Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[alphabassettgrrl]

Saw "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" last night. Fun, certainly in keeping with the improbability of the original. The CGI was predictably bad, but not overused. Tom Cruise was, well, Tom Cruise, but it was still fun. Bits of humor here and there. One scene went on for far too long in my opinion- trying to get a briefcase, oh, almost, something happens and it's gone again, almost! , gone again, oh, wait! almost! gone...

Yeah, we got it, make it more interesting than that. James Bond of late does this, too, with chase scenes. A couple time is fun, after that I'm just waiting for it to end.

And the thing with his wife? I liked the inclusion. A little backstory, a little detail, and yet he remains Ethan Hunt in all his omniscient glory.

Good scenery, nice place-setting shots, good toys, cute girls.

[innerSpaceman]

More screeners:

Albert Noobs was awesome. Glenn Close predictably fantastic in a story based on truth about not one, but TWO women who disguise themselves and live as men in a time when women were merely chattel. Very bittersweet and well worth watching.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy left me wanting to read the book. It had to have been mercilessly condensed (it was previously filmed as a 7-part miniseries starring Alec Guiness), but I'll be damned if I can figure from this movie what was cut out of the story. The cold war spy drama was dry yet fascinating. Good performances by Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth and John Hurt.

Loved, loved, loved Arthur Christmas. So much adorable fun from the folks who do Wallace and Grommit. Gonna have to buy this one and add it to the films I watch every year at holiday time (or, well, most years - since I didn't watch a single solitary one of my obligatory holiday movies or TV specials of yesteryear this year).

[Not Afraid]

Noobs is what I call my new boobs.

[innerSpaceman]

Bwahaha, I'm gonna start calling you Albert, and refer to them as Albert's Noobs.

[Alex]

More screeners:

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy left me wanting to read the book. It had to have been mercilessly condensed (it was previously filmed as a 7-part miniseries starring Alec Guiness), but I'll be damned if I can figure from this movie what was cut out of the story. The cold war spy drama was dry yet fascinating. Good performances by Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth and John Hurt.

Yeah, I'll be reading the book. But leaving the movie I did think that 14 hours (or 7, not sure if they were two hour blocks) would have been a horrible slog since at 2.25 it was so incredibly tight.

[innerSpaceman]

Out of curiosity, I read the plot summary on Wikipedia and, um, the movie didn't leave out any of that summarized plot. More curious than ever what the original story is padded with.

[Snowflake]

Noobs is what I call my new boobs.

I'm sure this has been submitted for posterity more than once already. But, I did anyway. Snort!

[Snowflake]

Out of curiosity, I read the plot summary on Wikipedia and, um, the movie didn't leave out any of that summarized plot. More curious than ever what the original story is padded with.

Long tracking shots of Alec Guiness as George Smiley cogitating. ;)

I'm going to see TTSS this weekend, I can't wait. Only thing missing would be a cameo by Alan Rickman.

[Alex]

The only complaint I have about TTSS is that I was able to figure it out using the same method that generally works on TV.

I just assumed that the suspect played by the most famous actor did it.

[innerSpaceman]

Works too often in movies, too.

[Not Afraid]

We're actually going to go to a theater and see a movie! What a concept. Pina on Saturday. In 3D.

[JWBear]

The new Wes Anderson movie, Moonrise Kingdom, looks interesting in a very Wes Andersonish way.

[Alex]

Well, not off to too bad a start for the Oscar season. Of the 42 nominated films (excluding the shorts and the foreign language category as many of those aren't yet readily possible), I've seen 21 of them. And 65 of the 99 nominations total for them (The Help is the most nominated that I haven't seen).

Complete whiff on Best Actress though. And I'm pretty resistant to seeing Extremely Loud and Dangerously Close (not because it is 9/11 but because it looks awful).

First time since the Best Animated Feature award was created that Disney/Pixar has been completely locked out. And with two foreign titles they had to go deep to do so. Cars 2 was pretty bad but I thought Winnie the Pooh might take a slot.

[Alex]

Hmm...was prompted into noticing that the best picutre nominees have a strong bias towards the past.

The Artist - Set in the late 1920s.
Extremely Lous & Incredibly Close - 2001.
The Help - Early 1960s
Hugo - 1931
Midnight in Paris - Half of it is in the 1920s
Moneyball - 2002
The Tree of Life - Half of it is in the 1950s
War Horse - The length of World War II

The Descendents is the only nominee rooted firmly in the present.

[Strangler Lewis]

I haven't seen "The Descendants" yet, but it's my understanding that George Clooney is forced to rexamine his past.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm not buying that 2001 and 2002 are past-oriented.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Have you forgotten which way time runs again, Steve?

Here's something: Those kids that W was reading to when he got the news about 9/11...they can vote now. Does that make it feel like long enough ago to call it the past?

[Alex]

I'm not buying that 2001 and 2002 are past-oriented.

I disagree. They're set a decade ago, and that isn't a trivial amount of time (unlike last years The Social Network and 127 Hours which were set only a couple years in the past). Plus they are both not only set in the past but focused on specific past events.

They may not be set far in the past but they are strongly set in the "not now."

[Alex]

Also, it isn't true for the casual fan but to an Athletics fan (as I am) the period of them competing each year into the playoffs is a thing of the distant past.

Troy was set more recently.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Green Hornet: Horrid movie. Nobody should ever sit through that drivel ever again. Some of the toys were cool, and the occasional action sequence is fun, but other than that?

Not good.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, they are strongly set in the "not-now." But they don't, imo, rise to the level of what you implied the collective Academy was sorta going for in making the nominations.

In fact, if they weren't tied to specific actual events that happened to have happened a decade ago, nothing about the movies would give away that they happened in the "past."


But it was your statement about "bias"; maybe I'm just misinterpreting it.

[Alex]

I simply meant that they picked a slate with a strong bias towards movies strongly focused on events and times explicitly not now.

I think that having 8 out of 9 movies with significant portions a decade (9 years for Moneyball) or more in the past is an interesting quirk. I see no conspiracy and would barely speculate on whether any zeitgeist among the Academy produced the result.

But maybe when I'm as old as you I'll scoff at the idea of a decade being a significant distance in the past.

That said, the result is decidedly meh. It wasn't a strong year but I'd be disappointed if Hugo, War Horse, or Midnight in Paris won. I suspect I'd be disappointed if The Help or Extremely Close won.

Moneyball is my favorite of the six I've seen but I'd be ok with The Artist simply for it having the balls to be so far outside of convention (even if it then manages to be a thoroughly conventional movie).

[Kevy Baby]

Also, it isn't true for the casual fan but to an Athletics fan (as I am) the period of them competing each year into the playoffs is a thing of the distant past.

Troy was set more recently.VAM

[Alex]

The only two nominated movies that I haven't seen and are available for streaming on Netflix are documentaries (If a Tree Falls and To Hell and Back) so I watched the first one last night (really want to see Pina before it leaves theaters but I don't know I'll ever have the time).

It is a fair documentary in that it is interesting to see the thinking and general normalcy of the Earth Liberation Front activist/terrorists. But I couldn't quite tell if it was trying to provoke a sense of outrage or sympathy over what happened to the main guy convicted. It didn't, but I'm not sure if that means it failed.

If anybody else has seen it, any thoughts?

[innerSpaceman]

Of the Best Picture noms, I haven't seen The Help - but it's in my Netflix queue. Whether I'll get it before the Oscars is anybody's bet.

I don't particularly want to see either War Horse or Extremely Loud and Close, but I'm mildly curious to check those out - so if they come out on DVD before the Oscars ... if not, I don't really care.

I haven't seen The Artist either, but I intend to remedy that. I think that covers the Best Picture noms. Interesting that of all the screeners I saw, only three (Tinker Tailor, Albert Nobbs and Moneyball) have received more than one nomination. So if I haven't seen any of the other noms once I cover The Help and The Artist, that's where I'm gonna be stuck for this Oscar season ... except that I hope to cover the nominated shorts in the same traditional manner as we have in years past.

[Strangler Lewis]

Yes, if the climax of Moneyball with the A's being eliminated in the divisional round of the playoffs was supposed to make us forget Damn Yankees or The Natural, I'm looking forward to the movie version of the stalled Mayweather/Pacquiao negotiations to make me forget Rocky.

[lashbear]

Whatever you do, DO NOT watch Titanic II. Trust me on this. It's an hour and a half you will never get back.

Wait. They made a sequel? The damn boat sinks, what else is there?

Stoat suggested Grindylows.

[Strangler Lewis]

I watched "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" for the first time last night. Bette Davis was awesome, and the movie's ultimately worth it to watch her, but it basically stunk. Tedious chunks of exposition, ultimately gratuitous Victor Buono and a non-climax. I had also mistakenly assumed that the Joan Crawford character gave as good as she got, but it was not to be.

[lindyhop]

I watched "Say Anything" today. It's been at the top of my Netflix queue for ages but I keep kicking other things up to the top. Apparently it was annoyed at being snubbed for so long and tripped "Macbeth" on its way to the top of the queue. The acknowledgment email that said Netflix received the returned DVD said "Macbeth" was next in my queue but the next email said I would be receiving "Say Anything." Vindictive little movie.

It's just as well I got it out of the way. It wasn't what I thought which was something I'd seen before that was more a road movie, nerdy guy follows cool girl somewhere, finally wins her over. What movie was that?

[CoasterMatt]

Watched one of my favorites this morning- "Journey to the Center of the Earth" - the 1959 movie starring James Mason and Pat Boone. It's still one of my favorites.

[flippyshark]

It's just as well I got it out of the way. It wasn't what I thought which was something I'd seen before that was more a road movie, nerdy guy follows cool girl somewhere, finally wins her over. What movie was that?

Probably The Sure Thing, which was a pretty charming Rob Reiner film.

[lashbear]

I watched "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" for the first time last night. Bette Davis was awesome, and the movie's ultimately worth it to watch her, but it basically stunk. Tedious chunks of exposition, ultimately gratuitous Victor Buono and a non-climax. I had also mistakenly assumed that the Joan Crawford character gave as good as she got, but it was not to be.

Try THIS version instead... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObIcetC7pHE)

[Kevy Baby]

Cool movie promo

‘Flying People’ Stun New Yorkers to Promote New Movie ‘Chronicle’ (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/flying-people-stun-yorkers-promote-movie-chronicle-194823215.html)

[lindyhop]

Probably The Sure Thing, which was a pretty charming Rob Reiner film.

I think that's it. Thanks!

[Kevy Baby]

We just got the Blu Ray for 'Zack and Miri Make a Porno.' While it is a relatively short movie, there is another 3-4 hours of extras on that disk

[Prudence]

I was assuming that The Artist would be a Avatar-like gimmick-fest, but it was fantastic. Loved it so much.

[Kevy Baby]

So we saw This Is It (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1477715/) (the Michael Jackson movie they made of his rehearsals). VERY pleasantly surprised that we enjoyed it as much as we did. Only a couple of bits of people gushing about what a great guy he was - just a lot great performance footage, even if it was all rehearsal. Some of the performances were lacking because he was saving his voice, bit overall, he still had it up to the end, both vocally and his dancing. Billie Jean was the standout performance.

It looked like it was gonna be a helluva show. Catch it if you can (we caught it on Palladia).

[flippyshark]

This Is It was a good reminder of what an amazing performer Jackson was. I'll never be able to idolize him, or set aside concerns about his troubling personal life, but there's nobody else like him. (And for as astoundingly popular and influential as he was, I don't recall that anyone was really trying to imitate him or his style at any point.) Has anyone managed a really good, in-depth biography of him yet?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

(And for as astoundingly popular and influential as he was, I don't recall that anyone was really trying to imitate him or his style at any point.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ3slUz7Jo8&ob=av2e

Timberlake is the only one who can pull it off, in dance and vocals.

[flippyshark]

Timberlake is the only one who can pull it off, in dance and vocals.

So, I guess he could star in the inevitable biopic?

[Moonliner]

Anyone have a bit of free time?

Select AMC theaters (http://www.amctheatres.com/movie-news/2012/03/amc-theatres-presents-the-ultimate-marvel-marathon) (like the one in Downtown Disney) are doing a Marvel Movie Marathon leading up to the release of the new Avengers movie starting at 11:30am May 3rd.

Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor in 3D, Captain America in 3D and finally The Avengers in 3D.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm guessing there's another Avengers other than John Steed & Mrs Peel

[Moonliner]

I'm guessing there's another Avengers other than John Steed & Mrs Peel

While there will never be another Mrs. Peel *woof*!

Yes. This is the movie based on Marvel comics grouping of super heroes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_%28comics%29).

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the_avengers__1_.jpg

[Alex]

I'm guessing there's another Avengers other than John Steed & Mrs Peel

Considering how the last Avengers movie with John Steed and Mrs Peel went, I think it is safe to say it will be millennia (or 12 more years in the Hollywood equivalent) before they try that again.

[JWBear]

I know I'm in the minority, but I loved the Avengers movie.

[JWBear]

We just watched OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies (starring Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo from The Artist). It's a spoof of James Bond/spy movies. Unfortunately, I guess you have to be French in order to get the humor. Monsieur Dujardin is nice eye candy, though.

[RStar]

Just saw "Silent House".

What a dreadfull movie. Slow, depressing, I had the plot figured out half way through, and I hate that shakey "Look- I'm running with a camera" filmming.

Don't waste your money.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Harold and Maude is coming to Criterion Blu-Ray and DVD (http://www.criterion.com/films/27896-harold-and-maude)

[Alex]

Wanderlust - Has its moments.
The Warrior's Way - Has no moments.
A Separation - One long wonderful painful moment.
Jeff, Who Lives at Home - A light pleasant moment that'll be forgotten.
The Double - Hunts down all your other moments and tries to kill them, leaving you with no moments to enjoy.

[flippyshark]

Harold and Maude is coming to Criterion Blu-Ray and DVD (http://www.criterion.com/films/27896-harold-and-maude)

I'll be buying this the instant it arrives.

The features list doesn't mention any deleted scenes or extra footage, but my DVD of Harold and Maude includes the theatrical trailer, and it has some tantalizing glimpses of scenes that didn't make the final cut, most memorably, a couple of shots of Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon sharing a really passionate snog. I have wondered if this was deleted from the film out of concern that seeing a young man passionately kiss an elderly woman would be too off-putting. I hope this wasn't the case, and I'm glad I have the moment preserved in abbreviated form in the trailer, but it's a shame this didn't make it into the movie.

How I love Harold and Maude.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Tempted to buy, even though we also already own the DVD. It's such a wonderful film, one of few that I consider a perfect 10/10. There's not a beat that is off, not a millisecond of wasted time, not a word or breath out of place. Every single element of it is in service of the story and the characters.

Made my very conservative father in law watch it (though currently conservative, he is of the ex-hippie variety having lived on a commune and a fan of Cat Stevens). His review was something along the lines of, "It was a nice bit of liberal fluff" :rolleyes:

[Snowflake]

I'll be buying this the instant it arrives.

How I love Harold and Maude.

Ditto!

[Snowflake]

Catching up on Oscar and nominated films, finally.

My Week With Marilyn was a lovely film. Beautifully cast (although I did think Ormond was miscast as Leigh, but it was a tiny part). I never forgot that Michelle Williams was not Monroe, but she did a great job. The illusion of Monroe was very good. She had the voice down pat, it was a wonderful performance. She captured Monroe's insecurity and vulnerability.

Beginners was an interesting movie. I did not not like it, but it really did not move me in any way. I was more interested in the Christopher Plummer character than Ewan McGregor. There were some wonderful moments and I would have killed for McGregor's apartment. What I could do with that space!!!

[innerSpaceman]

I'm still gonna try to slog thru Beginners. Yep, the Christopher Plummer parts are rad, the Ewan parts unexpectedly dull. Can't seem to make it through the Ewan parts ... and I can't believe I even typed such a sentence!

Definitely gonna get Harold & Maude - the last copy I had was VHS.

[Snowflake]

I'm still gonna try to slog thru Beginners. Yep, the Christopher Plummer parts are rad, the Ewan parts unexpectedly dull. Can't seem to make it through the Ewan parts ... and I can't believe I even typed such a sentence!


Oh, and I loved Arthur, the dog.

[Alex]

I seem to be a bit weird on Beginners, I liked the Ewan McGregor parts and was left flat by Plummer's parts (he was not pick for Oscar glory).

[Not Afraid]

I just added a few Oscar films to Netflix. Midnight in Paris arrived yesterday, but we're ending season 1 of Boardwalk Empire before we watch it. But first there was 30 Rock, Modern Family and season 2 of Downton Abby to get through. When did we start watching so much TV? (The answer is - oddly enough - after we cancelled FIOS television service.)

[Snowflake]

I just added a few Oscar films to Netflix. Midnight in Paris arrived yesterday, but we're ending season 1 of Boardwalk Empire before we watch it. But first there was 30 Rock, Modern Family and season 2 of Downton Abby to get through. When did we start watching so much TV? (The answer is - oddly enough - after we cancelled FIOS television service.)

I loved, absolutely loved Midnight in Paris. LOVED it.

I also loved Hugo. Have yet to see The Artist (!)

[Alex]

If those, liked Midnight best. Enjoyed The Artist. Didn't like Hugo.

[Prudence]

We saw Midnight in Paris and, while I adored the concept, I found many of the sequences where the whole modern group were talking to each other to be very high school theatre-esque in the delivery. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a Woody Allen movie before (yes, I know), and I've not seen much with Owen Wilson either, so I'm not sure whether any of that was to be expected.

We tried to watch Tree of Life. After about 45 minutes of watching the director masturbate we turned it off. The volume was the single most annoying thing, I think. I have difficulty with loud noises, especially sudden loud noises. I can only imagine that the Oscar voters were experiencing an Emperor's New Clothes moment and assumed that because it was such a steaming pile of art school crap it must actually be deep and profound.

[Ghoulish Delight]

We've caught up on Bridesmaids (fun) and Hugo (liked it a lot). At home are Moneyball and 50/50. I intend to watch Moneyball before the MLB season starts. We'll see.

We also watched one of Louis C.K.'s standup DVDs, Hilarious. Lots of people have been prodding us to see his stuff. I've really liked the handful of bits I have seen of his, so I was really excited. But I think it was too much hype. Not that it wasn't good, but it wasn't quite the comic revelation that I expected based on how insistent so many people were that we see it.

[mousepod]

I liked Midnight In Paris, but never felt it transcended the basic idea. Heather described it as "a good short story." I get that.

I wanted to love Hugo, but I couldn't connect with its heart the way I think Scorsese wanted us to. I appreciated it.

The Artist? It was fun at the time. It didn't stay with me... but my memory is elevating it, so I might pick up the blu-ray when it comes out.

I think of all the Oscar movies I saw in the last year, the only two that I absolutely loved were Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and (sorry, Prudence) The Tree of Life. Unlike Hugo and The Artist, which famously "celebrated film", these two movies were both exceptional examples of filmmaking that told big stories in (mostly) small ways. They celebrated film by being great movies.

[Snowflake]

We saw Midnight in Paris and, while I adored the concept, I found many of the sequences where the whole modern group were talking to each other to be very high school theatre-esque in the delivery. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a Woody Allen movie before (yes, I know), and I've not seen much with Owen Wilson either, so I'm not sure whether any of that was to be expected.

We tried to watch Tree of Life. After about 45 minutes of watching the director masturbate we turned it off. The volume was the single most annoying thing, I think. I have difficulty with loud noises, especially sudden loud noises. I can only imagine that the Oscar voters were experiencing an Emperor's New Clothes moment and assumed that because it was such a steaming pile of art school crap it must actually be deep and profound.

OMG, for fun get Bullets Over Broadway. Crimes and Misdemeanors, excellent. Radio Days, all good fun. Hannah and Her Sisters, excellent. Zelig is also good. My feeling is you either love or hate Woody Allen films, I happen to love the way his mind works. Wilson (whom I'm not a fan of) did an okay job doing the Woody Allen character in the film. The premise of Midnght in Paris I loved. It was also Woody's love letter to Paris in a fashion. ymmv.

Regarding Tree of Life, my hat's off to you. I could only get about 30 minutes into the film before turing it off in disgust. You nailed it Pru, cinematic masturbation.

[innerSpaceman]

Of the three, I adored Hugo by leaps and bounds above the others. It's the only one I will be buying. Midnight in Paris I found charming, but unmemorable four seconds after leaving the theater. I enjoyed The Artist, but it's a fluff piece based entirely on a schmaltzy gimmick. I liked it least of the three, and will never understand how it could have sweeped the Oscars. That said, I enjoyed all three films and am glad I saw each of them.


On Tree of Life, I love that it's a Love It or Hate It film. I'm in the Love It camp. But to Prudence's point - it's the only DVD I've ever seen with an on-screen advisory at the beginning to turn your volume up real loud.

[innerSpaceman]

Moneyball was (to me) unexpectedly great. But Bridesmaids? WTF? A few funny moments, but I will never for the life of me grok what the big deal about this movie was. A D-List comedy in my book.


Being in the Tree of Life Love It camp, I recently watched Melancholia, often cited as the year's other tone poem artsy film, but with a more downbeat tone. This is the one I felt was cinematic masturbation and, though not entirely uninteresting, I really didn't care for it. Tree of Life is a work of genius, detractors notwithstanding. I will pray for them. :cool:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I definitely felt by the time we watched Bridesmaids it was over sold. Funny, but not quite worth the accolades. Honestly, I think it's a little bit condescending in that it really did seem to be getting extra attention because "girls made it". Is that still news? Women can be funny? Seriously?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Maybe if you're Jerry Lewis... :rolleyes:

[katiesue]

I wasn't a Bridesmaids fan either. Some funny bits but it was pretty depressing for most of it. And boring omg how long was it?

[Alex]

I only saw six of the nine best picture nominees but my ranking would have been (best to worst):

1. Moneyball
2. The Descendants
3. Midnight in Paris
4. The Artist
5. War Horse
6. The Tree of Life
7. Hugo
8. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
9. The Help

Yes, I was so unenthralled by Hugo that I am willing to claim that one movie I haven't even seen (The Tree of Life) is better than it.

[flippyshark]

We also watched one of Louis C.K.'s standup DVDs, Hilarious. Lots of people have been prodding us to see his stuff. I've really liked the handful of bits I have seen of his, so I was really excited. But I think it was too much hype. Not that it wasn't good, but it wasn't quite the comic revelation that I expected based on how insistent so many people were that we see it.

There were some really good things in that concert, but at the same time, while watching it, I found myself grated by a few of his ticks:

- He whines a lot. When he's ranting, it gets really bad. ("hi-laaaa-ri-ous!")
- The mocking voices he gives others (especially women!) are irritating.
- He uses the "I just enjoy pissing you off" card when he says outrageous things, but there is no context in which "Maybe I'd f*** a dead kid" is amusing. (YMMV, but he made my "I'd rather avoid" list with that one.)

I see where the comparisons with Carlin are coming from, but no, Louis CK is very much no Carlin.

[Not Afraid]

OMG, for fun get Bullets Over Broadway. Crimes and Misdemeanors, excellent. Radio Days, all good fun. Hannah and Her Sisters, excellent. Zelig is also good. My feeling is you either love or hate Woody Allen films, I happen to love the way his mind works. Wilson (whom I'm not a fan of) did an okay job doing the Woody Allen character in the film. The premise of Midnght in Paris I loved. It was also Woody's love letter to Paris in a fashion. ymmv.



Hanna and Her Sisters is my absolute favorite Woody Allen film. It has been a top 10 film for me from the moment I saw it. Of course, Interiors is my #2 fav, so what do I know. (Radio Days is joyous!)

We also recently saw Scoop. While not a great film, I can always appreciate Woody Allen.

[Ghoulish Delight]

50/50

I need to call my Mom.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Louis CK's stand-up is fine, but it's his monumentally remarkable TV show that really stands out to me.

Snowflake, for the love of Pete, SEE THE ARTIST! You of all people!

I liked Bridesmaids (but saw it before hype. Didn't love it.)
I HATED Tree of Life - but I get that those who love it, love it.

And here's how my nominee order would go:

The Artist
Hugo
The Help
Midnight in Paris
The Descendents
Moneyball
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
War Horse
The Tree of Life

[flippyshark]

Streamed some very early Woody Allen on Netflix this week - What's Up Tiger Lilly, and What's New, Pussycat - neither of those hold up too well, I'm afraid. Scattered chuckles, but, Woody's come a long way since. (It doesn't help that the print of "Tiger Lilly" seems to be the bowdlerized and partly re-recorded network TV version.)

[cirquelover]

We just watched The Muppet Movie. I really liked it, it had that old school Muppets feel to it. Now I want to buy season 2 & 3 of the Muppet Show, already own 1.

[katiesue]

We got the Muppet Movie on Tuesday and loved it too!

[Kevy Baby]

Muppets Tonight with Sandra Bullock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20mpAVnOxpc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLC3C9F6134F8D6425) - one of our favs.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Honestly, I think it's a little bit condescending in that it really did seem to be getting extra attention because "girls made it". Is that still news? Women can be funny? Seriously?Per usual, blame the marketing execs that this is a rarity.

- He uses the "I just enjoy pissing you off" card when he says outrageous things, but there is no context in which "Maybe I'd f*** a dead kid" is amusing. (YMMV, but he made my "I'd rather avoid" list with that one.)I laughed my ass off at the **** a dead kid bit, but I don't expect anyone else to have my sense of humor. except CoasterMatt

Even so, I got annoyed at the hypocritical nature of calling us out on certain first world problems and then whining about his own first world problems. He did not present it as ironic or silly. Overall, he was pretty funny, and I'd be down for more of him.

The only Woody Allen movie I've ever really enjoyed was Annie Hall. Everything else has been just ok. I'm interested to see what Midnight in Paris is like since it's been many years since I've bothered with his stuff.

[Alex]

I see where the comparisons with Carlin are coming from, but no, Louis CK is very much no Carlin.

I know, he's much better. Signed, someone who never really got the Carlin love.

[innerSpaceman]

Le sigh - from someone who never got the The Muppets love.

[Kevy Baby]

I can guarantee that no one else had as good a movie experience seeing the Muppets in a theatre as Susan and I did. We were the only ones in the theatre.

:D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I can guarantee that no one else had as good a movie experience seeing the Muppets in a theatre as Susan and I did. We were the only ones in the theatre.

:DI liked seeing it with a crowd. It's such a communal childhood memory.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I liked seeing it with a crowd. It's such a communal childhood memory.
I'm going to guess their good experience had little to do with childhood or memories...or the movie...

[CoasterMatt]

DOWN IN FRONT!

[€uroMeinke]

Saw Midnight in Paris last night and was totally charmed - of course, Paris is one of my favorite cities so I could only nod in agreement to this little love letter to the City of Lights.

Of course now I want to break out all my favorite Paris movies, Henry & June, Last Tango in Paris, The Dreamers, CQ, An American in Paris, Amelie...

Any Paris films I should add to the list?

[Kevy Baby]

Any Paris films I should add to the list?


Paris Hilton's BFF Thanksgiving Special (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331065/)?

[€uroMeinke]

Paris Hilton's BFF Thanksgiving Special (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331065/)?

is it available on Hulu?

[Not Afraid]

I could watch the opening "slideshow" many times over. I love that city.

[Not Afraid]

Before Sunset
Charade
Frantic
The Professional
Ratatouille ;)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

When you're done with all the Paris movies you should watch Forget Paris.

[Strangler Lewis]

Paris, Texas.

[Alex]

Hunger Games is a very literal translation of the book.

[JWBear]

I could watch the opening "slideshow" many times over. I love that city.

Have you seen Paris, je t'aime?

[flippyshark]

The Hunger Games was more engaging than I was expecting it to be. Shaky-cam-phobes beware. I moved from mid-theater to the back row thanks to the use of that hated technique here. (I guess it doesn't bother everybody, but is there really anyone who would fail to enjoy a movie if it did not use the damn shaky-cam?)

I haven't read the book, and I'm not especially inspired to do so, but I was surprised at how much this turned out to be a satire, not so much of totalitarian government, but of the present-day "reality TV" elimination genre. Since I've ever-loathed that entire field of programming, I was pleased by this aspect. (Early on, Katniss' studly guy friend says "If everyone would just stop watching," to which Katniss gives a resigned "never gonna happen." I knew just how they felt.)

Perfect casting went a long way toward getting me to willingly suspend a lot of disbelief. A couple of tropes, however, bent me to the breaking point.

This:
The Mockingjays - Were these genetically engineered creatures? (I haven't read the book.) Rue merely hummed a very soft melody, and suddenly, the forest was alive with these birds singing it back and forth. I though, gosh, those birds should be mocking the cadence of every sentence these characters say if they're that sensitive!

And this:
The ability of the game programmers to digitally dial up flesh and blood killer dogs just didn't work for me. If they have this technology, there should certainly be no hunger in the land, nor any material lack for anyone. Unless these were tactile holograms? (Same for the dial-up forest fire)

And, I wished for a slightly different ending:
The two of them should have ignored the last-second reprieve and eaten the berries anyway. This could have triggered more riots and rebellion in the districts, which would have pleased me silly. I wouldn't even have minded if the two were somehow rescued and resuscitated, I just wanted them to make that uncompromising choice even after they didn't have to.

I know how I'd like to see things go, but I'm not sure I care quite enough to read three books or watch two more movies to find out. Still, this is so many leagues better than any sparkly vampire crap.

[Alex]

Question 1: Yes, they were. Explained in the book. Not explained in the movie.
Question 2: Yes, this is a problem in the book as well. Super technology inconsistently present.
Question 3: She couldn't because she had to survive and take care of her sister. Future movies will explore the rebellion issue more.

Personally, I thought the movie was pretty much exactly the same quality as the book. Relatively shallow presentation of complex issues. Not bad, not particularly good. Better than half the Harry Potter movies and better than two out of the three Twilight movies. But still very YA in tone and scripting.

Very good performances, better CGI than I'd been lead to expect (except for the big cheat at the end).

[Strangler Lewis]

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I went to "Mirror, Mirror" yesterday. From the commercials I had seen out of the corner of my eye, I had initially assumed that the movie cost about five dollars to make. I now realize that this assumption was grounded in Julia Roberts' snarky dialogue. The movie is actually visually stunning in all respects, but with a Nickelodeon-level script, it was pretty tough sledding.

One interesting touch: it had the semi-obligatory musical number over the credits. From his name, the director sounds like an Indian fellow, and the number seemed like something out of a Bollywood movie. (Of course, it could be a number one pop hit, and I wouldn't know it.)

[Snowflake]

Napoleon vu par Abel Gance, an incredible event, an incredible film, an incredible day. Worth every penny, worth the time ans beyond grateful I had this opportunity.

[Alex]

I meant to go to that, but then forgot about it.

[Kevy Baby]

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I went to "Mirror, Mirror" yesterday. From the commercials I had seen out of the corner of my eye...don't let him fool you folks; SL has been DYING to see this movie!

[innerSpaceman]

I'm tempted to see Mirror, Mirror simply because it was directed by Indian-name-sounding Tarsam Singh. His movies are always visually splendiforous. And I hear Julia Roberts is in finer form than in a million years.

But I think I'll wait for the DVD. Then I can watch it with the sound turned off, except for the Julia Roberts parts. :p

[Gn2Dlnd]

Napoleon vu par Abel Gance, an incredible event, an incredible film, an incredible day. Worth every penny, worth the time ans beyond grateful I had this opportunity.

Sounds fantastic! I like a movie with a lunch break. Link. (http://thebioscope.net/2012/03/26/napoleon-vu-par-kevin-brownlow/) I saw the Carmine Coppola version at the Shrine Auditorium, back in 1980, and we had the VHS at VideoWest when I worked there. The Bioscope article says "In 2000 Brownlow unveiled the film’s colour tinting and toning for the first time at a UK screening at the Royal Festival Hall," but I remember color tinting being a big deal in the version I saw. Also, during the films triptych sequences, and to the audiences astonishment, screens were lowered down on either side of the main screen for a 1929 version of Cineramascope. I'm sure I still have my program in a box somewhere.

[JWBear]

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I went to "Mirror, Mirror" yesterday. From the commercials I had seen out of the corner of my eye, I had initially assumed that the movie cost about five dollars to make. I now realize that this assumption was grounded in Julia Roberts' snarky dialogue. The movie is actually visually stunning in all respects, but with a Nickelodeon-level script, it was pretty tough sledding.

One interesting touch: it had the semi-obligatory musical number over the credits. From his name, the director sounds like an Indian fellow, and the number seemed like something out of a Bollywood movie. (Of course, it could be a number one pop hit, and I wouldn't know it.)

The director is Tarsam Singh. Tarsam Singh, as in The Cell, The Fall, and The Immortals. Visually stunning is his speciality.

[Alex]

Yes, definitely on the visually stunning. Sadly, not so much on the good movie.

[lashbear]

As a Birthday Pressie for Stoat, I'm taking him to see Titanic in 3D.

Yes, we like the movie.
Yes, we like Celine Dion
Yes, our heart will go on.
No, we don't want to pay extra for glasses. We have our own.

[Snowflake]

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan - gorgeously filmed by Wayne Wang. I found the modern story uninteresting and the historical not engrossing enough. I expect that was because they kept switching back and forth between eras. Joy Luck Club was much better in that regard. I understand the book is very good. The binding of feet, barbaric!

The Descendants - I got nothing out of this movie and came away really wondering what was the big deal. I found the basic premise to be contrived, sterotypical and the execution pedestrian. I like George Clooney, but did not see how this was such an award winning piece of work. Much better in Michael Clayton IMO. The actors playing the daughters were pretty good, though. The younger one was really good.

The Iron Lady - I am an unabashed and unashamed Streep fan. I thought she really nailed the elder, dottering Thatcher, as I imagine the aging dottering Thatcher to be. The make up was skilled and I completely forgot I was watching Streep, no mannerisms. The take on the retelling on Thatcher's highlights was interesting and curiously uninvolving for me. In the end I did not know more about Thatcher and it really did not make me interested enough to seek out more. I also adore Jim Broadbent in anything. If his was an accurate portrayal of Denis Thatcher, all the better. Strange movie, but I did enjoy it.

The Young Visiters - More Jim Broadbent with this and a dash of Hugh Laurie and Bill Nighy. Based on the Daisy Ashford book, this had enough whimsy and pathos to amuse me. It came close to reflecting the 9 year old author's view of social life of her protagonist Mr. Salteena in Victorian England. Absurd, silly and a little sad, it was well acted. Bill Nighy was an absolute HOOT and spot on.

[innerSpaceman]

The director is Tarsam Singh. Tarsam Singh, as in The Cell, The Fall, and The Immortals. Visually stunning is his speciality.

I actually enjoyed The Immortals beyond its visual stunningness. A great throwback to the 50's/60's style of Greek Mythology movietelling, but with Singh's trademark visual stunningness. Win and Win.

[Kevy Baby]

I posted this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4iDWXstrWY) on Twitter, but wanted to share here as well. It is a hilarious clip from a Bollywood movie called Singham (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948150/). I have got to get this movie.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Napoleon vu par Abel Gance, an incredible event, an incredible film, an incredible day. Worth every penny, worth the time ans beyond grateful I had this opportunity.

I am so glad you loved it! Tom did too.

I can't put my finger on quite why - maybe my penchant for concise storytelling? - but Napoleon overwhelmed me in a way that I could not appreciate it as you both do. LOVE that last act, though.

[Snowflake]

I am so glad you loved it! Tom did too.

I can't put my finger on quite why - maybe my penchant for concise storytelling? - but Napoleon overwhelmed me in a way that I could not appreciate it as you both do. LOVE that last act, though.

Oooh! When did you go? I'm sorry I did not see you both! But, I am SO glad you went. It was a once in a lifetime thing.

LSPE, I will give you that 2 weeks later, I could recognize and appreciate the flaws of the film. Mostly the lack of cohesive narrative and I do wish Gance had not added the useless Violine story. Had Brownlow not restored that, I would not have missed it.

For me, the whole package was the thing. 3000 people, live orchestra, incredible print and everyone (at least around me) were just embracing the whole thing, festive, going with the film, appreciating the incredible technicalities of it (for 1927) and when the triptychs revealed, well, it was just fab.

Parmasan Jim, I know you would have loved revisting this too. People I know who saw the 1980 were blown away by the latest restoration.

If you want more of my blather on it, here's my 2 centimes for the internets (http://strictly-vintage-hollywood.blogspot.com/2012/04/napoleon-vu-par-kevin-brownlow.html).

[Moonliner]

Jaws is getting the full restoration treatment (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/jaws-has-been-digitally-remastered-looks-stunning-in-hd-20120414/) for it's blu-ray release in August.



Universal Studios is celebrating its 100th Anniversary, and to help mark the occasion they have gone back to the original Jaws 35mm film in order to digitally remaster it. The finished product is a crisp 1080p picture and the addition of 7.1 surround sound–something no one watching the movie has ever experienced before.

Spielberg describes it as bringing a classic movie back to life, and making it, “more vivid than even we remember them at the cinema.” And it seems we have digital technology to thank for making such a restoration possible.

[mousepod]

And as long as we're talking upcoming blu-rays, Disney just announced a ton of catalog releases for 2012:

Beginning in May, the Studio will start to celebrate a number of film anniversaries, introducing multiple great films to Blu-ray including Father of the Bride and Bringing Down the House releasing on May 15th; The Color of Money,Cocktail and Ransom releasing on June 5th; Sister Act and Evita releasing on June 19th; and The Horse Whisperer, Under the Tuscan Sun, Phenomenon, Step Up, Home On The Range and Treasure Planet releasing July 3rd.


In the Fall, a perfect mix of feel-good films, anniversary releases and nostalgic favorites will debut, including Adventures in Babysitting, Grosse Pointe Blank, Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion, The Rescuers, High Fidelity, Ed Wood, Judge Dredd, Ghost of the Abyss 3D, Lady And The Tramp 2: Scamp’s Adventure, Pocahontas, The Tigger Movie, The Aristocats and Pete’s Dragon.

And just in time for Halloween and the holidays, a wide array of titles that make perfect stocking stuffers for film fans will include titles such as Hocus Pocus, Arachnophobia, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, Son of Flubber, Cold Creek Manor, The Santa Clause Trilogy, The Absent-Minded Professor, Flubber, While You Were Sleeping, Sweet Home Alabama, Beaches, Babes in Toyland, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Brother Bear and Dick Tracy.

[lashbear]

Sir Anthony Hitchcock (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2131893/First-look-Sir-Anthony-Hopkins-Alfred-Hitchcock.html)

[lashbear]

No quite the Dark Shadows version I remember.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isjg9O7ifwM)

[Alex]

Apparently the original Barnabus doesn't approve (http://wearemoviegeeks.com/2012/04/jonathan-frid-dark-shadows-star-dead-at-87/) of the new Barnabus.

[Moonliner]

Apparently the original Barnabus doesn't approve (http://wearemoviegeeks.com/2012/04/jonathan-frid-dark-shadows-star-dead-at-87/) of the new Barnabus.

Apparently he also died last week.

[JWBear]

Apparently the original Barnabus doesn't approve (http://wearemoviegeeks.com/2012/04/jonathan-frid-dark-shadows-star-dead-at-87/) of the new Barnabus.

Apparently he also died last week.

Well... That's one way of showing your disapproval, I guess.

[innerSpaceman]

I would have died, too, if I'd seen what Tim Burton did to Dark Shadows. I bet they didn't give him a clue when he filmed his cameo, but upon seeing the trailer promptly had a heart attack and expired.

That's my theory.



On a more modern note, Go See Cabin in the Woods.


That is all.

[Moonliner]

On a more modern note, Go See Cabin in the Woods.

That is all.

I was on the fence about whether to see this one or not but now it's an easy choice for me.

Thanks!

[flippyshark]

Jaws is getting the full restoration treatment (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/jaws-has-been-digitally-remastered-looks-stunning-in-hd-20120414/) for it's blu-ray release in August.

Clearly the blu-ray event of the year for me. I'm especially glad that the fan-made documentary "The Shark Is Still Working" is going to be included as an extra. August 14 can't come soon enough.

On other matters, holy crap does Dark Shadows look pathetic! I haven't had much faith or interest in the Depp/Burton pair in a long time (though I give Sweeney Todd a B minus or so, because I love the source material so much, mostly.) but it almost looks like they're trying to piss off fans with this one. I'll be happy if the restoration and Blu-ray release of House of Dark Shadows and Night of Dark Shadows happens.

Regarding the long list of Disney catalog releases, it makes me think of a time when Disney released lots of movies every year. Not all of them were winners, but at least they were out there pitching. These days, it seems like an ever-shrinking slate of expensive wet squibs from the mouse. And though Avengers may end up chock full of Whedon-y goodness, I'm pretty pissed about the Avengers monorail - I detest the monorail as billboard concept, and this is ugliest yet.

[innerSpaceman]

I was on the fence about whether to see this one or not but now it's an easy choice for me.

So Much Awesome.



On other matters, holy crap does Dark Shadows look pathetic!

I'm absolutely convinced this is why Jonathan Frid chose this moment to die.

[Alex]

Cabin in the woods was good. A little self aware, but worth seeing.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Jaws is getting the full restoration treatment (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/jaws-has-been-digitally-remastered-looks-stunning-in-hd-20120414/) for it's blu-ray release in August.Did Jaws get messed with, ala ET and Star Wars? I'd be kind of shocked if he left the shark alone.

[flippyshark]

Spielberg gave an interview at AICN a few months ago stating that he learned his lesson with E.T. He no longer wants to tinker with his films digitally, feeling now that the flaws and eccentricities of the originals should be preserved, so, no enhanced Bruce. (the interviewer suggested Steve pass that sentiment along to Lucas.)

[innerSpaceman]

Now if he'd just go back and unfrell Close Encounters. (That's right, I contend it's not yet been done.)


I'm on the fence about buying Jaws on BluRay. Is it really going to be that much better than the DVD? Plus, the only kind of extra I care about is a running director's commentary, and Spielberg simply does not do those.

[Moonliner]

Is it really going to be that much better than the DVD?

From what I saw on the linked video, yes. Of course since I don't have the DVD it's an easier choice for me.

[Moonliner]

If anyone is interested, Disneynature Four-Movie Collection (African Cats / Oceans / Earth / Crimson Wings) (Blu-ray/DVD Combo) is the deal of the day on Amazon: $47.99

[flippyshark]

Now if he'd just go back and unfrell Close Encounters. (That's right, I contend it's not yet been done.)


I'm on the fence about buying Jaws on BluRay. Is it really going to be that much better than the DVD? Plus, the only kind of extra I care about is a running director's commentary, and Spielberg simply does not do those.

In truth, the existing DVD transfer is kinda awful, less pleasing to look at than even the Signature laserdisc release of yore. If you have Blu-ray, I'd say go for it.

I would so love to find out that your contentions about CE3K are true, as long as they were addressed and fixed by an upcoming release. Lone voice in the wilderness is a thankless place to be. (I have no corroborating memories to help you, though.)

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, that's ok. I'm fine with being a nutjob on this issue. Lately, all sorts of in-theater cassette recordings of Star Wars have surfaced from 1977. If only I'd been fanboy enough to do that with Close Encounters that year.


In truth, the existing DVD transfer is kinda awful ...

I don't think I've ever even watched my DVD of Jaws. Perhaps that's why I'm loathe to buy it again on BluRay.;)

[Moonliner]

I like the idea, but it looks to be getting some push back.


Producer Peter Jackson decided to shoot The Hobbit at 48 frames-per-second, as opposed to 24 fps which has been industry standard pretty much since the dawn of time. E! Online quoted Jackson as saying that the higher frame rate makes the 3D picture "much more gentle on the eyes, without the strobing or as much flicker, and much less eye strain."



The Hobbit, is causing a stir among those CinemaCon goers who have been treated to a 10 minute preview screening of the film. And it's not joyful stir. Viewers complained that the movie looked too real, that it had that look of low-budget television.


I'll bet the next generation of kids look at 24 fps films like people today look at B&W films.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Viewers complained that the movie looked too real, that it had that look of low-budget television.
That's exactly my complaint about the motion-smoothing tech on HD TVs. Especially for a fantasy movie where I don't want it to look like people, because then it just looks like actors. I want it a gloss of artificiality so I know I'm looking at Frodo or Gandalf, not Elijah Wood or Ian McKellan.

I'll bet the next generation of kids look at 24 fps films like people today look at B&W films.Perhaps, but then again the first color movies don't look like what eventually became the standard for color movies. No one gets a new technology right the first time because they don't know how to use it yet. It's going to have short comings, it's going to "feel" wrong, and it's going to change in response to feedback and experience.

[flippyshark]

Get off my lawn, 48 fps! I detest the "soap opera" look of motion-smoothing, and understand why it would be very disconcerting to see in cinema, especially fantasy cinema. But, it's the content of movies these days, not the format, that is making me feel increasingly old and irrelevant these days.

[Kevy Baby]

Despite the high accuracy of compact discs, there are many who believe that vinyl still offers a superior sonic experience. This despite CDs having a higher frequency response range and other technlogical advantages.

Then, other digital formats (MP3, etc.) have come into prevalence and become "acceptable" despite their inferior sound quality.

Not sure how this fits into the higher FPS argument above, just something I was thinking of.

[Moonliner]

I wonder if the success or failure of The Hobbit at 48fps will effect what James Cameron does with Avatar2 (http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/james-cameron-48-fps/) (which is also rumored to be filmed at 48fps)

[flippyshark]

Will CGI critters look more or less convincing at 48 fps? I'm curious enough that I won't avoid going to The Hobbit on account of it, but I hope there will be a 24 fps option for the Blu-ray release. (Or maybe it will have no option but to be 24 fps?) The future is relentless.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I just hope theaters don't go through with the awful plan I've heard floating around which is to stop charging more for 3D screenings of movies than 2D screenings, instead raising the price of 2D screenings to subsidize the 3D*. :mad:




* Although the more I've thought about it the more I figure that really the theaters want to raise the prices in general and they're using 3D as the excuse.

[flippyshark]

Theaters are doing a great job of keeping me happily ensconced in my living room.

[innerSpaceman]

1) Back in the 80's Brainstorm used segments at 90fps. I didnt' really notice the difference nearly as much as those segments going to a wider aspect ratio. So I'm not quite sure what the advantage or disadvantage is to 48fps.

2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago. They received a pointed letter from me, and have lost me as a customer. If I must pay extra, I want something. 3D. IMAX. Other local theaters have offered plush leather chairs. Or no kids allowed. Or alcohol served. But AMC's ETX offers nothing - except charging you more for what they once did not.

Not a trend I'm happy with.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not a trend I'm happy with.What if they raised the prices across the board, charging the same price (somewhere in between their previous normal price and the higher "ETX" price) for any theater, whether it's the biggest screen with the best sound, or the tiniest screen with crap sound showing the romantic comedy that came out 8 weeks ago? Would you be happier with that trend? Because that would be the alternative.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them.

Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this.


I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?

[Moonliner]

2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago.

On the other hand, one gripe I've always had with the neighborhood multiplex is that many movies are shown in multiple theaters with no easy way to tell which one is in the theater with the best sound and bigger screen. This would at least take care of that problem.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them.

Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this.


I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?

So then you're okay with them raising the price for 2D showings and lowering the price for 3D showings so they are the same price and the 2D tickets subsidize the 3D?

I've always considered it BS that you're charged the same for a sh*tty screen as their best.

[innerSpaceman]

No, not at all. If they want to offer something extra, then let them charge extra for it. A larger auditorium is not extra - they are only now pretending it's so.

It's like if they suddenly charged for including sound with the picture. Oh, you wanted sound? That'll be five bucks.


And before you claim that a big theater with decent sound IS an extra - multiplexes have long waived that claim by their own policy of ALWAYS, since the invention of the multiplex, having charged the same for a ticket no matter the size of the auditorium your movie happens to be screening in. That size, btw, depends on the theater's determination of how popular a movie is. So are you suggesting theaters charge more for movies that are actually "good?"


That might not be a bad idea, since I have no desire to see The Hunger Games, but really enjoyed The Cabin in the Woods. ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

No, not at all. If they want to offer something extra, then let them charge extra for it. A larger auditorium is not extra - they are only now pretending it's so.


No, they're just no longer pretending it's not so. It's not about # of seats, it's about screen size and sound quality. And the fact is that up until now, by charging the same price for all showings in all auditoriums, they've been subsidizing their higher quality screens via their lower quality screens.

I'm perfectly okay with a tiered system where you pay for what you get. Less popular movie in crappier theater? Week 15 of the big summer blockbuster showing on the last screen on your left? Yeah, I'm okay with those costing less.

Just because you're acclimated to the subsidy model doesn't mean a different model is invalid.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm clearly coming at this from a legal perspective. And if they now, after 30+ years, start charging more for an auditorium that conveniently holds more higher-priced seats, I will be bringing a class-action lawsuit. :p



btw ... I asked the AMC manager what I was paying extra for. His response was the state-of-the-art sound system. He had nothing but stammering in reply to my follow-up question of, "Then I'm paying for poor quality sound with my regular admission ticket?"

Get my drift?

State-of-the-art is NOT extra. It's what I'm paying for when I attend a first-run theater. And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.

[Alex]

Since they disclose upfront that you're paying more, regardless of whether you think that something is provided to justify them charging more, what exactly would be your tort?

[Ghoulish Delight]

State-of-the-art is NOT extra. It's what I'm paying for when I attend a first-run theater. And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.It's extra over what's in a non-first-run theater. And in fact you have NOT been paying for it, at least not in full. You've been paying for a PORTION of it, the rest being subsidized by the fact that a ticket for the non-first-run auditoriums, which offer a lower quality experience, are the same price. Purely from a standpoint of paying for what you're getting, you "should" have been paying more for that ticket all along, but for marketing reasons that hasn't been happening.

Again, simply because you've acclimated to how it's been done for 30 years doesn't mean they can't change it. For a long time, if you signed a contract, nearly all cell phones were free or some nominal amount significantly less than their retail price. But once there was more differentiation between phones, and premium phones like the iPhone came to be, that changed. Yeah, you still get the premium phones at a subsidize discount below retail, but not anywhere near the deep discount that was standard before. On top of that, there's greater range in pricing and fewer and fewer phones are free anymore. Yeah, it sucked as a consumer that you could not longer get a pretty good phone for free, or a really good phone for slightly more than free. But that doesn't mean the carriers weren't within their rights to alter the price structure in response to new market forces.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I'm free to find that underhanded, cynical, and poor-customer service and, as a result, refuse to patronize such an establishment. That's my market response.

If AMC finds enough rubes to pay this week for a bigger theater than they paid for the same theater last week, bravo for them. My only option as a consumer is to be one of the suckers born every minute or one of the curmudgeons born every ten. :p

[Kevy Baby]

Well, I'm free to find that underhanded, cynical, and poor-customer service and, as a result, refuse to patronize such an establishment. That's my market response.Market response is one thing; a class action lawsuit is another. I encourage the former, but think the latter is just silly.

[Kevy Baby]

And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.Also, significant improvements in sound began before Star Wars; remember Sensurround (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensurround)? Lucas did make significant improvements, but credit also goes to companies like Cerwin Vega, BGW, and others.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

remember Sensurround (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensurround)?Yes, but I enjoyed Feelaround (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq_nzlou0Q) better.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Theater Chain Execs Consider Allowing Cell Phone Use in Theaters (http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/is-it-time-to-let-movie-goers-send-texts-during-a-film-cinemacon/)

Thank gawd the Alamo Drafthouse CEO hasn't lost his mind too.

[Moonliner]

Theater Chain Execs Consider Allowing Cell Phone Use in Theaters (http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/is-it-time-to-let-movie-goers-send-texts-during-a-film-cinemacon/)

Thank gawd the Alamo Drafthouse CEO hasn't lost his mind too.

Historically younger people go to more movies. According to the article that's no longer the case. If not being able to text is the real reason behind the drop in ticket sales then theater owners would be pretty much forced to embrace texting, taking, or whatever else the core audience wants.

I wonder if we are going to end up segregated. Texting/non-texting/etx/non-etx/2d/3d/2d texting/3d texting/2d no texting/3d no texting/48fps/24fps/48fps 3d with texting/48fps 3d with no texting, etc.....

[CoasterMatt]

Screw that, my living room is more comfy anyway.

[Strangler Lewis]

If not being able to text is the real reason behind the drop in ticket sales then theater owners would be pretty much forced to embrace texting, taking, or whatever else the core audience wants.

What if they want to make pooh pooh on the theatre floor, which is about on the same level as talking and texting during a movie?

[Moonliner]

What if they want to make pooh pooh on the theatre floor, which is about on the same level as talking and texting during a movie?

Reductio ad absurdum aside, like most businesses theater owners will follow the money. If society changes to where more people want to text than sit quietly then theaters will adapt. Much like we adapted from the grand theaters of yesterday to the shoebox sized multiplex's of today.

That doesn't mean I have to like it, but it would be unrealistic to deny the economic factors.

[flippyshark]

Already this same issue has reared its head at live theater as well. Some theaters are encouraging patrons to text and tweet during the show, presumably by way of interacting with and commenting on the performance. This is happening at the Broadway revival of Godspell, for instance, and the textors are seated in one specific area. i'll be seeing this in a few weeks, so I can comment then as to how distracting this ends up being. (The theater is in the round, so I can't help but think that the text-section will be noticeable from just about anywhere.)

There just might be some way of creating meaningful and engaging theater pieces that include live social networking, but if an audience is simply texting away during a traditional musical, it would be hard for the performers not to feel like their audience is bored and distracted. We actors usually want to weave a spell. Texting and tweeting feel to me like awfully mundane activities, inimical to surrendering to the spirit of a performance. But then, I'm instructed by the media to feel more out of touch and useless every day. (Maybe I'll write an interactive multi-media show about it.)

[Moonliner]

Already this same issue has reared its head at live theater as well. Some theaters are encouraging patrons to text and tweet during the show, presumably by way of interacting with and commenting on the performance.

The main issue with texting at a movie theater is the dark environment. At concerts and many plays the room is not as dark so someone near me texting (especially on a nearly silent touch screen) would not bother me at all assuming they had it on silent so it's not buzzing and binging with each received message.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Historically younger people go to more movies. According to the article that's no longer the case. If not being able to text is the real reason behind the drop in ticket sales then theater owners would be pretty much forced to embrace texting, taking, or whatever else the core audience wants.

I wonder if we are going to end up segregated. Texting/non-texting/etx/non-etx/2d/3d/2d texting/3d texting/2d no texting/3d no texting/48fps/24fps/48fps 3d with texting/48fps 3d with no texting, etc.....

I already don't want to see movies in a theater very often; this will continue to keep me away. I find texting very distracting and I don't want it around me when I'm trying to pay attention to a movie.

Already this same issue has reared its head at live theater as well.
::snip::
but if an audience is simply texting away during a traditional musical, it would be hard for the performers not to feel like their audience is bored and distracted.

I would read someone texting during a show as bored, yeah. I've heard about some theaters doing this, setting aside a section where you can tweet or text to people who will tell you about the show, but I can't see myself doing it. Totally takes me out of the mood.

[lashbear]

(Maybe I'll write an interactive multi-media show about it.)

That would be interesting. Get all the audience members to subscribe to your tweets prior to the performance, and then during the show, using twitter as a means of doing mental asides inbetween lines of dialogue: "That's funny... John never has a second cup of coffee at home..."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

So, the younger set isn't going to movies?? I thought Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Everything Aimed at Young People makes far more money than everything else??

Even so, they're going to scare away old folk with texting in the hopes that teens will start paying $13 each to see a movie? Sounds idiotic to me. No 19 year old is saying "I would totally take my girl to see Avengers for $26 plus $9 popcorn and $5 drinks even though I have literally dozens of entertainment options at home, but they won't let me text in the theater."

[Moonliner]

So I went straight to the source on this one and asked a teen.

Headliner is aghast at the idea of allowing texting in theaters. Not being able to text is definitely not keeping her and her friends out of the theaters. Price is annoying but it's also not the main reason. Nope, according to an actual teen they don't go to more movies because there just are not that many movies they want to see.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it theater owners of America.

[Moonliner]

So, the younger set isn't going to movies?? I thought Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Everything Aimed at Young People makes far more money than everything else??


They are still going to movies, just not as many/often as previous generations.

[CoasterMatt]

In 1946, 4 billion movie tickets were sold in America. The number last year was less than 1.3 billion.

[lashbear]

See! Disney killed the movies after Song Of The South.

[lashbear]

PS: The Haunted Mansion Reboot has me excited:

Reboot

It was announced on July 22, 2010, at San Diego Comic-Con International that a new film based on Disney's The Haunted Mansion was in development with Guillermo del Toro writing and producing. Del Toro saw the 2003 film with his daughters; when asked about his involvement in the new project, he said, "the thing I want to do is remake it." Elaborating, he commented, "The movie I see in my head of 'Haunted Mansion' is not, I believe, what everyone is imagining it to be. It's not just a regular world with a haunted mansion plopped in the middle. I really am thinking of a movie that has a heightened reality." Del Toro said that Hatbox Ghost would be the main haunting and added, "We are not making it a comedy. We are making it scary and fun at the same time, but the scary will be scary." It is to be filmed in live-action 3D. It was later announced by del Toro that he is aiming for a PG-13 rating for the film.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Headliner is aghast at the idea of allowing texting in theaters. Not being able to text is definitely not keeping her and her friends out of the theaters. Price is annoying but it's also not the main reason. Nope, according to an actual teen they don't go to more movies because there just are not that many movies they want to see.

Aha! There is hope for the future!

And I agree- there are few movies I consider worth seeing lately.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Headliner is aghast at the idea of allowing texting in theaters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but she's a smart kid, probably a 90 percentile type or better. She's your daughter. Makes Headliner a bit of an Outlier, if you ask me.

PS: The Haunted Mansion Reboot has me excited:Usually you lads are in the future...how did you get stuck in 2010? :P

[lashbear]

:blush:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

:blush:After posting this I read more about films based on attractions and there are quite a few in the pipeline that I hadn't heard about (http://screenrant.com/disney-mr-toads-wild-ride-movie-sandy-165712/).

:blush:

[Strangler Lewis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she's a smart kid, probably a 90 percentile type or better. She's your daughter. Makes Headliner a bit of an Outlier, if you ask me.


After posting this I read more about films based on attractions and there are quite a few in the pipeline that I hadn't heard about. hadn't heard about (http://screenrant.com/disney-mr-toads-wild-ride-movie-sandy-165712/).

Unless the second post is an expression of horror, I find it inconsistent with the first post.

[Not Afraid]

Phantom Boats: The Movie.

[katiesue]

My guess is that if they allow texting then they don't have to police it anymore. Not that they do crap if you ask them anyway. But now they can say oh nothing we can do sorry.

Maddie and her friends go to the movies quite a bit. At minimum twice a month sometimes 4 or 5. They also like to just get together and watch movies.

[lashbear]

Phantom Boats: The Movie.

A 90 minute visual feast of various people standing on a deserted dock, smoking...

[Kevy Baby]

Phantom Boats: The Movie.The scary part is doing it EXACTLY the same way the second time.

[CoasterMatt]

Phantom Boats: The Movie would be a Tarantino film.

[Alex]

After being lukewarm on most of the previous movies (the first Iron Man was the only one I really liked) I was very surprised to find that I am quite happy with The Avengers.

Very much the Transformers mold, but with just enough actual characterization and better writing to set it above.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Mmmm, Whedon. Characterization and writing - typically his strong suit.

Haven't seen it yet, but really looking forward to it.

[Alex]

Yeah, some of the directing decisions are questionable. Scarlett Johannson's fight scenes are so poorly edited that I wondered if it was intentional to cover for her inability to pull it off.

But the writing it top notch (if fluffy, this is no The Dark Knight).

[innerSpaceman]

I've found the superhero movies totally hit and miss.

I liked the first Iron Man, and even enjoyed the second one.

Thor was a bore.

Captain America was, imo, the best of the bunch - and they all should be set in the 1940's to take advantage of the inherent camp element of the genre. Magically shifting him to the present day just so he could be in the Avengers movie was beyond lame. So The Avengers better be good!

I liked the Ed Norton Hulk, not so much the earlier Ang Lee version (though I didn't hate it nearly as much as the consensus).


I think that covered the Marvel stuff, huh? Was the Green Lantern a Marvel movie? That one sucked!



Loved the first two Tobey Spider-Mans (Spider-Men?) - hated the third one.

Really loved Nolan's Batman Begins, but was meh on The Dark Knight (despite a great perf by the late great Ledger). I will gladly finish out the series next month though. (My friend's an extra, so it'll be fun to look for him if nothing else.)

Tim Burton's two Batman movies were enjoyable - with his follow-up, Batman Returns, remaining my fave Batman movie of all time. The subsequent entries in this iteration of the series were dreadful.



Big fan of the original Chris Reeves Superman. Hated II with a passion, but kinda like the Richard Donner version recently home released. The remaining entries in that iteration of the series were also dreadful.

I really liked Bryan Singer's Superman Returns (which was kind of a remake of Superman I and II). Sorry that series didn't get a shot at continuing. I have a wait-and-see attitude about the Henry Cavill reboot coming up. Same for the upcoming Spider-Man reboot coming up.


Um, wow, shouldn't I be getting SuperHero burn-out by now? Remind me again why I'm keen to see The Avengers this weekend? ;)

[Moonliner]

Um, wow, shouldn't I be getting SuperHero burn-out by now? Remind me again why I'm keen to see The Avengers this weekend? ;)

Superhero's are the new pirates for sure. Wait, has anyone created a superhero pirate that fights vampires? If not I call dibs!

[Alex]

One thing I liked about The Avengers is all the back story is out of the way. Everybody (except Bruce Banner of course) is comfortable with who they are and not at all bashful about it.

Also like that they are superheroes mostly without secret identities. So none of the nonsense that goes along with that.

[mousepod]

Superhero's are the new pirates for sure. Wait, has anyone created a superhero pirate that fights vampires? If not I call dibs!

This came close once upon a time...

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/3/38687/874694-kronosmovie_large.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

Can Abe Lincoln be considered a super hero?

[Moonliner]

This came close once upon a time...

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/3/38687/874694-kronosmovie_large.jpg

Well played sir well played. Plus it's available on Netflix streaming....

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt to remake Little Shop of Horrors (http://www.vulture.com/2012/05/little-shop-of-horrors-joseph-gordon-levitt.html)?

[Not Afraid]

I have no interest in super hero films, but find myself wanting to see The Avengers. Odd.

i have such a lack on interest in super heros, i almost missed Misfits because of the premis. Glad I didn't!

[innerSpaceman]

OMG, forgot to mention the X-Men movies!


I never liked comics, and half the super hero movies are bad. I have to wonder why I kinda like the genre.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

The form-fitting costumes?

[flippyshark]

I'm mostly indifferent to the super hero genre, but I'm keen on Joss Whedon, so I'll certainly see The Avengers. (Hmmm, if Buffy counts as a super hero, she's so my fave.)

[Moonliner]

Along with the rest of humanity, I saw The Avengers over the weekend.

It was good fun on many levels, lot's of explosions, aliens, snappy one liners aplenty, cameos, etc.

I did however miss out on one small issue...

Was there an actual plot?

From what I remember Loki was planning to bring in an alien horde to demolish the earth so he could obtain the tesserat the jewel of Odin's treasure room, source of unlimited power and all around bad ass artifact.

The same one he stole at the start of the movie and already had control of.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I reveled in the very Joss-iness of it. Finally, my favorite creative mind has broken through to the masses.

Moonie,

It seemed to me that he just wanted to rule the earth, to get back at his brother. The tesseract had to be included in machinery that opened the wormholey-type-thing.

My question - as a Marvel know-little - is: who is the dude at the end of the credits?

[Alex]

He didn't want the tesseract for himself. Delivering the tesseract to the baddies on the other side of the galaxy was payment for them delivering to him an army that would allow him to rule Earth. So he did not have what he wanted yet.

So he didn't bring the horde to get the tesseract, he got the tesseract to bring the horde, and it was only after they did their job that he would deliver the tesseract to the Chitauri.


LSPE

I asked after my screening and was told it is Thanos, essentially another level up the supervillian chain of badass. But I've never read the comics so that is meaningless to me.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Tony Stark spent months living in the Middle East in the first Iron Man movie and never had schwarma.

[innerSpaceman]

Some of the characters were appealing. Loki was good. Mark Ruffalo is always appealing, Downey, Jr., too, blah blah blah. It was a good cast, but they had nothing to do. The requisite snark and work-poorly together hour, then the requisite learning-to-work-as-a-team half hour, followed by the requisite hour of Transformersesque battle of famous landmark destruction. Boring on every level.

I'm frankly amazed how unengaged I was throughout this film. There were some very funny quips, but that's about it. And after two movies already, I think I'm pretty much done with Tony Stark's snark schtick.

I know there's a freedom-from-origin-tory provided by the prior movies, but that doesn't mean a lack of any arc or vaguely complex characterization works just as well. Scarlette's Black Widow was perhaps the most interesting character on this score, and she had no previous movie (nor, like the Hulk, was she famous enough to know without the benefit of a previous movie - or, more accurately, two previous movies Marvel would like to disown.)

Granted, it's really tough to juggle a bunch of heroes and/or villains and come up with a gripping story that doesn't seem all over the map, haphazard and narratively sloppy. In fact, I can think of only one super-hero movie that managed that feat well (Tim Burton's Batman Returns). But The Avengers most certainly - imo - did not rise to this formidable challenge.

In fact, it is a complete and utter failure in my book. I don't care that four prior films have primed the audience pump and it's making more money than God. Popularity is not proof of quality. YMMV, but I thought The Avengers sucked. (oh, and for record, I enjoyed three of the four prequel movies, so it's not like I hate the genre or the Marvel films.)

[Alex]

I guess I'm flipped because I only really liked one of the previous five movies (though I didn't see The Incredible Hulk, so maybe it is brilliant) but loved this one.

I agree very much that it ends up in the conceptual place at the last last Transformers movie (except in New York instead of Chicago). But I think it handled it so much better that it really demonstrates that Michael Bay's flaw is not in what he was trying to do but in how he executed it.

But I'm not necessarily looking for character growth. As long as the movie doesn't try to go deep (as Nolan has with Batman to great effect) I'm more than happy to view movies like this as essentially entries in an old fashion super expensive serial.

That said, though not necessarily huge narratively in themselves I thought three of the four (excepting Thor, but he's a demigod, what is there to change) was taken through a significant moment in their development.

Bummer you didn't like it. Now we all wait for Promethius.

[innerSpaceman]

Is Prometheus meant to take place in the Alien universe?



(Lordy, I miss the days when movies were each their own universe, and I didn't have to keep track of which multiverse a particular story happens in).

[Alex]

My understanding is that it takes place in the Alien universe (though around a hundred years earlier than the first movie) so has universe building in common but that the events of the movie are unrelated to the events that would happen in the Alien movies.

[Kevy Baby]

Along with the rest of humanity, I saw The Avengers over the weekend.Not me - I was busy contributing towards finding a cure for multiple sclerosis and supporting my friends.

[Kevy Baby]

Are you saying... HEY, WAIT A MINUTE

[alphabassettgrrl]

(Lordy, I miss the days when movies were each their own universe, and I didn't have to keep track of which multiverse a particular story happens in).

I'm with you here.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm wondering what was Whedonesque about The Avengers (or what elements had "Joss-iness"). My Whedon exposure has been limited to Firefly and Cabin in the Woods, so maybe I'm not familiar with his signature style. I couldn't discern any particular style in The Avengers.

[mousepod]

I'm wondering what was Whedonesque about The Avengers (or what elements had "Joss-iness"). My Whedon exposure has been limited to Firefly and Cabin in the Woods, so maybe I'm not familiar with his signature style. I couldn't discern any particular style in The Avengers.

Perhaps you should watch the Buffy series. Or Angel. Or (if you don't want to spend 100+ hours), Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

I totally get that you didn't like the movie. Maybe I identify with you a little being one of the few people offended by Star Trek (and incensed that nobody else saw it like I did). But your question seems a little troll-y. If you're honestly asking for stylistic parallels between Firefly and The Avengers, I apologize for my reaction - when The Avengers comes out on Blu-ray (with 30 minutes of deleted scenes) we can watch it together and I'll show you why it's good (and Whedonesque). Like we did with Star Trek.

[innerSpaceman]

I didn't mean to be trolly. It's just that The Avengers seemed very by-the-book to me, and nothing about it seemed to have the stamp of anyone particular. Whedon's fans have always seemed to me to see something particularly Whedeonesque in his work - and I've seen the term "Whedonesque" bandied about in much of the press push for The Avengers. I just can't see what that is.

There was nothing in the film I wouldn't have expected from anyone else in the director's chair. I've heard it said the funny quips were very Whedon-ish ... but after two previous Iron Man movies, I hardly think funny quips were invented for The Avengers.

But I'm not a knowledgeable Whedon fan, and was simply inviting some input from anyone who happens to be.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Really? You really think that the treatment of the Hulk's character was by-the-book? Because I saw it as novel (for comic book films - I haven't read any of the comics.) Novel in about six different ways I can think of off-hand.

[innerSpaceman]

The treatment of the Hulk's character was one of the few highlights of the film. Sorry if I chalked that almost entirely up to Ruffalo's performance. I guess there has to be an element of script involved.

I'm not going to be seeing the movie again - so, just now, in endeavoring to recall all I can about Dr. Banner's part - it was all pretty much standard Banner as the character has been established in comics and prior movies. Really, the difference was 97.3% Ruffalo. I'll grant Joss the remaining percentage. ;)


But, really, I'm not here to bash Joss Whedon. I've heard great things about Buffy, and I loved Firefly and Cabin in the Woods. So I'm just gonna personally consider The Avengers a misfire - a hugely financially successful misfire - from a talented man.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Let's see. Insightful/compelling/novel elements of Banner/Hulk that were strictly script-related...

And this is just off the top of my head...


Banner as humanitarian.
Hulk as a comic relief - the great moment with Loki, the punching of Stark.
Hulk set off in a small area with a character we care about instead of a villain.
Banner having attempted suicide.
Banner being in control of himself when he purposefully changes into Hulk.
"I'm always angry."

Ruffalo's performance was great. But without the writing of those elements and others, it would've left me just as cold as the previous two hulk movies did.

You're welcome to your own opinions, but because I saw SO much in the film that was different/better/sharper/more developed/funnier/clearer/more structurally sound than the previous characters' movies, your "it's a complete misfire" response comes across to me as contrarianism, as opposed to thoughtful criticism.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I guess because I actually liked the last two Hulk movies that I didn't really notice anything remarkable about the new Hulk except that the green "other guy" looked better than previous incarnations, and Ruffalo gave my favorite performance as Bruce Banner. But hardly the first soul-tortured Banner on screen.

Thanks, though, for clearing something up for me. I had wondered why - since it was touted throughout the movie that Banner could not control the "other guy" if he got angry, he was suddenly able to do just that for the Big Transformers Battle.

But the Hulk as comic relief, the Hulk endangering a character we care about instead of a villain, and - as I just said - soulful tortured Bruce Banner - sorry, but these things were hardly invented by Joss Whedon. There have been two movies, two hundred television episodes and two thousand comic books stories about the Hulk. Nothing can be invented at this point, I would hazard to guess.

And I didn't mean "complete misfire" as thoughtful criticism, but rather as a sum-up phrase for my expanded criticism found previously.

Your comparison to the previous films is interesting, though. Ruffalo was a stand-out here, and he wasn't in any of the previous films. Johannsen was noticeably better than her brief appearance in one of those. But everyone else seemed less effective to me than they did in those previous incarnations. Maybe that was part of my let-down. But only part.

I'm willing to grant that a comic-book story with this many characters is going to be a bit convoluted and editorially difficult, and I'm willing to grant that a comic-book story with this many characters is going to be short on plot. But -though I'm also willing to grant it's all a matter of taste, absolutely nothing grabbed me during two-and-a-half hours. I was stupendously bored. It's not a movie I'm gonna give a second chance to. So that's my final answer. Bad Movie. :p

[mousepod]

...which is kinda why I think you're trolling. Not that that's a crime or anything, but you clearly are baiting folks to give you positives to dismiss.

You're also granting things that I don't think I need "granted" for my complete enjoyment of the movie. I personally thought it was neither convoluted nor short on plot.

But I'm willing to take your bait and point out one of Whedon's particular strengths, in what you dismissively refer to as the "Big Transformers Battle". Unlike the fight sequences in that series, the showdown in The Avengers was not all noise and CGI motion blur. Every one of the Avengers had his/her particular way of approaching the battle, and the challenges played on their individual strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, Whedon did not fall into the cheap trick of seemingly random cutting to create a sense of chaos. Atypically, he choreographed a big fight scene in which the viewer would always know where each of the major characters were at all times. And given the scale, that's bloody difficult.

You're wrong about the movie, but that's ok.

[innerSpaceman]

I haven't even seen Transformers II or III, so I'm perfectly willing to accept that Whedon did a much better job than Bay of making a huge alien machine fight scene over a major metropolis clear and interesting.

It's simply that, thanks to those 3 Transformers movies pushing that kind of thing permanently past the Shark-Jump point, that kind of thing will - I daresay - forevermore be a trope of derision. It was done well, but what I'm criticizing is that it was done at all.

And I'm hardly the only person to yawn over the 23rd multi-hero, huge alien machine invasion of major world city destruction. It's really a shame if someone does something well that's been done to death, but there you have it.


And I concede I'm not seeing something about this movie that most audiences and critics are seeing. But I've conversed with other people who didn't like it, and I've read some stinging reviews I agree with (most notably the L.A. Weekly review (http://www.laweekly.com/2012-05-03/film-tv/Avengers-review/), which in my opinion is spot on in every respect.)

I'm not an ultra-hater of Titanic, for example, but is that a good film simply because it's so popular? I think most reasonable people can glimpse the point of the haters of that particular uber-popular movie. But if no one can see mine about The Avengers, so be it. I'm not stating my opinions to bait anyone. It's just that I'm a loudmouth.

[Snowflake]

Well, all I can say is you guys are making me want to see The Avengers. Job well done.

I came late to the Buffy and Angel love, so I expect I will enjoy this.

[mousepod]

I hear what you're saying. As a long-time comic reader, I couldn't imagine an Avengers movie that didn't climax in a massive battle scene. The Jack Kirby-era Marvel comics were famous for that. And ever since Whedon was announced as the director, he's been vocal about his love for Jim Starlin Marvel comics - which added even more sci-fi to the mix. If you were surprised by the ending of the movie, or saw it as a trope brought on by Transformers, then I can see how you'd be let down.

Personally, I'm looking forward to something like this in Avengers 2:

http://comicbookdb.com/graphics/comic_graphics/1/16/11403_20051122121905_large.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

I think your criticisms of Star Trek were accurate, btw. All I could come up with to counter those Spock-logical points was that the film somehow captured the nearly indefinable spirit and feeling of Star Trek. Well, earlier in this thread, you said The Avengers movie captured what you felt was the spirit of The Avengers.

Perhaps that's just it. I have no idea what the spirit of The Avengers is. I never read any of the comics, and I hated the Saturday morning TV show as a kid. So I guess I'm just not getting it. Even so, of course I expected the multi-character, giant machine alien invasion major city destruction battle at the end. It's de rigour and it was telegraphed in all the trailers. It's just I was not engaged with anything leading up to that, so I just rolled my eyes for fourteen minutes while the battle unfolded.

I'm sincerely glad if fans of The Avengers got what they were looking forward to from this movie. Really I am. I know I'm not a fan of The Avengers, per se, but I did enjoy 3 of the 4 films leading up to this, so I hoped I'd really dig The Avengers movie. Though I did not, it truly pleases me that true fans apparently did.

[Moonliner]

See? Now this is why the Internet is great. I found a single poster of every bong girl ever (http://i.imgur.com/Ke6bY.jpg). Many happy memories....

[Moonliner]

I hear what you're saying. As a long-time comic reader

I'm sure I could Google this, but I wonder are the Marvel movies creating a new golden age of comic book sales?

[Ghoulish Delight]

See? Now this is why the Internet is great. I found a single poster of every bong girl ever (http://i.imgur.com/Ke6bY.jpg). Many happy memories....Not as advertised. That would have been a very large poster.

[Kevy Baby]

I never thought of Moonie as a partier.

