7thday said:

IMDB plot summary wrote:A young British soldier is accidentally abandoned by his unit following a terrifying riot on the streets of Belfast in 1971. Unable to tell friend from foe, the raw recruit must survive the night alone and find his way to safety through a disorienting, alien and deadly landscape.

Dope (2015)

One of the best films I've seen in 2015, funny, suspenseful and dramatic in equal parts. It's a really good at showing a different side of the black experience, as Dear White People did in 2014. It was a bit too long. But, bonus points for the performances of Zoe Kravitz (I could swear I was watching Lisa Bonet in 1988) and A$AP Rocky. Will hold up as one of the best teen movies ever.

1/2

It's that time again! Another exciting installment of A Movie That I Watched The Last Half Of. And boy, is this one a doozy!

But first, the backstory.

So here I am in northern New Mexico, and my daughter and I decide to go mountain biking. Angel Fire has a GREAT set of trails but they are very hard. I found that out first hand when I fell off a bridge. But luckily not ALL the way off. But man oh man was it a hard crash. I broke my helment - that's how hard it was. I'm not hurt too bad, but every bone in my body is sore. However, I'm more mad that sore. Because up until that stupid wreck, I was in the ZONE. I was riding like nobody's business. I was one with the mountain! It was like I was a motocross racer again. And then BAMMO! Should have never happened, and I had to ride down the mountain one-handed because my left fingers cramped (after I was able to move again, that is).

I get back home, get cleaned up, and shotgun 800mg of Ibuprofren and then settle on the easy chair to not move and watch some TV. I checked the guide and saw that the last of of The Original "The Manchurian Candidate" was on. Hmmmmm, one of my right-wing frat brothers called President Obama the Manchurian Candidate. I knew that wasn't a compliment, but I'd never seen the movie.

HOLY MOLEY IS THIS A GREAT MOVIE!

Everything is perfect! The cast, the plot, the direction. EVERYTHING IS PERFECT. This movie is so good that I'm not going to tell you anything else about it, except this:

YOUR LIFE ISN'T COMPLETE UNTIL YOU'VE WATCHED THE ORIGINAL "THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE".

OK, hope I sold that hard enough. Since I am presently hopped up in Ibuprofren, I give this movie An Entire Bottle of Ibuprofren (since that's what it's going to take to get me in shape for horseback riding Monday and Zip Lining on Tuesday).

Ted 2 - The most things I've heard about this movie was that it was an unnecessary sequel, and for the most part I agree. But even then it had it's moments where I laughed out loud, and it could have turned out much worse than it actually did.

For those who never saw the first movie, Ted is a teddy bear who was given to Mark Wahlberg's character when he was a little kid, and he magically came to life, being able to walk and talk like a human. As time goes on Ted becomes a foul-mouthed bear that smokes and drinks and acts like a red-blooded male idiot. The first movie is about how Ted interferes with Mark Wahlberg's chracter's life as he is juggling a low paying job and a relationship and begrudgingly has to get Ted to move out on his own so he can live his own life.

In this movie Ted marries a woman he met as a co-worker in the grocery store he gets a job at, and after some marital difficulties realizes he wants to start a family. But complications set in, many of which have to do with Ted and his wife's past issues, but the biggest one comes when Ted is ruled not to be human in the eyes of the law. The movie then focuses on Ted going to court to exercise his civil rights to be human. Of course, with Seth MacFarlane playing the voice of Ted and also writing and directing this movie, it has a lot of toilet humor, and not all of the gags make sense. In addition there is a subplot which appears to be tacked on just to create some late drama in the movie. But there are also some inetersting cameos in this movie from Morgan Freeman, Patrick Warburton and Michael Dorn as a gay married couple, and a really goofy one from Liam Neeson.

Neverthless, if you loved the first movie you'll like this one. It's not nearly as good as the first, but you will enjoy some of the more ridiculous moments in the movie. If you hated or avoided the first movie, then don't even bother worrying about this one. If you sort of enjoyed the first movie, you'd be better off renting this when it comes to DVD or Netflix.

Rating: 2.5 out of 4 stars.

Love & Mercy (2015)

Leads the pack for 2015 thus far. Each of the principal actors was nomination-worthy, but Paul Dano was first among equals. I'd think he's a lock for a Best Actor nod.

RodeoSchro said:

I give this movie An Entire Bottle of Ibuprofren

Came across this on crackle.com (free movies [with commercials]; Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee; etc.).

Had seen it years ago (probably when it came out), but decided to give it another whirl.

