Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Engine09

On a flight recently and saw "Bowfinger" pop up on the screen while scrolling. Trying to think, why I have never seen this movie before? I love Steve Martin and like Eddie Murphy, plus Heather Graham is a favorite of mine. Never saw it.

Wish I never had, brutal. Written by Steve Martin, directed by Frank Oz. This has to be the worst thing either has done in their careers. Painful to get through and I sometimes watch bad movies just for fun, this was a slog.

No way. Bowfinger is ####ing hilarious

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Apparently we don’t get the ministry of ungentlemanly warfare in theatres in Canada due to a licensing agreement between Lionsgate and Amazon. It’s in American theatres though. That’s lame.

[burnin_vernon]

Civil War was a much different/better movie than I had expected; It's more about journalism than anything. I don't see a ton of movies in the theatre but I haven't been that immersed in the sound since Saving Private Ryan. Lots of fantastic tension as well.

[photon]

Yeah a lot of people I talked to that saw it expected it to be more political. I mean the makers came out and said it wasn't, but I didn't believe them so I was going to give it a pass. Only when ppl here reviewed it to really confirm that did I decide to see it.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah a lot of people I talked to that saw it expected it to be more political. I mean the makers came out and said it wasn't, but I didn't believe them so I was going to give it a pass. Only when ppl here reviewed it to really confirm that did I decide to see it.

I am glad it wasn't more political.

It's perhaps prescient given the current political discourse, and came around at the right time; but the focus was on war reporters which is touched on in some movies, but not as a main focus.

I thought they did it right by essentially not revealing anyone's "teams" (until the end of course). You didnt know who was fighting who; and in a civil war, that is probably more true than not.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

For sure it definitely had more impact and kept you hooked for the whole movie.

By standard fare I mean that the plot of the movie was pretty predictable, and while it was pretty gripping seeing war in a more recognizable/identifiable venue movies depicting the brutality of war and doing it well have been done before. Standard definitely doesn't mean bad or not worth watching, Civil War does most everything very well and almost everything feels visceral and real.

I just didn't feel quite as big a difference between this and another really good war movie set elsewhere. Or maybe because I've read several novels that have done similar things.

See, I liked that it was just a straight ahead linear story. I don't always need to be jumping around in timelines, or have some regular main character to surprise you and be a sleeper agent for 'the other side' so I'm left wondering if I can trust anything, etc. It was refreshing just to see a story unfold that was gripping without a bunch of BS hah.

[photon]

Yup that's fair. Sometimes you want the weird dish that the chef spent hours on and looks like a tiny piece of art. Sometimes you just want an great steak with no surprise layer of jam in the middle.

[Yamer]

Civil War is the first film I've seen twice in theatres since Endgame. I felt there was more to look for after the first viewing left me so gutted.

There are a lot of themes to unpack. The most jarring stuff is certainly the firefights and battle scenes, but it's best digested solely through the eyes and experience of the journalists, specifically the photojournalists. Generational trauma, PTSD, disassociation, disillusionment, and so on. There's a broad way to apply that in respect to violence and war, and a personal one to the characters.

I also liked how apolitical it was:

Spoiler!

I still don't know who was fighting who in that first firefight, and the sniper scene almost hammers the viewer over the head that the sides don't matter.

On one hand - because I have a personal fascination with alt-history type stories - I wish the background of the war was more fleshed out. On the other hand that would completely undermine the whole purpose of the film.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Civil War is the first film I've seen twice in theatres since Endgame. I felt there was more to look for after the first viewing left me so gutted.

There are a lot of themes to unpack. The most jarring stuff is certainly the firefights and battle scenes, but it's best digested solely through the eyes and experience of the journalists, specifically the photojournalists. Generational trauma, PTSD, disassociation, disillusionment, and so on. There's a broad way to apply that in respect to violence and war, and a personal one to the characters.

I also liked how apolitical it was:

Spoiler!

I still don't know who was fighting who in that first firefight, and the sniper scene almost hammers the viewer over the head that the sides don't matter.

On one hand - because I have a personal fascination with alt-history type stories - I wish the background of the war was more fleshed out. On the other hand that would completely undermine the whole purpose of the film.

Well said. I was distracted by some of the early comments in this thread and elsewhere about how it was "glimpse into the potential near future" which certainly doesn't seem like the point of the film at all. Particularly since it made next to no attempt to explain why any of it was happening.

[Engine09]

Originally Posted by Cappy

No way. Bowfinger is ####ing hilarious

This must be an example of you had to be there at the moment, since I didn't watch it in 1999 and ignored it for 24 years. I absolutely hated it, Steve Martin was decent I guess but Eddie was horrid and his paranoia backstory that fed into the covert filming was garbage.

I saw Three Amigos multiple times when I was a kid and love it, has to be someone out there who just saw it recently and didn't get it.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Engine09

This must be an example of you had to be there at the moment, since I didn't watch it in 1999 and ignored it for 24 years. I absolutely hated it, Steve Martin was decent I guess but Eddie was horrid and his paranoia backstory that fed into the covert filming was garbage.

I saw Three Amigos multiple times when I was a kid and love it, has to be someone out there who just saw it recently and didn't get it.

Funnily enough, i watched this on my last flight too. Would've been December.

The screenplay is fun; trying to get Murphy into these random scenes. The use of Murphy's brother in the nude scene and the freeway scene - The camera wasnt roling - hilarious.

The bit with Robert Downey Jr. in the restaurant!

so many of Eddie Murphy's dialogue:

"Black dude plays a slave role, gets nominated. White boy plays an idiot, gets the Oscar. Find me a script as a ######ed slave, then I get the Oscar. Go find that script. Buck, the Wonder Slave."

"The Laker Girls Cheerleading Squad needs to be taken down a peg or two!"

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well said. I was distracted by some of the early comments in this thread and elsewhere about how it was "glimpse into the potential near future" which certainly doesn't seem like the point of the film at all. Particularly since it made next to no attempt to explain why any of it was happening.

I think that's a strange interpretation. It's clearly a near-future America.

You rarely see this kind of film set in the States, as mentioned previously. That's what sets it apart from other war films. Of course the warring factions' political leanings are left ambiguous, but it's some variation of left vs right.

You didn't see the president shot dead on January 6 but it was a dark day in that nation's history.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

No way. Bowfinger is ####ing hilarious

On a scale of 'Adventures of Pluto Nash to Beverly Hills Cop' where does it fall?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Locke

On a scale of 'Adventures of Pluto Nash to Beverly Hills Cop' where does it fall?

Coming to America

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Coming to America

Thats pretty good! I think that right of centre.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

I think that's a strange interpretation. It's clearly a near-future America.

You rarely see this kind of film set in the States, as mentioned previously. That's what sets it apart from other war films. Of course the warring factions' political leanings are left ambiguous, but it's some variation of left vs right.

You didn't see the president shot dead on January 6 but it was a dark day in that nation's history.

That may well be your view of the state of America, but that is something you carried into the movie vs. what the movie was trying to say IMO. I’m not arguing the movie wasn’t set in America, and it wasn’t showing what a Civil War would feel like it. But it was less cautionary tale and more about creating a visceral experience of war journalism. In this regard the “civil” war was more plot device than anything.

[psyang]

I agree. I think that's why it was a Texas-California coalition on one side. When the trailer first broke everyone joked that was the most unrealistic part of the trailer. It seems like a strange pairing until you realize it was done to make the political leanings ambiguous.