Big Boss Posted January 9, 2020 Report Share Posted January 9, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted January 10, 2020 Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 Solid list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pushy Posted January 10, 2020 Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 ^^ That's a good one Midsommar should have been there too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted January 11, 2020 Report Share Posted January 11, 2020 Watched Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood last night. Before I started the movie, I didn't know what the movie references, albeit vaguely, very well, i.e, Charles Manson, the family, and Sharon Tate. I knew there was a gruesome murder, and Manson was behind it. No specifics. I didn't know Manson wasn't a musician. Or that Tate was 8-½ months pregnant. Whoosh. The movie itself is more a reimagined timeline, and a day and a bit in the lives of three characters. There's really nothing special going on for most of the 3 hours of the movie, till you reach the end sequence, and bits from earlier kind of complement it, which enhance this acid trip of a finish. Even though those little bits help in enhancing the third act, the first two are quite unremarkable. The third act blew me away. It was Tarantino in form, making the bit gruesome, scary, gory, funny, and impactful at the same time. I literally went "holy fvcking sh*t", and "what the fvck", and laughing, and feeling strange about laughing at what I saw, right when I saw what I saw. This is not a movie that I could've watched on a laptop, or even in the living room on the big TV. I would've been distracted too easily, and probably would've gotten bored and switched mid way, because, really, nothing much is happening for most of the movie, kind of like Godfather 2. But I didn't like GF2. I liked this. I watched it in a near perfect room set-up specifically to enhance (the experience of) watching movies like this. When I paused to get up to pee, I saw that I'd watched 2 hours of it, where I was thinking I was only an hour in. In every place where there's mention of cast, Leo's name comes up first. That's a thing because of the name that follows his: Brad Pitt. As insanely talented as Leo is, and he doesn't miss a step here (Dalton, his character, literally gets a "this is the best acting I've ever seen from anyone" in the movie), I thought Pitt outshone him here. That's partly because I think Cliff Booth, his character was better written for Pitt. Margot Robbie really doesn't have much to do here, but she'll be fine. Pacino has one scene. A good scene. The cars, and their burbling engine sounds are great. The world (re)created is funky. Female foot shots are many in number. The characters and their lives are kind of okay. This turned out to be a good one time watch, and made me look up the facts about the Tate murders, the reality of which hit me harder than the movie. PS: when I opened up the box and saw the disc, I thought I'd been played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven Angel Posted January 12, 2020 Report Share Posted January 12, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven Angel Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven Angel Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 some nice detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STICK3Rboy Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) Man, Trevorrow's story sounds a whole lot better than the sh*t that we got. Why couldn't we have got this instead? Duel of the Fates is such a great title too. Edited January 15, 2020 by STICK3Rboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRINI87 Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 Morbius looks interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STICK3Rboy Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobbii Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Terminator dark fate was very good.. The last few entries in the franchise didn't help this and Sadly we will never have another one again.. I hope I am wrong. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven Angel Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 5 hours ago, STICK3Rboy said: This was at TIFF and apparently it was terrible. Very over the top headache inducing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STICK3Rboy Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Joe Cool said: This was at TIFF and apparently it was terrible. Very over the top headache inducing. Yeah, the trailer doesn't really do it any favours either. But it currently has a decent 64% rating on RT, albeit with a low number of reviews. --------- Anyway, tickets booked for 1917 tomorrow. f**king finally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftrunner Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 1917 this Sunday. I am quite excited about watching this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STICK3Rboy Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 1917 was good, but not quite as good as I was expecting it to be. There's no denying that the movie is indeed a technical feat but I was kinda left questioning the merits of making an entire movie like this employ the "one-shot" technique. It's supposed to make the movie more immersive, but it had the opposite effect on me. I was always aware of what the camera was doing. More so because all the edits were overly obvious which pulled me out of the movie. Even the set-pieces aren't nearly as tense as the one-shot sequences in something like Children of Men. I feel the movie would've been better off if they had just used the one-shot for select sequences instead of for the whole thing. It didn't really add much IMO and ultimately felt like a gimmick, which probably even crippled the movie to an extent. On the positive side though, both the lead actors are fantastic, the music is great and the movie looks really good (for the most part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarbonCore Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 Finally saw 1917, was absolutely worth the wait. The cinematography, the sweeping one-take landscape shots, the music, the incredibly tense moments as the camera pans around with main characters instead of jumping from cut to cut, its brilliant. People say one-shot take is a gimmick (like in God of War or Half Life), but nothing shows the epic journey of the character from start to end and the impact it has on them like a camera view that stays with them for that entire journey. Deakins absolutely has his second Oscar in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven Angel Posted January 18, 2020 Report Share Posted January 18, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quixote_1989 Posted January 18, 2020 Report Share Posted January 18, 2020 10 hours ago, STICK3Rboy said: 1917 was good, but not quite as good as I was expecting it to be. There's no denying that the movie is indeed a technical feat but I was kinda left questioning the merits of making an entire movie like this employ the "one-shot" technique. It's supposed to make the movie more immersive, but it had the opposite effect on me. I was always aware of what the camera was doing. More so because all the edits were overly obvious which pulled me out of the movie. Even the set-pieces aren't nearly as tense as the one-shot sequences in something like Children of Men. I feel the movie would've been better off if they had just used the one-shot for select sequences instead of for the whole thing. It didn't really add much IMO and ultimately felt like a gimmick, which probably even crippled the movie to an extent. On the positive side though, both the lead actors are fantastic, the music is great and the movie looks really good (for the most part). 10 hours ago, CarbonCore said: Finally saw 1917, was absolutely worth the wait. The cinematography, the sweeping one-take landscape shots, the music, the incredibly tense moments as the camera pans around with main characters instead of jumping from cut to cut, its brilliant. People say one-shot take is a gimmick (like in God of War or Half Life), but nothing shows the epic journey of the character from start to end and the impact it has on them like a camera view that stays with them for that entire journey. Deakins absolutely has his second Oscar in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven Angel Posted January 18, 2020 Report Share Posted January 18, 2020 41 minutes ago, quixote_1989 said: I know, right? Am so split 50-50 with this movie and comments made. Need 3rd person to chip in their views. Maybe afty since he is going to watch it tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts