Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Have you given him a talk about Suresh ?
Or is he not mature enough for that ?
I told my son about suresh when he was two. Now i can't undo that. Big mistake.
What was the last movie you watched?
- Thread starter jamesblakefan#1
- Start date
Or is he not mature enough for that ?
I told my son about suresh when he was two. Now i can't undo that. Big mistake.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
The Red Violin (1998) - About a violin made in 1681 by an Italian, it is passed on through five families in five different countries, through four centuries till it comes up at an auction in Montreal. It's the story of the violin, or the people who played it.
Interesting. The violin pieces are played by Joshua Bell. It's multi-lingual.
Interesting. The violin pieces are played by Joshua Bell. It's multi-lingual.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Why’s that?
Don’t you consider Sabboush a good influence?
Dilexson
Hall of Fame
Almost too good to believe it's a directorial debut. Fascinating stuff, similar to Darabont's Shawshank Redemption.
Turbo-87
G.O.A.T.
I don't think it is wise to expose him to these teachings until he is 17. The birds & bees first THEN The Sureshs.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
The Aspern Papers (2018) - Vanessa_Redgrave, joely_richardson, jonathan_rhys_meyer
Based on a novella by Henry James (roughly 1888) on the letters written by P B Shelley to the stepsister of Mary Shelley. Set in Venice.
The reviews of the movie are quite poor, but i found it interesting, and liked Vanessa and her real-life daughter Joely. However, Rhys-Meyer is poor in his delivery.
Based on a novella by Henry James (roughly 1888) on the letters written by P B Shelley to the stepsister of Mary Shelley. Set in Venice.
The reviews of the movie are quite poor, but i found it interesting, and liked Vanessa and her real-life daughter Joely. However, Rhys-Meyer is poor in his delivery.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
How was it, Sir Weed ?
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
The synopsis seems quite funny, the mold and the TV set ...
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I guess it's time to watch it again.
It's like Dial M for Murder. You can watch it every few years and never tire.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
How Quentin Tarantino put Leonardo DiCaprio in somebody else’s movie
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood features a hypothetical in which DiCaprio’s character replaces Steve McQueen
By Karen Han@karenyhan Jul 27, 2019, 10:01am EDT
In Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino drops actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) into a variety of movies and shows — not just the ones Tarantino made up for the film, but famous films and TV programs of the 1960s, including The Great Escape and The FBI. In some cases, the footage is recreated, but in others, DiCaprio is essentially added to the pre-existing footage. To figure out just how it was all pulled off, Polygon spoke with cinematographer Robert Richardson and production designer Barbara Ling.
“When we did The Great Escape, it’s actually The Great Escape material,” Richardson said, speaking of the scene in which we see what it would have looked like if Dalton had ended up being cast instead of Steve McQueen. “You’re shooting [DiCaprio] in costume, and you’re shooting him with a little bit of a [green] screen, and then you’re just wiping out Steve McQueen,” Ling added.
To make the match as seamless as possible, Richardson explained that they worked with the same lens at the same distance that they thought The Great Escape had shot with, also duplicating the lighting. They also attempted to find the original lens that The Great Escape had shot on, but “couldn’t get a lock down on where it was,” resorting to using an older-quality lens instead.
Though putting the pieces together was difficult, the shooting wasn’t as convoluted a process. “What happens is they played [The Great Escape] back, so on one monitor — with those sequences, you have to have monitors — you played back what it is for the film,” Richardson said. “Then you move up and down with the camera, left and right, in and out, to be able to match the size of Steve McQueen with Leo. And then that goes off and then it’s just Leo performing for that shot.”
A similar process was used for the episode of The FBI that Dalton guest stars in, which is a real episode that Tarantino loved. “What they wanted was to get it without doing it digitally, so to speak, putting his face on another actor,” Ling explained. “We took that FBI, found locations that matched cut into that shot. [...] We then recreated Leo’s character as part of that, and then they used the original part; we actually shot it and matched it in.”
In other words, though the footage of the other actors in the episode remains untouched, the footage of DiCaprio unknown is all new, not just in terms of DiCaprio’s performance but for the entire shots. The icing on the cake? “We actually found the army truck that was originally used in that FBI episode,” Ling said. “Steve Butcher, my incredible picture car guy, actually found that truck.”
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood is in theaters now.
https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/27/8...ntin-tarantino-leonardo-dicaprio-great-escape
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
This is also the last movie I watched. Coincidence much?
