Recently watched movies 2025 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Recently watched movies 2025

HuskyHawk said:
The Substance. Demi Moore won a Golden Globe for this. I'm as surprised as she was. She's good, but it's likely more about how challenging this role was. She plays Elizabeth Sparkle, a former young starlet who has a fitness show (think Jane Fonda). She's over 50 and her producer, played by Dennis Quaid and named "Harvey" wants to mover her out. He's disgusting in every respect. She hears about something called The Substance, a very sketchy thing that can restore youth. Enter Margaret Qualley as "Sue" but basically, young Elizabeth. This is where it becomes more of a horror film as they two are one, but don't really have the same goals. Qualley just oozes sexuality (I have since learned that's the case in all her films). There is copious nudity in this from both of them (some may be prosthetics or CGI). It's been listed among best picture nominees, I don't get it. It's badly edited and runs way too long. It's evidently an "inside Hollywood" film that speaks to them, but I'm not sure it does much for the rest of us. It also has a very weird timeframe, it looks and feels like the 80s, right down to the aerobics shoes, but is evidently now. It's ok, but at over 140 minutes, choose carefully.
Expand ...
This one was disturbing but a good watch.
 
HuskyHawk said:
Qualley just oozes sexuality (I have since learned that's the case in all her films).
Expand ...
I'd have to disagree with that to some degree. I haven't seen everything she's been in, but IO and My Sallinger Year don't fit that description.

Did you know she's Andie MacDowell's daughter?
 
nwhoopfan said:
I'd have to disagree with that to some degree. I haven't seen everything she's been in, but IO and My Sallinger Year don't fit that description.

Did you know she's Andie MacDowell's daughter?
Expand ...
Ok, “all“ is hyperbole. But she did an interview recently about how she had to tell her mom and dad not to watch most of her last 3-4 movies. She kept her clothes on in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but was still sexy. Yes, I knew. It’s interesting that like her mom, she hasn’t gotten that gap in her front teeth fixed.
 
HuskyHawk said:
The Substance. Demi Moore won a Golden Globe for this. I'm as surprised as she was. She's good, but it's likely more about how challenging this role was. She plays Elizabeth Sparkle, a former young starlet who has a fitness show (think Jane Fonda). She's over 50 and her producer, played by Dennis Quaid and named "Harvey" wants to mover her out. He's disgusting in every respect. She hears about something called The Substance, a very sketchy thing that can restore youth. Enter Margaret Qualley as "Sue" but basically, young Elizabeth. This is where it becomes more of a horror film as they two are one, but don't really have the same goals. Qualley just oozes sexuality (I have since learned that's the case in all her films). There is copious nudity in this from both of them (some may be prosthetics or CGI). It's been listed among best picture nominees, I don't get it. It's badly edited and runs way too long. It's evidently an "inside Hollywood" film that speaks to them, but I'm not sure it does much for the rest of us. It also has a very weird timeframe, it looks and feels like the 80s, right down to the aerobics shoes, but is evidently now. It's ok, but at over 140 minutes, choose carefully.
Expand ...
Definitely goes off the rails towards the end, but pretty good up to that point.
 
I liked Conclave, about the election of a new pope. There’s a twist I didn’t see coming, even though I was looking out for one.

Some might think it slow but nobody could deny the acting is absolutely phenomenal. It’s Ralph Fiennes’ film and he aces it. Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Isabella Rossellini and some lesser known actors are all excellent as well.
 
nomar said:
I liked Conclave, about the election of a new pope. There’s a twist I didn’t see coming, even though I was looking out for one.

Some might think it slow but nobody could deny the acting is absolutely phenomenal. It’s Ralph Fiennes’ film and he aces it. Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Isabella Rossellini and some lesser known actors are all excellent as well.
Expand ...
I liked it too. It is slow. That's not always a bad thing. 2001 was slow as hell. Still think it is one of the best films ever made.
 
.-.
Venom III The Last Dance (2024). Not really a super hero movie but sort of super hero movie. Lots of action. Lots of silly nonsense. Some warm family stuff. Tom Hardy stars as Venom and as his human host. Let's face it. Hardy is a charming guy. He could probably play Jame Bond. The rest of the cast is very good. Pros. They stay in the moment and play it straight (mostly). The movie is top of the line Hollywood CG. And the CG is huge and non-stop. Cinematography, sound, editing are all A+

The plot is formula. It's not the most clever script. It is what it is. If you like this kind of stuff, and I do, you'll enjoy it. If you don't like these types of movies, my wife doesn't, you won't enjoy it. I like Venom, the character is fun. This installment is not as good as the original. But it's better than the first sequel. It sits somewhere between two and three stars.
 
Palatine said:
Venom III The Last Dance (2024). Not really a super hero movie but sort of super hero movie. Lots of action. Lots of silly nonsense. Some warm family stuff. Tom Hardy stars as Venom and as his human host. Let's face it. Hardy is a charming guy. He could probably play Jame Bond. The rest of the cast is very good. Pros. They stay in the moment and play it straight (mostly). The movie is top of the line Hollywood CG. And the CG is huge and non-stop. Cinematography, sound, editing are all A+

The plot is formula. It's not the most clever script. It is what it is. If you like this kind of stuff, and I do, you'll enjoy it. If you don't like these types of movies, my wife doesn't, you won't enjoy it. I like Venom, the character is fun. This installment is not as good as the original. But it's better than the first sequel. It sits somewhere between two and three stars.
Expand ...
I'm almost shocked that this gets positive reviews. Venom 2 was awful. Maybe I will give it a try.
 
I saw the last showgirl. It was okay. I do think Pamela Anderson gave a great performance in it.
 
Watched Kneecap last night. Good reviews for a reason, I enjoyed it a lot. Very entertaining, and the backstory is pretty cool.
 
Back in Action (Netflix) is exactly what you think it will be. It is an entertaining big budget with a big cast. The plot is ridiculous but the movie is fun. Despite a big cast (Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Glenn Close, Kyle Chandler), the grandmother's boyfriend, played by Jamie Demetriou, steals the show.
 
.-.
The Wild Robot-Watched last night. Great animated movie for the family. Genuinely one of the better releases of 2024 in my opinion. Streaming on Peacock, I recommend a lot.
 
Saturday Night (Netflix) is presented as the 90 minutes leading up to the first episode of Saturday Night Live. I think it is mostly based on fact, although I do not think most of the events in the movie actually happened in the 90 minutes before the show. Some of it was in the days and weeks leading up to it, and a few events happened weeks and even years after the first episode of SNL. The movie makes Lorne Michaels look like a hero, but presents a complicated picture of the rest of the cast, which is interesting. Belushi and Chase are arrogant, and Aykroyd is weird and a little creepy. The three main female actresses from that first season, Curtain, Radner and Newman, seem just happy to be on the show in the movie, which was not what I was expecting. I wanted more Curtin in the movie, who, in real life, was a normal life person with model looks that always seemed out of place in that SNL environment, and more of her perspective would have been interesting. The movie acknowledges that the show did not know what to do with a very talented Garrett Morris. Michael O'Donaghue was nuts in real life, and comes off nuts in the movie. Others at NBC at the time, like Milton Berle and Johnny Carson, are skewered, especially Berle, and by all accounts, he was a terrible human being in real life.

I think playing a real person that everyone already knows is really hard, and the actors that played Chase, Aykroyd and Belushi did a great job. Nick Braun was fantastic playing both Jim Henson and Andy Kaufman. JK Simmons was really repugnant as Berle while still making it credible that so many of that generation really liked Berle.

If you like this movie, I would recommend Netflix's A Futile and Stupid Gesture, which is about Doug Kenney and the founding of National Lampoon, kind of an origin story for SNL. I think of these as really important movies about a seismic change in our culture that was reflected in comedy of the 1970's. Comedy, by its nature, does not age well, but National Lampoon and SNL completely changed the arc of comedy from the Johnny Carson's sight gags and silly one-liners and puns, and Milton Berle's and Henny Youngman's reductive misogyny of wife jokes and dressing up like women to mock women, in addition to the barely concealed racism of so many comics of that era. National Lampoon and SNL blew all of that apart. Movies changed, TV comedy changed, and our culture changed. I think comedy reflects the culture, but the seismic shifts in our society in the late 70's were not being captured by traditional comics prior to National Lampoon and SNL.
 
HuskyHawk said:
The Wild Robot. Animated. Robot mistakenly ends up in a forest, doesn't understand animals vs people. It is programmed to be a helper and has to learn to communicate with the animals. Ultimately goes outside its programming to help one in particular. It's a nice story, enjoyable family fair. It gets a bit silly as many animals deny their nature to get along (this would mean many starve but harsh realities aren't part of the story here).
Expand ...
I actually got around to it this weekend. I wasn't expecting much, although DreamWorks always turns out a good product. I agree with you. It was good and watchable.
 
Last edited:
"Your Monster." I was a bit curious about it, available on Max now, so I watched. I'd never even heard of Melissa Barrera til I saw her in "Abigail." She's great. Definitely something different. Dark comedy/romance/slightly horror adjacent/musical/play within a movie.

Melissa's life comes crashing down. Gets dumped by her boyfriend while battling cancer. He's writing a Broadway musical, she helped him develop it and was promised the lead. All that goes way. While recovering and staying at her mom's place (we never see mom, not sure where she was), the monster in the closet/under the bed from her childhood turns out to be real. Or symbolic or allegorical or something, I'm not quite sure. Won't say any more, but it was interesting.
 
Section 31 on Paramount. Supposedly a Star Trek movie.

Quite possibly one of the worst things ever made. I made it through 20 minutes tops.
 
.-.
Thought Saturday Night was actually pretty good. Very entertaining, Gabe LaBelle is Lorne is crazy, kid must’ve been 20 when shooting started as he is only 22 now. But he was great, guy who played Chevy was great as well. Had a lot of fun watching it.
 
storrsroars said:
Agree with you and CL82. But it does make one wonder what exactly did they all eat during that storm ;-)
Expand ...
File this under "you guys are thinking about this way too much", but my presumption would be since each animal had already entered into hibernation, they would have previously stored the excess calories needed so that they would not need to eat each other during their stay in the hut.

The better "thinking way too much about this" question is why wouldn't they all have frozen to death in a big hut that had an open door? Basically the ambient temperature inside that hut would probably be within 10° or so of the temperature outside the hut. Of course, the robot would've lacked information based upon what's necessary to survive for warm blooded animals. There would be no reason for her to design a winter shelter that would actually be survivable.

For those of you who are now thinking "wait they had a fire", you're not wrong, but with a wide open door, that's only providing radiant heat, so anyone who is not line of sight isn't getting much benefit from it. Also, why didn't the structure fill up with smoke? If the notion is well, there was a hole in the top then wouldn't the heated air exiting outside the top also be drawing in cold air from the wide-open front door? Anyway, where were they getting the wood for the fire? There was none stored within the hut or anywhere anywhere else around and the ground was covered with snow. Who was feeding the fire? Kind of tough for animals that lack a prehensile thumb to feed fire since they have to stick their face in it to drop additional wood. I mean, I guess the opossums and the raccoons could have been feeding it, but their hands are very tiny so they would find it difficult to place wood of any significant size in the fire.

Come to think of it, that movie sucked! It wasn't realistic at all! Oh, wait, it was never intended to be...;)
 
CL82 said:
File this under "you guys are thinking about this way too much", but my presumption would be since each animal had already entered into hibernation, they would have previously stored the excess calories needed so that they would not need to eat each other during their stay in the hut.

The better "thinking way too much about this" question is why wouldn't they all have frozen to death in a big hut that had an open door? Basically the ambient temperature inside that hut would probably be within 10° or so of the temperature outside the hut. Of course, the robot would've lacked information based upon what's necessary to survive for warm blooded animals. There would be no reason for her to design a winter shelter that would actually be survivable.

For those of you who are now thinking "wait they had a fire", you're not wrong, but with a wide open door, that's only providing radiant heat, so anyone who is not line of sight isn't getting much benefit from it. Also, why didn't the structure fill up with smoke? If the notion is well, there was a hole in the top then wouldn't the heated air exiting outside the top also be drawing in cold air from the wide-open front door? Anyway, where were they getting the wood for the fire? There was none stored within the hut or anywhere anywhere else around and the ground was covered with snow. Who was feeding the fire? Kind of tough for animals that lack a prehensile thumb to feed fire since they have to stick their face in it to drop additional wood. I mean, I guess the opossums and the raccoons could have been feeding it, but their hands are very tiny so they would find it difficult to place wood of any significant size in the fire.

Come to think of it, that movie sucked! It wasn't realistic at all! Oh, wait, it was never intended to be...;)
Expand ...
Honestly biggest bugaboo for me…Since when can animals even friggin talk?
 
CardiacAndre7 said:
Honestly biggest bugaboo for me…Since when can animals even friggin talk?
Expand ...
This one was answered in the movie. The robot sat for a day, listening to their various vocalizations and worked out their language. of course that only explains why she could talk to each individual species and not how they could talk to each other.
 
CL82 said:
File this under "you guys are thinking about this way too much", but my presumption would be since each animal had already entered into hibernation, they would have previously stored the excess calories needed
Expand ...
However, in some cases, particularly the bear's, winter hibernation comes with a significantly lower metabolism due to non-activity. If the animals are awake and doing things, then they'd be burning more calories. And the squirrels would have a cache of acorns, none of which are seen in the film.

Yes, it's perhaps a stupid criticism when a movie is taking poetic license. But I've had this problem ever since being taught about Noah's Ark ;)
 
.-.
storrsroars said:
However, in some cases, particularly the bear's, winter hibernation comes with a significantly lower metabolism due to non-activity. If the animals are awake and doing things, then they'd be burning more calories. And the squirrels would have a cache of acorns, none of which are seen in the film.

