I might like Nolan's movies more if I it was somehow possible to block out everyone else's opinion on them. The excessive praise for the faux-intellectual depth of his films is irritating.

The Dark Knight Rises - I did not hate this. As of now I liked it, possibly moreso than I would like the previous two films if I saw them now. I think it was a fairly well-told story, and was a refreshing difference in terms of plot elements from the usual superhero stories we see that star famous characters, including the first two movies in Nolan's trilogy.

Didn't have a problem with action scenes.

A little bit too long, especially the end game; a problem with most films. I wasn't really bored though.

The way that Bane takes over is a little bit too logistically ridiculous, requiring Wayne Enterprises to have made essentially a magical energy source that can be weaponized. The cops being trapped for months also seems ludicrous. These are minor points really from a plot standpoint, but they are potentially problematic when we look at the film's political messaging.

Politics here, like with my prior comments on TDK, might be bad. To the movie's benefit, the political implications are somewhat tangled and complex such that it's difficult to figure out just what it's saying (if anything) 14 hours out without having read anything about it.

As to a comment about people not wanting to hear about politics with their movie talk: these films (TDK, TDKR) have strong political dimensions to them that are clearly intended by the authors. To NOT discuss them would be absurd.

Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - I don't know if either of these hold up as terrific movies to modern sensibilities. B&C is touted as being groundbreaking for violence and other reasons, but this no longer applies. There is definitely some interesting (and more relevant than ever) stuff on media coverage, but as a whole I just didn't find it to be all that engaging (second viewing, I think first was on VHS in the late '90s).

BC&tSK relies largely on the charisma and screen presence of its stars, and this too has faded a bit with age imo (not the case for all old stars). There are weird anachronisms with music and a bit with the characters (they feel like 1960s Paul Newman and RR, not 19th Century people), and while this may have been fine in the '60s, it makes it feel more dated now. (Second viewing, first on DVD circa 2001.)

It's by no means a bad movie, but there are probably dozens of Westerns I'd watch over it.

butch and the kid is still awesome tho I think I prefer the sting for my newman n redford fix.

The Sting is a movie I could watch 100 times and still enjoy. "Do ya see that man over there Floyd? His name's Danny McCoy."

Although I think I prefer The Sting as well, they actually both made my list in the other thread of favorite picture from their respective years.

The Hustler imo

And for another old star, Robert Redford GOAT. Could watch Three Days in the Condor and All is Lost on repeat

I think they were discussing films with both Newman and Redford in them together, not individual Newman films and individual Redford films.

The Hustler may be my pick for best Newman film too though. The scene where George C. Scott lectures him on 'character,' is so great, and should be especially loved by a fourm ful of people in the gambling world.

Ah, I see my error. I thought the pairing was incidental to the movie selections.

Colossal

I'm not sure I liked this movie, but I didn't lose interest all the way through.

It may have ones of the most weird story lines I've seen on the big screen.

It seemed to struggle between being a drama and a comedy, without nailing either one.

I didn't really like the end. Not so much the end result, but how they got there.

Having said that, it was entertaining and completely original.

The Circle

Man this was... Not good. But let's start with the good first - Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton (RIP). Mild spoilers below

From Paxton's first moment on screen he's completely perfect as a simple Central California father dealing with MS. The man was a great actor and will be greatly missed.

Tom Hanks has such charisma. It's what makes him such a joy to watch. He's got this ability to convey hope and optimism in his voice that I just love. That skill is well used here as he plays the CEO of the titular Facebook like social network, The Circle. His idealistic speeches to the company come off quite well.

Now for the bad. Virtually everything else.

Emma Watson's character journey is particularly poorly done. We see her go from wary and privacy conscious to "transparent" in the wake of one event. The her thinking on privacy is pretty incoherent from here on out. Her character's big moment in her rise inside the circle is pitching an idea that is both bad and incoherent.

One of the most interesting characters exists solely to be a Deus ex machina.

The conflict in comes entirely from showing the downsides to lack of privacy. There's a half-hearted attempt to make the circle out to be the bad guys but none of the actions taken are ever visibly nefarious or underhanded. The filmmakers don't do a great job of plumbing the depths of the issue instead staying surface level and superficial.

Patton Oswalt is completely wasted. His role is basically to stand around looking dower.

I really enjoyed A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and had hoped this movie adaptation of Eggers other novel would be better.

Enjoyed the hell out of Patriots Day. Was better than expected. Loved how they handled the subject matter. Informative, respectful, and kept me glued to the screen. The **** that happened in Watertown....just crazy. Well done, Marky Mark.

Born in China

Went to see this to burn up a freebie. I was hoping it would compare to Disney nature films I saw in the 50s.

I thought it was pure drek. The photography wasn't that vibrant or interesting, and the anthropomorphized animals didn't ring true. Strangely, I loved the ending credits which were a documentary on making the film and were quite interesting.

Give it a pass

Lady Macbeth

This is an adaptation of a Russian novel that was inspired by Shakespeare but does not have anything to do with the play. Katherine Lester is a bored young woman, married to a domineering, loutish husband. She is expected to stay indoors and do nothing other than eventually bear her husband a child, except that he can't get it up.

Perhaps the title is too much of a giveaway, because we all expect that the protagonist of a movie called Lady Macbeth won't remain a passive victim for long. But that just demonstrates how successful the film is - there's a constant mix of grim satisfaction and horror in watching her ruthlessly take control of her life. Florence Pugh is absolutely excellent as Katherine, perfectly conveying the transition from oppressed wife to dangerous tyrant. By the end of it, Lady Macbeth makes Dorian Grey look like a sweet innocent.

Viewed Autumn spring (2001), a Czech Film, last weekend. Very good. No one spoke English. In essence, a terminal prankster wins in the end. Made me smirk. This movie is not a waste of your time.


Autumn Spring

While my wife has been out of town back in Ohio visiting family for the past few days, I've been enjoying taking my computer to bed at night and watching old favorites on WatchTCM until the wee hours of the morning. Over the past few nights I've watched Oceans Eleven, Mister Roberts, and In the Heat of the Night. Tonight I have two picked out: one is a guilty pleasure I haven't seen for quite some time, and the other one, frankly, I'd never even heard of before until I came across it on the TCM website.

The first one is Robyn and the 7 Hoods, which I believe was the final Rat Pack movie. As I said, I haven't seen it in quite some time, so my memory may be a little faulty, but I do remember enjoying it a lot. Not that its a great picture by any means, but I've always enjoyed the Rat Pack, be it on screen, or even just audio recordings of their Sands act from back in the day.

The other movie I intend to watch is a 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon. I had no idea that this version existed and I'm curious as to how it will compare with the classic 1941 version that everyone knows (and no doubt loves) so well.

And lest you think I'm stuck in the 1930s - 1960s, I'm already set to turn my brain off and purchase my tickets to Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2, this weekend! I was never much of a Marvel comics person as a kid or an adult, and had never even heard of GOTG before going to see the first movie after hearing so much about it, but I have to admit that it was a helluva lot of fun and I've been looking forward to the sequel ever since.

I've seen it. It's interesting as an artifact, but there's a reason they were called "B" movies...

Definitely was interesting. The acting style still had remnant's of the silent film era, but overall wasn't atrocious. And speaking of eras, you could definitely tell that this was a pre-code era film as well with all the implied sex and nudity. The actor who played Sam Spade, Ricardo Cortez, was more of a matinee idol type and played the role as a much bigger womanizer in this film, and as such, I actually didn't miss Humphry Bogart in the role as much as I thought I would. In fact, the only actor who I found I really missed was Sydney Greenstreet. Of course, the direction and the production as a whole can't compare at all with the 1941 classic. Speaking of which, I guess this is one of those rare examples where a remake is far superior to its original.

I ended up falling asleep before being able to watch Robin and the 7 Hoods, so that will be tonight's late-night movie. (Reminds me of the early days of tv and the weekend "Late, Late Movie" which was usually the last thing on before the National Anthem, station signoff, and test pattern. I'm sure some of the younger posters have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, lol.)

This is a good breakdown of why his action scenes are messy and difficult to follow.

Haha, i know which video that is as soon asI saw that still frame.

Yeah, dont like Nolan action scenes one bit though the rotating hallway scene in Inception was ok.

I don't know what you guys are talking about...I've never had any problem following Nolan's action scenes. Now Michael Bay has no clue how to shoot one, that's for sure.

Interesting video although several parts which he says don't make sense do make perfect sense. Especially the ending jump sequence.

Dom,

The action scenes in Transformers 2 were shot better than anything Nolan did with action in the Batman series.

lol No.

In the Transformers movies, you can't see where you are spatially to the giant robots. You can't even tell which robot is which as they fight. Sometimes the humans are far from the action, sometimes they are right underneath the action. It's a total mess.

Now, I didn't like the last Nolan Batman movie very much...it had story issues...but I can't fault his visual style or action geography.

Movies and Music in May: a write up about the important films, t.v. shows, and music releases for this month.