Chat talk and light discussion

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:19 am

Eddie wrote:Cant see past Mathew McConaughey for best actor, powerhouse of a performance.
Agree,he was suprb in Dallas Buyers Club

mobile reply

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:19 am

greystoke wrote:
rocknroller wrote:Yeah 12 year slave for me too !!!


In every category that it's nominated?
It should win some

mobile reply

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:33 am

I agree, it will win some but not all, the supporting actor for me is a dead heat between Fassbender and Leto, [of the films Ive seen] and I'd have to give Leto the edge for that mesmerising turn in Dallas Buyers Club, wonderful piece of acting.

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:41 pm

Both Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto gave tremendous performances in Dallas Buyers Club, and from what I can gather the momentum is with them heading into the Oscars, although Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender were equally impressive in 12 Years a Slave. Personally, I'm leaning towards Ejiofor and Fassbender, but with the Screen Actors' Guild choosing McConaughey and Leto, they're surely the favourites at the moment. Either would be deserving winners, of course, although the entire field in both categories boasts impressive performances. This in mind, I wouldn't count out Barkhad Abdi for his terrific debut performance in Captain Phillips; whilst another big screen debut, Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave, is my firm favourite to win for Best Supporting Actress. I'm just as certain about Cate Blanchett in the Leading Actress category for her brilliant performance in Blue Jasmine.

My pick for Best Picture is also 12 Years a Slave, but the competition is of such a high quality, and with so many popular choices, that it's not unlikely that either Gravity or American Hustle will win Best Picture. I would like to see Steve McQueen win Best Director for 12 Years a Slave, but have a feeling that Alfonso Cauron is going to win here. And he would certainly deserve to, whilst Gravity seems like a sure choice in the Cinematography, Visual Effects and Production Design categories. Best Editing, I think, will go to Joe Walker for 12 Years a Slave, which is just so brilliantly constructed; but there's an energy and pacing to American Hustle that's most impressive, which makes me lean slightly towards the trio of Jay Cassidy, Crispin Struthers and Alan Baumgarten for their work here. American Hustle is surely a strong condender for Best Costume Design also, given the nature of the film and thrust of a narrative which is very much about putting on a facade. But it's stylish and stylised to a fault and relishes in the era in which it's set. Which makes David O. Russell's film conspicuous by its absence from the Best Make-Up and Hair category -- but I think Adruitha Lee and Robin Mathews will win this one for their work with Jared Leto alone!

The category for Best Score is very strong, although I haven't seen Her or The Book Thief yet, but I thought Thomas Newman's work on Saving Mr. Banks was quite excellent and has my pick over Alexandre Desplat and Stephen Price for Philomena and Gravity, respectively. Best Song is also interesting this year, with U2 in contention with a fine song and Pharrell Williams' infections Get Happy surely being the favourites. My pick here is Pharrell for his song from Despicable Me 2, which I haven't seen, nor have I seen anything in the Best Animated Feature category thus far. Whilst the only film I've seen in the Best Foreign Language Film category is The Hunt, which is an engrossing thriller that I rate most highly. Best Adapted Screenplay is another strong category, but one I think is going to be won by John Ridley for 12 Years a Slave. Best Original Screenplay is a difficult one to choose from, although I'm thinking Woody Allen for Blue Jasmine, Craig Borten and Melissa Wallack's script for Dallas Buyers Club is very, very good. But I still wouldn't overlook American Hustle in any category, although, there's the possibility that it could come up short in every category. Either way, I think 2013 has been one of the best years in cinema for some time and I'm looking forward to seeing this celebrated on Oscar night. BAFTAs first, though . . .

Re: last movie you watched

Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:15 pm

Master of flying giljoteen 4.5/6 , starring Wang Yu......pretty good.

Mr Nanny 2/6 , so bad it's good......the badness is kinda chuckle-worthy :lol:

Re: last movie you watched

Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:23 pm

Tang Lungs side kick wrote:Master of flying giljoteen 4.5/6 , starring Wang Yu......pretty good.

Mr Nanny 2/6 , so bad it's good......the badness is kinda chuckle-worthy :lol:


Master of the Flying Guillotine is Wang Yu at his best; great action, inventive and an incredible finale that's among the best in the genre. I haven't seen Mr. Nanny in a long time, but I think it's safe to say that Hulk Hogan was never bound to be much of an actor -- even in action movies with no dramatic depth. But I liked him as Thunderlips in Rocky 3.

Re: last movie you watched

Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:01 am

After seeing it at the weekend, it's quite clear why Runner Runner was a flop. Ben Affleck is remarkably wooden, and Timberlake puts in one of his worst acting performances. However, the real reason for it bombing are quite clearly the script and the direction. The script is all over the place, seemingly squeezing a film and two sequels into one ninety minute movie. There is a decent idea here - a young guy getting cheated on an online poker game and chasing down the enigmatic owner of the site. Sadly, however, that's all done and dusted in fifteen minutes, and thereafter things just get more and more silly and predictable. We know virtually nothing about Timberlake's character, and therefore have no sympathy with him. Then the director has come along and tried to make up for the script's failings by attempting flashy camera work which just looks cliched. This is indeed a bad film - and one that doesn't even have the "so bad its's good" tag either.

Re: last movie you watched

Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:47 pm

poormadpeter wrote:After seeing it at the weekend, it's quite clear why Runner Runner was a flop. Ben Affleck is remarkably wooden, and Timberlake puts in one of his worst acting performances. However, the real reason for it bombing are quite clearly the script and the direction. The script is all over the place, seemingly squeezing a film and two sequels into one ninety minute movie. There is a decent idea here - a young guy getting cheated on an online poker game and chasing down the enigmatic owner of the site. Sadly, however, that's all done and dusted in fifteen minutes, and thereafter things just get more and more silly and predictable. We know virtually nothing about Timberlake's character, and therefore have no sympathy with him. Then the director has come along and tried to make up for the script's failings by attempting flashy camera work which just looks cliched. This is indeed a bad film - and one that doesn't even have the "so bad its's good" tag either.


Do you think the quality of a film, or lack thereof, is a genuine contributing factor to the commercial success or failure of said film? I'm not so sure, although you're right about Runner, Runner, which is barely mediocre by the standards of this kind of movie. It was, however, well marketed and received a great deal of promotion on television and various banners. So what kept this $30 million production from breaking even domestically and earning a total of just $60 million worldwide? This, bearing in mind that a more lauded and equally prolific film, such as Inside Llewyn Davis, earned less, despite recouping its $11 million budget in North America, but doing nothing of note internationally -- around $3 million, from what I can gather.

When you mentioned box office, I immediately thought of the new Jack Ryan film, which didn't find the audience Paramount hoped for, with Jack Ryan being less familiar to teenagers than an audience in their fifties. The result being a box office gross of over $100 million internationally, but a film that cost $60 million also not earning its negative costs back at home. The producers of Jack Ryan and Paramount Pictures, who distributed the film, have commented with some frustration that it was older audience members who were paramount in this film actually earning a decent amount. Which is unfair, considering that one demographic's money and time is as good as another's, but I presume that Runner, Runner failed on the basis that it didn't appeal to any one broad demographic. Affleck and Timberlake are probably more likely to attract adult audiences to cinemas, unless the film in question is aimed squarely at teenagers -- which Runner, Runner wasn't. Whilst the concept seemed warmed over from the trailer alone, especially being plot-driven and centering around the world of on-line poker. Which is hardly cinematic gold despite notions of a 21st Century take on The Hustler. But audiences wouldn't have known of the film's shortcomings until paying their money and taking their choice, but a $7 million opening was paltry and the film sunk after its second week. Perhaps Runner, Runner's marketing campaign in North America wasn't as good as it was in the UK, whilst there's much to gain from the stars of a film actively promoting their work. I don't recall seeing Timberlake or Affleck on any of the major shows over here, but I think Gemma Arterton was on Graham Norton's show promoting the film -- and although she's a fine actress, she doesn't have the star power to carry a film on her name or merits alone. Conversely, it seems as though more films are succeeding commercially on the strength of international earnings, as opposed to takings on the domestic/North American market. Runner, Runner followed this trend as did Jack Ryan, The Lone Ranger, 47 Ronin, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and a few notable others. But the sixty million dollars earned by Runner, Runner must be considered to be a real disappointment, although Affleck seemed to be phoning it in and enjoying himself in the process.

Re: last movie you watched

Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:53 pm

So many movies I turned off after about half an hour... among them were "Lovelace", "Arbitrage" and "Pacific Rim". :o

Re: last movie you watched

Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:56 pm

luckyjackson1 wrote:So many movies I turned off after about half an hour... among them were "Lovelace", "Arbitrage" and "Pacific Rim". :o


I haven't seen Lovelace yet, but I thought Arbitrage was very good and really enjoyed Pacific Rim.

Re: last movie you watched

Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:09 pm

greystoke wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:After seeing it at the weekend, it's quite clear why Runner Runner was a flop. Ben Affleck is remarkably wooden, and Timberlake puts in one of his worst acting performances. However, the real reason for it bombing are quite clearly the script and the direction. The script is all over the place, seemingly squeezing a film and two sequels into one ninety minute movie. There is a decent idea here - a young guy getting cheated on an online poker game and chasing down the enigmatic owner of the site. Sadly, however, that's all done and dusted in fifteen minutes, and thereafter things just get more and more silly and predictable. We know virtually nothing about Timberlake's character, and therefore have no sympathy with him. Then the director has come along and tried to make up for the script's failings by attempting flashy camera work which just looks cliched. This is indeed a bad film - and one that doesn't even have the "so bad its's good" tag either.


Do you think the quality of a film, or lack thereof, is a genuine contributing factor to the commercial success or failure of said film? I'm not so sure, although you're right about Runner, Runner, which is barely mediocre by the standards of this kind of movie. It was, however, well marketed and received a great deal of promotion on television and various banners. So what kept this $30 million production from breaking even domestically and earning a total of just $60 million worldwide? This, bearing in mind that a more lauded and equally prolific film, such as Inside Llewyn Davis, earned less, despite recouping its $11 million budget in North America, but doing nothing of note internationally -- around $3 million, from what I can gather.

When you mentioned box office, I immediately thought of the new Jack Ryan film, which didn't find the audience Paramount hoped for, with Jack Ryan being less familiar to teenagers than an audience in their fifties. The result being a box office gross of over $100 million internationally, but a film that cost $60 million also not earning its negative costs back at home. The producers of Jack Ryan and Paramount Pictures, who distributed the film, have commented with some frustration that it was older audience members who were paramount in this film actually earning a decent amount. Which is unfair, considering that one demographic's money and time is as good as another's, but I presume that Runner, Runner failed on the basis that it didn't appeal to any one broad demographic. Affleck and Timberlake are probably more likely to attract adult audiences to cinemas, unless the film in question is aimed squarely at teenagers -- which Runner, Runner wasn't. Whilst the concept seemed warmed over from the trailer alone, especially being plot-driven and centering around the world of on-line poker. Which is hardly cinematic gold despite notions of a 21st Century take on The Hustler. But audiences wouldn't have known of the film's shortcomings until paying their money and taking their choice, but a $7 million opening was paltry and the film sunk after its second week. Perhaps Runner, Runner's marketing campaign in North America wasn't as good as it was in the UK, whilst there's much to gain from the stars of a film actively promoting their work. I don't recall seeing Timberlake or Affleck on any of the major shows over here, but I think Gemma Arterton was on Graham Norton's show promoting the film -- and although she's a fine actress, she doesn't have the star power to carry a film on her name or merits alone. Conversely, it seems as though more films are succeeding commercially on the strength of international earnings, as opposed to takings on the domestic/North American market. Runner, Runner followed this trend as did Jack Ryan, The Lone Ranger, 47 Ronin, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and a few notable others. But the sixty million dollars earned by Runner, Runner must be considered to be a real disappointment, although Affleck seemed to be phoning it in and enjoying himself in the process.


It's odd that you say the publicity was good in the UK as, as far as I'm aware, the film didn't show in either of the Norwich multiplexes, and I don't recall seeing a single advert for it. I think much of the problem these days is that word gets around so quickly thank to the internet - and not just because of newspaper reviews etc, but "real" people on twitter, who see the movie at a preview and then get word around by the opening weekend. Having said that, even the trailer was pretty awful. Online poker could have grabbed a sizeable young audience but, as you say, it's a film that didn't know who that audience was - add to that Ben Affleck, whose performances are often erratic in quality, and I'm guessing those are some of the reasons.

Re: last movie you watched

Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:49 am

jak wrote:
luckyjackson1 wrote:So many movies I turned off after about half an hour... among them were "Lovelace", "Arbitrage" and "Pacific Rim". :o


I haven't seen Arbitrage but the other two were somewhat disappointing to me. Rim looked and sounded great but the movie didn't impress me. I had high hopes for Lovelace but I didn't think it delivered either. The movie didn't really cover any new territory and seemed to just rehash the same stuff we already know.

Thanks. Same here with "Pacific Rim".

Started watching "Safe Haven" and somehow enjoyed it! :o

Also started "The Deep" ("Djúpið") by Baltasar Kormákur but somehow wasn't in the mood for it although I think it's a pretty good film.

Re: last movie you watched

Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:25 pm

luckyjackson1 wrote:
jak wrote:
luckyjackson1 wrote:So many movies I turned off after about half an hour... among them were "Lovelace", "Arbitrage" and "Pacific Rim". :o


I haven't seen Arbitrage but the other two were somewhat disappointing to me. Rim looked and sounded great but the movie didn't impress me. I had high hopes for Lovelace but I didn't think it delivered either. The movie didn't really cover any new territory and seemed to just rehash the same stuff we already know.

Thanks. Same here with "Pacific Rim".

Started watching "Safe Haven" and somehow enjoyed it! :o

Also started "The Deep" ("Djúpið") by Baltasar Kormákur but somehow wasn't in the mood for it although I think it's a pretty good film.


I haven't seen Safe Haven or The Deep, although the former reminds me somewhat of Michael Apted's 2002 film, Enough. Lasse Hallstrom is a very good director and has been on similar territory before with the splendid An Unfinished Life which, incidentally, featured Jennifer Lopez, who was also the star of Enough.

Re: last movie you watched

Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:51 pm

I really dig Lasse Hallstrom, especially his work on the ABBA promo clips but lately he has directed the nonstarter "The Hypnotist". Still can't figure out how I sat through this whole darn thing at the cinema. That said, I enjoyed most of his movies.

Re: last movie you watched

Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:06 pm

luckyjackson1 wrote:I really dig Lasse Hallstrom, especially his work on the ABBA promo clips but lately he has directed the nonstarter "The Hypnotist". Still can't figure out how I sat through this whole darn thing at the cinema. That said, I enjoyed most of his movies.


You may know this, but a little trait of his regarding his name on a film's credits can be a key to whether he's happy with the end results -- if there's no accent above the "o" in Hallstrom, he wasn't happy. If the accent is complete, he was very happy putting his name to it. This said, I don't know if he still does this, but certainly did at one time.

Re: last movie you watched

Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:32 am

saw Wolf of Wallstreet. it was okay but way too long. they could have cut out 30 to 45 min out of it. Not one likable character in the movie which also hurts it. Most people want someone to root for in a movie. It makes u care about whats going on. if u don't like anyone in the movie then why give a damn. I know it is based on a true story but still. Jonah Hill does not deserve a Oscar nom for it. His teeth do all the acting in the film. and Leo seemed to be trying too hard for the Oscar and seemed to be channeling Ray Liotta from Goodfellas during the voiceover parts. Not one of Scorcese' best.