I agree, it's a very intelligent, sensitive, artistic film and deals with difficult topics. High-budget blockbusters like Avengers and Star Wars may be the most popular films now, but it's movies like Get Out that become classics over time.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
Booksmart - Funny movie. Some people compare it to Superbad just with girls... I can see it, but not nearly as good. Still enjoyable, a solid 7.5
Lion King - I went to see it last night 11:50PM start time. Didn't help that the sound was fudged for the first 15 mins, we tried complaining and getting them to pause it or rewind... so finally 12:30 they started from the beginning. So I was already annoyed. I loved the animated version, but I was just a kid when I watched it. I liked this movie a lot less than I liked the Aladdin live action. It was good, it was OK. It was nothing special. I don't feel for the characters, I guess it's hard to develop characters in disney live action movies. I seriously felt way more attached to Wall-E than Simba in this movie. That being said, I still liked it. Give it a 7
Lion King - I went to see it last night 11:50PM start time. Didn't help that the sound was fudged for the first 15 mins, we tried complaining and getting them to pause it or rewind... so finally 12:30 they started from the beginning. So I was already annoyed. I loved the animated version, but I was just a kid when I watched it. I liked this movie a lot less than I liked the Aladdin live action. It was good, it was OK. It was nothing special. I don't feel for the characters, I guess it's hard to develop characters in disney live action movies. I seriously felt way more attached to Wall-E than Simba in this movie. That being said, I still liked it. Give it a 7
NonP
Legend
One cheer before I move on to the jeers. I'm tempted to say that The Last Black Man in San Francisco, Joe Talbot's impressive feature debut, is the first near-great film I've seen about the pernicious harms of gentrification, but I can't quite make that ringing endorsement because 1) it would involve pretending that I've made even a cursory attempt to study films on said topic and 2) I can't buy the bromance between Jimmie Fails (reportedly based on the namesake actor's own life) and Jonathan Majors' Montgomery Allen except as a tenuous link between two token black men in an increasingly white neighborhood. (For one thing they hardly talk like urban black men at all. For all the talent Joe Talbot displays in his debut the inflections of street slang seem to escape him.) But there's a reason why the film is shaping up to be one of the longest-running indie releases of 2019, with perhaps the year's best soundtrack to boot. Even if you like me can't stand Scott McKenzie's original hippie paean to the eponymous city you'll be hard-pressed not to respond to Mike Marshall's (he of "I Got 5 on It" fame) soulful reimagining of the song that turns it upside down in purpose and impact:
As you may recall this isn't the first remarkable feature debut of the year (Blitz Bazawule's The Burial of Kojo, on Netflix) and likely not the last. Don't be fooled by the next sky-is-falling prognostication for anyone not named Disney you might come across in Variety or mainstream publications. Independent cinema continues to thrive by any measure other than box-office receipts and it is up to us to make sure it remains that way. No pirating if you can help it (that goes for almost all of you outside the confines of Iran and other repressive regimes), spread the word, and last but not least read up on the film for further discussions!
Time for a less-than-fulsome round of housekeeping:
I'm afraid Ari Astor is turning out to be our (American and the younger generation's) answer to Yorgos Lanthimos: a cynic whose trendy misanthropy in arthouse garb flatters rather than challenges our own sense of smug complacency. Astor has said his latest feature is a breakup movie of sorts following his own personal breakup, but he fails to justify why any of us other than family and friends should care, nor does he explain why burning it all down (quite literally as seen in the movie's conclusion) is supposed to be this cathartic experience he clearly intends it to be. And his stilted dialogues even in the film's context of alienation tell me he needs to pay less attention to how people are supposed to behave than to how people actually behave.
Near or at the very top of all the things in contemporary culture I'll never understand is our sick obsession with serial killers. It's not just the moral depravity of it all that turns me off, but also this notion that we somehow can glean some insight into the human condition from these sickos' behavior.
I've refused to see any of the John Wick flicks and am not going to make an exception for von Trier's latest shock slasher just because he used to dabble in auteurism. And the guy seems more interested in producing porn these days so I doubt I'm missing out much.
The big thing I find off-putting about Melville is this suave machismo that informs most of his works. Not even his masterpiece Army of Shadows is immune from it; in fact one cannot imagine the film without it, despite the considerable contribution of Simone Signoret (whose character, of course, suffers a fatal betrayal in the end). That probably explains why my fave Melville feature is Le Silence de la mer - whose male protagonist, Howard Vernon's Werner von Ebrennac, confounds the male stereotypes from the get-go - and also why I quite liked the recently restored When You Read This Letter which, despite its clear roots in commerce (Melville reportedly wanted to prove his narrative chops as well as make enough money for his next adventures), shows the stylist nonpareil of the French New Wave eschewing his usual male-centric perspective to lend Yvonne Sanson's Irène Faugeret and especially Juliette Gréco's mysterious Thérèse Voise a richness of character rarely found in commercial melodramas:
Nolan's Memento is the kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise that asks us to think of art as a puzzle to be solved rather than an experience to be lived over and over. Ditto Inception. I've said this before but Dunkirk is probably the first and only serious film Nolan's ever made, and though I don't care for its flag-waving I do applaud him for finally taking that next step into artistic maturity.
So teenage boys' favorite auteur has now moved on from making light of fascism and slavery for "subversive" kicks to making light of premeditated murder by a deranged cult. I suppose that's progress, but it's still absolutely mystifying to see so many supposedly grown-up reviewers continue to take this movie brat and his odious revenge fantasies seriously. I honestly cringed when the crowd broke out in gleeful laughter as DiCaprio's Rick Dalton returned with his flamethrower in that gag clearly designed for riotous lolz all around.
And even his "winking homages" (culled from one enthusiastic headline) are growing stale. A few jokey references to classical Hollywood or the French New Wave don't necessarily qualify as homages, let alone genuine on-screen critiques that change the ways you see the works in question and the world at large. That's the difference between poseurs like Tarantino and De Palma and true auteurs like Godard and Rivette.
Reportedly QT has said he'll retire following his 10th feature. Here's hoping he keeps his word. (Don't count on it, though. Movie brats like him just can't help themselves.)
You had that problem, too? I thought that was just a one-time thing me and my crowd had to stomach the other day. Didn't seem to bother them too much, though, as they readily cheered at the "Circle of Life" intro once again. (It probably helped that this was a Thursday-nite preview before the official Friday opening, so probably not the most neutral audience we're talking about.)
Anyhoo yours seems to be a widely shared impression among laymen and pros alike. Sure, the visuals are indeed spectacular (I saw it in laser IMAX 3D but may see it in Dolby again as the sound lacked a little oomph you normally hear in the latter format), but to what end? Disney clearly intended this CGI showcase to be the latest imprint of its domination of the animation market but that doesn't exactly serve the viewer, no?
I'm glad to see critics rightly calling out the media behemoth for what is an ultimately empty exercise in brand reinforcement, but I hope they can apply the same critical thinking towards less nakedly commercial efforts like Linklater's Boyhood or Bi Gan's recent Long Day's Journey into Night whose innovation turns out to be less than meets the eye but somehow is praised to the heavens because of where it comes from. The indie/arthouse darlings don't get a pass just because they don't break nine digits at the box office every damn time.
As you may recall this isn't the first remarkable feature debut of the year (Blitz Bazawule's The Burial of Kojo, on Netflix) and likely not the last. Don't be fooled by the next sky-is-falling prognostication for anyone not named Disney you might come across in Variety or mainstream publications. Independent cinema continues to thrive by any measure other than box-office receipts and it is up to us to make sure it remains that way. No pirating if you can help it (that goes for almost all of you outside the confines of Iran and other repressive regimes), spread the word, and last but not least read up on the film for further discussions!
Time for a less-than-fulsome round of housekeeping:
I'm afraid Ari Astor is turning out to be our (American and the younger generation's) answer to Yorgos Lanthimos: a cynic whose trendy misanthropy in arthouse garb flatters rather than challenges our own sense of smug complacency. Astor has said his latest feature is a breakup movie of sorts following his own personal breakup, but he fails to justify why any of us other than family and friends should care, nor does he explain why burning it all down (quite literally as seen in the movie's conclusion) is supposed to be this cathartic experience he clearly intends it to be. And his stilted dialogues even in the film's context of alienation tell me he needs to pay less attention to how people are supposed to behave than to how people actually behave.
Near or at the very top of all the things in contemporary culture I'll never understand is our sick obsession with serial killers. It's not just the moral depravity of it all that turns me off, but also this notion that we somehow can glean some insight into the human condition from these sickos' behavior.
I've refused to see any of the John Wick flicks and am not going to make an exception for von Trier's latest shock slasher just because he used to dabble in auteurism. And the guy seems more interested in producing porn these days so I doubt I'm missing out much.
The big thing I find off-putting about Melville is this suave machismo that informs most of his works. Not even his masterpiece Army of Shadows is immune from it; in fact one cannot imagine the film without it, despite the considerable contribution of Simone Signoret (whose character, of course, suffers a fatal betrayal in the end). That probably explains why my fave Melville feature is Le Silence de la mer - whose male protagonist, Howard Vernon's Werner von Ebrennac, confounds the male stereotypes from the get-go - and also why I quite liked the recently restored When You Read This Letter which, despite its clear roots in commerce (Melville reportedly wanted to prove his narrative chops as well as make enough money for his next adventures), shows the stylist nonpareil of the French New Wave eschewing his usual male-centric perspective to lend Yvonne Sanson's Irène Faugeret and especially Juliette Gréco's mysterious Thérèse Voise a richness of character rarely found in commercial melodramas:
Memento (2000)
For the second time. First saw it when it came up around 2000.
Headaches to understand it.
Watched it yesterday, and I think I caught it 75%.
I may understand it completely watching it twice again, luckily.
Cult movie
Hope this helps
Nolan's Memento is the kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise that asks us to think of art as a puzzle to be solved rather than an experience to be lived over and over. Ditto Inception. I've said this before but Dunkirk is probably the first and only serious film Nolan's ever made, and though I don't care for its flag-waving I do applaud him for finally taking that next step into artistic maturity.