MINUSES:

• Looks like shit (flat photography and almost amateurish camera-set-ups and editing choices; some unflattering makeup and lighting)
• Unnatural dialogue, which was at least partially responsible for...
• Performances that were mostly stilted and unnatural
• Ludicrous denouement
• Joey Lauren Adams' voice
  

PLUSSES:

• Some very funny lines (even if they don't sound like real people talking)
• It was entertaining and there was some genuine insight into the human psyche.

I'd forgotten how politically-incorrect this film was! Do you think a comedy movie today could get away with heterosexual characters using words like "faggot" and "dyke"? And/or a white filmmaker using that kind of racial humor?

The Seafarers 3 stars out of 5

OK, it's a straight industrial film about the Seafarers Union. But it's interesting to see how Stanley Kubrick got his start in cinema.

Killer's Kiss 5 stars out of 5

Innovative for a 1950s movie (by Stanley Kubrick). Also interesting to see how male/female relationships have changed. And terrific boxing/fight scenes. You can see where Martin Scorsese got Raging Bull.

[Edited 7/19/15 22:54pm]

The Killing 3 stars out of 5

A few silly scenes, but still a well made movie from Stanley Kubrick. You can see what a huge leap forward 2001: A Space Odyssey was.

7 Days in Hell

original release July 11, 2015

Fake HBO documentary about a Wimbledon tennis match that goes on for 7 days starring Andy Samberg and Kit Harrington as the two players. Stupid, dumbass, hilarious waste of 42 minutes. Also a bit absurd and disturbing even for premium cable. 4 out of 5

every since i watched 'bury my heart at wounded knee back in the ( not too distant ) day, i got curious about the real story,

irene bedard plays the central character. the backdrop is non-pretentious and the acting is very good imo.

this is a intense movie. hats off to (departed 2011) mr russell means.

[Edited 7/21/15 12:27pm]

Ant-Man (2015) - Armed with a super-suit with the astonishing ability to shrink in scale but increase in strength, cat burglar Scott Lang must embrace his inner hero and help his mentor, Dr. Hank Pym, plan and pull off a heist that will save the world.

It's one of the better Marvel Studios films--not quite as good as Captain America: Winter Soldier, but I did like it more than Guardians of the Galaxy which I felt was too goofy. The humor worked better in this one. 3.5/5

Lone Survivor 4.5/5

great movie. Powerful. Made me feel inadequate. Made me wish I did more for my great country. Amazing and powerful.

Oh! Free Movie...on Crackle!

Joe Dirt 2.

Joe Dirt is a great movie that did not need a squeal. It was just right as it was. Some compared the narrative of Joe Dirt to that of Forest Gump. GD2 runs with that a little more.

It has many of the similar jokes and has the 'he is telling the story' structure as Joe Dirt. One of the best parts was a Forest Gump like bit in which he meets some people and influences them and then realizes something...kind of touching in a weird way--which is later revisited. (In almost seems that was at some point meant to be a much larger part of the movie)

Anyway it was funny in the same lovable loser way that the original had. 3:5 but it is free check it out.

7thday said:

Inside Out 0 stars out of 5

I thought it w

as a terribly predictable movie. Cliched too. Easily Pixar's worst film.

I have not seen it but i fear I will... I do wonder if it will be useful for people with Autism to help them learn about emotions and expressions of emotions but it may be too abstract.

One think I do not get about the reviews is they call it original: huh No for one Herman's Head.

Driving home from New Mexico today, I watched "Looper". Of course, not while I was driving! I was the co-pilot. And I knew what would happen!

Not in "Looper", but in my viewing. You fathers know how it is - you pop in a DVD, it gets really good, and 5 or 10 minutes before it's over you hear, "Hey, we're stopping right now. Your turn to drive again!" Whaaaaaaaaaat??????????????????????

So I, being The Dad Of The Year, only made my daughter drive an extra 10 miles so I could watch the end of "Looper". Was it worth it?

To me? Kinda!

To my daughter? Probably not!

"Looper" is a time-travel movie. As long-time readers of mine know, I am not generally a fan of time-travel movies. They never make sense. They always end in a loop. But hey! This one is called "Looper" so maybe they figured it out! Or not.

Because, you see, the term "looper" refers to dudes that kill other dudes sent from the future. It's a good life until they send your future self back for you to kill. Which they will; in fact, that's in the job description. You get paid in gold, and you know that you have 30 years left (all future dudes come from 30 years from now). So you party like it's 1999 for 30 years and then you end up sent back 30 years in time with a sack over your head, getting blown away by your past self. Like Joseph Gordon-Levit says, "Guys that take this job aren't real forward-looking guys".

