Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[getbak]

Isn't the big screen at Eau Claire the old IMAX?

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by getbak

Isn't the big screen at Eau Claire the old IMAX?

That's right. It's such an underrated theatre IMO. The seats are nice and it's never busy. The other five screens there are pretty underwhelming but I'll go see a movie on the big Eau Claire screen any day.

[Two Fivenagame]

Barbie was a lot of fun!

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Even in 70mm imax, you couldn’t pay me enough to visit that dump of a theatre. Laser ultra with Dolby atmos in a proper theatre will have to suffice.

The renos they did at crowfoot a couple years ago (I want to say during COVID?) made that theatre my go-to. In the two AVX auditoriums the screens are bright and clear, the sound is great, there isn't a bad seat, and their comfy seats are a hair above every other theatre's comfy seats.

Chinook is indeed a dump. I'm surprised that theatre as well as Westhills still haven't seen any significant upgrades.

[TheScorpion]

Well, I made it into the news ...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1682525869917749248

[bluejays]

Oppenheimer was alright. From a film perspective it felt like it was telling a story which is a little rare these days aside from Indie films. Acting was great, though there were a couple lines from Josh Hartnett specifically that felt read out early on. But really good acting from Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey, specifically. Had the progression of an IFC flick, but the dialogue of a Hollywood movie (which IMO isn't that great, because everyone delivers the quick quip perfectly back and forth). Some of the dialogue I couldn't understand because it felt like babbling and that was happening most of the movie, but it all felt important. I'm not a "watch it a second and third time!" type of guy, but maybe I'll give it another view when it comes out digitally. This was simply a biopic, and not so much about the bomb itself (that was largely shown on the trailers). Anyway, not the best movie I've seen, but a very good one considering the junk Hollywood puts out. Not visually stunning but aside from Jason Clarke overacting which seems to be his thing, the other actors just played normal characters, but the beauty is there wasn't an obvious villain or anything, which is very unusual of a big movie like this. I'm also positive I seen Sean Avery deliver a couple lines. I'd give it 8.5/10.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yeah, I didn't know much about this Ballard character. I can't imagine myself seeing this movie in the theatres. Politics aside, it looks like Ballard just stroking his own ego.

I think you guys may be overthinking this a bit and are missing out on a powerful theatre experience. This won’t hit as hard at home in a streaming situation with other distractions around.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by jg13

Had tickets for 70mm IMAX Oppenheimer at 6PM. They couldn't figure out how to sync the audio to the video and after 20 minutes gave up and refunded everyone.

What a let down.

Only a refund? That's not great.

I got two free tickets as an apology last month, because a viewing of Spiderverse had to take 10 minutes to fix some technical issues.

[jg13]

Originally Posted by Itse

Only a refund? That's not great.

I got two free tickets as an apology last month, because a viewing of Spiderverse had to take 10 minutes to fix some technical issues.

refund + one free movie

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by getbak

Isn't the big screen at Eau Claire the old IMAX?

It was the first and the best.

Played IMAX movies before it did regular films (those educational features on nature and space).

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by photon

From what I read the Sound of Freedom movie itself doesn't stray into any weird conspiracy theory stuff it just does what any movie based on a true story would do.. stretch things to make an entertaining movie. Who can't get a little pumped up about a hero kicking the doors in and carrying the children out?

Probably works as some kind of fantasy revenge pr0n for QAnon adherents that feel like the movie reflects one of their core beliefs.

There's been some criticism of Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad's motivations and efficacy which of course people will twist into "why do you love child sex trafficking" when a lot of it is just pointing out that the movie's depictions are fiction and that real solutions to the problem mostly don't involve action scenes.

So afaik the movie itself doesn't get into anything weird, it's just hard when Caviezel says what he does and Ballard does an interview about how the transgender movement aids and abets child sex slavery it makes it hard for me to get any motivation to see the movie and reward the messaging around the movie.

I haven't seen it, and will likely avoid entirely due to the fact that it is merely a chain in the current culture war and is being used for that.

From what i understand, it isn't any different than "Taken" in terms of reality vs fiction; but the conspiracy theorists are taking this movie and running with it. "Hollywood tried to hide this film? Why?!?

I listened to an excellent podcast the other day on the movie. They interviewed a US Prosecutor who focused on many child abduction.

The vast majority of child trafficking and sex trafficking is done by family members and people known to the child/person. They largely come from poor socioeconomic areas and drug homes.

The best way to combat this issue is with funding for drug abuse, low income housing, better child welfare. the absolute antithesis of MAGA conspiracy ideology.

EDIT: I missed an important aspect of the guys interview. The vast majority of sex and child trafficking is 15-18 year olds who run away from home and get caught up in the life on the street. They leave homes full of drug abuse or they are gay or trans and aren’t welcomed at home.

Another big factor is truly how we treat sex work and our society turning a blind eye to it and the issues it presents. Legalizing it can go a long way in preventing these things as well

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Yeah, fictional films aren't for your culture war, they're to get away from all that bs.

If the conspiracy bros want to #### where they eat then they can do it on their own dime.

The rest of us are going to watch better movies that were made by filmmakers who made their movies to entertain and move audiences for a couple hours, not to be #### disturbers.

Not that the conspiracy bros can discern fiction from reality anyways.

[Engine09]

I may have to recant my "films are not too long" statement. Oppenheimer did absolutely not need to be 3 hours, it felt like 3 hours. It's dialogue heavy and focusing on the minutiae of the hearings in that kind of detail bloated the run time. Curious to hear what others think of the relationship between Oppenheimer and the head of the AEC, was it actually interesting or compelling? Christopher Nolan is losing me, he seems to just miss the mark more often than not in my opinion.

There were a few spots where the dialog was difficult to hear, nowhere near as bad as Tenet or the last Dark Knight but people are commenting online that it was noticeably difficult to make everything out.

Putting the Manhattan Project group together, Los Alamos, the development and testing, incredible and absolutely worth the price of admission though.

[ResAlien]

Is that Guy Ritchie film The Covenant any good? Trailers sure don’t make it look like a Guy Ritchie movie that’s for sure

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Is that Guy Ritchie film The Covenant any good? Trailers sure don’t make it look like a Guy Ritchie movie that’s for sure

I loved it, I thought it was really good, but very different from most of the rest of his films.

[SportsJunky]

Agreed on Covenant. We enjoyed it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Agreed on Covenant. We enjoyed it.

I'd give it a solid 8/10.

And while Gyllenhaal was the headliner, he sold the tickets, Dar Salim was the star of the movie and sold the film. He was fantastic.

He really made you believe it.

[Wormius]

As a fan of Richard Feynman’s books, I highly recommend those as further reading with respect to “Oppenheimer”. He was a great (obviously) physicist, but very well-rounded and eccentric and describes some of the more light-hearted moments and hi-jinx during the Manhattan Project.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

As a fan of Richard Feynman’s books, I highly recommend those as further reading with respect to “Oppenheimer”. He was a great (obviously) physicist, but very well-rounded and eccentric and describes some of the more light-hearted moments and hi-jinx during the Manhattan Project.

I watched the documentary 'Oppenheimer: To End All War' and man was that fascinating.

I know a lot about the Manhattan Project, the nuclear research, Oppenheimer, etc because its a topic I find very interesting, but this documentary showed a few extra tidbits and perspectives that I really enjoyed.

[ripTDR]

I LOVE this type of stuff(huge fan of the actual mechanics of the bomb) as the movie has come closer, I've watched a boatload of stuff on Oppenheimer. That said, is it worth it to watch it on the big screen, or wait unit streaming?