|
Post by momrek06 on Aug 15, 2020 15:42:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Critical on Aug 15, 2020 18:50:32 GMT
The Lost Husband (just okay) It definitely wasn't high art, but it was also several steps above Hallmark channel fare and I liked all of the actors.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Aug 17, 2020 4:12:44 GMT
Richard Jewell
What a compelling story Clint tells about Richard Jewell. The FBI in his case were so corrupt, and went on a "fishing trip" told by a former employer of Richards. Because of the fish tale, Richard was automatically guilty and the FBI tried and tried so many illegal ways to get Richard to confess. Richard's lawyer was a God send and Richards mother pulls at your heart strings. It is a shame Richard is not alive to see this story told. He would be so proud, he saved lives that day. It's lovely to see the real characters at the end.
Paul Walter Hauser looks so much like Richard, it's uncanny. Well worth watching
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Aug 17, 2020 10:44:56 GMT
Over the weekend I watched Same Time Next Year. I just ordered a book that is inspired by the movie so I figured I should familiarize myself with it. What a delightful movie! Alda Alda and Ellyn Burstyn were both fantastic, and it reminded me of how much I love the dialogue you get from a movie that is adapted from a play.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer161 on Aug 17, 2020 13:36:10 GMT
How to Be Single (it was okay)
|
|
|
Post by Girly18 on Aug 19, 2020 20:52:25 GMT
How to Be Single (it was okay) Its not the best movie by any means, but its become a good watch on those wine nights with the girls. Its a fun feel good movie.
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Aug 23, 2020 15:13:35 GMT
Re-watched the 2012 version of "Les Miserables" with Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe. It was at least the 12th time I've watched it, in the theater and at home.
Are they they best singers on earth? No. But with the week I've had, I needed to watch something where a guy took care of a young child with true affection and nothing unacceptable going on.
Plus, Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Aug 28, 2020 3:33:24 GMT
Finally watched Jojo Rabbit and loved it. I felt bad because certain scenes made me laugh but I wasn't sure if I should be laughing? The movie puttered on and then *that* scene (and the way it was framed) happened and the whole movie took on a whole different dimension, along with the scene between Jojo and the Hitler Youth leader at the end. I liked that it ended on hope for the characters, which I'm sure a lot of people were feeling at the time. Definitely a must-see.
|
|
|
Post by moviememories on Aug 28, 2020 4:34:55 GMT
First time watching Easy Rider. Do you need to be high to enjoy this more? lol
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Aug 28, 2020 10:57:17 GMT
Finally watched Jojo Rabbit and loved it. I felt bad because certain scenes made me laugh but I wasn't sure if I should be laughing? The movie puttered on and then *that* scene (and the way it was framed) happened and the whole movie took on a whole different dimension, along with the scene between Jojo and the Hitler Youth leader at the end. I liked that it ended on hope for the characters, which I'm sure a lot of people were feeling at the time. Definitely a must-see. I think it's okay that you laughed - I think that Taika Wahiti uses the laughter on purpose. By making people laugh, he gets them comfortable and relaxed - more receptive to the bigger message he then throws their way. I agree with you that it's must see - a masterpiece in my book!
|
|
|
Post by Eastcoastmom on Aug 28, 2020 18:27:34 GMT
Watched an oldie b/w film from 1934 last night on TCM... "It Happened One Night" with Clark Cable and Claudette Colbert. Frank Capra directed and it was termed a 'screwball comedy", I think one of the first of its kind. I was surprised that both leads won Oscars in their category as it was just so so to me.
|
|
|
Post by Arielflies on Aug 28, 2020 21:32:24 GMT
I remember seeing it when it first played on TV. In the fifties, it was hilarious. Of course I was a tween. It is a classic and elevated Frank Capra and the screwball genre. I believe all those Doris Day/Rock Hudson romantic comedies came from that.
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Aug 28, 2020 23:57:53 GMT
LOCKE!!! I thought it was outstanding. TOM HARDY. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/locke 91% on ROTTEN TOMATOES If you have not seen it and you have SHOWTIME, please take some time and watch this AMAZING ONE MAN SHOW!!!
|
|
|
Post by Amy Lee on Aug 29, 2020 4:51:59 GMT
I'll try to watch Black Panther today.
