Seen any good films lately? [3]

I believe I have set foot upon said vessel David H! During the halcyon days of my youth I was invited onboard as a guest of honour.
Well... it was claimed by certain parties that it was all part of an educational gesture to the youth, but my younger self knew better.

Then there's a distinct possibility that you and I may have met, Forest!
Small world!

Mrs Figg wrote:well to be honest The Piano isn't really about music, or pianos for that matter. although the music in it is very nice.

Curious.

and curioser

The Cabin in the Woods arrived a couple days ago and I watched it last night with my sister. It was quite good actually! It has a lot of dark-comedy in it, but by the end of the film the ridiculousness of everything leaves you feeling light-hearted and entertained more than anything else.
The plot revolves around a group of young college kids who head out to this remote cabin in the woods. Just as we has seen a thousand times before there is the nerdy and funny one, the slutty one, the athlete, the intellect, and the virgin. But the twist to this story is that

Spoiler:

And this is what's so great about the film. Similarly to Whedon's previous work, he takes the genre and pokes fun at it in this very clever way while also entertaining the audience through the means of the genre that he is satirizing. And it's all really darkly funny too. My favourite scene is when:

Spoiler:

Anyway, it was graphically violent, very funny, and a witty take on movies in general. I suggest it if you're anything like a fan of horror (or Joss Whedon).

It actually reminded me a lot of the book Sophie's World. In particular the last few chapters, in which the characters begin to realize that they are inside of a story being written by Jostein Gaarder (the author).

OMG. 'Hard to be a god'.

makes GOT look like Disney.

Saw Road Warrior Fury Road. Though it got high critical acclaim I prefer the first Road Warrior (second in the Mad Max series). The characters in the current incarnation are barely developed in favor of relentless action. I'd rather have Bruce Spence trying to sneak a spoonful of Dinky-D any day.

I was in the mood for something funny & I gave "Spy" a go, I like Melissa Mc'Carthy, I like her wit & as much as I initially thought this film would really be on the cheesy side, ( it was only partially cheesy ) It was quite a good snigger fest. Word of warning

Spoiler:

Which surprised me as we have it rated as a 15. Jude Law I dont like. he comes across as a sucky cheeseball & he is ! Our good old female comedienne Miranda Hart was Mc'Carthy's aid & it was funny It was, of course, typically cliched, slim,beautiful villain, handsome hero, thick as shit bodyguards, Jason Statham swore a lot, (& he did!) There was one scene were I did think Dawn French had popped in, Mc'Carthy & French look SO alike ! The fight between the 2 girls in the kitchen was fun & they actually made Mc'Carthy serious on the fight score, non of this silly accidental custard pie stuff, & Im glad about that ! it suited her better & Im just about sick of some people thinking that just coz you might be a bit on the cuddly side it instantly means your a fool ! You wont get away with that with Mc'Carthy's character

Nice. I also heard good things about Spy. (And that it was a bit on the raunchy-comedy side of things. )

Oh yes, it was raunchy We had a "spy" helping Mc'Carthy out & all he did was either grab her arse or her boobs, ( tho she told him off ) there were double entendres but apart from that it was fun.

"Tale of Tales"
Where do I start ?............... It was weird, it was eerily weird. It was "sleep with one eye open" weird. It wasnt as dark as "Pans Labyrinth" but even for that it still felt dark & grim. I preferred "The Fall" with Lee pace as fantasy. It had sumptuous colour & ideas. This, was based on 3 stories that come together at the end. If this is what the East is reading to their children at night no wonder Russians dont give a fook. I thought, well, felt that the film plodded on for a LOT longer than 2hrs, I wasnt necessarily made aware who the main characters were, Toby Jones played a king, a rather insular King with a strange pet, Salma Hayek played a Queen ( nice dresses & pearls ) Vincent Cassel played a randy king who'd muff anything. Certainly not a Disney story here. I liked seeing John C Reilly play a serious role for once, he usually plays idiots or in comedy films but here he plays a 3rd King & tho he hardly said a word I liked him as said King. Its deffo worth a look

I didn't know that was out yet!

I really must hear Mrs. Figgs review, as it was she that first brought that film to our attention.

well its an absolute visual feast, and I recognise a lot of the locations they used. it relies on good old fashioned costume and real places as sets rather than cgi which is refreshing. as for the stories they are faerie in that there isn't the predictable happy ending, its ambiguous, its pretty gruesome and dark in places, and sad and heartrending in others. its pretty unrelenting weird European shit, but worth it for the Italian tourist board landscapes.

I'll have to order the blu-ray version then, when I get it on netflix!

In other news, I was all set to go see Everest this afternoon at four o'clock, when i realized that all the local showings at that time were in 3D, a format I boycotted long ago. I now feel like a bit of a stick in the mud for deciding to not go see it until i can watch it in 2D, but I'll just try and be crabbit at the lousy theaters instead.
Has anyone seen it yet? In either format?

It's been overcast for a couple hours now and so if the weather stays like this I might just go at 7:15, as I won't be missing the lunar eclipse that I can't see.

Saw about half of Murder by Death on the telly today. An all-star cast with a rare acting appearance by Truman Capote and script by Neil Simon. How can it go wrong? Yet....yawn. I blame the script, with concept gags that simply don't work.

So if you see it listed and the description looks irresistible, don't be fooled.

I haven't seen Everest, Forest, but I am keen to. Perhaps later this week. Would like to hear your general consensus if you see it before me.

I stayed in. So perhaps I will go see it tomorrow. Updates forthcoming.

ALRIGHT!

So I went to see Everest on Monday. Here are some of my thoughts:

I had read Krakauer's Into Thin Air recently, and so this coloured my impressions rather heavily. I knew what was going to happen for most of the film. I didn't know how it was going to be represented, but in the same way that watching a film about 9/11 is kind of compromised by the fact that you remember 9/11 in all its hideousness and sort of expect the movie to go above and beyond what you remember. I mean to say, you want it to effect you as much as a regular movie in that genre would, but it must work twice as hard because you already know what to expect. It is only through the quality of the acting and the power of the camera-work that the film can affect you, as its actual twists and surprises are already laid bare in your memory. A similar thing happened here for me.

So, the film is quite good-looking. There is, of course, a certain amount of digital work in the landscape shots and some of the backgrounds. This is an obvious result of not being able to actually film on the mountain itself. The mountain-climbing shooting was actually done in the Italian Alps. Anyway, these digital shots are not too bad. One, that was actually repeated for some reason, was rather clunky, but the rest of the film is very visually pleasing.

I liked the cast, with the one exception of the actor who played Jon Krakauer. I think he had played a villain in the past, and I didn't much care for his portrayal of the author. It's ironic that the actual Krakauer apparently didn't think much of the film.  I didn't find out his reason, but it's probably related to the liberties the film took in showing things that noone actually still living was witness to. For example,

Spoiler, especially if you are unfamiliar with the real-,life events:

Anyway, I really liked the lead characters. Jason Clarke was really solid in the lead role, Jake Gyllenhaal exuded such coolness that one couldn't help but really like his character from the first moment one sees him, and Josh Brolin has a nice homely American-ness to him that fills out the group quite well. It's a rather large cast, and I was happy with pretty much all of them except for Michael Kelly! (Jon Krakauer's actor).

I think it got somewhere around 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, and really that feels right for this movie. The acting is solid, the cinematography is great, and the pacing of the movie is comfortable for the most part and avoids cinematic cliches like the big finale. You see that in the movie musically as well, as the emotions we're meant to feel aren't heralded too obviously by musical accompaniment.

Well I got distracted part-way through typing this up so I probably didn't really cover much of it at all, or get my thoughts down very well.

In summary, the movie is well done, has a solid cast for the many individuals involved in the Everest tragedy, and is probably worth seeing if you don't mind a tragic ending (I mean, 8 people die) and a story that claims to be a true story but makes obvious departures from what is known for what is only guessed at.

P.S.
Honestly, the main thing I am rather sorry the film did not explore more was why things went so terribly wrong that day on Everest. The details are there, but I don't feel they are explicitly highlighted enough for the average viewer to catch on to the subtleties of mountain politics and the intricacies of getting so many people up and down the world's highest peak. Overall, the movie shows these problems and absurdities in the entire system but doesn't spend enough time focused on them. An extreme example is when one of the guides notices some inexperienced (!!) climbers at Everest base camp being shown how to fit on crampons for the first time. Details like this are nice, and the movie does have quite a lot of them. Perhaps my viewing experience was too heavily affected by having read Krakauer's book so recently.

P.P.S.
Food for thought in this quote from Krakauer:
“Everest is not real climbing. It’s rich people climbing. It’s a trophy on the wall, and they’re done … When I say I wish I’d never gone, I really mean that.”

“Everest is not real climbing. It’s rich people climbing. It’s a trophy on the wall, and they’re done''

I get that impression too. Although those poor Sherpers probably need the money it brings quite badly. Dunno why but it reminds me of the Beatles going to India for 'enlightenment' in the 60s, or todays urban hipsters going to Goa to shit in bushes.

Yeah.. Everest.. it's not even the highest point on earth.

The point farthest from the Earth's center is the summit of Chimborazo,[3] in Ecuador, at 6,384.4 km (3,967 miles) (the peak's elevation in relation to the sea level is 6,268 m (20,564 feet)). This is due to the Earth being an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere. An oblate spheroid is very much like a sphere except it is wider at the equator and narrower between the poles. This means that Chimborazo, which is near the equator, is farther away from the center of the Earth than the peak of Mount Everest. The summit of Mount Everest is 2.168 km (1.347 miles) closer at 6,382.3 km (3,965.8 miles) to the Earth's center. Peru's Huascarán contends closely with Chimborazo, the difference in the mountains' heights being 23 m (75 feet)

Nor the the tallest mountain.

The tallest is actually Mauna Kea in Hawaii. This is because ‘highest’ is defined as a measure of mean sea level to summit, while ‘tallest’ is a measurement from the bottom of the mountain to the top. From it’s base to it’s tip, Mauna Kea measures 33,465 feet. In comparison, from base to tip, Mount Everest comes in at a measly 29,029 feet, shorter by more than 4000 feet.

What's all the fuss?

Anyone seen the martian? I'm considering watching it this weekend on the local cinema, but I'm not quite sure. I've heard some good and some bad things about it. Any comments?

We've been selling a ton of the book which has piqued my interest in the film. Heard mostly good things through word of mouth but I wasn't seeking out reviews or detailed impressions. I'm curious but I don't go to the theatre a ton at this point. Also I have to be honest, latter day Ridley Scott (Robin Hood, Prometheus) is not a point in favor of me going to see it.