Yes, it's perhaps a stupid criticism when a movie is taking poetic license. But I've had this problem ever since being taught about Noah's Ark ;)
Expand ...
Separate rooms in Noah's Ark mitigate the predation issue. I guess one has to presume some amount of grain, fruit, or other survival food for the herbivores and the use of fish to feed the predators.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Saturday Night (Netflix) is presented as the 90 minutes leading up to the first episode of Saturday Night Live. I think it is mostly based on fact, although I do not think most of the events in the movie actually happened in the 90 minutes before the show. Some of it was in the days and weeks leading up to it, and a few events happened weeks and even years after the first episode of SNL. The movie makes Lorne Michaels look like a hero, but presents a complicated picture of the rest of the cast, which is interesting. Belushi and Chase are arrogant, and Aykroyd is weird and a little creepy. The three main female actresses from that first season, Curtain, Radner and Newman, seem just happy to be on the show in the movie, which was not what I was expecting. I wanted more Curtin in the movie, who, in real life, was a normal life person with model looks that always seemed out of place in that SNL environment, and more of her perspective would have been interesting. The movie acknowledges that the show did not know what to do with a very talented Garrett Morris. Michael O'Donaghue was nuts in real life, and comes off nuts in the movie. Others at NBC at the time, like Milton Berle and Johnny Carson, are skewered, especially Berle, and by all accounts, he was a terrible human being in real life.

I think playing a real person that everyone already knows is really hard, and the actors that played Chase, Aykroyd and Belushi did a great job. Nick Braun was fantastic playing both Jim Henson and Andy Kaufman. JK Simmons was really repugnant as Berle while still making it credible that so many of that generation really liked Berle.

If you like this movie, I would recommend Netflix's A Futile and Stupid Gesture, which is about Doug Kenney and the founding of National Lampoon, kind of an origin story for SNL. I think of these as really important movies about a seismic change in our culture that was reflected in comedy of the 1970's. Comedy, by its nature, does not age well, but National Lampoon and SNL completely changed the arc of comedy from the Johnny Carson's sight gags and silly one-liners and puns, and Milton Berle's and Henny Youngman's reductive misogyny of wife jokes and dressing up like women to mock women, in addition to the barely concealed racism of so many comics of that era. National Lampoon and SNL blew all of that apart. Movies changed, TV comedy changed, and our culture changed. I think comedy reflects the culture, but the seismic shifts in our society in the late 70's were not being captured by traditional comics prior to National Lampoon and SNL.
Expand ...
I'm a lifelong SNL fan. When the show first aired, I was 8 when it first aired and my best friend's older brother would tape the shows on his boombox for us because we couldn't stay up that late.

I thought the movie was great and the performances were really well done. The guy playing Belushi really had his facial mannerisms down pat. The movie had a great pace and made it feel like you were backstage going through some of it. And, yes...I was surprised how they portrayed Carson and if that was realistic? He is a grade A jerk.

Second the recommendation!
 
There have been talking animals in cartoons for almost as long as there have been cartoons, right?

I think after the first trailer for "Wild Robot" there was speculation there wouldn't be dialog in the movie, but that is really hard to pull off.
 
"Take Cover" is a decent B grade movie, stretches credulity and drags a little, but I've seen much worse. Scott Adkins isn't a household name, but he's been in a ton of movies. If he's the lead, it's not a big movie, but he's in plenty of blockbusters as a henchman, bodyguard, head of security type of character. Not the greatest actor, but solid for action movies with lots of fight scenes.

This isn't breaking new ground. He's a sniper working for a shadowy government agency. He wants out. You know what that means. Nobody gets to retire. So he's set up and becomes the target. Most of the movie is Adkins, his spotter and two escorts in a hotel penthouse with no way to get out, a sniper across the way, and one elevator load after another of baddies coming to get them.

Alice Eve plays his handler. She's barely onscreen, but you hear her voice off and on. I thought one of the women in the room with them stole the movie. Never heard of her before. Madalina Bellariu Ion. IMDB has almost nothing on her, except she speaks 5 languages and she was born in Romania.
 
The Free State of Jones. Rewatch, wife hadn’t seen it. Matthew McConaughey is Newton Knight a confederate medic during the civil war. He’s disillusioned with the war and death. Keri Russel is his wife. He deserts the army and through events, meets some runaway slaves, including Moses, played by Mahershala Ali. They hide together. Eventually more defectors arrive and Knight turns them into a resistance force. At first most just protecting local farms from confiscatory “taxes” of food and clothing meant to support the army. Later it’s a full revolt and they turn Jones county Mississippi and some others into free/unionist territory. There’s a lot more here, including flashbacks to a trial in the 60s. This is all based on a true story, but it’s unclear what’s been embellished. It’s a good movie nonetheless.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,368
Messages
4,568,497
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom