Same here. Just added it to my list to watch later.
what was the last movie you watched?
- Thread starter Folsom Al
- Start date
King Baller
All-Star
Watched a couple more westerns on Netflix. "Badland" is a post civil war thriller about a Pinkerton Detective tracking down Confederate war criminals. "Big Kill" is another horse opera. The scenery filmed in this one is beautiful. Friendship, dealing with loss and standing up for what you believe in are all covered in this one.
It had a bit of a John Wick storyline, but wasn't nearly THAT violent or good. I'm not always a big Ethan Hawke fan (he was OK here, some parts better than others), but enjoyed John Travolta in this. Didn't recognize Karen Gillan at first, as she wasn't covered in makeup (Avengers movies are the only thing I recall her from previously).
I also watched The Outpost last night. While the film was very well done overall, it seemed to lack any kind of a "start", just dumping you in and throwing a bunch of names at you on the screen. It was just a bit of a disconcerting way to start a flick as it was hard to try to keep up with who was who at the beginning. I liked Orlando Bloom and Scott Eastwood in this one; they did excellent jobs.
Not really loving this 30 days to watch thing HBO is doing but made time to watch it just now. Powerful stuff.
Just watched Jack Snyder's Justice League with my dad and a friend. While I thought it was a somewhat better (that's not saying a WHOLE lot, but still) and technically more cohesive film, holy heck is it about 1.5-2 hours too long.
Look, while I like some long films (Aliens and T2 extended cuts, LOTR extended cuts, etc., etc.), this....really didn't need that. Certainly not 4+ hour's worth.
Look, while I like some long films (Aliens and T2 extended cuts, LOTR extended cuts, etc., etc.), this....really didn't need that. Certainly not 4+ hour's worth.
Last edited:
I hate the trend of making tentpole films close to 3 hours. A 4 hour Justice League sounds almost unwatchable, especially knowing the short cut is reviled and I probably couldn't appreciate what was added without knowing what was so bad. So it's almost like a 7 hour commitment.
You definitely don't need to watch the first one if you don't want to. Not really any "spoilery" spoilers, but still:
They added a baddie above Steppenwolf's level, which actually helped make the film a bit better. They fleshed out more character backstories, made the film less bipolar, made the ending better (IMHO), and set it up better for a sequel. They added a character or two in cameo parts that may play bigger roles in the future.
All in all, a better movie than before. But that doesn't mean it was "good". I'll take maybe 21 out of 23 Marvel flicks over this one. Not a huge fan of Thor 2, TBH, and one or two others depending on my mood. And the change of pace (characters, etc.) from a Marvel movie gives this some novelty, if nothing else. But man, it was a LOT longer than necessary.
Padrino
All-Star
In honor of both Akira Kurosawa's and Toshiro Mifune's recent birthdays, I've been steeping myself in their shared filmography once again. Rashomon. Seven Samurai. Throne of Blood. The Hidden Fortress. Yojimbo. It would not be hard to argue that they were the most significant director/actor pairing of the 20th century. That is certainly the case within the world of Japanese cinema, anyway.
Off of the top of my head, the first director that jumps out is Bergman, who definitely loved using actors over and over - I suppose you could take your pick of Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson, Gunnar Björnstrand, Gunnel Lindblom, Max von Sydow, Ingrid Thulin, and Liv Ullman. Between 1953's Summer With Monika and 1982's Fanny and Alexander, Bergman made 35 non-documentary features, and 29 of those films featured at least one of that group of 7 in a top-line role (for 52 top-line roles altogether). That's not a single actor, but that's a pretty impressive run with a small preferred cast.
Löwenherz
Starter
Not gonna get much argument from me with that pair. My lone disappointment with Ran was they hadn't reconciled in time for Mifune to make an appearance. His absence there is a bit haunting.
A few duos that jumped out to me as contenders to the Kurosawa/Mifune crown would be Ford/Wayne and Scorsese/De Niro.
Herzog/Kinski deserves mention for being insane.
In line with the previous Godzilla movies (?); I think the Kong movies tend to have slightly better stories and writing. The special effects were great, and overall this was fairly entertaining. But still just a big action blockbuster type movie. Not that anyone would expect anything different.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Nobody follows the same formula as John Wick but delivers a solid visceral action punch with a solid cast of guys who you wouldn’t expect to be able to carry an action film and RZA, who has pretty much been gunning to be an action hero since the day he was born.
it’s also apparently part of the John Wick cinematic universe
it’s also apparently part of the John Wick cinematic universe
I haven't watched it and probably won't, just because I generally try to avoid trailers for movies I know I will see. Did it look better than Iron Fist?
Sluggah
All-Star
Ehhhh. It was very on par with Iron Fist to me (dug that 2nd season though). I think I’ll take up your trailer rule.I haven't watched it and probably won't, just because I generally try to avoid trailers for movies I know I will see. Did it look better than Iron Fist?
Edit, side note: I appear to be in the minority, so that’s comforting.
Last edited:
Just finished up Rear Window, (Hitchcock with Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly) - I'm glad to be making an effort to catch a lot of these older films I've never seen before. Obviously, a good flick and I've always enjoyed Jimmy when I've seen him in something. This is the first time I think I've seen Grace Kelly in a film before, and I'm glad to be able to put a performance to a name. Recommended.
Löwenherz
Starter
Have always enjoyed Rear Window’s relative minimalism.
Löwenherz
Starter
Wait what?!
I don't even know what this means.
I think if you compare Rear Window to the rest of the Alfred Hitchcock catalog, it stands out for making the most of a small number of moving pieces. Hitchcock made almost exclusively suspense thrillers and most of them are very plot-heavy. In contrast, Rear Window is set in one location and even more significantly its limited to a large extent to the same view out the window of that room. It generates its various highs and lows mostly from character revelation and exploitation of that limited point of view. As the audience we only have access to the same information as the main character, there's no chases or action set pieces, there's no theatrical lighting or exotic locales, and yet it lacks nothing in suspense or entertainment for all those restrictions.
That's why for a large number of people Rear Window is the ultimate Hitchcock accomplishment. Its parts fit together like a swiss watch, nothing is wasted, everything has a place. It's not my favorite Hitchcock movie, I think we talked about this in the last movie draft -- for me that's Vertigo. But I certainly understand why other people would put Rear Window at the top. And that "relative minimalism" @Löwenherz mentioned is a big part of why it's such an impressive piece of work to so many people.
Thank you for clarifying - that really helps!
Vertigo and Rear Window are the only two of his I think I have seen so far (I may have seen Psycho at some point when I was young but don't really remember for sure if I watched the whole thing). I currently have The Birds and North by Northwest recorded to watch sometime as well.
Yeah, I saw it last night. The acting was a little stiff, but the fights were decent. A little more gory than I was originally anticipating when I heard about the film, but I later heard that this one was like that with the R rating.
Similar threads