So teenage boys' favorite auteur has now moved on from making light of fascism and slavery for "subversive" kicks to making light of premeditated murder by a deranged cult. I suppose that's progress, but it's still absolutely mystifying to see so many supposedly grown-up reviewers continue to take this movie brat and his odious revenge fantasies seriously. I honestly cringed when the crowd broke out in gleeful laughter as DiCaprio's Rick Dalton returned with his flamethrower in that gag clearly designed for riotous lolz all around.
And even his "winking homages" (culled from one enthusiastic headline) are growing stale. A few jokey references to classical Hollywood or the French New Wave don't necessarily qualify as homages, let alone genuine on-screen critiques that change the ways you see the works in question and the world at large. That's the difference between poseurs like Tarantino and De Palma and true auteurs like Godard and Rivette.
Reportedly QT has said he'll retire following his 10th feature. Here's hoping he keeps his word. (Don't count on it, though. Movie brats like him just can't help themselves.)
You had that problem, too? I thought that was just a one-time thing me and my crowd had to stomach the other day. Didn't seem to bother them too much, though, as they readily cheered at the "Circle of Life" intro once again. (It probably helped that this was a Thursday-nite preview before the official Friday opening, so probably not the most neutral audience we're talking about.)
Anyhoo yours seems to be a widely shared impression among laymen and pros alike. Sure, the visuals are indeed spectacular (I saw it in laser IMAX 3D but may see it in Dolby again as the sound lacked a little oomph you normally hear in the latter format), but to what end? Disney clearly intended this CGI showcase to be the latest imprint of its domination of the animation market but that doesn't exactly serve the viewer, no?
I'm glad to see critics rightly calling out the media behemoth for what is an ultimately empty exercise in brand reinforcement, but I hope they can apply the same critical thinking towards less nakedly commercial efforts like Linklater's Boyhood or Bi Gan's recent Long Day's Journey into Night whose innovation turns out to be less than meets the eye but somehow is praised to the heavens because of where it comes from. The indie/arthouse darlings don't get a pass just because they don't break nine digits at the box office every damn time.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Thank goodness someone said this out aloud!!! Coming of age movies are different - they are not supposed to be like Boyhood. Coming of age movies to me are movies along the lines of Pather Panchali, 400 Blows, Stand By Me, Call Me by Your Name....
NonP
Legend
Before I start I must say I didn't like Call Me by Your Name. It belongs to this category of what I like to call movies for the smartphone age: those composed of bite-size pieces that we are supposed to respond to accordingly like Pavlov's dogs but which do not add up to a cohesive whole. It's a symptom of our myopia and truncated attention span that such staccato editing is now considered a feature, not a bug.
Anyway I'm with you that Boyhood does not belong in the same class as those first two masterworks. (Haven't seen Stand by Me and frankly doubt I ever will.) What irritated me about its critical reception was this line of thought that the film would be just as great without its much-hyped 12-year shooting. Of course that's bullocks: nobody knows what would happen in such a counterfactual, and the inordinate amount of attention paid to the unusual production strongly suggests the opposite reaction. Also pretty much everyone agreed that Ellar Coltrane's mediocre acting was the film's weak link. If so what does it matter when or at what stage in his life he was cast as the film's protagonist? If the end result isn't up to par that renders the whole exercise somewhat moot, no?
Mind, you, I still consider Linklater the best American filmmaker of his generation and the first two installments of his Before trilogy among the best love stories ever told on screen. And though I have a fundamental objection to its hedonism I much prefer his next feature Everybody Wants Some!! (the double exclamation points kinda say it all) as his entry in the bildungsroman genre.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Call me by your name and Blue is the Warmest Colour are quite similar in a sense. I liked them both. They both deal with emotions that is hardly seen in cinema these days.
I personally preferred the second installment the most amongst the Before Trilogy. There was something rash about the first one - sweet but nothing more, the last installment was a bit of a disappointment for me as well, I'd have loved more dialogue....on the whole though, a beautiful set of movies especially the second one. I will check out Everybody Wants Some. Thanks for the recco.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Spiderman: Far from home. 
NonP
Legend
Still dunno what to think of The Farewell, Lulu Wang's second feature that took in $1.6 million for the #10 spot at the (US) weekend box office. I was going to say it breaks no new ground whatsoever - even its well-placed observation regarding the primacy of the individual in the West vs. that of society in the East is a cliche familiar to every child of a parent of Eastern origin - but I feel there's something more to this dramedy than pedestrian if heartfelt laughs and cries. I'm still not ready to declare it a must-see, but I suggest you see for yourself.
