Tonight I saw Hitchcock.  Very enjoyable movie.  Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren did a good job and the snippets of Psycho were such fun.   They ran the trailer for Lincoln and that looks like an excellent movie. 

That's a review? Even I can do that.

Last weekend I saw Mama (as I mentioned in the Peacock Spider thread). It was good and scary.

This past week I saw Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. It was good and fast.

More upon request.

I'm with Mark on this.  You call that a review?

I also saw Hansel and Gretel last weekend in 3D.  It was good and fast.

More from Mark coming soon.

Originally Posted By Ivinia (1 FEB 2013 9:50am)
I also saw Hansel and Gretel last weekend in 3D.

I saw H & G in ThreeDee as well, and my review of this marvelous technology is below.

Originally Posted By Ivinia (1 FEB 2013 9:50am)
More from Mark coming soon.

It had a lot of depth.

I recently saw Mama and thought it was one of the best horror movies in recent times.

I did feel they wenta bit too much on CGI but apart from that the storyline and characters were well done and I love how the "mama" was treated as an actual character in the movie and not just a generic "creature" like you have in most horror movies (IE Paranormal activity).

The ending will probably catch some people off guard but I found it made sense in the context of the entire film.

Saw The Illusionist and really enjoyed it. I thought it would have a sad ending, but it actually ended up being pretty satisfying.  A charming tale from turn of the century Austria.

Per Wikipedia: "The film tells the story of Eisenheim, a magician in fin de siècle Vienna, who uses his abilities to secure the love of a woman far above his social standing."

The part i didn't like so much, is that history was substantially 'changed' for the purposes of the story. The real son of the emperor was not prionce leopold, but: 

The suicide of the real prince prince was actually far more tragic, and ended that sepcific Hapsburg line.  Interestingly it also brought about the succession of Franz Ferdinand whose assasination is often touted as the main even that set WW1 in motion.

But anyhoo, I reckon that is why his name was purposely changed: in order to make it clear that we're working in a parrallel history universe with a different prince.  Heh.

I recently saw the Hobbit. It was enjoyable enough, Martin Freeman in particular is wonderful in his role as Bilbo. But it definitely wasn't as good as it could have been. The sort of additions that marred The Lord of the Rings films for me popped up here as well. Among other things, Radagast and his rabbits are ridiculous, and Gandalf and Galadriel are decidedly a little too friendly.

Originally Posted By Mark (1 FEB 2013 9:29am)

That's a review? Even I can do that.

That's the idea, Grumpy Grandpa.  No need to write reams, we're not giving away the Booker Prize for Literature here.  Just a quick heads up to the community of whether or not the latest movies are worth seeing. 

Originally Posted By Mark (1 FEB 2013 9:29am)

 

More upon request.

More please.  You know your fingers need the exercise.  And look who this thread smoked out of the woodwork.  Old Mr Nearly-Married-Man Ivinia !!!   I notice he's in no rush to divulge interesting information.

Which reminds me..-what the heck happened to MY thread on movies and TV shows?

..but it's nice to see a bit of action here again, and yes, to see Ivinia finally admitting his presence.  Maybe I should go and dig up my old music thread again as well.

Andromus, the worst part of The Hobbit to me was how long they drew out the party at Bilbo's house. I remember that as pretty insignificant when reading the book...

I actually rather enjoyed Radagast in general, and his rabbits weren't that bad to me..

Originally Posted By Traveller (3 FEB 2013 2:13am)

 

 Andromus, the worst part of The Hobbit to me was how long they drew out the party at Bilbo's house. I remember that as pretty insignificant when reading the book...

 

I don't remember that bothering me so much, but there were a bunch of scenes that could have used some serious trimming. Some of those action sequences seemed to go on and on.

Someone had to bring up The Hobbit. (OK, I had known there was a new release on the horizon and now it's out.)

For some seventh graders The Hobbit was a required reading and discussion and it seemed a real treat when the Rankin/Bass production was released shortly after in 1977. Thirty-five years later I still can't get some of those darn lyrics out of my head.

Sorry.

Saw Melancholia a few months ago, what an awful movie, just terrible, a complete disaster (which is ironic because it's a disaster movie). Did i mention it's atrocious. Just to be clear the movie is abominable dreadful, painfully unspeakably bad.

I really wished it was me who died at the end, just to forget this abomination.

Without any doubt the worst movie i ever saw. Even Magnolia wasn't THAT bad.

In no particular order:

Life of Pi: Excellent! A major surprise because I wasn't sure I'd like it. Went to it only because Lincoln was sold out. Would see it again without reservation. Should win Oscar for Special Effects...at least!

Lincoln: Very Good, but not as good as I had hoped. Still could have been a lot worse given how many mistakes can be made with movies like this.

Quartet: Excellent! Unlikely pairing of a BBC production and direction by Dustin Hoffman pays off big time. Maggie Smith should be very much in the running for an Oscar. A must-see for you Caroline!

Les Miserables: Oh where to begin! A major dud! Take away Anne Hathaway's unbelievable 'Dream' (worthy of an Oscar) and Samantha Banks 'On My Own' (excellent) and there's hardly any other worthy songs (well maybe one or two max). In opera, text that is sung is called 'recitative'. In the best operas, the recitative is limited and used as a bridge to the next aria, duet, trio or quartet. Les Mis has recitative (singing text) that goes nowhere and with a 2 1/2 hour movie there is a lot of it. It becomes tedious listening to Hugh Jackman with his heavy vibrato singing lines, but even worse is Russell Crowe. Ughh! Compare this with Westside Story, Sound of Music, South Pacific, Phantom of the Opera or Evita where there are melodic songs throughout.

Silver Linings Playbook: Excellent! Jennifer Lawrence is going many places fast!

Argo: Very good, but I'm surprised that it is in the running for an Oscar. It's not that good.

Zero Dark Thirty: Very good, but slow-going in the first half. The 2nd half makes up for it.

Skyfall: Very good. One of the better Bond movies of the last 10-15 years.

I saw the Hobbit in multiple formats. I had to go to Toronto to see it in IMAX 3D and 48fps 3D. I saw it here at home in 24fps 3D. I liked the IMAX the best. Bearing in mind I will like anything to do with Middle-earth, I still thought the movie fell short of the LotR series.

Cons:

- a rehash of LotR scenes - Gandalf and the moth, Thorin/Aragorn's near death, dwarves get crushed (Gimli and the Warg), horses encircling the fellowship, etc.

- a very familiar soundtrack

- implausible physics

Pros:

- Song of the Lonley Mountain both the solemn dwarf version 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88bTwGXaBM

and the anvil-ringing Neil Finn version at the credits

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zakVfDY0xZk

- I thought it was fairly true to the book both in story, dialogue and songs. It is a child's book, so I was able to accept the slapstick and additional bits of whimsey (Rhosgobel rabbits).

- Jackson did a great job of making 13 dwarves individuals. Thorin was particularly well cast (... and now I'm a Strike Back addict thanks to Richard Armitage)

- the 3D worked for me. It was on the same par as the Avatar experience.

SirDave

I saw Quartet when it was released at Christmas.  I thought Pauline Collins stole that movie from everyone with her gentle portrayal of dementia - both sad and funny.  To be honest, I thought Dame Maggie and Billy Connolly were both wasted and this movie left me feeling slightly disappointed - a fault to be laid firmly at Dustin Hoffman's feet I fear.  A little more plot, some more ascerbic dialogue perhaps?   My vote for a better movie about the elderly in a retirement home must go to The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. 

I also saw Skyfall and liked it very much.  The whole James Bond genre has palled on me due to my husband watching them every time they come on the box but I like Daniel Craig's style.  He's not handsome but he is drop dead sexy in a very dangerous way.  Rather a shame they had to retire Dame Judi as M though but I guess actors do get old.

Originally Posted By Caroline (4 FEB 2013 12:57am)

but I guess actors do get old.

...only actors, though, eh, Caroline?

Originally Posted By markornikov (3 FEB 2013 4:32pm)

Saw Melancholia a few months ago, what an awful movie, just terrible, a complete disaster (which is ironic because it's a disaster movie). Did i mention it's atrocious. Just to be clear the movie is abominable dreadful, painfully unspeakably bad.

 

I really wished it was me who died at the end, just to forget this abomination.

Without any doubt the worst movie i ever saw. Even Magnolia wasn't THAT bad.

Whoa whoa whoa, You referring to Magnolia, as in the 98 film staring tom cruise among many others? That's a classic, great Paul Anderson film.

Melancholia wasn't that bad, at least what I recall of watching it a while back. Was a bit sad, and the mother annoyed me but it was quite a beautiful movie imo.

Didn't make it the theater in 2012 but did catch a few on DVD. The highlight was Tarkovsky's "Stalker" which I watched twice. First time with no subtitles, second with.

There is so much dialog that unless you know Ruskie you won't really be able to "look" at the movie as you will be continually reading the text under the picture. But very soon in I realized how amazing the photography was and I restarted without the subtitles watching through just for the look and feel - which is hard to really describe but pretty amazing - a sort of mystical post-industrial tableau.

Later I re-watched it with the subtitles and gleaned something of the theme to the story, but I will say that the photography alone is so arresting and thought-provoking, regarless of what it's supposed to mean, just watching it is worth it...  You get the impression Tarkovsky must have invented the whole "post-industrial wasteland" motif himself - it's all there. Some will find it interminable and excruciatingly boring so be warned...

Like Mark and Ivinia I also saw Hansel and Gretel last weekend in 3D. It was good and fast.

More from Mark coming soon.

Originally Posted By Traveller (4 FEB 2013 3:04am)

Originally Posted By Caroline (4 FEB 2013 12:57am)

but I guess actors do get old.

 

...only actors, though, eh, Caroline?

Well, as you well know, Trav, for Goddesses, aging is optional and one day, when I'm truly bored with my current age, I shall give it a try but right now, 50 is still fitting like a glove. 

Originally Posted By Caroline (4 FEB 2013 11:29pm)

Originally Posted By Traveller (4 FEB 2013 3:04am)

Originally Posted By Caroline (4 FEB 2013 12:57am)

but I guess actors do get old.

 

...only actors, though, eh, Caroline?

 

Well, as you well know, Trav, for Goddesses, aging is optional and one day, when I'm truly bored with my current age, I shall give it a try but right now, 50 is still fitting like a glove. 

 

 

Down under, everything is backwards. Winter is summer; summer is winter. Water circles down a drain counterclockwise. And women age backwards. Next year, Caroline will be back in her 40s.

Originally Posted By tincup2 (4 FEB 2013 5:22pm)

Didn't make it the theater in 2012 but did catch a few on DVD. The highlight was Tarkovsky's "Stalker" which I watched twice. First time with no subtitles, second with.

 

There is so much dialog that unless you know Ruskie you won't really be able to "look" at the movie as you will be continually reading the text under the picture. But very soon in I realized how amazing the photography was and I restarted without the subtitles watching through just for the look and feel - which is hard to really describe but pretty amazing - a sort of mystical post-industrial tableau.

 

Later I re-watched it with the subtitles and gleaned something of the theme to the story, but I will say that the photography alone is so arresting and thought-provoking, regarless of what it's supposed to mean, just watching it is worth it...  You get the impression Tarkovsky must have invented the whole "post-industrial wasteland" motif himself - it's all there. Some will find it interminable and excruciatingly boring so be warned...

 

 

I love Stalker, one of my favorite visuals is when the guy is laying in the little creek with the dog, just something so quaint yet surreal about that moment.

I found a pic here:

http://umfrancisco.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/stalker.jpg

I'm not sure if you watched the movie on your pc or what, but if you did I may suggest using a player like VLC or such, you can adjust the subtitles to your liking, and place them where you wish to on the screen. I often find that if I place the subtitles at the top of the screen, instead of the bottom, that I can both "read" them and also still take in the imagery, because your eyes aren't "cutting" off the things above it like they do when you look down where subtitles are normally, I never got why more movies don't naturally understand that and put them at the top (IIRC  there was a movie a few years ago that was released with them that way, I believe it was Mel Gibson's Apocalypto or something).

If you really enjoyed Stalker might I make some suggestions. Both Terrence Malick and Paul Thomas Anderson have a similar style of film making that he did, in terms of focusing more on the characters and letting things flow more naturally (Though some might say it's "slow" because of that).

For Terrence Malick I'd suggest Days of Heaven:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077405/?ref_=sr_1

Badlands:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069762/

Those are my two personal favorites of his, you might also enjoy some of his other movies if you like those (me made the recent "Tree of Life" starring Brad Pitt, got some good critic love but like many movies it's slow and some people just don't enjoy slower paced movies).

For Paul Thomas Anderson I'd suggest:

There will be Blood

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469494/

Magnolia

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0175880/

Punch Drunk Love(actually a decent love story but also comedic, Adam Sandler's best more "serious" role imo).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272338/

Then there's Boogie Nights, which was his big "break out" film, starring Markie Mark, I loved it. It's about the Porn Industry around the era film starts to lose focus and they go to VHS and things, It's a good film but as it's about Porn it also features some slight nudity and other things you might not want to watch.

Also might I suggest you watch Tarkovsky's Solaris, it's a good movie (They remade it a while back with George clooney, but the original is better).

Originally Posted By SirDave (4 FEB 2013 11:42pm)

Originally Posted By Caroline (4 FEB 2013 11:29pm)

Originally Posted By Traveller (4 FEB 2013 3:04am)

Originally Posted By Caroline (4 FEB 2013 12:57am)

but I guess actors do get old.

 

...only actors, though, eh, Caroline?

 

Well, as you well know, Trav, for Goddesses, aging is optional and one day, when I'm truly bored with my current age, I shall give it a try but right now, 50 is still fitting like a glove. 

 

 

 

Down under, everything is backwards. Winter is summer; summer is winter. Water circles down a drain counterclockwise. And women age backwards. Next year, Caroline will be back in her 40s.

 

 

So if my calculations are right, she's actually 78 years old in Nothern hemisphere years?

Originally Posted By Stiler (5 FEB 2013 1:22am)

...I love Stalker, one of my favorite visuals is when the guy is laying in the little creek with the dog, just something so quaint yet surreal about that moment...

 

I found a pic here:

http://umfrancisco.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/stalker.jpg

 

 

Yes, on a sort of bed of moss hardly bigger than himself. The film is full of amazing images - lots of water and things seen through water, a motif of his..

Solaris is one of my favorite SF novels [Lem was a great writer] and I like Tarovsky's version *and* the Clooney one. They both exist side by side without any problem since they take on two completly different themes of the book. Tarkovsky: the philisophical and intellectual challenge of what the "planet" is or means, and the Clooney version: the psychological and emotional dimensions of the "visitors". Clooney's is far better than generally given credit IMO and both are on my SF movie shortlist.

Interestingly, years ago my brother commented after reading the book he could see a movie that explored the the psychological/emotional side since Tark had basically covered the rest. Damn! If we were only script writers!

Thanks for the suggestions I'll check them out for sure. Real SF is hard to come by.

Those other suggestions aren't Sci Fi films, more so films that are similar in style/tone to Stalker.

Decent Sci fi is harder to come by these days, but if you are looking for some good sci fi and newer movioes check out Moon, Source Code (both Moon and Source Code are from David Bowie's son, Duncan Jones, who's making the Warcraft movie) , Sunshine, and Pandorum along with the recent Prometheus , which seems to be a love or hate it, I enjoyed it but it has it's faults which hopefully will be remedied with the upcoming sequel.