The Last Movie You Watched (no spoilers)

[BigFin]

Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

I did not see the original or read the book; I'm glad I didn't. This movie had more humor than I thought it would have. It had everything: humor, poignancy, terror, and the examination of the human condition - and yet it's a simple movie at its core. Director Kenneth Branagh did a fine as the lead character Detective Hercule Poirot, although I'm unfamiliar with the character. I love period pieces. It's only doing 65% on RT right now. It must be because of the films unoriginal nature, or not approving of how Poirot was portrayed. Dunno. This is the 15th movie of 2017 I've seen, and probably my 2nd favorite behind Baby Driver. These are the only 2 I've given A's to. I'm grading this in a vacuum:

A

 

[olympicoscar]

Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

I did not see the original or read the book; I'm glad I didn't. This movie had more humor than I thought it would have. It had everything: humor, poignancy, terror, and the examination of the human condition - and yet it's a simple movie at its core. Director Kenneth Branagh did a fine as the lead character Detective Hercule Poirot, although I'm unfamiliar with the character. I love period pieces. It's only doing 65% on RT right now. It must be because of the films unoriginal nature, or not approving of how Poirot was portrayed. Dunno. This is the 15th movie of 2017 I've seen, and probably my 2nd favorite behind Baby Driver. These are the only 2 I've given A's to. I'm grading this in a vacuum:

A

I haven't seen it yet so I can't really argue with you. They've made this movie many times and as long as you change the killer it can be interesting.

I've seen about 50 movies this year and the highest rating I've given out is an A-. I generally save the A's for a picture that's worthy of contention for Best Pic and an A+ for a 25 of the greatest all time contenders. I've yet to give out an A+ this century, the last being Saving Private Ryan.

 

[olympicoscar]

I saw The Killing of a Sacred Deer today. I gave it a B+ though my wife thought it was a C-. One of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. Only the musical score in Psycho was more chilling. Several plot twists and totally false alleys are the hallmark.

I thought it was a male p edophile pic at first and then it took a completely different twist and became psychologically horrifying. Very good performances from Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth as doctor and wife. Definitely not for the kiddies.

 

[calsnowskier]

Thor: Ragnarok

I wrote a somewhat detailed review in the dedicated thread.

6.5/10

 

[Taddy Mason]

My wife and I walked out of the theatre. It seemed to be a lot of people were dipped in mud and mumbling nonsense.

Probably the second best Pirates movie after the first. So, if you sat through the other shit after the original and chose to pay to go see it in theaters, it's on you.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

The Dark Tower - Felt very rushed and uninspired. I am assuming (since I haven't read the book) that there was a whole bunch of stuff left out or if they are to do a sequel, a lot more will be involved with it. 2 out of 5 stars

 

[Taddy Mason]

The Dark Tower - Felt very rushed and uninspired. I am assuming (since I haven't read the book) that there was a whole bunch of stuff left out or if they are to do a sequel, a lot more will be involved with it. 2 out of 5 stars

It's a very long series (bookwise) as it were, i found myself having trouble getting through the first, not that it was bad, i just didn't have the time. my understanding is this movie was more of a prequel, which makes no sense at all, as they were still big characters, but i'll let someone that knows the books better than i to comment on it, sounded like it was a shit show.

 

[calsnowskier]

It's a very long series (bookwise) as it were, i found myself having trouble getting through the first, not that it was bad, i just didn't have the time. my understanding is this movie was more of a prequel, which makes no sense at all, as they were still big characters, but i'll let someone that knows the books better than i to comment on it, sounded like it was a shit show.

I haven’t seen the movie (I don’t like what I have heard, so I will avoid it unless I can see it for free), but from what I understand, the movie is actually supposed to take place AFTER the books. I cant explain more without getting into spoiler territory.

As for the story, in as spoiler-free a fashion as possible...

All of Kings books take place in the same multiverse, and the Tower series is his opus that ties it all together. The Matthew McConaughy character is the same character played by Jamie Sheridan in The Stand and Max von Sydow in Needful Things (among others).

 

[Taddy Mason]

I haven’t seen the movie (I don’t like what I have heard, so I will avoid it unless I can see it for free), but from what I understand, the movie is actually supposed to take place AFTER the books. I cant explain more without getting into spoiler territory.

As for the story, in as spoiler-free a fashion as possible...

All of Kings books take place in the same multiverse, and the Tower series is his opus that ties it all together.

perhaps i recall it wrong if it was before or after. either way, the casting of the characters, by their race and roles from the start upset enough people i know who aren't assholes, where they said, it makes no sense to do that, as it would change the story altogether.

 

[calsnowskier]

perhaps i recall it wrong if it was before or after. either way, the casting of the characters, by their race and roles from the start upset enough people i know who aren't assholes, where they said, it makes no sense to do that, as it would change the story altogether.

Absolutely.

I will try to keep this somewhat spoiler free, but just in case, I will “spoiler” it...

Spoiler

Roland (Ilba) pulls a number of characters into his quest. In the books, one of them is a handicapped black woman from the 50s who HATES white men (she has legit reason to have this opinion). Remember also that while King was writing the books, he used Eastwood’s “Man With No Name” as his image of Roland (white cowboy, basically). So basically, the book had a strong racial component between Roland and this woman. If this character is simply made white and she hates Roland because he is black, she will fall into a very tired trope that could easily make the movies too political. Keeping the black/white thing the way it was in the books better avoids that.

 

[Godstree]

I watched Navy Blue and Gold yesterday. 1937 movie.

I thought it was a great movie and the characters had character. I would recommend.

 

[olympicoscar]

Probably the second best Pirates movie after the first. So, if you sat through the other shit after the original and chose to pay to go see it in theaters, it's on you.

Not according to most people and the box office take was not great.

 

[olympicoscar]

I watched Navy Blue and Gold yesterday. 1937 movie.

I thought it was a great movie and the characters had character. I would recommend.

I saw that pic once on TV. They don't make em like that anymore for sure.

 

[Omar 382]

As I’m sure many have noted, I have not posted a film review/rating in quite some time. Fear not everyone, I am back with 2 film ratings for the price of 1 post.

The Right Stuff: 3/5 stars. I enjoyed it throughout, but I kept thinking that it was going to build to something more. It didn’t, and the film ended, and I was left rather confused. I get that they were the first men to go to space, but there seemed to be no major conflict. There were small ones, like the guy whose rocket capsule malfunctioned and he felt really embarrassed about it, or the conflict with the guys battling against the engineers who designed the rocket. That’s good and all, but really, what’s the point? There will always be biographical films that are lacking in a major conflict, but if the small conflicts aren’t interesting, and the subject’s life isn’t that interesting- it’s not going to be a great film.

Also, what the fuck was Sam Shepherd’s character’s purpose? Including his sub-plot *might* make sense if the film was on the short side. But in a movie that ran for over 3 hours, I don’t really get that character’s point in being included in the film (especially when it wasn’t very interesting, nor tied back in to the main plot).

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, I’m just kind of baffled about its acclaim (and also baffled as to why I enjoyed it as much as I did, though, that level of enjoyment is admittedly not an extremely large amount). The performances of Scott Glenn and Ed Harris saved the film. Those two are really great actors.

A Man For All Seasons: 4/5 stars. I had seen this film in a theology course titled “Morality” back in my junior year at my Catholic high school. I remember groaning when it was put on, not realizing its acclaim as a classic, and not willing to give it a chance regardless because of its 1967 release date. I slept through much of the first half, but watched a little more intently during the second half as I realized that it was getting interesting. When the film concluded, I remember thinking that I had enjoyed what I had saw.

