Chicken Rob
Full House
This looks amazing.
PCF at the Movies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
From what I've read it's essentially a concert film following Robbins through a few days of his seminar. Though Berlinger's previous films feature a lot of muckraking I don't think that's in store here. Probably more a straight profile of the guy and his work.
Personally I find Tony Robbins' style endearing, but I think that's because I spent some time in evangelical churches in the south during my childhood and find the aesthetics of that environment appealing on a visceral level.
Chicken Rob
Full House
I guess I'll see how he turns my stomach in a feature length doc then.
Chicken Rob
Full House
Nothing has changed. Still looks great.
ohio3302016
Flush
@jbutler Have you heard anything about this one?
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/17/woody-harrelson-george-clooney-suburbicon
The story, from Joel and Ethan Coen, will follow a 1950s suburban family who undergo a home invasion that forces them to turn to blackmail, revenge, and betrayal. Harrelson will be joining previously announced cast members Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Josh Brolin, and Oscar Isaac. Clooney is directing, and Teddy Schwarzman of Black Bear Pictures and Joel Silver of Silver Pictures will produce the film alongside Clooney and Grant Heslov’s Smokehouse Pictures.
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/17/woody-harrelson-george-clooney-suburbicon
The story, from Joel and Ethan Coen, will follow a 1950s suburban family who undergo a home invasion that forces them to turn to blackmail, revenge, and betrayal. Harrelson will be joining previously announced cast members Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Josh Brolin, and Oscar Isaac. Clooney is directing, and Teddy Schwarzman of Black Bear Pictures and Joel Silver of Silver Pictures will produce the film alongside Clooney and Grant Heslov’s Smokehouse Pictures.
That project has been in development for years. Every so often it pops up as "news" probably as a backdoor attempt by a producer attempting to show public interest to get additional financing.
I'd love to see it get off the ground since the Coens are among the best living writers, but I have not been impressed by George Clooney's skill as a director. He started out promisingly enough with Confessions of a Dangerous mind, but since then his films have ranged from sentimental garbage (Good Night and Good Luck, The Monuments Men) to mildly interesting (The Ides of March).
tommythecat
Flush
Saw the trailer for Swiss Army Man today. Really glad Daniel Radcliffe has successfully navigated away from his Harry Potter image. The movie looks deranged as all get out but I can't wait to see it.
@tommythecat I have enjoyed that trailer the many times it's been running lately in the theater as well. I hope the film sustains the surreal feel of the trailer for its duration.
I was slightly tempted last weekend and this week to see Money Monster against my better judgment. It looks absolutely horrid, but there are so few 90-minute mid-budget thrillers that some stray comments here and there in the few reviews I read made me want to give it a shot just to get a dose of something that we get too little of lately.
Instead, I decided to revisit a few of the best versions of this type of film over the last several years and so hit Side Effects and Haywire by Steven Soderbergh. I'd only seen Side Effects once before and remember finding it good but not great, but I've seen Haywire a few times and have always really liked it. This time both went up quite a bit for me, particularly Side Effects which was tons of fun.
I think they also inspired me to go back and revisit all of Soderbergh's catalog that I haven't seen in a while and a couple that I've missed altogether. He has a few dead spots in his filmography, but I'm starting to thinking that I and others have sold him short. He has dipped his toe into more than a few genres and has been, for the most part, successful. And as I said above, there are very few other filmmakers who were able to get low- and mid-budget movies made. And that sort of makes sense when you look at his budgets and the returns on the films, which I think just reflects the poor taste of audiences.
For a movie like Side Effects to not have a wider audience than it did is absurd. It's a very nearly perfect pot boiler thriller, but elevated by the performances and Soderbergh's world class technical abilities. The same could be said about Haywire. It's a perfect action movie and yet morons would rather go see Jason Statham garbage than watch Soderbergh direct Gina Carano. Ridiculous.
Another thing that a review of Soderbergh's filmography makes clear is how fully he pushed Channing Tatum toward legitimacy. The guy is now close to Matthew McConaughey level now in terms of transitioning from almost pure sex appeal to true talented actor. Magic Mike alone is enough for me to recognize how good a performance Channing Tatum is able to turn in when he is given the right script and the right direction.
Anyway, long story short: give some of Steven Soderbergh's movies another shot if you haven't lately. He's got something for everyone.
Perfect action: Haywire
Perfect thriller: Side Effects
Great political expose: Traffic / Erin Brockovich
Great topical comedy: The Informant!
Perfect modern noir: Out of Sight
Perfect drama: Magic Mike
Perfect indie debut: Sex, Lies, and Videotape
I was slightly tempted last weekend and this week to see Money Monster against my better judgment. It looks absolutely horrid, but there are so few 90-minute mid-budget thrillers that some stray comments here and there in the few reviews I read made me want to give it a shot just to get a dose of something that we get too little of lately.
Instead, I decided to revisit a few of the best versions of this type of film over the last several years and so hit Side Effects and Haywire by Steven Soderbergh. I'd only seen Side Effects once before and remember finding it good but not great, but I've seen Haywire a few times and have always really liked it. This time both went up quite a bit for me, particularly Side Effects which was tons of fun.
I think they also inspired me to go back and revisit all of Soderbergh's catalog that I haven't seen in a while and a couple that I've missed altogether. He has a few dead spots in his filmography, but I'm starting to thinking that I and others have sold him short. He has dipped his toe into more than a few genres and has been, for the most part, successful. And as I said above, there are very few other filmmakers who were able to get low- and mid-budget movies made. And that sort of makes sense when you look at his budgets and the returns on the films, which I think just reflects the poor taste of audiences.
For a movie like Side Effects to not have a wider audience than it did is absurd. It's a very nearly perfect pot boiler thriller, but elevated by the performances and Soderbergh's world class technical abilities. The same could be said about Haywire. It's a perfect action movie and yet morons would rather go see Jason Statham garbage than watch Soderbergh direct Gina Carano. Ridiculous.
Another thing that a review of Soderbergh's filmography makes clear is how fully he pushed Channing Tatum toward legitimacy. The guy is now close to Matthew McConaughey level now in terms of transitioning from almost pure sex appeal to true talented actor. Magic Mike alone is enough for me to recognize how good a performance Channing Tatum is able to turn in when he is given the right script and the right direction.
Anyway, long story short: give some of Steven Soderbergh's movies another shot if you haven't lately. He's got something for everyone.
Perfect action: Haywire
Perfect thriller: Side Effects
Great political expose: Traffic / Erin Brockovich
Great topical comedy: The Informant!
Perfect modern noir: Out of Sight
Perfect drama: Magic Mike
Perfect indie debut: Sex, Lies, and Videotape
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I've never seen Side Effects. I'll definitely give it a shot. If there isn't anything going on tonight maybe we'll watch it.
As for Haywire Jake and I are big fans. She could be a slightly better actress. Outside of that, the action/filming of said action is spot on.
Chicken Rob
Full House
I don't think I've sold him short. I always liked him. I'm not a huge movie person, but I've seen 5 of the 8 you listed and liked them all, including side effects.
I haven't seen Kafka since it came out, but I recall that it was a weird but likable movie as well. I am a sucker for the oceans movies too. They have their flaws, especially the second one, but I love a good heist.
I'm sure to some degree that in underrating him I'm just showing my bias that comes from not caring much for the Oceans movies. I thought the first one was enjoyable, but the other two were mediocre at best apart from Ellen Barkin being ridiculously milfy in Oceans 13.
Chicken Rob
Full House
I'm the opposite on Barkin. She's more like miltnfy in my book. Despite the fact that I can find women of that age attractive, just not her. Or Glenn Close.
Saw two movies this weekend: one great and one meh.
First, the great The Nice Guys.
Not surprised that the script is hilarious and the setting and atmosphere are perfect since Shane Black wrote and directed it, but I would never have expected Ryan Gosling to be such a stellar comedic performer. There is a bit of an indication in the trailer with the cigarette in the bathroom stall, but his physical comedy skills are at that level through the entire movie.
In my brief scan of the review headlines it seems some people are getting hung up on the complexity of the plot. That the movie tracks as cleanly as it does is surprising to me given the fact that it's supposed to be a noir film, a genre defined by circuitous reasoning and sometimes an impenetrable web of characters and motivations. So yeah, it sounds a bit dense when you describe it as a movie about a conspiracy to suppress a porn film made by the daughter of the head of the DOJ because the film contains a plot that would expose corruption within the government and private industry. But it is presented in a fairly straightforward manner.
In any case, the plots of noir films are usually about the fourth most important things on screen behind the atmosphere, the dialogue and the characters and those are the things that make the movie so fun. And it is absolutely without pretense. If anyone enjoyed Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, but found it a bit too amused by itself, this is the antidote: a simple, well done buddy (not quite) cop movie. Not quite at the top of my list so far this year, but certainly in the second tier and more fun than 99% of what has been released this year.
Second the meh Neighbors 2:
I didn't have high hopes, but I thought I would give it a shot. It's wasn't horrible, but it was wildly uneven. There were a few moments when I laughed out loud, but there were a lot of swings and misses. In my view, a comedy is best judged by the percentage of successful attempts at jokes and by that measure this one is batting about .500. Add to that the weirdly misplaced sentimental moments and that a couple of the tertiary sorority sister characters are gratingly annoying and it's dragged down a little further.
It's pretty apparent the angle the writers were going for with some of the characters and that they were relying to some degree on raw comedic chops of actresses who just didn't deliver. So that explains what happened, but doesn't make it any more enjoyable to watch.
If you're able to slough off the failed jokes and just enjoy what's good, it's fine, but it's hard for me to believe that Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg really put their best work into the script.
First, the great The Nice Guys.
Not surprised that the script is hilarious and the setting and atmosphere are perfect since Shane Black wrote and directed it, but I would never have expected Ryan Gosling to be such a stellar comedic performer. There is a bit of an indication in the trailer with the cigarette in the bathroom stall, but his physical comedy skills are at that level through the entire movie.
In my brief scan of the review headlines it seems some people are getting hung up on the complexity of the plot. That the movie tracks as cleanly as it does is surprising to me given the fact that it's supposed to be a noir film, a genre defined by circuitous reasoning and sometimes an impenetrable web of characters and motivations. So yeah, it sounds a bit dense when you describe it as a movie about a conspiracy to suppress a porn film made by the daughter of the head of the DOJ because the film contains a plot that would expose corruption within the government and private industry. But it is presented in a fairly straightforward manner.
In any case, the plots of noir films are usually about the fourth most important things on screen behind the atmosphere, the dialogue and the characters and those are the things that make the movie so fun. And it is absolutely without pretense. If anyone enjoyed Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, but found it a bit too amused by itself, this is the antidote: a simple, well done buddy (not quite) cop movie. Not quite at the top of my list so far this year, but certainly in the second tier and more fun than 99% of what has been released this year.
Second the meh Neighbors 2:
I didn't have high hopes, but I thought I would give it a shot. It's wasn't horrible, but it was wildly uneven. There were a few moments when I laughed out loud, but there were a lot of swings and misses. In my view, a comedy is best judged by the percentage of successful attempts at jokes and by that measure this one is batting about .500. Add to that the weirdly misplaced sentimental moments and that a couple of the tertiary sorority sister characters are gratingly annoying and it's dragged down a little further.
It's pretty apparent the angle the writers were going for with some of the characters and that they were relying to some degree on raw comedic chops of actresses who just didn't deliver. So that explains what happened, but doesn't make it any more enjoyable to watch.
If you're able to slough off the failed jokes and just enjoy what's good, it's fine, but it's hard for me to believe that Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg really put their best work into the script.
Two things:
(1) Somehow I forgot to comment on the opening scene of The Nice Guys which is dark and funny like the rest of the movie, but also makes clear that Shane Black does not give a fuck if anyone thinks something is "offensive" or in poor taste and that the rest of the movie is going to proceed without regard for anyone's sensitivities.