Re: last movie you watched

Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:55 am

DEH wrote:saw Wolf of Wallstreet. it was okay but way too long. they could have cut out 30 to 45 min out of it. Not one likable character in the movie which also hurts it. Most people want someone to root for in a movie. It makes u care about whats going on. if u don't like anyone in the movie then why give a damn. I know it is based on a true story but still. Jonah Hill does not deserve a Oscar nom for it. His teeth do all the acting in the film. and Leo seemed to be trying too hard for the Oscar and seemed to be channeling Ray Liotta from Goodfellas during the voiceover parts. Not one of Scorcese' best.



I do agree with most of what you say,but leo for me was amazing ! his character became unlikable but i guess thats how it was.i also liked his voiceover parts, buts it a movie i wont watch again !!!

Re: last movie you watched

Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:45 am

rocknroller wrote:
DEH wrote:saw Wolf of Wallstreet. it was okay but way too long. they could have cut out 30 to 45 min out of it. Not one likable character in the movie which also hurts it. Most people want someone to root for in a movie. It makes u care about whats going on. if u don't like anyone in the movie then why give a damn. I know it is based on a true story but still. Jonah Hill does not deserve a Oscar nom for it. His teeth do all the acting in the film. and Leo seemed to be trying too hard for the Oscar and seemed to be channeling Ray Liotta from Goodfellas during the voiceover parts. Not one of Scorcese' best.


I do agree with most of what you say,but leo for me was amazing ! his character became unlikable but i guess thats how it was.i also liked his voiceover parts, buts it a movie i wont watch again !!!


:lol:

I still don't know why Jonah Hill received an Oscar nomination for this. But I'd really like to see Leo finally win. But I think it's some sort of a running joke that he won't win. :wink:

From what I heard there will be an extended cut released with a running time of four hours! :shock:
Can anybody confirm this?

Re: last movie you watched

Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:56 pm

luckyjackson1 wrote:
rocknroller wrote:
DEH wrote:saw Wolf of Wallstreet. it was okay but way too long. they could have cut out 30 to 45 min out of it. Not one likable character in the movie which also hurts it. Most people want someone to root for in a movie. It makes u care about whats going on. if u don't like anyone in the movie then why give a damn. I know it is based on a true story but still. Jonah Hill does not deserve a Oscar nom for it. His teeth do all the acting in the film. and Leo seemed to be trying too hard for the Oscar and seemed to be channeling Ray Liotta from Goodfellas during the voiceover parts. Not one of Scorcese' best.


I do agree with most of what you say,but leo for me was amazing ! his character became unlikable but i guess thats how it was.i also liked his voiceover parts, buts it a movie i wont watch again !!!


:lol:

I still don't know why Jonah Hill received an Oscar nomination for this. But I'd really like to see Leo finally win. But I think it's some sort of a running joke that he won't win. :wink:

From what I heard there will be an extended cut released with a running time of four hours! :shock:
Can anybody confirm this?


:shock: WOW and i thought 3 hours was too long !!!

Re: last movie you watched

Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:53 am

luckyjackson1 wrote:
rocknroller wrote:
DEH wrote:saw Wolf of Wallstreet. it was okay but way too long. they could have cut out 30 to 45 min out of it. Not one likable character in the movie which also hurts it. Most people want someone to root for in a movie. It makes u care about whats going on. if u don't like anyone in the movie then why give a damn. I know it is based on a true story but still. Jonah Hill does not deserve a Oscar nom for it. His teeth do all the acting in the film. and Leo seemed to be trying too hard for the Oscar and seemed to be channeling Ray Liotta from Goodfellas during the voiceover parts. Not one of Scorcese' best.


I do agree with most of what you say,but leo for me was amazing ! his character became unlikable but i guess thats how it was.i also liked his voiceover parts, buts it a movie i wont watch again !!!