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Aug 29, 2020 5:00:05 GMT
I'll try to watch Black Panther today. I will too amy Lee We are all with such heavy hearts tonight. 💔💔💔💔
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Aug 29, 2020 13:31:28 GMT
We're thinking about cancelling our BritBox subscription, so I was flipping around to see if there was anything else I wanted to watch there before dumping it. They feature a lot of Agatha Christie's movies and I saw they had "The Mirror Crack'd." It came out in 1980, and I went to the movies to see it then . . . but, to be honest, I didn't remember a thing about it except I wanted to see it because it had Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor. So we sat down to watch it. The story was unfolding pretty routinely, when all of a sudden I saw a part that made me think the primary plot point might be based on fact. I paused it, did some googling, and found out that it WAS. In the plot, a movie was being filmed in a small English town and the star (ET) and her husband/director (RH) had leased a huge house. They were throwing a big party and fete for the locals as part of the publicity. One gushing young woman fan finally got ET to herself for a second and started babbling about the fact that they had met before. The young woman had been in the women's army corps when ET had come to entertain the troops about three years before. She said, "You even let me give you a kiss!" It meant so much to her because she was actually ill with rubella and had snuck out of bed because she just HAD to meet her favorite star. About 7 months later, ET's character gave birth to a much-wanted baby (she thought she couldn't conceive), but he was mentally handicapped and passed away shortly after birth. As the woman was prattling on, ET suddenly realized that this woman was the one responsible for ET having rubella while pregnant, causing the damage to her unborn child. Cut to google, which led to finding this link about Gene Tierney. Agatha Christie based "The Mirror Crack'd" on Gene Tierney's real-life experience and her fragility afterward. It was odd that I'd just learned about GT within the past couple of months and then watched the movie!!
|
|
|
Post by Arielflies on Aug 29, 2020 15:45:28 GMT
Amazing, AZ. We forget now that the Rubela type measles could do damage to unborn. When it swept through my town I remember the women talking about it.
I watched Black Panther last night after I heard the news about Chadwick Bozeman. For me, it is always an uplifting film.
|
|
|
Post by Critical on Sept 1, 2020 9:28:27 GMT
Starz had a free preview, which I only found out about yesterday, the day it ended. I watched a few movies I hadn't seen. First up was the recent Little Women remake, which was disappointingly horrible! I love that story and Greta Gerwig ruined it. What on earth was she thinking? "Hmmmm, how can I really make a mess of this? Why don't I just remove all narrative structure?" It was like she shot the movie and then put the scenes together randomly. WHY would you not tell the story chronologically? The fact that the actors all pretty much looked the same throughout the entire movie made it even harder to figure out when the action was happening. Oh, Amy doesn't have bangs now. She must be older now. I was so disappointed by the whole thing. I thought the casting was terrible too. I only liked Emma Watson as Meg. The others just didn't work for me. Timothee Chalamet's Laurie begging Jo to marry him was embarrassingly bad. Just cringe-worthy. Plus, he never didn't look about 16. UGH. That was 2+ hours I'll never get back!
I cleansed my palate with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which was excellent. I'm not a Dicaprio fan, but I like the rest of the cast AND Tarantino, so I gave it a try. I'm so glad I did. I was an infant during the time of the movie, but so much was the same when I was a kid growing up in SoCal. The first time I heard the jingle for KHJ radio, I giggled. I forgot all about that. I've seen most of Tarantino's films and I can honestly say that I've never cried while watching one of them. That ending really got me. I just didn't expect that. It took my breath away. I can definitely see why Sharon Tate's sister approved of the movie's portrayal of her sister. Margot Robbie was terrific.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Sept 1, 2020 14:24:52 GMT
Oh, that's a shame about Little Women as I wanted to rent it at some point but was kinda apprehensive, partially because of Gerwig and how much I hated Frances Ha. I love Saoirse and think she's one of the strongest actors out here, but one of the things Jo is known for is her beautiful chestnut hair and Saoirse is a blond. A small thing, but made her Jo kinda :/ Timothee gets on my nerves. and the actress who plays Beth is hardy, with a big moon face...a hugh cry from the delicate features Beth is supposed to have.
