Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (2 Viewers)

[Chaka]

Saw Catching Fire last night. Felt like it was MUCH better than Hunger Games. You can tell that they pumped a lot more money into this one and it showed. Great performances all around, and a nice twist at the end. Good action sequences.

4/5

Spot on. The thing that I love about this movie is that even though the material could easily drift into "Twilight" territory, Jennifer Lawrence brings everything she can to the role. She could so easily just cash a big paycheck and sleepwalk through the film, but she really elevates the material. Love watching her work in almost anything.

I didn't see the first movie and I haven't read the books, but I really enjoyed Catching Fire.

I'm still mad at these movies. Not enough explanation of the Sci behind the SciFi. Everyone's like "You gotta read the books to understand", and I say "F that, that's why I'm at the movies. Movies should be internally consistent & self-contained within themselves."

Explanations of what Sci? You want to know how the Hunger Games arena actually works?

Yeah. I guess I'd start there. Is it like the Holodeck on Star Trek? What's real? Are the trees, birds, and those Ghostbusters-like Terror Dogs from the first movie actual living creatures, or simulations, or what?

Edit: It's been a while since I've seen either film and I've mostly forgotten the questions, but that was definitely one of them because of how it ties into the whole concept.

The Capitol has a monopoly on incredibly vast and advanced technological resources and that is how they maintain their control over the districts. They discuss things like the ability to create energy force fields (used to keep the tributes in the arena and the poisonous fog contained within its specific part of the arena).

The trees are real, the birds, monkeys and terror dogs are all real. They never get into hard scientific theory of course but they frequently imply that DNA manipulation is pervasive and can be achieved rapidly. For example the "terror dogs" from the first film were actually spliced DNA from all of the dead tributes with some form of vicious canine species, at one point Katniss has this realization in the book because the "terror dogs" have facial features that are recognizable. The mockingjay (the glorified myna bird) was a genetically modified bird that, I believe, were created to transport messages during a previous revolt.

The arenas are pretty much live flora placed over a vast and technologically advanced structure, traps don't need to be static, they can be moved from any point to any other point as the game makers desire because the arena sits on top of that structure, kind of like the tunnels under Disneyland allow the park to shuttle VIPs throughout the park undetected (as well as transport the heart attack victims from the park without causing a ruckus).

The Capitol desperately clings to their technology because it is their only means of control.

 

[Chaka]

I'm more talking about the basic rules of the in-movie universe that go unexplained.

It's pretty much the basis of SciFi that you set up this alternate world, but to be good SciFi, you have to be consistent within your story. That is, if you're making Star Trek, and one episode says "going past warp 10 means you go back in time", and you establish point A is like 10 years of warp 10 away from point B, you can't have them go to warp 11 in a later episode to get there faster because you need them to for the plot. It's bad continuity. There's a ton of Hunger Games where they just never explain the science rules of the universe, so there's just no continuity. Stuff can just happen, because. Because... the plot needs it to happen? I don't know. But I just hate the movie-going experience that assumes you're fluent in rules that are never going to be explained (or, if they are, remain internally consistent). And every time I ask someone conversant in the rules to explain what happened, they just shrug and say "it makes sense in the book" and they start going into a long tangent that never actually delivers an explanation. "But... why?" I ask, and they just shrug again.

Do you have any examples you can think of?

Like I said, it's been a while. But if the people of this universe have the ability to summon Terror Dogs and birds out of nowhere... can't they summon, like, cows too, for food? The structure of this society should be markedly different if they have some of these powers. I get that they're being punished, but, I don't get why everyone goes along with it I guess. The motivations for the characters aren't necessarily logical as presented in the film.

In the second movie, how come sometimes they could escape a trap by walking from one section to another, but other times, they couldn't? The control room seems to be able to create things out of nowhere... and can even control the trees, so are they simulations? Is it like the Holodeck on Star Trek? And if so, how come...

Spoiler

...at the end of Catching Fire, when she breaks the arena, those things are still there? If even the trees are under the control of Philip Seymour Hoffman's crew, that implies they're simulations, yet when the power plug is pulled, they remain. Why? How does that place work? And why does it continue to work after it breaks?

They're not summoning anything, it isn't Harry Potter (then again I guess it is but with a different McGuffin). Resources are most definitely limited but the Capitol hoards the resources of the districts by virtue of the iron fist of their advanced technology affords them.

The arena in the second film was arranged like a pie sliced into twelve pieces. Each piece had a specific trap that was contained within that slice (monkeys, blood rain, acid fog etc) by design the arena in the first film was not as structured but was just as easily manipulated by the people who controlled the game. The force field technology they used was touched upon in the film (moreso in the books).

Not sure where the trees were controlled in the film like you are talking about but for the one that got struck by lightning every twelve hours, or was it 24 hours? They certainly have the ability to project images but I don't think there was anything on par with the holodeck or replicators.

 

[Daywalker]

Philomena

Judi Dench is terrific as you would expect. It's very solid. Has one of the most emotional moments I've seen in a film this year. Had to fight myself. Tonally the humor is a bit odd at times. It's a good movie but a great movie was in there. Coogan is kind of the weak link. He just seemed annoyed all the time and never really got to appreciate the Dench character enough. Just too cold. C. Firth would have been perfect in this. Would think anyone over 60 would really enjoy this. Not a top 10 movie of the year for me but was knocking on the door.

7/10

Enough Said

Was great to get to see Gandolfini again. In something good too. Nice romantic comedy dealing with middle-age characters. Dreyfus and Gandolfini are both enjoyable. It was good but it was one of those flicks where you've seen the movie after watching the trailer. Could have used a few more scenes of development between the leads. It has a running time of 93 minutes which is usually good for comedies but this one needed a bit more development. A little too much time on the side-characters. Gandolfini is good but I understand why they didn't hand him nominations which I expected.

6.5/10

The Act of Killing

Documentary dealing with the slaughter of communist "sympathizers" in Indonesia in 1965-ish.

Basically it's about those who did the slaughtering reminiscing about the time. They are at times almost bragging and at other times haunted. These people decide to make a movie reenacting the atrocities they perpetuated. Starring in the scenes.

The documentary follows them as they make the movie. Many of the scenes are jaw-dropping and heartbreaking. They enlist kids from the ghetto to "act" in scenes were they raid a village killing and terrorizing the inhabitants. They children are crying long after they yell "cut." One of the "actors" reminisces fondly about raping young woman during the time. It's a difficult doc.

It's more so a study of the human mind then about the slaughter of the communists.

So I was horrified after watching it. Then I read the reviews and criticisms which bring the up hypocrisy of the outrage when the U.S. has been involved in torture. Highlighting the years since 9/11. So I watched Zero Dark Thirty again. Makes for an interesting double-feature.

Don't want to get into here but was fascinating that I was horrified by the acts in The Act of Killing while for the most part fine with the acts in Zero Dark Thirty. At least the first time I saw ZDT while the second time I was questioning myself. Not saying the two are on the same level but in a sense it feels like splitting hairs when you are trying to put torture and killing on a spectrum.

That said The Act of Killing is a must watch. It's not so much entertaining more so something you should see.

9/10

 

[jdoggydogg]

Blue Jasmine

Another in a long line of excellent Woody Allen movies. Nice to see the actor that played Gyp Rosetti on Boardwalk Empire try a lighter role.

 

[VA703]

watched captain Phillips last night. entertaining film, not much of a rewatch value there. he definitely has a big pair to get in the boat with those pirates.. I cant even imagine how bad it smelled in there

 

[saintfool]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought.

i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

 

[Sarnoff]

The arena in the second film was arranged like a pie sliced into twelve pieces. Each piece had a specific trap that was contained within that slice (monkeys, blood rain, acid fog etc) by design the arena in the first film was not as structured but was just as easily manipulated by the people who controlled the game. The force field technology they used was touched upon in the film (moreso in the books).

Yeah, I got that part. But how come they could travel from one slice to another sometimes (to escape the fog) but not others (to escape the birds)? Was it just because they specifically wanted Katniss dead? If so, and if the "rules of the Hunger Games" allow them to target one player specifically, why don't they just keep trying to kill her? Why do people watch this thing if it's as fixed as wrestling?

 

[Sarnoff]

The trees are real, the birds, monkeys and terror dogs are all real. They never get into hard scientific theory of course but they frequently imply that DNA manipulation is pervasive and can be achieved rapidly. For example the "terror dogs" from the first film were actually spliced DNA from all of the dead tributes with some form of vicious canine species, at one point Katniss has this realization in the book because the "terror dogs" have facial features that are recognizable. The mockingjay (the glorified myna bird) was a genetically modified bird that, I believe, were created to transport messages during a previous revolt.

The arenas are pretty much live flora placed over a vast and technologically advanced structure, traps don't need to be static, they can be moved from any point to any other point as the game makers desire because the arena sits on top of that structure, kind of like the tunnels under Disneyland allow the park to shuttle VIPs throughout the park undetected (as well as transport the heart attack victims from the park without causing a ruckus).

There are some things that happen in both movies that seem to contradict this interpretation. I mean, the stuff just comes out of nowhere. It doesn't look like they're raising up the terror dogs from tunnels underneath the thing like when they raised up the tigers in the Colosseum to fight in Gladiator.

 

[jdoggydogg]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

 

[saintfool]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

 

[Usual21]

Thunderstruck

Kevin Durant should stick to playing basketball.

1/5

The mom was a MILF though.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Yeah I think a lot of people are confusing hate for the character as hate for the performance. Lawrence killed it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I think Amy Adams is really overrated. Lawrence? Loved her.

 

[jdoggydogg]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

 

[Chaka]

The arena in the second film was arranged like a pie sliced into twelve pieces. Each piece had a specific trap that was contained within that slice (monkeys, blood rain, acid fog etc) by design the arena in the first film was not as structured but was just as easily manipulated by the people who controlled the game. The force field technology they used was touched upon in the film (moreso in the books).

Yeah, I got that part. But how come they could travel from one slice to another sometimes (to escape the fog) but not others (to escape the birds)? Was it just because they specifically wanted Katniss dead? If so, and if the "rules of the Hunger Games" allow them to target one player specifically, why don't they just keep trying to kill her? Why do people watch this thing if it's as fixed as wrestling?

Yes they can deploy force fields pretty much to their hearts content.

The reason they wanted Katniss dead is...well that was kind of discussed at great length for over half the film.

 

[Chaka]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I agree that it seems like it does not know what kind of film it wants to be and it suffers because of it. But I don't see how there is any question that Adams and Lawrence both killed it. They were both excellent and I think Adams should be the front runner for the Oscar.

 

[Chaka]

I am surprised that more people in here aren't knocking O. Russell for the three party voice over (or was it four? more?).

 

[Sarnoff]

The arena in the second film was arranged like a pie sliced into twelve pieces. Each piece had a specific trap that was contained within that slice (monkeys, blood rain, acid fog etc) by design the arena in the first film was not as structured but was just as easily manipulated by the people who controlled the game. The force field technology they used was touched upon in the film (moreso in the books).

Yeah, I got that part. But how come they could travel from one slice to another sometimes (to escape the fog) but not others (to escape the birds)? Was it just because they specifically wanted Katniss dead? If so, and if the "rules of the Hunger Games" allow them to target one player specifically, why don't they just keep trying to kill her? Why do people watch this thing if it's as fixed as wrestling?

Yes they can deploy force fields pretty much to their hearts content.

The reason they wanted Katniss dead is...well that was kind of discussed at great length for over half the film.

I don't want this to turn into a HG-discussion thread. But to me, these points are still unexplained within the movie. I don't want to be told "read the book" after questioning the film. All the answers should be in the film. And I get they wanted her dead, I'm asking why they didn't just kill her with all their almighty powers. They could have just shot her in the head when she was in the capital. Have her dragged away like Lenny Kravitz never to be seen again. Why not? Are they afraid the people will revolt? Why would they fear that if they don't fear the same thing if they rig the Games to have the same effect (i.e., why would the people revolt if they killed her in the Capital, but not revolt if they killed her by changing the rules of the Games and then putting her in an inescapable trap that's an obvious fixed match?)

 

[Chaka]

The arena in the second film was arranged like a pie sliced into twelve pieces. Each piece had a specific trap that was contained within that slice (monkeys, blood rain, acid fog etc) by design the arena in the first film was not as structured but was just as easily manipulated by the people who controlled the game. The force field technology they used was touched upon in the film (moreso in the books).

Yeah, I got that part. But how come they could travel from one slice to another sometimes (to escape the fog) but not others (to escape the birds)? Was it just because they specifically wanted Katniss dead? If so, and if the "rules of the Hunger Games" allow them to target one player specifically, why don't they just keep trying to kill her? Why do people watch this thing if it's as fixed as wrestling?

Yes they can deploy force fields pretty much to their hearts content.

The reason they wanted Katniss dead is...well that was kind of discussed at great length for over half the film.

I don't want this to turn into a HG-discussion thread. But to me, these points are still unexplained within the movie. I don't want to be told "read the book" after questioning the film. All the answers should be in the film. And I get they wanted her dead, I'm asking why they didn't just kill her with all their almighty powers. They could have just shot her in the head when she was in the capital. Have her dragged away like Lenny Kravitz never to be seen again. Why not? Are they afraid the people will revolt? Why would they fear that if they don't fear the same thing if they rig the Games to have the same effect (i.e., why would the people revolt if they killed her in the Capital, but not revolt if they killed her by changing the rules of the Games and then putting her in an inescapable trap that's an obvious fixed match?)

I think there is a dramatic and obvious difference between a direct assassination in the Capitol and a possible assassination in a game where 23 out of 24 contestants always die.

Isn't there?

Maybe they don't explain the science sufficiently (then again I still don't know how light sabers work either) but on the issue of why Katniss was a threat I thought they were quite clear in the movie.

Spoiler

And they were also clear that they were going to try and break her before killing her. I believe the plan was to get her to turn on Peta before killing her.

 

[Sarnoff]

The arena in the second film was arranged like a pie sliced into twelve pieces. Each piece had a specific trap that was contained within that slice (monkeys, blood rain, acid fog etc) by design the arena in the first film was not as structured but was just as easily manipulated by the people who controlled the game. The force field technology they used was touched upon in the film (moreso in the books).

Yeah, I got that part. But how come they could travel from one slice to another sometimes (to escape the fog) but not others (to escape the birds)? Was it just because they specifically wanted Katniss dead? If so, and if the "rules of the Hunger Games" allow them to target one player specifically, why don't they just keep trying to kill her? Why do people watch this thing if it's as fixed as wrestling?

Yes they can deploy force fields pretty much to their hearts content.

The reason they wanted Katniss dead is...well that was kind of discussed at great length for over half the film.

I don't want this to turn into a HG-discussion thread. But to me, these points are still unexplained within the movie. I don't want to be told "read the book" after questioning the film. All the answers should be in the film. And I get they wanted her dead, I'm asking why they didn't just kill her with all their almighty powers. They could have just shot her in the head when she was in the capital. Have her dragged away like Lenny Kravitz never to be seen again. Why not? Are they afraid the people will revolt? Why would they fear that if they don't fear the same thing if they rig the Games to have the same effect (i.e., why would the people revolt if they killed her in the Capital, but not revolt if they killed her by changing the rules of the Games and then putting her in an inescapable trap that's an obvious fixed match?)

I think there is a dramatic and obvious difference between a direct assassination in the Capitol and a possible assassination in a game where 23 out of 24 contestants always die.

Isn't there?

Maybe they don't explain the science sufficiently (then again I still don't know how light sabers work either) but on the issue of why Katniss was a threat I thought they were quite clear in the movie.

Spoiler

And they were also clear that they were going to try and break her before killing her. I believe the plan was to get her to turn on Peta before killing her.

Well, if that's what they wanted, why did they rig the second trap to capture her, and only her, allowing everyone else to go through the force field, before what they wanted to happen happened? Why did they spring the first trap before it had a chance to happen?

There really isn't much explanation behind the science, nor is there explanation of the characters' motivations. They just do stuff, because plot.

 

[saintfool]

I am surprised that more people in here aren't knocking O. Russell for the three party voice over (or was it four? more?).

to me, it's an obvious strike against it and symptomatic of its narrative flaws.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Can you guys take to discussing on the finer points of Hunger Games to PMs or something?

 

[cosjobs]

Has anyone seen Spring Breakers? It looks terrible, but I've recently heard good things.

I thought it was quite good. But its not for everybody and certainly not what you'd expect from the title and promo art.

 

[Chaka]

Can you guys take to discussing on the finer points of Hunger Games to PMs or something?

No.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Can you guys take to discussing on the finer points of Hunger Games to PMs or something?

No.

OK thanks.

 

[Chaka]

Can you guys take to discussing on the finer points of Hunger Games to PMs or something?

No.

OK thanks.

NP

 

[cosjobs]

Saw Catching Fire last night. Felt like it was MUCH better than Hunger Games. You can tell that they pumped a lot more money into this one and it showed. Great performances all around, and a nice twist at the end. Good action sequences.

4/5

Spot on. The thing that I love about this movie is that even though the material could easily drift into "Twilight" territory, Jennifer Lawrence brings everything she can to the role. She could so easily just cash a big paycheck and sleepwalk through the film, but she really elevates the material. Love watching her work in almost anything.

I didn't see the first movie and I haven't read the books, but I really enjoyed Catching Fire.

That seems odd. I can see not reading the books but not reading them AND going to the second film without seeing the first? Seems like you really put yourself in a position to have little to no context.

Not like it was that cerebral

 

[cosjobs]

The Act of Killing

Documentary dealing with the slaughter of communist "sympathizers" in Indonesia in 1965-ish.

Basically it's about those who did the slaughtering reminiscing about the time. They are at times almost bragging and at other times haunted. These people decide to make a movie reenacting the atrocities they perpetuated. Starring in the scenes.

The documentary follows them as they make the movie. Many of the scenes are jaw-dropping and heartbreaking. They enlist kids from the ghetto to "act" in scenes were they raid a village killing and terrorizing the inhabitants. They children are crying long after they yell "cut." One of the "actors" reminisces fondly about raping young woman during the time. It's a difficult doc.

It's more so a study of the human mind then about the slaughter of the communists.

So I was horrified after watching it. Then I read the reviews and criticisms which bring the up hypocrisy of the outrage when the U.S. has been involved in torture. Highlighting the years since 9/11. So I watched Zero Dark Thirty again. Makes for an interesting double-feature.

Don't want to get into here but was fascinating that I was horrified by the acts in The Act of Killing while for the most part fine with the acts in Zero Dark Thirty. At least the first time I saw ZDT while the second time I was questioning myself. Not saying the two are on the same level but in a sense it feels like splitting hairs when you are trying to put torture and killing on a spectrum.

That said The Act of Killing is a must watch. It's not so much entertaining more so something you should see.

9/10

This is one of the gems Alamo Drafthouse secured rights for in the USA. THey're making some pretty sharp industry moves, imo

 

[Chaka]

Saw Catching Fire last night. Felt like it was MUCH better than Hunger Games. You can tell that they pumped a lot more money into this one and it showed. Great performances all around, and a nice twist at the end. Good action sequences.

4/5

Spot on. The thing that I love about this movie is that even though the material could easily drift into "Twilight" territory, Jennifer Lawrence brings everything she can to the role. She could so easily just cash a big paycheck and sleepwalk through the film, but she really elevates the material. Love watching her work in almost anything.

I didn't see the first movie and I haven't read the books, but I really enjoyed Catching Fire.

That seems odd. I can see not reading the books but not reading them AND going to the second film without seeing the first? Seems like you really put yourself in a position to have little to no context.

Not like it was that cerebral

I totally agree but the resolution of the games in HG1 were kind of pivotal to the plot in HG2 and they didn't really recap that in any kind of detail.

 

[KarmaPolice]

holy Hunger Games fest

 

[Kenny Powers]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

Havent seen AH, but I can see what youre saying based on what Ive read. That said, I didnt feel that way about Three Kings, thought it knew exactly what it was and was great and even now 15 years later pretty unique. Surprised you havent seen The Fighter or SLPlaybook. Both are Im assuming much more streamlined than AH, and IMO excellent all around.

I also hated Huckabees. At this seem, to me thats Russell's only thing close to a swing and miss, and for me it was a big one. Love Flirting With Disaster, arguably my favorite Stiller flick.

 

[Kenny Powers]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

 

[Kenny Powers]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I think Amy Adams is really overrated. Lawrence? Loved her.

In Hustle, or in general?

 

[Kenny Powers]

I am surprised that more people in here aren't knocking O. Russell for the three party voice over (or was it four? more?).

Thats because Karma Police hasnt seen it yet

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

She was vile and disgusting and an all-around horrible person...which is to say, she was perfect.

 

[Kenny Powers]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

She was vile and disgusting and an all-around horrible person...which is to say, she was perfect.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I am surprised that more people in here aren't knocking O. Russell for the three party voice over (or was it four? more?).

Thats because Karma Police hasnt seen it yet

#### me, I DID want to see this one.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Has anyone seen Spring Breakers? It looks terrible, but I've recently heard good things.

I thought it was quite good. But its not for everybody and certainly not what you'd expect from the title and promo art.

Yeah, the director's an indy darling, apparently.

 

[jdoggydogg]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

Stone was outstanding in that role.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Bad Grandpa:

It had a couple laughs, but I much prefer the Jackass movies. It is better to have a variety of stupid #### to chuckle at instead of spending time with the kid and Grandpa all movie. Could have been trimmed quite a bit, as I didn't think most of the time with just those two were funny at all - just get with the pranking people already. 5/10

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2:

Not bad for a sequel. Still had the odd humor of the first, and I enjoyed the island and the Jurassic Park nod. Not as good as the first, but still some family fun to be had here. 6/10

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane:

Just OK - typical slasher with a mild twist. Typically people watch slashers for some T&A and inventive kills, and I thought it lacked in both. Combine that with the low budget, and I think you can pass on this one. 4/10

Sightseers:

Decent entry for the comedy/horror fans. Won't say too much about it, but fans of stuff like Grabbers, Tucker and Dale, etc.. might end up liking this one too. 5.5/10

 

[El Floppo]

Just saw Captain Phillips.

Considering I remember the story pretty well, I don't know why I was expecting more- but I was. Thought everybody did their jobs well- it moved along well enough- but I guess I didn't buy the complete hero/stoic lead as true. Even with guns in his face, he's doing what he's supposed to be doing without any show of fear. Might be the case, but it had the smack of teh protagonist being the main source material provider. I guess I was missing any emotional attachment to what was going on. And dammit- I wanted that seal team to dive right onto the boat... at night.... without parachutes.

 

[Kenny Powers]

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane:

Just OK - typical slasher with a mild twist. Typically people watch slashers for some T&A and inventive kills, and I thought it lacked in both. Combine that with the low budget, and I think you can pass on this one. 4/10

Do they? I mean, there's plenty of T&A on the interwebs so I havent tried to watch a movie because of that since I was like 14. Inventive kills are always a bonus, but you never know what youre getting in that department before you start watching it.

I wouldnt consider this a pure slasher either, but a big part of why I enjoyed it was because I thought there was more to the story and character development than your typical horror. I also thought the twist was great and didnt really see it coming.

 

[KarmaPolice]

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane:

Just OK - typical slasher with a mild twist. Typically people watch slashers for some T&A and inventive kills, and I thought it lacked in both. Combine that with the low budget, and I think you can pass on this one. 4/10

Do they? I mean, there's plenty of T&A on the interwebs so I havent tried to watch a movie because of that since I was like 14. Inventive kills are always a bonus, but you never know what youre getting in that department before you start watching it.

I wouldnt consider this a pure slasher either, but a big part of why I enjoyed it was because I thought there was more to the story and character development than your typical horror. I also thought the twist was great and didnt really see it coming.

for me, any originality it had was offset by the low budgetness. I see it on a lot of best of list for horror for 2013, so I guess I am in the minority. same goes for "you're next".

I get what you are saying about slashers, but why do people gravitate to them then? usually very formulaic. very few scares. I guess more than others of the genre you have a baddie people watch for - a lot of icons of horror. yeah, I am too old to watch a movie to see some ####, but what you highlighted are reasons I still like a decent slasher- they are a bit more 'fun' than other movies of the genre. sit back, turn your mind off and watch some bad guy pick off usually dumb and half naked poeple off in usually amusing ways.

 

[jamny]

The Family - unfortunately it's a forgettable film. I fast forwarded through most of the second half. I guess it's saying something that I cared how it ended at least. DeNiro, Pfeiffer and Tommy Lee do a decent job with what they are given but it's just not worth anyones time. My expectations might have been too high. 2/5 and that's probably generous.

 

[Statorama]

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane:

Just OK - typical slasher with a mild twist. Typically people watch slashers for some T&A and inventive kills, and I thought it lacked in both. Combine that with the low budget, and I think you can pass on this one. 4/10

Do they? I mean, there's plenty of T&A on the interwebs so I havent tried to watch a movie because of that since I was like 14. Inventive kills are always a bonus, but you never know what youre getting in that department before you start watching it.

I wouldnt consider this a pure slasher either, but a big part of why I enjoyed it was because I thought there was more to the story and character development than your typical horror. I also thought the twist was great and didnt really see it coming.

for me, any originality it had was offset by the low budgetness. I see it on a lot of best of list for horror for 2013, so I guess I am in the minority. same goes for "you're next".

I get what you are saying about slashers, but why do people gravitate to them then? usually very formulaic. very few scares. I guess more than others of the genre you have a baddie people watch for - a lot of icons of horror. yeah, I am too old to watch a movie to see some ####, but what you highlighted are reasons I still like a decent slasher- they are a bit more 'fun' than other movies of the genre. sit back, turn your mind off and watch some bad guy pick off usually dumb and half naked poeple off in usually amusing ways.

You guys should give Behind the Mask : The Rise of Leslie Vernon a watch. Interesting take on the horror slasher genre.

 

[KarmaPolice]

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane:

Just OK - typical slasher with a mild twist. Typically people watch slashers for some T&A and inventive kills, and I thought it lacked in both. Combine that with the low budget, and I think you can pass on this one. 4/10

Do they? I mean, there's plenty of T&A on the interwebs so I havent tried to watch a movie because of that since I was like 14. Inventive kills are always a bonus, but you never know what youre getting in that department before you start watching it.

I wouldnt consider this a pure slasher either, but a big part of why I enjoyed it was because I thought there was more to the story and character development than your typical horror. I also thought the twist was great and didnt really see it coming.

for me, any originality it had was offset by the low budgetness. I see it on a lot of best of list for horror for 2013, so I guess I am in the minority. same goes for "you're next".I get what you are saying about slashers, but why do people gravitate to them then? usually very formulaic. very few scares. I guess more than others of the genre you have a baddie people watch for - a lot of icons of horror. yeah, I am too old to watch a movie to see some ####, but what you highlighted are reasons I still like a decent slasher- they are a bit more 'fun' than other movies of the genre. sit back, turn your mind off and watch some bad guy pick off usually dumb and half naked poeple off in usually amusing ways.

You guys should give Behind the Mask : The Rise of Leslie Vernon a watch. Interesting take on the horror slasher genre.

one of my favorite horror movies of the past decade. on the line of scream- has something to say about the genre at the same time as being a solid entry into genre.

 

[Statorama]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

It's a pretty thankless role. Personally, I thought it was an unneccessary distraction to have that character "cannonball" on what was an otherwise outstanding gangster film.

Stone did what she could with it. She may have been a tad "over-acty" but not the giant bag of bad that most make her out to be. It may be more of a case that she'd built a foundation of intelligent characters and no one bought her as the crazy addict and **** hound that would get manipulated by a pimp (you want to talk limp acting in Casino, there's your huckleberry).

 

[Daywalker]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

It's a pretty thankless role. Personally, I thought it was an unneccessary distraction to have that character "cannonball" on what was an otherwise outstanding gangster film.

Stone did what she could with it. She may have been a tad "over-acty" but not the giant bag of bad that most make her out to be. It may be more of a case that she'd built a foundation of intelligent characters and no one bought her as the crazy addict and **** hound that would get manipulated by a pimp (you want to talk limp acting in Casino, there's your huckleberry).

Think Casino falls off when it starts to focus on De Niro and Stone's relationship in the last act. It's not that she's bad just that the movie falls off. She's just the marker for when it does. As mentioned Woods is the fish out of water in that pic.

 

[jdoggydogg]

"american hustle" last night with the gf. some nice performances - specifically Bale, as you would expect - but didn't feel it as especially good. solid "C" from me here. it felt flabby in its pacing, despite a plot that was constantly pushing forward, and a left me bored some of the time. i think it was very confused about what kind of film it was, what story it wanted to tell, and, more importantly, whose story it wanted it be. this is kind of the same problem he had with "three kings", i thought. i haven't seen russell's "the fighter" or "silver lining playbook" but i'll give them a go. like a lot of people, i kind of hated "I heart huckabees" despite a very game cast. i'm thinking his early work - "spanking the monkey" and "flirting with disaster" - might be his best stuff.

I heard this movie described on NPR the other day as a black comedy. I think that's a perfect description, and the film is being marketed more like a Scorsese drama.

i think it suffers from that a bit. however, i still don't think it has really any idea of what it wants to be. i am really surprised by the love from the critics, especially regarding some of the performances. i though both lawrence and adams kind of stunk.

I was blown away by Lawrence's performance. I hated her character after about 3 minutes of screen time, which is impressive for an actress who is so likeable.

Please tell me you think Sharon Stone was great in Casino and youre not one of those inbreds in the Goodfellas vs Casino thread that think Fellas is clearly better because Stone ruins Casino. Dont disappoint me, Homer.

It's a pretty thankless role. Personally, I thought it was an unneccessary distraction to have that character "cannonball" on what was an otherwise outstanding gangster film.

Stone did what she could with it. She may have been a tad "over-acty" but not the giant bag of bad that most make her out to be. It may be more of a case that she'd built a foundation of intelligent characters and no one bought her as the crazy addict and **** hound that would get manipulated by a pimp (you want to talk limp acting in Casino, there's your huckleberry).

To me, Stone's character is a perfect metaphor for Las Vegas. So I didn't see her role as superfluous at all.