sexton said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Any nudity? lol

Yes, male nudity.

In which movie?

214 said:

sexton said:

Yes, male nudity.

In which movie?

This one:

thekidsgirl said:

American Honey

This kind of let me down. It was overly long for the point it was trying to make; yet still, I left feeling kind of disconnected from the main character somehow. Riley Keough nailed her character though.

3/5

>

[Edited 10/18/16 15:27pm]

The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do The Time Warp Again (2016) is the Fox reboot of the much loved cult classic 1975 film (that I have seen so many times, that I know all the dialogue and the lyrics to all the songs ) I wanted to give this film a chance because not all remakes suck eg. The Magnificent Seven (2016) and the recent Grease and The Wiz live television productions proved that new versions of classics can work. On a positive note, I loved seeing Tim Curry as the narrator/criminologist, and the sets and costumes looked really amazing....but having said that I found this version to be too sanitized in a High School: The Musical kind of way (which also incidently was directed by Kenny Ortega). Also I think the performances by some of the key players would have been alot better if the show was shot live, and although Laverne Cox first outing in musical was a solid effort, I still think she played it a bit too safe. But then again no one will be able to top the iconic performance by Tim Curry as Dr. Frank-N-Furter (who also played the role on stage in the UK and US). Finally, I did notice that there was no mention of canabalism at the dinner scene, a sexual relationship reference between Riff Raff and his sister Magenta was omitted, and Rocky wore boxer shorts instead of a gold speedo

I give this reboot a 2 out of 5 it wasn't a disaster and it was entertaining, and I think what it will do is get people to seek out the original and superior version (which I give it a 5 out of 5 ) thus gaining another new generation of fans.

[Edited 10/22/16 18:57pm]

Friday night we trundled over to a Movie N Booze theater near our office to watch the latest Jack Reacher film, "Never Go Back". And I never will!

I did NOT like this theater. The food was bad. The chairs were substandard. You know those commercials they show before the previews start? All we had was sound - no picture. I'd like to tell you that the booze was good but I didn't have any.

That's right - I watched this movie clean and sober.

Why did I do that?!?!?!?!?!?

Having a clear mind meant I kept comparing the movie to the book. And like the first Jack Reacher movie, this flick was "loosely based" on the book. The plots were different, the characters were different, the settings were different. But do you know what was the same?

Jack Reacher kicked a lot of butts! But still...

Look - I've read every Jack Reacher novel. All of them at least twice, and many of them three times. I guess there are 15 books and each book is about 500 pages, so that's 7,500 pages of Jack Reacher kicking butt. Do you know what NEVER HAPPENS in those 7,500 pages of Jack Reacher kicking butt?

Jack Reacher never gets HIS butt kicked! Ever! Oh sure - he gets captured every now and then, but he always fights his way out of it.

Well, in this movie Jack Reacher gets his butt kicked. Twice. Once, he's able to recover but the other time he has to be saved by a woman. To quote my fourth-favorite presidential candidate - WRONG.

Not so much that he gets saved by a woman, but that he gets saved at all. What I love most about the Reacher novels is that HE NEVER LOSES. He wins every fight, and he generally wins them in two punches or less. He breaks out of every predicament, and does it quickly. Jack Reacher novels are non-stop stories where Jack Reacher is kicking butt, all day every day.

So when Reacher got whipped in a fight, I was screaming "No! No! No! Reacher never loses! No one hardly ever even gets a punch in!" This did not go over as well as I thought it would. I guess my fellow patrons were not book readers.

But enough about my troubles. YOU have probably never read a Jack Reacher book (what's your problem?!?) so YOU would have no idea about various Reacher-related inaccuracies. All YOU want to know is this - was this movie worth my $15?

Yep! It's still a good movie. Tom Cruise does an excellent job. The female lead does an excellent job, too. There are a few plot holes, and a glaring mistake in that the actual bad guy is never introduced until right before he goes down (was that a spoiler? Should I have typed SPOILER ALERT? I don't think so), but all in all it's a good action movie.

I rate "Never Go Back" with 3 Guys Seeing Stars out of a possible 5 Guys Seeing Stars.

The Birth of a Nation (2016) - Nat Turner, a literate slave and preacher in the antebellum South, orchestrates an uprising.

It's a powerful story of course, but the execution was fairly conventional. I expected a more revolutionary-looking film given the subject matter. 3.5/5

RodeoSchro said:

EmmaMcG said:

RodeoSchro said:

Friday night we trundled over to a Movie N Booze theater near our office to watch the latest Jack Reacher film, "Never Go Back". And I never will!

I did NOT like this theater. The food was bad. The chairs were substandard. You know those commercials they show before the previews start? All we had was sound - no picture. I'd like to tell you that the booze was good but I didn't have any.

That's right - I watched this movie clean and sober.

Why did I do that?!?!?!?!?!?

Having a clear mind meant I kept comparing the movie to the book. And like the first Jack Reacher movie, this flick was "loosely based" on the book. The plots were different, the characters were different, the settings were different. But do you know what was the same?

Jack Reacher kicked a lot of butts! But still...

Look - I've read every Jack Reacher novel. All of them at least twice, and many of them three times. I guess there are 15 books and each book is about 500 pages, so that's 7,500 pages of Jack Reacher kicking butt. Do you know what NEVER HAPPENS in those 7,500 pages of Jack Reacher kicking butt?

Jack Reacher never gets HIS butt kicked! Ever! Oh sure - he gets captured every now and then, but he always fights his way out of it.

Well, in this movie Jack Reacher gets his butt kicked. Twice. Once, he's able to recover but the other time he has to be saved by a woman. To quote my fourth-favorite presidential candidate - WRONG.

Not so much that he gets saved by a woman, but that he gets saved at all. What I love most about the Reacher novels is that HE NEVER LOSES. He wins every fight, and he generally wins them in two punches or less. He breaks out of every predicament, and does it quickly. Jack Reacher novels are non-stop stories where Jack Reacher is kicking butt, all day every day.

So when Reacher got whipped in a fight, I was screaming "No! No! No! Reacher never loses! No one hardly ever even gets a punch in!" This did not go over as well as I thought it would. I guess my fellow patrons were not book readers.

But enough about my troubles. YOU have probably never read a Jack Reacher book (what's your problem?!?) so YOU would have no idea about various Reacher-related inaccuracies. All YOU want to know is this - was this movie worth my $15?

Yep! It's still a good movie. Tom Cruise does an excellent job. The female lead does an excellent job, too. There are a few plot holes, and a glaring mistake in that the actual bad guy is never introduced until right before he goes down (was that a spoiler? Should I have typed SPOILER ALERT? I don't think so), but all in all it's a good action movie.

I rate "Never Go Back" with 3 Guys Seeing Stars out of a possible 5 Guys Seeing Stars.

I love your reviews I've been feeling really sick lately so to take my mind off it, my cousin insisted I get out of the house, even if it's just to go to the cinema. So, we went to see Jack Reacher. If there's one thing guaranteed to make me feel better, it's Tom Cruise. And he didn't disappoint. I really liked the first one and even though I don't think this one is as good, I still liked it.

Thank you! I'm glad you liked the movie. I hope you feel better!

I saw this movie 10 days ago, but haven't been online until now.

I'd rate it 4 out of 5, thought it was very good but not great. There was a nice balance between story line and action, and of course Ben did another great performance. He's clearly one of the best actors around today.

Requiem for a dream... interesting film - worthy of a rainy Sunday night

Life Of Pi 3D. A- First time seeing it. Just a splendid movie on all accounts.

Ma Ma B+ A really touching story. Cruz and Tosar were amazing together. It's on Amazon Prime Video.

[Edited 10/24/16 13:56pm]

Miles Ahead 3.5/5 It wasn't what I expected, though not sure what I was expecting. Love Don Cheadle. Should have seen it last year I'm getting too much blurred.

My grandson was mesmorized by the music I saw that.

[Edited 10/24/16 12:31pm]

Connected said:

Requiem for a dream... interesting film - worthy of a rainy Sunday night

A great film specially the end, the Sarah's scene when her two friends go to see her, and afterwards the are seen sitting, huggin each other, crying for her; it's one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever. Sarah's talk with his son, when she confesses to him, that she feels lonely... great and beautiful performance from her.

En man som heter Ove / A Man Called Ove (2015) - Ove, an ill-tempered, isolated retiree who spends his days enforcing block association rules and visiting his wife's grave, has finally given up on life just as an unlikely friendship develops with his boisterous new neighbors.

Emotionally manipulative, but I totally fell for it. 4/5

[Edited 10/24/16 15:01pm]

214 said:

Connected said:

Requiem for a dream... interesting film - worthy of a rainy Sunday night

A great film specially the end, the Sarah's scene when her two friends go to see her, and afterwards the are seen sitting, huggin each other, crying for her; it's one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever. Sarah's talk with his son, when she confesses to him, that she feels lonely... great and beautiful performance from her.

I just happened upon it...not knowing anything about it

Excellent performances all round - Leto, Burstyn, Connelly (who I have a real crush on) & Wayans

I liked the photography and short editing

The "ass-to-ass" was messed up!

Touching and heartbreaking film indeed.

Connected said:

214 said:

A great film specially the end, the Sarah's scene when her two friends go to see her, and afterwards the are seen sitting, huggin each other, crying for her; it's one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever. Sarah's talk with his son, when she confesses to him, that she feels lonely... great and beautiful performance from her.

I just happened upon it...not knowing anything about it

Excellent performances all round - Leto, Burstyn, Connelly (who I have a real crush on) & Wayans

I liked the photography and short editing

The "ass-to-ass" was messed up!

Touching and heartbreaking film indeed.

Sorry, don't understand that expression, what does that mean?

214 said:

Connected said:

I just happened upon it...not knowing anything about it

Excellent performances all round - Leto, Burstyn, Connelly (who I have a real crush on) & Wayans

I liked the photography and short editing

The "ass-to-ass" was messed up!

Touching and heartbreaking film indeed.

Sorry, don't understand that expression, what does that mean?

There's a scene where two females "perform" for a bunch of men. On all fours, they work opposite ends of a dildo.

Ace said:

214 said:

Sorry, don't understand that expression, what does that mean?

There's a scene where two females "perform" for a bunch of men. On all fours, they work opposite ends of a dildo.

It means you just found that scene randomly?

214 said:

Ace said:

There's a scene where two females "perform" for a bunch of men. On all fours, they work opposite ends of a dildo.

It means you just found that scene randomly?

It's a venacular 214...

I happened upon the film...

I stumbled upon it... it just crossed my path...

Just love weird words and idioms... and finding films/art/music and anything else in daily life...

EmmaMcG said:

Just rewatched Batman (1989) again last night. Still the best live action Batman movie in my opinion. Perfect casting all around and in Jack Nicholson it has the greatest Joker this side of Mark Hamill. Special praise for Michael Keaton too. He was given a lot of abuse by the nerds when he took the role but he made it his own. To me, he will always be Batman. The movie is also a reminder that prior to this century, Tim Burton used to be good.

right? i took my son last week to see 'ms. peregrine's school for harry potter's x-men'...my, how the mighty have fallen. i don't think i've enjoyed tim burton since 'big fish'; and i didn't like that too much.

but, yes, 'batman' is awesome. on paper, you'd never expect it to work. everything came together onscreen, though.

I like a few Tim Burton-directed movies post-2000:

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (I never cared for Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka)

Corpse Bride

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Frankenweenie (2012)

sexton said:

EmmaMcG said:

sexton said:

I like a few Tim Burton-directed movies post-2000:

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (I never cared for Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka)

Corpse Bride

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Frankenweenie (2012)

I didn't mind Corpse Bride. Didn't particularly like it either. The other movies you mentioned are sickeningly bad though. Though that is just my opinion.

They were all favorably reviewed by critics and the public alike so "sickeningly bad" is clearly just your opinion.

sexton said:

EmmaMcG said:

Yup. Just my opinion. As I stated originally. I don't pay much attention to how a movie is received by others. My opinion is the only one that matters to me. After all, I'm the only one who can determine whether I like something or not. Though I don't remember these movies being well received. In fact, wasn't the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on some list of worst remakes? I think it might have been one of those watch mojo lists. But they have their opinions, I have mine and you have yours. All are equally valid.

Except for mine. Mine is MORE valid.

Just kidding

I knew a lecture about opinions was coming.

My post was for people reading this thread who may be on the fence about seeing those movies letting them know that they shouldn't be scared away by your "sickeningly bad" critique because most people who have seen those movies liked them.

sexton said:

EmmaMcG said:

sexton said:

I knew a lecture about opinions was coming.

My post was for people reading this thread who may be on the fence about seeing those movies letting them know that they shouldn't be scared away by your "sickeningly bad" critique because most people who have seen those movies liked them.

Lecture on opinions?

I'm sure people can make up their own minds about whether they want to see a movie or not. I doubt anyone who may be on the fence will read this and go "Emma thought those movies were boring, devoid of personality and seem as though they were made by a Tim Burton impersonator, I think I'll give them a miss". Likewise, people won't say "Sexton seems unusually upset about Em's negative reviews of these movies, maybe I should watch these straight away and see if I agree".

Neither of us hold much sway with the org. If people want to watch something, they'll watch it. If they don't, they won't.

I'm not talking about the people who know they want to watch something and the people who know they don't. I'm talking about the people who aren't sure. Because there have been some in the past who have said they decided to see or not see a movie based on what they read in these threads.

What makes you think I'm "unusually upset"? Is it because I don't add happy emoticons to every post?

sexton said:

EmmaMcG said:

sexton said:

I'm not talking about the people who know they want to watch something and the people who know they don't. I'm talking about the people who aren't sure. Because there have been some in the past who have said they decided to see or not see a movie based on what they read in these threads.

What makes you think I'm "unusually upset"? Is it because I don't add happy emoticons to every post?

No, it's because you're saying things like "I knew a lecture on opinions was coming" despite no such lecture having taken place. Not to mention the way you keep this conversation going. You must feel very passionately about Tim Burton's post 2000 work. Hey, maybe you ARE Tim Burton. In which case, I have a request. Please don't fuck up Beetlejuice 2.

My happy face emoticons reflect my mood. I'm not chastising you for having an opinion that differs to mine. Nor am I lecturing anyone. I don't see this topic as being particularly serious as I don't care who watches these movies and who doesn't. Nor do I care if anyone else shares my views on them if they do watch them.

It was a short lecture, but one nonetheless. Of course everyone has opinions and they are all valid. Who doesn't know that?

All I did was say I like some Tim Burton-directed movies after 2000 and then agreed with you that your negative review of them was just your opinion although many others disagree, but that seems to have bothered you.

You may not care if anyone shares your views on films (however I doubt that after this long back-and-forth), but I see what you do care about is having the last word here so you can post a final zinger and I won't revisit this thread until after I see another movie.

[Edited 10/27/16 8:01am]

sexton said: