Current movie thread

[Garga]

Oh, and saw Black Panther last week. I didn’t like it overall as much as Spiderman or Wonder Woman, but I did like it. I agree with someone on another thread that said that they liked WW and BP because the main characters are really heros—people who want to do good just because it’s the right thing to do. I think that Captain America is like that as well. In Iron Man or Thor or whatever, the heros don’t seem to have as pure of motivations as WW and BP and CapA. Even Spiderman seems to do good out of a sense of guilt (his uncle) or grim responsibility (with great power comes great responsibility) rather than purely wanting to help his fellow man.

 

I wish I knew why the movie didn’t grip me as much as Wonder Woman did. Everything about it was good, but I didn’t feel as swept up in it. But it was still a good movie.

[BarbecueMom]

I wish I knew why the movie didn’t grip me as much as Wonder Woman did. Everything about it was good, but I didn’t feel as swept up in it. But it was still a good movie.

 

With Wonder Woman, there was a single primary conflict, (wo)man versus god.  The love interest, the war, the politics involved were all side stories to the main conflict, which was her drive to defeat the being that she believed was causing death and destruction.  Everything centered around Diana.  It was a beautiful movie, and the story was very tight; I didn't feel like anything that had been cut would have added greatly to the story.  It had everything it needed and nothing it didn't.

 

In Black Panther, there is more than one kind of conflict.  The principal characters are conflicting with each other of course, but man vs. society is IMO the core.  And within that, T'Challa and Killmonger were both fighting the same system (a society that has the means to alleviate oppression but has historically chosen isolation), but from different backgrounds, with different methods, and to different ends.  It's much harder to weave those two storylines together in a 2.5 hour movie.  Like I said before, it felt that there were threads of the narrative omitted for time that could have added depth.  And the MCU is much wider than the DC extended universe.  Black Panther is leading into a massive culmination of films and served a purpose in preparing for that.

Edited March 1, 2018 by BarbecueMom

[happypamama]

I usually avoid R rated comedies because they tend to be all raunch, but this one wasn’t. There was one story told that I didn’t really like (about bungee cords) that was a little too much for my tastes

 

I could have done without that story as well.

 

I’ve been to the movies for over 70 weeks in a row now and I can’t remember the last time I laughed out loud during a movie. I don’t know if it’s because I was with two friends and we were feeling extra happy, but I laughed a lot during Game Night. In so many comedies the jokes are forced and you might give a little blat of a laugh, but the humor in this one was just funny and natural and we acutally laughted and didn’t just blat. My dh doesn’t like going to movies, but I think he’d actually like this one. Very fast paced, light-hearted with lots of twists and turns in the plot to keep you on your toes.

 

It was one of my favorite movies of the past 70-something weeks.

It’s definitely more fun going with friends, but it was genuinely a funny and fun movie!

[Garga]

With Wonder Woman, there was a single primary conflict, (wo)man versus god. The love interest, the war, the politics involved were all side stories to the main conflict, which was her drive to defeat the being that she believed was causing death and destruction. Everything centered around Diana. It was a beautiful movie, and the story was very tight; I didn't feel like anything that had been cut would have added greatly to the story. It had everything it needed and nothing it didn't.

 

In Black Panther, there is more than one kind of conflict. The principal characters are conflicting with each other of course, but man vs. society is IMO the core. And within that, T'Challa and Killmonger were both fighting the same system (a society that has the means to alleviate oppression but has historically chosen isolation), but from different backgrounds, with different methods, and to different ends. It's much harder to weave those two storylines together in a 2.5 hour movie. Like I said before, it felt that there were threads of the narrative omitted for time that could have added depth. And the MCU is much wider than the DC extended universe. Black Panther is leading into a massive culmination of films and served a purpose in preparing for that.

You are right. I’ve tried to think about what it was that made it not work as well as I’d hoped. For me, it started off too slowly, I felt like I didn’t understand each character with the depth I needed, and then it suddenly sped up once the bad guy got to Wakanda. There was certainly not enough about the bad guy. I wanted to know more about him! So, you are exactly right that there needed to be more of it. I left feeling a little unsatisfied, like I almost got into it, but not quite. People who have read the Black Panther comics were probably satisfied, but I came into this knowing nothing of the characters and I wanted more of them. :)

 

With that said, it was a good movie and I am glad I saw it. And I really liked that it was a movie with strong female characters and strong black characters. I loved that about it.

[poppy]

My mom took the kids to see Peter Rabbit, and they loved it. My mom was enthralled, and said it was just wonderful, and suggested my husband & I go see it too.

 

From a kid perspective, my kids also adored it, and didn't think it was scary.... including the one who had to leave both Frozen and Paddington early due to being too intense.    So it would be great for a range of ages, I think.

[Angie in VA]

This week Dh and I saw Peter Rabbit and Game Night. 

 

Officially, I am completely offended that Peter Rabbit was made. I am a purist. Books only! But, James Corden cracks me up. I liked it. So did DH. 

 

I thought Game Night was a no brainer, but we didn't like it. We almost left before the end, but I had to stay and see how it all turned out. Jason Bateman cracks me up and I like Rachel McAdams, and they were good in this, but the violence, the language, that story mentioned above, and IDK. It just dragged out and was too much. Both Dh and I did LOL a couple of times, but we were disappointed. Maybe we're old fogies?

