I actually really like The Beast. Great film!
MOVIES 2015
-
It will never get close to the Original, however it surpassed the previous sequels. It has a little of the 1950 nuclear monsters theme.
-
Saw Mad Max yesterday. I found it quite enjoyable and oddly refreshing for an action movie. Much of the cinematography was very artistic and the environmental visuals were immensely appealing. I thought all the principal actors/actresses were great, particularly Theron and Hardy.
I have never watched any of the original Mad Max films, so I cannot compare them.
-
Just to allow you all to take the mick I thought I’d post that I enjoyed Far From The Madding Crowd! Go on, let your feminine side out! :roll:
-
If only they remade Tess.
I missed Madding Crowd. Would have gone to see it, if I could have. -
Saw American Sniper this weekend. Thought it was a fine film. Had it been a while since Clint Eastwood had a commercial success? If so, good to have him back.
-
Terminator Genisys was sad more than anything for me since Arnold looks and sounds like a tired old man. There was zero chemistry between anyone, especially from Sarah Connor’s end. The new pretense for SkyNet taking over is a mildly amusing take on our slavish devotion to smartphones at least.
-
I, personally, do NOT like 3-D movies and do my best to avoid watching new movies in 3-D. Sometimes that cannot be helped. We saw “Avatar” in 3-D and enjoyed it but the 3-D technology Cameron used was new then. Now it just causes headaches and is much too expensive.
I would rather enjoy movies in 2-D than in 3-D.
-
I, personally, do NOT like 3-D movies and do my best to avoid watching new movies in 3-D. Sometimes that cannot be helped. We saw “Avatar” in 3-D and enjoyed it but the 3-D technology Cameron used was new then. Now it just causes headaches and is much too expensive.
I would rather enjoy movies in 2-D than in 3-D.
Agreed.
Saw Jurassic Park at the w/e. Fun I suppose, but forgettable with no surprises. You always know you are with a movie in which the heroine wears progressively less!
-
I saw Jurassic Park on Tuesday. It was pretty much exactly what I expected: same formula, rather unexciting. I found it interesting that the premise of the story in the movie essentially explained what the real world motivations were behind the writing/filming. An existing franchise needs to up the wow-factor to make dinosaurs interesting again, so instead of having something normal they imagine a super dinosaur and create it with utterly predictable results. It is more applicable to the Jurassic Park franchise than most others, but this film in particular can be viewed as a sort of mirrored irony; the masses in the film and the masses in the movie theater.
The overused and generally very poor digital work was disappointing. How is it that the first two Jurassic Park films, from 1993 and 1997, have far more realistic visuals than a movie that was in post-production in 2015? And it isn’t just the general effects I am talking about (i.e. the models, sets, and animatronics used in those films… because they will trump CGI every time), but the full blown digital dinosaurs… There is hardly a contest. There was only one scene in Jurassic World which I very distinctly recall as thinking, “Wow those dinosaurs actually look real”. It is pretty sad that it was so noticeable.
And the plot… it was unbelievably, or should I say very believably, trite. The character archetypes and roles were so pronounced that it was distracting. All the trotted out fan service elements and re-used plot devices only exacerbated the superficiality. I cannot fault people too much for this since there are a huge number of movies every year that are just as transparent with all the same elements and obviously it makes money. But this movie… Good God, I could not have imagined that it would make (DOMESTICALLY) $600 million. That is preposterous. This franchise obviously has some very deep and pent up nostalgia. Because Lost World was pretty good, but not great. JP III was pretty terrible. Jurassic World has to be somewhere between Lost World and III, but closer to III. The only saving grace was Chris Pratt.
The attempts at comedy was another thing I cringed at more than I laughed. The original Jurassic Park (and at least Lost World) were very serious movies (as serious as a movie about genetically engineered dinosaurs can be) with some realistic moral message. Neither one to my recollection, and I have seen them both many times, had nearly as many attempts at outright comedy or situational humor as Jurassic World did; especially in the tense moments. (Lost World has a couple of those when the T-Rex got loose in San Diego, but not more than a handful.) JWorld’s use of this humor was jarring and served to further distance itself from what the franchise always has been, to me at least. I thought of it as the latest in a line of films which use quick bits of actually funny dialogue or imagery juxtaposed with a serious conflict. As far as I can tell, this all started with The Avengers back in 2012. A great deal of its massive success was attributed to how witty, funny and relate-able the movie was for people of many age groups. Multiple films of late have seemed to copy this model in hopes of being the next super-hit (particularly in the Marvel Cinematic Universe). It worked in Avengers, it fit their format. To me, it just rubs the wrong way for application in places it doesn’t belong… like Jurassic Park, or World.
As much as I love to bash this movie for its faults, and I do, the absolutely ridiculous ending was oddly very satisfying, if only for about 5 minutes. And even though I rail on the funny aspect, I have to commend Chris Pratt for simultaneously being hilarious, charming and a believable bad-ass. He was the best part of this film. While that is sad for what I consider the theme of the franchise, it was great for him and he pulled it off really well.
Oh, and for those who don’t care about spoilers, this article is both funny and accurate: http://io9.com/jurassic-world-the-spoiler-faq-1712042566
Figuring the movie was a known quantity, I read this a while before going to see it and I got the picture. And laughed. -
Saw “Mr Holmes” a few days ago. Ian McKellen as an aged Sherlock succumbing to dementia and Laura Linney as his housekeeper.
Sherlock has been retired for decades due to a case that shook his belief in logic and deduction.
A thought provoking examination of the essence of the human condition. Wonderfully acted as you would expect with that cast.
A film that initially left me unsure as to just how much I had been entertained by its understated drama, but feel ever more warmly towards as I am still thinking about it days later.
-
The wife and her mom are going to see that this weekend, I’ll pass on your review.
Anyone interested in seeing the Amy Winehouse documentary movie. I hear it’s pretty heart wrenching.
-
I, personally, do NOT like 3-D movies and do my best to avoid watching new movies in 3-D. Sometimes that cannot be helped. We saw “Avatar” in 3-D and enjoyed it but the 3-D technology Cameron used was new then. Now it just causes headaches and is much too expensive.
I would rather enjoy movies in 2-D than in 3-D.
I agree.
-
Saw the latest Mission Impossible. Exactly as you’d expect. Entertaining but forgettable. Just like most other Tom Cruise films in fact, although I did think Edge of Tomorrow was better. Actually just like most Hollywood output these days. At least this one isn’t based on a Marvel comic.
Brightest spot was Rebecca Ferguson, who may be unknown to Americans and Canadians. Us Brits have seen her on TV. Hope to see a lot more of her in the future!
-
Live Die Repeat was alright, but the finale fell flat. Have to hand it to Tom Cruise for refusing to concede defeat as an action movie star.
-
I liked Edge of Tomorrow, and it gets positive critical reviews, but I don’t fully understand why it is quietly considered so good. I thought it was better than average for sure, but Oblivion was much better in my opinion. I don’t know… I found both the plot, story and the visuals more interesting than Edge of Tomorrow. There were flaws with Oblivion, but I don’t think it gets enough respect.
-
I liked Edge of Tomorrow, and it gets positive critical reviews, but I don’t fully understand why it is quietly considered so good. I thought it was better than average for sure, but Oblivion was much better in my opinion. I don’t know… I found both the plot, story and the visuals more interesting than Edge of Tomorrow. There were flaws with Oblivion, but I don’t think it gets enough respect.
No, NO, NO Hoff :-o
-
@Private:
No, NO, NO Hoff :-o
Oh Yes, YES YES! :lol:
Please explain your opinion if you don’t mind… I am curious.
-
Mostly I was just trying to be funny Hoff. But I do prefer Edge to Oblivion.
I left Oblivion focused on various holes in the plot. More than likely those holes don’t really exist and I did not keep up. In which case the plot’s complexities were beyond my pea sized intellect!
Edge’s plot did not cause me those same problems. I also enjoyed the variations in Tom Cruise’s screen persona. He begins as a coward. His fighting skills are surpassed by Emily Blunt, who is a hero. So not quite standard Tom Cruise, varied only in outfits, genres and leading ladies.
The man can act. I wish he would take more risks. In Edge he took a few, albeit minor ones.
-
Haha, no worries.
I thought Edge of Tomorrow was interesting and at least a little unique in that, as you said, Tom Cruise did not start out as the powerful figure he usually is. I thought Emily Blunt pulled off her character very well. The different angles the problem was approached were… interesting, again, but the repeating day scenario is not really new to me so I didn’t think it was all that fresh. (The Star Trek: Next Generation episode “Cause and Effect” is more creative.) Christopher Nolan’s Memento used a similar vehicle, but I found that to be watchable only about once. I also thought the characters, besides Blunt and Cruise, were rather bland… granted they were supporting. I do have to compliment Bill Paxton… I had absolutely no idea he played Sgt. Farell until I saw his name in the credits.
Oblivion reminded me of Planet of the Apes, which appealed to me. The whole story was pretty good and different from the standard sci-fi action fare. Morgan Freeman and his group of rebels were the weakest part IMO. Still wish they would have done something different with them. Keeps the movie from being an 8 or 9 in my book.
-
I cannot remember what those Oblivion plot holes were Hoff, but did you think they weren’t there?
Agree re Emily Blunt - she was Tom Cruise’s equal in every way. Again, then, something rare for a TC film. Not just a TC vehicle.
Memento was a very good film. But then most Chris Nolan film’s are. Always different and inventive.
Suggested Topics
