Recently Watched Movies 2024

[nelsonmuntz]

Nelson….

It depicts the ENTIRE battle taking place on a frozen lake.

In truth there likely wasn’t even a frozen lake. And it missed the entire reason why the Battle of Austerlitz was so amazing

Napoleon and Wellington never met in real life

Napoleon never fired on the pyramids

The whole move is a BS sandwich and it received brutal reviews.

You are right. Scott should have gotten 160,000 extras and filmed every skirmish of Austerlitz exactly as it happened to make it completely authentic. That would have made sense.

The Austrians and Russians ran right into a trap. The Czar of Russia, who was at the battle, attested to the Satschen Lake catastrophe. Or you can believe Napoleon's weird claim that he drained a lake in the middle of winter right after a battle (with early 19th century technology, while in a war zone) to see how many dead Russians were at the bottom. From a propaganda standpoint, Napoleon made every effort to make it seem like he was merciful in his victory, when in reality thousands were killed fleeing when the Allied army collapsed. Breaking up ice that Russians were trying to flee across probably seemed like fun in the moment, but it was not going to play well in political circles when Napoleon was trying to end fighting in Europe. Napoleon actually claimed to be merciful when he accepted Emperor Francis' surrender so not appearing to be a bloodthirsty mass murderer was important to him.

Napoleon and Wellington did not meet, but it did not make sense to introduce more characters at that point in the movie, and it was not a big deal.

The entire Egypt invasion could have been skipped. It didn't add to the story and it is a weird side note to the historical record that doesn't make sense there either.

I didn't think the movie was that good either. I just disagree with your characterization of the movie being a BS sandwich and wanted to point out that you are wrong on the Battle of Austerlitz. Just like you are wrong on Shogun. You are not very good with this history stuff, are you?

 

[storrsroars]

I was interested in this when I first saw trailers. I thought she was from a different era and when she was re-animated there would be culture shock from being out of her time. I didn't realize it was a freshly dead corpse, with a newborn baby's brain implanted. I read A LOT of user reviews and reactions to this movie, and eventually talked myself out of it. The whole pedo thing is just way too creepy, I'm not watching that. I can't believe this didn't generate more (or any?) controversy. Critics loved it, audience scores on imdb and Rotten Tomatoes are high, but user reviews are extremely mixed, it's a love it or hate it kind of endeavor it would appear.

I get the reticence. I don't know how to best describe the sex parts, but as she was in turbo-driven sexual awakening mode and a more than willing participant, it just didn't seem as bad as it sounds, especially when played as comedy. That said, at some point there was just too much of it. I personally didn't even find it titillating, but I suppose if one has the hots for Emma Stone, it likely would be.

I saw one review that basically said the viewer was apprehensive about watching it, but was glad they did even if they likely won't watch it again. The story has a positive outcome. She is the heroine. Along the way there are fascinating characters, beautiful cinematography, lots of humor, an innocence from looking at the world through what's basically a child's eye, a morality play on the meaning of love and family, a triumph of self-acceptance, and the emergence of a confident woman with power to decide her own path. And yes, plenty of creepiness too. As I noted in my first post, it's a ton to unpack as weirdness and discomfort comes flying at you from all directions very quickly.

In the end, I can't say I felt "dirty" for watching the thing, but I also can't say I feel totally clean either as the argument that if it's a chlld's brain, it's a child, is valid. I suppose I'd respond with, "it's all in the context". Ultimately, my feeling is that it was a pretty heroic effort by Stone to deliver such a unique character and take such risks doing so. But YMMV, and it's perfectly understandable to take a pass based on personal morality regarding the sexual elements of the film.

 

[ZooCougar]

You are right. Scott should have gotten 160,000 extras and filmed every skirmish of Austerlitz exactly as it happened to make it completely authentic. That would have made sense.

The Austrians and Russians ran right into a trap. The Czar of Russia, who was at the battle, attested to the Satschen Lake catastrophe. Or you can believe Napoleon's weird claim that he drained a lake in the middle of winter right after a battle (with early 19th century technology, while in a war zone) to see how many dead Russians were at the bottom. From a propaganda standpoint, Napoleon made every effort to make it seem like he was merciful in his victory, when in reality thousands were killed fleeing when the Allied army collapsed. Breaking up ice that Russians were trying to flee across probably seemed like fun in the moment, but it was not going to play well in political circles when Napoleon was trying to end fighting in Europe. Napoleon actually claimed to be merciful when he accepted Emperor Francis' surrender so not appearing to be a bloodthirsty mass murderer was important to him.

Napoleon and Wellington did not meet, but it did not make sense to introduce more characters at that point in the movie, and it was not a big deal.

The entire Egypt invasion could have been skipped. It didn't add to the story and it is a weird side note to the historical record that doesn't make sense there either.

I didn't think the movie was that good either. I just disagree with your characterization of the movie being a BS sandwich and wanted to point out that you are wrong on the Battle of Austerlitz. Just like you are wrong on Shogun. You are not very good with this history stuff, are you?

If you actually had any sense you’d watch an actually good Napoleon Movie called Waterloo.

It had 20,000 extras and stars Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer.

Scott’s movie is garbage.

They drained the “ponds” after the battle. They found two bodies.

There was no lake. It’s utter bulkshit and a ripoff of an actual good movie called Alexander Nevsky.

Napoleon was not at Antoinette’s execution.

He didn’t prove that he could have kids with a teenager, he had already had multiple illegitimate children

Going back to France to see Josephine in 1815?
Josephine was 6 feet under by 1814

He never led any Cavalry charge. He was an Artllerist.

The movie is an utter joke and will be laughed about and then forgotten.

 

[ZooCougar]

I get the reticence. I don't know how to best describe the sex parts, but as she was in turbo-driven sexual awakening mode and a more than willing participant, it just didn't seem as bad as it sounds, especially when played as comedy. That said, at some point there was just too much of it. I personally didn't even find it titillating, but I suppose if one has the hots for Emma Stone, it likely would be.

I saw one review that basically said the viewer was apprehensive about watching it, but was glad they did even if they likely won't watch it again. The story has a positive outcome. She is the heroine. Along the way there are fascinating characters, beautiful cinematography, lots of humor, an innocence from looking at the world through what's basically a child's eye, a morality play on the meaning of love and family, a triumph of self-acceptance, and the emergence of a confident woman with power to decide her own path. And yes, plenty of creepiness too. As I noted in my first post, it's a ton to unpack as weirdness and discomfort comes flying at you from all directions very quickly.

In the end, I can't say I felt "dirty" for watching the thing, but I also can't say I feel totally clean either as the argument that if it's a chlld's brain, it's a child, is valid. I suppose I'd respond with, "it's all in the context". Ultimately, my feeling is that it was a pretty heroic effort by Stone to deliver such a unique character and take such risks doing so. But YMMV, and it's perfectly understandable to take a pass based on personal morality regarding the sexual elements of the film.

I’m not wrong about Shogun. I pointed out that a character has plot armor. Which is factually correct.

 

[storrsroars]

I’m not wrong about Shogun. I pointed out that a character has plot armor. Which is factually correct.

Think you meant to reply to Nelson.

 

[Palatine]

Movies are NOT history. The Right Stuff was a great movie. But it was virtually a piece of fiction woven around historic events. The problem with Napoleon is that is is a bad movie. It is dull, dark, long, boring and a waste of film.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The Zone of Interest. This movie has been nominated for and won awards, and critics seem to like it. It's the story of Rudolf Höss the Nazi commander of the Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII. It's really about him, his wife Hilda and their children, who all lived in a nice house, with a nearby river, literally adjacent to the camp. You can see smokestacks and hear what's going on in the camp, which is managed by Hoss. Yet they swim in their pool, or the river, the kids play and they act like they in a suburban neighborhood. They also enjoy the spoils of those brought to the camp. He works with engineers to improve "efficiency". If that sounds truly monstrous and inhumanly awful, well yes. Unfortunately, that's the movie. There's no story arc really just the juxtaposition of his family's attempt to live a nice life while having no empathy compassion or feeling at all about the events at the camp next door. If you can imagine being there and watching that family go through their daily activities and listen to what they talk about, the movie is like that.

I don't recommend it. There is nothing to be learned that you can't get from that summary or Wikipedia. If you feel like you need a refresher on how truly horrific, cold, efficient and brutal the holocaust was, well, this will do it.

 

[ZooCougar]

Movies are NOT history. The Right Stuff was a great movie. But it was virtually a piece of fiction woven around historic events. The problem with Napoleon is that is is a bad movie. It is dull, dark, long, boring and a waste of film.

At least The Right Stuff had some basis in reality.

What that clown Ridley Scott did was the equivalent of having Abraham Lincoln defending Little Round Top in the movie Gettysburg.

 

[Waquoit]

Poor Things is a comedy. I admit it took me awhile to realize it. Dafoe was especially hilarious.

 

[storrsroars]

Poor Things is a comedy. I admit it took me awhile to realize it. Dafoe was especially hilarious.

Wow. I expected Poor Things to win a few art/design/camera awards, but not Emma Stone. Thought Lily Gladstone was a shoo-in for performance and, hate to say it, political reasons. But Emma was friggin amazing in a huge risk-taking part.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

The Zone of Interest. This movie has been nominated for and won awards, and critics seem to like it. It's the story of Rudolf Höss the Nazi commander of the Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII. It's really about him, his wife Hilda and their children, who all lived in a nice house, with a nearby river, literally adjacent to the camp. You can see smokestacks and hear what's going on in the camp, which is managed by Hoss. Yet they swim in their pool, or the river, the kids play and they act like they in a suburban neighborhood. They also enjoy the spoils of those brought to the camp. He works with engineers to improve "efficiency". If that sounds truly monstrous and inhumanly awful, well yes. Unfortunately, that's the movie. There's no story arc really just the juxtaposition of his family's attempt to live a nice life while having no empathy compassion or feeling at all about the events at the camp next door. If you can imagine being there and watching that family go through their daily activities and listen to what they talk about, the movie is like that.

I don't recommend it. There is nothing to be learned that you can't get from that summary or Wikipedia. If you feel like you need a refresher on how truly horrific, cold, efficient and brutal the holocaust was, well, this will do it.

I consider my self a big cinephile and love A24, but I walked out of Zone of Interest 45 minutes in. I was excited to see it, the trailer piqued my interest, and was hugely let down. I will watch the rest on my couch at some point, but it was just such a slog.

 

[nwhoopfan]

"Sheena" is full on 80s cheese. But Tanya Roberts, so that's a good enough reason to watch it. And the horse painted w/ zebra stripes is pretty classic. I can tell you this, a PG rating in 1984 is not the same as a PG rating now. This would earn a solid R. Streaming on Prime.

 

[Waquoit]

Thought Lily Gladstone was a shoo-in for performance and, hate to say it, political reasons.

You hate to say it? Since when?

 

[storrsroars]

You hate to say it? Since when?

Since I wrote the comment. I thought Lily did a great job and she was a favorite as the first Native American to win, but Emma's effort was on a whole other level, and the film itself was being derided for its theme and its nudity.

 

[CL82]

I get the reticence. I don't know how to best describe the sex parts, but as she was in turbo-driven sexual awakening mode and a more than willing participant, it just didn't seem as bad as it sounds, especially when played as comedy. That said, at some point there was just too much of it. I personally didn't even find it titillating, but I suppose if one has the hots for Emma Stone, it likely would be.

I saw one review that basically said the viewer was apprehensive about watching it, but was glad they did even if they likely won't watch it again. The story has a positive outcome. She is the heroine. Along the way there are fascinating characters, beautiful cinematography, lots of humor, an innocence from looking at the world through what's basically a child's eye, a morality play on the meaning of love and family, a triumph of self-acceptance, and the emergence of a confident woman with power to decide her own path. And yes, plenty of creepiness too. As I noted in my first post, it's a ton to unpack as weirdness and discomfort comes flying at you from all directions very quickly.

In the end, I can't say I felt "dirty" for watching the thing, but I also can't say I feel totally clean either as the argument that if it's a chlld's brain, it's a child, is valid. I suppose I'd respond with, "it's all in the context". Ultimately, my feeling is that it was a pretty heroic effort by Stone to deliver such a unique character and take such risks doing so. But YMMV, and it's perfectly understandable to take a pass based on personal morality regarding the sexual elements of the film.

I got as far as just before she leaves with the lawyer. It was sufficiently gross at that point that I bailed.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Damsel. New movie on Netflix with Millie Bobby Brown (who must have a contract with Netflix) and Ray WInstone. Smaller roles from Angela Basset and Robin Wright (ironic casting). It's not breaking new ground really. Elodie (Brown) lives in a kingdom, is betrothed to a price in a faraway land. There's a dragon (voice by the wonderful Shohreh Aghdashloo) there and things aren't what she was expecting. Elodie is pretty handy and capable, chops wood and isn't a dainty lass. That matters in the end. I liked the Enola Holmes movies (first is better) and this is another "girl power" offering, but in a way that is just fine really (unlike some of the Marvel efforts). I enjoyed it for what it is. Some of the sets are obvious sets, but there's some nice exterior shots in what I recognized as Portugal.

 

[Palatine]

Damsel. New movie on Netflix with Millie Bobby Brown (who must have a contract with Netflix) and Ray WInstone. Smaller roles from Angela Basset and Robin Wright (ironic casting). It's not breaking new ground really. Elodie (Brown) lives in a kingdom, is betrothed to a price in a faraway land. There's a dragon (voice by the wonderful Shohreh Aghdashloo) there and things aren't what she was expecting. Elodie is pretty handy and capable, chops wood and isn't a dainty lass. That matters in the end. I liked the Enola Holmes movies (first is better) and this is another "girl power" offering, but in a way that is just fine really (unlike some of the Marvel efforts). I enjoyed it for what it is. Some of the sets are obvious sets, but there's some nice exterior shots in what I recognized as Portugal.

It's not a bad movie. As you said it doesn't break any new ground except it is female centered with some minority inclusion. The Evil Queen and the Damsel are the leads. It is pretty well done if not A+ film making. You can see almost every move coming. Definitely a young adult movie but I made it all the way through. Two Stars.

 

[Palatine]

Beau is afraid (2023) This is the kind of colossal failure that is only possible when a director takes a big swing. I am a fan of big swings but not of this movie. It is the worst piece of garbage I have watched as an adult. The cast is great, Joaquin Phoenix as Beau, Nathan Lane, Patti Lupone, and wasted. At 179 minutes it is torture. The film is unnecessarily long with stretches of virtual nothingness like walking slowly or languid close ups that reveal nothing. You could easily cut an hour (or more) out of this film which would be a great relief for audiences. Beau lives in a violent, dystopia and is making a trip home to see mom who may or my not be dead. I warned you. It is awful. Don't watch it. Zero stars.

 

[Aluminny69]

So I said in my last post about Dune that sci-fantasy is not my thing. But sci-fantasy could be, lol.

I'm an hour into Poor Things (Hulu). It's exhausting to watch, but not for the usual reasons. There is so much going on and so much unexplained - like how people are put off by Willem DeFoe's alarmingly disfigured face, but nobody who visits his home comments on the barking chicken with a dog's head or the giant bubbles DeFoe belches because he can't digest food properly - it's just too much sensory overload, and that's not even counting the numerous coitus scenes and the ethical dilemma of knowing that Mark Ruffalo is banging someone with the mental capacity and dialogue of a 5-year old. On top of that, there's the impeccable costuming, interesting and weird camera work, and overall terrific moviemaking taking place.

It is truly unlike anything I've ever seen regarding the plot, possibly because it's somewhat hard to believe the whole thing seems so scandalous that I'm surprised this film even got made, let alone attract an A-list cast. Based on reviews, I'm fairly sure I know what the point is supposed to be, and I suppose it will become clear in the second hour-plus, but I had to take a break as it was all too much, albeit in delightfully bizarre ways.

There are several videos on Youtube explaining the movie. One video does a deep dive into Mary Shelly's life, book, and tie ins. Also, the different Philosophies covered. But this is a movie that can be enjoyed on several different levels.

 

[Aluminny69]

Poor Things is a comedy. I admit it took me awhile to realize it. Dafoe was especially hilarious.

Yes. I watched this movie on Hulu not knowing anything about it. The first thing that hit me was that this was a remake or retake on Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Then I found many scenes and lines funny, and wondered if I was supposed to be laughing. On IMDB the movie is listed as COMEDY/DRAMA/ROMANCE. IOW, it defies any category. The movie is different from any movie you have ever seen. It is one of those movies that you will be thinking about long after it's over. How would you act if unfettered by social norms?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Watched a couple mediocre at best movies this week. "The Kill Room" had potential, but it didn't quite get there. Uma Thurman owns an art gallery that is struggling mightily. It seems she used to be a fairly big player in the art world but has become pretty much a joke. Out of desperation she agrees to launder money through her gallery for Samuel L. Jackson, who in turn is running a Jewish bakery and is under the thumb of some Russian mobsters. To make the whole thing go they feature paintings by an unknown and unheard of artist who goes by "The Bagman"...who happens to be a cleaner for the mobsters. He almost instantly blows up into the hottest artist around. The whole thing is a scathing critique of modern art, dealers/gallery owners, collectors, and anybody else within the periphery.

Also watched "Freelance" with John Cena and Alison Brie (and Christian Slater, totally forgot about that guy). Cena is retired special forces, struggling with hating his job and having his marriage fall apart (oh yeah, Alice Eve is briefly on screen as his wife). Slater was in his unit, pulls him back in for a 1 time only gig working for his private security/paramilitary outfit. He's supposed to babysit Brie, who is a disgraced journalist trying to get back on track w/ an exclusive interview with a South American (made up country) dictator. Of course they end up in the middle of a coup attempt and everything goes spectacularly wrong. Seems like this movie couldn't really decide if it was going for action or comedy. It was okay, but forgettable.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Amazon just did a remake of "Road House" starring Jake Gyllenhaal. You are taking chances when you remake a cult classic, people are most likely gonna hate it (the original is a cruddy movie, let's be honest, but it has a loyal fan club). I thought it was decent enough, but the end went off the rails. Cuz that's where endings usually go. The fight scenes were pretty brutal. It being 2024, if you want a guy to be really tough, he can't just be a brawler, he's gotta be a MMA dude. So Jake was. And they went out and got Conor McGregor apparently in his film debut to play the nemesis. It's not particularly memorable, but it's okay for 2 hours of entertainment.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Marlowe. Stars Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, with a loaded cast. Directed by Neil Jordan. This is an unusual film. Set in LA in the 1930s, detective Marlowe is engaged to find a missing person by a wealthy socialite (Kruger). Nothing unusual there. The challenge is the dialogue. In what I suppose was an attempt at authenticity, it uses lingo and expressions from that time and place and as a result, it’s hard to understand what is being said. It’s slow moving and yet jumps from place to place. It’s ok at best. One interesting element is a

Spoiler: Spoiler

rarely seen powerful individual who is clearly meant to be Joe Kennedy.

 

[CL82]

the original is a cruddy movie, let's be honest,

 

[HuskyDevil]

Amazon just did a remake of "Road House" starring Jake Gyllenhaal. You are taking chances when you remake a cult classic, people are most likely gonna hate it (the original is a cruddy movie, let's be honest, but it has a loyal fan club). I thought it was decent enough, but the end went off the rails. Cuz that's where endings usually go. The fight scenes were pretty brutal. It being 2024, if you want a guy to be really tough, he can't just be a brawler, he's gotta be a MMA dude. So Jake was. And they went out and got Conor McGregor apparently in his film debut to play the nemesis. It's not particularly memorable, but it's okay for 2 hours of entertainment.

Light and entertaining...I didn't regret those 2 hours! McGregor is hilarious with his walk and glares...