 

I have seen The Greatest Showman twice. It was better the 2nd time. My movie buddy says it's even better the 3rd time. I'm looking forward to seeing it again. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Angie in VA

[Angie in VA]

Do either of you happen to listen to the Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast?

 

They reviewed Darkest Hour on one of this week's shows, and I was reminded of their discussion when I read your comments in this thread.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2018/02/09/583963660/pop-culture-happy-hour-gary-oldman-jowls-it-up-as-winston-churchill 

 

I am not saying that Gary Oldman didn't deserve the Oscar, but I couldn't help but think of this podcast when I saw that he'd won. 

 

Thanks again for sharing that, Jenny!

 

 

I loved it when Guillermo del Toro checked the card and turned to the audience and camera and nodded his head as if to say, "Yes. It's right. We really won." That was one I meant to see in theaters, but it's gone. Maybe it will come back since it won best picture? I saw all the nominees but three. That's a first. Thanks, Movie Pass.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Angie in VA

[Jenny in Florida]

I am not saying that Gary Oldman didn't deserve the Oscar, but I couldn't help but think of this podcast when I saw that he'd won. 

 

Thanks again for sharing that, Jenny!

 

 

I loved it when Guillermo del Toro checked the card and turned to the audience and camera and shook his head as if to say, "Yes. It's right. We really won." That was one I meant to see in theaters, but it's gone. Maybe it will come back since it won best picture? I saw all the nominees but three. That's a first. Thanks, Movie Pass.

 

Glad I could help.  :laugh:

 

We didn't bother to watch the Oscars last night, because -- a first for me -- I had a clean sweep this year, having seen exactly none of the films nominated for Best Picture and very few of the ones that got nominations for anything. 

 

We tuned in for the opening, just because they often do something fun there, but then went back to watching The Great Courses, because we're just that nerdy.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Jenny in Florida

[Angie in VA]

Glad I could help.  :laugh:

 

We didn't bother to watch the Oscars last night, because -- a first for me -- I had a clean sweep this year, having seen exactly none of the films nominated for Best Picture and very few of the ones that got nominations for anything. 

 

We tuned in for the opening, just because they often do something fun there, but then went back to watching The Great Courses, because we're just that nerdy.

 

Not nerdy. You're just that cool!

 

This was the first year I'd seen SO many of the nominated pictures! And wouldn't you know it? My friend who hosts a few friends to watch the Oscars every year had a conflict this year. I was so prepared. Oh, well. I taped it, but tuned in live just in time to see best supporting actress. Like you I will watch the beginning. 

[Garga]

This was the first year, ever, that I was going to watch the Oscars, but then I couldn’t figure out how to watch it on tv. I know that sounds so dumb. We don’t have cable, we just have an antenna in the attic to get regular tv. It has to point the right way to get channel ABC, and we couldn’t get it to point the right way. We have to run up and down the steps to get to the attic and adjust the antenna, then wait for the tv to load up the new direction and see if the channel was there. It never was. We gave up.

 

So, I missed the first Oscars I was ever going to watch. It was the first time I’d seen a good many of the movie up for nominations.

[Garga]

Saw Annihilation last night. Looking over reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, people tended to either love it or hate it. So, if you’re inclined to see that kind of movie, you’ll have to decide for yourself if it’s good or bad.

 

Some of the reviews brought out points to me that I hadn’t thought of on my own, so that was nice.

 

Overall, I was enjoying the movie (it’s R rated, and there are animals attacking them in a jungle-like place, so be prepared for violence), until the last 1/4. Things got a bit 2001: A Space Odyssey for me at that point. I go with my photographer friend and I told her it reminded me of when people are new to photography and discover the “saturation†tool on their editing software. They find out that they can make the colors in their pictures super-brilliant and almost every person who is new to photography has a few pictures that they made super-brilliant because it was so much fun. But anyone else who looks at it thinks, “Oh, those colors are just too much!†And when the photographer goes back to look at their early pictures they also think, “Too much! How embarrassing! I made this picture look sooo fake!â€

 

I felt like the movie makers over saturated some of the end—not with colors, but just with everything. It was too much. The music got super LOUD. I was wearing earrplugs that were pulled out a little bit because the dialog was quiet, but at the end, I had to push them far into my ears because the music was so loud that I could feel the sound vibrating in my chest. Things started getting a bit weird. I was struggling to keep up with the meaning behind anything I was seeing. I felt like they were trying to cram too much “meaning†into everything—an oversaturation of color, sound, and meaning.

 

With that said, I did enjoy the movie. My friend and I talk about the movies we’ve seen about once out of every 10 or so movies, and we talked for quite a while about this movie, so that was a lot of fun. There’s really not a lot to be said about most movies. So many of them are mostly mindless entertainment, but there was a lot to say about this one. As I said before, some of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes rounded out some of the pieces I missed for me, so I came to enjoy the movie even more the next day (today.)

 

The movie wasn’t meant to be an action movie only. It’s meant to make you think, and it did. Even though I know they did it on purpose because that’s the climate we’re in now, I really enjoyed it that the entire team that went in was all women. The roles were written so that anyone could have played them—man or woman. There was no one acting like Testosterone-Man or Estrogen-Woman. Each character was just a person. That was nice. There was a mild sex scene, but no one was running around being overtly sexy. Portman is wearing sweat pants in a number of scenes, and all the women in the jungle aren’t having “oh no! My clothes ripped so now I’m wearing almost nothing†moments.