Now the big news (for our American friends at any rate):
I'm guessing Regal has already sent you a thousand notices announcing the three-tier Unlimited plans. $18-$23.50 per month (nearly all of my local theaters fall under the middle $21 Unlimited Plus umbrella), and unlimited movies as advertised but surcharges for premium formats vs. AMC's 3 movies/wk and no surcharge. Anyhoo it's a damn good deal, and now that all three of the major chains have set up their own thing I finally see the writing on MoviePass' wall. I'll still hold onto my MP card as long as I can and keep my AMC's A-List plan (not as many Regals in my hood, and about half of the indie/foreign flicks I like to see aren't available at the major chains to begin with), but Regal's new foray does seem like a no-brainer for you.
I really hope this subscription model can rejuvenate moviegoing at least in this country. If it does boost viewership for the non-franchise/superhero movies (no need to go only for the big events when money after a fixed point is no longer an issue) and have the studios respond accordingly this experiment will have been well worth it.
I actually still haven't seen BITWC. Last time I tried I fell asleep about 10 min in, LOL. (Nothing to do with the movie, though. I was just tired.)
It's basically a tie between Sunrise and Sunset for me. The former as I said is clearly inspired by McCarey's Love Affair/An Affair to Remember as well as Linklater's own chance encounter, and I thought Richard made the right call to rely mostly on dialogue rather than narrative (I don't think you can say this film lacks for the former) which not only helped him break free of his great predecessor's influence but worked wonders in that classic listening-booth scene:
There's no way the scene could be as magical without the sudden switch to dialogue-free expression. But then the sequel's ending was arguably even better:
If I had to choose it's that sublime conclusion which would break the tie in favor of Sunset. In any case the first two installments are clearly preferable to the disappointing Midnight whose unearned reconciliation of sorts at the end is almost telegraphed from its very first sequence. I wouldn't be surprised to see Linklater (along with Hawks/Deply) expand the series down the road, but it does seem that with no further personal experience to fall back on he's run out of fresh ideas at this point. There's a reason why Jean Renoir once paid the high compliment of designating McCarey as the Hollywood director who understood people better than any of his rivals, and I think I have a good idea whose side Jean would be on if he were still alive and asked to comment on Leo vs. Richard.
Now the big news (for our American friends at any rate):
I'm guessing Regal has already sent you a thousand notices announcing the three-tier Unlimited plans. $18-$23.50 per month (nearly all of my local theaters fall under the middle $21 Unlimited Plus umbrella), and unlimited movies as advertised but surcharges for premium formats vs. AMC's 3 movies/wk and no surcharge. Anyhoo it's a damn good deal, and now that all three of the major chains have set up their own thing I finally see the writing on MoviePass' wall. I'll still hold onto my MP card as long as I can and keep my AMC's A-List plan (not as many Regals in my hood, and about half of the indie/foreign flicks I like to see aren't available at the major chains to begin with), but Regal's new foray does seem like a no-brainer for you.
I really hope this subscription model can rejuvenate moviegoing at least in this country. If it does boost viewership for the non-franchise/superhero movies (no need to go only for the big events when money after a fixed point is no longer an issue) and have the studios respond accordingly this experiment will have been well worth it.
I actually still haven't seen BITWC. Last time I tried I fell asleep about 10 min in, LOL. (Nothing to do with the movie, though. I was just tired.)
It's basically a tie between Sunrise and Sunset for me. The former as I said is clearly inspired by McCarey's Love Affair/An Affair to Remember as well as Linklater's own chance encounter, and I thought Richard made the right call to rely mostly on dialogue rather than narrative (I don't think you can say this film lacks for the former) which not only helped him break free of his great predecessor's influence but worked wonders in that classic listening-booth scene:
There's no way the scene could be as magical without the sudden switch to dialogue-free expression. But then the sequel's ending was arguably even better:
If I had to choose it's that sublime conclusion which would break the tie in favor of Sunset. In any case the first two installments are clearly preferable to the disappointing Midnight whose unearned reconciliation of sorts at the end is almost telegraphed from its very first sequence. I wouldn't be surprised to see Linklater (along with Hawks/Deply) expand the series down the road, but it does seem that with no further personal experience to fall back on he's run out of fresh ideas at this point. There's a reason why Jean Renoir once paid the high compliment of designating McCarey as the Hollywood director who understood people better than any of his rivals, and I think I have a good idea whose side Jean would be on if he were still alive and asked to comment on Leo vs. Richard.
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
I still don't think I'm gonna bite on that Regal deal. I live in NYC so of course I would have to get the $23.50 plan lol. Plus they say it's a $0.50 surcharge for each movie. I know you can get around that by buying tickets at the theater, but still. Plus with tax and all that it would be $25+. I actually consider AMC A-List to be better. No surcharges for the best screens? The greatest IMAX screen is in the city, Lincoln Center. It's a magically gigantic screen.
Like you, I am holding out on MP coming back. Some people have gotten it back. I guess it's totally random, not just for the light users considering at least a couple of heavy users got their app back working. I also don't need unlimited movies. I don't want to watch everything as I did in the beginning days of MP lol. I have watched everything I wanted to watch since the limit became 3, except Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and maybe Crawl (since it has good reviews). There are too many Madea movies released for me to want to see everything. I want to be active at least during the Summer. When it gets cold and dark early, I'll worry about it then
NonP
Legend
Since today was my last realistic chance to use up my weekly AMC A-List allowance before Friday I decided to catch The Lion King again (if my last post's writing seems somewhat rushed and sloppy towards the end, that's why), but this time in Dolby. Let's deal with the choice of format first: you can't go wrong with either IMAX (provided that it's laser, not the faux version sold in some locations) or Dolby, but unless your IMAX theater screen happens to be considerably bigger than its Dolby counterpart (provided that your theater has a Dolby auditorium to begin with) or you genuinely like the 3D experience, go with Dolby. As I said upthread you really can't beat the rich (sometimes too much but not here) Dolby sound, and the picture looked pretty damn clear to me, too. Just be warned that with the latest Fast & Furious click arriving this Friday the next two days may be your last chance to see the Disney remake in Dolby, so plan accordingly.
As for the movie itself... still not sold on it. I'll let you in on something of an open secret among cinephiles: the more culturally or racially insensitive a Disney film is, the more entertaining if not plain better it tends to be. And as perhaps the most PC/prestigious title of the so-called Disney Renaissance The Lion King was likely the least suitable candidate for a successful remake, no matter how beloved it was by critics and fans alike. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that if the new version feels underwhelming it's mostly in comparison to the original and we're holding the remake to unfair standards that most films of the genre would be hard-pressed to meet.
But I still must reject this rationale. For one thing, the whole voice cast just don't measure up to their predecessors. Even the great James Earl Jones who returns as Mufasa sounds tired, and indeed the whole gang with the exception of John Oliver's Zazu (it might be telling that Oliver like the 1994 version's Rowan Atkinson is a Brit) seem to be going through the motions. Particularly disappointing is Chiwetel Ejiofor, an actor I normally admire whose Scar barely manages to come across as evil, let alone menacing and, shall I say, deliciously maleficent (sorry had to get that in there). Granted Jeremy Irons had set the bar so high in the 1994 original (almost as high as Robin Williams' Genie, if you ask me) that pretty much any follow-up act was going to fall short, but Ejiofor, being the celebrated Shakespeare actor he is, seems to have been under the mistaken impression that this was a Shakespeare movie adaptation for the family rather than a family movie inspired in part by Shakespeare. It'd be interesting to hear the actual audience's reaction to his voice acting, as opposed to director Jon Favreau's over-the-top shout-out ("[h]e brings that feeling of a Shakespearean villain to bear because of his background as an actor") which might have unduly played a role here.
And this listlessness in turn carries over to the songs. Forget about the new numbers (mainly "Spirit" sung by Beyonce) which don't hold a candle to the originals we all know and love. Compare Jimmy Cliff and Lebo M.'s previous wordplay to the new gang's line reading in "Hakuna Matata" and you'll see exatcly how big a gulf we're dealing with: the former performance sounds positively, infectiously fun, while the latter merely tries to imitate the joie de vivre. And Beyonce's oversinging and Donald Glover's feeble vocalizing make "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sound more like an inadvertent lesson on mismatched star power than the movie's centerpiece it's supposed to be (Favreau's rushed segue into the song doesn't help, either). Of course it also goes without saying that Ejiofor's mercifully shortened "Be Prepared" has none of the original's snarling, impish wickedness that Irons conjured up so well.
Now we come to the direction itself. Anyone who has seen Favreau's 2016 remake of The Jungle Book (a CGI extravaganza in its own right) would agree the guy can tell a story, and though he wasn't exactly flawless with his direction this time around (as in that awkward lead-up to "Love Tonight," again) we know he was working from a proven script that by all rights should have worked its magic once again given the formidable collection of talent involved. But both critics and fans seem largely in agreement that it didn't. Why not? At this point it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the medium was the culprit here. Turns out all the computer prestidigitation in the world cannot replace traditional animation, hand-drawn or not, let alone the endlessly flexible means of human faces and gestures. Of course one could counter that a world composed entirely of animals was always going to be a bad fit for complete CGI treatment, but that's all but conceding its very limitations and thus proving my point, and considering that the 2016 Jungle Book with its human protagonist was far more favorably received I say the onus is on Disney and its supporters to show that this latest experiment in brand experiment was ultimately worthwhile, not the other way around.
Don't hold your breath, though, as the film has already passed the $1 billion mark and no doubt future cash grabs are already in development. This may be almost perverse to say but our best hope against Disney's worst instincts does seem to be the forthcoming reboot of Mulan (populated by actual humans OMG!) surpassing its predecessor at the box office.
Figured you live in the Big Apple, given your reaction to Durant going down (and of course missing his 1st season with his new team).
