Latest movie you watched Part 2

[Senneifinn]

Yes, cliches abounded.  But it was still an improvement on "Titanic"!

Never seen Titanic and never will. Can't stand Leo di Crapio for some reason. And I hear the (very long?) script was cliched too e.g. rich people bad, poor people good.

[Alice]

It really annoys me that Di Crapio (nice one!) has become a regular fixture in Martin Scorcese's films, which I used to enjoy.  His presence puts me right off them.  I honestly can't put my finger on why I find him so repellent, but he has a sort of "unfinished foetus" look that gives me the creeps. 

[doryka]

Avatar on Saturday at the movies. It was great, although we went to see it in 2D, not 3D. Sam Worthington was really convincing, I hope he'll be just as good in The Clash of the Titans...

[Alice]

I saw "Nowhere Boy" yesterday.  Something of a mixed bag - it's a remarkably self-assured directorial debut by artist Sam Taylor-Wood but the screenplay lets it down too often.  Good performances by Aaron Johnson as John Lennon, Kristin Scott Thomas as his formidable Auntie Mimi and indeed most of the cast, although the young Paul McCartney is less convincing and poor old George barely registers at all.  The atmosphere of late 50s Britain comes across very well.  I particularly liked the contrast between the cluttered little house in which John's free-spirited mum Julia lives with her boyfriend and their two daughters and the immaculate middle-class surroundings of Mimi's home.  Well worth seeing, though, and it's interesting to compare the film with the earlier "Backbeat".

[doryka]

With the exams behind me, John and I took the time to go to the movies twice this weekend.

First we saw Sherlock Holmes on Thursday, which was absolutely, fantastically brilliant! We've enjoyed it tremendously. And of course the story ended, so that a sequel is bound to follow.

Than we saw Did you hear about the Morgans? on Sunday, which was fairly amusing, although far from a really good movie. It occasionally made us laugh, it had it's moments of joy and fear, but that's about it. It didn't challenge our minds one bit.
The biggest problem apart from the cliché-like story was that Hugh Grant brought the same character again. I'm now rather convinced that he is only able to play the often hesitating, shy, helpless guy he was in Nothing Hill as a bookseller or in Love Actually as the Prime Minister of England. Always the same mimic, always the same looks as his current real-life looks, so he is just boring. I cannot recall a single movie of his, where he transformed for a role. And I don't mean here something radical like Voldemort with no nose. Just more manageable things like having a beard (RF in Sunshine) or putting on weight (Schindler's list) or contrary to this, building muscles (Red Dragon) or anything like that would do. But I don't see any of these in his movies.
Also Sarah Jessica Parker didn't convince me that she would be able to play any other character than the neurotic New Yorker, who she is since Sex and the City. Of course this movie is set in NY too...

Anyway, the outcome of the weekend's cinema is still positive, as we were aware that Did you hear about the Morgans? won't be a thoughtful piece of art. We wanted to be amused and it was good enough for that...

[ralphybugs]

I just watched "Up in the Air" tonight. The ending seems a bit rushed. After all these, how could Ryan choosed to go back up in the air when his heart and enthusiam was not there any more? Ryan seems to be a guy who loves being alone yet still yearns towards the happiness of two, so his Carpe Diem sense of valve eventually surrender to "Home, sweet home". But luckily there's a fascinating character(Alex) makes the doorstep scene something like that Ryan's own philosophy has taken revenge on himself instead of "boy and girl lived happily ever after".

But the movie still reminds me of a line in a song "loneliness is a carnival belongs to one while carnival is a loneliness belongs to a crowd." Anyway, like Schopenhauer has said, we are all like porcupines, "Keep your distance" is important.

My friends and I are planning to watch Avatar in a few days. Hope it won't be too uncomfortable and dizzy wearing the myopic glasses and 3D glassess at the same time.   

[doryka]

Looks like I'm the constant movie goer of the forum, I've been yesterday again.
I've seen It's Complicated and had a real good time. Meryl Streep was wonderful and also Alec Baldwin was good, although he looks miserable with that beer belly of his... It's a shame, he used

to be so handsome...

By the way, the movie was really good, although the portrayal of the children (of MS and AB) was a bit naive and cliché-like. But all in all, the movie was fine.

[Liza]

I saw Easy Virtue with Kristin Scott-Thomas, Colin Firth and Jessica Biel last night. Good movie!

I also saw Sunshine Cleaners with Amy Adams and Emily Blunt recently...another good one.

[Alice]

I saw the Disney/Tim Burton "Alice in Wonderland" (in 3D) yesterday.  I won't say it was a total waste of £8 because, as is usually the case with Burton's films, the visuals were stunning.  I'm a huge fan of Tenniel's illustrations and even I was impressed by the brilliantly original costume designs, which owe absolutely nothing to his work.  Having Alice cross the moat to the Red Queen's castle by using the severed heads of that monarch's victims is also an inspired conceit.  Alas, the rest of the film is a complete mess.

Admittedly the film isn't based directly on Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" but is a re-imagining in which the adult Alice returns to her childhood fantasy world.  This could have worked perfectly well were it not for the fact that neither Burton nor his scriptwriter have succeeded in capturing the essence of the books.  I got the impression that neither of them have any love for or even familiarity with them. 

As was the case with Disney's awful animated version, the film jumbles the Wonderland (or "Underland", as the film has it) and Looking Glass worlds despite the fact that the former is based on cards, the latter on chess.  It makes no sense whatsoever to rename Carroll's bloodthirsty Queen of Hearts the Red Queen and pit her against her sister the White Queen, who is of course a chess piece!  And it really grated on my nerves to discover that the nameless Caterpillar is now called Absalom, the Dormouse has changed sex and also acquired a nonsensical name I've already forgotten, and the smiling cat is now answers to the name of Cheshire.  This isn't a nit-picking objection, by the way - names were something of an obsession with Carroll, as should be obvious to anyone who's actually read the books.  As for the Mad Hatter...well, I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why Johnny Depp plays him as a slightly fey individual afflicted with both Multiple Personality Disorder and Tourette's Syndrome, but frankly I can't think of one.

There aren't many bright spots in the film but two of them are the voices of Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar (sorry, Absalom) and Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat.  Almost every character is voiced by a well-known actor - even Christopher Lee pops up as the Jabberwock, the only creature that looks exactly like one of Tenniel's illustrations.  But...oh, dear.  It's referred to as the Jabberwocky, which is of course the title of the mock-heroic poem in which it's slaughter is described.  The film even manages to commit the cardinal sin of misquoting one of the poem's most famous lines as "All mimsy were the borogroves".  BOROGOVES!  It's BOROGOVES, Tim!

In short - if you were brought up on the books and still find pleasure in re-reading them as an adult, you're not likely to get much out of the film other than an eyeful of CGI and 3D.  Save your money for COTT - at least Ralph will be in it!

   

[trugannini]

     Alice,      Great crit.  you really know your stuff old girl.
I don't think I'll bother with the movie after reading it.  Thank you     

[Alice]

A wise decision, Tru!  Anyone who is curious would be well advised to rent it on DVD.  The film gains very little from 3D as it was merely converted from Burton's 2D original, so it compares very poorly to "Avatar".

Oh, and I also saw about 2 seconds worth of Ralph in a trailer for the new "Nanny McPhee" film!

[ROYAL REED]

Alice in Wonderland on Friday night

I found the movie charming, interesting, and funny (helena boham carter)

[ROYAL REED]

The Blind Side

[Liza]

In theatres...Clash of the Titans!

On TV...Hook ...I had forgotten what a fun film it was!

[ROYAL REED]

1. How to train a Dragon
2. Lovely Bones (Stanley Tucci) is brilliant!
3. The Hangover (Bradley Cooper)
4. Young Victoria