Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Movies: Talk About What You've Seen Lately--Part 3 Movies: Talk About What You've Seen Lately--Part 3

03-05-2017 , 08:35 PM
I just watched Scott Walker: 30th Century Man, very interesting. I liked his old covers of Jacques Brel a lot better than the avant-garde stuff he's doing now tbh. Also I think by focusing solely on the music you kind of miss the story of him as a man, a very weird eccentric man who was a minor pop music star in the late 60s and has been a recluse ever since. Like what the **** was he doing with all that time if he's only making a weird album every 10 years? I suspect he was probably drunk most of the time!
03-05-2017 , 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimore Jones
How much of a problem is it if I haven't seen any prior X-Men or Wolverine movie?
I haven't seen any prior X-Men movies and watched Logan. You don't really need to know any history to enjoy it. Having said that I thought it was only okay/good. Maybe a 7/10 movie, while everyone in here is raving about it. So maybe, by not knowing X-Men that well, I missed what made it awesome.
03-05-2017 , 08:37 PM
Your Name (Anime, 2016)

I first heard of this movie in this forum (don't remember if it was here or in OOT), the highest grossing anime film ever. The cinematography is amazing, the backgrounds seem more like paintings than traditional animation, specially during the country landscapes.

The movie has a slow start and feels like never reaches its full potential, and ends up as a teenage time travel comedy/drama; but the quality of the animation make me continue watching.

Overall a good movie, but if you are not a fan of classic anime or time travel (not sci-fi) you can skip it.
03-05-2017 , 10:37 PM
I'm halfway thru Everything Must Go. This sucks. Gratuitous fat black kid "friend" sucks, pregnant neighbor lady sucks, the depressed unemployed drunk living on his front lawn sucks. Why should I care? I don't care.
03-06-2017 , 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Just watched it. It wasn't good. Beatty had it right the first time.
I haven't seen Moonlight but La La Land was pure trash
03-06-2017 , 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchu18
Part 2 was "the Suck!"
amazingly bad... not even "mailed in" bad, just outright bad.


------------------------------------------------------

to wash my brain, I watched Runaway Train again... so elite.



The live action train shots alone are worth the price of admission.
Thanks, now that's a real movie, probably better than any of the 2016 nominees. Oscar "Manny" Manheim, great character.


Sara: You're an animal! Manny: No, .....worse! Human. Human!
03-06-2017 , 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fidstar-poker
I haven't seen any prior X-Men movies and watched Logan. You don't really need to know any history to enjoy it. Having said that I thought it was only okay/good. Maybe a 7/10 movie, while everyone in here is raving about it. So maybe, by not knowing X-Men that well, I missed what made it awesome.
I think it is possibly not as impactful without having seen at least the original trilogy. Logan is a man that has lost everything that he has ever cared about multiple times. Fundamentally he is a character that has the ability to heal everything except the traumas of his past. The relationship between Logan and Charles is also probably undeveloped and difficult to properly understand without having more knowledge of their back story.
03-06-2017 , 02:41 AM
I think what's most interesting and poignant about Logan is that he's virtually indestructible and survives almost everyone he loves...plus, he still feels the pain of being injured, and the pain when his body regenerates and heels himself. It's basically torture.

I never read the X-Men comics, but I've seen most of the movies...Wolverine is the only character that resonates with me on any level. He's just interesting.
03-06-2017 , 03:31 AM
Yeah, Logan was pretty good. 4/5
03-06-2017 , 03:56 AM
Purely from an acting perspective, is there any reason sci-fi/fantasy films tend to get ignored when it comes to the major awards?

So for example, in 2003 is Sean Penn in Mystic River versus Depp in PotC. I'm a big fan of both the book and the film adaptation of Mystic River, but I just don't see how Penn is that great in the role - it was certainly great casting, but I didn't see what was great about the performance.
03-06-2017 , 04:01 AM
Mystic River is so amazing. As for the awards issue, it is not overly mysterious. It's called connections and PR.
03-06-2017 , 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
I think what's most interesting and poignant about Logan is that he's virtually indestructible and survives almost everyone he loves...plus, he still feels the pain of being injured, and the pain when his body regenerates and heels himself. It's basically torture.

