Let's All Go to the Lobby

I recently was able to snag a copy of the Rambo 4k boxset from Amazon, so I've spent some time revisiting these movies.

First Blood is still a damn fine movie, and while the rest of the series never captures that same level, they were all fun in their own right. I do think Rambo 4 was the weakest of the bunch (even though I had a hard time not imagining Rambo 5 as basically a Home Alone sequel.)

Last night I rewatched Amelie - a movie I haven't seen since I saw it theatrically. I forgot how much I loved this movie and just how adorable Audrey Tautou is.

I really would have loved to hear the pitch regarding act II and how they convinced the money folks to let that roll. I thought it was something special to watch. 

Posted by: @dannyboy121070

↑

Wasn't that a beautiful film?

Saw The Dog Stars, last night, and what a missed opportunity.

The cinematography was great and the acting by the four leads was solid, but the screenplay completely missed the mark at the end of the movie.

 I thought the first 2/3 of the movie was pretty good, and remained true to the book.  There were numerous differences, but in pacing and tone, it stayed faithful to the source material.

Throw that out the window in the last third, where the movie goes off in its own direction.

SPOILERS BELOW

After escaping the reapers and leaving the ranch with Cima & Pops, the whole Grand Junction plot line with the Alison Janney character was so jarring and weird.  It just didn’t fit the movie.  For reference, think of the ending to 28 Years Later, “I’m Jimmy”.  The novel handled the Grand Junction story line much subtlety and realistically.

After escaping Grand Junction, they return for the reunion with Bangley, which in the book was tension-filled and touch and go, where a weakened Bangley must depend on strangers to save his life.

 The movie played the reunion for comedic effect, which was completely out of line with the Bangley character. 

After that, the movie just kind of limped along for another tedious 15 minutes.

B

Posted by: @brlesh

↑

Saw The Dog Stars, last night, and what a missed opportunity.

The cinematography was great and the acting by the four leads was solid, but the screenplay completely missed the mark at the end of the movie.

 I thought the first 2/3 of the movie was pretty good, and remained true to the book.  There were numerous differences, but in pacing and tone, it stayed faithful to the source material.

Throw that out the window in the last third, where the movie goes off in its own direction.

SPOILERS BELOW

 

 

 

 

After escaping the reapers and leaving the ranch with Cima & Pops, the whole Grand Junction plot line with the Alison Janney character was so jarring and weird.  It just didn’t fit the movie.  For reference, think of the ending to 28 Years Later, “I’m Jimmy”.  The novel handled the Grand Junction story line much subtlety and realistically.

After escaping Grand Junction, they return for the reunion with Bangley, which in the book was tension-filled and touch and go, where a weakened Bangley must depend on strangers to save his life.

 The movie played the reunion for comedic effect, which was completely out of line with the Bangley character. 

After that, the movie just kind of limped along for another tedious 15 minutes.

B

So glad to read this before I bought tickets, which I was already wary to do, based on the previews alone.

I absolutely love THE DOGS STARS novel, and I'm always reluctant to see films of favorite books because 1). they tend to disappoint, and 2). I don't want someone else's interpretation of the work to overlay my special experience with the source book. Reason #2 is why I have never, and never will, see the film adaption of McCarthy's THE ROAD. 

But while the previews of THE DOG STARS felt initially okay, there was something off with the mood and tone (and maybe casting?), and I could quite place my finger on why -- it understandably seemed less existential and meditative and more action'y -- but whatever it was I sensed, it was enough to cause me to hold off grabbing tickets.

My wife and I ended up going to see THE ODYSSEY instead (non-IMAX), and it was okay. I didn't quite get the hype that some throw at it, but it was entertaining and certainly well done, if a bit long at three hours, especially given that there were obvious areas that could have been cut with no impact. Felt a little indulgent on Nolan's part. But anyway: a solid 7 out of 10 for me.

@ronclinton That's pretty much how I feel about most of Nolan's films: They're OK, but never the "GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME THAT MUST BE SEEN ON THE LARGEST SCREEN EVER MADE!!!!" that the critics always claim they are.

We went to see THE END OF OAK STREET yesterday. My son's girlfriend was really excited to see it. My son and I really weren't to thrilled about it, but we gave it a shot, and I'm glad we did. It was very well-made, suspenseful, and had a few great surprises. The effects were really good, as were the performances. My wife and Anna, my son's girlfriend, were screaming their heads off, as were a lot of the people in the audience. It's fun to see films like this with a lively crowd.

I've avoided this movie. It just doesn't speak to me, and especially at that run time, I was hesitant to go watch it. 

Posted by: @ronclinton

↑

My wife and I ended up going to see THE ODYSSEY instead (non-IMAX), and it was okay. I didn't quite get the hype that some throw at it, but it was entertaining and certainly well done, if a bit long at three hours, especially given that there were obvious areas that could have been cut with no impact. Felt a little indulgent on Nolan's part. But anyway: a solid 7 out of 10 for me.

Gave the new Bob Odenkirk action flick, Normal, a watch last night. Given how much I like Odenkirk and the fact the film is directed by Ben Wheatley, who's a solid director, you'd think this would be a smooth watch. I mean, how do you mess up what seems like a pretty straight-foward plot: A laidback interim sheriff (played by Odenkirk) finds himself violently battling against the seemingly innocent but insanely well-armed small-town folk of Normal when he uncovers the illegal activities to keep their little town afloat. 

This looked like simple, stupid fun. Yet I have never seen a movie work so hard to try to make this plot work. Convoluted plot mechanics after plot mechanics to get the characters where they need to be for no good reason. The movie is not deep and the plot machinations only make a rather nonsensical plot even more so.  No joke, two characters who'd seem pivotal to the plot since their actions kick off all the mayhem literally drive off two-thirds through the film, never to be seen again. 

If you have the urge to watch this after seeing the trailer...just don't. 

Posted by: @sock_monkey

↑

Gave the new Bob Odenkirk action flick, Normal, a watch last night. Given how much I like Odenkirk and the fact the film is directed by Ben Wheatley, who's a solid director, you'd think this would be a smooth watch. I mean, how do you mess up what seems like a pretty straight-foward plot: A laidback interim sheriff (played by Odenkirk) finds himself violently battling against the seemingly innocent but insanely well-armed small-town folk of Normal when he uncovers the illegal activities to keep their little town afloat. 

This looked like simple, stupid fun. Yet I have never seen a movie work so hard to try to make this plot work. Convoluted plot mechanics after plot mechanics to get the characters where they need to be for no good reason. The movie is not deep and the plot machinations only make a rather nonsensical plot even more so.  No joke, two characters who'd seem pivotal to the plot since their actions kick off all the mayhem literally drive off two-thirds through the film, never to be seen again. 

If you have the urge to watch this after seeing the trailer...just don't. 

 OK, thanks for posting this, because I was wondering if I had dozed off for a minute and missed something...So they really DID just drive off, never to be seen again! After they never showed back up, I was SURE that I missed something, somewhere, along the way. Sloppy and weird.

 NORMAL was short enough that I could just enjoy it for what it was (Dopey fun), and not worry TOO much about how stupid it was. Henry Winkler was great, as was Odenkirk, the mayhem was enjoyable, but I just couldn't get past one thing: If you have an entire town that is in on a big secret, and a Deputy who is a shoo-in to be the new Sheriff...why bring in an outsider? I kept waiting for a twist that would explain that, but, nope. Stupid. 

 I was shocked to see the name Ben Wheatley when the credits rolled! I had no idea. He really shit the bed with his two mainstream films. This was meh, and MEG 2 was awful. 

Posted by: @dannyboy121070

↑

Posted by: @sock_monkey

↑

Gave the new Bob Odenkirk action flick, Normal, a watch last night. Given how much I like Odenkirk and the fact the film is directed by Ben Wheatley, who's a solid director, you'd think this would be a smooth watch. I mean, how do you mess up what seems like a pretty straight-foward plot: A laidback interim sheriff (played by Odenkirk) finds himself violently battling against the seemingly innocent but insanely well-armed small-town folk of Normal when he uncovers the illegal activities to keep their little town afloat. 

This looked like simple, stupid fun. Yet I have never seen a movie work so hard to try to make this plot work. Convoluted plot mechanics after plot mechanics to get the characters where they need to be for no good reason. The movie is not deep and the plot machinations only make a rather nonsensical plot even more so.  No joke, two characters who'd seem pivotal to the plot since their actions kick off all the mayhem literally drive off two-thirds through the film, never to be seen again. 

If you have the urge to watch this after seeing the trailer...just don't. 

 OK, thanks for posting this, because I was wondering if I had dozed off for a minute and missed something...So they really DID just drive off, never to be seen again! After they never showed back up, I was SURE that I missed something, somewhere, along the way. Sloppy and weird.

 NORMAL was short enough that I could just enjoy it for what it was (Dopey fun), and not worry TOO much about how stupid it was. Henry Winkler was great, as was Odenkirk, the mayhem was enjoyable, but I just couldn't get past one thing: If you have an entire town that is in on a big secret, and a Deputy who is a shoo-in to be the new Sheriff...why bring in an outsider? I kept waiting for a twist that would explain that, but, nope. Stupid. 

 I was shocked to see the name Ben Wheatley when the credits rolled! I had no idea. He really shit the bed with his two mainstream films. This was meh, and MEG 2 was awful. 

 

I hadn't really given the Deputy aspect a lot of thought, mostly thinking it was due to having to hold the election, but yes, why couldn't the Deputy just take the interim spot until elections were held? 

My one big gripe was why, if the town is all in on this secret and is profiting so much from it, are they willing to explicitly draw the line in the sand with the previous sheriff over his gender nonconforming child? I know this is supposed to be commentary on the small-mindedness of rural America, but makes absolutely no sense when considering the grand scheme of the town's conspiracy. Like I said, a needless complication that only makes the film make less sense the more you consider it. 

And yes, Ben Wheatley's mainstream stuff just doesn't seem to hit. I haven't seen Meg 2, but I found Free Fire to be rather slow considering how much fun it should be.

Saw Don’t Move the other night, and man, what a complete waste of time.

I wasn’t expecting a good movie going in, but when you’re dealing with a giant prehistoric spider hunting people in the woods, I at least thought it would be a fun movie.

Nope.  It wasn’t scary enough, gory enough, or funny enough.  And it wasn’t bad enough to be a good fun movie.

It was just completely bland.  Nothing at all to recommend about this movie.

B