come on, you can argue about Avatar's quality as a story, etc. but it's a clear fact had innovative 3-D, James Cameron built a new fucking camera for it
@danny Yeah? We were going to see it, but then I saw the Metacritic rating and figured I'd get some of the obvious Oscar contenders out of the way first. Ultimately I could buy the poor rating as Funny People wasn't very good.
I'll probably end up in the minority in really liking it, but yeah I'd recommend it, even though it was a little overlong and a little inconsistent. I'm admittedly an Apatow fan, though. I even liked Funny People when it came out, though I was an extremely different person back then so I don't know how I'd feel about it now.
there's some really funny stuff in there but for being 2 of my favorite people in the world Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann played wholly unlikable characters that yes, were probably realistic, but whom I had no intention of watching. Plus alot of the funny stuff to me were parts of the film that had little to nothing to do with the real plot of the film at all (if there is one). Like Melissa McCarthy's scene, which is probably the best one in the film, but I'll admit had no reason for being there.
I dunno, it's disappointing. I think Judd Apatow can be a great and original voice in comedy (I love Funny People even though I think 2/3 of everyone else doesn't). But this was a real misstep for him in my opinion.
I found their characters likable... :( And wasn't Melissa McCarthy's scene there to show that Debbie and Pete still had enough passion to work together to defend their daughter and each other?
Yeah well fuck your opinions you disgusting piece of shit.
Nah but really I understand where you're coming from. I'm not calling it a perfect movie, but I thought its cast was too strong, writing and execution too frequently funny, characters too fleshed out, situations too relatable, and script too perceptive for me to dislike it.
Just saw Django Unchained. It was pretty good, better than Inglorious Bastards. Lots of cartoonish violence in the style of Kill Bill. Overall I enjoyed it but it was almost three hours long and probably didn't need to be. I don't know what you guys think of Tarentino.
Django Unchained definitely needed to be trimmed down at least by 15 minutes (and yes, that could've easily been done without affecting the story). And there really wasn't anything mind-blowingly new from Tarantino that made me appreciate his craft all the more (like the opening scene from Inglourious Basterds for example).
Now that I got that out of the way, Django Unchained is such a fucking good time. And maybe what's most impressive about it is that Tarantino was able to depict the absolute horrors of slavery with great brutality and realism in a way no Hollywood film probably ever has, without even a hint of exploitation, in my opinion. Someone might disagree on that last point, but there were honestly points of the film that were hard to watch for me. And Leo really blew me away, at least in his "scene" (y'all know what I'm talking about if you've seen the film).
just watched Sleepwalk with Me, and thank god I saw it before I made my list because it's definitely going on it. Such a great movie if you're love stand-up, or even if you don't.
Mark Kermode highly recommends it, I think I might watch it soon.
Kermode's my recent favourite critic. He's like Roger Ebert but can talk, or Richard Roeper but with more material and he's funnier than both of them combined.
Or maybe it's just because he's put with an absolutely dry radio host. The two of them together are like a bickering elderly couple, their podcasts are great.
Lock Stock is good. But I also saw it the 12+ years ago it came out. It may not translate well to comedy today. Snatch I think got most of it's praise from Brad Pitt's turn in it after a pile of pretty serious roles.
Lock Stock is amazing. I've seen it several times, holds up just as well today. Though many say you have to be from London (or England, at least) to understand the "humor" but I don't really agree with that.
I recently read a review for Les Miserables that said something to the effect of "this is the kind of film that waterboards you into obeying it". As someone who had to sit through that, it is so true.
Glad you saw Sleepwalk with Me, @ClydeNut. I've been thinking about it for the last few days. Definitely among my faves this year, and, like I said, Lauren Ambrose.
@hayter36, I've seen the Hobbit twice now. Saw the standard 35mm/24fps version first, and I'm really glad I did. The 48fps version looked so much like video that it often took me out if the movie. Some scenes had action that looked like it was even sped up (a shot as simple as old Bilbo walking down the hall in his Hobbit-hole looked fucked up). I thought the 48fps shined on some of the sweeping panoramas, as well as some of the slo-mo stuff, but for the most part, I really didn't like the look.
Finished the book the night before seeing it, and while it wasn't a page-for-page retelling, I appreciated how lovingly it was interpreted (Azog was a welcome addition -- he was the shit).
(RE: Sleepwalk with ME) I did think the ending was a little too rushed (SPOILER: meaning, everything after he jumps out of the window) I mean, this is probably the only time I've given this criticism to a film this year, but it is too short imho. It's 80 minutes and I feel it could've been fleshed out more, like with the ending for example, and I wanted to see more of his relationship with his father, which I'm told is more of a topic in the stage show which I have yet to watch/listen to/whatever. Regardless, I loved it and it definitely has me eager to look for more of Mike Birbiglia's work
I see that, @TTK, but one thing that both films have in common, other than the absurdness, is the fact both are commenting on film. Mulholland Dr. comments on Hollywood films, while Holy Motors seems to be more about all of film history. Unless I'm missing the point. Which is likely, because I'm not going to pretend to understand all of Holy Motors at this point.
Well film critic Mark Kermode said the same thing about Holy Motors. I didn't exactly see that, I thought it was more about having to play different characters in different aspects of life, and how we are constantly projecting some sort of idea of how we are to an "audience" i.e. everyone else.
@nick I agree, I think the film is in many ways about identity more than anything else, and the use of actors is a metaphor for that. But really in a way this is the kind of film that can be interpreted dozens of different ways, and that's kind of the magic of it
I can't argue with the first 3-4 seasons of Family Guy, but everything after to me is just tired and flat (and that includes American Dad and The Cleveland Show). but I thought alot of parts of Ted were kind of a return to that level of quality, for me anyway. There are at least two moments that are among the funniest things I've seen this year movie-wise
Sleepwalk with me was pretty okay. Ultimately, the message was a really good one, but I just didn't find it that funny. Twas a case where the preview had some of the funniest moments in it. Meh.
Caught a pretty good drug induced tokyo fantasy drama called "Enter the Void" a couple weeks ago. It was very stylistically ambitious, and while they got carried away and overly artsy at times, I ultimately found it to be entertaining.
Sleepwalk With Me was good! It started slowly, but it really pays off by the end. It is a bit short, but it didn't bother me too much. I understand the criticism, though.
What about it made it worse than any other musical, because I enjoyed some bits more than most musicals I have watched. It was melodramatic and some of the songs weren't very good--like every musical that I've seen.
1st: What musicals am I missing?
and 2nd: What made Les Miserables a bad "musical" rather than a bad "movie."