 

Ok—gotta get back to school or I’d keep rambling. Sum up: you might love it, you might hate it. Not pure action, though there is a lot of it. It’s meant to make you think. It has elements of horror in it. It’s R so the violence is violent and graphic. Not a lot of sex, though there is a sex scene. I don’t remember any language, but I don’t often hear it unless it’s waaay over the top or unless my kids are sitting there with me. :)

Edited March 7, 2018 by Garga

[poppy]

I have seen SIX movies this year thanks to Movie Pass! I love it. And I love the recommendations here in this thread, it helps me pick movies without having to watch previews which is key.  I hate knowing too much before I go into the theater.

 

Most recent:

 

Jumanji:    It was OK! Not a classic like the first one, but it had some fun moments.  I like Jack Black playing a teen girl, he just gave a sweet performance with no ironic twist.  Good call.

 

Winchester: Horror is my FAVORITE genre. This movie is .. no . It's tedious, and nonsense.  It's one of those movie you leave with tons of questions.  Starting with -- she had books for everyone killed by a Winchester rifle and it only filled 3 little shelves? Wha?  Helen Mirran was great, and the guy who played the doctor was great, and everything else about the movie was dreadful.

 

Game Night: this was truly twisty and funny and a good time.   I truly never knew what was going to happen next and I got surprised over and over.  Quality storytelling.  And less of a filthy streak than the Hangover, Bridgesmaids, etc type comedies.

[6packofun]

Saw Annihilation last night. Looking over reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, people tended to either love it or hate it. So, if you’re inclined to see that kind of movie, you’ll have to decide for yourself if it’s good or bad.

 

Some of the reviews brought out points to me that I hadn’t thought of on my own, so that was nice.

 

Overall, I was enjoying the movie (it’s R rated, and there are animals attacking them in a jungle-like place, so be prepared for violence), until the last 1/4. Things got a bit 2001: A Space Odyssey for me at that point. I go with my photographer friend and I told her it reminded me of when people are new to photography and discover the “saturation†tool on their editing software. They find out that they can make the colors in their pictures super-brilliant and almost every person who is new to photography has a few pictures that they made super-brilliant because it was so much fun. But anyone else who looks at it thinks, “Oh, those colors are just too much!†And when the photographer goes back to look at their early pictures they also think, “Too much! How embarrassing! I made this picture look sooo fake!â€

 

I felt like the movie makers over saturated some of the end—not with colors, but just with everything. It was too much. The music got super LOUD. I was wearing earrplugs that were pulled out a little bit because the dialog was quiet, but at the end, I had to push them far into my ears because the music was so loud that I could feel the sound vibrating in my chest. Things started getting a bit weird. I was struggling to keep up with the meaning behind anything I was seeing. I felt like they were trying to cram too much “meaning†into everything—an oversaturation of color, sound, and meaning.

 

 

 

This description is why I found the book extremely frustrating!  Great explanation; I concur and haven't seen the movie yet.  LOL  In the book it felt like many times the author was thinking, "Oh, it would be SO cool if....XYZ happened!  How can I fit that in here?!"  Just too much and it took away from any message that was intended.

[Rachel]

We took the kids to Peter Rabbit tonight. When I saw the preview I did not want to go, if sort of seemed sac religious. But I needed out of the house tonight and it wasn’t warm enough to do anything outside and the only kid movie playing was Peter Rabbit.

 

It was funny, sweet, and I really enjoyed the music. I was able to separate the original Peter Rabbit stories from the movie which helped.

 

I definitely think you could wait for it to arrive at Redbox but it was still enjoyable.

[Angie in VA]

We took the kids to Peter Rabbit tonight. When I saw the preview I did not want to go, if sort of seemed sac religious. But I needed out of the house tonight and it wasn’t warm enough to do anything outside and the only kid movie playing was Peter Rabbit.

 

It was funny, sweet, and I really enjoyed the music. I was able to separate the original Peter Rabbit stories from the movie which helped.

 

I definitely think you could wait for it to arrive at Redbox but it was still enjoyable.

 

 

:iagree:  Officially my stance is I do not approve of this movie. Peter Rabbit and Beatrix Potter are perfect. It's anathema to make this type of film about them. But, well, James Corden. He could read the phone book and make me laugh. I don't watch his late night show. I watch Carpool Karaoke on YT. I only recently discovered his Crosswalk the Musical - pretty sure it was on these boards, possibly this thread. First one I saw? The Greatest Showman with three of the stars of the movie. And one star is HUGE.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

I have seen The Greatest Showman three times now. It gets better every time. I've only seen it that many times b/c we're in the free zone with Movie Pass now and it's so great on the big screen. I will buy that soundtrack and I can't remember the last soundtrack I bought. 

 

ETA: A friend saw Peter Rabbit and asked me what I thought of the "allergy shaming" b/c of the blackberries. I hadn't heard about that. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Angie in VA

[Wheres Toto]

:iagree:  Officially my stance is I do not approve of this movie. Peter Rabbit and Beatrix Potter are perfect. It's anathema to make this type of film about them. But, well, James Corden. He could read the phone book and make me laugh. I don't watch his late night show. I watch Carpool Karaoke on YT. I only recently discovered his Crosswalk the Musical - pretty sure it was on these boards, possibly this thread. First one I saw? The Greatest Showman with three of the stars of the movie. And one star is HUGE.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

I have seen The Greatest Showman three times now. It gets better every time. I've only seen it that many times b/c we're in the free zone with Movie Pass now and it's so great on the big screen. I will buy that soundtrack and I can't remember the last soundtrack I bought. 

 

ETA: A friend saw Peter Rabbit and asked me what I thought of the "allergy shaming" b/c of the blackberries. I hadn't heard about that. 

 

That was AMAZING!  I've never watched that before, that was the best thing ever.   :lol:  :hurray:

[Joules]

Ds is on spring break, so the waiting is over....I finally got to see Black Panther.  I loved every minute of it.  It was amazingly well done, and the women...WOW, such powerful roles!

 

ETA: And as always, I love to see a little of Georgia's burgeoning film industry in a movie :-)

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Joules

[Angie in VA]

That was AMAZING!  I've never watched that before, that was the best thing ever.   :lol:  :hurray:

 

 

Right?! 

 

"Huge" Jackman. James Corden slays me!

[Angie in VA]

 

I loved it when Guillermo del Toro checked the card and turned to the audience and camera and nodded his head as if to say, "Yes. It's right. We really won." That was one I meant to see in theaters, but it's gone. Maybe it will come back since it won best picture? I saw all the nominees but three. That's a first. Thanks, Movie Pass.

 

As I predicted (and hoped), The Shape of Water is back at our local theater.   :hurray:  :lurk5:

 

We visited family tonight and stayed longer than we meant to, or else we'd have gone to see it. Maybe tomorrow. I'm not a sci fi girl, but I want to see this. Plus, Octavia Spencer does nothing wrong on film, at least not in anything I've seen her in. 

[eternalsummer]

DH and I try to watch a lot of movies - we wait until they're available on Amazon, then rent or more often buy them.  I would say we get through the entirety of maybe 15% of them.

 

So recently we watched Darkest Hour - it wasn't terrible terrible, but pretty bad, imo.  Why do they have to put stuff in that Definitely Did Not Happen (the king coming to visit him at night, the subway ride with all the "commoners" or whatever and quoting Cicero, etc.)?  It just discredits the whole idea.

 

I tried La La Land finally in a fit of boredom and it was indeed so boring that I quit about 1/3 of the way in.  Just - nothing had happened!

 

Watched the first 10 minutes of the new Murder on the Orient Express, in which Kenneth Branaugh (Poirot) inexplicably steps in sh#% and then steps in it with the other foot to even it out, or something.  Just - no.  Did Poirot ever do this?  I have only read about half the Poirot books but I feel like he definitely did not.  David Suchet was a much, much better Poirot.

 

Watched all of The Star with the kids - DH and I had no idea it was the Christmas story, thought it was just some inspiring tale about an animated donkey.  Was not a terrible movie.

 

Watched The Nice Guys, also not terrible.  Not particularly poignant or memorable, but watchable.

 

Watched The Foreigner, a Jackie Chan/ Pierce Brosnan movie.  Entertaining.

 

Watched The King's Choice, a Norwegian movie about WW2 in Norway.  Excellent movie.  

 

Watched Fury (WW2 tank movie from 2014).  Not like the greatest movie ever, but some good parts, esp. when there is tank fighting.  Shia LeBouf, who I normally think of as somewhat stupid and not all there, was good.

 

Tried Apache Warrior, gave up after 10 minutes.

 

Watched The Pirates of Somalia, pretty good.  Reasonably genuine, kind-hearted.

 

Tried Wonder Woman, unwatchably stupid.  

 

Tried Mad Max-Fury Road, exceptionally stupid.  Stylized but not a lot of there there.

 

Watched Mayhem - violent (very violent) but not a bad movie overall.  

 

Tried Hangman, gave up after 5 minutes.  Nonsensical.

 

Watched Wind River - not particularly remarkable and quite depressing but well made.

 

Tried The Survivalist - do not try this movie.  OMG dumb.

[Bluegoat]

DH and I try to watch a lot of movies - we wait until they're available on Amazon, then rent or more often buy them.  I would say we get through the entirety of maybe 15% of them.

 

So recently we watched Darkest Hour - it wasn't terrible terrible, but pretty bad, imo.  Why do they have to put stuff in that Definitely Did Not Happen (the king coming to visit him at night, the subway ride with all the "commoners" or whatever and quoting Cicero, etc.)?  It just discredits the whole idea.

 

I tried La La Land finally in a fit of boredom and it was indeed so boring that I quit about 1/3 of the way in.  Just - nothing had happened!

 

Watched the first 10 minutes of the new Murder on the Orient Express, in which Kenneth Branaugh (Poirot) inexplicably steps in sh#% and then steps in it with the other foot to even it out, or something.  Just - no.  Did Poirot ever do this?  I have only read about half the Poirot books but I feel like he definitely did not.  David Suchet was a much, much better Poirot.

 

Watched all of The Star with the kids - DH and I had no idea it was the Christmas story, thought it was just some inspiring tale about an animated donkey.  Was not a terrible movie.

 

Watched The Nice Guys, also not terrible.  Not particularly poignant or memorable, but watchable.

 

Watched The Foreigner, a Jackie Chan/ Pierce Brosnan movie.  Entertaining.

 

Watched The King's Choice, a Norwegian movie about WW2 in Norway.  Excellent movie.  

 

Watched Fury (WW2 tank movie from 2014).  Not like the greatest movie ever, but some good parts, esp. when there is tank fighting.  Shia LeBouf, who I normally think of as somewhat stupid and not all there, was good.

 

Tried Apache Warrior, gave up after 10 minutes.

 

Watched The Pirates of Somalia, pretty good.  Reasonably genuine, kind-hearted.

 

Tried Wonder Woman, unwatchably stupid.  

 

Tried Mad Max-Fury Road, exceptionally stupid.  Stylized but not a lot of there there.

 

Watched Mayhem - violent (very violent) but not a bad movie overall.  

 

Tried Hangman, gave up after 5 minutes.  Nonsensical.

 

Watched Wind River - not particularly remarkable and quite depressing but well made.

 

Tried The Survivalist - do not try this movie.  OMG dumb.

 

I think we might have similar taste in movies, though I manage to get farther through them.

 

I totally agree about the poop in Orient Express.  It was very wrong.  Also where he was harassing the hotel staff about the eggs.  

 

If you'd like something on Churchill, you might try Churchill which just came on Canadian Netflix so it may be available to you too.  It has Brian Cox, who is one of my favourite actors.  It was not as good as I'd hoped, but I had very high hopes which I think accounts for the problem.  But I think it was solid.  It centres around just a few weeks, and it's fairly intimate in its scope.

[eternalsummer]

Oooh, I'll try that for sure!  We are big Churchill fans here.

 

Darkest Hour was time-limited too, but I wasn't convinced by Gary Oldman and I was pretty appalled at the adding of sort of Americanized touches to make Churchill more, I don't know, personable?  Palatable?  Man-of-the-people?  It wasn't even a movie made by Americans!  But just, the anachronisms.

[eternalsummer]

I think we might have similar taste in movies, though I manage to get farther through them.

 

I totally agree about the poop in Orient Express.  It was very wrong.  Also where he was harassing the hotel staff about the eggs.  

 

If you'd like something on Churchill, you might try Churchill which just came on Canadian Netflix so it may be available to you too.  It has Brian Cox, who is one of my favourite actors.  It was not as good as I'd hoped, but I had very high hopes which I think accounts for the problem.  But I think it was solid.  It centres around just a few weeks, and it's fairly intimate in its scope.

 

And yes, I felt the same way about the eggs!  Poirot is not mean-spirited.  The egg thing made him seem mean-spirited almost from the beginning.  I also didn't see what the set-up scene really did for the frame of the movie (I admit that I turned it off before they ever got on the train, so maybe I missed something).

 

The David Suchet version of Murder on the Orient Express, on the other hand, also had a set-up scene that was not in the book, but it was a very good frame to the plot and theme of the movie and showed Poirot in both his humanity and his righteousness.

 

That is one thing I like very much about the Poirot series - David Suchet makes Poirot a better character than Christie does, I think.  He actually adds something to him (without negating anything from the book Poirot); he becomes not only the sometimes self-righteous Poirot of the books but the sometimes righteous Poirot of the tv series.

 

(I've been watching these episodes while working recently and have been rather taken with them.  Last time I liked a TV show was Battlestar Galactica, if that's any indication of how pleased I am to find something to watch).

Edited March 11, 2018 by eternalsummer

[Garga]

Darkest Hour was very boring to me. I kept waiting for it to take off and it never did. The best scene was when he was on the subway, and I knew it was entirely fake. Which made it not the best scene.

[eternalsummer]

Yes, maybe that's why they felt they had to add the stupid not-real stuff; for some reason they couldn't make a compelling movie out of the real person and the real events (which honestly I think is a remarkable failure, as he was a compelling person and it was an exceptionally compelling time), so they added these sort of humanizing, almost Americanizing scenes.  They just read as so that-did-not-happen that it took me out of the movie.

[Bluegoat]

And yes, I felt the same way about the eggs!  Poirot is not mean-spirited.  The egg thing made him seem mean-spirited almost from the beginning.  I also didn't see what the set-up scene really did for the frame of the movie (I admit that I turned it off before they ever got on the train, so maybe I missed something).

 

The David Suchet version of Murder on the Orient Express, on the other hand, also had a set-up scene that was not in the book, but it was a very good frame to the plot and theme of the movie and showed Poirot in both his humanity and his righteousness.

 

That is one thing I like very much about the Poirot series - David Suchet makes Poirot a better character than Christie does, I think.  He actually adds something to him (without negating anything from the book Poirot); he becomes not only the sometimes self-righteous Poirot of the books but the sometimes righteous Poirot of the tv series.

 

(I've been watching these episodes while working recently and have been rather taken with them.  Last time I liked a TV show was Battlestar Galactica, if that's any indication of how pleased I am to find something to watch).

 

THat's an interesting observation about him being a better character.  I saw an interview with Suchet once where he talks about how he decided to take the role, and he said he felt that previous film versions had made him into a bit of a buffoon or joke - and actually I think that's what the Branagh movie did too.  

 

But Suchet felt that there was a real core of him in the novels as a very good and honourable man, though also with certain annoying foibles, and that interested him as an actor.  

 

But the former charachteristics put the foibles in really a very different light I think.  For example the symmetry thing - it is easy to imagine him being driven a little crazy by the eggs or something else out of order, but at the same time the idea that he would be in the least taking advantage of the staff or impolite - his restraint becomes a sort of moral courage  And the little cracks you see from time to time in these matters make him human, despite his heroic qualities and also despite his real arrogance.  They work together to make a really compelling character.

 

I was always interested in how Suchet portrayed Poirot's Catholicism, it didn't get mentioned a lot but when it did it was clear he was a very devout man, and I think that went some way to explaining his way of being.

 

I think maybe the set-up in the movie was to introduce him to people who don't know the novels or the tv shows, I think the hope was that the film would also appeal to people who had no knowledge of the character but came because of Branagh.  So, in 10 min you now know all the essentials - obsessive, brilliant, and on the side of good - and can get on with the plot. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

Yes, maybe that's why they felt they had to add the stupid not-real stuff; for some reason they couldn't make a compelling movie out of the real person and the real events (which honestly I think is a remarkable failure, as he was a compelling person and it was an exceptionally compelling time), so they added these sort of humanizing, almost Americanizing scenes.  They just read as so that-did-not-happen that it took me out of the movie.

 

I think was too much an aristocrat for some people to be very comfortable with finding him compelling.  But it does seem rather clumsy.  

[eternalsummer]

The good bits of the movie, incidentally, were the parts Winston Churchill had already written for them 75 years ago!  I can see where the aristocratic nature could put people off, but his mind and especially his oratory were, to me, exceptional enough and in tune with the times enough that I didn't need to see him doing things Winston Churchill would not have done and did not do in order to be interested in him.

 

But I could go on about Churchill, and that is another thread.  

 

I will say that the kids saw the new Jumanji recently and liked it okay; I got the old one for them and they thought it was great.   I don't remember liking it a bunch as a kid - I was easily frightened, I think - but they loved it.

 

I would like to talk DH into watching Dunkirk but he's uninterested as he says he already knows what happens.

 

Which I guess is true, but doesn't bother me about movies.

[eternalsummer]

watched Dunkirk (without DH, who refused)

 

DH was correct.  I think this review sums it up nicely: https://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

 

how you could take something as exciting and relevant and emotionally stirring as Dunkirk and make a boring movie out of it is beyond my understanding, but Nolan managed it somehow.  Again, the only particularly compelling writing was written by Churchill 75 years ago. 

[Garga]

watched Dunkirk (without DH, who refused)

 

DH was correct. I think this review sums it up nicely: https://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

 

how you could take something as exciting and relevant and emotionally stirring as Dunkirk and make a boring movie out of it is beyond my understanding, but Nolan managed it somehow. Again, the only particularly compelling writing was written by Churchill 75 years ago.

Yup. I watched it (with earplugs) and my curiousity about the movie was satisfied, and I enjoyed it when I watched it but when a friend said, “I haven’t seen it yet, would you like to go with me?†it was a resounding no. It was too boring to see twice. Once, sure. Twice, nuh-uh.

[GailV]

Dd and I just watched Dunkirk this afternoon, and loved it, lol.    Loved the score, loved the cinematography, loved the relative lack of dialogue, loved the acting, loved the understated directing, loved the lack of "stars".  Afterwards she was saying she wants to find another movie like it to watch -- visually pleasing, decent score (she's very picky about music in movies), good acting, not slamming her over the head with explication.

 

"Okay, the reason they were bored with it is because they've been conditioned to be over-stimulated by screenwriting today." -- dd, who just walked by and is now giving a five minute spontaneous speech about how most  people in the original event probably felt both bored and terrified standing on the beach (or riding in a boat), and Nolan managed to engender empathy for those characters, etc., etc. 

 

Aaaand, there she goes, heading out the door to play rehearsal, still talking about Nolan's process, and the brilliance she saw in it, not even saying goodbye  to me .... Well, okay, then, she has lots of thoughts on the matter!  

 

As for me, it seemed to push the same buttons that wordless books do, where you connect to a story without using words.  I also like watching well-choreographed dance performances in which I can connect on a level deeper than words, assigning my own meaning to the music and motion.  I wonder if that made a difference in how much I liked this movie.  Hmmm....

 

[eternalsummer]

Possibly that is part of it; I'm very verbal.  I find wordless books quite irritating and poorly written books even more irritating.

 

I imagine the soldiers did feel bored and terrified; the movie gave me no sense of terror, though.  I thought it was quite a sanitized version of war - no one you care about dies (in fact you don't care about anyone), little if any blood, etc.  There was very little sense of scale - maybe a tiny bit when Branaugh sees the civilian ships all coming into shore, but mostly completely devoid of the scale of the thing (which is part of what was so impressive about the actual event!).

 

I don't know what kind of good acting she's talking about, honestly - they were fine, but you couldn't connect with much of anyone and no one went through any serious character change or anything.  

 

The score was good. 

[Bluegoat]

I saw Black Panther with ds a few nights ago.

 

It was ok, I liked it better than I usually like Marvel.  I enjoyed the themes around taking responsibility and creating problems.  I thought the acting was also better than in many Marvel movies.  I also felt like it had a bit more direction or arc, as opposed to two hours of the same thing.  The design was lovely.

 

The things I didn't like were ones I typically don't like in Marvel.  It was beautiful in some ways but the CGI was overwhelming, and made some of the landscapes look very fake.  I noticed it especially when they were looking out the window of the lab to the underground land-scape, it looked like a video game or like it was meant to be a model.  

 

I also don't like the way they edit their fight scenes, it's so choppy I feel like I can't appreciate the choreography and skill.  I have wondered if this is because they need to hide the stunt doubles a lot as actors generally can't do their own stunts at that level.

 

In terms of plotting, as a few people mentioned it seemed a bit choppy - particularly the change of villain part way through, it seemed like someone they had built up came to nothing after all.  Why was it so hard to catch him before?  Do they really send the king for that kind of thing?  There were a number of plot holes too.

[Angie in VA]

I saw I Can Only Imagine.

 

I know and like the song and the band MercyMe. I didn't know the background of the song nor how a certain star treated this song and its author. 

 

 

[ScoutTN]

Anyone seen A Wrinkle in Time? 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Anyone seen A Wrinkle in Time? 

 

The Guardian had a review about a week ago.  I can't say it made me inclined to go.

[ScoutTN]

The Guardian had a review about a week ago.  I can't say it made me inclined to go.

 

 

WORLD magazine panned it too. https://world.wng.org/2018/03/wrinkles_in_translation

Edited March 20, 2018 by ScoutTN

[Garga]

I Can Only Imagine

 

This is a Christian movie, and I went reluctantly with church people expecting it to be over-the-top religious, shallow and preachy. 

It wasn’t, though.  I was surprised at how much I liked it and that it had much more depth than I thought it would. 

 

The characters were un-self-consciously Christian, so you might see them reading a bible or going to church, but it wasn’t in your face.  They were just being themselves without it being a big deal.

 

One character starts off not being Christian and does convert to the faith later in the movie, but it’s not like it was some sort of annoying plot point to try to show off “look how great things are when you’re a Christian! Don’t you wish you were, too!† It’s not like the character goes from being a rat to being the next Billy Graham.  The character said they’d (using the "they" pronoun so I don't give away if it was a man or woman) been listening to sermons on the radio and started to believe them. The character tries to read the bible, but mostly doesn’t understand it. It feels very natural and true-to-life.  Anyone embarking on a new religion would be wobbly at first and trying to understand what it all means.

 

God as a supernatural power causing supernatural things to happen does not happen in this movie except once.  A character had kept journals their whole life, and later they go back and read through them and see a certain phrase they’ve written over and over.  They say, “Ok, God,†implying that maybe God inspired them to write that phrase, and that the phrase is meant for them to take action now.  That was the only “supernatural†happening in the movie that I can think of.

It reminded me to some degree of each of these movies I’ve seen in the past year and a half:

Sully

Collateral Beauty

The Space Between Us

The Glass Castle

Forever My Girl

 

A mixture of a light romance, a difficult life story, and a feel-good ending.  Some of the above movies were really good and some weren’t.  I’d put I Can Only Imagine right in the middle of those.

 

Plot:

This is based on a true story, so it’s a biography about a man who wrote the song “I Can Only Imagine.† That song came out in the late 90’s and has been a huge (huge, huge) hit in both the Christian world and in the secular word a bit as well.  People just loooove that song.  

 

The song writer was born into a home with a very abusive father.  They do not show much of the abuse with the young actor.  There is a bit of a wrestling match between the father and son, and they mention severe beatings, but don’t show them.  I don’t like watching movies where children are getting hit.  It bothered me even in The Greatest Showman where young P.T. Barnum gets slapped as a child, so I’m glad they didn’t show much. When the adult actor takes over, there are times where he is hit by the father.

 

The son tries to be a big football star like his dad, but in the end turns to singing.  He joins a band as a singer and the movie becomes much like other movies where a band is trying to make it big and find a label.  However, throughout all the band stuff (no drugs or groupies, just playing in different venues and trying to be heard by a label), the main character keeps dealing with the issues from his childhood—the anger and hatred he has toward his dad and how he can’t let people get close to him. 

 

I won’t give any more away, but it’ll be obvious that eventually he uses all the negativity from his past and pours it into writing the hit song that has been around since the 90s and the movie shows everyone’s reactions as they hear it and it ties up with what becomes of the band after the song is released.

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Garga

[Storygirl]

I also saw  I Can Only Imagine and enjoyed it.

 

I agree with you, Garga!

 

I'm a Christian, but I often feel skeptical about religious films, because a preachy message can overtake the general quality of the film. I mentioned to DH that I was not certain that I would love the movie, but I was going anyway.

 

And then when it was over, I texted to him, "You should see this movie!"

 

There are references to God and belief and the Christian music scene, but much of the character's trials as a musician would be relateable to anyone who is trying to make a living as a musician or artist or just a young person struggling on any career path. As well as anyone who has had trials (who hasn't?) that have caused hurt and bitterness. And anyone who has struggled with relationships within family and with friends. It seemed more of a background character study to me than an overtly Christian movie. I'm not sure they actually mention the name of Jesus? But religion is definitely an underlying thread throughout.

 

I think it could appeal to anyone, not just a Christian audience. And it is fine for anyone 12 and up. I only say 12, because there are references to abuse, and the family dynamics are complex.

[Tree Frog]

Anyone seen A Wrinkle in Time? 

My dd and I saw A Wrinkle in Time. Neither of us liked it. It felt like a new age space movie. It's been a long time since I've read the book, but the movie missed a lot of the details that made the book special.

 

The theater had maybe 20 people in it and the woman behind us carried on a phone conversation through most of the second half of the movie. Her conversation was less interesting than the movie. :/

[Garga]

I saw Unsane last week.

For whatever reason, it was filmed entirely on an iphone.  I get super creeped out by movies about people going through mental illness where they start hallucinating horrible things.  Like, Black Swan freaked me out.  How she’d see herself peeling off her skin...but then it wasn’t real?  Her skin was fine?  

I wasn’t sure if this movie would be like that and I was prepared to walk out if it scared me too much, but it wasn’t like that. It was more like a movie about a creepy stalker that won’t leave you alone and no one will believe you about the stalker.  

It wasn’t super suspenseful to me.  It’s rated R for language and some violence.  Not Tarentino violence, but it’s there.  I would say that if you’re like me and like going to the movies a lot and have movie pass, then see it in the theater.  But if you save movie going for special movies or they cost you a lot of money, then wait for it to come out on video.

 

Tonight I’m going to see The Greatest Showman for the 5th time, because it’s a sing-a-long!  :). It sounds like so much fun to be in a theater with a bunch of people belting out, warbling, squeaking, and angelically singing along to the songs.  I’ll be in the warbling/squeaking  category.  Most of the songs hit notes waaay too high for me, but I’ll give it my best shot.  

[Lady Marmalade]

We went and saw Peter Rabbit last week during the WTMBlackout.

Such a sweet movie.  Really.  It was genuinely funny and I couldn't decide who I was really rooting for the whole time.  We all enjoyed it.  Domhnall Gleason was a perfect McGregor with his over-the-top melodrama.     I definitely think this is one that all ages can appreciate. 

[Angie in VA]

I've seen The Apostle Paul, God's Not Dead 3,  A Wrinkle in Time and something else I can't recall. 

[Garga]

4 hours ago, Angie in VA said:

I've seen The Apostle Paul, God's Not Dead 3,  A Wrinkle in Time and something else I can't recall. 

What did you think of The Apostle Paul?

[Angie in VA]

10 hours ago, Garga said:

What did you think of The Apostle Paul?

I thought, "I have no idea what faith is!" 

I liked it and really liked the actor who portrayed Paul. Also Jim Caviezel does little wrong for me. ;) 

[madteaparty]

I’m late but watched Call me by Your Name in a long flight and I loved it like I don’t remember loving any movies in recent past. I think i’ll watch it on the trip home too ?

i dropped DS off at a mall here in Indonesia to watch Ready Player One and so far all I heard is that it deviates a lot from the book and has multiple references to his favorite videogames. 

[RootAnn]

I saw Ready Player One last night and was ultimately disappointed. I knew they changed the movie away from the book, but I hoped the changes weren't that crazy since the book author was a co-writer of the movie script. I felt that the changes they made really took away from the good parts of the story. The puzzle nature was a big part of the book and such a small (easily missed) part of the movie. The changes in what different characters did rubbed me the wrong way. Obviously, they geared it toward "more action" and less cerebral work, but they took away some of the key action parts and character development. Just . . . disappointed.

[kitten18]

8 hours ago, RootAnn said:

I saw Ready Player One last night and was ultimately disappointed. I knew they changed the movie away from the book, but I hoped the changes weren't that crazy since the book author was a co-writer of the movie script. I felt that the changes they made really took away from the good parts of the story. The puzzle nature was a big part of the book and such a small (easily missed) part of the movie. The changes in what different characters did rubbed me the wrong way. Obviously, they geared it toward "more action" and less cerebral work, but they took away some of the key action parts and character development. Just . . . disappointed.

I totally agree. We just got home from the theater and I came to see if anyone had posted about it. 

It probably didn’t help that I just finished the book two days ago, but golly, if the characters didn’t have the same names it would be hard to tell that it was based on the book. 

[SKL]

Gonna chime in about A Wrinkle In Time.

My kids begged to see it against my better judgment.  I expected it to be terrible, based on everything I had heard.  It turned out to be not so bad ... no worse than most kid movies.  (I'm not a kid movie fan.)  My kids generally liked it, though they didn't like some aspects that were too different from the book.  My adult friend liked it.

So if you love movies and go to them a lot, Wrinkle might not be an absolute "no."

Also recently saw Black Panther and Peter Rabbit.  Both were fun.  I didn't think Black Panther was as good as they hyped it up to be, but it was better than many along the superhero lines.  Peter Rabbit was funny and about as enjoyable as any kid movie.  :P

[Alte Veste Academy]

10 hours ago, RootAnn said:

I saw Ready Player One last night and was ultimately disappointed. I knew they changed the movie away from the book, but I hoped the changes weren't that crazy since the book author was a co-writer of the movie script. I felt that the changes they made really took away from the good parts of the story. The puzzle nature was a big part of the book and such a small (easily missed) part of the movie. The changes in what different characters did rubbed me the wrong way. Obviously, they geared it toward "more action" and less cerebral work, but they took away some of the key action parts and character development. Just . . . disappointed.

DS15 is super bummed to hear this. He was so looking forward to it, and someone in one of his classes told him it was really great. But when I told him they downplayed the puzzles, he was bummed. He said it was the best part of the book.