Penny Can

Home Entertainment Center => Now Playing: Movies => Topic started by: Chiprocks1 on December 24, 2011, 08:22:17 am


Title: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on December 24, 2011, 08:22:17 am
Post the latest movies you just saw at the Multiplex here.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 29, 2011, 08:53:13 am
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011) (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04star.gif)

6 bucks well spent. Thoroughly enjoyed the ride. It was good to see Brad Bird do well with live actors. We already know he can do well with stories (The Incredibles - The Iron Giant - Ratatouille). I think the biggest turn for 4 is making Cruise work with a team, in the sense it's not all about him. The other characters held equal balance here and made this a very engaging flick.

A must see.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on December 29, 2011, 09:00:19 am
Wow. Just...wow. I had very little expectations for MI4.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 29, 2011, 09:05:36 am
Quote
Wow. Just...wow. I had very little expectations for MI4.

Well hopefully that make it an unexpected surprise and that much more fun for you to watch.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on April 14, 2012, 02:52:20 pm
Cabin In The Woods (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_03halfstar.gif)

OK, that was different. Very different.  I knew that going in, I just didn't know what to expect. The best way I can put it, is, it's a mash-up of several different genre's. I really can't describe it, because one, it's hard to describe ( I can only imagine what they must of done to sell this to the studio's), but two, I don't want to give away spoilers. Talking about any of it would give up the fun ride.

I liked it because, you have no idea what is going to happen next. And Cabin In The Woods takes so many twists and turns and liberties, you just have to hold on tight and hope you don't get lost in the maze.

There was actually quite a bit of humor thrown in. An amazing balance of terror, gore, sexiness, and unpredictability.

It is a thinking movie, but it does tread a thin line of absurdity and believability.

Bottom line... it entertains.

I recommend seeing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWnPVOSZKg

This guy Jeremy Jahns does somewhat what I was trying to say and not give away spoilers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzkTNsb3tj8
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 14, 2012, 02:58:16 pm
I'll give this a shot when it hits DVD.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on April 14, 2012, 03:35:13 pm
The one sheet makes sense now
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 10, 2012, 01:26:35 pm
Prometheus (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04halfstar.gif)

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111208192237/avp/images/e/e2/Alien-_Space_Jockey_Prometheus_Trailer_Locandina_Ridley_Scott.jpg)

Finally.... worth waiting for... like I had a choice  :P

I believe it lives up to the hype. I wasn't disappointed in any way. Not perfect, but dayum near. I won't give away any spoilers but this spin control of trying to say it's not a prequel to Alien... well, I guess we need to discuss what prequel means.

Many scary and disturbing scenes. Lots of surprises as well. We did see the 3D version. That was done well, but honestly there's only a few scenes where it truly becomes immersive. The sets were spectacular. The characters.... well some were outstanding, but several were completely background noise.

Excellent use of sound. I'm sure Ridley Scott made sure that was all part of what he wanted to bring to the screen.

It's interesting to see how the movie get to the image above. I believe that was the core seed of thought for Ridley Scott. Who, why, when and what were the space jockey's doing?

See it on the big screen. And then buy it when it comes out on DVD. I'm sure it will still be just as effective on the small screen.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 10, 2012, 01:29:06 pm
Big crowd? Lots of people?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 10, 2012, 01:39:22 pm
Noon show.... about 20-30 people. I still think our B&B is a hidden treasure. If though it's been there awhile, it's not the go to place... yet.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 10, 2012, 01:40:52 pm
Just to be on the safe side I'm gonna wait a week or two.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 25, 2012, 09:53:01 am
The Guilt Trip (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04star.gif)

Despite not fond of paying theater money to go see drama or comedy, this was a fun movie to watch. Get out of the cold, away from the crowds. Barbara and Seth have chemistry as the strained out son and the over-bearing Jewish mother. What really made this was the consistent comedy throughout. It didn't bolt out of the gate and then lose steam. It just stayed funny.

I know the movie deliberately pulls at the heart strings, but that's OK. The end is a beautiful little twist I didn't see coming and just wrapped things up nicely.

Definitely recommend. It will appeal to all ages, men and women.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FMQLzOq1i4
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on May 07, 2013, 08:16:07 am
Oblivion (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04halfstar.gif)

Oblivion is the current Sci-Fi Post apocalyptic action film starring Tom Cruise from the director Joseph Kosinski, who provided the sequel Tron: Legacy. Written by Kosinski, this is a well thought out, mind bending story. I donít want to talk too much about the story because itís all tightly woven together with elements that would spoil the initial viewing. Kosinski expertly leads you down a story that slowly reveals the secrets, to the final punch at the end. This is a thinking manís story, because it does not spoon feed the answers. The sets and props are gorgeous where appropriate, the scenery is immense, and the action is well paced. A positively fun experience watching things unfold. I highly recommend Oblivion if you have any leanings toward action, sci-fi or a love story. Yes, the backbone is the immense love, that drives the characters to continue.

Next in line for Tom Cruise is yet another Sci-fi, from the graphic Novel, All You Need Is Kill.

Joseph Kosinski just announced, will be working on the 2nd sequel to Tron

Now, we will have to wait and see how two more Post apocalyptic films pan out this year. Elysium with Matt Damon and Jodie Foster and After Earth with Will and Jaden Smith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmIIgE7eSak
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 01, 2013, 05:50:32 am
World War Z (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_03halfstar.gif) 3-1/2 stars

Letís say I was hesitant going into World War Z for many reasons. Mainly because it was PG-13 and that it would be a watered down version of what I should expect from a zombie flick. I was pleasantly surprised to be presented a fun entertaining, and at times, a tense film. This movie is really chopped up and which is not a big deal. It does involve locations all around the world, so thereís little time to spend time with the transisitons in scene changes. The pace was very good. It pretty much starts off with a bang and doesnít let up.

World War Z pretty much follows the 28 Days Later zombies. Itís more of infection than a return of the slow lumbering living dead. Some transitioning into zombies in about 12 seconds. I did have one issue. In their enthusiasm to present fast hordes of zombies, zombies somehow developed better than human actions. Leaping and running like superhuman. Having superhuman strength, etc. While it was subtle, it stood out to me.

The characters were all good, despite most of them being in the background. Brad Pitt and his wife stand out, the rest come and go.

There were plenty of tense scenes, but most we have seen before. I did roll my eyes at the clichť scene of protagonist who HAVE to sneak through and be super quiet to not alert the zombie horde. Well guess whatÖ yep, not once but 4 times accidentally make loud sounds. I get thatís little bit of script generates a lot of tense action, but itís been done time and time again.

Again, all minor annoyances, in the context of it all. At the end of the day, I was entertained. I wanted to see lots of wild action on the big screen and I got it. There really is no end to this movie, thus highly suggesting sequels. I will probably not go to the theater to see the sequels. Pitt has suggested there will be sequels and some folks think, they will incorporate more things from the book. Apparently very little was brought from the book for this flick. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPGUtytMUk8
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 01, 2013, 06:00:05 am
I didn't realize this was PG-13. Ugh. Well, there is always the 'Director's Cut' that is sure to be on the DVD. Knock on wood.....
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 01, 2013, 07:23:41 am
Quote
I didn't realize this was PG-13. Ugh. Well, there is always the 'Director's Cut' that is sure to be on the DVD. Knock on wood.....

I would not count on that. I believe this was going to be fully realized as PG-13. I don't think they edited out gore, language or more.
I could be wrong. There was one particular nasty scene where you knew what was going on but the camera placement and editing did not show anything graphic. What zombies you did see were pretty good. Nowhere near the detail as in The Walking Dead

On a side note, the theater experience this time was very decent. Lots of tweens in the theater and stupid talking, crackling of candy wrappers, blah, blah, blah before the movie started. But once it started, it was quiet.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 01, 2013, 07:25:32 am
But once it started, it was quiet.

Maybe they read your rant on Penny Can and were afraid of you.  ;D
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 07, 2013, 11:20:00 am
White House Down (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_03star.gif)

I'll keep this short, sweet and honest. This is a Roland Emmerich film. Nuff said. It has his trademark all over it. This is a summer big screen event with lots of over the top action. Mindless fun, with tongue in cheek. I don't know why it's getting slammed except for bad timing, that Olympus Falling was just some weeks earlier.

Oh well. It was lots of fun to get away from the heat.

I recommend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Dnvay5S7w
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 22, 2013, 01:10:09 pm
The Conjuring (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_03star.gif)

As we speak, the Conjuring by James Wan (Insidious, Dead Silence and the original Saw) is one of the top films this week, with lots of great word of mouth. I loves me some scary, especially the kind that is creepy. Iím so over slasher movies now. Anyway, The Conjuring is well done

ButÖ

Iíve seen it all before. There is so much old school scenes here, it just felt like been there, done that through the entire movie. Iíve seen far more creepy films recently with Mama and Women In Black. There were plenty of jump scares, and thatís fun for a moment. But none of it was new to me.

It probably did not help at all that the trailer revealed a lot of the jump scares. I knew 90% of what was coming just by the scene set up. I walked out somewhat disappointed. It could have been so much more. They only touched on pieces that could have made this really memorable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k10ETZ41q5o
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 27, 2013, 09:10:54 am
Wolverine

I'm not going to rate this because it would be unfair.

My son won some tickets for Thursday premiere and gave me a ring to see if I could go. I just wanted to do something with my son. That was cool and we did have a good time.

I did go in with an open mind, but I still found it silly and boring.  Seriously, in the middle there was way to much talking and drama. I did not know it would all take place in Japan. I would say that was a nice change up from the typical New York or LA location. They pushed all kinds of the Asian traditions, which I guess was trying to bring some depth.

The action scenes were decent, but waaaaaaay over the top. Especially the fight on top of a bullet train. Some humor sprinkled throughout, but it could have used a lot more.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh1LdTFkm7I
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 27, 2013, 09:15:50 am
I've heard nothing but great reviews and many consider this to be the best incarnation of Wolverine yet. It doesn't hurt that they took the story from Chris Claremont's iconic run of the same name either.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on November 27, 2013, 03:02:51 pm
Ender's Game (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04halfstar.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVlgzbuqsn0

It's been a looooooooooong time since I read Ender's Game. I usually don't read Sci-Fi, but I heard a lot of good stuff about it.

So it's freezing outdoors, and I invite my son to go with me. He read my book. I know the premise, but there sure was a lot of stuff I had forgotten about. But as the movie moved along, some things slowly came back to me. From what I remember and understand, Ender's Game is very faithful to the book... and it shows. This is truly a gritty, realistic (for sci-fi) large scope entertainment piece. To think this was written in 1985, it translates very well to current times. I am so glad they did not hollywood this up with sappy relationships. Kill or be killed. And these are 12-13 year old kids defending our world.

You can probably tell, I was very impressed with everything about it. The pace, the editing, the storytelling, the characters all fleshed out very well. I just saw Moises Arias a couple months back in The Kings of Summer and he stood on his own in a very different and unique way. He does it again here. A 180 if you will.

I highly recommend Ender's Game. It's thinking man's sci-fi. This I would consider my Star Wars. I hope they continue with a lot more.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on November 27, 2013, 04:49:10 pm
I can't believe how short this thread is... I guess it just shows where we do most of our movie-watching, eh?

I'm really curious to see the R-rated version of The Wolverine-- I gotta put that on my queue.

Ender's Game I liked but they rushed through so much of it, there was sort of a checklist-y feel to it, the second they knew they got something, they moved on.  There was also this problem that I'd been thinking about well before the movie came out: how do you show time passing in space?  There's no day, no night, no seasons... so it's hard to avoid things feeling like they're happening in the span of a few days, which I felt happened in this movie.  I'm not going to give them too much guff about it, because what can you do about it?

One thing I loved about Ender's Game-- the look.  THAT'S what Star Trek should have looked like.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on January 19, 2014, 09:42:54 am
Quote
I can't believe how short this thread is... I guess it just shows where we do most of our movie-watching, eh?

Yes... I'm falling into that category more and more. Going to see Gravity yesterday didn't help. $22 for the wife and I, because of the added surcharge for the 3D. Also I get so easily frustrated with the other patrons. Loud ass folks eating popcorn and candy and such. Gaaaaaaaaaaaawd. I guess I especially aware because the theater needs to be absolutely quiet, particularly in the beginning, where they are driving home the point.... space, sound doesn't travel. It is absolutely mouse quiet in the beginning and people eating their popcorn and tearing open packaging was 'deafening'.

Gravity (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_05star.gif)

Gravity was re-released to theaters this weekend, I guess based on Oscar buzz and this is truly one those films that needs to be watched on the largest screen possible. I imagine it will be fine when it get's released for the home screen, but recommend the big screen.

Gravity is stunning on every level. Visuals aside, this movie instantly sucks you in and it is a non-stop ride. It never lets up.

What makes Gravity stand out, for me, is how real it is and could be. Everything here could have happened. IMO, this is NOT science fiction.

Gravity has only George Clooney and Sandra Bullock with a couple of disembodied voices (NASA).

I highly recommend this for anyone. It is high drama set in near space.

Note: We saw this in 3D. Did not have a choice. Not terribly impressed. There was a scene or two where I said, wow, 3D, but I don't think it added anything to the experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4

Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on February 03, 2014, 07:28:59 am
I looked back at the post about Gravity (http://pennycan.createaforum.com/movies/gravity/msg21331/#msg21331) and we talked about intensity. Yea, it stayed pretty intense through the whole thing.

*****************

But funny thing that just now hit me. The beginning of the movie, text pops up about how space is a vacuum and sound does not travel. I just realized when all chaos goes down, it's quiet, only with respect to stuff hitting, blowing up, etc. Looking back in memory of the flim, it just seems odd. But I'm sure it's very realistic (compared to sci-fi movies with loud explosions, sounds, etc)

The music still explodes with intensity and we can hear the astronauts yelling
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on February 11, 2014, 10:50:54 pm
Saw The Lego Movie.  This is the second time the theater played the audio slightly too softly for me (the other time was [i[The Hobbit[/i]), so naturally I missed part of it when I had to go out to tell someone.  They didn't fix the problem.  It was pretty cool, I'm not flipping out for it like everyone else is, probably in part b/c I wasn't totally engrossed, and I saw enough promo material to see where everything was going.  There were still some pleasant surprises that I won't spoil here, but... it was actually a pretty amazingly done movie, and it's definitely one of those ones worth pausing and poring over all the details, there's tons of little details all over the place.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on February 11, 2014, 11:04:01 pm
Theaters NEVER have it loud enough for me. Back when I was an active movie-goer, THIS was a constant issue with me and I lost count of how many times I had to go and complain to get the manager to fix the problem. After awhile, I just stopped caring and I just stopped going and wasting my money on what I considered to be a very poor moving-going experience. It was this issue that lead me to getting my first Home Theater set up with a 500 Watt Sub. Don't have problems anymore with the audio.  ;D
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on February 11, 2014, 11:11:58 pm
I'm getting to that point, not just b/c of the sound (more of an issue that the previews are too loud and too long and I don't give enough poops), but the price and the screen size issue: I'm getting tired of the smaller theatrical screens. I have a small TV at the moment (well, bigger than any TV I used to have, it's maybe 17 inches) but I can always go bigger, I have my headphones on so I can have it as loud as I want (and I want it loud, clown!)... I like being pampered with my media.  Now if we can get those virtual glasses things working right, then we'll REALLY be cooking with gasoline.  If gasoline still exists then.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on February 11, 2014, 11:17:46 pm
With my TV on it's last legs, I'm ramping up my choices of what to get. Whatever brand I settle on, it will be a minimum 42 Inches. Price will dictate how much bigger I will go from there. The sets I've seen at Target are really enticing and they had a couple of 50 Inch Sets well within my price range.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on February 11, 2014, 11:20:03 pm
Nothin' wrong with an older model.  I'm constantly dreaming of a bigger screen with motion smoothing at least as an option.  Is it sad that when I think of my dream apartment, I'm focusing on the table and the TV?  I feel like if the goggles were good enough I'd be like Wade in "Ready Player One," just shaved smooth with goggles and a laptop in a hotel room with the windows blocked out.  Spoilers for Ready Player One.  Also, if you haven't, read Ready Player One.  Now THAT'S how I want to experience movies.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 16, 2014, 09:33:04 pm
Just ordered a whole buttload of movie tickets for the film festival.  Got a bit expensive but whatever, it's once a year.

There's gonna be days where I'll just be LIVING in that dang theater.  Gonna take my sketchbook with me this year so I can note down all my thoughts between showings instead of trying to retain it all in my head like an idiot.

I'm REALLY excited for one flick, "Before I Disappear," I had NO idea that it existed-- a feature-length remake of the wonderful short film "Curfew" that one the Oscar a couple years ago.  Totally psyched to see that.  Got some very high expectations.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 16, 2014, 10:17:00 pm
What film festival is this? And don't forget to take pics and post em!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 16, 2014, 10:46:32 pm
Nashville Film Festival.  I'm taking my camera but I'm not sure what I'm going to get a picture of.

NINE DAYS of programming.  I'm in for 7.  I'm trying to see the stuff that might not get distribution.  So a lot of shorts.  And my sister worked on two movies, "Boulevard" with Robin Williams (and Bob Odenkirk, I was so jealous when I found out) and The Identical, which is in rush so I might not be able to get tickets.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 17, 2014, 05:46:02 am
Very cool. Have fun with that. I'm sure you're gonna have a blast!! :)
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 18, 2014, 10:12:31 pm
Before I Disappear

(http://www.indiewire.com/static/dims4/INDIEWIRE/2dfa919/2147483647/thumbnail/680x478/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fd1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net%2F0c%2F2f%2F113f65e1495dbe6067265b4dcdd4%2Fbefore-i-disappear.jpg)

Unfortunately, there isn't a trailer for this one yet, but dang, this was good, and I don't want to say too much about it because I don't want to ruin it and I have an early day tomorrow (ten in the morning, what am I, amish?), but the film follows f*cked-up drug addict Richie's suicide attempt is interrupted by a call that his straight-laced sister has been arrested and she needs him to pick up his niece and take care of her.

The filmmakers followed the formula and style of the original short to a T (why wouldn't you, it won an Oscar!) and it's insane how accurate the film is to the original, there are shots and whole sequences that look like they could have been lifted out of the original (but they couldn't have, since the actress had grown up a considerable bit between filming the two).  And of course, they kept the scene where she dances in the bowling alley (the SAME bowling alley), which I'm happy about b/c it was one of my favourite moments in the original.

I'm pretty darn sure this is going to get some kind of release.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 19, 2014, 05:26:43 am
How many films do you have lined up for today?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 19, 2014, 06:00:21 am
Three programs of short films in the afternoon.  This morning I have a workshop thing about auditioning.  Should be interesting.

Oh god, the short films last night, some were good, some weren't, but some *sshole made a last-minute change in his film and didn't check the finished product off the edit bay before submitting it (I assume a different copy made it through the selection process) because about three minutes into the movie, the audio and video go out of sync by a WHOLE MINUTE.  And the characters would spend all this time talking and then not saying anything, so you had silence with their mouths moving and dialogue with their mouths shut.  We had to sit through the whole thing like that.

So the first big thing I learned from the festival this year is ALWAYS WATCH YOUR EXPORTED FILE THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH BEFORE SENDING IT OFF.  I didn't ask any of the filmmakers who were there yet if they did this (because I didn't want to be a snarky *sshole), but I guarantee everyone in that showing will do that in the future.

BTW, both movies I've been to so far, someone asks me if I'm a filmmaker.  I must have that vibe.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 19, 2014, 06:07:34 am
I anxiously await the moment I get to sit down and watch your stripper movie. So, you're already a film maker whether you agree with that or not, even if you haven't shot a roll of film yet. As for the film that went out of sync, it's something that gets under my skin, one that would have prompted me to get up and walk out. I wouldn't have wasted my time on a film if the director had done quality check on the final product. You clearly have more patience then me.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 19, 2014, 10:59:01 pm
Well, there were more shorts after that.  And amazingly enough, it happened AGAIN in two more programs.  It's nuts.

I will say, the OMG WTF movies this year weren't as WTF as I remember, they used to be really nuts.  Normally it's the home to really messed up stuff, the sort of films that are like part of a recovery program for people in mental hospitals and it shows and it's awesome, but we didn't have much of that this year.  Now we did get to see Michael Cera empty his p*ss bag into a toilet and wipe it off on his hands, Amanda Seyfried feed a dog to a guy, Sammy Davis Jr give an HJ to a dying fat guy hooked up to a life support machine, and Michelle Rodriguez staba  guy in neck with a dart, but it was TAME.  It was so tame, man.  There was one time we had a short film that I think was literally trying to drive you insane and shorts that were so clearly induced by drugs YOU needed to enter a 12-step program.  But that's all slowly going away.

The kids shorts, "Grow Up Already," those were good, a little on the... not on the mature side, but it was ABOUT kids, not necessarily FOR kids.  Which made it feel a little awkward because this little girl was sitting next to me... literally, THIS little girl was sitting next to me...

(http://www.nycastings.com/Media/Profile/50483_P.JPG?nocache=yvo2vpy)

...and every time someone would curse (which was often) or a character cut themselves intentionally or anything like that (which there was plenty of), I kept checking to make sure she was okay.  And the cutting thing I mentioned before, it was part of this film that had some really f*cking creepy ghost crawlies that pulled out people's eyeballs and stuff and climbed on walls and turned into big clouds of soot, and you KNOW she's never going to remember the film but she will NEVER forget those freaking demons crawling on the ceiling.  They'll lie low, lurk somewhere in the back of her memory and chill until she's a teenager and a random passing association will bring it all back and she will see these horrible things and have no idea why.

Anyway, this girl, Amelia, was IN one of the movies, not just IN but the main character, totally silent performance, she was good, but I was just fascinated by HER, I was talking to her from the moment she sat down until the first film started and I just couldn't wrap my head around it, you know?  "Oh, so was this made by someone you know, or...?" "No, I'm a professional actress." "How old are you?" "Eleven." Jesus!  And her little sister was sitting next to her, I asked "is she an actress too?" and Amelia just goes "no."

This is the trailer for the film she was in, and she was still that tiny today.  And I had to see her watch a movie where a beached whale gets cut up.

http://vimeo.com/67931501

I spoke to a couple other young actor/actresses today and it's so WEIRD, especially compared to what *I* was like when I was 11 or 16, me, I'd want all evidence of my teenage years erased, like juvenile records they should be sealed, and they're not just letting it all out there, but they're so professional and career minded it's MIND boggling to me.  I feel so old AND immature at the same time!

Amelia, the little girl, asked me if I was a filmmaker, as did SO many people that I spoke to, and I just now say "writer," they ask "are we about to watch yours?" "No, I don't have anything this year."  And I get this vibe of... you know when you're in a band performing at a show and the audience is just the other bands?  I feel like the short film makers are expecting that, and that kinda sucks.

You know, I'm getting cards and I'm making connections, which is awesome, so hopefully when the time is right to do a little project I can be like "hey, what if we did this?" and get a lot of "yeah, let's do that!" 

I went to a audition panel and, dude, I'm a decent looking guy and I was rocking the jacket and was looking d a m n fine if I may say so myself, I went into that room and I was the ugliest dude by a MILE.  WOW.  I've never been amongst more photogenic people in my life.  And tall, I was talking to one girl, Ryn, after the show, I thought she was seventeen, eighteen... she was thirteen and she was taller than ME!  VERY few girls are taller than me.  It was strange.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 20, 2014, 04:49:27 am
Great review dude. Thanks for the update. I know there are genuine film lovers like yourself that go to festivals for the joy of discovery. But festivals by nature are really just a place to network with other like minded people looking to sell or find work. So, I think it's only natural that everyone in attendance expects the person next to them to have "something" up on screen that day. Speaking of which, did you know that the kid next to you was in the movie you were about to watch? Or were you just making small talk about the festival and then realize the kid next to you was THE star once the film began and do a double take?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 20, 2014, 08:09:18 am
I knew, she told me.  In fact, other people were recognizing her and congratulating her, they must have seen it in advance or something like that.  But there were so many people there who were getting stopped and chatted up and photo'd with and I didn't know who any of them are (I think there's another film fest going on, so we're not getting any of the big celebs).
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 20, 2014, 07:08:25 pm
As for my stripper movie, I started prep a year ago (around festival time), so where I am now with it is WAY ahead compared to anything else I worked on in the past.  I had an insight into how to fix the ending, and I have to fill in some spots, then I think it's ready for some friend review.  It's tricky because I want to make sure guys love it, but I also really want to make sure girls love it, and not just b/c a lot of script readers ARE female, but something that they'd get together and watch, like I think Flashdance was, Dirty Dancing was...

I sent the first 25 pages to my friend Natalie to get a read on what she thinks, it's probably the darkest and most off-putting stuff, so if that works, then I just gotta nail the ending beats.  Then I think I'll be open to some feedback.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 22, 2014, 11:29:04 pm
Okay, I'm still trying to figure out how to describe Art War... I must relate its' awesomeness to you.  But in the meantime, here's what else I saw...

(http://www.winnipegfilmgroup.com/images/uploads/Moving.jpg)

A Story Of Children And Film
This was an okay movie... I was kind of expecting it to be more like Miss Representation, but it was more like a collection of great moments from great movies in which children are protagonists.  Okay, that's fine.  And a lot of the movies are classics and some of them are rare.  That's great.  Unfortunately, the thickly-accented Scot who made the movie can't stop f'ing talking to let us actually experience the scenes!  He speaks throughout the WHOLE. THING.  It's really annoying because his voice is TOO loud in the theater and just... it isn't a great narration voice.  It's a fine voice, but, you know, there ARE professionals who do this, who are more pleasant on the ears when it's two hours straight.  Also, he breaks a fundamental rule of voice over by DESCRIBING WHAT'S ON THE F*CKING SCREEN!  We KNOW what's on the screen!  It's one thing to give us some context, that I get, but let us watch the freaking scenes!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNyjfMZ5-gM

OJ The Musical
I knew this was going to be bad, but I got a ticket anyway for one reason: Larisa Oleynik.  I don't think I've ever actually seen her on the big screen, but she glows up there, man.  She's so cute and sweet.  And actually, everyone in the supporting cast was good, and the movie did a great job of recreating the visual aesthetic of the Christopher Guest movies.

Unfortunately, it's not as funny.  AND the worst part was that the lead, Jordan Kenneth Kamp, was just an unlikeable, unwatchable jerk.  And he's the focus of EVERY GODD*MN SCENE.  EVERY SINGLE ONE.  You CANNOT get away from him, and you want to SO bad.  And what's amazing is that, at the end, he can sing, he's wonderful, but I'm sick of him at that point.

The ticking clock is manufactured and nonsensical.  The protagonist is unlikable and I don't care if he succeeds.  And he overpowers the cast every chance he gets, it's HIS movie and everyone else GETS to be IN it and I hate that.  And like I said, Larisa Oleynik is really good.  The best friend, Malcolm Barret, I don't know if I'd seen him in anything before but I liked him a lot.  I wanna see him in more stuff.  You know who else is in the film?  Todd Barry and Paul Scheer.  I love them.  What do they get to do?  Nothing really.  F*ck. That.

And what's worse is that these problems are an easy solve.  In the Christopher Guest films, we follow three throughlines: in Best In Show it's the three dog couples, and in a Mighty Wind it's the three bands.  And this movie HAD the perfect way to set that up: it was three childhood friends reuniting, they should have had equal time.  Not only would this cut down on Kamp's screen time (I feel like if he wasn't the focus, I would have liked him more), but it would give all the side characters more to do because we would also get to see them around Larisa and Malcolm, and they would get to do more because they'd interact with those characters differently than they would with Kamp, who's a weird-o liar.

But honestly, the script just wasn't that funny because I didn't find Kamp that funny, I don't remember laughing much, the premise just reminded me too much of Hamlet 2... ugh, the amount of comedy movies in recent years that I've actually laughed at is so low.  I saw plenty of people walk out, and honestly, the only reason I stayed was because of Oleynik.  Cards on the table, I have a role I'm writing that I want her to play (NOT in the stripper movie just in case you're reading this, Lar) and I wanted to make sure she still had it and she totally did.  If it wasn't for her, I might have left.

Oh, you know who else was in this movie?  Crab Man, from "My Name Is Earl."  I haven't seen him in ages.  Had nothing funny to do or contribute to the film.


(http://blacksheepreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/animalproject_01.jpg)

The Animal Project
I got a ticket for this one because it reminded me of a story from My Dinner With Andre, about these actors going into the woods.  IN this flick, it was about a group of actors who decide to go out for one day in these big animal costumes and see how it affects them.  And it does.  It's interesting, very low-energy, feels kind of real (outside of one guy apparently being bi all of a sudden)... uh, it's definitely something to watch if it pops up on Netflix, especially if you're into acting or self-exploration or quiet drama, but I can see how it wouldn't work for some people.  I guess I liked it.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 23, 2014, 10:10:45 pm
The Identical

(http://i2.wp.com/artsnash.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/the-identical-04-e1397740224192.jpg?resize=600%2C400)

The premise is simple: Elvis' long-lost twin brother's life story.  Actually, it's not Elvis, it's an analogue of Elvis named Drexl Hemsley.  Yeah.

It was.... better than I thought it would be, but the opening just annoyed the heck out of me.  I just didn't like it, it was Christianity on overload and I just felt that you can't possibly hope to nail the scene where parents decide to give up one of their kids, they could have skipped it and had us slowly discover the truth with the main character, that would be fine.

The other thing that annoyed me was the voice-over.  It was grating, just a loud annoying fake southern accent, and it was mostly there to describe what we were seeing.  We didn't need it, and it undermined a couple scenes: for example, when the dude goes up on stage for the first time, it doesn't matter if "rock and roll was born that night," it just matters that the moment is important for HIM, and we can TELL that without having someone flat out TELL us.

The dialogue was just... very flat, it was people saying exactly what they needed to say.  Now, this annoyed me, but Titanic had the same problem and that's one of the most popular movies of all time, so maybe it's a personal annoyance.  It just didn't feel inspired, there was no subtext.  The filmmakers cited "The Notebook" as a reference in the Q&A afterwards and I wasn't surprised, it was THAT level, and I just felt like... they could have fixed that.

Of course, the movie got picked up, so who the f*ck cares what I think?

I will say that the music was very good.  They wrote about 30 original songs for the movie and did a dang good job recreating the feel of Elvis.

Now, here's the f'ing crazy bits.

As you can see from the picture above, the lead looks JUST like Elvis.  Well guess what, he was THERE.  And he saw my sister and walked up to us and gave us a "Neumann!" like from Seinfeld.  Seriously, that happened.

Now that dude was good in the movie, the movie had a good cast, but I kept wanting to turn to my sister and ask "you know Ray Liotta?" "You know Seth Green?" "You know Joey Pants?" on and on and on.

Oh, by the way, my sister and my mom were talking CONSTANTLY throughout the movie.  I felt uncomfortable because there was a dude sitting next to me who kept looking at them because they were distracting him.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 24, 2014, 02:18:20 am
Haha. You need to put your Sister and Mom in their place. Out in the car, if they are going to talk throughout it all! Talk (pun intended) about getting an earful for you! They talk and talk and you still have to deal with sh*tty narration all night long. I think everyone that ever decides on using narration should be forced to hire Morgan Freeman, even if the story says otherwise! Just sayin'. I'd say out of the movies you mentioned, I'm interested in checking out The Identical. I'm a sucker for anything Elvis-related.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 23, 2014, 06:15:48 pm
(I feel like we need a sticky thread of misc movie news, little things about movies that aren't important enough (to us) to warrant a whole thread).

Okay, I just saw a photo from A Million Ways To Die In The West... d*mn.  Oh d*mn I wish I hadn't seen that.  I had BETTER forget that by the time the blu-ray comes around (cause I ain't seeing it in the theater) because... oh, that would have blown my mind if it hadn't been ruined.  Oh god.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 23, 2014, 07:59:13 pm
(I feel like we need a sticky thread of misc movie news, little things about movies that aren't important enough (to us) to warrant a whole thread).


Feel free to start a thread and name it accordingly. Does make sense to small information type stuff. I'll sticky it.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 29, 2014, 11:13:48 pm
I finally got around to seeing [i[X-Men: Days Of Future Past[/i]... I wanted to see it on the biggest screen before it got displaced (which meant 3D b/c I'm not paying full price for a small screen, screw that sh*t).  But oh man, I dug it.  i haven't seen the 3rd X-Men since it came out (and I've tried my best to forget it because it was garbage), I didn't see the Wolverine flicks (my dad gave me the last one on Blu-Ray, but the rated version and I never swapped it out, it's still in the plastic), and I don't really remember First Class (and my hearing aid didn't work, so I didn't REALLY see it when I saw it) so... it feels like an eternity since I was in the X-Men world.  X-2 was the last solid point for me, really.  So almost ten years later, seeing them all come back, ugh that was great.  And now the effects, if you've seen the Sentinel bunker attack clip online, THAT'S the X-Men I remember from a kid, now the movies can REALLY show them.  You take that, you bring in the original movie X-Men and then the best bits of First Class, it's almost like a singularity film, which I think is really great.  It feels like that core is back.  Not the core cast, maybe the core ideals, but that center, that indefinable thing that makes the X-Men movies the X-Men movies.

Something I'd have to rewatch and check, but I thought was cool, was that the future stuff matched the original movie style, and the past sort of matches the Matthew Vaughn style.  And I feel like... they did SOMETHING to the Lower Level set when they rebuilt it, they might hvae made it a lighter colour, because it looks like the one in the original but it also does feel like something that would be "futuristic" in the 70s as well.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 30, 2014, 05:17:07 am
I'm very much looking forward to X-Men: Days of Future Past. I will no doubt Buy the DVD when it drops for sure. I'm a fan of the series. As for both Wolverine flicks, they aren't perfect, but they delivered for me for the most part. And about X-Men: The Last Stand, I too avoided the movie forever based on what people were saying. I had to go back and re-read my review to understand why I dug The Last Stand (http://pennycan.createaforum.com/dvd's-blu-rays/x-men-the-last-stand-(2006)/msg11304/#msg11304) and having done so, I kinda want to watch the movie again.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 30, 2014, 04:34:22 pm
I'm darn certain I'll be buying the Blu-Ray... right after I get some other blu-rays I want.  The Wolverine thing, though... I only want to see the Unrated version, which naturally isn't the one I have.  Darn darn darn.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 30, 2014, 05:06:56 pm
How long do we have to wait for an all-in-one DVD set that collects ALL MARVEL flicks into one nice shiny package (XMen, Captain American, Iron Man, Thor, Avengers, etc..............................................................)?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 30, 2014, 06:03:52 pm
Well, they made that Phase One briefcase dealie when the Avengers Blu-Ray came out.  But obviously that doesn't work cross-styudios (it's why Firefly and Serenity will never be packaged together officially.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on June 06, 2014, 05:36:41 pm
I saw "The Edge of Tomorrow" ... today!  I totally dug it, though I'm not big on war (and the idea of living through that over and over is my definition of h*ll, which is partly why I don't believe in it), the movie worked pretty d*mn awesome.  I heard it described as "video game: the movie" in the best possible way (and totally works the idea of "success is 99% failure) , and it totally works on that level.  But video games, you can turn off, you can take a break.  Here?  There's no escape.  I don't want to give anything away about it, but definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

Totally made me think of Starship Troopers as well, the suits they were totally remind me of the suits they were meant to be wearing in the original movie and will probably be wearing in the reboot.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 23, 2014, 11:38:46 am
Chef  (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_03star.gif)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLuixZwiIdU

I can admittedly say, if I was watching Chef on DVD, I would have turned it off within the first 45 minutes. But since I was a captured audience in the movie theater, I sat through the whole thing.

The final result was very satisfying. Chef is a feel good story with no great consequence. Jon Favreau is writer/director/star in an homage to chefís and cooking and self discovery.

I didnít like the first half because a lot of it had to do with twitter and Facebook and social networks. I really didnít understand some of the implications. The first half hour also looks exactly like a cooking show. Way to many long detailed shots of making food.  I also didnít buy into he was once married to Sofia Vergara, and that lost some believability in the simple story of honorable chef figuring out what makes him happy.

Loved the cast with Dustin Hoffman, Oliver Platt, John Leguizamo (always love John), Scarlett Johansen and Emjay Anthony is a great find as the Jonís son.

In the end, I walked away happy. I think most people will like Chef.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 23, 2014, 11:47:49 am
Edge of Tomorrow (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04star.gif)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he21BE70f1Y

I too saw it this weekend with my son. We both dug it as well. Wasnít expecting humor, but there is plenty of understated humor here. The ending, wellÖ I think they hollywooded it out. Iím thinking the novel ďAll You Need is KillĒ may have something provided an alternate ending?

I was pretty confident we would not be watching a redundancy with the notion of living the days over and over again. Like Ground Hog day, Cruiseís character learns, sometimes quickly, how to do things differently and that is what propels the movie. It takes some solid right turns at the right places and keeps the viewer engaged.

The aliens are intense.

Edge of Tomorrow is a thinking manís sci-fi. Pay attention because you are thrust all over in place and time and to see how the story unfolds.

Highly recommend

Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on June 23, 2014, 11:50:29 am
Well, the book is Japanese, so yeah, I'll bet that the denouement was just added in.  They're not afraid to end their stories with everyone being dead.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 23, 2014, 11:54:57 am
We have some great films that don't end all nice

The Thing (best movie evah)
No Country for Old Men
etc...

I'll bet the studio's told him to make it happen. Nice ending.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on June 23, 2014, 04:14:12 pm
I'm not talking a dark ending, I'm talking "the characters die and that's IT."  All our movies, even the dark ones, have this beat called the denouement, the happily ever after moment... without it, the endings seem abrupt and confusing.  So they needed to add one to Edge Of Tomorrow but they didn't have anyone left to cut to.

Think of Sunshine, everyone on the spaceship died, but then we see Earth and know there's hope, and we see the Sydney Opera House deep in snow, and it was a dangling thread they'd established earlier: EOT didn't really have that so they had to play around to put that emotional beat in there.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 24, 2014, 03:53:32 am
I've not heard that word before. I understand the meaning.

Learn sumpin' new everyday.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on July 20, 2014, 04:36:15 pm
Not sure where to post this since it covers a couple areas, but since I saw it in a movie theater, I'll post it here.

Monty Python Live (Mostly)

And it was: broadcast from the O2 live to theaters around the world and Gold Television in the UK, the final night of Monty Python's (probably) final show.  Amazingly, for 1.30pm on a Sunday, the theater was PACKED with people.  I swear, I thought the place was full, and I still saw swarms of people flow in.

Being live meant there were some issues, the sound kept cutting in and out for the first ten minutes (in every theater around the world!), the image had this watery wavery quality every now and then (like a heat mirage), but at least it was uncensored.  They cursed a LOT, the poor TV viewers had to hear the beeps over and over.  Of ocurse, the TV viewers had programming during the intermission, we poor suckers in theaters around the world had to spend a whole half hour playing with our phones and watching a big countdown clock.

Eric Idle was all over this one because there were so many musical numbers (and there was a whole dance troupe as well), and the sketches... well, we've seen them all before, but they were all fun.  The only one they really changed was Blackmail, and that was pretty fun (a mystery guest!).  And there were quite a few enjoyable technical fouls: forgotten lines, uncontrollable laughing, ad-libbing that stopped the flow dead in its' track (particularly in the dead parrot sketch), and Eric Idle trying to keep his fake moustache on without touching it.  Priceless.

It'll be on DVD and blu-ray, I'm sure, so I won't spoil [more of] it, but definitely worth checking out.  Though not as original and fresh as "Not The Messiah."
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 20, 2014, 05:31:30 pm
Consider yourself lucky to have gotten to see this because there was no mention of a PPV or Live Streaming event for this here. Didn't even know that they would be doing anything like that at all.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on July 20, 2014, 05:46:11 pm
The problem with Fathom Events is that they only advertise in front of movies, so if you don't go to the theater, you don't know about any of it.  They need to advertise more on movie blogs and web sites.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on August 05, 2014, 04:52:06 pm
Obviously I saw Guardians of the Galaxy a couple days ago and couldn't post about it.  It was good, but... I feel like I was in a lousy headspace when I saw it, you know?  I could sort of see the inner workings as the movie went on, I was out of the thing, I just kept thinking "this is right out of Stargate," "Oh, this is the moment where they have to do this..." and so on, it was like watching a magic trick when you know how it performs.  That was kind of annoying.

I was also a little annoyed because I forgot about the seams on the theater screen, it keeps making me feel like I'm watching a movie through a stocking, it takes me out, you know?  And I didn't want to watch it in 3D (which looked fine but not outstanding)...  I will say that the ONE 3D trailer in front of the movie was Big Hero 6 and it looked fantastic.  Heck, even the cinema employees were wearing shirts with Big Hero 6's logo and Beymax's face on the back (not that you can identify it as a face, let alone Beymax's face).

Still, the movie was pretty cool.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on August 05, 2014, 05:04:19 pm
Maybe it will play better the second time around on DVD. I've had the same experience as you mentioned and it has affected whatever movie I happened to be watching and went away thinking the movie wasn't all that. I then watch said movie again down the road and it's a completely different, i.e. better movie. I wish studios would just let me buy the f*cking movie on DVD when the movie officially opens!!!!!!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on August 05, 2014, 05:44:54 pm
I kinda wish that too... but the movies are really put together so close to the release date, that they need the time to put together the Blu-Ray!  And besides, I want a good blu-ray: pack that thing with special features, make a good looking disc, nice menus (I hate that four circles menu, it's like they made the Blu-Ray on a burner program they bought at Best Buy!), cool art, maybe a tin version of the box... I'm cool with them taking the time for that.

They'll never do a day-and-date release for big movies... at least not for a while... because once you get a Blu-Ray out there, the dang thing will get ripped, show up everywhere, and eat into the profits.  It's the combination of demand + exclusivity, the ONLY way to see it when the hype is strongest (and the marketing is everywhere) is to go to the theater.  And that's, incidentally, when your demand to revisit the fun leads you to buy toys and tie-ins and read magazines that the cast are featured in.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on November 18, 2014, 09:10:50 pm
I took my mom to see "Billy Elliot: The Musical Live!"  It's the live London Stage Show, filmed and transmitted live in movie theaters (and soon on blu-ray and DVD).  Near the end, my mom whispered to me "this is the best birthday present ever."  And it was, the show was awesome... I've seen it on stage before, in New York, but not everyone can afford that, and this... this was huge.  It was cinematic, the cast was great (Elliot Hanna, who plays Billy Elliot, was freakin' fantastic).  And because it was a special event with the recording, they also did extra numbers at the end, one where the whole cast donned tutus and did a big ballet number, and then ALL the old Billy Elliots came out on stage and danced.  Ugh, it was fantastic.  They seriously need to do this way more often with Broadway shows, the whole time after, my mom and I were just listing all these other shows we'd want to see in the theater like that.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on November 18, 2014, 11:47:24 pm
That's awesome you did that for you Mom. Props to you. Happy Birthday Neumatic's Mom!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on November 19, 2014, 03:41:57 am
No kidding, what a great idea for a unique time together.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 08, 2014, 01:35:06 pm
St. Vincent (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_05star.gif)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dP5lJnJHXg
 
Weather around here sucks and that is about the only time Iíll go to the theater. I prefer movies made for the big screen, but on occasion, you need to compromise and watch drama with the wife.

I had not heard of St. Vincent till a couple of hours before we decided to go see it. I watched the trailer and it was decent.

St. Vincent was an absolute joy from the second it started to the end credits. Bill Murray is amazing, as is his Jaeden Lieberher as Oliver. Melissa McCarthy brings the right amount of drama and humor to her roll. Naomi Watts is a hoot as Daka.

I loved this movie. Actually found my eyes welling up in two particular scenes. One heart wrenching, the other joyful. Every scene is there for a reason. No filler. I was totally absorbed into this flick.

I cannot recommend this movie enough. It's funny, it's sad, it's real.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on February 15, 2015, 03:48:58 pm
50 Shades Of Grey

In my defense, I went for my wife and Valentines. She conspired with our friends who go see anything. My wife loved the books and bought these tickets a week ago.

I had a vague knowledge of what the movie would be. I kinda expected the house to be packed. It was not. I was not surprised to see the place filled with couples and herds of women. What I was surprised was the age. Old couples.

Anyway, Shades just sucked. As someone said it a softcore Lifetime Channel showing. There was about 20 min. Of sex. And mediocre at best. I saw little tittilation with regards to Domination and Submissive acts. Not my thing. This movie dealt mostly with Christian Grey pursuing Anna to be his submissive and that there was a lot of discussion contracts and business arrangements. Boring.

While we see plenty of boobage, it is of just the same girl, and that gets old quick.

The dialog is simply stupid.

The things we do for our spouse.

She liked it and that's alll that matters... At that moment.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on February 15, 2015, 05:22:14 pm
I have absolutely no desire to read the book or see the movie. Now maybe if this came out in the 70's - 80's and I was still trying to make out a scrambled image from my TV because I wasn't old enough to get the Playboy channel, then maybe, just maybe this would have been the placeholder for that. But with the internet and a  p o r n  site just a click away, this makes both the book and the movie irrelevant to me. I barely made it through the Trailer for this and found nothing within it at all enticing. It actually bored me. I'll stick with my Carl Jr's. commercial instead.  ;D
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on February 15, 2015, 06:38:51 pm
No desire either.  Book-wise, there's a ton of better choices that are both sexier and offer an actual grasp of bdsm culture (remember, 50 Shades Is Abuse!)  Movie wise, there are tons of sexy movies, classic and current.  If you want BDSM sex, there's p*rn.  The movie is just "mommy p*rn," it's pointless, it's literally Twilight or Nicholas Sparks.  It's mainstream pap.

The only reason to see "Fifty Shades Of Grey" is because it's "Fifty Shades Of Grey," and that's not a reason at all.

And for all the clones that the series has inspired, they all seem like they'd be just as bad.  Where's the quality counterprogramming?  When's someone going to respond by making a genuinely well-written, sexy as anything movie?  Maybe somewhere in Europe they're working on it.  We can only hope.


BTW, if you really wanted to treat your inner goddess, you should have gone to see "Kingsman" instead.  Awesome flick.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 17, 2015, 02:24:53 pm
Okay, so the first night of the Nashville Film Fest was last night, I took in two programs and I'll go into them when I have more time, but I just gotta say, the screens I saw the movies on... they were disgusting.  There were lots of white screens in the pre-show so you could just see these massive brown streaks all over the place, like a car that hasn't been washed forever, one screen had a MASSIVE run right down the center like ripped pantyhose.  I don't know if/when these screens have been washed, but they need it so bad.  Heck, they probably need to be replaced.  This will DEFINITELY be factoring in to the theatrical movies i see the rest of the year... if the giant screens are this bad, then I might just cut the movie theater out entirely (with maybe one or two exceptions).  It's THAT bad.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 17, 2015, 02:57:29 pm
One of the main reasons (a good portion of it anyway) was that all the theaters in my neck of the woods were going to sh*t. None of them bothered to maintain any kind of decent standards. After having to deal with a few of the issues you mentioned on more than one occassion, dropping the idea of going out to see a movie was a no-brainer. The only movie I see myself actually breaking my stance on that is of course Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 17, 2015, 10:24:58 pm
It might just be that and Avengers 2 for me.  In fact, if I actually get the ill-advised big screen TV by Christmas, I might even give that a miss.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 18, 2015, 10:01:34 pm
Welp (aka "Cub")

Holy sh*t this was a fun movie, it better f'in' show up on Netflix because I'm gonna be recommending this one like crazy.  There's a trailer but I don't want to link to it, just trust me, it's awesome.  It's about a group of cub scouts in the woods getting hunted by a murderous, feral child.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 19, 2015, 05:57:56 am
Welp (aka "Cub")

It's about a group of cub scouts in the woods getting hunted by a murderous, feral child.

That's all I needed to know to put this on my list of things to see.  :)
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 10, 2015, 08:55:05 pm
My mom wanted to see "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" for mother's day (yeah, seriously) and it wound up being kind of fitting because there was a ton of subtext about motherhood, having children, etc.  I'd heard some complaining from some people about the fact that Black Widow had been sterilized during her training and that this cheapened her character because "she can't do the one thing a woman CAN do" but, you know, it fit the movie real well.  I don't want to go into more detail until we've all seen the flick and can talk about it openly, though.

One thing that was bugging me throughout the movie was just HOW much CGI was in the movie.  Even scenes where they're all walking around Avengers tower talking, it's several shots digitally stitched together with extended backgrounds and whatnot... it makes the early flicks where Iron Man is just building cr*p in his garage or Thor chillin' in New Mexico seem insanely quaint.  I think I might have been hyperaware of this, though, because right before we left I had been looking at shots from Ghost In The Shell, which was an insanely visual movie that showed off without really feeling like it was showing off.

One thing I was actually surprised by was how sarcastic and human Ultron is.  I knew that "James Spader is a robot" but the character literally WAS "James Spader is a robot."  I was not expecting that slight difference.  But it definitely made him stand out more.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on May 11, 2015, 03:44:10 am
it kinda in the air that folks are getting tired, or just submersed to much in CGI, no matter how good it is.

I don't know about that, but your comment put a little fine point on it.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 13, 2015, 05:56:17 pm
San Andres

Finally a movie we could agree on... San Andres. Big action on a big screen...  :-\

Not so much. How long has this sombit.ch out. Go to the theater and we are one of the smallest screens. WTF?

Man I was pissed. Then the sound was tinny. I felt little if any bass or sub.

The movie was fine. Beside The Rock and Paul Giamatti, I didn't know anyone. Nice eye candy though. San Andres is by the numbers disaster flick. Opening, tragedy, get to know sub-stories, big chaos, slow down and then second round of chaos to climax. The visuals were good. I just noticed from the above post about so much CGI. Well San Andres is 95% CGI.

Nothing to write home about, but worth checking out.

My wife suggested Entorouge and for the life of me I don't know why. We've never seen the show. It's a typical movie. Let's wait for the DVD and smaller screen. She just doesn't like the other big loud screen flicks. Mad Max, Jurassic World... C'mon!!!!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on June 13, 2015, 07:44:01 pm
Uhg, the TINY screen!  Another reason I started forgoing the theater experience, pay the same price as the biggest screen to get the smallest one?  Sure, alternately you're paying the price of the smallest screen for the bigger one, but still!  It's something I wish that Fandango would do, tell you which theater the movie is playing on BEFORE you get your ticket (cause they print it on your ticket a second later once you pay for it).

I didn't see Mad Max either, but only because, honestly, I'm not in the mood.  I've heard it's awesome, I'm sure it is, I'm sure I'll love it, i'm not in the mood to watch it now.  Maybe in the winter when i'm holed up and need an adrenaline boost, but it's too hot and tiring to do anything, let alone watch a movie about a world that's hot and tiring and then have people screaming and flailing about.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on June 16, 2015, 08:06:32 pm
Since it doesn't look like anyone's watched "Jurassic World" yet (I'm gonna wait for Blu-Ray), there's no thread, so I'll post this interesting article from Grantland here (http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/jurassic-world-box-office-franchise-movies-hollywood/)... it's more about the future of big budget movies and so on, not about the flick itself, and an interesting read.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on June 16, 2015, 08:31:43 pm
I really hope to catch Jurassic World on the screen in the next week or two.... I'm hoping.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 18, 2015, 02:24:14 pm
Jurassic World (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_03star.gif)

When I recently bought Jurassic Park on Blu-Ray, it came with a free ticket to see Jurassic World. Let's just say I'm glad I didn't pay to this this somb*tch. While Jurassic World is a classic summer time mindless movie, I definitely don't see it as a blockbuster and setting records.

And yet I kind of get it. Jurassic World is deja vu of Jurassic Park in so many ways. So maybe folks are reliving their youth with fond remembrances of Jurassic Park through Jurassic World. At first I thought seeing some scenes were paying homage. Then it became, damn, they just rewrote scenes. By the time the movie was over I was actually a little pissed. I just saw this same movie a few nights ago in my theater room. Only with some notable cast and character changes.

The dinosaurs were phenomenal, especially close up.

The two kids... forgettable. Despite being a major part of the story like the first one. You could see storyline a mile away. They almost spoon fed it to us.

Just really really disappointed. And yes, with the article above, this will be fast tracked to continue the series.

So it made a gazillion dollars and lots of people enjoyed it (I liked it, didn't hate it), but when you think about, Jurassic World is pale comparison. And yes, I'll make the direct comparison. They are very much like each other. Ugh
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on August 12, 2015, 07:31:51 am
Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i266/Chiprocks1/Star%20Ratings/HTL_04star.gif) *

* because it was so freakin hot and humid, being inside was a better option.

The 5th in the series stands up to the rest. Itís not the best of the bunch, but thatís just nitpicky opinion. The MI films are what they are. Great summertime exciting fun. Rogue Nation like the others do not have a deep plot and just a fun ride. This film has one of the best motorcycle/car chase scenes. Rebecca Ferguson was an awesome female accomplish to Ethan Huntís character. Feminine when she wanted to be, but incredible agent when she needed to be. There are rumorís that she and her character could do a spin-off and Iím totally on board with that. The MI filmís are one of my few guilty pleasures. Tom Cruise knows entertainment. Even his Ďbadí films are enjoyable enough to watch.

Highly recommend Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. You canít go wrong.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on March 20, 2016, 06:51:21 am
10 Cloverfield Lane (3 Stars)

I wish I could rate this higher. It just didn't pan out like I thought it might. This has nothing to do with Cloverfield. Well, not the movie. Unless 'Cloverfield' is government code for secret.

The trailer pretty much gives you the premise. 95% of the movie is in one room. I'd say this movie is drama with just a drop of sci-fi. The last ten minutes are so dark and murky... And then it suddenly ends.

I pretty sure I'll never watch this again
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on March 20, 2016, 12:50:55 pm
I think JJ admitted to as much in interviews, sort of like "The X-Files," "Cloverfield" is the designation for stuff they can't explain.  And conceivably, every movie could be a standalone story a la "The Twilight Zone."

It is nice to see Dan Trachtenberg reap some big success, though.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 15, 2016, 06:15:43 pm
I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but since I saw it on the big screen, I'll put it here.

Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru

So the local film fest is in full swing, and I think I've said before that I try to make a point to see movies that I might not get a chance to see again, so what's the first thing that comes up on screen?  The ff*cking NETFLIX logo.  That's 12 bucks I could've saved!

The movie is... interesting, it's shot during Tony Robbin's once-a-year "A Date With Destiny" seminar, in which people pay about $5,000 bucks a head (really!) to go for six days of intense 12 hour workshops dedicated to drastically altering their lives.

BTW, I'm sure we've all at some point seen the old Tony Robbins inofmercial where he spends 30 minutes in a nice Florida resort or soundstage hocking his tapes/CDs and workbooks and telling you that there's nothing keeping you from attaining your personal power but your limiting beliefs, and that your life can change in a moment, so let this be your moment and call now, but what that doesn't prepare you for is the fact that in the seminar he curses like a Kevin Smith character.  And his sheer size makes that really weird.

I actually kept thinking "The Rock would be great as a fictional Tony Robbins in a movie."  I'll have to think about that.

The movie is... I was hoping for something a bit more... maybe in-depth or balanced, it seems like pure product (although now that I think about it, what else could it be). I figure they must have been filming all 6 days, meaning they probably have the WHOLE conference in chronological order, I can imagine for 500 bucks or something Tony could put it all online, making this essentially a giant trailer.  I'm not sure if he will, I probably wouldn't, but you never know.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 10, 2016, 07:00:19 pm
Amazingly just shy of a year after Age Of Ultron, we have another movie with the Avengers, namely Captain America Civil War.  I too my ma to see it because she likes her Iron Man (and she's enough of a Marvel zombie now that the second they said "Parker," she got excited for Spider-Man, and she had no idea that he was in the movie beforehand).  I won't spoil anything for you in case you guy shaven't seen it yet, but it was quite enjoyable.  I don't know how the idea of the format escaped me: the first movie was a war movie, the second was a political thriller, so the third one is Jason Bourne.  Of course.

I will say there's one weird but interesting moment for us personally regarding RDJ, there's a scene where he plays himself at 20 9and the effect is AMAZING!), and he's the same age and looks exactly like he did when he stayed at the house, which was when he was filming "Only You" with Marisa Tomei.  Strange coincidence.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on July 21, 2016, 07:57:15 pm
Yesterday I needed to clear out for a bit so I saw Mike and Dave Meet Wedding Dates.  And it's exactly why I have a hard time watching movies in the theater now, I wanted to watch this again, throw it on my iPod to listen to when I'm doing chores.  It killed me.  It's not perfect, but it's a raunchy as h3ll comedy and it's quite good at it.  And more nudity than I was expecting, though I don't know if any of it was real.  The massage scene, I can't find the words to describe it, but it will stick with you.  And while I don't want to give spoilers, three of the cast are well-known singers and yet I somehow didn't expect a song and dance number.

But what I really wanted to see was Star Trek Beyond, so I went to the movies again today.  Just got back.  Oh man, dudes, this is what I've been wanting: a mix of old-school Star Trek with the JJ-Trek visual flair.  Plus SImon Pegg writing, all the little Trek details about the world and the characters and the POINT of Star Trek were intact, which I appreciated.  Everyone got their own chance to shine, and it felt like youw ere stepping into the 23rd century for once (the other JJ Trek movies never did).  And the Yorktown Station?  Amazing visual design, I want to explore that place.  My favourite little touch?  The tunnels where the starships dock and move about are protected by force fields, and there are bodies of water on top, so you can look down and see these massive ships moving about underneath.  I love that.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on July 24, 2016, 10:55:30 pm
Never heard of mike and Dave. Oh wait, I do remember
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 02, 2016, 04:55:56 am
I'm in freakin Aruba and my wife and child want to go sit in a movie theater. WTF.

They really wanted me to go. The only thing I was remotely interested in, is Arrival. I told them, don't be surprised if it's in Dutch or Hispanic. It was normal... but with subtitles. Bhwaaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaaa

I cared for the movie very little. Ultimately the movie had a hard time explaining the purpose of the visit from the aliens.

It was well done and it is a thinking mans sci-if, but it's convulated with some very high brow concepts about time. Not just language. A slooooooow ass movie. I seriously doubt I revisit this one. I may, just to try again understand the the time thing.

https://youtu.be/AMgyWT075KY

Unless there's a monsoon, we won't be doing that again.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 29, 2016, 07:37:23 pm
Passengers 4 stars

https://youtu.be/7BWWWQzTpNU

It's cold outside, so sitting in the theater is OK.

I loved Passengers. The core of the movie is love and loneliness. Sci-if is just the wrapping. My wife enjoyed it, which is huge, since she dismisses sci-fi. I just loved the story here of a man and woman facing their fate. And the idea of a man deciding the fate for someone else, and it's consequences.

Wonderful sets. Great acting and realistic reactions to the decisions they make.

Highly recommend. Muc, much, better than the Artsy Arrival.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on December 29, 2016, 09:34:54 pm
Given how much Passengers reminds me of Red Dwarf (especially from the description), I almost jumped back when you said "it's cold outside" (the first lyric from the RD theme song)

As much as I dug the script, I've heard the movie isn't tha thot.  I'm sure stuff has changed since the draft I read, and adding Lawrence and Pratt definitely meant some rewrites, though I think they're a solid teaming for an idea like this.

I'll probably check this out on Blu-Ray.  I definitely want to drink in the design of the Avalon for sure.  You know what a nerd I am about those kinds of things.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Mac on December 30, 2016, 06:52:06 am
I guess I don't know Red Dwarf like I thought I didl. Not getting the connection you mention.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on April 30, 2018, 04:50:53 pm
Just saw Avengers Infinity War (Part I).  Huh.  Will hold off on comments until we've all seen it, but... well, I feel like you could have wrapped up the whole thing in an extra ten minutes or so instead of having us wait a whole year.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Chiprocks1 on April 30, 2018, 05:18:04 pm
Ha! Wrapping it up in 10 minutes and throwing away potential for another Billion $$$ payday!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At? (Multiplex Edition)
Post by: Neumatic on May 12, 2018, 10:27:22 pm
Cocolors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiwowTlPLqo

This was pretty neat, a post-apocalyptic anime, it reminds me a bit of  "Memories" (specifically the "Cannon Fodder" sequence)... and gosh, I love this flick.  And the visual style of it, it's cel-shaded but very "handdrawn," so it looks like a drawing come to life, like the camera can get up and explore a cartoon world.  And I love that.  And the story...

Yeah, see this one.  It should be out on disc or streaming somehow soon.