(2) Neighbors 2 features a poker scene at the beginning of the movie and while they never get a close-up shot, the guys are clearly playing with some version of the Gold Rush or Bluff Canyon chips. Hey, they're not CPCs, but they're a hell of a lot better than dice chips.
Saw four new releases this weekend. Very briefly on each.
X-Men: Apocalypse
Destroys the Avengers as a group superhero franchise. Cast is outstanding. One scene in particular with Quicksilver was hilarious and technically perfect.
Love & Friendship
Jane Austen is not really my thing, but Whit Stillman is quite good and the reviews were so great I gave it a shot. It was fun and funny, but didn't really transcend the stiffness of Jane Austen. However, Tom Bennett gave one of the comic performances of the year as James Martin including one scene that made laugh out loud harder than I have in months.
The Do-Over
A tragic horrible mess. I wonder if Sandler is even trying anymore. Just terrible.
Weiner
Okay, I do have more to say about this one, but I'll post the main documentaries thread later with my thoughts. One of the best movies of the year. One of the best political documentaries of all time. Enthralling and depressing.
X-Men: Apocalypse
Destroys the Avengers as a group superhero franchise. Cast is outstanding. One scene in particular with Quicksilver was hilarious and technically perfect.
Love & Friendship
Jane Austen is not really my thing, but Whit Stillman is quite good and the reviews were so great I gave it a shot. It was fun and funny, but didn't really transcend the stiffness of Jane Austen. However, Tom Bennett gave one of the comic performances of the year as James Martin including one scene that made laugh out loud harder than I have in months.
The Do-Over
A tragic horrible mess. I wonder if Sandler is even trying anymore. Just terrible.
Weiner
Okay, I do have more to say about this one, but I'll post the main documentaries thread later with my thoughts. One of the best movies of the year. One of the best political documentaries of all time. Enthralling and depressing.
bergs
Royal Flush
I saw (most) of Money Monster. I got called out for a work thing about halfway through and missed 40% of the movie - and felt like I missed absolutely nothing when I walked back in at the conclusion of the final scene. Clooney (and I'm a big fan) was utterly unconvincing as an arrogant Jim Cramer-type and Julia Roberts' part could've been played by any random woman. It also has virtually no relevant to any real world scenarios, including the flash-crash a few years back. Not the best, not the worst, just not worth it. If someone drags you to this, throw the ticket in the garbage and bring $7.50 for the arcade instead.
I was tempted to go see this despite the previews, which made it look really full of itself and its "message". Sucks that its gotten such a poor reception since these types of movies are so rare now - mid-budget suspense/thriller films made for an adult audience.
Saw three things worth commenting on over the past week:
TMNT 2: Out of the Shadows.
I wasn't a giant fan of the first one, but it had something going for it. Having been a big fan of the cartoon as a kid, I was hoping this time out would be a step up and it was, but it was still nothing better than okay.
The tone of the first was strangely serious. It's hard to call a movie about teenage mutant ninja turtles serious, but it seemed like it was going for some form of realism and it didn't work well for me. This time out, the tone is much, much lighter and the movie gives itself over to the comic book, cartoon sensibilities you'd expect for a property like this. But it still doesn't quite get over the hump of mediocre writing and spotty design.
The best parts of the movie are Bebop, Rocksteady, and Krang. In fact, I could have used a lot more of Krang. The worst parts were Tyler Perry as Baxter Stockman and the bizarre choice to reintroduce Shredder only to almost immediately put him to the side again. He served no real purpose, but perhaps they're setting up for something in the next movie (which to my mind is not an excuse, but rather another reason to be annoyed with the choice). I also like the very basic plot: there are three objects scattered around the world that, when assembled, form a giant weapon. Very 80s cartoon plot, which works.
There are definitely worse movies that go for something similar - every single Transformers movie, to start - but I wouldn't rush to see it unless you're a big turtle fan.
MUCH better was Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping.
This looked good and I had reasonably high hopes. I can't say it exceeded my expectations, but it did meet them. There is a bit of a lull in the last act, but several truly huge laugh moments. I lost it at the TMZ parodies.
The only structural weak point of the film is that it is, to some degree, built around the songs. That shouldn't be surprising given the fact that it's a Lonely Island movie and the songs are very strong (both in humor and in legitimately solid production), but I was hoping for something just slightly more narratively driven. Still, it's a very good turn-the-brain-off comedy and Andy Samberg is hysterical.
Finally, I rewatched Contagion by Soderbergh.
Certainly at the top of the class of all naturalistic virus disaster movies. I don't remember loving it the first time (or maybe I saw it more than once) as much as I did this go around. I would certainly add it as a "Perfect Disaster Film" to this post. The cast is phenomenal and the pacing and writing are absolutely perfect. Matt Damon and Jude Law are the only two with real heavy lifts as performers, but they are more than qualified.
As with all of Soderbergh's digital era films, it uses color to place each shot and while it does so in a very obvious way, as have the rest of his films from this period, it never becomes grating or cloying as you might expect. It's not subtle, but it does trip something of a subconscious switch in one's brain to pull it back to a certain storyline or character without the need for as many title cards as another director might use.
Just another on a long list of must-see movies from Soderbergh who I'm glad to have begun appreciating more.
I tried to go see the Lobster since it FINALLY opened (after it was announced and then delayed more than a year ago), but unfortunately I went to a late, late show and fell asleep an hour in which I attribute more to my exhaustion than the movie which was very, very funny up through the time my eyes gave way.
I'll get in there for the full movie before it leaves the theater and you should, too, if you like very, very, very dark comedies with a subverted romantic theme.
TMNT 2: Out of the Shadows.
I wasn't a giant fan of the first one, but it had something going for it. Having been a big fan of the cartoon as a kid, I was hoping this time out would be a step up and it was, but it was still nothing better than okay.
The tone of the first was strangely serious. It's hard to call a movie about teenage mutant ninja turtles serious, but it seemed like it was going for some form of realism and it didn't work well for me. This time out, the tone is much, much lighter and the movie gives itself over to the comic book, cartoon sensibilities you'd expect for a property like this. But it still doesn't quite get over the hump of mediocre writing and spotty design.
The best parts of the movie are Bebop, Rocksteady, and Krang. In fact, I could have used a lot more of Krang. The worst parts were Tyler Perry as Baxter Stockman and the bizarre choice to reintroduce Shredder only to almost immediately put him to the side again. He served no real purpose, but perhaps they're setting up for something in the next movie (which to my mind is not an excuse, but rather another reason to be annoyed with the choice). I also like the very basic plot: there are three objects scattered around the world that, when assembled, form a giant weapon. Very 80s cartoon plot, which works.
There are definitely worse movies that go for something similar - every single Transformers movie, to start - but I wouldn't rush to see it unless you're a big turtle fan.
MUCH better was Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping.
This looked good and I had reasonably high hopes. I can't say it exceeded my expectations, but it did meet them. There is a bit of a lull in the last act, but several truly huge laugh moments. I lost it at the TMZ parodies.
The only structural weak point of the film is that it is, to some degree, built around the songs. That shouldn't be surprising given the fact that it's a Lonely Island movie and the songs are very strong (both in humor and in legitimately solid production), but I was hoping for something just slightly more narratively driven. Still, it's a very good turn-the-brain-off comedy and Andy Samberg is hysterical.
Finally, I rewatched Contagion by Soderbergh.
Certainly at the top of the class of all naturalistic virus disaster movies. I don't remember loving it the first time (or maybe I saw it more than once) as much as I did this go around. I would certainly add it as a "Perfect Disaster Film" to this post. The cast is phenomenal and the pacing and writing are absolutely perfect. Matt Damon and Jude Law are the only two with real heavy lifts as performers, but they are more than qualified.
As with all of Soderbergh's digital era films, it uses color to place each shot and while it does so in a very obvious way, as have the rest of his films from this period, it never becomes grating or cloying as you might expect. It's not subtle, but it does trip something of a subconscious switch in one's brain to pull it back to a certain storyline or character without the need for as many title cards as another director might use.
Just another on a long list of must-see movies from Soderbergh who I'm glad to have begun appreciating more.
I tried to go see the Lobster since it FINALLY opened (after it was announced and then delayed more than a year ago), but unfortunately I went to a late, late show and fell asleep an hour in which I attribute more to my exhaustion than the movie which was very, very funny up through the time my eyes gave way.
I'll get in there for the full movie before it leaves the theater and you should, too, if you like very, very, very dark comedies with a subverted romantic theme.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I watched this last SAT. I liked it a lot.I thought Collin Farrell was fantastic in this. Rachel W was also very good. I watched it completely blind to what it was about. I enjoyed it more because of this. A fucking lobster? Really, lol.
In case anyone in the world couldn't tell from the preview, Warcraft is shit. It looks fantastic, but unfortunately the writing and acting are horrid. Had a slim hope that Duncan Jones would have brought something to this other than an attempt to make a cookie cutter blockbuster, but I guess I shouldn't have (still unreservedly recommend his first movie - Moon - and recommend with some mild reservations his second movie - Source Code).
The first 45 minutes to an hour are good. Not perfect, but there is some hope that if it continues on the same route that it could be surprisingly good. But the plot evaporates and the dialogue turns into totally pat garbage. Oh well.
The first 45 minutes to an hour are good. Not perfect, but there is some hope that if it continues on the same route that it could be surprisingly good. But the plot evaporates and the dialogue turns into totally pat garbage. Oh well.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I like both of those movies. Moon is definitely the superior of the two. I had fun with Source Code.
I don't have any desire whatsoever to see Warcraft.
bergs
Royal Flush
Any cameos by LEEEEEEROOOOOYYYYYYYY JENNNNNNNNNNNNNKINS?
This actually does bring up a legitimate point which is that I have literally zero frame of reference for the game and any aspects of story/plot/character which might have been motivated by or which might benefit from knowledge of the game itself. Apart from the aforementioned Leroy Jenkins clip, I have never seen the game played for even a moment.
That said, people I know who have played the game said it made no difference and that it still sucked taint.
Rewatched Interstellar this weekend and reread my previous thoughts and I enjoyed it a LOT more this time around. Weird because this is either my third or fourth viewing and none of the previous ones really propelled it upward in my mind, but this time I was totally taken with it.
Looking forward to a double bill of this and 2001 in the theater and I'm sure it will happen at some point at the IFC theater.
EDIT: Meant to include earlier how incredibly menacing Matt Damon is in the movie. Absolutely perfect tone for that character and he leaves you with all kinds of questions about a guy who, if played without the nuance, could be discarded and forgotten after his time on the screen is finished.
Looking forward to a double bill of this and 2001 in the theater and I'm sure it will happen at some point at the IFC theater.
EDIT: Meant to include earlier how incredibly menacing Matt Damon is in the movie. Absolutely perfect tone for that character and he leaves you with all kinds of questions about a guy who, if played without the nuance, could be discarded and forgotten after his time on the screen is finished.
Last edited:
Saw two movies in the theater this weekend:
The Duel
I didn't expect too much from The Duel and it's probably best that way. It's nominally a western, but really it's more like a non-supernatural Village of the Damned with Liam Hemsworth and his wife inserting themselves into a cult-ish small town headed by Woody Harrelson. You could pretty much get me to watch anything if a cult is a central plot point, but unfortunately there's not much to the cult here. Liam Hemsworth seems totally out of place as would Woody if he weren't intended to look out of place.
To directly compare it to the several movies which have come before it featuring more or less the same plot device would give away more than I should. It was filmed well enough and if you're hard up for a modern western with a dark patina to it, it's probably worth watching. It would have been greatly improved by significant editing. I would say it could have only improved by cutting 25 or so minutes.
The Shallows
I can't say I had huge expectations for this one, but on paper it's really in my wheelhouse: a single location thriller clocking in at less than 90 minutes? Fuck yes. And Blake Lively is certainly a bonus. Plus some positive reviews from critics I find very reliable (Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair among them).
Unfortunately, it was pretty forgettable. You might think that a running time of under 90 minutes would allow them to avoid irritatingly sentimental plot points, but you'd be wrong. What was obviously intended to be a heart string tugging family narrative was, at best, a distraction. Though I will say that movies as a whole are getting worlds better at handling modern communication, here including texting and Instagram and Facetime imitations, all handled very well. I think skillful navigation of these things started with David Fincher's House of Cards pilot and I'm glad to see that we are almost fully comfortable representing them on screen at this point.
But deft handling of texting alone does not a movie make. Neither does average CGI which is unfortunately on display here as well. The shark looks pretty decent in a couple of scenes, but for the most part it could probably have been done as well 5 or even 10 years ago. I get that this isn't exactly a blockbuster, but they're saving a boatload of money by limiting the cast to like 6 people total, so you'd think they could drop some coin on a sweet looking shark. And to top it all off, the final bout of Blake versus Shark is underwhelming at best and elicits an incredulous double take at worst.
I'm bitching enough that it looks like I hated it, but it was fun at parts. Plenty of beautiful photography which isn't difficult when you film in a place (or photoshop a place to appear) as beautiful as the location here. I was really hoping this would end up being at least a second-rate Jaws. Jaws is one of the best movies of all time imo, so I don't want miracles. But I'd much sooner rewatch even Jaws 4 than come back for a second run at The Shallows.
The Duel
I didn't expect too much from The Duel and it's probably best that way. It's nominally a western, but really it's more like a non-supernatural Village of the Damned with Liam Hemsworth and his wife inserting themselves into a cult-ish small town headed by Woody Harrelson. You could pretty much get me to watch anything if a cult is a central plot point, but unfortunately there's not much to the cult here. Liam Hemsworth seems totally out of place as would Woody if he weren't intended to look out of place.
To directly compare it to the several movies which have come before it featuring more or less the same plot device would give away more than I should. It was filmed well enough and if you're hard up for a modern western with a dark patina to it, it's probably worth watching. It would have been greatly improved by significant editing. I would say it could have only improved by cutting 25 or so minutes.
The Shallows
I can't say I had huge expectations for this one, but on paper it's really in my wheelhouse: a single location thriller clocking in at less than 90 minutes? Fuck yes. And Blake Lively is certainly a bonus. Plus some positive reviews from critics I find very reliable (Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair among them).
Unfortunately, it was pretty forgettable. You might think that a running time of under 90 minutes would allow them to avoid irritatingly sentimental plot points, but you'd be wrong. What was obviously intended to be a heart string tugging family narrative was, at best, a distraction. Though I will say that movies as a whole are getting worlds better at handling modern communication, here including texting and Instagram and Facetime imitations, all handled very well. I think skillful navigation of these things started with David Fincher's House of Cards pilot and I'm glad to see that we are almost fully comfortable representing them on screen at this point.
But deft handling of texting alone does not a movie make. Neither does average CGI which is unfortunately on display here as well. The shark looks pretty decent in a couple of scenes, but for the most part it could probably have been done as well 5 or even 10 years ago. I get that this isn't exactly a blockbuster, but they're saving a boatload of money by limiting the cast to like 6 people total, so you'd think they could drop some coin on a sweet looking shark. And to top it all off, the final bout of Blake versus Shark is underwhelming at best and elicits an incredulous double take at worst.
I'm bitching enough that it looks like I hated it, but it was fun at parts. Plenty of beautiful photography which isn't difficult when you film in a place (or photoshop a place to appear) as beautiful as the location here. I was really hoping this would end up being at least a second-rate Jaws. Jaws is one of the best movies of all time imo, so I don't want miracles. But I'd much sooner rewatch even Jaws 4 than come back for a second run at The Shallows.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I've never seen Jaws 4. Not in a hurry too.
I agree. Jaws is a great movie. I remember when I introduced it to my son. He loved it. It was probably one of the first DVD's he ever bought. We probably watch it once a year.
I watched "Attack the Block" yesterday. Low budget thriller/sci fi flick. It was a fun movie. At times it seemed a little uneven. Like it didn't know if if should be a comedy, serious flick, ect....
I would recommend it it you haven't seen it. From 2011 I think,
B
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
