Latest Movie That You Watched!
- Thread starter Lulu Parrot
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Re The Lego Movie - SK enthusiasts probably care more about words than your average filmgoers, so I would be interested to hear thoughts on the word "Legos", an incorrect pluralisation of a term which does not take an s in the plural. If you have 3 Lego bricks, you have some Lego, not some Legos.
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
and then there is "Lego my Eggo"
I might just go out with son and GF after all @Neil W - thanks for that review above - you should be a film critic!
(Did you take Film Studies in University by any chance?) A friend of mine took that at Queen's University in Kingston and he enjoyed it a lot.
Naah. I'm just very old and I love films and have watched a lot of them over the years, and I watch much of the current stuff because I have a pass to the local multiplex which is unlimited viewings for £X per month.. I started a film studies evening class back in the 70s when we lived in London, but the bloke made us watch some perfectly dreadful stuff (a professionally videotaped amateur performance of Ibsen's The Doll's House sticks in my mind as one of the more horrific things - this was in order to to look at key, fill, back-lighting) while he carried on faffing around with his day work, so I packed in going to it as I wasn't enjoying it (or learning anything).
and then there is "Lego my Eggo"
I might just go out with son and GF after all
Good one Neesy!
I recently hooked up with Netflix and watched Flight. I'm a pretty serious Denzel fan, so my sentiments are probably thusly skewed; nevertheless, imho, his acting in the cockpit scenes is sheer genius, pure entertainment as movies are meant to provide. The movie as a whole is excellent, with excellent acting. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen, and a must-see for Denzel fans, as well as those of Don Cheedle, Bruce Greenwood, and the director Robert Zemeckis.
Flight was a great movie! I did want to just grab a hold of Denzel's character and just shake the crap out of him thoughout the movie and yell 'What are you doing?' in his face.
Thing is, that's the effect alcohol has on many people. The writing was a real good representation of the mentality of the alcoholic. I agree, it was a little hard to watch in places, but not really so since it was so well written, directed and acted.
I know, I realize what an addict goes thru, it just made me so mad that his character just wouldn't 'wake up'.
My favorite with Denzel is Training Day and I think Flight is damn good too. He really played that role to the max. I loved John Goodman's character too.
I know, but the movie was so well done that for me I didn't feel that frustration. There are movies which annoy the hell outta me in that kinda way.
Training Day is his best performance that I've seen so far, except for the cockpit scenes in Flight.
I'd never seen him be so sweetly ghetto until Training Day. It turned me on --not that I'd want a man like that but I just found him alluring. And his feet looked so big in that movie . . .
Hahahahaaa!
Did they, indeed? I didn't notice. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I totally enjoyed him in Training Day. I guess I initially became a fan via Virtuosity. I haven't seen all of his flix yet.
You are so-o naughty! I think you need a good spanking.......yea, baby, yea!
Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Pretty good movie. Wish Tom Hardy had spoke more tho....
Flight - a slight variant point of view:
Denzel Washington plays Whip Whitaker, a pilot who pulls off an amazing bit of flying , saving 96 lives out of 102 on board when mechanical failure puts his plane into a dive. Unfortunately, Whip is an alcoholic and substance abuser, and was flying while loaded. What effect will this have on the enquiry into the crash? You will have gained this much from the trailer (if you've seen it). What you won't have picked up is that, after the stunningly realised crash sequence which takes up the first half hour of this film, the rest of it is more or less taken up with Whip wrestling with his demons. Washington is very good, but we never get to know Whip (which is reflected in the final sequence) - we only get to know the Whip who is being piloted by alcohol.
So I have a number of criticisms, but I'll stick with the two big ones. The first is that the script is a bit of a shambles. A number of the characters are there specifically to serve particular purposes (John Goodman's drug dealer is the embodiment of the evil done to Whip by drink and drugs, as symbolised heavy-handedly by Sympathy For The Devil on the soundtrack when he first appears, Kelly Reilly's sympathetic heroin addict provides both a reflection of Whip's possible redemption as well as a sounding board for this otherwise solitary character etc.), so there is a degree of obviousness, and certain elements are raised (the religious motif), referenced, and then not taken anywhere.
The second is that the trailer solidly sells this as an interplay between the crash and the effect Whip's condition may have had on it. And this issue (what would have happened had Whip not been high? Would the 6 who died have lived? Or would all have died?), though unanswerable, is never considered. To me, it is the question posed by the trailer and would, perhaps, have made a more rewarding 90 minutes viewing than Whip's denial of his alcoholism. The climax and what follows are, if a little glib, satisfyingly dealt with in a film which tries hard but, ultimately, fails to achieve its potential.
Honourable mention must go to Nadine Velasquez whose contribution to the first two or three minutes is quite spectacular.
Denzel Washington plays Whip Whitaker, a pilot who pulls off an amazing bit of flying , saving 96 lives out of 102 on board when mechanical failure puts his plane into a dive. Unfortunately, Whip is an alcoholic and substance abuser, and was flying while loaded. What effect will this have on the enquiry into the crash? You will have gained this much from the trailer (if you've seen it). What you won't have picked up is that, after the stunningly realised crash sequence which takes up the first half hour of this film, the rest of it is more or less taken up with Whip wrestling with his demons. Washington is very good, but we never get to know Whip (which is reflected in the final sequence) - we only get to know the Whip who is being piloted by alcohol.
So I have a number of criticisms, but I'll stick with the two big ones. The first is that the script is a bit of a shambles. A number of the characters are there specifically to serve particular purposes (John Goodman's drug dealer is the embodiment of the evil done to Whip by drink and drugs, as symbolised heavy-handedly by Sympathy For The Devil on the soundtrack when he first appears, Kelly Reilly's sympathetic heroin addict provides both a reflection of Whip's possible redemption as well as a sounding board for this otherwise solitary character etc.), so there is a degree of obviousness, and certain elements are raised (the religious motif), referenced, and then not taken anywhere.
The second is that the trailer solidly sells this as an interplay between the crash and the effect Whip's condition may have had on it. And this issue (what would have happened had Whip not been high? Would the 6 who died have lived? Or would all have died?), though unanswerable, is never considered. To me, it is the question posed by the trailer and would, perhaps, have made a more rewarding 90 minutes viewing than Whip's denial of his alcoholism. The climax and what follows are, if a little glib, satisfyingly dealt with in a film which tries hard but, ultimately, fails to achieve its potential.
Honourable mention must go to Nadine Velasquez whose contribution to the first two or three minutes is quite spectacular.
Dallas Buyers Club - gripping drama with towering performance from Matthew McConnaughey
The Book Thief - somewhat derivative, but engaging and moving nontheless, with a Star Is Born performance from 12 year old Sophie Nelisse
The Momuments Men - high profile cast fail to convince they are anything other than movie stars in true story
The Book Thief - somewhat derivative, but engaging and moving nontheless, with a Star Is Born performance from 12 year old Sophie Nelisse
The Momuments Men - high profile cast fail to convince they are anything other than movie stars in true story
I guess I disagree with you about Flight. Let's see...
We do get to know Whip, who just happens to be an alcoholic and drug addict; which in turn means he's a master manipulator, a chronic liar, in stubborn denial, and is running away from the truth about himself. (This behavior is contrasted with the fact that his piloting not only didn't cause anyone harm, but that no one else could've prevented the deaths of all, with his obviously expressed, personal guilt.) The question his son raises in reference to this point is the question all of us must answer at some point, alcoholic or not, and hopefully aren't too afraid to face. Alcoholics are too afraid, which is the point of the movie.
Can you provide examples of the script being "a bit of a shambles"? Personally, I liked it a lot. As for characters being included to serve particular purposes, what characters aren't? I guess it's a matter of taste when symbolism is used whether or not it's too obvious. Again, I didn't have a problem with how Goodman's character, or any of the others, was shown. I feel the religious motif was there to reinforce Whip's progression in perceiving reality from arrogant and overconfident toward total humility.
I find it very appealing that his final decision is based on an inability to allow the memory of a friend, the flight attendant, to suffer. He recognizes he has a moral obligation to the truth. Here, who he really is, which is alluded to throughout the story, via his initial post-accident repellence from alcohol and drugs, through his self-flagellation, and his growing struggle with the idea of changing, finally emerges.
In the end we are encouraged to understand that if we face ourselves, the answer to the question his son asks is only a matter of review.