Recently Watched Movies 2023 | Page 12 | The Boneyard
.-.

Recently Watched Movies 2023

Oops, posted this in the wrong movie thread.

"65" was okay. I thought some of it looked like it could've been filmed in the Northwest. Sure enough, I looked it up and they used several locations on the Oregon Coast. Spotted some Sitka spruce trees, those are quite distinctive.


I know I'm always complaining about age discrepancies of actresses and the characters they play. I've tried to just let it go, but this one took the cake. We may not have known for sure the age of the girl with Adam Driver, but he said in a transmission she looked about 9 (she really looked older than that, and as he had a teen daughter you'd think he would be more attuned to that). I looked up the actress, she was 15 at the time. A 15 year old trying to be passed off as 9?! Are you kidding me?
 
nwhoopfan said:
The new Dungeons and Dragons movie is a lot of fun. Chris Pine is a really versatile actor, he can pretty much do it all. Is anyone having more fun making movies these days than Hugh Grant? He's just hamming it up and looking like he's having a blast in everything I've seen him in.
Expand ...

This movie was a lot of fun. Strongly recommend it. The fat dragon scene was really good.
 
I just watched "The Drop" again and I am coming to the conclusion that this is a near perfect movie. Everything in this movie is done well. The casting is perfect, the acting is top flight, the pacing of the movie, everything.

The way this movie is shot makes the story and the world the story takes place in very small. Everyone lives in a small compartmentalized personal space figuratively and literally. The director uses foreground, fences and pillars and posts to make space seem very confined.

The story line never gives itself away. The plot has many threads, each connected, but reach is given it's own space to breathe. Each builds its own tension. There is the story of the bartender, the dog, the policeman, the gangster, the psychopath, the damaged girl and only a couple of them are completely resolved. The last scene is a done in a way that makes you linger.

This film is a master class in how to make a movie.
 
Palatine said:
I just watched "The Drop" again and I am coming to the conclusion that this is a near perfect movie. Everything in this movie is done well. The casting is perfect, the acting is top flight, the pacing of the movie, everything.

The way this movie is shot makes the story and the world the story takes place in very small. Everyone lives in a small compartmentalized personal space figuratively and literally. The director uses foreground, fences and pillars and posts to make space seem very confined.

The story line never gives itself away. The plot has many threads, each connected, but reach is given it's own space to breathe. Each builds its own tension. There is the story of the bartender, the dog, the policeman, the gangster, the psychopath, the damaged girl and only a couple of them are completely resolved. The last scene is a done in a way that makes you linger.

This film is a master class in how to make a movie.
Expand ...
Are you talking about this, or something else? link
 
.-.
Hey Adrien! said:
Barbie (2023)

Really surprised by this movie. The visual experience and the potential absurdity of it got me in the door and actually looking forward to seeing this movie, but its surreality, existentialism and humor made this excellent. Overall, the film does a great job bouncing from serious, to ironic, to absurd, to funny, to every other which way. Robbie/Gosling/Ferreira were all excellent.

My only critique, maybe there were too many characters? Like, I love almost everything Will Ferrell is in, but I was not a fan of his performance or his role.

Overall, another hit for Greta Gerwig.
Expand ...
Killed at the box office this weekend, $155 mil. I was not expecting that.
 
"Pretty Problems." Streaming on Hulu. Never heard of it before, not only that but wasn't familiar with a single cast member. That said, loved it. A very ordinary couple stuck in a rut thru random circumstances find themselves invited for the weekend to the home of a FILTHY rich couple up in Sonoma. Another rich couple is there as well. What follows is days of non stop drinking and utter madness, getting a little glimpse at how people with too much money to even comprehend, live their lives. Out of many humorous bits, I think my favorite was the ***hole tax that the hired help benefit from. Whenever the homeowners or any of their guests act inappropriately toward the staff, they get a cool $10,000 bonus.

The soundtrack was pretty cool too. Recognized 2 songs by Lucius and a cover of a Gillian Welch tune.
 
Avatar: The Way of Water. I don't think these need to be 3 hours. Visually it is stunning. The water looks like water. The story is: people come back to Pandora to plunder its resources and kill Jake Sully, who now has a family, 3 kids, 2 more adopted. To keep the tribe safe they head to one of the water tribes. This is just an excuse for Cameron to update the scenery, so it doesn't get boring and to introduce some aqua colored natives with cool markings and different adaptations. The whole thing is just an allegory for colonialism and the Native Americans, right down to the whaling fleets. It's worse of course, these humans can travel through space, they know the whales are intelligent, those in our history didn't. The natives are idealized and romanticized to an absurd degree which makes the whole thing a bit over the top, if still entertaining.
 
Asteroid City: Failure to Launch

Wes Anderson is officially in a rut again. This is a visually appealing but empty film. I own a copy of pretty much every movie he has made. I was really looking forward to this one. This probably won’t win Wes many new converts but people like me will watch.

The sets are gorgeous, the filmography is kind of amazing and cast is the A List of A Lists but the story however was just too all over the place. It’s a movie about a play being broadcast on TV and the actors seem to be having an existential crisis much like the characters they play. This one just never got me to a place where I cared. I cared about what happened to Gustave, I cared about Royal, I cared about Zissou. With this story I just never cared.

C+
 
HuskyHawk said:
Avatar: The Way of Water. I don't think these need to be 3 hours. Visually it is stunning. The water looks like water. The story is: people come back to Pandora to plunder its resources and kill Jake Sully, who now has a family, 3 kids, 2 more adopted. To keep the tribe safe they head to one of the water tribes. This is just an excuse for Cameron to update the scenery, so it doesn't get boring and to introduce some aqua colored natives with cool markings and different adaptations. The whole thing is just an allegory for colonialism and the Native Americans, right down to the whaling fleets. It's worse of course, these humans can travel through space, they know the whales are intelligent, those in our history didn't. The natives are idealized and romanticized to an absurd degree which makes the whole thing a bit over the top, if still entertaining.
Expand ...

Way too long.
 
.-.
Oppenheimer

Other than Asteroid City, this was the only movie I was looking forward to this summer.

Disclaimer, I am total Nolan fanboy which means that I like movies like Tenet more than a reasonable person should. If Interstellar is on I stop what I am doing. I have two Roombas, one is named TARS and the other is TARS.

But when I say Oppenheimer could be the one of the best films of the decade, I am being 100% serious.

Everyone knows the story about Oppenheimer. But what you don’t know is how Nolan is going to tell the story. I won’t give anything away but it works great.

There is not a single shot of CGI in this movie and you can tell and the effect is authentic and mildly disturbing picture.

All of the performances are amazing. The casting is brilliant. There are so many good actors in here and that when you see it you will be pleasantly surprised because it feels like a bonus. For example I didn’t expect Jason Clarke and he just nails his role.

Cillian Murphy and Emily Blunt carry the movie. And there is a pretty unforgettable cameo in my opinion.

Nolan does a great job of portraying Oppenheimer’s arc from a physicist haunted by Quantum Theory and subatomic particles to a man haunted by government bureaucrats and his own conscience.

My only mild criticism is that the cautionary tale of nuclear proliferation isn’t that heavy hitting. I just don’t think it’s something we worry about like we used. But maybe we should be more concerned with things like AI.

A+
 
Last edited:
My own two cents about Oppenheimer: good to very good overall. I enjoyed it.

Nolan is a director with a specific set of what I consider strengths and what I consider weaknesses. I like his strengths, and I'm fine with / used to most of his weaknesses.

I will comment on the sound thing, though. Yes, the movie is very, very loud (I saw it in a laser-projected "fake" digital IMAX, so presumably the sound was close to what Nolan wants). Nolan's recent choices in overall sound design are one of the few weaknesses that I'm not exactly fine with. It's not merely loud in the places you'd expect it to be loud (e.g. the big kaboom), but also at seemingly other random bits, including scenes in quiet meeting rooms.

He seems to have become enamored with sort of flattening out the dynamic range of his movies, in a way. The dialogue, music, and ambient noise / sfx are all competing and jostling with each other over a limited sound space. He seems to view it as a daring way to treat sound in movies. I just find it irritating.

I listened to the soundtrack on Youtube after watching the movie, and it's quite good. I couldn't enjoy it as much in the movie, because I had to concentrate mental energy on hearing dialogue, while being shell shocked by blasts of sound in unexpected places.

In terms of ear damage, the effect of watching this movie is probably only a step or two down from attending a (pop) music concert in a stadium, lol.
 
iri10 said:
My own two cents about Oppenheimer: good to very good overall. I enjoyed it.

Nolan is a director with a specific set of what I consider strengths and what I consider weaknesses. I like his strengths, and I'm fine with / used to most of his weaknesses.

I will comment on the sound thing, though. Yes, the movie is very, very loud (I saw it in a laser-projected "fake" digital IMAX, so presumably the sound was close to what Nolan wants). Nolan's recent choices in overall sound design are one of the few weaknesses that I'm not exactly fine with. It's not merely loud in the places you'd expect it to be loud (e.g. the big kaboom), but also at seemingly other random bits, including scenes in quiet meeting rooms.

He seems to have become enamored with sort of flattening out the dynamic range of his movies, in a way. The dialogue, music, and ambient noise / sfx are all competing and jostling with each other over a limited sound space. He seems to view it as a daring way to treat sound in movies. I just find it irritating.

I listened to the soundtrack on Youtube after watching the movie, and it's quite good. I couldn't enjoy it as much in the movie, because I had to concentrate mental energy on hearing dialogue, while being shell shocked by blasts of sound in unexpected places.

In terms of ear damage, the effect of watching this movie is probably only a step or two down from attending a (pop) music concert in a stadium, lol.
Expand ...

I saw it in a regular movie theater and thought the sound wasn't too loud.
 
Oppenheimer, agree the sound was a little overcooked.

Very good movie but I thought Nolan's decision to ignore CGI had some negative effects on the film. Los Alamos had 8,000 inhabitants during the Manhattan project. In the film it looks it it was one or two buildings and a checkpoint. CGI could have given the audience some sense of the size and scale of the New Mexico facility. The project was immense.

Obviously, not using CGI for the atomic blast also cost Nolan some spectacular scale shots. One of the most memorable parts of the Trinity test to the folks who were actually there, was the fireball lighting up the entire valley and making it suddenly seem very small. That could have been a breathtaking moment.

Lastly, I thought the animosity between Murphy and Downey Jr should have been set up more fully and with more passion. That would have allowed the ending to be a bit more satisfying.

That said. I enjoyed it very much. The time went quickly and Nolan gave us an in depth character piece. The pace of the film was brilliant. The period was portrayed beautifully, physically, stylistically and psychologically.

Nolan was once described to me by someone at Warner Brothers as "our Steven Spielberg." I understand the reference, but to me the two film makers could be more different in their approach to material.
 
Palatine said:
Oppenheimer, agree the sound was a little overcooked.

Very good movie but I thought Nolan's decision to ignore CGI had some negative effects on the film. Los Alamos had 8,000 inhabitants during the Manhattan project. In the film it looks it it was one or two buildings and a checkpoint. CGI could have given the audience some sense of the size and scale of the New Mexico facility. The project was immense.

Obviously, not using CGI for the atomic blast also cost Nolan some spectacular scale shots. One of the most memorable parts of the Trinity test to the folks who were actually there, was the fireball lighting up the entire valley and making it suddenly seem very small. That could have been a breathtaking moment.

Lastly, I thought the animosity between Murphy and Downey Jr should have been set up more fully and with more passion. That would have allowed the ending to be a bit more satisfying.

That said. I enjoyed it very much. The time went quickly and Nolan gave us an in depth character piece. The pace of the film was brilliant. The period was portrayed beautifully, physically, stylistically and psychologically.

Nolan was once described to me by someone at Warner Brothers as "our Steven Spielberg." I understand the reference, but to me the two film makers could be more different in their approach to material.
Expand ...

He doesn’t like CGI because he thinks it makes things look too safe and I agree.
 
.-.
einstein-bomb.jpg
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
You mean the Jennifer Connolly part? I'm with you.
Expand ...
Lol. The attack has some issues but they pale in comparison to Maverick landing Jennifer Connolly, who is also independently wealthy. Maybe if she was a waitress.
 
ZooCougar said:
He doesn’t like CGI because he thinks it makes things look too safe and I agree.
Expand ...

CGI is a tool. Like any tool, when its the right tool for the job it allows you to do things that were otherwise not possible. It doesn't make things safe or unsafe, it's how you use it. It a silly opinion of CGI (by a genius and one of the best film makers ever). I love practical effects, they are heck of lot more fun than CGI. But you can use practical and CGI in the same scene and the audience nevers know it.

I also think that Nolan lost a little something when he separated from Wally Pfister. They did some amazing things together and Wally is flat out the best steadycam operator on the planet. But I think that ship has sailed for whatever reason. There are a lot of very, very good cinematographers out there but their films had something special.
 
Palatine said:
CGI is a tool. Like any tool, when its the right tool for the job it allows you to do things that were otherwise not possible. It doesn't make things safe or unsafe, it's how you use it. It a silly opinion of CGI (by a genius and one of the best film makers ever). I love practical effects, they are heck of lot more fun than CGI. But you can use practical and CGI in the same scene and the audience nevers know it.

I also think that Nolan lost a little something when he separated from Wally Pfister. They did some amazing things together and Wally is flat out the best steadycam operator on the planet. But I think that ship has sailed for whatever reason. There are a lot of very, very good cinematographers out there but their films had something special.
Expand ...

What he means is that the look of CGI can make a threatening thing look less threatening. I tend to agree with it.

"I think computer graphics, they’re very versatile, they can do all kinds of things, but they tend to feel a bit safe. That’s why they’re difficult to use in horror movies. Animation tends to feel a little safe for the audience. The Trinity Test, ultimately, but also these early imaginings of Oppenheimer visualizing the Quantum Realm, they had to be threatening in some way. They had to have the bite of real-world imagery. The Trinity Test, for those who were there, was the most beautiful and terrifying thing simultaneously, and that’s where we were headed with this film."

collider.com

Christopher Nolan Explains Why There's No CGI in 'Oppenheimer'

"I think computer graphics, they’re very versatile, they can do all kinds of things, but they tend to feel a bit safe."
collider.com collider.com
 
ZooCougar said:
What he means is that the look of CGI can make a threatening thing look less threatening. I tend to agree with it.

"I think computer graphics, they’re very versatile, they can do all kinds of things, but they tend to feel a bit safe. That’s why they’re difficult to use in horror movies. Animation tends to feel a little safe for the audience. The Trinity Test, ultimately, but also these early imaginings of Oppenheimer visualizing the Quantum Realm, they had to be threatening in some way. They had to have the bite of real-world imagery. The Trinity Test, for those who were there, was the most beautiful and terrifying thing simultaneously, and that’s where we were headed with this film."

collider.com

Christopher Nolan Explains Why There's No CGI in 'Oppenheimer'

"I think computer graphics, they’re very versatile, they can do all kinds of things, but they tend to feel a bit safe."
collider.com collider.com
Expand ...

I read the quote and just disagree. George Miller in one of the best in the industry at practical effects. IMHO no one is better. Fury Road is filled with incredible practical effects. But he still uses CGI in Fury Road especially when he wants to convey massiveness. Tell me that the use of CGI makes the audience in the theater feels "safe" in this sequence.

 
.-.
John Frank Garrett's Last Word (2016) Amazon Prime

A guy is wrongly-convicted of killing a nun. In Texas. Prosecutor wanted to advance in career.

10 years later before getting the needles, the convicted JFG writes a curse letter to all who wronged him.

People start dying.

Nice creep factor. We liked it.

And its a true story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
409
Guests online
7,264
Total visitors
7,673
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,524
Messages
4,482,899
Members
10,358
Latest member
wynela


Top Bottom