What was the last movie you saw at the theaters?

Tools    





ObiWanShinobi's Avatar
District B13
Originally Posted by Sleezy
You're making stuff up. All he said was "a best actress Oscar." You are saying, "someone with 10 noms and the best film short ever made." They aren't equivalent. Looking at your example, you might be right. But Oscar winners (particularly Best Actor/Actress winners) get huge publicity, and I think that's what he meant. Huge publicity helps.
Like I said, importance in the minds of film critics and importance in the minds of people are completely different things. Everyone likes Star Wars, everyone has seen Star Wars, everyone knows what Star Wars is. Everyone knows who Mark Hamill (or at least skywalker) is, Han Solo, Princess leiagh, and Darth Vader.

I am backing up my claim by stating that our best stars star in popular adventure and comic book movies. Batmania? Spiderman? Gigantic publicity!

And what does Charlize Theron get with North Country? Was it 0.2 mil gross first week?

I'm not knocking her performance, the movie, or anything else. I'm just saying that humanitarian help doesn't need fool's gold and money is definetly more important than awards.

Give me an example of fool's gold helping someone with humanitarian works and then I'll respect that opinion. But popularity, money, and genuine care is what it takes to be successful in her endeavors. Just give me an example if you can, that would at least make sense.

Originally Posted by Sleezy

Originally Posted by Sleezy
By and large, great performances come from dramatic roles. Because they are driven by the expression of internal emotion, they are more challenging for an actor to achieve (and more rewarding when they do). That's not to say that there aren't good roles in "adventure" films, but a "multi-layered, challenging performance" is usually a dramatic role (which isn't just found in the "drama" genre, either).
I would have to agree with you in this point in time. However, how can you say as matter of factly as you do?

The performances are great because the subject matter is usually great. Horror movies and Comedy movies will not be taken in the same light as a drama movie. And, comedy movies, if anything, require much more nimble acting skills and expressions. Throughout history, buster keaton's tremendous physical acumen, Peter Seller's fantastic ability to transform himself into characters of many different ilks, and these performances go into movies that are aren't that deep, but socially revelant (I know relevant, let me wallow in ignorance please) pieces of satire.

In the end, I will not sit by and accept oscar pills. You seem to say that you are stating your opinion, but you truly are trying to tell me that dramatic plays are better than everything else. You say they require depth and they challenge. I do not dispute this as opinion, but when I believe it is represented as fact I get offended by it. None of the quoted materials seemed to be stating opinion. He said that dramatic plays are automatically better than adventure plays That dramatic roles are automatically better than adventure roles. That is what the quoted material displays, re read it for yourself if you continue to deny my subject.

In fact, you yourself use these same "stereotypes" of movie-dom to engrace your opinion upon us as fact.

Drama movies, by and large, can be quite cliche and rely on the same dramatic moods created long ago to tell their story. My example is lifetime, once a year a decent movie comes out, but most of the time they take the formula and abuse it for every single story.

Also, drama movies romanticize and fictionalize history, Kingdom of Heaven, Cold Mountain, and Thin Red Line.

Kingdom of Heaven ~ Legolas saves Jerusalem through his tolerance for all policy. Noone at that time, was for tolerance(at least not in numbers). The christrians were convert or kill and the muslims were convert or kill. All the good guys were acceptable because they were universal/protestant/atheist/deist as we have in America today. All the bad characters were catholic, re-watch the movie to see these events unfold. You will see a pat on the back for everyone but Catholics in this hope for political correctness by Fidely Scoot.

Cold Mountain ~ I liked this movie, however, it was damned hillarious seeing "another" southerner not beleiving in slavery. If Hollywood was right, there would simply not be a war to fight because noone would believe in slavery. Or we would have to say that the southerners fought for their land and country! Why did they fight for their land and country? Because they wanted slaves and slavery expansionism, but that is not deemable to Hollywood or the South. So we must have the fact that the south fought invaders, that the KKK fought the north, that Forrest couldn't control his troops when they slaughtered black troops on 3 separate occasions. That slavery fed the blacks, and because the South was in trauma caused by the north, they induced segregration because of that trauma created by the north therefore proving that the North is in fact evil and that the South were the true fighters against slavery.

(Also, the north carolina regiments never fought in the battle of the crater)

Thin Red Line ~ I loved this movie, it was only until several months after that I got reports of several veterans of the war and the battle that literally walked out of the the theatre. I was surprised by this, but apparently the flashbacks and cavalier attitude was so uncharacteristic of the soldiers fighting that it consisently offended the veterans of the battle.

To me, if a history movie fails it's audience, it's homage. Then it shouldn't be considered a movie. It should be thrown away.

Drama movies are good, I'm not disputing this, but they rely on shocking imagery (american history X), incredible story lines (mystic river), and easy character development (titanic) to prove a point. It is formulaic in the extreme, and very often the tale is not worth telling.

Drama movies have the subject matter and writing to back them up. An acting performance is (opinion) no better than the versatility of our comic actors (Sellers) or our adventure actors (Depp).

I do not believe that an opinion was stated as such. I believe it was stated as an Ebert fact. You can or may hold an opinion as this, but it was stated as though it was the answer, re read the quotes, it is telling me what is and isn't a good role.

There, I'm done, personal opinion or bust.

And did you read it yet?
__________________



ObiWanShinobi's Avatar
District B13
Originally Posted by Sleezy
...is confusing me. Did you mean to say that Jarhead isn't liberal? I don't think "political" is the correct word. You can't check the "political" candidate on the ballot over some other candidate, because they're all in politics.

While I haven't seen Jarhead, I think what Twain was trying to say was that the film didn't really take a stance on whether war is good or bad or justified or unwarranted or whatever, but rather an "it happens" kind of stance (which is more of an observation than anything); while passages from the book that were posted in another thread show how the book DID take a stance on war, .
I meant that Bill O' Reilly scares people and as a result the liberal media is afraid to act. Jarhead isn't political because it doesn't take a stance on war, like you've said on your bottom paragraph.



I believe it was Corpse Bride. I liked it. Too short but definitly Tim Burton style.
__________________
Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.



ObiWanShinobi's Avatar
District B13
I'll put in a plug for separate lives here, it is really quite good as long as you don't expect a mystery movie.

The british humor is quite profound, I found myself chortling at the movie, not laughing, but chortling.



In the Beginning...
Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Like I said, importance in the minds of film critics and importance in the minds of people are completely different things.
Film critics aren't people? (Don't answer that. ) Be careful you don't draw unnecessary lines here.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
I am backing up my claim by stating that our best stars star in popular adventure and comic book movies. Batmania? Spiderman? Gigantic publicity!
Angelina Jolie was already known before she played Lara Croft. That role may have helped her notoriety, but she had no trouble finding fame without it. And I should point out that we have people like Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Charlize Theron, and others who have done the very same thing.

Let's not lose sight of the original point. We're not discussing where our best stars come from. We're discussing whether or not Academy Award exposure could generate publicity for Angelina Jolie, and in effect aid her philanthropic efforts.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
I'm not knocking her performance, the movie, or anything else. I'm just saying that humanitarian help doesn't need fool's gold and money is definetly more important than awards.
Awards like that generate money, and they generate publicity. Publicity generates money, as well, and it fosters familiarity and respect. It's not just a "secret club" award. When someone wins an Oscar, people pay attention - moreso than they did prior to the Oscar win. You think Jamie Foxx isn't getting any more play now that he's won an Oscar? You think he isn't more wealthy because of it?

I'm not saying you are wrong. Sure, excellent returns at the box office means a bigger paycheck for the actors, and more publicity along with it. But Oscar wins don't hurt, either. Oscar wins make money, too.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Give me an example of fool's gold helping someone with humanitarian works and then I'll respect that opinion.
Angelina Jolie.

I'd argue that if she hadn't pulled off such a fantastic performance in Girl, Interrupted and got an Oscar for it, her filmography would be alot shorter (and filled with lesser known films, probably), and she would not be nearly as wealthy and well-known as she is today.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Whatever.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
I would have to agree with you in this point in time. However, how can you say as matter of factly as you do?
I never claim my point of view as fact (unless I know I'm right), but I claim it confidently because it certain makes sense. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, it seems you would.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
The performances are great because the subject matter is usually great. Horror movies and Comedy movies will not be taken in the same light as a drama movie. And, comedy movies, if anything, require much more nimble acting skills and expressions. Throughout history, buster keaton's tremendous physical acumen, Peter Seller's fantastic ability to transform himself into characters of many different ilks, and these performances go into movies that are aren't that deep, but socially revelant (I know relevant, let me wallow in ignorance please) pieces of satire.
No arguments here. Remember, I said "by and large," meaning "most of the time." I wouldn't say "always" because I don't generally like making such generalizations, and in this case, it isn't true.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
In the end, I will not sit by and accept oscar pills. You seem to say that you are stating your opinion, but you truly are trying to tell me that dramatic plays are better than everything else.
No. I'm stating my opinion that I think most great performances come from dramatic roles. You are attaching an opinion to me that I never expressed, and claiming that I'm stating it as fact. Bad form.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
You say they require depth and they challenge. I do not dispute this as opinion, but when I believe it is represented as fact I get offended by it.
Why? Do you believe that dramatic roles do not require depth, and do not challenge the actor?

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
None of the quoted materials seemed to be stating opinion. He said that dramatic plays are automatically better than adventure plays That dramatic roles are automatically better than adventure roles. That is what the quoted material displays, re read it for yourself if you continue to deny my subject.
When you get older and take real argumentative writing classes, they will tell you that you don't have to say "I think" before every sentence. In fact, you won't be able to use the pronoun "I" at all. You state your opinion, and you use evidence to back up your claims.

A quick lesson in argumentative discussion:

The goal isn't to win. The goal is to learn, and to reason, and to understand others. Especially when talking about good and bad as it relates to film (which is completely subjective material), everything is opinion. You'd have to ask Twain, but I'm pretty sure he understands that. Because if he didn't, he'd be beating his head against the wall just like you are.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
In fact, you yourself use these same "stereotypes" of movie-dom to engrace your opinion upon us as fact.
Wrong. Don't accuse me of something you just made up.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Drama movies, by and large, can be quite cliche and rely on the same dramatic moods created long ago to tell their story. My example is lifetime, once a year a decent movie comes out, but most of the time they take the formula and abuse it for every single story.
I never said all drama films are good. I never said all dramatic roles are good. I said, by and large, great performances come from dramatic roles. That's my opinion. I'm becoming quite offended by your accusations that I'm thinking or believing something I quite clearly am not.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Also, drama movies romanticize and fictionalize history, Kingdom of Heaven, Cold Mountain, and Thin Red Line.

Kingdom of Heaven ~ Legolas saves Jerusalem through his tolerance for all policy. Noone at that time, was for tolerance(at least not in numbers). The christrians were convert or kill and the muslims were convert or kill. All the good guys were acceptable because they were universal/protestant/atheist/deist as we have in America today. All the bad characters were catholic, re-watch the movie to see these events blah blah blah...
You're arguing something that no one else is even talking about. I think we can all agree that not every drama film is good. But we all have interpretations of "good" and "bad," and all I said was, "by and large, great performances come from dramatic roles."

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Drama movies are good, I'm not disputing this, but they rely on shocking imagery (american history X)
You're generalizing. Not all drama films stand on shocking imagery (eg. American Beauty, Chocolat, Gosford Park).

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
incredible story lines (mystic river)
?

What's wrong with incredible storylines?

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
and easy character development (titanic) to prove a point.
Generalizing again. Here are a list of drama films with incredible character development (other than the ones I've mentioned):

Gangs of New York
A Beautiful Mind
The Hours
Finding Neverland
The Pianist
Mystic River
(to use one of your examples)
Being John Malkovich

If you don't agree with my opinions here, then kindly say so (but you better have good information proving otherwise).

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
It is formulaic in the extreme, and very often the tale is not worth telling.
What isn't formulaic anymore? What isn't thematic? I would argue that there are very few innovators in Hollywood. Regardless, films that stick close to a proven formula quite often find success because...surprise...the formula works.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
Drama movies have the subject matter and writing to back them up. An acting performance is (opinion) no better than the versatility of our comic actors (Sellers) or our adventure actors (Depp).
I would argue that good performances thrive on good writing and directing. A performance is only as good as the legs it stands on.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
I do not believe that an opinion was stated as such. I believe it was stated as an Ebert fact.
An Ebert fact, huh? Now who's riding on stereotypes? Ebert is a film critic with his own views on films, and he expresses them. He doesn't try to make you believe anything. It seems you want to think he does, though, so you can have something to attack with some kind of self-granted justification.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi
And did you read it yet?
Yes. All of it. Did you read every bit of my last reply? Because you seem to have ignored some of it.



Sleezy, its people like you that remind me of the good old days around here.


Rep points



The last movie I saw in theatres was Into the Blue. The only thing I really liked about that was was Jessica Alba in a bikini. I though the story was OK. Interesting idea for a movie.
__________________
Some Guy



Saw Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang again tonight. Still a Hell of a lot of fun.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Put me in your pocket...
Pride & Prejudice
I think I like the 1940's version and '95 mini series better...but I still liked this alot and will probably buy the DVD when it comes out. Matthew MacFadyen grew on me as Mr. Darcy and Keira was fine as Lizzy, but didn't win me over the way Jennifer Ehle did in the mini series.



A system of cells interlinked
It was my girlfriends birthday, and I told her to pick a film for me to take her to. She chose....


Saw II (Bousman, 2005) - As with any film of this nature, I am grading on a curve her, because it is just shlock, but we tend to like a piece of shlock every once in a while. For some reason, I liked this fiolm better than the first Saw, because that actor who played Adam in the first ohne wasn't in it. I also liked the villain, and thought he was a great character, and should have had more of a speaking role in the first. Whalberg was actually decent, as well. the rest of the cast....was just there, totally unremarkable. Also, Saw II had a ton of lame plot holes and cop-outs, but it's a shock horror/thriller so I just ignored that stuff. If one thinks about how far fetched some of the stuff was, the film just falls apart all over the place, but I guess that isn;t what people go to see these films for....
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



me, offcourse Harry Potter and the globlet of fire, its terrible i enjoy alot of watching that movie
__________________

the nanny dvd



Saw this Wednesday but hadn't gotten a chance to write up a full review until now....



Walk the Line (2005 - James Mangold)

Walk the Line will make millions of new fans of Johnny Cash's music, as well as pleasing those who already pray at that particular church. His iconic status as The Man in Black expands far beyond his musical accomplishments, but it certainly starts there, and this movie gets that part right again and again. Cash's infectious rhythms and clever lyrics, sung by that distinctive deep baritone, are timelessly addictive. Director James Mangold elected to have Joaquin Phoenix do all the singing in the movie himself rather than have him lip synch to Cash recordings, and it pays off. The music captured so well in the movie is not about his studio sessions but what kind of performer he was live, on stage, and that would have been tough to fake with playback. Plus, even good lip synching is always evident as lip synching...especially projected on a huge movie screen. Joaquin doesn't have Cash's singing voice down as perfect as an impressionist or cover band, but he's pretty close, and he does capture his spirit. Reese Witherspoon, who plays Cash's eventual second wife June Carter, also does all her own singing, and likewise is more than up to the task. You are almost gauranteed to come out of the theater humming the songs and wanting to buy every Johnny Cash album you don't already own.

That's where Walk the Line succeeds. Unfortunately where I feel it doesn't succeed is in fleshing out that icon beyond his singing and songwriting. The movie starts out so promising, as Cash stands in the machine shop of Folsom Prison just before recording his historic live album. The rest of the movie is essentially a flashback that starts in Cash's youth as the son of an Arkansas sharecropper, his older brother's death, his stint in the Air Force, his first big break at Sun Records, the touring and fame that soon followed, the strain this lifestyle put on his first marriage, his addiction to amphetamines and alcohol, his long attraction to and courting of June Carter, his arrest and temporary flame-out of his career when the pills took over too much, June and friends helping beat the addiction, coming to terms with his lack of love from his father, and his glorious return to form for the live album at Folsm.

Again, everytime Joaquin as Cash is playing music, it's fantastic. From his audition with Sam Phillips at Sun Records (even though they change his first piece to "Folsom Prison Blues") onward, great stuff. But going over the highlights of his biography with the heavy-handed armchair psychology and standard depiction of drug adiction, there are few scenes in the meat of the movie that come close to touching the music. Even his relationship with June isn't as engaging as it should be. And the last scene of the movie, while perhaps reaching for a snapshot of the old fashioned American Dream, comes off as forced and too neat for me. I did like Walk the Line more than a couple other recent musician biopics like Ray and Beyond the Sea, but compared to the Patsy Kline flick Sweet Dreams (1985), the Loretta Lynn biopic Coal Miner's Daughter (1980) or Charlie Parker's story in Bird (1988) it falls short.

Walk the Line is certainly enjoyable, but it doesn't move beyond that to the next level of filmmaking and storytelling. Read Cash's autobiography and listen to his records for the rest, but tap your toe along to Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon for a pretty good time at the movies.

GRADE: B





Elevator to the Gallows (1958 - Louis Malle)

Louis Malle's feature debut, and the prototype for the French New Wave. A Noirish tale about an elaborate killing and the four people caught up in the aftermath, including the murderer stuck in an elevator impeding his getaway, his lover wandering the streets wondering what happened to him, and the two teenagers who steal the man's car, assume his identity and get into deadly trouble of their own. Will the assassin have to confess to one crime to be cleared of another? Is there a way out? Will the police piece it all together before any of them can cover their tracks? All I know is don't leave cameras with undeveloped film in them lying around.

I hadn't seen this one in years, though I've probably listened to the Miles Davis soundtrack CD roughly two-hundred times in the interim. Seeing Ascenseur pour L'échafaud - Elevator to the Gallows (aka Lift to the Scaffold) on the big screen was a treat. The tension and the humor and the style really wash over the viewer in the theater. Jeanne Moreau was never lovlier, and I could watch two hours just of her walking the Parisian streets in the rain to Miles Davis. The clever twists and turns of the plot are still fun even when you know what's coming, but the genius of the movie is its simplicity and the obvious love of cinema.

GRADE: A-