Good recent movies?

[zahc]

Maybe it's because we are all scientists. Sometimes the mcguffin is just too much, understand. It's kind of a joke now; we are always saying "what if it actually works..." now. Really, it's just a time travel movie. I fail to see what is interesting or exciting about it except it's a time travel movie that uses all the tropes of time travel movies but takes it to an absurd level.

[erictank]

Hi, my name is Dug, I just met you and I love you...squirrel!!
Hi, my name is Dug...

:D

Chris

I do not LIKE the Cone Of Shame...     

LOVED Up.  I'm a big fan of Disney animation and Pixar CGI, though I'm on the fence about The Princess And The Frog - I just think WAY too much has been made over the Princess' skin color (and other than that, she doesn't look particularly African-American to me... even her skin color is pretty light, frankly.  Big freakin' deal - but then, I'm an Evil White Male...  ).  May see it, may not.  I've got a bunch of the animated stuff on DVD, and I think every Disney/Pixar one except for Wall-E and Up, now.  Liked them both, just haven't bought them.

Star Trek, for all its weaknesses, ROCKED.  This unabashed Trekkie thought it was great, and looks forward to the next one.  Let's get a move on, Abrams!

Terminator Salvation was better than I'd thought it would be, after hearing reviews which topped out at "uninspired".  I enjoyed it - but then, it had plenty of Terminator-type eye candy, and lots of action.  Cool.

GI Joe surprised me by being what I call "a good popcorn movie".  I Redboxed it, and actually enjoyed it.  Not, by any means, fine cinema, but an enjoyable way to spend not-quite-two-hours, even considering the presence of a Wayans brother.

Taken - another one that maybe didn't do so well in the theaters, but that I really liked.  Neeson didn't engage in posturing or Hollywood-style "fighting" - he simply did his level best to get what he needed to find and recover his daughter, regardless of what might happen to those in his way.  "I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you." "...Good luck.<click>"

If you haven't seen No Country For Old Men yet, what is WRONG with you?  GREAT movie.  Javier Bardem is chillingly sociopathic, and his murder of the deputy who arrested him at the beginning of the movie was... disturbing, frankly.  The attention to detail was fantastic, IMO. 

Oh, here's one for the zombie-apocalypse types: Zombieland was HILARIOUS.  We *WILL* be buying that once it's released on DVD.  Some good advice in there, too: "Rule #2: Double-tap."    Lighthearted, if you can really use that term to describe a zombie movie.

Gran Torino was excellent.  Clint's great both as an actor and director, generally, and does not disappoint in this one.

[Balog]

Zombieland was amazing. Haven't seen No Country yet, but I may need to.

[Physics]

Saw Avatar in 3D today.  It was

Really good special effects.  Blew me away.  Plot was okay, basically Ferngully on steroids, but the effects were stunning. 

Popcorn and a soda cost me $12 and the ticket (matinee) was $11. 

[Strings]

Somebody mentioned the Harry Potter movies.

If you've read the books, stay AWAY from the movies. I can understand omitting certain plot elements and such, but the third movie finally drove me away. The director said he "wanted to tell the story of Harry coming of age", yet removed the boy's first love interest (completely: no mention whatever). Haven't seen another since.

Have similar feelings towards Lord of the Rings, although LotR you can at least follow as a good epic fantasy. But Jackson pulled WAY too many things out, and (to me) ruined the feel.

A recent one to avoid like the plague: Where the Wild Things Are. Don't remember what the plot of the book was (if there was one), and the movie doesn't help. <spoiler>Boy lives with mom and sister. Boy has issues. Boy has fight with mom, runs away to island. Hangs out with monsters for awhile, then goes home. The end. Visually, they nailed the look. However, it wasn't worth admission...

REALLY looking forward to some of next year's offerings: Ironman 2, Clash of the Titans, Sherlock Holmes, the new Robin Hood...

[Viking]

Somebody mentioned the Harry Potter movies.

If you've read the books, stay AWAY from the movies. I can understand omitting certain plot elements and such, but the third movie finally drove me away. The director said he "wanted to tell the story of Harry coming of age", yet removed the boy's first love interest (completely: no mention whatever). Haven't seen another since.

Have similar feelings towards Lord of the Rings, although LotR you can at least follow as a good epic fantasy. But Jackson pulled WAY too many things out, and (to me) ruined the feel.

A recent one to avoid like the plague: Where the Wild Things Are. Don't remember what the plot of the book was (if there was one), and the movie doesn't help. <spoiler>Boy lives with mom and sister. Boy has issues. Boy has fight with mom, runs away to island. Hangs out with monsters for awhile, then goes home. The end. Visually, they nailed the look. However, it wasn't worth admission...

REALLY looking forward to some of next year's offerings: Ironman 2, Clash of the Titans, Sherlock Holmes, the new Robin Hood...

Ditto. Also the new version of The Wolfman ought to be worth watching.

[roo_ster]

I have read all the H Potter books and enjoyed most the movies.

The only movie I thought sub-standard was #2.

[Strings]

You're a strange and perverted man, who must be doing drugs.

But that's ok, we still like you more than fistful

 

[BlueStarLizzard]

I have read all the H Potter books and enjoyed most the movies.

The only movie I thought sub-standard was #2.

read all the books and seen up to goblet of fire.

great books. last two movies i saw wern't horrible .

wern't great either. 

[roo_ster]

I find it difficult to damn a movie for not having the content and nuance of a 1000 page book (which is what the HP books have become)*.

If they get the essence of the story and do what they choose to do well, I can judge the movie on its own merits.

Which is why hte HP movies are pretty decent and the Starship Troopers movie is an abomination.



* For that, you need a mini-series at least.  Like Shogun.   Not like the Dune miniseries.

[Monkeyleg]

I just finished watching "Inglurious Basterds" and I'm not sure what I think, or what I saw. Was it a dramatic movie with some funny parts, or a comedy with some dramatic parts?

I'm going to need to watch it again to decide if I really like it a lot or dislike it a lot.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I find it difficult to damn a movie for not having the content and nuance of a 1000 page book (which is what the HP books have become)*.

If they get the essence of the story and do what they choose to do well, I can judge the movie on its own merits.

Which is why hte HP movies are pretty decent and the Starship Troopers movie is an abomination.



* For that, you need a mini-series at least.  Like Shogun.   Not like the Dune miniseries.

i disagree. the first two movies and, too some extent, the second two i saw skipped a lot. and i don't mean stuff in the book. i mean the flow. fall/ oh now its Christmas, but wait no, its the end of the school year.

some books (mind you this is few and far between) can be made into really good movies. others are not really adaptable. HP are, in my mind, unadaptable in a way that 1.) holds true to the story and 2.) can deliver the plot in a reasonable amount of time AND do it well.

i can think of two books made into movies in the past few years that accomplished that. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (the first one) and Twilight both managed to get the majority of the plot, the characters and the essence of the book made into a solid, continuous movie.
the second Sisterhood failed just like the HP movies, because it combined the last three books of the series into one movie.

i think if a movie based on a book that continuously covers a span of time longer then a couple weeks, its not gonna work. sometimes a movie that covers a book that happens over a long period but has a lot of jumps in time itself can work.

[HankB]

Have similar feelings towards Lord of the Rings, although LotR you can at least follow as a good epic fantasy. But Jackson pulled WAY too many things out, and (to me) ruined the feel.

I thought the movies were better than the books.

Now, I've never been accused of having a short attention span, but Tolkien's written descriptions of (for example) Hobbiton . . . which went on . . . and on . . . and on . . . were about as entertaining as watching paint dry. (I also thought The Speech in Atlas Shrugged would have benefitted from some editing.)

[roo_ster]

(I also thought The Speech in Atlas Shrugged would have benefitted from some editing a meat axe.)

Just my $0.02.

[Strings]

>I thought the movies were better than the books.<

Get thee behind me, Satan!

You're right, in that bit. I always felt Tolkien could have edited a bit out (like Lindon), and been good. However, Jackson removed one of the things that made LotR stand out from other fantasy tales: the ending.

He came close: he got it right that the ringbearers would be leaving Middle Earth. However, omitting the Scouring, to me, ruined the story

[Northwoods]

>I thought the movies were better than the books.<

Get thee behind me, Satan!

You're right, in that bit. I always felt Tolkien could have edited a bit out (like Lindon), and been good. However, Jackson removed one of the things that made LotR stand out from other fantasy tales: the ending.

He came close: he got it right that the ringbearers would be leaving Middle Earth. However, omitting the Scouring, to me, ruined the story

He didn't even have to do the whole scouring.  All he really had to do was show that the Shire was not immune from the evil of the Ring, and things took a seriously bad turn while Frodo and co. were on their adventure.  By having all the other hobbits acting like "Where have you been, and what makes you think you're so special" but otherwise as though nothing at all had happened just ruined the whole point Tolkien was trying to make and what made the story resonate so well with so many people.

[Perd Hapley]

Now, I've never been accused of having a short attention span, but Tolkien's written descriptions of (for example) Hobbiton . . . which went on . . . and on . . . and on . . . were about as entertaining as watching paint dry.

It was the songs that got on my nerves.  They might as well have been lists of begats. 

[Cromlech]

Clash of the Titans

I'm with you on this. Pete Postlethwaite, Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, Mads Mikkelsen, and the lovely Polly Walker. :D

'Clash of the Titans' Trailer 2

[JN01]

Not real new, but one I only recently saw on DVD- Defiance, true story of resistance fighters during WWII.

[Parker Dean]

So Avatar isn't that good??  

If you've seen Dances with Wolves then you've seen Avatar. It's just that Avatar beats you over the head with the old Native American tribal life=utopia/Western culture eeeeevillll mantra. A friend and I saw it Sunday night and we should've walked out at the one hour mark but we both thought that it had to get better. It didn't. Visuals were great but they phoned it in with the story and characters.

[Marnoot]

If you've seen Dances with Wolves then you've seen Avatar. It's just that Avatar beats you over the head with the old Native American tribal life=utopia/Western culture eeeeevillll mantra. A friend and I saw it Sunday night and we should've walked out at the one hour mark but we both thought that it had to get better. It didn't. Visuals were great but they phoned it in with the story and characters.

I think you just have to go in expecting the right thing. I went to the (3D version of the) movie for the amazing CGI spectacle and was not disappointed. The plot is very much indeed the love-child of Dances with Wolves & Fern Gully. But I knew that going in.

[Matthew Carberry]

Does anyone go to a CGI spectacular, by James Cameron no less, expecting trenchent social commentary?

Enjoy the show, not every bit of tripe is worth objecting to.

[myrockfight]

I think you just have to go in expecting the right thing. I went to the (3D version of the) movie for the amazing CGI spectacle and was not disappointed. The plot is very much indeed the love-child of Dances with Wolves & Fern Gully. But I knew that going in.

I think it was hilarious how they marketed the movie. The first trailer I saw was all lovy-dovy bs that seemed like some kind of Fern Gully CGI save the forest type movie. Then here lately I saw one that had some flashes/scenes of modern military types, crap exploding, etc. mixed with the CGI stuff.

I've seen the marketers does this before and it really aggravates me and I'm really sure it aggravates people who fall for it. The movie cannot be sold off as completely one way or the other. I think that problem will quickly kill any particular group's ticket sales when the "group leaders/experimenters" go see the movie and report back to their social group that the movie isn't what they were told it was through the advertisments.

I strictly avoid movies that are marketed that way. With that said - there is a whole generation of our country who hasn't seen Dances w/Wolves, even if it is a (dare I say?) classic.

[Balog]

I didn't really like Dances with Wolves. I have no interest in DwW mating with the aliens from Battlefield Earth in neon colors.

[S. Williamson]

Not like the Dune miniseries.

*vomits uncontrollably at the mere mention of the "Dune" miniseries*

Avoiding Avatar. 
Been told to go see Invictus by my family, specifically my brother.
Haven't seen a movie in theaters since the J. J. Abrams *vomits again* "Star Trek."