional performances. Both women are very funny and their chemistry as two rival/partner law officers (McCarthy a cop, Bulliock an FBI agent) is terrific. But the story and the pace are uneven. Paul Feig directs with flair, as he did in Bridesmaids, but the movie flags from time to time and is exhausting over the long haul. Still, there are many, many laughs, and the two ladies are not to be criticized. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
SIDE EFFECTS SPOILERS:
Now that I think about it, any insider trading they did (no matter how unlikely/impractical) was done while the hubby was alive and well (in jail). In since it was done in Catherine Zeta's name, hubby wouldn't know about and there would be no reason to do him in over that.
So it would all come down to whatever insurance scam they could pull, and it seems rather unlikely she could collect if she caused her husband's death. So none of it makes sense.
Plus there's the rather large risk of either getting caught or getting convicted. So the whole sceme makes no sense, has high risk, and again it would have been easy to divorce and leave hubby while he was in stir.
One thing I did like is how the two main characters kind of switch roles. Initially we believe the woman to be mentally disturbed and the psychiatrist to be perfectly grounded. But then he starts becoming obsessive and neglecting his family and having his life fall apart, while we learn that she's acting totally rationally (within the confines of the plot) and ruthlessly trying to achieve her goals. And then he starts acting deceptive and devious in order to catch her deception.
But I think I would have preferred it to be more of a character study whereby the psychiatrist becomes obsessive and has a mental breakdown suspecting but unable to prove that she is duplicitous and faking, with the answer being left ambiguous. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:10 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
The problem(s) I had while watching Side Effetcs:
1. the early emphasis on Pharmaceuticals seemed overdone, where everything circled back to The Drugs
2. When you're settling in to wondering what the wife's mental state is/was and whether she is culpable, the film switches to the Psychiatrist
3. Which could be fine, but since it has other business/plot complications to introduce, all of his disintegration is handled rather choppliy. His barely there partners quickly find a bus undercarriage for him, his barely sketched in wife leaves. But this is all rather rushed and perfunctory so we don't care too much about his life going down the drain.
4. Then we switch back to the wife and the chess game between the wife and psychiatrist. And when we get the reveal of the scheme it makes no sense.
I thought the film was okay, but for me only section 2 above really worked and was interesting. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:55 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
The House I Live In is a look at The War on Drugs and the familiar catalogue of ills -- high incarceration rate, warehousing of non-violent criminals, mandatory minimum sentences, disproportionate impact on poor and minorities, private prisons, and the expense of law enforcement and prisons.
Unfortunately, most of it does seem familiar. And the film starts off rather anecdotally tracing some of the ills that befall the black family of the director's nanny (named appropriately enough Nanny Jeter).
And we get just brief talking heads on each issue and then moving on. We don't get many hard facts or a well-structured case against the Drug War.
Maybe the three interesting things in the film:
1. One historian traces drug criminalization to fear of minorities who were supposedly running amok. Anti-heroin laws targeted depraved blacks.
Anti-opium laws were aimed at the Yellow Peril
Anti-marijuana laws for Mejicans.
2. Nixon's initial war on drugs had a larger treatment component than incarceration, and both were seen as necessary. But then he exploited the Crime angle in his re-election bid, and most politicians have followed suit since.
3. A fair number of police and other law enforcement personnel think the war on drugs is pretty useless. Not surprising, but something we don't see much of.
One guy is serving life in prison without parole for 3 ounces of Meth? I think he had a prior, and the film doesn't say what the street value of that was. But that seems waaaay harsh and unnecessary. But the film rarely gets into details and specifics and numbers. A few charts and graphs wouldn't have hurt. The doc wants to be more a look at the people and lives ruined, but misses a chance to be more thorough or impactful.
Either it should have focused on people and lives ruined or looked at the causes and larger issues. Instead it chooses to do an average job of both.
Not really recommended though it does introduce (briefly) some prisoners and provides a look inside some prisons. More an overview of the problem with anecdotes than anything definitive or important. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:05 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| All the deconstruction of Side Effects makes a certain sense, I guess. But for me the movie worked in spades, so picking apart every lapse in logic seems beside the point. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| knox |
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1246
Location: St. Louis
|
| Severe abuse of a drug is an illness, not a crime. The "war on drugs" is beyond preposterous and has made us a prison nation on a par with North Korea and other similar beacons of freedom and democracy. The mandatory minimum laws were insanity piled on insanity. Yes, the roots are definitely planted in racism/xenophobia. Agree that a documentary approach should focus either on specific people and ruined lives or look at the bigger social forces - my preference is usually the former....you can get the latter better from print media. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
