Superb Scenes With Seanc

→ in
Tools    





Damn, I really should've went to the press screening of The Martian. Seems to get a lot of praise and I'm glad to hear you also liked it, sean. Hopefully I'll see it soon!

Sicario is highly anticipated for me and I will most certainly catch the press screening for that, though I really hope to love it. I hate those movies where you liked it but just wish it had been truly great. I don't know, I'm looking forward to be finding out...

Good small and direct write-ups too, I like them!





Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen

Larry Gopnik is having a good old fashioned mid-life crisis. He is a physics professor, and it is safe to say his job is not all he wants it to be. His students seem disinterested and the one that is engaged is trying to bribe him for grades. His teenage children are self involved, imagine that, so he is getting little fulfillment on that front. His wife wants a get, a divorce to us non-jews, and to top that off he had no idea anything was wrong plus she wants to marry his friend. All this seems like drama ripe for entertainment in the hands of the Coens. In my opinion there is little entertainment to be had.

Where I think A Serious Man goes wrong is in it's character development. Besides our protagonist every other character in this film is severely under developed. In fact next to Larry I would say the next most developed character is Clive Park. He is the before mentioned student that tries to bribe Larry for a grade. The two scenes that Larry and Clive have together are the best in the film. This is unfortunate because they are very short, and Clive's situation amounts to little more than a plot device to be used later on in the story arc. Larry's whole family is ripe for drama and terribly underused, but the most egregious example of this his brother Arthur, played by Richard Kind. I was excited to see Kind in this film, however like most of the characters he is in little of the film and we don't get to know him. He has one crucial moment towards the end of the film, but of course nothing much comes of it and we are left wondering what he had to do with anything at all.

What A Serious Man does right, is let us get to know the character of Larry. He is a very quiet unassuming man, yet those around him treat him as if he is the source of all their discomfort and misery. Larry never loses his cool in any of his personal interactions but simply always looks bewildered at whatever situation he is being confronted with. We are waiting for him to explode with emotion, but he never does. There are a couple of times when yet another character has told him to calm down that I wanted to explode for him. Larry is a really good character, unfortunately there is just not enough going on with the characters around him to truly engage us the way we need to be.

I love the Coens, I love almost every film they have done. One of the things that I like best about their films is the characters they create. Even their most seldom used characters always feel like part of the world they are creating. They have nuance, they give us reason to laugh with them, cheer them on, or root against them. That is why this effort is so disappointing to me. A Serious Man is practically unrecognizable as a Coen brother film.
Thanks for this review, Seanc. I only saw the first half of it. I love Coens too. In fact, I love all I saw from them. I agree about their characters. I loved the opening scene:



Also, I would like to appologize to you about that Shawshank thing, if you remember. Sorry if I hurt your feelings or made you feel uncomfortable. It really is a fantastic film.



Thanks for this review, Seanc. I only saw the first half of it. I love Coens too. In fact, I love all I saw from them. I agree about their characters. I loved the opening scene:



Also, I would like to appologize to you about that Shawshank thing, if you remember. Sorry if I hurt your feelings or made you feel uncomfortable. It really is a fantastic film.
I'm sorry that I don't even remember what your referring to but you will never upset me by disagreeing with my opinion on a movie. Thanks for checking in.
__________________
Letterboxd






Mostly what I expected, which is a good thing. The dialogue is great but it is Sorkin. So if you don't like the quick self aware way he writes his characters then stay away. I wasn't aware of the way the narrative was going to be told but I really enjoyed it. It definitely stretches your suspension of disbelief but I don't think it is that hard to do. Just enjoy unique glimpse into Jobs head that Boyle and Sorkin are giving us. All the performances are very good but Fassbender stands tallest, which is no surprise. I also think this is my favorite score of the year thus far. Very good film that I will be excited to go back to when it hits blu-ray.






Very solid film. The story is very compelling and packs an emotional punch. Elba owns every scene he is in, he is a really great actor. The cinematography is also top notch. Glad Netflix picked this up. Probably won't hold on but as of right now it would make my top ten of the year.






