Hardship is no justification for hatrid... justification is merely a reason why.

Dignity is far different.

I didn't say it wasn't 'sympathetic', and I'm not expecting it to take an anti-american bent, but I didn't expect the stock drumbeat 'our guys are so good at their job' militarism that you see in a lot of hostage/rescue movies. I suppose that's what it comes down to, as far as I was concerned it was a better version of these boilerplate hostage films that we're all so used to and didn't deviate too much from the script. So much so that the un-likeable ******* real-life Phillips who cut corners and put himself and his crew in danger to save money is rewritten to be this brave soul who you have to love. Maybe I'm being too harsh on it because I expected something extraordinary for the 95% rating it's been given.

Upside Down

My hopes were a little high as the NPR film week guys seemed to like it. I might have liked it a little if my expectations were lower. It's mainly just a love story and not a great one. I wouldn't have had a huge problem with the plot holes or implausibility (after giving the film it's premise), but there isn't much else. I guess it looking really good/interesting was the main thing and that's not enough imo.

I didn't dislike the film for political or ethical reasons. I liked Zero Dark Thirty quite a lot more f.ex even though it's all about how awesome torture is. I also loved Argo (one of my favourite films last year) despite having a strong dislike for the C.I.A and American foreign policy.

TheCroShow

You are a terrific poster around here and I really enjoyed "Film Writing - This is What I Do". It helps that you're also a Canucks fan.

I understand you use the qualifier "based on fact" so you are correct but I thought it was worth mentioning that it appears the "facts" are in dispute:

http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/captai...on-a-true-lie/

Our Idiot Brother

Perfect Sub-Par Sunday flick. The movie is just pleasant. It’s the film version of a baseball player content to simply get on base. Paul Rudd carries the movie with his likable persona of a guy who’s “idiotically” trusting, like a dog that takes you at face value. The supporting cast are all good, but this is the kind of movie which sinks or swims on the charm of it’s protagonist. You know exactly how it will end up, but it’s ok because sometimes you just want to end a movie with a smile. 7/10

Contagion

Soderbergh is a phenom. He’s not one to swing for the fences with each at-bat (Hello, Scorcese), instead he’s just game for interesting stories, and telling them in a style which seems to say “I just want to get out of the way so you can enjoy story time for 90 minutes”. The only odd man out was an unfinished strand with Marion Cotillard’s character. Other than that, it’s a fine film, and a scarily accurate depiction of how vulnerable we are to getting cut off at the knees with a sneeze. This isn't a story of "could this happen?" This is a story of "when this happens, this is how it will go down." 8/10

Side Effects

Another solid film in a similar stylistic strain as Contagion. It feels like the kind of film that is more at home in a hitchcockian post-WWII studio system. Mysterious setup, well paced follow-through, confirms Channing Tatums eyes are too close together, nice left-turn kink in the story, and ends with a satisfying payoff. 8/10

Enough Said

This is the kind of romantic comedy I can get behind. When it’s funny, it doesn’t seem like it’s trying, because it’s not that funny. It’s endearing without pulling too hard on the “awwww” strings. It’s also the kind of role James Gandolfini should have played more often. He was so much more than Tony Sopranos, or any other of his many hard-ass characters. Julia Louise-Dreyfus nails the cute and self-aware kind of awkward single mom, and is matched perfectly with the supporting cast (kudos to Ben Falcone and Tavi Gevinson). Little things in the movie work just so well. The dynamic between the characters hits several marks (hurt, anger, funny, quirky) without needing to take them to “Set course for epic. Engage!”. For example, the dinner scene where Julia’s ex-husband is introduced has all the elements that other movies/tv shows have in similar scenes, but treats it with more delicacy. There’s the friction between her and the ex. Cattiness with the new wife, teenage angst, friends participating in a communal argument, but none of it is drummed up too much. Its played like it actually happens in real life, where discord is felt, but not on any BS operatic level. The ending was also perfect. 8/10

Re: Avatar. Add me to the dislike crowd. I hated the story even though I was pretty virulently opposed to the war in Iraq and am pretty environmentally minded. They just beat you over the head with their message. Great CGI, nothing else I liked.

Which takes us to last night's viewing of Gravity. Unfortunately, I let myself get thinking about, "is that the way things really work in space?" and trying to figure out if the science was wrong rather than just enjoy the spectacle.

This is not to say the two are on a par. I thought Gravity was also a much more interesting movie as well as the visual side being great. I just couldn't suspend disbelief enough to be totally into it.

I must say, though, when it ended, I looked at my watch and was pleasantly surprised 1:45-ish had passed. So I guess it kept me rapt enough to be into the movie, but not 100%.

Pretty good storytelling with essentially a cast of one.

Overall, I'd say an enjoyable movie, definitely worth a watch.

This is by far the best words I've read about Our Idiot Brother. Spot on man! I told a guy it felt like they put my soul in a nice toasty oven and cooked it to perfection. He seemed a little weirded out by that statement haha

Far from perfect film but it's so damn charming and pleasant to watch. I think it's Rudd's best performance. The charades scene caught me by surprise and had me all choked up. I'm saddened by the fact that those two hippy characters do not run the candle shop in real life. Maybe they do? Heh

+1. This movie didn't get much love when it came out but I really liked it as well. It certainly didn't unfold as I expected (and I mean this in a good way). In particular, Jude Law and Rooney Mara were good in this.

Gravity

This is a lot harder for me to review than your typical movie.

Where it's strong (the cinematography and CG) it's exceptional, to the point of being a masterpiece in those areas. To me it's about on par with what the first Jurassic Park did in it's day, CG-wise, as far as setting the bar. Only with vastly more style, clarity, and [extremely] long continuous shots that were tastefully done.

Where it's not strong (the story and characters), it's just cheesy, cliche, predictable and just very shallow. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are two astronauts. I can't tell you much about them, and don't really care about either. Clooney was the same Clooney he's been in just about every character he's ever been. And I know there are people raving about Bullock but I must have failed to see whatever they did. Characters aren't really a big part of this movie.

I don't want to spoil the story but honestly there's not much to spoil. Like at all. If you're seen the trailer you know the setup. I kind of expected a lot of flashbacks, some sort of character development, or just something to make it all more meaningful than just a desperate survival action movie.

I guess it all comes down to what you require out of a big blockbuster-type movie. For my part I don't mind buying tickets purely for a visual eye-candy movie, and at that regard it delivers everything I think you could possibly ask of a (mostly non-scifi) space disaster movie. It's just one of those where you just have to see it and ideally on the big screen. However some people may want to see real characters and more than a super-simple plot. They tried to throw a little in with Clooney-ness and another cringeworthy radio bit but not really.

A movie that comes immediately to mind in comparison is Apollo 13, given the similar circumstances. But it's the differences between the films and not similarities make me compare them. Where Gravity is a visual spectacle and empty-ish character- and story-wise, Apollo 13 was the opposite. And while I think the design of Gravity deserves every award it's going to receive, the latter ****s all over it as a movie. I've see that a few times and not sure I'll ever watch this again beyond a few minutes here or there when channel surfing.

Usually I'd put a letter grade on it but again, it's all what the viewer values for their ticket price. It's unquestionably an A+ movie visually and great technical achievement, so if that's enough by itself then yeah must see and on a good screen. The rest is a C- if that, and I'm disappointed that such a high level of work had so little meat to the story. This potentially could have been an all-time classic had they put more into that end of it.

And while I'm a big astronomy fan, the realism issues didn't bother me. It's basically a given that any movie made about something you're very familiar with will be off in some ways obvious to you. Military movies, poker movies, and so on. Given what you typically see in space movies I'd definitely give this one a pass. Pretty lol with everything being so conveniently nearby so I get it but I don't know how the action would work otherwise.

Bullock's body still smoking also

2+2 is rife with realists. Whether it's a TV show ("it's too convenient that the Nazis let Walt park his car exactly the way he wants") or a movie ("space stations wouldn't be so close together"), it's almost impossible to discuss either medium without some chucklehead chiming in in with, "But that's not realistic!"

Who gives a ****? It's DRAMA. Not realism. Even The Freakin' Bicylcle Thief is not realistic, you know?

You want realism, watch C-Span.

A-f*cking-men

+2 on this, cant believe I am agreeing with all of you.

The realism issues center around (I don't really know if this is a spoil or not so I'll put it in tags)

There's a time and a place for movie realism, for me a film about a woman floating around in space isn't that time or place. I understand that some people are nittier in this regard and see things differently and that's cool.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend after we saw Peter Jackson's King Kong. He said it bugged him that they didn't show how they got Kong into the ship after capturing him. He couldn't figure out a reasonable process by which that could be done.

A 70-foot tall gorilla, however, he had no problem with.

This would so be a legit debate on 2+2.

Exactly. It's about believability, not realism. I often wonder about the ultra-realists and wether or not they'd really appreciate the dramatist addressing every single logistical detail related to the story. Like your friend and King Kong. I bet if they stopped the momentum of the story to play out a fifteen minute scene where the crew discusses the best rope and pulley system to get Kong on the ship, he would have walked out afterwards and said "movie was cool, but wtf at that fifteen minute scene trying to get Kong on the ship?" Or maybe not. Maybe some people will always believe Huell is still waiting for Hank in that hotel room, unless they're specifically told otherwise.

Hmmm, it really depends. A lot of unrealistic stuff in movies people complain about is just really inconsistent even in a fictional universe or so heinous it is ultimately distracting. Minor stuff that COULD happen and is just unlikely like your examples are generally nittery I agree. But often unrealistic stuff results in big plotholes and usually they were wholly unnecessary. It's not that it isn't realism that's the issue, its that we need coherence in the plot, story, characters and in the rules by which the film plays.

This x 100.

Read a review on Gravity and once the bloke started giving off because the womans hair failed to appear correct according to the laws of physics I stopped. Who seriously gives a ****? She floats, yeah that's realistic enough. My viewing experience is not going to be ruined because her hair did not conform to the laws of space and time.

These complaints come off so stupid. It's like the person is saying "hey I know that gravity is weak in space. Aren't I smart?"

As if having a 6th grade understanding of science is something to brag about.

Neil Degrasse Tyson's twitter rant came off just like this. I normally really respect him but he was way off on this.

Now I can really like some storyless art sometimes, but just being great cinematography isn't enough. I think, for me, there has to be something else and usually it has to be a great score.

How's the music in Gravity?