Last movie watched

[MatthewV]

Man on Wire I recommend this documentary about Philippe Petit's walk between the twin towers. It is part heist movie, part documentary.
Unfortunately, like many documentaries, it builds up to the point viewers are really interested in quickly and then takes six steps backwards to cover the background.

[Scurra]

[Jedo the Jedi]

Harry Potter: Part 2

Overall, a really good movie. Definitely not the best movie, but it was well worth seeing. As I was talking to my wife about it (who complained about every little deviation from the book), I explained that they cannot transfer everything directly because they also have to cater to an audience who is not familiar with the source material. Some things wouldn't make sense if they kept them because they would have needed to have them in the previous films, and that would have made them much longer, and Rowling hadn't finished the whole series yet so they couldn't exactly know about all the little things which would add up to be big things, etc. So, my argument was that as long as they captured the essence of a certain thing, the movie makers did a great job.

I feel this was handled well for most of the movie. While the Gringotts expedition wasn't exact, you still get a sense of the perils of the vault and the thrill of adventure. While Snape's demise did not occur in the Shrieking Shack, it still included all the important aspects. While Voldemort shouldn't know when each Horcrux is destroyed, there is no flagging his confidence that his plan will succeed. While Harry didn't converse with Dumbledore about abandoning the Deathly Hallows, we still understand why he rejects their power and see him make that choice. Many things like this are in the movie, in which the stage is set differently, but I feel the intent behind it is still captured.

My biggest qualms with the movie involve departures from this idea. The most egregious to me is the handling of the Battle of Hogwarts. First and foremost here is that Voldemort and Harry's final battle is a private matter off to the side. There are no witnesses! The issue here is that they are the focal point of the entire series. The whole of the wizarding world is familiar with their struggle to vanquish the other and is waiting with bated breath, and they are fighting off in a far corner of the castle. No way! They should have left this battle in the Great Hall in the midst of all the other witches and wizards. Another thing that gets me here is the lack of focus on certain key people as they fight the Death Eaters. The movie is just over two hours long. They could definitely have spared the time to give attention to people fighting (and their demise) such as Lupin and Tonks and Fred. Plus, the fight between Mrs. Weasley and Bellatrix was entirely too short. There was no time to build intensity, and it felt somewhat forced the way she jumped in to protect her daughter. (Though I am very glad they left her awesome line in there. )

That's pretty much it. I say it is a solid ending to the series.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Scurra]

Harry Potter and the Foregone Conclusion (part two)

So, here we are. Ten years later and it's all over. Was it worth the trip? Probably. A moderately decent series of kids books became a moderately decent series of blockbuster films, and in a world where "moderately decent blockbuster" has become something of an oxymoron, this should at least be praised for trying to put story rather than spectacle at its heart.

And this last part also has the virtue of being fairly short. This is, of course, partly because there isn't really any story left now (mind you, that didn't stop them in part one) and partly because even the “Battle of Hogwarts” can't be spun out for that long.

The film itself doesn't really do anything much wrong, which sounds rather uncomplimentary but isn't meant to be. By this stage you know what you are going to get, and there are few real surprises left beyond speculating on what the consequences of previous decisions are going to be.

The key one for me was the decision to effectively disregard the Deathly Hallows altogether. And this one I agree with almost entirely. Indeed, if they hadn't been in the title, it might have made more sense to pretend they never existed in the first place. The story of the hunt for the Horcruxes was complication enough for the film, and it made for a plausible conclusion without needing that extra element; they barely impacted part one after all (we'd have lost that wonderful animated interlude, but that's about all) and I'm sure some way around the Resurrection Stone could have been finagled if necessary.

But the flipside of this was to make Harry vs Voldemort into an incredibly dull sideshow. What made the final confrontation in the book so fantastic was that it was the Dumbledore exposition scene, but transplanted to Harry - one of the few structural tricks Rowling got right in the last book. Here, because we don't need quite the same explanations, it becomes far less dramatic despite being made more dramatic (“think, and try for some remorse, Riddle” is arguably the most important line in the entire series – did I blink and miss it?)

And this also meant that the minor characters didn't get anything like enough time to payoff their minor storylines. In the book, Rowling had space to make the price of war feel a little more real than the epic CGI SFX manages here; the sense of peril is dangerously underwhelming - something it shares with too many films today.

(edit: having said that, the Epilogue was done to perfection, despite being for me the most depressing thing in the entire book series - having spent 7 books showing us how broken the "Wizarding World" was, it was clearly still just as broken even 19 years later.)

Oh and apparently there are some bits in 3D. Did you notice any of them?
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Scurra]

Cars 2

I really have very little to say about this. I sort of enjoyed it, but upon reflection I'm not sure why, beyond admiring the talent of Lasseter and Bird to invest inanimate objects with personality (although they still struggle badly here.)

What surprises me is that this was released under the Pixar banner. I know that the original Cars was a Pixar film, and so I suppose that it makes more sense that way. But really this is much more like Bolt than Wall-E - it's unashamedly a kids film; there are no hidden depths here, no adult themes or even much of a storytelling flair. Instead it's just another sequence of set-pieces strung around a semi-incoherent storyline; the very model of a modern movie blockbuster, only without Johnny Depp, giant robots or exploding helicopters. There's nothing wrong with that, but give me Toy Story any day. As such, releasing it as a pure "Disney" picture would surely have made more sense.
On the plus side, there was a mini-trailer for the next one, Brave, and that looks far more like what we associate with Pixar.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Undercover Monk]

So with the new potter film coming out (being a huge book fan) I decided to host a viewing of the first seven films ending with a trip to see the final one. I endede up having about 8 friends join me over two days. It was quite interesting going from director to director. you certinley saw the radical changes made between movies 2 and 3 (which has long been my least favorite) however I really appreciated these movies as adaptions for the first time with the marathon there are so much to encompass and they really had no idea who would be important and who wouldnt be. who would guess dobby the house elf would have a larger role in the series than either Ludo Bagman or Barty Crouch who were so integral to the 4th book.

However I still feel cheated that house elves were completely ignored. I can live with the abscense of Peeves, or the shortening of the hallows plot in the last two movies but debate of house elves is an overarching story that starts in book 2 and gets significant developement in books 4,5, and 7. If the movies made a mistake it was not including dobby in the other films. his death impacted me the most reading the books (besides perhaps Fred's, curse you Rowling). Partly because you saw Dobby save harry's skin countless time in the later novels. someone who had only watched the movies would have seen him and not understood harrys pain the last we saw him in the movies he had used a bludger to break harrys arm.

but altogether a decent film series and satisfying end. Now I wont be watching the movies for years. Im harry pottered out!!!
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Lepton*]

About House Elves:

I'll assume you're referring broadly to the SPEW (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) story arc, rather than the use of house elves outright. The arc is a lot of things, but I think it's more awkward than anything else, and I think that cutting it from the movies is excusable.

SPEW was designed to bring a moral dimension to the story. Let's face it: Harry's world is pretty 1-dimensional. There's Voldemorte at the far end of evil, Belatrix Lestrange near the end, then the death eaters, then the Malfoys oscillating a bit, then the Slytherins, the Ministry of Magic in the middle, and the rest of the "good" characters line up depending on how loyal they've been to Harry and Dumbledore. Only in Snape do we have any discussion of the meaning of good and evil, but even that doesn't get explored because Rowling needs to save him for the big emotional reveal at the story's climax. Harry's foregiveness of Tom Riddle is, frankly, lame.

So, in order to both bring in ethical debate, we get SPEW. But it doesn't really work. Like in the story, SPEW runs smack into the history of this ancient magical world: just like Hermione's classmates aren't convinced that house elves deserve rights, neither are we. After all, this is a completely new world for us, and lacking the moral compasses of experience, we're not sure what to think about the Centaurs, the house elves, the goblins, the mountain trolls, and so forth. So we pick one of two points of view (or, more likely, assume a superposition of the two): the mainstream magical community is right, and humans are the only ones who deserve human rights, or Harry Potter is right and we should treat them all equally -- see the good/evil dimension again?

SPEW is probably also designed to show us another angle of Hermione. She's not merely the good-student-cum-wonderwoman, but she has a weak side too. But this falls apart, depending on what you end up assuming about the magical creatures. If SPEW is right, then Hermione is the omniscient girl we already know her to be. If SPEW is wrong, then Hermione is a goody-two-shoes without a compass, which is why she attaches herself to Harry.

The most disturbing part about SPEW is the reception among the house elves, who (with the exception of Dobby) find the whole exercise exasperating and have no desire for freedom. One can only hope that Rowling wasn't trying to make any sort of social commentary here.

With all that said, I think that Kreacher and Dobby are two of the most original and fascinating characters in the superb story. But I won't extoll their virtues, as I've written enough already, I think.

[Antrax]

What strong proponent or arguments were there for mistreatment of sentient beings? I admit I only made it to the fifth book / sixth movie, but the issue seemed as one sided as the rest of her writing, to me.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Suspence]

Cowboys and Aliens, which I actually saw unintentionally, as the movie I had wanted to see was full.

The title tells the whole story - there were cowboys, and there were aliens. There was not much else. Skip it.
_________________
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature.

[Death Mage]

[Antrax]

DM, are you seriously asking or are you trying to start an argument where I supposedly support coercing liberties on people? It's quite clear from the text and to most humans that the "correct" answer is that treating sentient beings as slaves is immoral. The people who disagree are more of the "don't rock the boat" genre, they don't make any claim like "hey, it's their culture". They just say things like "it's worked for so long, it must be good". And they're mostly the douches in the story. Rich douches, at that.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Death Mage]

I'm saying it's a fictional setting with fictional beings who's lives revolve around selflessly assisting others, to the point where the thought of freedom or wages are an anathema to them, where they actively fight AGAINST being taken away from that role.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Scurra]

DM, that's not entirely true. We get to see three* House Elves over the course of the series, and they have very different reactions to the concept of freedom depending very much upon the relationship that they have with those who are shown as their "owners". It's more complex than simply asserting that they selflessly assist others (although not much more, I agree!) Indeed the story arc of Kreacher is one of the more interesting ones in the series.


*OK, we actually see four, but the fourth is pretty much Winky but from the other side, so doesn't offer much of a different perspective.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Death Mage]

There may only be four named ones, but there are several others seen. Just look at the kitchen scene in book 4.

Dobby is clearly shown to be an extremist with his point of view, and even then, he himself talks down the wages and time off he's offered, stating that while he likes freedom, he prefers to work.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Undercover Monk]

No I wasnt talking of Spew but the complete lack of house elves in general. Spew could have been given 1 scene thats all it needed. But to completely ignore Dobby for 4 movies then bring him back just to die means anyone who hasnt read the books really doesnt feel what that elf meant to harry

Kreachers storyline about Regulus is completely ignored. Its his story that is probably the most interesting.

We dont really need Hoaky or Winky but Rowling does give us four complete view points.


As to how the magic comunity looks at it we get the three heroes

Ron is at one end of the spectrum he sees the elves as happy with what they have and doesnt want to do anything to upset the status quo.

hermione is so far off the other end that you wonder if she has gone mad at some points. Hiding clothes around the gryffendor common room to trick the elves into freedom

Then Harry is in the middle. He, until the seventh book, hates Kreacher. He loves Dobby. And hes pretty middle of the road on the other elves. Its an interesting species. I dont know what Rowling was trying to say about free will with them but It was still probably the second most important side arc next to Snape.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Death Mage]

If she just presents all the sides and viewpoints, but doesn't really push one way or other, she may not be saying anything at all but simply exploring an element of the setting. If that's the case, kudos to her.

But like I said, I'm still on book 4, so I don't know for certain.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Undercover Monk]

well books 4,5,6,7 are the ones that really examine the issue it really is a good series. IMHO
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Sentran]

Sucker Punch

I liked it. In some ways it reminded me of Donnie Darko, as one falls further into the madness of their condition.
_________________
Sentran
"Speaking of double negatives, I haven't read greylab yet today." - Lifeinmomland

[Poisonium]

Citizen Kane. That is all.
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life

[j_s*]

Chocolat

Quite a good, minor drama and then resolution to feel good movie. Also, containing chocolate and (more importantly) Johnny Depp. Eating chocolate while watching: a must.


3 out of 4 stars

[Scurra]

[Scurra]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Which should win the Oscar for the most ridiculous title of the year I think.

This was a very strange film indeed. There was no doubt in my mind that it was very, very good - indeed I suspect it will end up in my top 10 at the end of the year - and yet it was horrendously badly structured, veering between genres as though it were three different films (a medical thriller, a wildlife documentary and an action movie) welded together rather clumsily, although I thought all three of the "sub" films worked well which is probably why I liked the overall effect.

Once again, Andy Serkis makes a strong claim to be one of the finest actors working today - and once again he will be ignored in the prize-giving ceremonies because, after all, he says almost nothing. The combination of motion-capture and CGI here is nothing short of astonishing, but in the hands of anyone other than Serkis it could have also been a disaster.

Quite rightly the human cast play second fiddle to Serkis, although I think I would have preferred it if James Franco had been a little more dominant - he doesn't properly convince as the human catalyst for the whole story.

The direction is generally OK but it doesn't have any of the flair that, say, Tim Burton brought to his otherwise entirely forgettable remake some years ago, although I will say that I thought the last half-hour was very good (and made a lot of the recent action blockbusters look average by comparison.)

In the end, this is perhaps the only blockbuster of the season that I would actively like to see followed up - although actually I also think it's one of the few that probably doesn't need it despite all the effort they took to set-up sequels.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Ctorj]

Black Swan

What....the.....FUCK.... was that???
_________________
"Love is the absolute expression of the human perfection" -Me!

Created by MyFitnessPal.com

[MatthewV]

Well, I liked Black Swan.

Other movies I have recently watched and enjoyed: The Illusionist, Afghan Star (documentary), Sympathy for Mr Vengeance [and Lady Vengeance but not as much]. I enjoyed Still Walking but I don't think most people would.

[JDTAY]

Fright Night

I paid $13 f'n .50 to see this. Only for David Tennant, man...
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything.

[Scurra]

[Ataraxy]

(500) Days of Summer
The Informant!
Machete
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Those were the last four movies I watched, in order, from best to worst, although none were bad. (500) Days of Summer was the best movie I'd seen in quite a while.

[Antrax]

You meant from worst to best, right?

Source Code. It was terrible.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Scurra]

Source Code: Really? What was your problem with it? I thought it was great. Not a masterpiece, but certainly not terrible.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Antrax]

Everything about it was bad. The plot made absolutely no sense, the bad guy was a typical card-carrying villain, the romantic scenes were pointless and overdrawn and the movie continued about 10 minutes past the ending for some reason.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Scurra]

Re: Source Code - maybe you and I were watching entirely different films? This does happen more often than you might expect. I don't mean that there is another film with the same name, just that our perceptions, expectations and rewards were clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum. Then again, I thought much the same thing about Inception, and other people thought it was the greatest film ever. Well, OK, not quite. But they did like it. Anyway...

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

I have no idea what possessed anyone to make this film in the first place. It's a very complicated and subtle character piece, which requires audiences to be able to pay attention to the significance of raised eyebrows, rather than exploding cars which they might have expected in a spy thriller. Not to mention the story being set at the heart of the Cold War, an era which is long-forgotten by most of the main cinema-going audience, and a cinematography that delivers more shades of brown than I thought existed in the world.

And it's easily one of the best films I have seen this year. And I'm going to go and see it again (rather than just wait for the DVD), which is the first time I have even considered doing that for a long time.

Everything about it is almost perfect. There are some minor casting quibbles - Benedict Cumberbatch is too young for his part, but since he gets the most edge-of-the-seat scene in the whole film it's sort of understandable that they cast a bit younger - but the actors are uniformly superb. Yes, the script has to take some liberties with the original in order to make the running time reasonable without confusing everyone - but that's only really an issue for people like me who knew the book before anything. And as an adaptation it belongs in that elite group that does full justice to its source.

Those expecting some sort of modern spy shenanigans will be disappointed. Those wanting an intelligent character drama in which real people have real motivations and actions have proper consequences should be delighted.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Antrax]

I didn't like Inception either. I did like Midnight in Paris, though for non-Scurra people, it's recommended for viewing where you have convenient access to Wikipedia
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Scurra]

Why do you think I wouldn't like a Woody Allen movie? (Apart from the fact that he's very hit-and-miss, and when he misses, he misses spectacularly.) Manhattan is one of the greatest movies ever made.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Antrax]

I meant to imply you'd get all the references without needing to look them up
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Zag]

That was an ideal place for a semi-colon. You can change either comma to one correctly, though the two have significantly different meanings (the one you meant and the one Scurra inferred).

_{(This note was paid for by the committee to resurrect the semi-colon.)}

[Scurra]

[Antrax]

I never learned how to use a semicolon, in any language
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Zag]

Well, I was going to point you here. However, I really dislike one of their examples; it is at least questionable, perhaps even wrong.

I prefer this one: They give both correct and incorrect examples, which makes it clearer; and they use cows in their examples, which makes them (that is, the examples) better!

[The Ragin' South Asian]

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/04/18

[Chuck]

Hot Tub Time Machine
Skyline
A Boy and His Dog

Nothing good here. I'm on the list to borrow Thor from the public library.