I gave it a second watch, as I wanted to pay attention to the whole film, and had forgotten even the scenes and parts I had watched back in high school. Excellent film. Paul Scofield’s performance as Thomas Moore may be the pinnacle of cinema’s take on the “intelligent, honest, and moral political/religious figure.” I thought that his calm performance embodies the two biggest ideals when regarding morality: 1. Everyone has a calling to reasonably follow their own moral conscience, and 2. No one has the right to inflict his or her own personal sense of morality on someone else, provided they are not engaging in activities that clearly and directly hurt others. The one thing I will say is that I thought it was a little out of character for Moore to not let his daughter marry a heretic, but I think this was, large in part, due to the era the film took place in. I mean, Moore saying “Mind your house, woman!” may be seen as a little less than exemplary by today’s rather PC standards.

Also, great performances from Robert Shaw, John Hurt, and Orson Welles’ Cardinal (by way of cameo).

 

[DragonfromTO]

As I’m sure many have noted, I have not posted a film review/rating in quite some time. Fear not everyone, I am back with 2 film ratings for the price of 1 post.

The Right Stuff: 3/5 stars. I enjoyed it throughout, but I kept thinking that it was going to build to something more. It didn’t, and the film ended, and I was left rather confused. I get that they were the first men to go to space, but there seemed to be no major conflict. There were small ones, like the guy whose rocket capsule malfunctioned and he felt really embarrassed about it, or the conflict with the guys battling against the engineers who designed the rocket. That’s good and all, but really, what’s the point? There will always be biographical films that are lacking in a major conflict, but if the small conflicts aren’t interesting, and the subject’s life isn’t that interesting- it’s not going to be a great film.

Also, what the fuck was Sam Shepherd’s character’s purpose? Including his sub-plot *might* make sense if the film was on the short side. But in a movie that ran for over 3 hours, I don’t really get that character’s point in being included in the film (especially when it wasn’t very interesting, nor tied back in to the main plot).

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, I’m just kind of baffled about its acclaim (and also baffled as to why I enjoyed it as much as I did, though, that level of enjoyment is admittedly not an extremely large amount). The performances of Scott Glenn and Ed Harris saved the film. Those two are really great actors.

A Man For All Seasons: 4/5 stars. I had seen this film in a theology course titled “Morality” back in my junior year at my Catholic high school. I remember groaning when it was put on, not realizing its acclaim as a classic, and not willing to give it a chance regardless because of its 1967 release date. I slept through much of the first half, but watched a little more intently during the second half as I realized that it was getting interesting. When the film concluded, I remember thinking that I had enjoyed what I had saw.

I gave it a second watch, as I wanted to pay attention to the whole film, and had forgotten even the scenes and parts I had watched back in high school. Excellent film. Paul Scofield’s performance as Thomas Moore may be the pinnacle of cinema’s take on the “intelligent, honest, and moral political/religious figure.” I thought that his calm performance embodies the two biggest ideals when regarding morality: 1. Everyone has a calling to reasonably follow their own moral conscience, and 2. No one has the right to inflict his or her own personal sense of morality on someone else, provided they are not engaging in activities that clearly and directly hurt others. The one thing I will say is that I thought it was a little out of character for Moore to not let his daughter marry a heretic, but I think this was, large in part, due to the era the film took place in. I mean, Moore saying “Mind your house, woman!” may be seen as a little less than exemplary by today’s rather PC standards.

Also, great performances from Robert Shaw, John Hurt, and Orson Welles’ Cardinal (by way of cameo).

Yeager was pretty much THE GUY pushing the envelope back then. America doesn't get into space without him. Here's Chuck talking briefly about the book:

"What we had done in the Air Force was being overshadowed by NASA. That’s where Tom Wolfe really shined. In doing a book on the seven Mercury astronauts, he began to see that they got professional PR guys to blow them out of shape. He looked back and saw the guys at Edwards were killing themselves doing research for NASA, but no one knew about it. That’s what made his book so very, very good."

I don't see how one can watch "The Right Stuff" and think that Chuck's story doesn't tie into the main plot. Hell, I'm not sure that anyone ever had "the right stuff" as much as Chuck did.

I haven't seen "Seasons" in a while but I loved it. I should put it on the list for a rewatch.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

Baby Driver - 2.5 out of 5 stars: It was decent and had some good driving scenes but not worth going out of your way to see. You can pretty much guess everything that happens just from watching the previews.

 

[olympicoscar]

Murder on the Orient Express. Not really worth it. I gave it a C+. Looked more like a play than a movie. Great cast, mostly wasted. Looks like another one is going to be made since Hercule was sent to the Nile at the end of the movie.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

Thor Ragnarok - 3.25 out of 5 stars. Definitely the best of the Thor movies but I thought that it dragged somewhat in the middle of the movie. I can see how they took the more lightharded approach of the GotG movies and put it in this one and it works.

 

[olympicoscar]

I saw Last Flag Flying last week. I give it a B+. If you were in the military this is one you want to see. It really hit home. 3 ex-marines in 2003 gather to bury the son of one of the marines. Steve Carell and Bryan Cranston give outstanding performances.

 

[PatsFan2003]

As I’m sure many have noted, I have not posted a film review/rating in quite some time. Fear not everyone, I am back with 2 film ratings for the price of 1 post.

The Right Stuff: 3/5 stars. I enjoyed it throughout, but I kept thinking that it was going to build to something more. It didn’t, and the film ended, and I was left rather confused. I get that they were the first men to go to space, but there seemed to be no major conflict. There were small ones, like the guy whose rocket capsule malfunctioned and he felt really embarrassed about it, or the conflict with the guys battling against the engineers who designed the rocket. That’s good and all, but really, what’s the point? There will always be biographical films that are lacking in a major conflict, but if the small conflicts aren’t interesting, and the subject’s life isn’t that interesting- it’s not going to be a great film.

Also, what the fuck was Sam Shepherd’s character’s purpose? Including his sub-plot *might* make sense if the film was on the short side. But in a movie that ran for over 3 hours, I don’t really get that character’s point in being included in the film (especially when it wasn’t very interesting, nor tied back in to the main plot).

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, I’m just kind of baffled about its acclaim (and also baffled as to why I enjoyed it as much as I did, though, that level of enjoyment is admittedly not an extremely large amount). The performances of Scott Glenn and Ed Harris saved the film. Those two are really great actors.

Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier when it was a really big deal and was "The Man" for a long time. The movie, based on the book by Tom Wolfe, is about the beginnings of the space program. In the book Tom Wolfe describes how every pilot tries to sound like Chuck Yeager. The next time you're on a plane listen. I liked the movie but the book is probably better.

A Man For All Seasons: 4/5 stars. I had seen this film in a theology course titled “Morality” back in my junior year at my Catholic high school. I remember groaning when it was put on, not realizing its acclaim as a classic, and not willing to give it a chance regardless because of its 1967 release date. I slept through much of the first half, but watched a little more intently during the second half as I realized that it was getting interesting. When the film concluded, I remember thinking that I had enjoyed what I had saw.

I gave it a second watch, as I wanted to pay attention to the whole film, and had forgotten even the scenes and parts I had watched back in high school. Excellent film. Paul Scofield’s performance as Thomas Moore may be the pinnacle of cinema’s take on the “intelligent, honest, and moral political/religious figure.” I thought that his calm performance embodies the two biggest ideals when regarding morality: 1. Everyone has a calling to reasonably follow their own moral conscience, and 2. No one has the right to inflict his or her own personal sense of morality on someone else, provided they are not engaging in activities that clearly and directly hurt others. The one thing I will say is that I thought it was a little out of character for Moore to not let his daughter marry a heretic, but I think this was, large in part, due to the era the film took place in. I mean, Moore saying “Mind your house, woman!” may be seen as a little less than exemplary by today’s rather PC standards.

Also, great performances from Robert Shaw, John Hurt, and Orson Welles’ Cardinal (by way of cameo).

Yeah a great movie although the whole movie seems about a rather obscure point (i.e. the Pope says divorce is illegal so I'm must follow that ruling and even die for it??)

But good performances all around.