And yeah, if you like to see it on the biggest screen available AMC A-List is definitely the better option. Not sure if the Lincoln Center screen is all that big, though, cuz the Chinese Theater in LA is supposed to have "the world’s largest IMAX auditorium" (which is incorrect, I later found out - there's one in Australia that's even bigger) but when I went to see it last Thanksgiving it didn't seem that much bigger than the one at my local AMC.
Anyhoo you should definitely try to be more active throughout the year! Can't say I practice what I preach, but I'm guessing you knew that already.
You bored me.
Sorry if I bored you with my lengthy criticism.
As for the movie itself... still not sold on it. I'll let you in on something of an open secret among cinephiles: the more culturally or racially insensitive a Disney film is, the more entertaining if not plain better it tends to be. And as perhaps the most PC/prestigious title of the so-called Disney Renaissance The Lion King was likely the least suitable candidate for a successful remake, no matter how beloved it was by critics and fans alike. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that if the new version feels underwhelming it's mostly in comparison to the original and we're holding the remake to unfair standards that most films of the genre would be hard-pressed to meet.
But I still must reject this rationale. For one thing, the whole voice cast just don't measure up to their predecessors. Even the great James Earl Jones who returns as Mufasa sounds tired, and indeed the whole gang with the exception of John Oliver's Zazu (it might be telling that Oliver like the 1994 version's Rowan Atkinson is a Brit) seem to be going through the motions. Particularly disappointing is Chiwetel Ejiofor, an actor I normally admire whose Scar barely manages to come across as evil, let alone menacing and, shall I say, deliciously maleficent (sorry had to get that in there). Granted Jeremy Irons had set the bar so high in the 1994 original (almost as high as Robin Williams' Genie, if you ask me) that pretty much any follow-up act was going to fall short, but Ejiofor, being the celebrated Shakespeare actor he is, seems to have been under the mistaken impression that this was a Shakespeare movie adaptation for the family rather than a family movie inspired in part by Shakespeare. It'd be interesting to hear the actual audience's reaction to his voice acting, as opposed to director Jon Favreau's over-the-top shout-out ("[h]e brings that feeling of a Shakespearean villain to bear because of his background as an actor") which might have unduly played a role here.
And this listlessness in turn carries over to the songs. Forget about the new numbers (mainly "Spirit" sung by Beyonce) which don't hold a candle to the originals we all know and love. Compare Jimmy Cliff and Lebo M.'s previous wordplay to the new gang's line reading in "Hakuna Matata" and you'll see exatcly how big a gulf we're dealing with: the former performance sounds positively, infectiously fun, while the latter merely tries to imitate the joie de vivre. And Beyonce's oversinging and Donald Glover's feeble vocalizing make "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sound more like an inadvertent lesson on mismatched star power than the movie's centerpiece it's supposed to be (Favreau's rushed segue into the song doesn't help, either). Of course it also goes without saying that Ejiofor's mercifully shortened "Be Prepared" has none of the original's snarling, impish wickedness that Irons conjured up so well.
Now we come to the direction itself. Anyone who has seen Favreau's 2016 remake of The Jungle Book (a CGI extravaganza in its own right) would agree the guy can tell a story, and though he wasn't exactly flawless with his direction this time around (as in that awkward lead-up to "Love Tonight," again) we know he was working from a proven script that by all rights should have worked its magic once again given the formidable collection of talent involved. But both critics and fans seem largely in agreement that it didn't. Why not? At this point it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the medium was the culprit here. Turns out all the computer prestidigitation in the world cannot replace traditional animation, hand-drawn or not, let alone the endlessly flexible means of human faces and gestures. Of course one could counter that a world composed entirely of animals was always going to be a bad fit for complete CGI treatment, but that's all but conceding its very limitations and thus proving my point, and considering that the 2016 Jungle Book with its human protagonist was far more favorably received I say the onus is on Disney and its supporters to show that this latest experiment in brand experiment was ultimately worthwhile, not the other way around.
Don't hold your breath, though, as the film has already passed the $1 billion mark and no doubt future cash grabs are already in development. This may be almost perverse to say but our best hope against Disney's worst instincts does seem to be the forthcoming reboot of Mulan (populated by actual humans OMG!) surpassing its predecessor at the box office.
I still don't think I'm gonna bite on that Regal deal. I live in NYC so of course I would have to get the $23.50 plan lol. Plus they say it's a $0.50 surcharge for each movie. I know you can get around that by buying tickets at the theater, but still. Plus with tax and all that it would be $25+. I actually consider AMC A-List to be better. No surcharges for the best screens? The greatest IMAX screen is in the city, Lincoln Center. It's a magically gigantic screen.
