purplethunder3121 said:

Ace said:

I saw this movie many years ago (so my recollection is hazy), but wouldn't the PC folk be up in arms if a film like this were made today? Could it even get greenlighted?

Probably not--it isn't PC. But it deals with how people actually act, both young and old in a real way. Too bad a film like this wouldn't be made now--unless it was an indie with big backing.

Just the other day, I was having a conversation about how this PC-madness is making it increasingly difficult to depict three-dimensional characters in film. With the exception of characters with redemption arcs,

showing a lead who exhibits any politically-incorrect behavior as anything less than villainous will probably bring out some group or other's picket signs.

And it's fucking killing comedy. Like, can you name any favorite comedic films of yours that have zero politically-incorrect moments?

gandorb said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Probably not--it isn't PC. But it deals with how people actually act, both young and old in a real way. Too bad a film like this wouldn't be made now--unless it was an indie with big backing.

It's a real hoot. I saw it again a couple of years ago after seeing it during the original theatrical run. Made me miss Walter Mathieu.

Did you see that remake with Billy Bob Thornton? I never have, myself.

Empress said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Saw The Bad News Bears on TV last night. Don't know why I remembered Jody Foster being in it instead of Tatum O'Neal. Why don't they make kid movies like this any more. 5/5

This was a great movie. I remember seeing it at the theatre when I was a kid. They don't make movies like this anymore as kids today would be bored out of their minds. By 5-6 years old, they've already seen so much shit on tv, video games and the internet. Something like Bad News Bears wouldn't interest them much. Very sad indeed. Also, every kid today would make the team because God knows, we can't let anyone feel left out

JoeBala said:

Lucy B+ Enjoyed the story and looking forward to the sequel.

This was on TV, so I watched the first 30 mins., or so.

The premise intrigued me and I like Scarlett. Will try and catch the rest of it, at some point. This is the first I've heard that they're working on a sequel (I thought it didn't do that well at the box office - guess I was wrong!).

Isle Of Dogs 8/10
Charmingly adorable. Another classic.

We just came back from watching "A Quiet Place". You know how excited I was to watch this, right? I was like:




Well, let me tell you something!

THIS IS A STUPID MOVIE.

Do you want to read further? I'm telling you right now that if you do, you will know all the reasons why this is a stupid movie. Or at least, most of them. I'm pretty drunk right now. I might forget some of the stupidity. Good thing this site has an "Edit" function!

SPOILERS COMING SPOILERS COMING SPOILERS COMING SPOILERS COMING

Here is the premise of the movie: There are monsters that find you and eat you if you make any sound. You'd think that would be a hard premise to screw up but...

The movie begins on "Day 89" with Jim from "The Office" and his family shopping in a deserted store. A pharmacy, actually. They are being very, very quiet. The youngest son needs some prescription medicine. But luckily, there is some in the pharmacy. Yay! The boy is OK - for now. Ooooh, foreshadowing!

He takes a space shuttle toy and Jim from "The Office" takes the batteries out and tells the boy through sign language, "NO. TOO LOUD". But unbeknownst to Jim from "The Office", his daughter retrieves the toy and gives it to the young son. And the batteries, too. Guess what happens next?

On the way home, the boy takes out the space shuttle and turns it on. Before Jim from "The Office" can save him, the monsters eat him. Bummer! This makes his daughter - who is deaf, by the way - feel very guilty.

Now, let's talk about that daughter. It seems to me that if one is deaf, then one does not know what sound is. Therefore, one does not know what causes sound, right? And yet, the deaf daughter knows what makes sound and what doesn't. This seems illogical to me. And I am nothing if not logical. And still slightly drunk.

I forgot to mention - we went to the local Booze and Chow LITE to see this one. It's "Booze and Chow LITE" because it's been revamped. They still serve food but you have to go get it, and then you eat it in your seat, which has a desk on it like you had in elementary school. I was in a bad mood (dont ask why), so I said, "Forget the food, just bring me a bottle of wine". And then I spilled most of my third glass of wine on my leg. This did not help my mood any. Back to the movie.

So anyway, the youngest son is eaten on Day 89. Then we jump to Day 470 or so. This is important. While there are very few words spoken in this flick, the mathematics here is going to play a big part on the stupidity of this movie. Why, you ask?

No, really - ask "Why?"

Have you asked "Why?" yet? I hope so, because I'm going to tell you "Why".

Because Jim from "The Office"'s wife, his real-life wife Emily Blunt - is pregnant and due to give birth in about three weeks. Let's break this down:

First, how do you have sex when you can make no noise whatsoever? C'mon! It's impossible! At least, for me. And that's as far as we're going with that.

Second, WHAT THE F*&^?!? Dude - how do you get your wife pregnant when you know that the baby is going to almost certainly be Monster Food? Because there is no such thing as a Silent Baby. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it. And yet - Jim from "The Office" has planted his seed, and Emily Blunt is about to pop it out. But they have a plan!

It's a stupid plan, though. The plan is to go to their basement, which has electricity. In fact, their whole secluded farmhouse and surrounding field has electricity. How?!? The basement office/mad laboratory of Jim from "The Office" is covered in newspaper articles about how the monsters are eating everyone. Who's running the power plant?!? This is a point that is NEVER addressed.

In fact, Jim from "The Office" spends a lot of time in his basement, trying to contact someone, anyone, with his Morse Code radio. No one ever answers. BUT...one day, Jim from "The Office" and his two remaining kids are walking through the woods, going by a house that is obviously within walking distance of their secluded farmhouse, when they see an old guy. You know what I yelled, right?

"HEY, IT'S CREED!"



But it wasn't. It was just an old dude whose wife had apparently just been eaten by a monster. But how could Jim from "The Office" and his family not know - after almost 500 days - that they had some neighbors who were alive?!? See - this movie is STUPID.

Not-Creed is so broken up by his half-eaten wife that he starts yelling, because he wants to be eaten too. Wish granted! But Jim from "The Office" and his kids hide behind a tree and are safe.

Jim from "The Office" has some safe spaces. They are: (1) the top of what turns out to be a grain silo; and (2) underneath a waterfall. Let's take these in reverse order.

Jim from "The Office" takes his son to the waterfall. It's so loud that Jim from "The Office" and his son can actually talk. The waterfall covers up their voices. I bet you're thinking what I'm thinking - why don't they build a house there? Or at least a birthing center! But no, that thought never crosses the mind of Jim from "The Office".

Now, about that grain silo. Jim from "The Office" goes to the top of it to burn signal fires and look for other people. He never sees any, not even Creed. But we find out it's a grain silo when his son and daughter go up there to hide, and the son falls through a panel and into a vat of grain. Which is, of course, basically quicksand. He's sinking and is surely going to drown in grain but his sister jumps in and saves him, but she begins drowning in grain, too. However, little brother saves her - just in time to be attacked by a monster. Which is exactly what I was urging to have happen!

It would be a great "Tremors"-like solution - lure the monsters into the grain and let them sink and drown in it! But somehow, the monster does not sink or drown in the grain. He should have, but he doesn't. However, he can't find the kids because they're hiding in the grain. Again with the stupidity.

While all this is happening, Emily Blunt is giving birth in a bathtub while being pursued by a monster. She somehow evades it, and places the baby in a box, but it's OK because they have an oxygen mask and tube for the baby. The waterfall idea would have been much easier.

Jim from "The Office"'s daughter is deaf, as I said earlier, and Jim from "The Office" had been tinkering with hearing aids. None of them worked, but she kept the latest version in her ear. She finds out by accident that when the hearing aid is turned way up, the high note is like a gunshot to the monsters. So...you know where this is going...right? Sure! Just play this song through your hi-fi!



It's got the same tone! Prince is going to kill the monsters!

I wish.

It was about this time in the movie where I spilled the wine on my leg. I screamed "AIIII-OOOOHHHHH-WAHHHHH!" It had a double meaning at the time.

After living through the grain silo episode, the son and daughter try to make it back home but a monster shows up. They take refuge in an old pick-up truck but the monster is about to eat the truck, and then eat them. Jim from "The Office" shows up, sign languages that he loves his daughter and always had (in order to assuage her guilt from getting her other brother eaten by the monster back on Day 89), and then yells. He becomes the main course. Goodbye, Jim from "The Office"!

The kids make it back to the farmhouse but don't really have time to welcome their new baby brother, as a monster has followed them to the basement. But the daughter, who presumably now is no longer bearing the guilt of getting one of her brothers killed but now has the guilt of getting her dad killed, places her defective hearing aid into the microphone that for some reason Jim from "The Office" had in his basement, even though he could NEVER USE IT OR HE WOULD DIE. But anyway.

The the amplified sound cripples the monster, and then Emily Blunt finished his off with a shotgun blast. Wait - what?!?!?!?!?!?!?

You can SHOOT these things? We wasted 100 minutes only to find out you can SHOOT THESE THINGS?!?!? I guess you can, because the movie ends with Emily Blunt chocking her shotgun as the multiple video feeds Jim from "The Office" had installed in his basement show the remaining two monsters on their way to the party. But left unsaid is that these certainly aren't the only two monsters left in the world, so problem not really solved.

I, however, am going to solve a problem for you. The problem of, should you see this movie or not?

NOT.

It pains me to say this, because I really like Jim from "The Office" and I really liked the premise of this movie, but I can only and honestly rate "A Quiet Place" as:

1.25 Beheaded Children out of 5 Beheaded Children. I wish I was still drunk but sadly I sobered up writing this review.

Ace said:

gandorb said:

It's a real hoot. I saw it again a couple of years ago after seeing it during the original theatrical run. Made me miss Walter Mathieu.

Did you see that remake with Billy Bob Thornton? I never have, myself.

Nope, I am always hesitant to watch a remake of a movie that was done just right the first time. That said, Billy Boy Thorton in the coach role might be interesting.

god help the girl (2014) 4/5 stuart murdoch's (of belle & sebastian) musical. i suspect every review of this will work in the word 'twee.' no exception here. if the thought of a twee songs being whimsically sung by pale, attractive young people doesn't make you vomit in disgust, you may find a lot to enjoy here. i absolutely loved it, myself. it's fairly aimless, even shambolic, a series of small, minor events, but i don't think i would have wanted it any other way. the songs were almost all first rate, & the musical sequences all have a pleasant, low key informality about them - no big productions, and when they do attempt choreography, it has a ragged amateurishness that i really liked.

brad's status (2017) 4/5 middle-aged ben stiller agonizes over being less successful than his college friends. i spent the first half of the movie wanting to have the exact conversation with stiller that we see him have with a college-aged woman at the midpoint, and when that conversation comes, what's said is probably almost exactly right, yet i still found myself thinking 'don't completely dismiss his experience just because he's an average white male!' it's a movie that i think will spill out onto the screen the inner lives of a lot of people. many other people will dismiss it i expect, because they think the guy in question really has nothing to complain about, and i both think they're right yet think the movie is an interesting, even valuable watch, even if it didn't say some of the things i wish it said.

some girls never learn (2011) 2/5 i enjoyed jerzy rose's 'neighborhood food drive' recently, & decided to give this a shot. i didn't like it much. a few moments of weirdness, some goofily enjoyable images, but there's not much else here to latch on to, i found.

i caught a quiet place too yesterday, and i actually dug it quite a bit. a very compact, tidy, efficient & exciting film. 4/5

it really reminded me in many ways of 'it comes at night,' which so many people hated last year. it's actually a pretty interesting contrast in the ways this movie has become such a crowd-pleaser, while 'it comes...' was so detested by some. i suppose most of that difference is in the fairly conventional things quiet place does - monsters, action scenes, emotional pay-offs, etc.

[Edited 4/15/18 7:15am]

damosuzuki said:

i caught a quiet place too yesterday, and i actually dug it quite a bit. a very compact, tidy, efficient & exciting film. 4/5

it really reminded me in many ways of 'it comes at night,' which so many people hated last year. it's actually a pretty interesting contrast in the ways this movie has become such a crowd-pleaser, while 'it comes...' was so detested by some. i suppose most of that difference is in the fairly conventional things quiet place does - monsters, action scenes, emotional pay-offs, etc.

[Edited 4/15/18 7:15am]

The plot holes didn't bother you? The SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT pregnancy didn't seem stupid? It did to me; I even saw the USA Today ask the same questions about it in their review that I did.

Anyway, just wait until you see "Animal House". No plot holes in that one!

RodeoSchro said:

damosuzuki said:

i caught a quiet place too yesterday, and i actually dug it quite a bit. a very compact, tidy, efficient & exciting film. 4/5

it really reminded me in many ways of 'it comes at night,' which so many people hated last year. it's actually a pretty interesting contrast in the ways this movie has become such a crowd-pleaser, while 'it comes...' was so detested by some. i suppose most of that difference is in the fairly conventional things quiet place does - monsters, action scenes, emotional pay-offs, etc.

[Edited 4/15/18 7:15am]

The plot holes didn't bother you? The SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT pregnancy didn't seem stupid? It did to me; I even saw the USA Today ask the same questions about it in their review that I did.

Anyway, just wait until you see "Animal House". No plot holes in that one!

ha, not really bothered. there were a few little plot details that i didn't quite understand, but i think i may have missed something (why did that nail pop out? why did that pipe burst?). i don't want to get bogged down in details, but i think a few of the things you mentioned (the old man, why they didn't shoot the monsters) were more or less addressed in the film.

at first, i did find the pregnancy a little incomprehensible. not that she would get pregnant, mind you. that seemed likely enough. more that they would try to find a way to go to term & have a quiet baby. but the more i thought about it, the more it made sense, considering what their emotional state would likely be, especially since they lost the son at the beginning of the film. & i like that we never see the discussion - we can't know why it happened, why they made the decision to proceed. i think this is one of those areas, like not really knowing where the mosters came from, that knowing less is better. & i thought the idea of putting the baby in what basically amounted to a coffin was actually a wonderfully creepy touch.

bottom line is that i thought this was a terrific, tense film. perfectly paced, never dawdled, over in 90 minutes, just the way i like it. i generally think it's fine if some things in a film don't completely make sense, or if there's things that seem illogical. movies are not scientific papers, they're emotional experiences, & i think this movie did quite a nice job of setting & sustaining a mood over its running time.

damosuzuki said:

RodeoSchro said:

The plot holes didn't bother you? The SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT pregnancy didn't seem stupid? It did to me; I even saw the USA Today ask the same questions about it in their review that I did.

Anyway, just wait until you see "Animal House". No plot holes in that one!

ha, not really bothered. there were a few little plot details that i didn't quite understand, but i think i may have missed something (why did that nail pop out? why did that pipe burst?). i don't want to get bogged down in details, but i think a few of the things you mentioned (the old man, why they didn't shoot the monsters) were more or less addressed in the film.

at first, i did find the pregnancy a little incomprehensible. not that she would get pregnant, mind you. that seemed likely enough. more that they would try to find a way to go to term & have a quiet baby. but the more i thought about it, the more it made sense, considering what their emotional state would likely be, especially since they lost the son at the beginning of the film. & i like that we never see the discussion - we can't know why it happened, why they made the decision to proceed. i think this is one of those areas, like not really knowing where the mosters came from, that knowing less is better. & i thought the idea of putting the baby in what basically amounted to a coffin was actually a wonderfully creepy touch.

bottom line is that i thought this was a terrific, tense film. perfectly paced, never dawdled, over in 90 minutes, just the way i like it. i generally think it's fine if some things in a film don't completely make sense, or if there's things that seem illogical. movies are not scientific papers, they're emotional experiences, & i think this movie did quite a nice job of setting & sustaining a mood over its running time.

Yeah, the nail! There's NO WAY that nail pops out like that. That was one of the things I wanted to bring up but forgot due to bad mood/wine. I also thought Jim from "The Office" knocked up Emily Blunt on account of losing the other child but let's face it - he was a goner anyway. Whatever medicine he needed, he needed it bad. And sooner or later, there wasn't going to be any more in the town pharmacy.

How did they explain the old guy in the movie? Who was running the electric plant?

RodeoSchro said:

damosuzuki said:

ha, not really bothered. there were a few little plot details that i didn't quite understand, but i think i may have missed something (why did that nail pop out? why did that pipe burst?). i don't want to get bogged down in details, but i think a few of the things you mentioned (the old man, why they didn't shoot the monsters) were more or less addressed in the film.

at first, i did find the pregnancy a little incomprehensible. not that she would get pregnant, mind you. that seemed likely enough. more that they would try to find a way to go to term & have a quiet baby. but the more i thought about it, the more it made sense, considering what their emotional state would likely be, especially since they lost the son at the beginning of the film. & i like that we never see the discussion - we can't know why it happened, why they made the decision to proceed. i think this is one of those areas, like not really knowing where the mosters came from, that knowing less is better. & i thought the idea of putting the baby in what basically amounted to a coffin was actually a wonderfully creepy touch.

bottom line is that i thought this was a terrific, tense film. perfectly paced, never dawdled, over in 90 minutes, just the way i like it. i generally think it's fine if some things in a film don't completely make sense, or if there's things that seem illogical. movies are not scientific papers, they're emotional experiences, & i think this movie did quite a nice job of setting & sustaining a mood over its running time.

Yeah, the nail! There's NO WAY that nail pops out like that. That was one of the things I wanted to bring up but forgot due to bad mood/wine. I also thought Jim from "The Office" knocked up Emily Blunt on account of losing the other child but let's face it - he was a goner anyway. Whatever medicine he needed, he needed it bad. And sooner or later, there wasn't going to be any more in the town pharmacy.

How did they explain the old guy in the movie? Who was running the electric plant?

re: the old guy... we are shown fairly early on that there are other people through fire signals. so we know there are other survivors. apparently there's no communication, & they have no way of getting to each other without getting killed, but they know there are others out there. the old guy was one of them. i don't think we know why he screamed, but my feeling is it was suicide - i believe there was a corpse close to him, right (his wife?)?

the electricity is never mentioned, but i think there were solar panels shown at one point, no? i might be wrong about that...but this is one of the things that honestly just doesn't vex me, lol. they have power somehow, mostly because the script needs them to have power presumably. for me, a movie doesn't live or die by that kind of detail.

[Edited 4/15/18 16:38pm]

damosuzuki said:

RodeoSchro said:

Yeah, the nail! There's NO WAY that nail pops out like that. That was one of the things I wanted to bring up but forgot due to bad mood/wine. I also thought Jim from "The Office" knocked up Emily Blunt on account of losing the other child but let's face it - he was a goner anyway. Whatever medicine he needed, he needed it bad. And sooner or later, there wasn't going to be any more in the town pharmacy.

How did they explain the old guy in the movie? Who was running the electric plant?

re: the old guy... we are shown fairly early on that there are other people through fire signals. so we know there are other survivors. apparently there's no communication, & they have no way of getting to each other without getting killed, but they know there are others out there. the old guy was one of them. i don't think we know why he screamed, but my feeling is it was suicide - i believe there was a corpse close to him, right (his wife?)?

the electricity is never mentioned, but i think there were solar panels shown at one point, no? i might be wrong about that...but this is one of the things that honestly just doesn't vex me, lol. they have power somehow, mostly because the script needs them to have power presumably. for me, a movie doesn't live or die by that kind of detail.

[Edited 4/15/18 16:38pm]

I knew he was lighting fires but I never noticed anyone else responding. But if they could go to town, couldn't everyone else? And couldn't they meet in town? Or wouldn't someone have responded to Jim from "The Office"'s S.O.S. signals?

Yes, the old man committed suicide because the monsters ate his wife.

I don't know much about solar but do they use the same fuse boxes and switches that electrical stuff uses? I know when Emily Blunt changed the Magic Party Lights from white to red, she used the same kind of lever we have at the Little League park, and that isn't solar.

RodeoSchro said:

damosuzuki said:

re: the old guy... we are shown fairly early on that there are other people through fire signals. so we know there are other survivors. apparently there's no communication, & they have no way of getting to each other without getting killed, but they know there are others out there. the old guy was one of them. i don't think we know why he screamed, but my feeling is it was suicide - i believe there was a corpse close to him, right (his wife?)?

the electricity is never mentioned, but i think there were solar panels shown at one point, no? i might be wrong about that...but this is one of the things that honestly just doesn't vex me, lol. they have power somehow, mostly because the script needs them to have power presumably. for me, a movie doesn't live or die by that kind of detail.

[Edited 4/15/18 16:38pm]

I knew he was lighting fires but I never noticed anyone else responding. But if they could go to town, couldn't everyone else? And couldn't they meet in town? Or wouldn't someone have responded to Jim from "The Office"'s S.O.S. signals?

Yes, the old man committed suicide because the monsters ate his wife.

I don't know much about solar but do they use the same fuse boxes and switches that electrical stuff uses? I know when Emily Blunt changed the Magic Party Lights from white to red, she used the same kind of lever we have at the Little League park, and that isn't solar.

when jim starts the fire, i believe the camera panned out to show other fires burning in the countryside - not many, but some. why weren't they communicating? again, we're not told. like the reason for the pregnancy, it's something this movie has left off the table. or like the power, i guess.

i admire your attention to detail, lol, i really do. but matters such as these are not the reasons i like or dislike movies. luckily, we're allowed to be different!

Love, Simon.

4 Stars out of 5 Good film for mainstream hollywood. Touching and funny without being cloying

My middle school twins resonated with it tool

damosuzuki said:

RodeoSchro said:

I knew he was lighting fires but I never noticed anyone else responding. But if they could go to town, couldn't everyone else? And couldn't they meet in town? Or wouldn't someone have responded to Jim from "The Office"'s S.O.S. signals?

Yes, the old man committed suicide because the monsters ate his wife.

I don't know much about solar but do they use the same fuse boxes and switches that electrical stuff uses? I know when Emily Blunt changed the Magic Party Lights from white to red, she used the same kind of lever we have at the Little League park, and that isn't solar.

when jim starts the fire, i believe the camera panned out to show other fires burning in the countryside - not many, but some. why weren't they communicating? again, we're not told. like the reason for the pregnancy, it's something this movie has left off the table. or like the power, i guess.

i admire your attention to detail, lol, i really do. but matters such as these are not the reasons i like or dislike movies. luckily, we're allowed to be different!

I hate to admit this but I only really start paying attention to that kind of stuff when I feel like the movie is a stinker, LOL. It's fodder for my review! As proof, I will tell you there is at least one major continuity error in "Animal House" and I couldn't care less!

RodeoSchro said:

damosuzuki said:

when jim starts the fire, i believe the camera panned out to show other fires burning in the countryside - not many, but some. why weren't they communicating? again, we're not told. like the reason for the pregnancy, it's something this movie has left off the table. or like the power, i guess.

i admire your attention to detail, lol, i really do. but matters such as these are not the reasons i like or dislike movies. luckily, we're allowed to be different!

I hate to admit this but I only really start paying attention to that kind of stuff when I feel like the movie is a stinker, LOL. It's fodder for my review! As proof, I will tell you there is at least one major continuity error in "Animal House" and I couldn't care less!

Red Sparrow. The movie might have been okay with a good actress in the lead. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence can't act and gives her usual lifeless, charmless performance. Thumbs down.

purplethunder3121 said:

RodeoSchro said:

I hate to admit this but I only really start paying attention to that kind of stuff when I feel like the movie is a stinker, LOL. It's fodder for my review! As proof, I will tell you there is at least one major continuity error in "Animal House" and I couldn't care less!

"Mr. Blu.......Mr. Blutarski. Zero point zero."

LOL, no that isn't it. Let's let damosuzuki watch it and see if he notices it. He should, it's pretty glaring.

purplethunder3121 said:

RodeoSchro said:

I hate to admit this but I only really start paying attention to that kind of stuff when I feel like the movie is a stinker, LOL. It's fodder for my review! As proof, I will tell you there is at least one major continuity error in "Animal House" and I couldn't care less!

He looks just like Javier Duarte, ex governor from Veracruz, now in jail for corruption.

Suffers from "true story" bollocks, and not the scariest film ever (which I've seen it described as), but a good film.

damosuzuki said:

i caught a quiet place too yesterday, and i actually dug it quite a bit. a very compact, tidy, efficient & exciting film. 4/5

it really reminded me in many ways of 'it comes at night,' which so many people hated last year. it's actually a pretty interesting contrast in the ways this movie has become such a crowd-pleaser, while 'it comes...' was so detested by some. i suppose most of that difference is in the fairly conventional things quiet place does - monsters, action scenes, emotional pay-offs, etc.

[Edited 4/15/18 7:15am]

I saw this with my brother, who is a horror aficienado. I figure movies like this one are compromises between our tastes, but as with It Comes at Night (which I agree, this is similar to, but ICAN was much better), he hated it! Picked it apart to death. Dwelled on every plot hole..

Plenty of things bothered me about A Quiet Place, but I guess I'm too much of a sucker for a moody, atmospheric movie for me to hate it.
I was frustrasted that some of the problems could have been so easily remedied (linger over the newspaper clippings longer to explain more back story; have the wife be ******** before the whole disaster starts so it doesn't seem so silly that they'd ******* at such an inconvenient time; allude to the dad being an engineer or something and the family having already been on a solar energy system)

All in all, I'd give it a 2.5/5 for decent ideas, but incomplete execution. I like the idea of things being vague, but you do have to explain some things to not distract the audience.

.

[Edited 4/19/18 12:35pm]

sexton said:

I visited the David Bowie Is exhibit in Brooklyn recently and watched some of his movies around that time as well. The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) - An alien must pose as a human to save his dying planet, but a woman and greed of other men create complications. This was my first time seeing this and I found it overlong and not very coherent. Lots of cool 70s nudity though. 2.5/5 The Hunger (1983) - A love triangle develops between a beautiful yet dangerous vampire, her cellist companion, and a gerontologist. This movie hasn't aged well at all. The first ten minutes featuring Bauhaus are still great, but the rest looks schlocky to me now. 2/5 David Bowie: The Last Five Years (2017) - A documentary about David Bowie's final two albums "The Next Day" (2013) and "Blackstar" (2016) and Broadway musical "Lazarus". Perhaps it was the high I was on after seeing the exhibit, but this documentary really moved me. 4.5/5

i really didn't go for 'the man...' when i finally caught it last year myself, & agree that it's was too long & untogether. i haven't seen the hunger in a good 20 years i bet, but i don't have very fond memories of that one either.

thekidsgirl said:

damosuzuki said:

i caught a quiet place too yesterday, and i actually dug it quite a bit. a very compact, tidy, efficient & exciting film. 4/5

it really reminded me in many ways of 'it comes at night,' which so many people hated last year. it's actually a pretty interesting contrast in the ways this movie has become such a crowd-pleaser, while 'it comes...' was so detested by some. i suppose most of that difference is in the fairly conventional things quiet place does - monsters, action scenes, emotional pay-offs, etc.

[Edited 4/15/18 7:15am]

I saw this with my brother, who is a horror aficienado. I figure movies like this one are compromises between our tastes, but as with It Comes at Night (which I agree, this is similar to, but ICAN was much better), he hated it! Picked it apart to death. Dwelled on every plot hole..

Plenty of things bothered me about A Quiet Place, but I guess I'm too much of a sucker for a moody, atmospheric movie for me to hate it.
I was frustrasted that some of the problems could have been so easily remedied (linger over the newspaper clippings longer to explain more back story; have the wife be ******** before the whole disaster starts so it doesn't seem so silly that they'd ******* at such an inconvenient time; allude to the dad being an engineer or something and the family having already been on a solar energy system)

All in all, I'd give it a 2.5/5 for decent ideas, but incomplete execution. I like the idea of things being vague, but you do have to explain some things to not distract the audience.

.

[Edited 4/19/18 12:35pm]

shoot, two wan-to-negative orgers means a consensus has been formed.

the book of life (1998) 3/5 - did you know hal hartley made a film about jesus returning to earth at the turn of the millennium to bring on the apocalypse? and that pj harvey played mary magdelene in it? she was really good, i thought, a really interesting & quite sexy presence. apparently yo la tengo are in this too, but it must have been a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo, because i can't remember seeing them.

the film itself is fine, though it doesn't quite live up to its premise, & sort of meanders unconvincingly towards its finish. worth a look it you've liked any of hartley's stuff (a few of his usual actors are here), as long as you approach it expecting a minor, lesser work.

the social network (2010) 5/5

damosuzuki said:

thekidsgirl said:

I saw this with my brother, who is a horror aficienado. I figure movies like this one are compromises between our tastes, but as with It Comes at Night (which I agree, this is similar to, but ICAN was much better), he hated it! Picked it apart to death. Dwelled on every plot hole..

Plenty of things bothered me about A Quiet Place, but I guess I'm too much of a sucker for a moody, atmospheric movie for me to hate it.
I was frustrasted that some of the problems could have been so easily remedied (linger over the newspaper clippings longer to explain more back story; have the wife be ******** before the whole disaster starts so it doesn't seem so silly that they'd ******* at such an inconvenient time; allude to the dad being an engineer or something and the family having already been on a solar energy system)

All in all, I'd give it a 2.5/5 for decent ideas, but incomplete execution. I like the idea of things being vague, but you do have to explain some things to not distract the audience.

.

[Edited 4/19/18 12:35pm]

shoot, two wan-to-negative orgers means a consensus has been formed.

No no no - art is subjective! It's like Hawaiin pizza - if you like it, you like it and that's cool with me!

Even if you think "Animal House" is the worst movie you've ever seen (which is an impossibility, you'll love it through and through), I'll be cool with it. I mean, if you post that you DO hate it and then you don't see me on the Org for a couple months, DO NOT ASSUME THE WORST.

But I'll Orgnote you my phone number just in case.

sexton said:

I visited the David Bowie Is exhibit in Brooklyn recently and watched some of his movies around that time as well. The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) - An alien must pose as a human to save his dying planet, but a woman and greed of other men create complications. This was my first time seeing this and I found it overlong and not very coherent. Lots of cool 70s nudity though. 2.5/5 The Hunger (1983) - A love triangle develops between a beautiful yet dangerous vampire, her cellist companion, and a gerontologist. This movie hasn't aged well at all. The first ten minutes featuring Bauhaus are still great, but the rest looks schlocky to me now. 2/5 David Bowie: The Last Five Years (2017) - A documentary about David Bowie's final two albums "The Next Day" (2013) and "Blackstar" (2016) and Broadway musical "Lazarus". Perhaps it was the high I was on after seeing the exhibit, but this documentary really moved me. 4.5/5

I'd rate these the same, except for The Man Who Fell to Earth. Despite being a mess, it gets a 3/5 for being aestetically pleasing, and having that great reveal scene

damosuzuki said:

thekidsgirl said:

I saw this with my brother, who is a horror aficienado. I figure movies like this one are compromises between our tastes, but as with It Comes at Night (which I agree, this is similar to, but ICAN was much better), he hated it! Picked it apart to death. Dwelled on every plot hole..

Plenty of things bothered me about A Quiet Place, but I guess I'm too much of a sucker for a moody, atmospheric movie for me to hate it.
I was frustrasted that some of the problems could have been so easily remedied (linger over the newspaper clippings longer to explain more back story; have the wife be ******** before the whole disaster starts so it doesn't seem so silly that they'd ******* at such an inconvenient time; allude to the dad being an engineer or something and the family having already been on a solar energy system)

All in all, I'd give it a 2.5/5 for decent ideas, but incomplete execution. I like the idea of things being vague, but you do have to explain some things to not distract the audience.

.

[Edited 4/19/18 12:35pm]

shoot, two wan-to-negative orgers means a consensus has been formed.

Well, I wanted to like it.. .and it seems you and I both appreciated the overall mood, and that they had planned to keep the baby in a coffin.