Movies - General Discussion

[DanO]

What do you mean by that jaad?

[jaadam4]

I don’t know who his ex is and why you thought he could do better. It was just random to me but knowing you’re the one posting about shaving your balls and watching soccer in the same afternoon is telling.

You’re a weirdo

[Tom]

Who was his ex?

[Cody_Russell]

Funny I am having this debate here.

I debated it with my brothers for nearly three hours. I had not seen 1917 at the time; only Dunkirk.

Nolan is incredible and he has been so prolific that now it seems slightly formulaic. Austere, restrained, technical, and then he opens up the score and the narrative at last (civilian boat scene in Dunkirk). It is almost like the movie was designed for you to not take a full breath until that moment. At the time I would have easily have it fighting top 3 war movies of all time.

1917 feels like a different movie entirely, but has similar effects. It is super literary and the razed city sequence -- a full act before the climax which was equally stunning -- is amazing. Also, plot/characters makes it way more accessible.

I am obviously not settled, but everyone else I've talked to shares your sentiment -- I think my hang up is purely stubbornness. Happy to watch both of them again and that is the true luxury.

I didn't understand a word of that (🥴) ... but I liked 1917 better cuz I thought it just made you care more about the characters

Ps most re-watchable for me has been Top Gun: Maverick. Great movie.

Looking at the list from the last bunch of years ... Green Book was pretty good. Parasite. The last 2 Avengers. 1917 ... good stuff

I finally saw “1917” yesterday. Absolutely loved it. Non-stop action/ thriller/ claustrophobia feeling for a war firm. To add in some of the best cinematography that I’ve ever seen on screen. No surprise that Sir Roger Deakins did the cinematography.
Similar vibes to “Dunkirk.” I will say the same thing of not really needing a stronger narrative and character background when a film is made like this. Masterclass from a technical perspective.
My last observation is about actor Andrew Scott. I’ve noticed him standout in a few roles recently, Sneaky great actor. Wish he had the opportunity to showcase it on a bigger scale.

[jaadam4]

That one long continuous scene in 1917 was absolutely amazing. Great film

[CGVT]

Watched Dungeons and Dragons the other night.

Eh, it didn't suck. Kind of Lord of the Rings light. For me it was a much better watch than that tedious over-produced bullshit. It didn't have twenty minutes of fluff showing me how awesome the Elves' home is. I get it, but you could cut an hour out of each of those movies and not miss anything.

D and D was what you get it you cut the bullshit.

[jaadam4]

I started it but couldn’t get through it. I’ll try it again

[CGVT]

I started it but couldn’t get through it. I’ll try it again

It took me a while to warm up to it, but it really doesn't get a whole lot better. Ha!

[Cody_Russell]

Yeah nothing special, but popcorn entertainment for 2 hours. Curious to see the long term effects of most blockbuster movies being made with the MCU/ Marvel formula. Watered down potential, but guaranteed to be fine? Like McDonalds breakfast.

…

Re-watching the Mission Impossible movies this week in prep for the new one.
Interesting how the first five films in the franchise have different mainstream directors that offer a unique style. Meanwhile, Mission Impossible 5 through 8 will end up having the same director in Christopher McQuarrie because they have the MI (Mission Impossible) formula right. These later films being far superior if my memory is correct.

“Mission: Impossible”
Directed by Brian de Palma (Carrie, Scarface). I thought this was a good re-watch. Mostly entertaining from beginning to end as it flows by fast. Still mostly holds up 27 years later. Though the train scene at the end is a little outdated from a visual perspective. Very suspenseful style. Featuring numerous Dutch angle camera shots to up the suspense. The breaking into the CIA scene is a classic in the franchise. The villain’s motives (money and disrespect) is a little shallow, but not a bad villain. The plot is a little complicated to follow, but ultimately a good spy thriller. 7/10.

“Mission: Impossible 2”
Directed by John Woo (Face/Off). Oh wow, the drastic changes. This is where they decided to shift the franchise from spy thriller to ACTION. Ethan Hunt is suddenly a James Bond-like character that pretends to be in a Bad Boys movie. The 1st half is a little slow, but there’s plenty of over the top action in the 2nd half. Slow-mo camera shots and John Woo doves flooding the screen. Extremely shallow villain that just wants MONEY and stock options. Definitely a step down from the first, but an OK action movie. Crazy the difference in style between MI1 and MI2 due to the director change. 5/10.

[froot loops]

I saw the new Indy movie, I like it a lot. They were basically playing the hits like a Bond film plays the hits. But these type of hits are rarely played anymore.

[jaadam4]

I saw the new Indy movie, I like it a lot. They were basically playing the hits like a Bond film plays the hits. But these type of hits are rarely played anymore.

You’re the first person that I’ve heard say it’s good. It def can’t be as bad as the one with Shia LaBeouf

That was a huge shit stain

[jaadam4]

Anyone else going to see Sound of Freedom?

[CGVT]

Fuck that conspiracy theory shit.

[foxhopper]

Anyone else going to see Sound of Freedom?

I haven't yet but will. The loons here won't give it a chance because, you know, grooming and child trafficking is all just a conspiracy theory myth.

[CGVT]

He said grooming. Everybody drink!