Like you, I am holding out on MP coming back. Some people have gotten it back. I guess it's totally random, not just for the light users considering at least a couple of heavy users got their app back working. I also don't need unlimited movies. I don't want to watch everything as I did in the beginning days of MP lol. I have watched everything I wanted to watch since the limit became 3, except Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and maybe Crawl (since it has good reviews). There are too many Madea movies released for me to want to see everything. I want to be active at least during the Summer. When it gets cold and dark early, I'll worry about it then
Figured you live in the Big Apple, given your reaction to Durant going down (and of course missing his 1st season with his new team).
And yeah, if you like to see it on the biggest screen available AMC A-List is definitely the better option. Not sure if the Lincoln Center screen is all that big, though, cuz the Chinese Theater in LA is supposed to have "the world’s largest IMAX auditorium" (which is incorrect, I later found out - there's one in Australia that's even bigger) but when I went to see it last Thanksgiving it didn't seem that much bigger than the one at my local AMC.Anyhoo you should definitely try to be more active throughout the year! Can't say I practice what I preach, but I'm guessing you knew that already.
You bored me.
Sorry if I bored you with my lengthy criticism.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Fracture (2007) - legal, crime thriller with Anthony_Hopkins and Ryan_Gosling. Rosamund_Pike and David_Straithairn also.
Interesting. A man shoots his wife and confesses but the DA prosecutor cannot get enough evidence to implicate him.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488120
Interesting. A man shoots his wife and confesses but the DA prosecutor cannot get enough evidence to implicate him.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488120
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
The Stranger (1946) - a so-so movie in which Edward_G_Robinson tracks down a Na_zi criminal.
Loretta_Young and Orson_Welles.
Directed by Orson.
Loretta_Young and Orson_Welles.
Directed by Orson.
Harry_Wild
G.O.A.T.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Man_(1974_film)
Last edited:
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
Now that moviepass updated for me, watched my first movie back 
Fast & Furious the Rock and Statham version - It was better than I expected it would be. There were def some cheesy lines in it, but what do you expect out of the Rock??? I love me some Statham movies, and I try to watch any Stringer Bell movies I can, the guy is just a great actor. He plays a fearsome villain, black superman in case you didn't watch the trailer yet lol. I liked it, as much as I like the other F&F movies. 7.5
Fast & Furious the Rock and Statham version - It was better than I expected it would be. There were def some cheesy lines in it, but what do you expect out of the Rock??? I love me some Statham movies, and I try to watch any Stringer Bell movies I can, the guy is just a great actor. He plays a fearsome villain, black superman in case you didn't watch the trailer yet lol. I liked it, as much as I like the other F&F movies. 7.5
Raiden
Hall of Fame
Interesting, I'll check it out since I enjoyed another lesser praised thriller starring Hopkins: The Edge (1997)... which in turn I saw because I was led to it after watching Liam Neeson's The Grey (2012).Fracture (2007) - legal, crime thriller with Anthony_Hopkins and Ryan_Gosling. Rosamund_Pike and David_Straithairn also.
Interesting. A man shoots his wife and confesses but the DA prosecutor cannot get enough evidence to implicate him.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488120
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Finally just watched DB Super: Broly..... twas epic 
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
A Tree Grows In Brooklyn (1945) - a sweet family movie about a boy and a girl growing up in Brooklyn. Tough life, sad in places but has it's moments.
The kind i can see again, and perhaps again. Wonder how i've missed it all these years.
Dorothy_McGuire who was also in Three Coins in a Fountain, Old Yeller, Gentlemen's Agreement, Swiss Family Robinson.
James_Dunn who won an academy award for Best Supporting Actor
Ted Donaldson the kid - must make a thread about him soon.
The kind i can see again, and perhaps again. Wonder how i've missed it all these years.
Dorothy_McGuire who was also in Three Coins in a Fountain, Old Yeller, Gentlemen's Agreement, Swiss Family Robinson.
James_Dunn who won an academy award for Best Supporting Actor
Ted Donaldson the kid - must make a thread about him soon.
Once Upon A Time in Hollywood: Finally opened here. Very entertaining,wasn't a big fan of the way it ended though. And damn,was Margot Robbie in a bikini at any point? I remember seeing that in that in the trailer but don't remember seeing it in the movie. Maybe it was in a split second I was looking away,disappointed to not see that...
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Class Action (1991) - pretty okay legal movie about the auto industry and a glitch in a particular model of a car that causes it to catch fire. Based on the probability of this happening, the cost of lawsuits is less than the cost of getting all units recalled and replaced.
Father (Gene Hackman) represents the accident victim, while his daughter (Mastrantonio) represents the auto company.
Father (Gene Hackman) represents the accident victim, while his daughter (Mastrantonio) represents the auto company.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Hello Again (1987) - pretty decent light comedy/fantasy with Shelley_Long who dies and is brought back by her mystic/occult sister and things have changed in the time she was dead.
gn
G.O.A.T.
Good or bad?
I read Star Wars borrowed a bit from it.
