My favorite is the 2nd film (Before Sunset), and yeah I would agree that they all feel like they could be mistaken for Woody Allen films... when I was watching Before Midnight earlier I thought that down to the music, even the credits (how they were just white text on black) and choice of font.
Just finished Before Midnight this morning and found it to be a brilliant progression from the first two movies, although quite sad and difficult to watch.
Nine years from now, when they're both 50, I wonder what we'll see.
Last night I finished Blue Jasmine and Cate Blanchett was indeed amazing in it as reported. I can't imagine how they're touting Bullock in Gravity as her closest competitor for Best Actress when Bullock's performance was nowhere close to Blanchett's work in this.
The story itself was middling for most of the film: Steadily written and directed as far as competent Woody Allen films go, but nothing special. It really opens up when you hit the 1-hour mark, which is when the movie comes alive, and thankfully it carries that energy and momentum until the credits roll.
agreed, but my main complaint would have to be that they blew their entire "scary space" wad in the first 20 minutes and had nowhere to go after that. My secondary complaint would have to be the ridiculous physics fail they used to
write out Clooney.
Absolutely jarringly stupid IMO. Obviously there are a lot of inaccuracies in the movie but this one was particularly unforgivable
Yeah I also had a problem with that one. It seemed like
he should have stopped when Bullock's character was able to grab the cord sine they're in space, but there was still a force/momentum causing him to drift away and I don't know where that came from
re: Gravity --- that film had very little developments in character and plot imo. It's special because of its technical achievements.
The writing is only serviceable and made just to have a vehicle to showcase the visuals. The acting isn't even that great (even though Sandra Bullock is getting raves left and right, which I don't understand).
Life of Pi I think has a much more fleshed out story and central character.
I don't think so. Realism is a characteristic while non-fiction is a classification.
Realism for me pertains to how similar the representation on-film is to how they are in real life... with as little romanticization, stylization, idealization, abstraction and sensationalism as possible.
Non-fiction means that the story/characters are based on people and events that actually happened.
So you can have a non-fiction story that is not realistic and a fictional story that is realistic.
So I saw American Hustle and it was okay. After watching his last three films, I'm of the opinion that David O. Russell may very well be the best creator of ordinary films in Hollywood. If there were a boat of directors who create ordinary films, Russell would be its captain, and Ron Howard would be his first mate.
Ron Howard's Rush was great, by the way. I enjoyed it more than American Hustle. These are films that I recognize as being very entertaining and well put together with a solid sense of craftsmanship, yet at the same time, I'm hard-pressed to find anything to say about these films that I feel can distinguish and elevate them further than merely being a successful exercise in filmmaking.
David O. Russell is just so much more focused on his characters than on his narrative. While that works for certain films, I feel that for something like American Hustle, the plot has to be tighter than what it ended up being. It's not a story that lends itself well to a lot of character exploration or else it muddles up the central plot, which is what I think happened and it bogged the movie down. The soundtrack is amazing though.
I also saw Saving Mr Banks recently. It's an enjoyable film, but I was not a fan of going back and forth between the making of Mary Poppins and flashbacks of P.L. Travers' life. The Hollywood scenes were good. The flashbacks were unengaging, even though Colin Farrell was really good in them.
Last of the new films I saw recently was The Butler and it was a mess.
I'm not an American, so whenever something in the nation's history would come up that fascinated me, I'd pause the film and Google/Wiki whatever it was (i.e. - The Black Panthers, JFK's assassination, a particular president's term, etc etc). I ended up spending more time on the internet than watching the film.
I feel that David Oyelowo was the best thing about the movie. Oprah and Whitaker were okay, but far from great.
Wow the East is so shit that the Wizards have the third best record
I don't watch a lot of NBA but what happened? I don't remember the conferences being that imbalanced
I know right? Only Indiana and Miami have records over .500, it's hilarious
Contrast that with the Western division and you only have three teams under .500.
Actually, if you rank all 30 teams purely by winning percentage and take the Top 16 teams, you're going to get these:
1. Indiana 2. San Antonio 3. Miami 3. Portland 5. Oklahoma City 6. Houston 7. LA Clippers 8. Denver 9. Dallas 9. Golden State 11. Phoenix 11. New Orleans 13. Memphis 13. LA Lakers 13. Washington 16. Atlanta 16. Minnesota
I just realized there was this 2-hour "The Ultimate Guide to Doctor Who" special that the BBC aired before the 50th. Just got around to watching it and it was so great. They cover all the Doctors equally from Hartnell to Smith. Really fascinating.
Is the 6th Doctor relatively disliked by fans?
Also, I cracked up at the part where the 5th Doctor was dying and during the death scene, one can't just help but stare at the companion's cleavage )
Well, he should be out of regenerations. He needs the extra regenerations to become Capaldi. Once he does they'll probably be like "hey bro, better go help yourself out otherwise everything will blow up"
Sometimes I wonder how set in stone that "twelve regenerations" thing is as a rule, tbh.
The Master got more regenerations. The Doctor will as well.
But them showing only 13 Doctors during the 50th Anniversary episode - and that seems to imply that those are already all of the incarnations in the Doctor's timeline - makes it seem so definite that Peter Capaldi will be the last Doctor.
If there were a Doctor after Capaldi, then they have to explain why he wasn't included in that scene.
It seems odd how Season 7 leaves us with the cliffhanger on Trenzelore with 11th seeing The War Doctor and then we get the 50th starting with War Doc, 10th & 11th having sort of a meet-cute. How are we supposed to view the 50th Anniv episode in within the context/continuity of the ending of the 7th Season? Or is it that we shouldn't... meaning the 50th is meant as sort of a one-off?
Also: What do we call Peter Capaldi's Doctor now? 12th Doc or 13th?