What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

dark crystal

All is Lost:

Robert Redford plays an unnamed man, advanced in years, facing his mortality head on when his boat ruptures and starts to sink in the middle of the Indian Ocean. He faces storms and continued various other hazards and hardships whilst trying to survive.

Redford is simply brilliant here, playing a man who barely utters a single line of dialogue during the film, yet keeps us firmly enthralled throughout his ordeal. The nicely played out ending will have you musing for a while after you've finished watching.

It's a crying shame Redford wasn't nominated for an Oscar for his work here.

8 out of 10.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Enjoyable enough film though a tad too long. I expected more to happen than actually did. A part of me wanted

mud to be dead in the end as well, last shot we see is his old buddy pulling him out of the river or his body floating off into the sunset!!

but i can live with how they ended it i guess.:o

3.5/5

The one issue I had with Mud was that it felt like it had too many endings, like they had a few different ideas of how to end it and then just did them all, which also added to the running time.

Nerdlingr

dark crystal wrote: »

All is Lost:

Robert Redford plays an unnamed man, advanced in years, facing his mortality head on when his boat ruptures and starts to sink in the middle of the Indian Ocean. He faces storms and continued various other hazards and hardships whilst trying to survive.

Redford is simply brilliant here, playing a man who barely utters a single line of dialogue during the film, yet keeps us firmly enthralled throughout his ordeal. The nicely played out ending will have you musing for a while after you've finished watching.

It's a crying shame Redford wasn't nominated for an Oscar for his work here.

8 out of 10.

Looking forward to wacthing this, he's meant to be class in it alright.

Nerdlingr

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The one issue I had with Mud was that it felt like it had too many endings, like they had a few different ideas of how to end it and then just did them all, which also added to the running time.

I dunno, I thought it played out alright but it could have had about 20mins shaved off it.

D'Agger

e_e wrote: »

Why annoyed, and why the need to accuse those that disagree of being fanboys?

The film doesn't set a single foot wrong imho, even the loose strands of plot are very much purposeful like with A Serious Man.

Don't go getting uber defensive based on what I've said - I never claimed it was by users here, nor was it my intent to 'accuse' anybody. My point is this - I've seen reviews where people have lauded the movie as being better than it is imo - and that's the thing - it's just my opinion on the matter, like I said, I very much enjoyed the movie but I feel it's being oversold based on what I've read of it.

It annoys me somewhat because I've seen better movies and I genuinely feel that there's a placebo effect of sorts on movies made by the Coen brothers - in fairness, given the amount of brilliant movies they've made, this is to be expected somewhat.

LuckyLloyd

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Diner

Group of guys in their early 20's, I think, hang around in a diner in 1950's Baltimore.

I found this quite boring to be honest. None of the characters were that well developed, the ones that got most screen time weren't that likable. I enjoyed Steve Guttenberg's character trying to decide if he actually wanted to get married or not and making his bride to be take a football quiz to help him decide but all in all it was pretty dull. It didn't even have the awesome soundtrack of something like American Graffiti, set around the same time.

:P

It's always funny how different other people's opinions can be to yours on films. I found Diner captivating from start to finish when I watched it. Remember putting it on in the background while half doing something else and all my attention being diverted from 20 minutes in through to the end.

======================================

On the Inside Llewyn Davis debate, I saw it last night. It's always a brave decision to make a dislikeable individual the lead character. Pretty much everyone on screen (apart from Justin Timberlake's character I guess) grates in one way or another. That isn't exactly startingly new territory for the Coens mind, their movies frequently give screen time to irritating people. But I think the balance is lost in this case and the fact I disliked Llewyn and had no interest in his success made the movie a chore to some extent.

It is funny and looks great and has some great music but I would struggle to take seriously any suggestion that it had the pounding brilliance of films like Fargo or NCFOM. Additionally, as a fan of that musical era, I thought the sterile representation of the village musical community rang hollow and was a real opportunity lost. Boiling down a scene stuffed with heroic drinkers and fiercely passionate young dreamers to a bunch of hushed performances over coffee was quite disappointing. To be frank, I expected more of the Coens in that regard.

It's a very well crafted film all told, and a unique angle on the period (the 100 folk singers you never heard of for every Bob Dylan), but I'd be somewhat more reserved that the film specific thread on here at the moment.

MilanPan!c

Nerdlingr wrote: »

I dunno, I thought it played out alright but it could have had about 20mins shaved off it.

That's the directors second film and he's maybe 33. I expect great things from him in the future.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

On the Inside Llewyn Davis debate, I saw it last night. It's always a brave decision to make a dislikeable individual the lead character. Pretty much everyone on screen (apart from Justin Timberlake's character I guess) grates in one way or another. That isn't exactly startingly new territory for the Coens mind, their movies frequently give screen time to irritating people. But I think the balance is lost in this case and the fact I disliked Llewyn and had no interest in his success made the movie a chore to some extent.

I haven't seen Inside Llewyn Davis yet but from the Coen Brothers films I have seen they generally have unlikable characters front and centre. The thing is that sometimes, depending on the circumstances and situations, you can relate to the unlikable character without having to like them, sometimes you can't. I think that's why something like A Serious Man doesn't work for a lot of people, it's extremely Jewish in it's setting and themes, it all went over my head and all I saw was a moaning useless pathetic man letting the whole world walk all over him and doing nothing about it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MilanPan!c wrote: »

That's the directors second film and he's maybe 33. I expect great things from him in the future.

3rd actually, but yes, I agree completely.

hefferboi

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

3rd actually, but yes, I agree completely.

I was hooked on Take Shelter.

MilanPan!c

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

3rd actually, but yes, I agree completely.

Is it? What am I forgetting?

Oh yeah Shotgun Stories. Forgot about that.

I actually know Jeff, as I mentioned previously. Humble guy.

His brother Ben is well known singer and actually starred in an MTV reality show for a bit.

http://youtu.be/3L6M3RC6Ohk

That's Ben in the white shirt.

http://vimeo.com/m/24084968

This is the furniture store their dad owns.

www.nicholsfurniture.net

When I was a kid his band would practice in the back and it was kind of a hang out. Ah memories.

Nerdlingr

hefferboi wrote: »

I was hooked on Take Shelter.

Did he do that as well?!!! Thats next on my 'catch up on 2011' list.

e_e

D'Agger wrote: »

Don't go getting uber defensive based on what I've said

Not defensive, was just inquiring.

I find that it takes a while to really settle into the Coen Bros style. It took me 2 goes to appreciate A Serious Man and I imagine it'll be the case with a lot of people for Inside Llewyn Davis too. I'd be pretty tentative in dismissing someone outright for calling it a masterpiece because it's a film with a lot to consider. It's not something superficial like American Hustle or Wolf of Wall Street (I say this knowing that not everyone shares my view on Wolf).

Hell I think it's masterful just in terms of its music and cinematography, and that's not even getting to the film's unusual story structure, characters and symbols. A film with new things to discover in every frame, and that in itself is wonderful.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

hefferboi wrote: »

I was hooked on Take Shelter.

I haven't managed to watch that one yet but I was very impressed with Shotgun Stories and loved Mud. One thing I love in a film is when they have a real sense of place, if that makes sense? Even if it's somewhere you've never been before or even heard of you feel like you know it. I got that from both Nichols films I've seen.

His new one sounds like it could be a terrible mid 90's Disney family film... or it could be brilliant.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2649554/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_1

MilanPan!c

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I haven't managed to watch that one yet but I was very impressed with Shotgun Stories and loved Mud. One thing I love in a film is when they have a real sense of place, if that makes sense? Even if it's somewhere you've never been before or even heard of you feel like you know it. I got that from both Nichols films I've seen.

His new one sounds like it could be a terrible mid 90's Disney family film... or it could be brilliant.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2649554/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_1

It's APPARENTLY based heavily on the films/style of early John Carpenter. So.

I'm excited.

TheMollusc

D'Agger wrote: »

Inside Llewyn Davis:
Just while on the topic of Coen brothers movies ^ I see mentioned above 'A Serious Man' mentioned as a great film by the Coen brothers - am I alone in thinking that movie was one of their worst? Nothing about it appealed to me

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You are not alone... that's the main reason I haven't bothered with Llewyn Davis... pretty much hated Serious Man....

e_e wrote: »

The film doesn't set a single foot wrong imho, even the loose strands of plot are very much purposeful like with A Serious Man.

I can understand why someone might not totally love either of the films mentioned. I do enjoy them though and have to say that I rarely come away from a Coen film with the feeling that watching it was a waste. But everyone has different views and to be fair it would be a bit boring if everyone liked the same films.

P.S Please give Inside Llewyn Davis a chance MilanPan!c. D'Agger still gave it a 7.5 :pac:

MilanPan!c

TheMollusc wrote: »

I can understand why someone might not totally love either of the films mentioned. I do enjoy them though and have to say that I rarely come away from a Coen film with the feeling that watching it was a waste. But everyone has different views and to be fair it would be a bit boring if everyone liked the same films.

P.S Please give Inside Llewyn Davis a chance MilanPan!c. D'Agger still gave it a 7.5 :pac:

I will eventually.



Though the other thing that's putting me off is a hatred of folk music.

Soooo....

TheMollusc

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I will eventually.



Though the other thing that's putting me off is a hatred of folk music.

Soooo....

I've been fairly indifferent to folk music, never hated it mind. There was a minority I did enjoy although some may only loosely fall under the term 'folk'. I have to been listening to a few tracks from the film regularly though and came out of the cinema humming away.

At least if you hate Inside Llewyn Davis, I can just blame it on the folk!

MilanPan!c

TheMollusc wrote: »

I've been fairly indifferent to folk music, never hated it mind. There was a minority I did enjoy although some may only loosely fall under the term 'folk'. I have to been listening to a few tracks from the film regularly though and came out of the cinema humming away.

At least if you hate Inside Llewyn Davis, I can just blame it on the folk!

Hahahah.

I've seen a few clips and it looks pretty good actually.

But as you know, I've gone off the Coens. But am open to being excited about them again.

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9dBOi4nTm8

This is the most stupidly catchy thing I've heard in ages, love the backing singer too.

TheMollusc

e_e wrote: »

This is the most stupidly catchy thing I've heard in ages, love the backing singer too.

Stupidly catchy is a perfect description for it. Took me a while to recognize the backing singer, eventually realized he was in Frances Ha.

To get back on topic, I finally watched Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line for the first time, found it really engrossing and enraging. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it focuses on the investigation of a police officer's murder in Dallas. Really solid investigative film making. One of the better documentaries I have seen.

Also re-watched a film that I know and love, Terrence Malick's Badlands on blu-ray. Always hard to believe it was his directorial debut as it is such a fully realised vision. It's beautiful, lyrical and haunting. Flawless filmmaking. A personal favourite.

MilanPan!c

TheMollusc wrote: »

Stupidly catchy is a perfect description for it. Took me a while to recognize the backing singer, eventually realized he was in Frances Ha.

To get back on topic, I finally watched Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line for the first time, found it really engrossing and enraging. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it focuses on the investigation of a police officer's murder in Dallas. Really solid investigative film making. One of the better documentaries I have seen.

Also re-watched a film that I know and love, Terrence Malick's Badlands on blu-ray. Always hard to believe it was his directorial debut as it is such a fully realised vision. It's beautiful, lyrical and haunting. Flawless filmmaking. A personal favourite.

Both are absolutely amazing.

Badlands is just astonishing.

One of the best debut films ever. Up there with Mike Nichols. Though Nichols managed to follow with The Graduate so... Still a tiny bit more amazing of a feat.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

battle of the damned


it was everything I'd hoped it would be

Judgement Day

I recently watched "And Then There Were None" (1945) based on the 1939 novel by Agatha Christie mistakenly thinking that it was the version shot at Kenure House in Rush, Co.Dublin which was actually called "Ten Little Indians" (1965). Both are based on the Agatha Christie murder mystery which tells the story of 10 house guests invited by a Mr. U.N.Nown for a weekend house party. One after the other the guests meet unpleasant ends until....Starring Barry Fitzgerald it was a reasonable effort but the Kenure House setting is really what I'm after.

Last night it was another oldie "Drums in the Deep South" (1951) on YouTube, a tale of three West Point friends who find themselves on different sides in the American Civil War. I wasn't expecting much but the movie cracks along at a good pace, with a realistic storyline and great attention to detail (uniforms, guns etc) and I'd watch it again. 8/10

Barna77

Her
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/?ref_=nv_sr_1

It was good, but maybe too long (126 minutes).

Some mixed reactions about it. I was thinking of all the Appleheads who love their little expensive phones when I started watching it. But got me thinking of how some people are so dependent on internet and computers, not just for entertainment. Think of those living in rural areas, with just a few people around them who'd would interact with other people miles away only via online (like online dating or chatrooms). Or even forums like this one.

Was thinking of something my parents said when I was home last christmas, it was how they hated when you get into a bus or a bar and everybody is engrossed looking down their phones. Got on the Luas today and only realised of that myself too....

Back on the movie, it all was so neat, bright and clean. Interesting use of colours and clothes.

And cyber sex chatrooms won't be the same hahha

A must watch.

But I can't stand Johansson's voice....

D'Agger

e_e wrote: »

Not defensive, was just inquiring.

I find that it takes a while to really settle into the Coen Bros style. It took me 2 goes to appreciate A Serious Man and I imagine it'll be the case with a lot of people for Inside Llewyn Davis too. I'd be pretty tentative in dismissing someone outright for calling it a masterpiece because it's a film with a lot to consider. It's not something superficial like American Hustle or Wolf of Wall Street (I say this knowing that not everyone shares my view on Wolf).

Hell I think it's masterful just in terms of its music and cinematography, and that's not even getting to the film's unusual story structure, characters and symbols. A film with new things to discover in every frame, and that in itself is wonderful.

Agree on the mucic and cinematography - loved the scene with him walking up the stairs to his managers(?) office - stairs going two ways with an aerial view - think it's used in the trailer. The music goes without saying - their soundtracks never fail to deliver imo.

Can't stop listening to Fare thee well by Marcus Mumford & Oscar Isaac

Tony EH

TheMollusc wrote: »

Also re-watched a film that I know and love, Terrence Malick's Badlands on blu-ray. Always hard to believe it was his directorial debut as it is such a fully realised vision. It's beautiful, lyrical and haunting. Flawless filmmaking. A personal favourite.

He's never managed to recapture the greatness of that film imo.

Tony EH

Judgement Day wrote: »

I recently watched "And Then There Were None" (1945) based on the 1939 novel by Agatha Christie mistakenly thinking that it was the version shot at Kenure House in Rush, Co.Dublin which was actually called "Ten Little Indians" (1965). Both are based on the Agatha Christie murder mystery which tells the story of 10 house guests invited by a Mr. U.N.Nown for a weekend house party. One after the other the guests meet unpleasant ends until....Starring Barry Fitzgerald it was a reasonable effort but the Kenure House setting is really what I'm after.

I've a terrible soft spot for this film. It was one of those pictures that my parents let me stay up late for, when I was a kid.

I'll always have fond memories of that.

Nerdlingr

So I watched Take Shelter last night
(Catching up on my Nichols watching.Shotgun Stories is next in line - doing it arseways!!)

Have to say Michael Shannon just has one of those faces that can brood menace quite comfortably, has one of those creepy, somethings going on underneath faces! Fantastic actor. Himself and Jessica Chastain were excellent in this I thought. Loved the sense of impending doom at the start of the film, would really like to see Nichols try a horror based on some of the earlier scenes..

the muddied views on unknown people through the windscreen/window, later on the quiet terror of the wife and the kitchen knife etc.

Loved the canteen scene where

shannon loses it,veins popping from his neck, preaching to the public of the forthcoming apocalypse

. Its a great turn from Shannon as I've said earlier.
It all builds of course to the shelter scene. The hissing lamp sounding like a pressure cooker. The claustrophia of the

gas masks

and surroundings. I honestly didnt know which way it was gonna play out. I thought at one stage

he was going to break the key in the lock

! If anything they could have played it out a bit longer, really go deeper into his psychosis!
Still trying to figure out the ending as such. Can be taken a few different ways I suppose.
All in all a pretty good film with some great performances, looking forward to watching Nichols' debut now.

4/5

johnny_ultimate

Wings - the first recipient of the top prize at an Academy Awards ceremony, Wings can still best be described as spectacular: simply because it's one hell of a spectacle. The sheer scope of its battle sequences and its intense dogfights still have the power to amaze in terms of their ambition, intimacy and effectiveness. Forget any modern effects extravaganza - the in cockpit views here, or the immense final battle, or the incredibly choreographed dogfights are truly breathtaking feats of filmmaking. That this was achieved through constantly experimenting with limited technology (both of the flying and cinematic kind) is almost mind boggling. Even when closer to the ground, the camerawork is giddy and exhilarating (such as an epic manual 'flight' over tables in a Paris nightclub).

The story itself is simple as can be, but full of vibrancy and strong performances (most famously a radiant, go for broke Clara Bow - perhaps even overly radiant and go for broke!). The portrayal of war cannot help but seem rather old fashioned and simplistic by today's standards, but William Wellman does manage to sneak in some poetic, harrowing and poignant moments amidst the patriotic melodrama - notably Gary Cooper's first major supporting role in a single but powerful scene. It's rarely less than compelling and briskly paced, barring perhaps a strange, overly long sequence involving hallucinatory bubbles. Not exactly the epitome of silent film art in terms of depth and storytelling, but a fantastic early blockbuster that still regularly wows and consistently entertains.

And my word what a restoration (just released on BluRay by Masters of Cinema). I assumed while watching this effectively immaculate version that the film's prestige as the original Best Picture might have meant it was lucky enough to have been well archived. But a documentary included illustrates quite the opposite: it was all painstakingly restored through a damaged, imperfect nitrate copy. The results are near miraculous, and you could almost mistake some sequences as being from a modern film attempting to emulate silent aesthetics, such is the clarity. And all without compromising the integrity of the original image, grain and all (as well as the original tinting and hand coloured fire sequences). A truly stellar effort from Paramount.