Sometimes you just have to take a movie for what it is - mindless action.

Sometimes you just have to take a movie for what it is - mindless action.

And that's exactly why I'm glad I've been warned about this one, so I can save my time and money. I'm going to see The Ides of March later on today - directed by George Clooney and with Ryan Goslimng, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Geroge Clooney starring.

I'll let you know later what I think of it.

Watched Toy Story 3 yesterday afternoon, was left feeling a bit Meh, nowhere near as good as the first 2!

Or am I getting to old for these films

Moi can you let me know if the Ides of March is worth going to see?

Will do! I was a bit dubious about George Clooney's direction, till I saw Goodnight and Good Luck and thought it was excellent.

To me there's nothing wrong with a movie that's pure entertainment and escapism, when it's done right. It's just that it's very hard to do it right. I usually try to just watch the movie and analyse it later, but if the movie is bad enough, I have to entertain myself by focusing on the technical side of things or some other secondary factor. If a movie can keep me entertained and immersed in the movie's world, I don't care what the genre is.

---

Watchmen happened to be on the telly last night, so I watched it for the second time(I've seen it in a cinema once). It's weird that for a director who often goes for style over substance, it's the style that doesn't work in this one. Don't get me wrong, there are some great moments, like the title sequence montage with Dylan's "Times They Are A-Changing". It shows just what kind of a world it is that the story takes place in and what has happened in the past(it's very much an alternate history). One thing that I don't like is the use of super slow motion. Well, it looks cool in some places, but when it's used ALL THE TIME, it gets old and annoying pretty fast. For some reason the overly graphic violence didn't bother me as much as it did the first time 'round, which might be because I expected to see it and because it's not quite as "in your face" when you're watching it on the small screen. I usually hate it when the consequences of violence are played down(it gives people the wrong idea of what shooting and hitting can do), but here it seems like it's just for shock value and they're presented in a way that violence is supposed to look cool(in a brutal kind of way). I've read the original graphic novel(which I suggest everyone should at least try reading*), but I don't want to spoil the graphic novel or the movie for anyone, so I won't go into detail about the differences in the movie compared to the source material and I won't go into detail about the plot. I'll just mention the one thing that irritated me, which is Rorschach's voice. It's not as over the top as the Batman growl in the new Batman movies, but it reminded me of it. It's just that it doesn't help the movie when the narrator speaks with a voice that makes you(as the viewer) cringe.

* In 2005 it was the only graphic novel(or a comic book if you want to call it that) that was included on Time's "All-TIME Greatest 100 Novels" -list. And it was listed as one of the best novels printed in the last 25 years in 2008. Try to look past the superhero costumes, because it's not what it's (all) about. The story is about so much more, it's just the setting.

---

I was a bit dubious about George Clooney's direction, till I saw Goodnight and Good Luck and thought it was excellent.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it. I wasn't expecting much, although I'd heard good things about it. I don't think I'd read any reviews before I saw it, though. I was still in school when it came out and my schedule at the time sometimes allowed me to go see movies during the midweek early screenings(they were cheaper, which suited me) and when I lived just a few blocks away from the nearest cinema, I went there fairly often. My flatmate was between jobs at the moment, so we went to see the first possible screening of it(I think it was around 11am, or something). Oh, I miss those carefree days when I was still studying. Not to mention that Chelsea was right in the middle of the best part of Mourinho's era back then. Carefree indeed.

Real Steel. Loved it.

And that's exactly why I'm glad I've been warned about this one, so I can save my time and money. I'm going to see The Ides of March later on today - directed by George Clooney and with Ryan Goslimng, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Geroge Clooney starring.

I'll let you know later what I think of it.

Ides of March is excellent. You'll both love it.

Watched Toy Story 3 yesterday afternoon, was left feeling a bit Meh, nowhere near as good as the first 2!

Or am I getting to old for these films

I found myself really nostalgic and sad mourning my lost youth at the end of it.

Sometimes you just have to take a movie for what it is - mindless action.

Allow me to unburden myself of some opinions.

I meant it when I wrote that nobody can tell you you're wrong about your own tastes. Love it or hate it, your opinion belongs to you. Tastes change as we age. Love a movie today and hate it tomorrow? You're right both times.

If I love a movie I try to figure out why. If I hate it, I try to figure out why.

I hated Taken. It has no heart. It's a glued-together collection of cliches dressed up with very slick action sequences. I found it manipulative and empty.