:lol:

I still don't know why Jonah Hill received an Oscar nomination for this. But I'd really like to see Leo finally win. But I think it's some sort of a running joke that he won't win. :wink:

From what I heard there will be an extended cut released with a running time of four hours! :shock:
Can anybody confirm this?


I thought leo should have been nominated for Django Unchained. he was great it that.

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:54 pm

I think Jonah Hill certainly deserves his second Oscar nomination for a quite fascinating performance in The Wolf of Wall Street. Hill, despite the hair, clothes, glasses and teeth, never once slips into caricature as a highly competitive, ruthless buffoon whose role as a sidekick to Di Caprio doesn't relegate him to an alsoran -- in fact, some of the best and funniest lines in the film are delivered by Hill. Whilst there's an assuredness to his performance that only increased with each audacious scene. Leo is sensational here, of course, and on career-best form along with Hill, who is increasingly interesting and promising as an actor. I still have some reservations about The Wolf of Wall Street, although it is a terrific film. Whilst the characters need not be likeable to be understood or for an audience to follow them; and I didn't actually find Justin Belfort unlikable, simply that I needed more of an avenue into him as a character to draw more from him. Had that been the case, he surely would have been more of a risible character, but Scorsese and Di Caprio revel in his excess and stay on the surface of his wanton behaviour, showing without telling, never painting him or his actions with true or harsh consequences, which is possibly key to this film being so enjoyable and brisk over three hours. However, there's a scene in the film, which I'm sure anyone who has seen it will recall, in which Matthew McConaughey mentors Di Caprio over lunch and through some oddities and physical ticks explains that corporate finance is all "fairy dust" and isn't real or tangible. This scene almost mirrors the movie, itself, with Di Caprio sitting uncomfortably in the role of the audience as McConaughey tells him that its all an illusion -- and that's just what we see in the film. An illusion of excess, told brilliantly; but there are flaws which may not hinder the narrative, but do raise questions upon further examination.

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:17 pm

jak wrote:Watched this tonight after hearing so many good things about it. We enjoyed this very much. I couldn't help think of the film Gravity while watching it. I'm one of those that thinks Gravity was way over hyped. I actually preferred All Is Lost. I thought Redford really gave a strong performance. I'm surprised this film didn't get more buzz. Very enjoyable film. The audio quality of the blu ray is absolute perfection and reference quality.


I thought All is Lost was a marvellous movie that is as compelling and frequently impressive as Gravity. There are similarities between those films, with unique and life threatening circumstances taking place in entirely different environments. But the character arcs and motivations are drawn from the same will to survive. Bullock and Redford were most impressive in their respective roles, but I also thought All is Lost would have found a few more Oscar nominations this year than it has -- especially for Redford. It's nominated in the same category, Best Sound (editing), at tonight's BAFTAs.

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm

Went to see the monument men last night at the cinema and i really enjoyed it.it will not be a movie for everyone i could see how some people may find it boring if they dont have any interest in WW2.it does have its flaws but over all its a good movie.now im looking forward to seeing the book thief and Stalingrad !!!

Re: last movie you watched

Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:39 pm

rocknroller wrote:Went to see the monument men last night at the cinema and i really enjoyed it.it will not be a movie for everyone i could see how some people may find it boring if they dont have any interest in WW2.it does have its flaws but over all its a good movie.now im looking forward to seeing the book thief and Stalingrad !!!


I also found The Monument Men to be very flawed, but not unlikeable given the personality of the lead actors and Clooney's eye for composition. The costumes and set design also worked on me and evoked movies of a similar kind from a different era, and although the characters were thinly sketched, it was the tone, pacing and structure of the film that hurt an already uneven script. Which is a shame, because I think this was a film made with good intentions and no cynicism or egos in the way. Much of it does work well, however, such as images of a battle-strewn Normandy beach and the chemistry between Clooney and Damon, but there's a sense of wonder and awe that's amiss because one thread is never settled upon as the story jumps from character-to-character in quite a choppy fashion. A more serious tone and a neater script would probably have paid narrative dividends, although the commercial viability of a war-time adventure may have made this project more a post-Ocean's caper than something akin to Steven Soderbergh's more leaden The Good German. But Soderbergh's love note to forties Hollywood war movies also missed the mark and Clooney, who also starred in that film, may have deliberately sought a more buoyant and accessible project that retained poignant overtones and some of the verve found in the likes of Von Ryan's Express, The Great Escape, Kelly's Heroes or The Train. Unfortunately, a lack of forward momentum makes too apparent the shortcomings of The Monuments Men, which isn't to say that some scenes don't carry a touch of poignancy and peril, because there are good moments amidst the clutter; in particular, a scene when John Goodman and Jean Dujardin's characters come across a horse in a field and stop their jeep to have a smoke and reflect, unaware of what they're about to encounter. Or the scene in which Bill Murray, in the middle of a shower, hears a recording being played over the camp speakers -- he says nothing, but conveys with his eyes and facial expressions what Clooney lays on just a bit too thick. I was also a bit nonplussed at two, maybe three scenes, in which Clooney decided to portray Hitler doing absolutely nothing, although he may have wanted a touch-point in respect to the Fuhrer, but this really wasn't necessary. Especially with so much going on already. One aspect of The Monuments Men I thought was very, very good is Alexandre Desplat's atmospheric score, which incorporates a march, comic touches and lovely strings in a more coherent way than Clooney was able to on screen.

Re: last movie you watched

Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:02 am

greystoke wrote:
rocknroller wrote:Went to see the monument men last night at the cinema and i really enjoyed it.it will not be a movie for everyone i could see how some people may find it boring if they dont have any interest in WW2.it does have its flaws but over all its a good movie.now im looking forward to seeing the book thief and Stalingrad !!!


I also found The Monument Men to be very flawed, but not unlikeable given the personality of the lead actors and Clooney's eye for composition. The costumes and set design also worked on me and evoked movies of a similar kind from a different era, and although the characters were thinly sketched, it was the tone, pacing and structure of the film that hurt an already uneven script. Which is a shame, because I think this was a film made with good intentions and no cynicism or egos in the way. Much of it does work well, however, such as images of a battle-strewn Normandy beach and the chemistry between Clooney and Damon, but there's a sense of wonder and awe that's amiss because one thread is never settled upon as the story jumps from character-to-character in quite a choppy fashion. A more serious tone and a neater script would probably have paid narrative dividends, although the commercial viability of a war-time adventure may have made this project more a post-Ocean's caper than something akin to Steven Soderbergh's more leaden The Good German. But Soderbergh's love note to forties Hollywood war movies also missed the mark and Clooney, who also starred in that film, may have deliberately sought a more buoyant and accessible project that retained poignant overtones and some of the verve found in the likes of Von Ryan's Express, The Great Escape, Kelly's Heroes or The Train. Unfortunately, a lack of forward momentum makes too apparent the shortcomings of The Monuments Men, which isn't to say that some scenes don't carry a touch of poignancy and peril, because there are good moments amidst the clutter; in particular, a scene when John Goodman and Jean Dujardin's characters come across a horse in a field and stop their jeep to have a smoke and reflect, unaware of what they're about to encounter. Or the scene in which Bill Murray, in the middle of a shower, hears a recording being played over the camp speakers -- he says nothing, but conveys with his eyes and facial expressions what Clooney lays on just a bit too thick. I was also a bit nonplussed at two, maybe three scenes, in which Clooney decided to portray Hitler doing absolutely nothing, although he may have wanted a touch-point in respect to the Fuhrer, but this really wasn't necessary. Especially with so much going on already. One aspect of The Monuments Men I thought was very, very good is Alexandre Desplat's atmospheric score, which incorporates a march, comic touches and lovely strings in a more coherent way than Clooney was able to on screen.


Great post :smt023 spot on with your comments.