Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (3 Viewers)

[jdoggydogg]

I will admit that this is the first Woody Allen movie that I have seen , but I just don't see where all the praise and awards are coming from for this movie.

I'd count all these Allen movies as must-see:Hannah and Her Sisters

Annie Hall

Manhatten

Bananas

Sleeper

Take the Money and Run

Bullets Over Broadway

Love and Death

Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask

Other Allen movies definitely worth seeing:

Celebrity

Husbands and Wives

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Sweet and Lowdown

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy

Deconstructing Harry

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Cassandra's Dream

Allen defintiely isnt my thing, but thought Sweet and Lowdown was excellent. Sean Penn as a early 1900's jazz guitarist was I thought Cassandra's Dream was pretty good, didnt even feel like an Allen movie which was probably why I liked it.

One that you didnt list that I liked was Small Time Crooks

I can't remember if I've seen Small Time Crooks.

 

[Chaka]

jdogg - did you like The Fountain? I did.

I thought The Fountain was kind of weird and silly. And I don't think Hugh Jackman's a good actor.All that said, the movie seemed original and thoughtful, so I can see why you'd like it. Honestly, it's probably a movie I should revisit some day to give it another shot.

Agree with this, although I dont want to give it another shot anytime soon. It wasnt kind of weird and silly it was.I dont think Wolverin is a good actor either, which kind if surprises me how much I like The Prestige.

I liked The Fountain but for the life of me I can't say why.

 

[Chaka]

Midnight in Paris:

Probably a great movie who are in love with the idea of Paris and/or the era of the 20s. I am not in either camp, and this movie bored me. Owen Wilson was a problem for me, and despite saying the words, didn't seem to show emotion about being in the time he fantasizes about. Don't think he can carry a movie. I think I would have gone along with it if he had "met" a couple of historical figures in the past, but the string of artists and novelists that he meets at night got a bit tiresome. Felt like name dropping without a hint of trying to develop anything out of it. Also, the orange tint was really starting to bug me - I was starting to wonder if my damn TV was broken. 4/10

I will admit that this is the first Woody Allen movie that I have seen, but I just don't see where all the praise and awards are coming from for this movie.

Wat? You own a video store, don't you? How is this even possible?

 

[Chaka]

I will admit that this is the first Woody Allen movie that I have seen , but I just don't see where all the praise and awards are coming from for this movie.

I'd count all these Allen movies as must-see:Hannah and Her Sisters

Annie Hall

Manhatten

Bananas

Sleeper

Take the Money and Run

Bullets Over Broadway

Love and Death

Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask

Other Allen movies definitely worth seeing:

Celebrity

Husbands and Wives

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Sweet and Lowdown

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy

Deconstructing Harry

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Cassandra's Dream

No love for What's Up, Tiger Lily?

In comic Woody Allen's film debut, he took the Japanese action film "International Secret Police: Key of Keys" and re-dubbed it, changing the plot to make it revolve around a secret egg salad recipe.

It's hysterical.

 

[jdoggydogg]

A defense of Woody Allen

I know that the primary objection to Allen's movies is that some viewers loathe his nebbishy, neurotic character. But much like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, Allen characters are an exaggeration of our fears and quirks. Just try to set aside Allen's persona and look at the films. Manhatten is one of the most beautiful movies ever filmed. Allen's comedies are hilarious. His portrait of relationships in movies like Husbands and Wives is brutal and honest in a way most movies are not.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I doubt I've seen a combined 10 minutes of Woody Allen's films.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I will admit that this is the first Woody Allen movie that I have seen , but I just don't see where all the praise and awards are coming from for this movie.

I'd count all these Allen movies as must-see:Hannah and Her Sisters

Annie Hall

Manhatten

Bananas

Sleeper

Take the Money and Run

Bullets Over Broadway

Love and Death

Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask

Other Allen movies definitely worth seeing:

Celebrity

Husbands and Wives

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Sweet and Lowdown

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy

Deconstructing Harry

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Cassandra's Dream

No love for What's Up, Tiger Lily?

In comic Woody Allen's film debut, he took the Japanese action film "International Secret Police: Key of Keys" and re-dubbed it, changing the plot to make it revolve around a secret egg salad recipe.

It's hysterical.

Ah yes. I'd forgotten that one. Mostly because I watched it on LSD.

 

[Socrates11]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

It's really good for a low budget movie. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

It's really good for a low budget movie. I enjoyed it a lot.

Hmmm...I got about 30 minutes into this and lost interest. Maybe I'll give it another shot.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

One of my favorites.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

One of my favorites.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

It's really good for a low budget movie. I enjoyed it a lot.

Hmmm...I got about 30 minutes into this and lost interest. Maybe I'll give it another shot.

I really liked this. Watched it based on this thread. Although i did not care for the ending really.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

 

[saintfool]

A defense of Woody Allen

I know that the primary objection to Allen's movies is that some viewers loathe his nebbishy, neurotic character. But much like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, Allen characters are an exaggeration of our fears and quirks. Just try to set aside Allen's persona and look at the films. Manhatten is one of the most beautiful movies ever filmed. Allen's comedies are hilarious. His portrait of relationships in movies like Husbands and Wives is brutal and honest in a way most movies are not.

i would largely agree with you. allen has such a extensive catalog that you can easily find a movie to like (broad comedies, dramatic, character driven, or ensemble pieces). he's had some just fantastic films where he's a lead but there are many more that don't feature him (or a version of him). he can usually get good performances from his cast too.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

One of my favorites.

Its a good movie. I like good movies.

 

[Chaka]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Loved it. A professor from Stanford (?) tells his friends/colleagues out of the blue that he's leaving the school right before he's to get tenure/promoted and so a bunch of him go to his house to throw a farewell party and find out why. Turns out he's 14,000 years old and makes a habit of moving on every 10 years or so as people start to wonder why he hasn't seemed to age. His friends include a biologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, and philosopher, and the questions they ask and the discussion that follows was fascinating.

8.5/10

It's really good for a low budget movie. I enjoyed it a lot.

I enjoyed this one as well.

 

[cosjobs]

anyone gonna watch the "Knuckle" documentary?

I saw it. Probably reviewed it in here somewhere. It was pretty good, but considering the subject matter (Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights) I was quite disappointed. I would not call it bad, just should have been a lot better.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

anyone gonna watch the "Knuckle" documentary?

I saw it. Probably reviewed it in here somewhere. It was pretty good, but considering the subject matter (Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights) I was quite disappointed. I would not call it bad, just should have been a lot better.

I know, right? I mean how hard can it be to make a good movie featuring Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights?

 

[cosjobs]

Black Swan wasn't the best of 2010 but it was better than anything I've seen yet this yearScreener of The Artist just leaked, we'll see what happens there. Need somebody to hardcode some English for the text parts first.Tonight, going to finally get around to Twinkle Twinkle Taylor Dayne or whatever that's called

I think you could be okay with no subtitles at all. They help clarify occasionally, but I think you'll figure it out ok.

 

[cosjobs]

anyone gonna watch the "Knuckle" documentary?

I saw it. Probably reviewed it in here somewhere. It was pretty good, but considering the subject matter (Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights) I was quite disappointed. I would not call it bad, just should have been a lot better.

I know, right? I mean how hard can it be to make a good movie featuring Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights?

Or either one of the two. An embarrassment of great subject matter squandered.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

anyone gonna watch the "Knuckle" documentary?

I saw it. Probably reviewed it in here somewhere. It was pretty good, but considering the subject matter (Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights) I was quite disappointed. I would not call it bad, just should have been a lot better.

Bare knuckle boxing turned out to be a lot less bad ### then I thought coming in. Some fights went for hours, coming in I thought a 90% of fights would be over in 10 minutes. Still a pretty interesting film though.

 

[saintfool]

I know, right? I mean how hard can it be to make a good movie featuring Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I know, right? I mean how hard can it be to make a good movie featuring Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights?

No, he said "good".

 

[cosjobs]

I know, right? I mean how hard can it be to make a good movie featuring Irish travelers and bareknuckle fistfights?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

 

[jdoggydogg]

A defense of Woody Allen

I know that the primary objection to Allen's movies is that some viewers loathe his nebbishy, neurotic character. But much like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, Allen characters are an exaggeration of our fears and quirks. Just try to set aside Allen's persona and look at the films. Manhatten is one of the most beautiful movies ever filmed. Allen's comedies are hilarious. His portrait of relationships in movies like Husbands and Wives is brutal and honest in a way most movies are not.

i would largely agree with you. allen has such a extensive catalog that you can easily find a movie to like (broad comedies, dramatic, character driven, or ensemble pieces). he's had some just fantastic films where he's a lead but there are many more that don't feature him (or a version of him). he can usually get good performances from his cast too.

Certainly. Getting a good performance out of an actor you may not usually like is one of his specialties.And another thing: I think Allen is mocking intellectuals in many of his films. So anyone that identifies with that kind of tonality would probably identify with these movies more than they'd imagine.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

 

[jdoggydogg]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

 

[Chaka]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I am not disagreeing but it's been awhile since I saw it how about some examples.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Midnight in Paris:

Probably a great movie who are in love with the idea of Paris and/or the era of the 20s. I am not in either camp, and this movie bored me. Owen Wilson was a problem for me, and despite saying the words, didn't seem to show emotion about being in the time he fantasizes about. Don't think he can carry a movie. I think I would have gone along with it if he had "met" a couple of historical figures in the past, but the string of artists and novelists that he meets at night got a bit tiresome. Felt like name dropping without a hint of trying to develop anything out of it. Also, the orange tint was really starting to bug me - I was starting to wonder if my damn TV was broken. 4/10

I will admit that this is the first Woody Allen movie that I have seen, but I just don't see where all the praise and awards are coming from for this movie.

Wat? You own a video store, don't you? How is this even possible?

Used to own one, now I just work for the man at one.

The list of 'classic' movies that I haven't seen is embarrassingly long. Hell, I haven't seen the Godfather movies.

I think I have stayed away from Allen's movies so far for a couple of reasons: 1. I remember seeing parts of some movies in college and remember him irritating me. I realize he is not in all of his movies, and I might not feel that way now. 2. Just about every time people have told me how funny an older movie is, I have not liked it. Something about early 80s and before movies that just don't appeal to me - ie Airplane, Caddyshack, Animal House, etc, etc.

 

[johnadams]

Watched Wall Street-Money Never Sleeps. But I did.

All the different directions they could have taken this one, and they went with the mundane and derivative (no pun intended). Plus, way too much of every character not named Gecko. Poorly written to boot. Lame.

 

[jamny]

Match Point was another good Woody Allen movie.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

 

[jamny]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

I loved both Black Swan and Shutter Island. Both just pulled me into their world and kept me interested throughout. I almost felt that way with Midnight in Paris but it just lost me eventually. I really wanted to like it more than I did.

 

[cstu]

Match Point was another good Woody Allen movie.

And my personal favorite.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I am not disagreeing but it's been awhile since I saw it how about some examples.

There's a shot of a girl with a bloody face that's 100% J-horror.

 

[Chaka]

Big fan of Woody in general and I will always have a soft spot for his zany comedies Bananas and Sleeper, which were my introduction to him.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Midnight in Paris:

Probably a great movie who are in love with the idea of Paris and/or the era of the 20s. I am not in either camp, and this movie bored me. Owen Wilson was a problem for me, and despite saying the words, didn't seem to show emotion about being in the time he fantasizes about. Don't think he can carry a movie. I think I would have gone along with it if he had "met" a couple of historical figures in the past, but the string of artists and novelists that he meets at night got a bit tiresome. Felt like name dropping without a hint of trying to develop anything out of it. Also, the orange tint was really starting to bug me - I was starting to wonder if my damn TV was broken. 4/10

I will admit that this is the first Woody Allen movie that I have seen, but I just don't see where all the praise and awards are coming from for this movie.

Wat? You own a video store, don't you? How is this even possible?

Used to own one, now I just work for the man at one.

The list of 'classic' movies that I haven't seen is embarrassingly long. Hell, I haven't seen the Godfather movies.

I think I have stayed away from Allen's movies so far for a couple of reasons: 1. I remember seeing parts of some movies in college and remember him irritating me. I realize he is not in all of his movies, and I might not feel that way now. 2. Just about every time people have told me how funny an older movie is, I have not liked it. Something about early 80s and before movies that just don't appeal to me - ie Airplane, Caddyshack, Animal House, etc, etc.

I'd be surprised if you didn't laugh at either Sleeper or Love and Death.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Match Point was another good Woody Allen movie.

Scarlett Johansson right? God she's terrible.

 

[jamny]

Big fan of Woody in general and I will always have a soft spot for his zany comedies Bananas and Sleeper, which were my introduction to him.

I was a little kid when they came out and I loved them both even if I wasn't sure wtf was going on a lot of the time. The silliness of it was enough.

 

[jamny]

Match Point was another good Woody Allen movie.

Scarlett Johansson right? God she's terrible.

BOOOOOOO!She can do no wrong.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

Look, the movie isn't bad. There are parts of it I liked a lot. If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

 

[Apple Jack]

Match Point was another good Woody Allen movie.

Scarlett Johansson right? God she's terrible.

Sometimes she meh, sometimes she's great. She's great in Vicky Christina Bacelona. And Lost in Translation.

 

[Apple Jack]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

Look, the movie isn't bad. There are parts of it I liked a lot. If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

You might want to watch it again. It's pretty much perfect.

 

[Chaka]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

Look, the movie isn't bad. There are parts of it I liked a lot. If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Allow it.IIRC you put it in your top 10 in the Top Movies of 2011 thread (even though it was 2010).

 

[Chaka]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

Look, the movie isn't bad. There are parts of it I liked a lot. If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

You might want to watch it again. It's pretty much perfect.

Not even close. It's good, has moments of brilliance but it's far from perfect.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Match Point was another good Woody Allen movie.

Scarlett Johansson right? God she's terrible.

Sometimes she meh, sometimes she's great. She's great in Vicky Christina Bacelona. And Lost in Translation.

I really liked Vicky Christina Barcelona, so I'll give you that one. Lost in Translation didn't require much from her other than sulking.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

Look, the movie isn't bad. There are parts of it I liked a lot. If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Allow it.IIRC you put it in your top 10 in the Top Movies of 2011 thread (even though it was 2010).

The performances were mostly awesome - so that goes a long way.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Black Swan

What a disappointing movie. To begin, I'm an Arronofsky fan. Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler are two of my favorite movies. The Arronofsky quality I admire most is his unconventional style. He doesn't seem interested in cliches. But with Black Swan, we have a standard psychological thriller. Some of the camera moves are so cliche, I can't tell if Arronofsky is giving us a tongue in cheek homage to Wes Craven. Watching the movie, it almost seems like Arronofsky assumes we've never seen a movie like this before.

I liked the actors very much. Cassell, Portman, and Hershey are all outstanding. I'm not much of a Portman fan. She's eager, bright, and nice to look at. However, Portman lacks range and she lacks charisma. Still, this role is perfect for her, and she delivers.

If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

Why?

Because some of the "shocks" are so textbook, they were cliche 25 years ago.

I don't see how that fact suggests Aronofsky "assumes we've never seen a movie like this before".

How about I put it this way: I've seen plenty of horror films and plenty of psychological thrillers, so I've seen all these tricks before - several times. For Aronofsky to use them is almost absurd.

I know we hold some directors in high regard, but don't get that last statement. I don't think he reinvented the thriller with this one. Even if the 'tricks' have been used before, in the hands of great directors they work better. Aronofsky has a way to get a visceral response out of me when I watch his films, and I don't think Black Swan was any different - I was engrossed the whole time.

Another recent example of this would be Shutter Island. Again a standard thriller with a twist and nothing new really, but I thought Scorsese really elevated that movie. Both of these were a couple of my favorites over the past few years.

Look, the movie isn't bad. There are parts of it I liked a lot. If Arronofsky hadn't dorected Black Swan, I might have gone easier on it. But I expect more from him.

You might want to watch it again. It's pretty much perfect.

Not even close. It's good, has moments of brilliance but it's far from perfect.

Requiem for a Dream is a perfect movie. But not Black Swan.