Doesn't mean I'm a Great Thinker and that action films are beneath me. I have a thoroughly mediocre intellect and pedestrian tastes.

One of my favorite films of all time is The Terminator. Not because of the pseudo high-minded man-vs.-machine future. I loved the idea of Terminator himself. The personification/mechanization of pure evil. Unstoppable, no conscience, no remorse. Life can feel like that sometimes. Weak humans against it. Fantastic. Also, I loved the self-aware sly humor. Like when Terminator drives up to the house of his first victim and his front wheel crushes a child's toy. What a great little touch! To me, Terminator reached into my lizard-brain and fears more powerfully than did Frankenstein, Freddy Kruger or some other monster.

Watched Tree of Life the other day. Hated it. Punched it out of the DVR early. I think I understood the central concept of grace versus nature. I think I understood the concept of Jobian tests. At first, it was beautiful and thought provoking. But I get offended when a director wastes my time. It dragged. Too many scenes of Man Pondering in a Landscape. Too many shots of the sun blinlking through leaves. I thought Terence Malick was being self-indulgent at my expense. In revenge, I stopped watching.

Call me low brow, I don't care. It's my opinion. And I'm right. If I change my mind later, I'll be right then, too.

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by wxwax

Dear Low Brow

It may be advisable for you to avoid Faulkner, Joyce, Heidegger, Beckett, Robbe Grillet among many others....

Moi - the college in the last scene is where I went to undergraduate at! Xavier University! I enjoyed that movie.

Finally saw "Attack the Block" today. Loved it. That's all I will say.

Wxwax is quite right about tastes - nobody has better taste than anyone else. Well, except that everyone on this site has better taste than anyone on RAWK, that's a given!

Having said that, if you like action films, you are unlikely to enjoy The Ides Of March. I thought it was very good indeed. I don't want to give away the plot, so in general terms, naive innocence meets corruption in American politics. But not gross in your face corruption - subtle corruption from a candidate who is seen as having more integrity than anyone has had for a long time. Shifts of power can take place within a conversation, so subtle are the hints and verbal threats. Excellent acting from Ryan Gosling and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

The whole film takes place in a few days in the run up to a presidential primary in Ohio. One scene incredibly takes place within a closed car. You watch in silence. Hoffman gets into the car and when he gets out a few moments later you know what has happened without having heard the conversation.

I particularly liked the control and moderation of this film. It chose not to go for the jugular, not to make a huge exposé of American politics, but to put a magnifying glass to one small potential scandal and expose the betrayals and cynical shifts of power that ensued.

Very good review Moi, have you ever considered it as a career??

Film 2012 with Moi!!!

The Girl Next Door... based on a true story of a teenage girl who was tortured to death by the woman she was living with and her kids. It was well made but very disturbing. Don't think I'll be in a hurry to watch it again.

First time I've ever seen it and really enjoyed 'Good Will Hunting' on Sky Atlantic the other night. All 3 major casts were good: Minnie Driver, Matt Damon, Ben Afleck and the great Robin Williams...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/

Hugo

Asa Butterfield

Chloe Grace Moretz

Ben Kingsley

Sacha Baron Cohen

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Hugo is a gorgeous movie. Director Martin Scorsese, a man noted for his visual flair, is fascinated by 3D technology and wanted to play with it.

Hugo is the result. It's a treat for the eyes. Largely set in a train station and a seedy Parisian neighborhood, the film has a warm and colorful palette and a wholly complete vision of what its environment should look like. There's an enormous amount of CG (computer-generated graphics.) But that's OK. This is a fairy tale, really. And it's almost understood that fairy tales take place in a different, more wondrous world.

If only the story were as coherent as the visuals.

For the first two acts, Hugo is about an orphaned boy who lives inside the walls of the train station. It's about his only friend, a girl, and his attempts to repair a mechanical man whose mechanism he thinks holds a message from his departed dad.

A nice story, but it never really catches fire.

(Spoiler Alert)

Scorsese brings the heat, marvelously, in the third act. Unfortunately, in the process he hijacks his own story. Abruptly, the film becomes about the person who built the mechanical man. In the process, Scorsese delves into the history of cinema. This is a passion of his and it shows. It's a great 3rd act, especially for someone who's interested in film history, as I am.

But it displaces the focus of the story. And this, for me, breaks the movie. Personally, I'd rather have watched a movie composed entirely of the third act. But as I'm sure Scorsese was aware, that wouldn't have been commercially viable.

The performances are a bit uneven. Ben Kingsley, as a shop owner in the station, owns the screen. He's consistently a great actor and he puts the others a bit to shame. Except for Sacha Baron Cohen, that is, who's unexpectedly (and to me, unrecognizably) good as the mean station master. He's a good villain, with just the right amount of humanity to offset his cruelty. The two younger protagonists are merely OK, which again weakens what is supposed to be the central story.

I liked Hugo. But I don't agree with the critical praise the movie has received. Visually, it's a true masterpiece. But in a traditional film such as this, the visuals exist to tell the story. And for me, the story is flawed.

Edited January 11, 201214 yr by wxwax

The Girl Next Door... based on a true story of a teenage girl who was tortured to death by the woman she was living with and her kids. It was well made but very disturbing. Don't think I'll be in a hurry to watch it again.

I think I prefer the one with Elisha Cuthbert better with the same title!

Continuing down my list in anticipation of what is going to be up for Academy Awards, I saw "Moneyball" last night. I liked it, probably give it a B though. Everyone is going on about how Brad Pitt could finally win his Oscar this year, but I didn't think he was anything special. He was good, as he often is, but of his likely competitors I like Gary Oldman and George Clooney better right now.

"Warrior" is next on my list.

Has anybpdy seen J.Edgar? I'm thinking of going to see it tomorrow.

Saw a movie yesterday that I should have seen ages ago - Schindler's List

Talk about a brilliant movie and it had me in tears more than once. And while all the actors were great in it, Ben Kingsley was absolutely amazing. Some of the scenes with him almost took my breath away.

And that scene at Auschwitz (those who have seen it knows what I'm talking about) must be one of the most brilliant, but horrible, scenes I've ever seen in a movie. More scary than most scenes you see in horror movies.

Continuing down my list in anticipation of what is going to be up for Academy Awards, I saw "Moneyball" last night. I liked it, probably give it a B though. Everyone is going on about how Brad Pitt could finally win his Oscar this year, but I didn't think he was anything special. He was good, as he often is, but of his likely competitors I like Gary Oldman and George Clooney better right now.

Clooney turned in another really good performance in The Descendants. I'll get around to writing some notes on it sometime. Good film, though.

I've been wanting to see Moneyball.

Saw a movie yesterday that I should have seen ages ago - Schindler's List

Talk about a brilliant movie and it had me in tears more than once. And while all the actors were great in it, Ben Kingsley was absolutely amazing. Some of the scenes with him almost took my breath away.

And that scene at Auschwitz (those who have seen it knows what I'm talking about) must be one of the most brilliant, but horrible, scenes I've ever seen in a movie. More scary than most scenes you see in horror movies.

Fantastic movie. I may never watch it a second time. It's just too powerful. I agree about the Auschwitz scene. That final scene killed me. I was crying for quite a while. It's been 18 years since I saw it and I still feel the emotional impact.

So I saw "Warrior" tonight....and "Exit Through The Gift Shop" earlier today.

I knew I'd love "Exit" and I did. Just a really entertaining 90 minutes, highly recommend.

Onto "Warrior", wow. There are few things I could care less about than UFC/MMA fighting. I just never got into it, and usually drift off whenever any of my friends start discussing it. When this movie was advertised back in September, I remember thinking it looked like the same movies they've been pumping out the last couple of years on the sport, so I ignored it. Then I started hearing good stuff about it, so I gave it a go.

Nick Nolte needs to be getting an Oscar nomination for supporting actor. Tom Hardy is becoming one of my favorite actors. I was in tears at the end. The movie did nothing new, is derivative of Rocky, The Fighter, etc. but it does what it does well. It's definitely going in my top 10 list (post forthcoming, I'm still behind on too many movies to make a fair list at the moment).

cowboys and aliens - the title tells you everything

good fun action film, although i would have liked to have seen james bond and indiana jones kicking arse on screen together alot more ! the director seemed to keep their characters very seperate for some reason

So, I went to see J. Edgar today, and wished I hadn't bothered. It leapt backwards and forwards in time with dizzying abandon. A potentially very interesting story was at times painfully turgid.

The aging process for Hoover and more particularly his friend Tolson at times made them look like wax dummies. Judi Dench played her part (Edgar's manipulative mother) very well.

Hoover's obsession with communism and his incredible personal hubris came over well, but aaa in all I found the film very disappointing and i will be amazed if it gets any oscars.

In fact, it highlighted for me how good the George Clooney film (IdesOf March) I saw at the beginning of the week was.