SIDENOTE: How come the future is always grim? The "present" of this movie is 2044 and it sucks. You're either a vagrant, a crook, or a hooker. Or whatever. Has anyone ever made a science fiction movie where the future is cool? I guess I should watch whichever "Back To The Future" movie is set in the future. I'm guessing Marty McFly only lives in a cool future.

ANOTHER SIDENOTE: One of the bad things is that whoever made this movie sold out to Big Tobacco. First they have the always-incredibly-hot Piper Perabo as a hooker, and she smokes. Yuck! And in the montage of Joseph Gordon-Levit growing into Bruce Willis, pretty much all he does for 30 years is smoke. Emily Blunt smokes too, after sex with JGL (sorry, I got tired of typing Joseph Gordon-Levit). The only person that DOESN'T smoke is Bruce Willis, who actually smokes like a chimney in real life.

STILL ANOTHER SIDENOTE: Speaking of Emily Blunt, she's one of those Actresses Who Got Famous About 10 Or 15 Years Ago But I've Never Seen Any Of Her Movies (past members of this club include Kate Beckingsale and Naomi Watts). At this rate, I will be fully caught-up on 2000-era movie stars by 2020. And I'll still be trying to forget I ever saw Jonah Hill in any movie ever.

So the coolest part of this movie is when one of JGL's looper buddies screws up and can't kill his future self. So the future self goes running, as well as the current self. But the current self gets caught by the bad guys, and they start lopping off body parts of the current guy in order to get the future guy to turn himself in. Every time they lop off a current guy body part, that body part falls off the future guy. But in reality, wouldn't have the future guy come back to the past without all those body parts? Because they got lopped off in the past, right? Now you see why the ONLY time travel movie that ever kept from falling apart under its own weight was the Nicholas Cage classic "Next". This movie works because Nicholas Cage can only see 2 minutes into the future. I'm going to watch that movie again soon. It's great.

Then JGL's future self comes back so as JGL can kill him but the future JGL is actually Bruce Willis and NO ONE kills Bruce Willis. So of course he overpowers JGL and then later tells JGL that all this looper-killing is because of a future bad guy named The Rainmaker. Bruce Willis figures that The Rainmaker is one of three small kids living in 2044, and Bruce Willis is going to kill all three kids so that he knows for a fact he's killed The Rainmaker so that the future never happens and all the loopers survive, or something like that. See how confusing time travel movies are?

One thing leads to another and JGL ends up at a desolate farm where the aforementioned Emily Blunt lives with her son, who is one of the three possible The Rainmaker kids. Hey, did you know Emily Blunt is English but is NOT related to English warbler/awesome Twitterer James Blunt? True! It would have been cool if she'd married James Blunt and hypenated her name so that she was Emily Blunt-Blunt, but she married Jim from "The Office" instead.

Bruce Willis kills two kids and then shows up at the farm to kill Kid Number Three, whom JGL has bonded with and who also has some kind of super telekinetic powers. Which means, of course, that Kid Number Three is The Rainmaker. But at this young age, he's still a good kid and not The Rainmaker In Training. Althogh, he yells a guy to death which is cool in this movie, and was also cool in that other movie I saw where dudes yelled other dudes to death. Remember that one? A building fell on the Father Of The Yellers as he was yelling at someone.

Bruce Willis is about to blow away Emily Blunt so that he can get off a clean shot at Kid Number Three when JGL shows up with his Blunderbuss and realizes that the thing that makes Kid Number Three go bad is witnessing Bruce Willis killing his mom in cold blood. So JGL does the only thing he can do, which is SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER turn the Blunderbuss on himself and kill himself.

It's really hilarious though, because a second after JGL kills himself, Bruce Willis looks all confused and then POP! He's gone! So potentially - and the key word is potentially - Kid Number Three doesn't turn evil and become The Rainmaker later on in life. But you never really know. All of this could have been for naught and if you believe in the ridiculous String Theory, it all WAS for naught. At least in about a trillion different futures, it was for naught.

I did enjoy this movie, though. If you turn your brain off and try not to think about how time travel is impossible to comprehend, it's worth the two hours. I liked this movie so much that I re-wrote the SPOILER part - it was originally one of those deals where I told you what happened, adn then said something smart-aleck like "Oooops - guess I should have warned you about that spoiler!"

So the rating system for this movie is SPOILERS and even though there's really only one SPOILER in this movie, I give it 3.5 SPOILERS out of 5 SPOILERS.

sexton said:

Jurassic World (2015) - Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitors' interest, which backfires horribly.

Dinosaurs don't appeal to me I and haven't seen any of the previous Jurassic Park movies, but this wasn't bad. 3/5

really? saw this the other night, thought it deserved the award for worst movie of the year, acting could have been better. Ended up leaving 75 mins in. Never liked 3D films since Captain EO lol

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita 5 stars out of 5

I had no idea this was a comedy when I picked it up. And such a funny one!! 2hrs and 30 minutes of hilarity! Peter Sellers, what a comedy genius!!

RodeoSchro said:

Driving home from New Mexico today, I watched "Looper". Of course, not while I was driving! I was the co-pilot. And I knew what would happen!

Not in "Looper", but in my viewing. You fathers know how it is - you pop in a DVD, it gets really good, and 5 or 10 minutes before it's over you hear, "Hey, we're stopping right now. Your turn to drive again!" Whaaaaaaaaaat??????????????????????

So I, being The Dad Of The Year, only made my daughter drive an extra 10 miles so I could watch the end of "Looper". Was it worth it?

To me? Kinda!

To my daughter? Probably not!

"Looper" is a time-travel movie. As long-time readers of mine know, I am not generally a fan of time-travel movies. They never make sense. They always end in a loop. But hey! This one is called "Looper" so maybe they figured it out! Or not.

Because, you see, the term "looper" refers to dudes that kill other dudes sent from the future. It's a good life until they send your future self back for you to kill. Which they will; in fact, that's in the job description. You get paid in gold, and you know that you have 30 years left (all future dudes come from 30 years from now). So you party like it's 1999 for 30 years and then you end up sent back 30 years in time with a sack over your head, getting blown away by your past self. Like Joseph Gordon-Levit says, "Guys that take this job aren't real forward-looking guys".

SIDENOTE: How come the future is always grim? The "present" of this movie is 2044 and it sucks. You're either a vagrant, a crook, or a hooker. Or whatever. Has anyone ever made a science fiction movie where the future is cool? I guess I should watch whichever "Back To The Future" movie is set in the future. I'm guessing Marty McFly only lives in a cool future.

ANOTHER SIDENOTE: One of the bad things is that whoever made this movie sold out to Big Tobacco. First they have the always-incredibly-hot Piper Perabo as a hooker, and she smokes. Yuck! And in the montage of Joseph Gordon-Levit growing into Bruce Willis, pretty much all he does for 30 years is smoke. Emily Blunt smokes too, after sex with JGL (sorry, I got tired of typing Joseph Gordon-Levit). The only person that DOESN'T smoke is Bruce Willis, who actually smokes like a chimney in real life.

STILL ANOTHER SIDENOTE: Speaking of Emily Blunt, she's one of those Actresses Who Got Famous About 10 Or 15 Years Ago But I've Never Seen Any Of Her Movies (past members of this club include Kate Beckingsale and Naomi Watts). At this rate, I will be fully caught-up on 2000-era movie stars by 2020. And I'll still be trying to forget I ever saw Jonah Hill in any movie ever.

So the coolest part of this movie is when one of JGL's looper buddies screws up and can't kill his future self. So the future self goes running, as well as the current self. But the current self gets caught by the bad guys, and they start lopping off body parts of the current guy in order to get the future guy to turn himself in. Every time they lop off a current guy body part, that body part falls off the future guy. But in reality, wouldn't have the future guy come back to the past without all those body parts? Because they got lopped off in the past, right? Now you see why the ONLY time travel movie that ever kept from falling apart under its own weight was the Nicholas Cage classic "Next". This movie works because Nicholas Cage can only see 2 minutes into the future. I'm going to watch that movie again soon. It's great.

Then JGL's future self comes back so as JGL can kill him but the future JGL is actually Bruce Willis and NO ONE kills Bruce Willis. So of course he overpowers JGL and then later tells JGL that all this looper-killing is because of a future bad guy named The Rainmaker. Bruce Willis figures that The Rainmaker is one of three small kids living in 2044, and Bruce Willis is going to kill all three kids so that he knows for a fact he's killed The Rainmaker so that the future never happens and all the loopers survive, or something like that. See how confusing time travel movies are?

One thing leads to another and JGL ends up at a desolate farm where the aforementioned Emily Blunt lives with her son, who is one of the three possible The Rainmaker kids. Hey, did you know Emily Blunt is English but is NOT related to English warbler/awesome Twitterer James Blunt? True! It would have been cool if she'd married James Blunt and hypenated her name so that she was Emily Blunt-Blunt, but she married Jim from "The Office" instead.

Bruce Willis kills two kids and then shows up at the farm to kill Kid Number Three, whom JGL has bonded with and who also has some kind of super telekinetic powers. Which means, of course, that Kid Number Three is The Rainmaker. But at this young age, he's still a good kid and not The Rainmaker In Training. Althogh, he yells a guy to death which is cool in this movie, and was also cool in that other movie I saw where dudes yelled other dudes to death. Remember that one? A building fell on the Father Of The Yellers as he was yelling at someone.

Bruce Willis is about to blow away Emily Blunt so that he can get off a clean shot at Kid Number Three when JGL shows up with his Blunderbuss and realizes that the thing that makes Kid Number Three go bad is witnessing Bruce Willis killing his mom in cold blood. So JGL does the only thing he can do, which is SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER turn the Blunderbuss on himself and kill himself.

It's really hilarious though, because a second after JGL kills himself, Bruce Willis looks all confused and then POP! He's gone! So potentially - and the key word is potentially - Kid Number Three doesn't turn evil and become The Rainmaker later on in life. But you never really know. All of this could have been for naught and if you believe in the ridiculous String Theory, it all WAS for naught. At least in about a trillion different futures, it was for naught.

I did enjoy this movie, though. If you turn your brain off and try not to think about how time travel is impossible to comprehend, it's worth the two hours. I liked this movie so much that I re-wrote the SPOILER part - it was originally one of those deals where I told you what happened, adn then said something smart-aleck like "Oooops - guess I should have warned you about that spoiler!"

So the rating system for this movie is SPOILERS and even though there's really only one SPOILER in this movie, I give it 3.5 SPOILERS out of 5 SPOILERS.

I really wanted to like this movie. I really, really gave it a chance....but it is so utterly slow and boring!

I haven´t watched the Steven Soderbergh version with George Clooney yet (and I don´t think I ever will, unless it´s on TV), but I remember that George Clooney flipped out when a journalist called his version of Solaris boring....but I bet compared to the classic version the Soderbergh version is probably more interesting.

This one is extremely slooooooooooooow and meandering, the actors don´t look charismatic or interesting at all, the score sucks, and the director focuses on stuff like plants or clouds or waves for what seems like an eternity.

I know Solaris is considered a sci-fi masterpiece, some even call it THE most interesting, most intellectual and BEST sci-fi film ever so that´s why I went and looked for it (mind you, it is from the early 1970s) but words can´t describe how boring I found it while watching.

No disrespect to the late Tarkovsky but this one really didn´t grab me at all.

LeonardZelig said:

sexton said:

Jurassic World (2015) - Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitors' interest, which backfires horribly.

Dinosaurs don't appeal to me I and haven't seen any of the previous Jurassic Park movies, but this wasn't bad. 3/5

really? saw this the other night, thought it deserved the award for worst movie of the year, acting could have been better. Ended up leaving 75 mins in. Never liked 3D films since Captain EO lol

Worst movie of the year is a little harsh. I think a true worst movie of the year would not have had the box office success this movie has had (#3 worldwide of all time behind only Titanic and Avatar).

KoolEaze said:

I really wanted to like this movie. I really, really gave it a chance....but it is so utterly slow and boring!

I haven´t watched the Steven Soderbergh version with George Clooney yet (and I don´t think I ever will, unless it´s on TV), but I remember that George Clooney flipped out when a journalist called his version of Solaris boring....but I bet compared to the classic version the Soderbergh version is probably more interesting.

This one is extremely slooooooooooooow and meandering, the actors don´t look charismatic or interesting at all, the score sucks, and the director focuses on stuff like plants or clouds or waves for what seems like an eternity.

I know Solaris is considered a sci-fi masterpiece, some even call it THE most interesting, most intellectual and BEST sci-fi film ever so that´s why I went and looked for it (mind you, it is from the early 1970s) but words can´t describe how boring I found it while watching.

No disrespect to the late Tarkovsky but this one really didn´t grab me at all.

I tried watching this movie once and fell asleep. But like you said, it's considered to be a sci-fi classic, one of the most critically acclaimed movies ever made so I will give it another chance one day when I'm wide awake. The other Tarkovsky movies I've seen, Andrei Rublev and The Mirror are similarly hard to penetrate, but I did find them interesting ultimately.