Lt. Dimitry Badinov

What non-trek movies have you watched lately?

2,724 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
I hate to be the un-hip one here, but Lynch's style just isn't for me.  I enjoyed "Elephant Man" and parts of "Dune" (the production design, at least), but I'm just not into his movies or shows (and I have tried to watch them; many times, in fact).   He's not my cup of damn fine coffee.   Apologizing in advance to his 'Lynch-mob' of fans out there. :P

:laugh: I'd speak it backwards, record it, and then play the tape backwards just to annoy you, but hey, I rather have my coffee with milk, too!

For quite a time, I felt similar about Lynch ... maybe it's me having gotten older, I don't know, but when I rewatched "Twin Peaks", I enjoyed it better and found it much less confusing than I remembered it!

Maybe I've grown the right antennas for him. At any rate, it makes me curious about rewatching some of his movies which utterly confused and/or disturbed me years ago. Especially "Mulholland Drive" deserves a revisitation, I guess.

My theory is that I am both sufficiently relaxed and f***ed up in the head by now, to not expect anything from his weird scenery, but rather just lean back, relax, let his weird ideas have an effect on me and smile at the absurdity -- just like you're supposed to enjoy tripping; without a good setting, it'll be bad. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sim said:

:laugh: I'd speak it backwards, record it, and then play the tape backwards just to annoy you, but hey, I rather have my coffee with milk, too!

Krej uoY. :giggle:

2 minutes ago, Sim said:

For quite a time, I felt similar about Lynch ... maybe it's me having gotten older, I don't know, but when I rewatched "Twin Peaks", I enjoyed it better and found it much less confusing than I remembered it!

Never found it 'confusing' per se, just more of a big 'so what?'   But again, I'm assuming that's just me.  

I don't mean to (nor do I want to) disparage any Lynch fans.   We ALL have that 'thing' we love that few others seem to get, so there you go.  I leave it at that.   My friends all loved "Twin Peaks" back in the early '90s, and I tried watching it to be on the same page, but it did less than nothing for me.    

When I want surrealism, I tend to be more of a "2001: A Space Odyssey" "The Prisoner" or Bergman's "Seventh Seal" kind of guy. 

Lynch, other than "The Elephant Man" and "Dune" just does nothing for me.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Krej uoY. :giggle:

Never found it 'confusing' per se, just more of a big 'so what?'   But again, I'm assuming that's just me.  

I don't mean to (nor do I want to) disparage any Lynch fans.   We ALL have that 'thing' we love that few others seem to get, so there you go.  I leave it at that.   My friends all loved "Twin Peaks" back in the early '90s, and I tried watching it to be on the same page, but it did less than nothing for me.    

When I want surrealism, I tend to be more of a "2001: A Space Odyssey" "The Prisoner" or Bergman's "Seventh Seal" kind of guy. 

Lynch, other than "The Elephant Man" and "Dune" just does nothing for me.  

 

Yeah I can perfectly understand this feeling ... in the end, I guess Lynch's style isn't really about anything, except that it looks cool (which, of course, is entirely subjective). :laugh:

It clicks for me for very subjective reasons ... like that scene about the weird machine (that looks like a 1940s radio or something) Coop is drawn into in one of the new "Twin Peaks" episodes: This scene, like others, reminded me very much of elements from nightmares I used to have, for example. Sometimes I just enjoy the "WTF!"-moments, and their subtle humor.

But when it does nothing for you? Then it just doesn't, and I feel similar half of the time, too! (I can't imagine watching Lynch, for example, when I'm not in the right mood -- then I just don't have the patience for his BS.) :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sim said:

But when it does nothing for you? Then it just doesn't, and I feel similar half of the time, too! (I can't imagine watching Lynch, for example, when I'm not in the right mood -- then I just don't have the patience for his BS.) :laugh:

:laugh:

I remember a friend and I once rented "Fire Walk With Me" (friend's choice, not mine) and we were watching the tape with popcorn, pizza, the works.  All set to enjoy the hell out of it.  I think, under those circumstances, I could've enjoyed "The Green Lantern" (okay, maybe that's a stretch... :giggle: ).   And while my friend was clearly having a blast with the movie, I just... sat there.  

I couldn't have had better circumstances, and it just wasn't working.  

I remember also renting "Lost Highway" with my sister; same result.  I came to the conclusion that I have a "Lynch-barrier" that simply prevents me from enjoying most of his work ("Elephant Man" being the one, triumphant exception... that movie had a heartbeat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night, Mrs Vie and I felt like some Star Wars, so we slipped in “Rogue One” on blu ray.  It gets better and better each time.   

rogue-one-home-ent-tall-B-1536x864.jpg

Some of the character work in this movie may in fact be the most subtle and interesting I’ve yet seen in a Gareth Edwards movie.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2017 at 4:33 PM, Sehlat Vie said:

I hate to be the un-hip one here, but Lynch's style just isn't for me.

Heh.

Never has been for me either and never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Heh.

Never has been for me either and never will be.

Nice to know; for a long time I used to think I was the only one in my circle who wasn't into the whole Lynch style.  Nothing against avant-garde cinema (in fact, I enjoy the style very much at times) but his work (save for "Elephant Man" and possibly "Dune") just never really spoke to me personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched "Oh Hello on Broadway" on Netflix last night, which is a filmed performance of comedians John Mulaney and Nick Kroll's broadway show "Oh Hello" starring as two old curmudgeon characters they have been performing together for years (most prominently on Kroll Show).  It was quite funny, and featured special guest Steve Martin who they prank with Too Much Tuna (every performance of the show actually had a different special guest for this segment, and much of the show was improv'd in each performance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I finally got round to seeing “La La Land” (2016).

lala-land.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1

Beautiful looking movie (one of the best-looking movies I’ve seen in awhile, in fact), but surprising lightweight and, dare I say it, even boring and shallow.  A hipster-esque homage to a Hollywood that never really existed, except in the industry’s collective rose-tinted glasses.  I’ve lived an hour out of LA for most of my life, and the movie’s LA was more like something out of the 1940s than the LA I’ve spent (way too much) time in.  I thought it would’ve been a bit more interesting if they could’ve found a way to mythologize the pop culture of NOW instead of pining for a lost era that never was.   Oh well...

"The Artist” (2011) covered a lot of the same territory and with a lot more charm and optimism.  Emma Stone’s earthiness and earnestness kinda saves it in the slower spots.  Ryan Gosling’s singing sounds like every other guy singing in their car.  

Not my cuppa latte, I guess...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

My wife and I finally got round to seeing “La La Land” (2016).

lala-land.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1

Beautiful looking movie (one of the best-looking movies I’ve seen in awhile, in fact), but surprising lightweight and, dare I say it, even boring and shallow.  A hipster-esque homage to a Hollywood that never really existed, except in the industry’s collective rose-tinted glasses.  I’ve lived an hour out of LA for most of my life, and the movie’s LA was more like something out of the 1940s than the LA I’ve spent (way too much) time in.  I thought it would’ve been a bit more interesting if they could’ve found a way to mythologize the pop culture of NOW instead of pining for a lost era that never was.   Oh well...

"The Artist” (2011) covered a lot of the same territory and with a lot more charm and optimism.  Emma Stone’s earthiness and earnestness kinda saves it in the slower spots.  Ryan Gosling’s singing sounds like every other guy singing in their car.  

Not my cuppa latte, I guess...

 

 

I think that's the first non-gushy review I've seen of this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

 

I think that's the first non-gushy review I've seen of this film.

My wife and I both WANTED to see it as well.  We've sat on the rental DVD forever trying to find 'the right time'; last night was quiet and perfect, so it was hardly as if we didn't give it a proper chance.  Now, to clarify, I don't mean to imply that I hated the movie; only that it's a lightweight piece of good-looking fluff, and not the Oscar heavy-hitter it was poised to be by pretty much everyone.   It's a decent, if shallow, time-killer (with truly gorgeous cinematography) but the story (pretty people meet; put careers ahead of love) is so old it creaks.  

Don't go in expecting the game changer everyone says it is and you might be pleasantly amused by the look and feel of it, but look and feel were about ALL this movie had going for it as far as I was concerned.  This movie had all the depth of a Petrie dish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend and I went to see “47 Meters Down” yesterday.
47MD is this year’s entry in the Summer Shark Movie sweepstakes. :laugh:

full-trailer-mandy-moore-in-47-meters-do

Some interesting bits, but overall it’s very forgettable (with some ear-splittingly clumsy, expeditionary dialogue: “Now, I’ll attach the winch...").  Not nearly as solid as last year’s “The Shallows” (which, despite some major implausibility near the end, was a tight, efficient little thriller).   

Even a fellow shark movie nerd like myself could ignore 47MD; it is the very definition of nothing special.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2017 at 0:11 AM, Sehlat Vie said:

My wife and I finally got round to seeing “La La Land” (2016).

lala-land.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1

Beautiful looking movie (one of the best-looking movies I’ve seen in awhile, in fact), but surprising lightweight and, dare I say it, even boring and shallow.  A hipster-esque homage to a Hollywood that never really existed, except in the industry’s collective rose-tinted glasses.  I’ve lived an hour out of LA for most of my life, and the movie’s LA was more like something out of the 1940s than the LA I’ve spent (way too much) time in.  I thought it would’ve been a bit more interesting if they could’ve found a way to mythologize the pop culture of NOW instead of pining for a lost era that never was.   Oh well...

"The Artist” (2011) covered a lot of the same territory and with a lot more charm and optimism.  Emma Stone’s earthiness and earnestness kinda saves it in the slower spots.  Ryan Gosling’s singing sounds like every other guy singing in their car.  

Not my cuppa latte, I guess...

 

Hollywood loves movies about itself though, doesn't it? 

I have absolutely no desire to see this movie. The Artist was a very sweet, good-natured film, but again, once seen, no point in ever rewatching. 

We watched a French movie called Things To Come (no relation to the HG Wells book/movie) with the delectable Isabelle Huppert. Not much happened in plot terms, but as an insight into he French middle class bourgeois intellectual, it was enjoyable to watch. And it's nice to see a female protagonist in her late forties (early fifties?)... again, not unusual in a French film. It was kind of amazing how easily the central character, a teacher of philosophy, seemed to accept her husband's unfaithfulness and everything you thought was going to happen didn't, but that was sort of the appeal of it. It subverted expectations and was very pretty to watch. This makes it sound insubstantial, but it wasn't.

What was that thing Elvis Costello said once? "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." I feel the same when trying to describe some French cinema. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally watched the recent Ghostbusters movie earlier and I loved it. :happy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

I finally watched the recent Ghostbusters movie earlier and I loved it. :happy: 

You're not the first person I've heard say that it's not bad.  As Data would say, "Intriguing..." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got around to watching “Sully” (2016).
It’s the movie about the New York airline pilot who successfully water-landed a damaged plane with 155 people aboard in the ‘miracle on the Hudson’ river incident of January 15, 2009.   Good movie, and at only 90 minutes or so it doesn’t belabor the topic at hand.   It’s not some overly epic 3 hour biopic.   It’s a fitting length to a one-time hero.   Efficient execution by director Clint Eastwood, too.  Tom Hanks gives a terrific and subtle performance.  He’s made a bit of a sub-career for himself playing heroic captains in command during disasters; “Apollo 13” “Captain Phillips” and “Sully.”   

960.jpg

I remember my wife and I visiting NYC back in April of 2009 and people were still talking about the ‘miracle on the Hudson’ three months later.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

You're not the first person I've heard say that it's not bad.  As Data would say, "Intriguing..." 

Its premise annoyed the Dudebros. That usually means it's a movie I will enjoy, which is why I bought the DVD now that it's reasonably priced.

It has a bit of a slow start but once it gets going it also gets really good. I looooved all the references and cameos (Ozzy Osbourne LMFAO) and I liked all four Ghostbusters immensely and also much better than the originals (sorry but not sorry). It's not a masterpiece of meaningful discourse but then neither were the other Ghostbusters movies. I also loved how a guy was the eye candy and clueless assistant for once instead of giving that role to a woman like Hollywood usually does. Turning the tables, making the dudebros even more mad. Good. :P And I'm glad I watched the credits at the end. SIG WEAVER MY FAVE. I might have squealed. Just a bit. Or more than a bit.

All in all I'm glad I got the DVD. :happy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

Its premise annoyed the Dudebros. That usually means it's a movie I will enjoy, which is why I bought the DVD now that it's reasonably priced.

It has a bit of a slow start but once it gets going it also gets really good. I looooved all the references and cameos (Ozzy Osbourne LMFAO) and I liked all four Ghostbusters immensely and also much better than the originals (sorry but not sorry). It's not a masterpiece of meaningful discourse but then neither were the other Ghostbusters movies. I also loved how a guy was the eye candy and clueless assistant for once instead of giving that role to a woman like Hollywood usually does. Turning the tables, making the dudebros even more mad. Good. :P And I'm glad I watched the credits at the end. SIG WEAVER MY FAVE. I might have squealed. Just a bit. Or more than a bit.

All in all I'm glad I got the DVD. :happy: 

I liked the original GB movie, but while I enjoy it as an October favorite, I always thought its legendary status was just a tad overrated.  It's funny yes, but not a nonstop string of laughs like say, "Airplane" or any one of Mel Brooks' classics.  It's cute and funny, and it works.  And the less said about the remake known as GB2 the better.  

As for the new GB?  I've been hearing (from about 5 people now) that it's not the disaster the negative buzz indicated, so I'm willing to give it a try.   The VERY talented and extremely funny Kate McKinnon by herself is a great selling point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

I liked the original GB movie, but while I enjoy it as an October favorite, I always thought its legendary status was just a tad overrated.  It's funny yes, but not a nonstop string of laughs like say, "Airplane" or any one of Mel Brooks' classics.  It's cute and funny, and it works.  And the less said about the remake known as GB2 the better.  

As for the new GB?  I've been hearing (from about 5 people now) that it's not the disaster the negative buzz indicated, so I'm willing to give it a try.   The VERY talented and extremely funny Kate McKinnon by herself is a great selling point.

My entire Twitter timeline loved the movie, especially Kate McKinnon indeed. I'm very difficult to please and I have an eccentric sense of humor but the movie still appealed to me. So I'd say give it a shot. It wasn't a disaster at all. I've seen worse. MUCH worse. But then I've never understood the hype towards the original GB movies anyway - I prefer the old animated series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

As for the new GB?  I've been hearing (from about 5 people now) that it's not the disaster the negative buzz indicated, so I'm willing to give it a try.   The VERY talented and extremely funny Kate McKinnon by herself is a great selling point.

It isn't.

Indeed, that would have been the cast I'd have gone with in its entirety, so that's not the flaw. It's an average movie. If not for the mass of melting snowflakes who didn't like the idea of it being rebooted with (gasp) girls?! and the particularly laughable notion of Sony somehow turning it into a launch point for a GBEU it would have just came and went like any other middling film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

My entire Twitter timeline loved the movie, especially Kate McKinnon indeed. I'm very difficult to please and I have an eccentric sense of humor but the movie still appealed to me. So I'd say give it a shot. It wasn't a disaster at all. I've seen worse. MUCH worse. But then I've never understood the hype towards the original GB movies anyway - I prefer the old animated series.

I grew up a bit too early to appreciate the animated GB series (think I’d already graduated high school by then), but it does have a big cult following with your age demographic, that’s true (you’re quite a bit younger than me, you little whippersnapper... :P).

9 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

It isn't.

Indeed, that would have been the cast I'd have gone with in its entirety, so that's not the flaw. It's an average movie. If not for the mass of melting snowflakes who didn't like the idea of it being rebooted with (gasp) girls?! and the particularly laughable notion of Sony somehow turning it into a launch point for a GBEU it would have just came and went like any other middling film.

... and this is the counterpoint I’ve heard as well.

I’m thinking since it’s already on cable TV anyway, I need to just have my DVR do a search, find the next screening and record the thing.   Decide for myself.  

And no, the all-female cast didn’t bother me; it was (initially) the idea behind it.  It’s like they were aiming for “Bridesmaids” with proton packs.   They even got Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (both “Bridesmaids” veterans).   So, while I’m not at all averse to gender swap casting (if it works), I was initially worried they were attempting to remake Ghostbusters in Bridesmaids’ image; that they would lose the spirit (forgive the pun) of the original.

But... conversely, I also think the original is a tad overrated.  Cute and funny, but not the classic everybody seems to think that it is; more a nice Halloween entertainment with a few good laughs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing was lost, really. It's still Ghostbusters, easily recognizable as such, and it has many hints towards the original franchise. And yes, the dudebro snowflakes who were up in arms because FEMALES DO NOT HUNT GHOSTS were probably a big reason for it not being what it could have been at the box office. (Not saying it would have been a smashing success, it does lack the substance for something like that, but it still might have done better than it did.)

And yes, a lot of people my age love the old animated Ghostbusters series. I'd still put this series over any of the movies because it's just so good - they could do a lot of stuff in it that they obviously couldn't do in a live-action movie. With a franchise that relies on weird ghosts as a major plot point, an animated series is the best way to go, IMO - you have ALL the opportunities there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I'd still put this series over any of the movies because it's just so good - they could do a lot of stuff in it that they obviously couldn't do in a live-action movie. With a franchise that relies on weird ghosts as a major plot point, an animated series is the best way to go, IMO - you have ALL the opportunities there.

^ Compelling point.  It’s also one of the reasons I have such affection of TAS; it could’ve been "ST: Unchained" if they had more time and better animation resources (or if they remastered it in CGI today).  

Still wonderfully goofy and fun to see Kirk, Spock and Sulu outrunning pterodactyls... :giggle:

20 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

Nothing was lost, really. It's still Ghostbusters, easily recognizable as such, and it has many hints towards the original franchise.

Nice to hear.

20 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

And yes, the dudebro snowflakes who were up in arms because FEMALES DO NOT HUNT GHOSTS were probably a big reason for it not being what it could have been at the box office.

Probably a lot of the same dummies who boycotted the excellent remake of “Battlestar Galactica” because (gasp!) Starbuck now had girlie parts, as did Boomer.   IMO, the remake of BSG was (and still is) one of the finest science fiction series of all time; and far superior to the original.  I don’t have that same expectation for GB (largely because I never thought the original was that special to begin with) but I’m more willing to give it a try now than I was before...

But I’m not one of those ‘dudebros’ (hehe... funny!) who go all nuts when a woman is cast in an originally ‘male’ role.  I also loved Helen Mirren as Prospero in the 2010 version of “The Tempest” (and Prospero was very much male in Shakespeare’s original). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems whatsoever with gender-swap castings, and in this case I liked it even more because it turned the tables so wonderfully. The men in the movie are often weak and clueless or clumsy or eye candy and the women are the competent ones in charge (there's still plenty of stuff that goes wrong tho lol) without taking things to the extreme (a la TNG's "Angel One"). I really appreciated this message most of all and can forgive a general lack of substance much more easily.

Besides, Ghostbusters of ALL franchises isn't exactly one that has an incredible amount of substance in the first place, so there's that - it's four quirky people (and sometimes also a green slime ghost) hunting and catching ghosts with technobabble-ish equivalents of water guns. No one's expecting deep ethical and philosophical discussions about ghost rights and how about communication and do we have the right to trap these ghosts don't they have a right to live WITH humans instead of being hunted down, yadda yadda yadda. It's GHOSTBUSTERS, ffs, but listening to the whining dudebros one would have thought it's a TNG-ethics-discussions-level franchise that gets ruined by EVIL FEMALE ACTION HEROES OMG.

And the whole "this is ruining my childhood" nonsense from the dudebros... their childhoods are still intact, no one replaced the original Ghostbusters in the original movies, I don't get what they were even whining about. How fragile must a male ego be to be cracked by a simple female re-cast? lol

But... in the end, Sehlat... you'll have to watch the movie in order to form a full opinion. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites