Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by sl888

I'm guessing you're not based in Calgary? I can't find a showtime for Burning. I was annoyed when it wasn't coming to CIFF. Now, it's not even listed under the coming soon section for Cineplex.

This Is England directed by Shane Meadows? If so, would you recommend '86, '88, and '90?

Anyone using Letterboxd?
https://letterboxd.com/

I am based in Calgary but did not see Burning in Calgary.

I've only seen the feature-length film This Is England directed by Shane Meadows (which is a masterpiece, in my opinion). I have not seen any of the TV mini-series that have spun off from the original film.

[Erick Estrada]

I finally got around to seeing The Meg and I'm not sure what to make of it. Quite possibly the worst, most cringe inducing dialogue and story I've seen in years and despite all that I still had a good time watching it. At the end I'm not sure if the writers/directors intended it to be a so bad it's good movie or if it just ended up that way by accident.

[ripTDR]

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.


Absolutely fantastic.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Saw the Crimes of Grindelwald tonight. I'm enough of a Potter fan that the story held my interest as there were some character backgrounds explained and there is some development towards a third film, but this particular film does little to entertain. Comedic relief is written mediocrely and poorly delivered. It fell very flat with 2 dimensional character work for established characters. It felt like they were trying to go with a Star Wars style middle chapter of dark and foreboding events with no resolution for the audience, but there's not a really great moment in the entire film. It's long, meandering, and a little boring to be honest. I'll give it credit for the look and style, as that is top notch. But I would only go to this one if you're a very big Wizarding World fan.

4/10

Edit: BTW, I know it's not a film, but I managed to go and see The Cursed Child on broadway a couple of weeks ago, and it is truly, truly excellent. Possibly the most engaging theater experience I've ever been to. It's two parts and over 3 hours for each part, and it doesn't feel long in the slightest. The performances are incredible, especially the actor playing Scorpius Malfoy (Anthony Boyle). It's entertaining, but there is some deep thematic exploration of childhood and parenting, especially for men, as well as fate vs. choices and how love (or lack thereof) affects early childhood development. Plus, there's some extremely cool stagecraft to pull off magical stuff on stage. Well worth the money and time. If you get a chance, go see it.

[killer_carlson]

I also saw Crimes of Grindeljacksparrow tonight.

There is a lot going on in this one. Sets up for a big "trilogy" film or possibly more. A few twists that were unexpected. A few characters that I suspect had scenes cut out. I wonder if there will be an extended version on dvd.

I enjoyed it. My Harry Potter nerdie kid loved it. My not so into Harry Potter kid didn't get most of it. My youngest (7) fell asleep.

I thought Johnny Depp was weak in this one - it was like captain jack sparrow was in disguise and on the verge of jumping out a few times.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by ripTDR

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.


Absolutely fantastic.

I liked it a lot too, but only watched 4/6 vignettes so far. Each one has been different enough that you don't know what to expect in the next one. The only running theme seems to be brutal realism in the old west.



I love it when I can watch something and not have it really remind me of anything else. Great directing + performances with a lot of unconventional stories.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I also saw Crimes of Grindeljacksparrow tonight.

There is a lot going on in this one. Sets up for a big "trilogy" film or possibly more. A few twists that were unexpected. A few characters that I suspect had scenes cut out. I wonder if there will be an extended version on dvd.

I enjoyed it. My Harry Potter nerdie kid loved it. My not so into Harry Potter kid didn't get most of it. My youngest (7) fell asleep.

I thought Johnny Depp was weak in this one - it was like captain jack sparrow was in disguise and on the verge of jumping out a few times.

I saw it with my gf and another couple, all of whom are big Harry Potter fans. I am, at best, a casual fan of the franchise and I was a mix of bored and confused throughout the entire film. There were a lot of little Easter eggs and things for big fans, none of which I caught until explained to me later, and I think everyone else will be confused by the characters and plot.

[Harry Lime]

Am I the only one who thinks that Harry Potter is not good storytelling at all? I watched most of the first movie, and one of the halves of the last movie. It seemed to me that the object was to teach kids that if you get into a jam, babbling incoherently at it will get you out.

It was also creepy, from my perspective, that the girl from the first movie seemed to have slept with the other main characters. Did they know that the actress would turn into a supermodel? What if she grew up as a homely slug? Is that not creepy, or was it made ok in the intervening movies somehow?

And I'm a little curious as how the author, Rowling, didn't get sued by Raymond Feist for basically lifting the story completely from Magician:Apprentice and Magician:Master.

I've tried to like Harry Potter, but I just can't get around the fact that there are so many fantasy series out there with much more depth, and rationality. I can't even sit through a movie as an entrance point, because I end up yelling at the screen like it's a BOA game.

Am I alone here?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Am I the only one who thinks that Harry Potter is not good storytelling at all? I watched most of the first movie, and one of the halves of the last movie. It seemed to me that the object was to teach kids that if you get into a jam, babbling incoherently at it will get you out.

It was also creepy, from my perspective, that the girl from the first movie seemed to have slept with the other main characters. Did they know that the actress would turn into a supermodel? What if she grew up as a homely slug? Is that not creepy, or was it made ok in the intervening movies somehow?

And I'm a little curious as how the author, Rowling, didn't get sued by Raymond Feist for basically lifting the story completely from Magician:Apprentice and Magician:Master.

I've tried to like Harry Potter, but I just can't get around the fact that there are so many fantasy series out there with much more depth, and rationality. I can't even sit through a movie as an entrance point, because I end up yelling at the screen like it's a BOA game.

Am I alone here?

You are just jealous he is the more well known Harry.

[Matata]

Harry Potter's strengths are that it's an exciting story with a lot of exciting events and it keeps you wanting to know what happens next, it's weaknesses are pretty much every other element of storytelling.


How similar is it to the Raymond Feist books? "Downtrodden kid with special gifts enters a magical world of adventure" is pretty much the most common fantasy trope.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Am I the only one who thinks that Harry Potter is not good storytelling at all? I watched most of the first movie, and one of the halves of the last movie. It seemed to me that the object was to teach kids that if you get into a jam, babbling incoherently at it will get you out.

It was also creepy, from my perspective, that the girl from the first movie seemed to have slept with the other main characters. Did they know that the actress would turn into a supermodel? What if she grew up as a homely slug? Is that not creepy, or was it made ok in the intervening movies somehow?

And I'm a little curious as how the author, Rowling, didn't get sued by Raymond Feist for basically lifting the story completely from Magician:Apprentice and Magician:Master.

I've tried to like Harry Potter, but I just can't get around the fact that there are so many fantasy series out there with much more depth, and rationality. I can't even sit through a movie as an entrance point, because I end up yelling at the screen like it's a BOA game.

Am I alone here?

I agree that she lifts a lot of narrative and plot devices from other, better writers. However, the world is fun, well developed, and replete with interesting characters. The major theme of childhood development is running under the surface throughout the series, combined with the idea that good and bad can develop with a slightly different series of events. Evil develops from life experiences that lack love and companionship. The idea that Harry Potter could have just as easily turned out bad with a little less mentoring/friendship is an intriguing one.

The first two films are kids stories with an ridiculous amount of Pollyannaism. But as the story goes on the plot and characters get darker and more adult. The children grow into fully autonomous adults capable of handling the very serious challenges thrown at them. I think it's a bit of a slow burn story to get to the more interesting bits near the end. If you only watched the first and last films, you'd experience none of the growth and change of the series.

There's quite a lot to like, and I also think there's a bit too much unabashed love for the series. I consider it to be quite a bit above average, but not to be muttered in the same breath as the great works of the past.

[Ashasx]

I think above all, Rowling created a world that kids wish existed. I feel like there's something in these stories that most everyone can relate to and the books/films are the ultimate form of escapism.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Am I the only one who thinks that Harry Potter is not good storytelling at all? I watched most of the first movie, and one of the halves of the last movie. It seemed to me that the object was to teach kids that if you get into a jam, babbling incoherently at it will get you out.

It was also creepy, from my perspective, that the girl from the first movie seemed to have slept with the other main characters. Did they know that the actress would turn into a supermodel? What if she grew up as a homely slug? Is that not creepy, or was it made ok in the intervening movies somehow?

And I'm a little curious as how the author, Rowling, didn't get sued by Raymond Feist for basically lifting the story completely from Magician:Apprentice and Magician:Master.

I've tried to like Harry Potter, but I just can't get around the fact that there are so many fantasy series out there with much more depth, and rationality. I can't even sit through a movie as an entrance point, because I end up yelling at the screen like it's a BOA game.

Am I alone here?

I'm a little confused. You watched most of the first Harry Potter movie, then one of the last ones, cast weird (incorrect) assumptions on the story that spans 7 novels and call it bad storytelling?

You're welcome to judge something how you want, but its tough to criticize a story you didnt actually indulge in.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Coach

I'm a little confused. You watched most of the first Harry Potter movie, then one of the last ones, cast weird (incorrect) assumptions on the story that spans 7 novels and call it bad storytelling?

You're welcome to judge something how you want, but its tough to criticize a story you didnt actually indulge in.

The first movie was not well put together, and stole a lot of the plot points from more coherent sources. If it was meant to be directed at children, then they were extremely successful at that, and good for them.

The last movie played kind of like Twilight. It kind of eliminated my desire to see how they got from point A to point B.

What I am kind of interested in, is why it became such a phenomena amongst adults. I kind of get that if you came into the world building with no frame of reference, it could grab your attention. Are the majority of fans people who didn't watch or read much fantasy, pre-GOT, LOTR ect.?

I kind of have a hunch that the fan base is built much the way that soap opera fan bases are. Becoming very involved in the nuances of each character, so much so that everything else becomes inconsequential.

Star Wars was built much the same way, only the initial film, and overall storytelling ability seemed to be stronger. The two franchises are trending in opposite paths though, as SW fans are rebelling and HP fans are willing to just go with whatever comes.

[killer_carlson]

Yeah .... It might just be you on this one.

[Ped]

Ashasx said it best: the Harry Potter world is fun.


It was expected but one of the biggest failings of the movies imo was cutting out a lot of the outside characters or severely cutting their time, which is of course necessary to fit into a movie, but then cuts into the world-building.


But the stories span 7 years. I don't know who you thought was sleeping around with other characters or how they "lucked out" that the actress turned out model-good looking but it's not lke she was an ugly child actress.


And if you skipped the journey in between, I don't how you can understand the answers to the questions you asked/concerns you raised.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Yeah .... It might just be you on this one.

No, I've written many a diatribe about the flaws of Harry Potter as my kids are huge fans.

The fact of the matter in a nutshell is that Hogwarts is the worst Wizarding school there is, their students suck and their faculty is complete crap.

They were given 1 job.

"The evil Wizard wants to kill this kid. Dont let him. Also, maybe teach him something about Magic while you're at it."

And Harry Potter is the worst. I'd let the little bastard die. If that Granger person wasnt around the entire series could've been wrapped up in about 20 minutes.

Shes the real hero.

Harry Potter is bad and they should feel bad about being as bad as they are.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Ped

Ashasx said it best: the Harry Potter world is fun.

It was expected but one of the biggest failings of the movies imo was cutting out a lot of the outside characters or severely cutting their time, which is of course necessary to fit into a movie, but then cuts into the world-building.

But the stories span 7 years. I don't know who you thought was sleeping around with other characters or how they "lucked out" that the actress turned out model-good looking but it's not lke she was an ugly child actress.

And if you skipped the journey in between, I don't how you can understand the answers to the questions you asked/concerns you raised.

Fair enough. It just came off as a world of MacGuffins for me, whereas usually a story only has one. I've always been a little perplexed by the popularity.

It does make some sense that the age group association is very important. Game of Thrones for example is very adult oriented and works toward that audience.

I wonder if when Wheel of Time airs, if there will be a lot of cross over popularity from the Harry Potter crowd, and less from the GOT fans. Wheel of Time plays toward the teenage audience, and might be assessable to the aging fan base of Harry Potter, only with a more cohesive, yet similar in many ways (traditional tropes), storylines.

In the meantime, Harry Potter movies continue to roll in the billions...

[Matata]

I never thought that Voldemort and his crew were ever a credible threat to the muggle world, in their hubris, it seems like the wizarding world had very little grasp of the size, ruthlessness and tech of the muggle world. I kept thinking things like "these guys are going to #### their pants when they find out what napalm is" and "will Voldemort have any answers for a sniper bullet from 2 km away?"

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by Locke

And Harry Potter is the worst. I'd let the little bastard die. If that Granger person wasnt around the entire series could've been wrapped up in about 20 minutes.

This is awesome. I get the same kind of annoyance when people act like Frodo was the hero of Lord of the Rings. He was not. It was Sam. Frodo would have gotten himself killed like the first day.

Granger was the only character who was actually really good at anything. That being said, I absolutely loved the first one. It was so fun to watch, and I can see why kids (and adults) love it so much.