I never read the X-Men comics, but I've seen most of the movies...Wolverine is the only character that resonates with me on any level. He's just interesting.
Well, there's a reason they didn't make 12 movies about the guy whose skin turns to diamonds.
03-06-2017 , 04:03 AM
Penn was great in Mystic River imo.
03-06-2017 , 04:22 AM
As was Tim Robbins and they both snagged the Oscar.
03-06-2017 , 04:26 AM
I think PotC's biggest award was getting a ride at Disney Land. Go Johnny go go go.
03-06-2017 , 04:29 AM
Wasn't the film based on the ride?
03-06-2017 , 04:35 AM
I think you're right. The timing of my visit to DL made me think the other way.

But, notwithstanding all of that, Mystic River was in almost every category but for the special effects stuff a better movie and deserving of the acting Oscar wins.
03-06-2017 , 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Penn was great in Mystic River imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R*R
As was Tim Robbins and they both snagged the Oscar.
I agree they wee both great, especially Robbins - I'm certainly not hating on Penn's performance.

What I'm saying is they had some really great source material to work with. Depp didn't.

I think you could have put any number of actors in those two roles in Mystic River and they would have had a decent chance of at least being nominated due to the strength of the source material.

Penn fit the role of Jimmy like a glove. Robbins I feel had far more scope in how he interpreted his character, but both were great performances.

I just feel there are a lot of good performances in fantasy that get overlooked. LotR for example - I think Sean Astin could have been nominated. Perhaps Sean Bean as well (although that was again great casting).

Quote:
Originally Posted by R*R
But, notwithstanding all of that, Mystic River was in almost every category but for the special effects stuff a better movie
03-06-2017 , 04:47 AM
Your points are completely valid and I do agree that the type of movies you are referring to are often undervalued at Oscar time. That is why, even though the Oscars are the "mainstream" award recognition, they often get it wrong. I don't think they got it wrong with Mystic River.

Here in The Lounge you could have gained some notoriety and recognition for the characters you like if you had joined the GOAT character thread. Johnny could have easily fitted very well in that thread.
03-06-2017 , 04:52 AM
And yeah LotR. Some amazing characters.

Once the draft I referred to is done come and post some of your favorite fantasy characters that weren't selected. That would be awesome!
03-06-2017 , 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by R*R
Here in The Lounge you could have gained some notoriety and recognition for the characters you like if you had joined the GOAT character thread. Johnny could have easily fitted very well in that thread.
Subscribed - I'll take a read through later, but if Depp hasn't been nominated, then I might put him up - I can think of at least a dozen fantasy characters I'd have ahead of him, but he's pretty easy to defend in an essay
03-06-2017 , 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimore Jones
How much of a problem is it if I haven't seen any prior X-Men or Wolverine movie?
Not much. You can infer all you need to know. It is probably slightly less enjoyable with less backstory but you will know what's going on.
03-06-2017 , 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kioshk
I just watched Scott Walker: 30th Century Man, very interesting. I liked his old covers of Jacques Brel a lot better than the avant-garde stuff he's doing now tbh. Also I think by focusing solely on the music you kind of miss the story of him as a man, a very weird eccentric man who was a minor pop music star in the late 60s and has been a recluse ever since. Like what the **** was he doing with all that time if he's only making a weird album every 10 years? I suspect he was probably drunk most of the time!
I loved that documentary... so much so I immediately went out and bought the entire walker LP catalog.

In totality, Its definitely out there.
03-06-2017 , 02:12 PM
This one is pretty great.

03-06-2017 , 03:52 PM
Why do we love wolverine?

I think, and I can only speak for myself, that the main reason of my personal fondness for the logan character is... he has frigging adamantium blades that come out of his hands!

I don't find his personal plight much of a Shakespearian saga no matter how much they try and make it so.

To which I have to add... I have not yet seen Logan.

      
m