If there is such thing as a workman like movie this is it. Three things stood out in this film: The opening fifteen minutes, the climatic scene on the bridge, and the cinematography might be the best in a movie all year. Past that every thing was very run of the mill. The script is especially disappointing considering the Coen brothers were on board. Hanks is fine but even his character doesn't feel like anything special. I think this movie is really missing the trademark Speilberg characters. Pretty disappointed in this one despite the movie not being terrible.






I have never been in love with Bond but I always seem to get some enjoyment out of them. This has everything you want: big set pieces complete with very good chase scenes. lots of gadgets, and of course the girls. All of that is good here but there are also a couple of problems. One is they are going to the Bond has a family and a heart well too often now. My problem is they just don't do it well, this franchise just isn't made for this type of character development because they don't spend enough time on it. I know I might be the only one who didn't go for all that stuff in Skyfall but I will admit it is even clunkier here.

Another issue is they under use their villains. Again, I may have been the only one who thought Bardem was under used in Skyfall, but in my opinion they do it here again with Waltz. Lastly, there is always one action scene too many in these films. They would have done well to tighten this up to an 1:45.

All that being said this movie is still mostly a lot of fun. The day of the dead parade sequence is fantastic. There are some call backs to the previous Craig installments that are cool to see as well. The cinematography is mostly great, although they seemed to put a fog over the night scenes that was off putting and dampened those scenes a bit. If you like Bond then, of course, make a trip to the cinema. If you don't then there is nothing here for you.



Of all Bond movies, the one thing that left biggest impression for me was death of Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale" (2006). That puts it above other Bond movies. Although later Craig Bonds didn't handle the emotional aspect too well I think. At least for me.






The more usual problem with Bond movies is lack of depth rather than excessive exploration of characters. That makes them not so memorable, even if I see some of them multiple times.



Of all Bond movies, the one thing that left biggest impression for me was death of Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale" (2006). That puts it above other Bond movies. Although later Craig Bonds didn't handle the emotional aspect too well I think. At least for me.

The more usual problem with Bond movies is lack of depth rather than excessive exploration of characters. That makes them not so memorable, even if I see some of them multiple times.
Yeah, I agree with all that. I enjoy them as a good time at the movies but ultimately they are almost all forgettable. Do keep in mind I have only been watching since Bronsan so I don't know the older ones at all despite seeing a couple of them. Goldeneye and Casino Royale are by far my favorites.



I'm so far behind. I would like to see both The Martian and Spectre, I'm starting to feel like the new HK of this forum.
Go see The Martian, you won't be disappointed.



Right now I would say:
1. Casino Royale (2006)
2. Goldfinger (1964)
3. Goldeneye (1995)
4. From Russia With Love (1963)
5. Tomorrow Never Dies (1999)




A New Hope


What can anyone write about Star Wars that hasn't already been said? I don't know, but I am willing to try because I couldn't be more excited about The Force Awakens coming out in a little over a month. As part of that I really want to write a bit about my relationship with the original trilogy and what makes it special in my mind. I started by sitting down and watching A New Hope for what feels like the 100th time this afternoon. My mind automatically goes to wondering what did Lucas do so right in this film that he got so wrong in the prequels. The first thing that is fantastic is the world building. The shear amount of imagination that goes into the ships, weapons, characters, and planets in this world boggles the mind. Nearly forty years later all these things have just become a part of the tapestry of our lives. As I was watching today I tried to pay special attention to the aesthetics of the film and that alone is enough to make A New Hope a cinema changing film. When I was a kid the scenes that always stuck out to me were the ones with the most imaginative characters. I loved Mos Eisley cantina, and I still do. The Walrus, Greedo, and the elephant looking guy that gives up Luke and Obi-Wan. These were the things that stuck in my mind. They were very small parts of the film but they were the action figures I wanted the most and the characters me and my friends talked about. After seeing this movie so many times it is still the scene that makes me sit up a little but straighter in my seat and pay closer attention. Lucas put such care into the details of this world and that is a big reason it resonates so strongly with so many.

I also think that Lucas has a great eye for creating memorable set pieces. One of my favorite scenes in A New Hope, and probably the whole trilogy, is the scene in the trash compactor. This comes when Luke and Han have just rescued Leia. They are heavily outnumbered so they make a quick escape into a trash chute. I don't think this scene lasts more than ten minutes and it is definitely not integral to the plot, but it is just so damn cool. When Han shoots off his blaster and Luke chastises him. The creature they have to kill. There are just so many small things in these set pieces that make each one memorable and stick out for different reasons.

I really like how tight of a story A New Hope is. The film just flies by. We really just spend time in three main spots in the first film and I think that is a fantastic way to introduce this world. We aren't given too much of anything. Just enough to become immersed and be intrigued by the characters. I really believe Lucas is someone who works better when he has restrictions. I don't know how much time constraint he had making A New Hope but we do know he was under budget constraints. The movie is the better for it. When he is allowed to tinker he definitely over thinks things.A New Hope works because everything is propelled forward quickly. Proof of this is that Lucas added absolutely nothing to the narrative of Star Wars with his new cuts. I don't despise everything like some, besides that Jabba scene, but I don't find anything extra in his new cuts either. You can't mention Star Wars without mentioning the score. Getting John Williams to do what he did with these films is amazing. There is probably not a more iconic score in film. I get goose bumps every time I start up one of these movies.

A New Hope is not a perfect movie. When watching it I can see why people could be turned off by it. I find the shootouts to be pretty poor action sequences overall. The script really isn't very good. Hamill and Fisher came into their own as their characters moved forward and they became more comfortable with them. However, in A New Hope they really are not very good. The very simple story and straight forward storytelling that I consider a strength could also be considered a weakness if you are not on board with this world. I just happen to have loved it from day one so all these things don't bother me in the least. I wish everyone could get the joy out of A New Hope that I do, but I certainly understand why some don't.

My five favorite things about A New Hope:

5) The Falcon swooping in and helping Luke blast that wamp rat. I don't remember if I saw it coming when I saw the film at such a young age but it doesn't matter because it still gives me chills and puts a smile on my face every time.

4) Luke and Han in StormTrooper suits. They are in them for a while and a lot of fun stuff happens while they are. I like it because it is an iconic image and starts the Luke-Han friendship off with a bang. Lots of butting heads but ultimately coming together for a common goal.

3) Mos Eisley Cantina. I love this sequence. It has so many great creatures, really cool music, and of course our introduction to the man who always shoots first.

2) Trash Compactor. I mentioned this above and I simply love the sequence. I think it has the best interactions between the three in the film.

1) Obi-Wan going down like a bad ass. This has always been one of my favorite Star Wars moments. Obi-Wan doesn't get killed. He goes down like a god. The greatest end Lucas could have given to one of my favorite characters.









I enjoyed the hell out of this. David Foster Wallace is a very interesting person. I hate to find out that anyone has such a tortured soul as to end their life. What was intriguing for me watching this film is a lot of what Wallace was saying I find myself thinking at times. He seemed to be a lonely soul despite not ever really being alone. The relationship between the two Davids was great. This movie is written exceptionally and I love the performance from Segel. Excellent movie and certainly one of my favorites of the year so far.






Very interesting doc and a very sad but compelling story. Sometimes when a documentary mostly just puts a camera on the subjects and lets that tell the story it is the greatest thing in film, but sometimes it can be enough to keep you just at arms length and keep you from engaging emotionally. That is the case here. Long story short, I liked it but really wanted to love it and I think there is enough story there that I should have.






Very average thriller. In fact if the cast wasn't so good it may have been a bad thriller. The story is very bland except for one scene that got me pretty emotional. If you are still caring by the time the twists come good for you, maybe you can glean something from it.






If you are interested in politics and watch any of the cable news networks this is a very interesting documentary. It gives you a glimpse into the talking heads that started all the noise that we seem to feel so comfortable with these days. Both these men speak very well and are obviously intelligent but if you watch this and think you heard anything of substance come out of any of these debates please let me know. If you not interested in politics or the state of cable news at all I would say that you would probably hate this documentary, because like I said their is just no substance coming out of the story of these men.






"Human nature is not a mystery that can be solved by logic alone."

I really like that quote so I am going to write it down so I can try to remember it. This is a good movie for a lazy Saturday afternoon. Not going to change your life but it is a sweet story told well and is very non-offensive. Good performances and excellent set design. I enjoyed it.






Really, very not funny. Feig has some kind of hold on the internet that I can't figure out. If I go see the new Ghostbuster film just revoke my MoFo membership.