[innerSpaceman]

One more (visual) dig (https://twitter.com/#!/levack/status/200382680716689408/photo/1/large) at The Avengers / Transformers finale comparison - not to beat a dead horse, but because it's amusing and I just happened upon it.

In less controversial movie news, I finally checked out My Weekend with Marilyn and surprisingly loved it. Great cast, and I'm a sucker for a true story. This one's completely charming.

[Kevy Baby]

We want to see the Avengers, but are concerned that we know NOTHING about any back story: we haven't seen any predecessor movies and we don't read comic books. Do we need to do anything to prepare, or does this movie stand okay on it's own (story-wise)?

[Alex]

Not really. But if you see only one predecessor movie I'd suggest Thor as that will explain the villain. For the most part the superheros are what you'd expect and probably already know.

If you see two, I'd put Captain America next as that provides some back story on the object the villain is after.

[RStar]

See? Now this is why the Internet is great. I found a single poster of every bong girl ever (http://i.imgur.com/Ke6bY.jpg). Many happy memories....

Dang, I expected to see girls with bongs.....

[Moonliner]

Dang, I expected to see girls with bongs.....

Ahh. I see. Now I get the earlier replies that had me somewhat puzzled...

[LSPoorEeyorick]

...not to beat a dead horse, but because it's amusing and I just happened upon it.

This is starting to remind me of a few years ago, when I was younger and less thoughtful. I loudly criticized a movie that I didn't like, but that several other people liked very, very much. I hurt their feelings, because the film felt to them like it belonged to them. And insulting the film felt to them like I was insulting them. I decided I'd stop being a jerk about what I didn't like, especially if I could tell that the person was a huge fan. Not that I didn't own or express my opinion, I just stopped being a jerk about it.

I'm glad I did that, especially now that I know what it's like to be on the receiving end.

Stop being a jerk about Avengers, iSm. It's not funny.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm curious as to why these comic book "I can kick everybody's ass fantasy" movies inspire expectations and the extended discussion that I'm assuming a Jason Statham "I can kick everybody's ass fantasy" movie would not.

[Moonliner]

This is starting to remind me of a few years ago, when I was younger and less thoughtful. I loudly criticized a movie that I didn't like, but that several other people liked very, very much. I hurt their feelings, because the film felt to them like it belonged to them. And insulting the film felt to them like I was insulting them. I decided I'd stop being a jerk about what I didn't like, especially if I could tell that the person was a huge fan. Not that I didn't own or express my opinion, I just stopped being a jerk about it.

I'm glad I did that, especially now that I know what it's like to be on the receiving end.

Stop being a jerk about Avengers, iSm. It's not funny.

I think the admonition might be better served if it was pointed at people who feel criticizing a movie is a personal affront. At least as long as the conversation stays on the merits of the film and does not degenerate into "You like THAT movie? You must be braindead" type of talk.

[innerSpaceman]

You do not own The Avengers, LSPoorEeyorick. I might not post such stuff if Joss Whedon posted on the LoT, but he does not. Funny, but just yesterday I was linked to this brief article (http://badassdigest.com/2012/05/13/take-back-the-nerd-five-ways-to-be-a-good-fan/) on Five Ways to Be a Good (Nerd) Fan. One of the essences was stop taking your fandoms so personally. You don't have to like every aspect of fandom, and neither does anyone else. Stop the personal attacks and lighten up on your reaction to criticism that's not about YOU.

My criticism of The Avengers is not about you, LSP. And speaking of funny, that comparison film strip I linked to is FUNNY. It may not be to your sense of humor, but if you can't see that it's entirely humorous in nature, I respectfully suggest you consider that you're taking barbs directed at a movie you like a bit Too Personally.







Edited to fix URL link

[innerSpaceman]

In other movie news, I apparently chose the wrong Spielberg movie last Christmas. It turns out I rather like The War Horse (which I declined to see in theaters after experiencing the disaster that was TinTin.)

Yeah, it's schmaltzy, but - um - it's a story about a boy and his horse. A little schmaltz is appropriate. It's got the sensibilities of a movie made in the 30's or '40's, total innocence and little cornball, and it's told in a movie style which reminds me of that time period of movies - plus it's rendered like a beautiful story book.

In fact, it reminded me of nothing so much as an old 50's Disney film - if Disney had better production values, great casting, and a fantastic cinematographer.


This is hardly the first time Spielberg has schmaltzed a war story. Revisit Empire of the Sun if you want some real Spielberg schmaltz. And Saving Private Ryan was not entirely unschmaltzy either, ya know.


The War Horse is a darned good Boy and His Horse tale. I surprisingly recommend.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Saw Avengers. Didn't hate it, didn't love it, found some things distracting. I still like Captain America, and Bruce Banner, and sometimes Thor. I still dislike Hulk, and have become familiar with IronMan (and dislike him). I know, not a surprise.

[Kevy Baby]

Not really. But if you see only one predecessor movie I'd suggest Thor as that will explain the villain.We're Thoring now.

[CoasterMatt]

The only Avenger I care about - Toxic Avenger (http://www.flixist.com/lloyd-kaufman-speaks-on-the-toxic-avenger-remake-198497.phtml)!

[Ghoulish Delight]

This (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/fullcredits).

Probably not coincidence I came across this only a day after having heard about the upcoming Criterion edition of Being John Malkovich. With reportedly bizarre commentary by Michel Gondry.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Finally saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

I went in with high hopes. Wasn't entirely disappointed. I certainly could pick a lot of it apart, but despite that it was a fun movie to watch.

However, I despise the ending. It's the John Crichton "Aaaaaaaaand....a virus takes care of the rest. The End." ending and I can't stand it. Boo.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, I was sold on that until the ending as well. Turned an ok movie into a meh.



In other surprise recommendations from me, however ... The Iron Lady.

I'd heard it was a hot mess, and that Streep stole the Oscar with a fine impersonation.


Nope, I must have seen a different movie. It was a perfectly fine biopic, told very sweetly from the point-of-view of an aging Margaret Thatcher coping with deep senility and looking back on her career. I don't want to give too much away because I recommend seeing it on disc, but the particulars of that point-of-view established a deep sympathy for the character. And Streep's performance is far more than impersonation (but the impersonation aspects are indeed there and indeed fun).

I can't help but compare this favorably to last year's other famous biopic, J. Edgar, which was appalling and a dismal failure. Both movies shuttle back and forth in time, but The Iron Lady keeps a firm footing in the "present" of Thatcher's old age, and the flashbacks are presented pretty much in chronological order. J. Edgar seemed to have no "home base" and the time periods just fluttered about randomly and confusingly.

Oh, and the old age makeup in J. Edgar was embarrassing. The make-up in The Iron Lady is fantastic. This is not an unimportant element when telling a life story from young to old. Oh, and J. Edgar stars Leonardo DiCaprio, clearly out of his depth. The Iron Lady stars Meryl Streep, earning yet another well-deserved Best Actress Academy Award.

Both films take the standard biopic tack of pinning the main character's, well, character on a parent. J. Edgar did that with a sledgehammer, Iron Lady with a feather. But it's too simplistic in both cases, and I left both films not really feeling I got deeply enough into the life motivations of the main characters. I'm not sure if that can be done to my satisfaction in a movie-length biopic. So I give lots of leeway to the genre. Even with that slack, I left J. Edgar feeling confused about the character and not at all entertained. To my surprise, I was very entertained by The Iron Lady and left less confused about Margaret Thatcher than when I came in.

The Iron Lady is a bio success in my book. J. Edgar a sorry disappointment.

[Strangler Lewis]

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady. I had assumed it was going to be one of those things where a great actor puts on the Wookie suit for a paycheck and that she got an Oscar because she was long overdue for one. Plotwise, the movie was kind of "and then she, and then she and then she," but it was still engaging.

[innerSpaceman]

I think that's the failure of all bio films; they're kinda 'and then s/he, and then s/he, and then s/he" - hence the current trend of trying to jump around in time to shake that up a little. I find some movies better at that than others.

[Alex]

Poor Jules Verne, he doesn't get credit for that ending any more.

Normally I'd agree, but on the other hand if suddenly the entire world population of non-human apes became just as smart as us they'd still pose no real risk to us as a society. So something had to help.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow, that's a pretty rude way to talk about Margaret Thatcher.

[Alex]

Hey, I'm surfing the web on my phone standing on the street in front of our Kyoto hotel. Seems to much to expect me to notice there was another page of posts.

[Kevy Baby]

Not really. But if you see only one predecessor movie I'd suggest Thor as that will explain the villain. For the most part the superheros are what you'd expect and probably already know.

If you see two, I'd put Captain America next as that provides some back story on the object the villain is after.

We finally saw Avengers Monday (and Dark Shadows - jumped from one movie to the other). I could see Joss Whedon's hand on Avengers. Good movie and I would say that if we hadn't seen any movie beforehand, we would have been okay, though seeing Thor helped.

Dark Shadows was meh. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't as much as I had hoped for. I wish Tim Burton would stop making the same movie over and over again.

[Snowflake]

We're Thoring now.

Heh, read that as we're whoring now....

[Moonliner]

We're Thoring now.

Stop. Hammer time!

[Snowflake]

Hey, I'm surfing the web on my phone standing on the street in front of our Kyoto hotel. Seems to much to expect me to notice there was another page of posts.

I hate you a little bit today Alex.

[Alex]

If you could see the pictures from out there (we're back in Tokyo now for te duration) you'd hate me more than a little.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Holy crap is Extract bad. We bailed on the disc.

[Alex]

I kind of liked it in a forgettable way.

[lashbear]

Has anyone seen The Hole (in 3D or flat) - I've ordered it because it was on special, and I'm hoping its not because it was a stupid movie. It looks alright from the trailer.

[Kevy Baby]

Is that the movie about Paris Hilton?

[lashbear]

Now why am I not surprised by that. Amused, but not surprised. :D

So, does anyone want to come downunder and see the hole in 3D ?

[Strangler Lewis]

So, does anyone want to come downunder and see the hole in 3D ?

That seems a little forward.

[Snowflake]

Thanks to Netflix I caught The Woman in Black over the weekend. One of those cases where the trailer was more enticing than the film itself. Very nearly a solo performance for Daniel Radcliffe. Ciran Hinds had the only other role of some substance. All the other characters were pretty much cameos. The mystery was pretty easy to figure out and the few moments of surprise really went nowhere. The ending was totally predicatable.

Some good and moody cinematography. Grim landscapes and dark hallways. Good shots of creepy toys and dolls. Scary clown doll spoiler for BtD. I found earlier Hammer films much scarier growing up. This had production values Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee would have loved to have had. Old Hammer had better plots with loads of good cheese factor. This had no cheese factor. Happy I waited for Netflix.

[Alex]

I tried to watch The Woman in Black on our flight to Japan a couple week sago. Only made it about 20 minutes in before I switched to This Means War instead.

This Means War was absolutely awful, but at least I was able to finish it.

[mousepod]

Went to see Snow White and The Huntsman on Friday. There were things I really liked about it (the costumes, the special effects, the dwarfs), but I couldn't help but think that I'm about 30 years too old and the wrong gender to really appreciate the flick. I guess if you're a Hunger Games / Twilight fan, this movie would be right up your alley...