You know what? The more I think about it, the more I'll pass. Seems like the Winona Ryder adaption is the superior one.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Sept 1, 2020 15:04:10 GMT
I actually really liked the Gerwig version. It was no question about it a very different take on the story, so I can totally understand why it would be a huge disappointment for a purist. But as someone who likes the story but is not a die-hard and dedicated fan (even though I just sadly cancelled what was supposed to be a Little Women pilgrimage to Concord this Fall with a friend who is truly a die-hard fan) I really enjoyed this version. I thought that she used the themes of the book to speak to a contemporary audience. I saw it as Gerwig's love note to Louisa May Alcott. She didn't follow the text, but found a way to explain why the story meant so much to her.
So I completely understand how anyone who sat down expecting the classic would be totally disappointed. But with expectations properly set in knowing that some big story telling liberties were taken, I think it did a great job of capturing the spirit of the story in an original way.
|
|
|
Post by Critical on Sept 2, 2020 0:33:42 GMT
I actually really liked the Gerwig version. It was no question about it a very different take on the story, so I can totally understand why it would be a huge disappointment for a purist. But as someone who likes the story but is not a die-hard and dedicated fan (even though I just sadly cancelled what was supposed to be a Little Women pilgrimage to Concord this Fall with a friend who is truly a die-hard fan) I really enjoyed this version. I thought that she used the themes of the book to speak to a contemporary audience. I saw it as Gerwig's love note to Louisa May Alcott. She didn't follow the text, but found a way to explain why the story meant so much to her. So I completely understand how anyone who sat down expecting the classic would be totally disappointed. But with expectations properly set in knowing that some big story telling liberties were taken, I think it did a great job of capturing the spirit of the story in an original way. I'm definitely not an Alcott purist. I didn't have a big problem with her updating it within reason (although that speech by Amy was a bit ham-fisted). Like I said in my post, my big issue was that there was no narrative structure. It's like she put the movie replay on "random" like a setting on a CD player. It made the whole thing feel very detached and seemed like a very odd choice to make. You never got to know the characters in the way that you should have because the timeline wasn't there. It started at the end and then moved all over the place. Beth was an afterthought. You don't get to feel the huge impact of her death because you never get to know her (and Kao, ITA - terrible casting for Beth). I thought most of the acting was pretty bad too and most parts were miscast. I understand that some directors/producers like to work with the same stable of actors, but this felt very much like Gerwig shoe-horning people into roles they should never play.
The 90's adaptation wasn't perfect, but it was FAR superior to this one. IMO, if a story means so much to you, you don't do THIS to it. It felt like Gerwig thinking she knew better, than her wanting to pay homage to the original story.
|
|
|
Post by libgirl2 on Sept 3, 2020 1:35:18 GMT
I actually really liked the Gerwig version. It was no question about it a very different take on the story, so I can totally understand why it would be a huge disappointment for a purist. But as someone who likes the story but is not a die-hard and dedicated fan (even though I just sadly cancelled what was supposed to be a Little Women pilgrimage to Concord this Fall with a friend who is truly a die-hard fan) I really enjoyed this version. I thought that she used the themes of the book to speak to a contemporary audience. I saw it as Gerwig's love note to Louisa May Alcott. She didn't follow the text, but found a way to explain why the story meant so much to her. So I completely understand how anyone who sat down expecting the classic would be totally disappointed. But with expectations properly set in knowing that some big story telling liberties were taken, I think it did a great job of capturing the spirit of the story in an original way. I'm definitely not an Alcott purist. I didn't have a big problem with her updating it within reason (although that speech by Amy was a bit ham-fisted). Like I said in my post, my big issue was that there was no narrative structure. It's like she put the movie replay on "random" like a setting on a CD player. It made the whole thing feel very detached and seemed like a very odd choice to make. You never got to know the characters in the way that you should have because the timeline wasn't there. It started at the end and then moved all over the place. Beth was an afterthought. You don't get to feel the huge impact of her death because you never get to know her (and Kao , ITA - terrible casting for Beth). I thought most of the acting was pretty bad too and most parts were miscast. I understand that some directors/producers like to work with the same stable of actors, but this felt very much like Gerwig shoe-horning people into roles they should never play.
The 90's adaptation wasn't perfect, but it was FAR superior to this one. IMO, if a story means so much to you, you don't do THIS to it. It felt like Gerwig thinking she knew better, than her wanting to pay homage to the original story.
I grew up with the June Allyson version!
|
|
|
Post by Critical on Sept 3, 2020 1:41:05 GMT
I'm definitely not an Alcott purist. I didn't have a big problem with her updating it within reason (although that speech by Amy was a bit ham-fisted). Like I said in my post, my big issue was that there was no narrative structure. It's like she put the movie replay on "random" like a setting on a CD player. It made the whole thing feel very detached and seemed like a very odd choice to make. You never got to know the characters in the way that you should have because the timeline wasn't there. It started at the end and then moved all over the place. Beth was an afterthought. You don't get to feel the huge impact of her death because you never get to know her (and Kao , ITA - terrible casting for Beth). I thought most of the acting was pretty bad too and most parts were miscast. I understand that some directors/producers like to work with the same stable of actors, but this felt very much like Gerwig shoe-horning people into roles they should never play.
The 90's adaptation wasn't perfect, but it was FAR superior to this one. IMO, if a story means so much to you, you don't do THIS to it. It felt like Gerwig thinking she knew better, than her wanting to pay homage to the original story.
I grew up with the June Allyson version! I grew up with that one and the Katherine Hepburn version, both excellent in their own ways.
|
|
|
Post by Amy Lee on Sept 3, 2020 11:48:09 GMT
Yeah, I think they had Starz available for free for a month. Missed. It. All.
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Sept 3, 2020 15:20:18 GMT
We watched "Adrift" - based on the true story of a couple who were on a 40-foot sailboat going from Tahiti to San Diego, and they ran into a massive hurricane.
Which is why I only cruise on BIG ships.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Sept 3, 2020 18:43:51 GMT
I actually really liked the Gerwig version. It was no question about it a very different take on the story, so I can totally understand why it would be a huge disappointment for a purist. But as someone who likes the story but is not a die-hard and dedicated fan (even though I just sadly cancelled what was supposed to be a Little Women pilgrimage to Concord this Fall with a friend who is truly a die-hard fan) I really enjoyed this version. I thought that she used the themes of the book to speak to a contemporary audience. I saw it as Gerwig's love note to Louisa May Alcott. She didn't follow the text, but found a way to explain why the story meant so much to her. So I completely understand how anyone who sat down expecting the classic would be totally disappointed. But with expectations properly set in knowing that some big story telling liberties were taken, I think it did a great job of capturing the spirit of the story in an original way. I'm definitely not an Alcott purist. I didn't have a big problem with her updating it within reason (although that speech by Amy was a bit ham-fisted). Like I said in my post, my big issue was that there was no narrative structure. It's like she put the movie replay on "random" like a setting on a CD player. It made the whole thing feel very detached and seemed like a very odd choice to make. You never got to know the characters in the way that you should have because the timeline wasn't there. It started at the end and then moved all over the place. Beth was an afterthought. You don't get to feel the huge impact of her death because you never get to know her (and Kao , ITA - terrible casting for Beth). I thought most of the acting was pretty bad too and most parts were miscast. I understand that some directors/producers like to work with the same stable of actors, but this felt very much like Gerwig shoe-horning people into roles they should never play.
The 90's adaptation wasn't perfect, but it was FAR superior to this one. IMO, if a story means so much to you, you don't do THIS to it. It felt like Gerwig thinking she knew better, than her wanting to pay homage to the original story.
I got that impression that she likes to film about certain types of people doing certain things a la Sofia Coppola (who at least seems to be breaking that pattern with her new movie "On the Rocks"). She's fine for some, but not my taste. Ryan Murphy hires the same people over and over again but they tend to be good actors to begin with, and he also takes care to fit the actor to the role.
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Sept 4, 2020 2:32:16 GMT
Just watched "Red Dragon" . . . the prequel to "Silence of the Lambs." Yowzer!!!
One amusing thing was the number of British actors who played Americans, and they did pretty well! Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson, and - of course - Sir Anthony Hopkins.
|
|
|
Post by Eastcoastmom on Sept 4, 2020 3:43:38 GMT
I didn't care for Gerwig's version either although I did really like her screenplay and direction for Lady Bird, which Saorise Ronan was in as well.
Saw a cute film tonight from 2010 called "Morning Glory" starring Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Sept 4, 2020 20:14:11 GMT
Ralph Fiennes is a fantastic actor. I can't wait to see him in "The King's Man" which is supposed to be about the origins of The Kingsman.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer161 on Sept 5, 2020 17:20:15 GMT
Strange But True (interesting)
|
|