Seen any good films lately? [3]

davidjoneshoward wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:Oof. I liked American Sniper quite a lot, but the ending...
I just sat there as the silent credits rolled past, tearing up, and hugged myself.

I don't know, Eastwood claimed his movie wasn't supposed to appear biased, but the exact opposite feeling came to my head. Other movies like Braveheart that were also nationalistic but still worked for me cause we actually saw the what the villains were up to; but with American Sniper we see the US raid homes, shoot innocent children taught to kill intruders, and not even once do we know why this is happening.

I got this feeling from the reviews, so never bothered to go see it. Even though I typically have a lot of respect for what Clint Eastwood does.

{{{ good gawd, just noticed you were another New Yorker. In about 7 years if I'm still around I'll take you out for a drink. }}}

halfwise wrote:{{{ good gawd, just noticed you were another New Yorker.  In about 7 years if I'm still around I'll take you out for a drink.    }}}

See ya in 7 years, me matee

And from the looks of it, we live in close areas! I'm live in Fort Washington (across the street from bennet park). How bout you?

I didn't see any spoiler at the front of the film claiming "This film is an un-biased take on modern war politics!" So I can't agree that the way the movie shows things from Chris Kyle's point of view detracts from its emotional impact. I watched it as the story of a man from Texas who joins the military and suffers the changes that 4 tours in the Middle-East work upon him. The movie was really good at showing his experience and making me care about him. 

The villain of this movie, not that films that focus on a character's personal struggles in war-time should even have a villain generally, would have to be the other sniper. That was the one part of the film that I thought was not done very well, and is probably the same thing that bothered you about the question of whether it was biased politically. Similarly, "The Butcher"'s stash of cut-up bodies and hanging tortured man certainly paints the insurgents as diabolical characters.

But like I was saying, the main themes of the movie weren't about any of those details. To me, what was really central to the story was the driving philosophy behind Kyle's (sometimes morally questionable) actions, his feelings of failure at not doing more, and his wife's struggles at home. All of those things can be explored without us understanding the politics of Afghanistan and Iraq, and so the film worked for me.

In terms of how political the film was trying to be, I guess I would have to agree that Clint Eastwood has villified the insurgents enough that you can't say the movie isn't proposing a Good Vs. Evil dichotomy. Perhaps similarly to Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers we are seeing a distorted view of things from Kyle's perspective that would be "corrected" to a certain extent if Eastwood were to make a film from the Iraqi perspective as he did for the Japanese.
So I'd say, thanks to that infusion of politics, it stands somewhere closer to The Hurt Locker or The Messenger, which are more focused on the personal struggles of the characters involved, but also along the spectrum towards the (quite bad) Green Zone or Syriana or Body of Lies, which don't care as much about their characters nearly as much as they are concerned with driving home their political message. 

Honestly I don't care too much. There are plenty of other films that I have seen that presented the situation past and present in Iraq and Afghanistan in politically nuanced and fair and discerning terms. This movie had a great performance from Bradley Cooper, explored his character's journey in an interesting and engaging way, and really caught me unawares with its ending. I liked it!

Chatham? I am East of London... about 35 miles.

I read the book while I was in S. America and I didn't like Chris Kyle then.

The film tries to create a coherent narrative out of it all and in my opinion fails. The film didn't need a bad guy... it was based on real life events. The focus, in my opinion, was completely misguided and didn't really even get the bits right that made Kyle seem vaguely personable in the book.

davidjoneshoward wrote:And from the looks of it, we live in close areas! I'm live in Fort Washington (across the street from bennet park). How bout you?

Near City College. Don't you get peeved when all the reviews of neighborhoods in Manhattan pretend anything north of Central Park doesn't exist?

I watched Life of Pi the other day...excellent film, I can see why it won so many awards.

On the surface it has a relatively simple (but engrossing) narrative (Teenage Boy and a Tiger trying to survive whilst drifting through the ocean on a lifeboat), but the film is packed with visually stunning imagery and some very interesting moral and thematic material (though as a Atheist (more or less) some of the symbolism was lost on me). Funny, surprisingly dark, well paced and very technically accomplished (it's hard to believe the tiger was CGI in a majority of the shots, it's almost lifelike), it's not normally the type of film I'd probably watch, but I thoroughly enjoyed it

8.5/10

Saw the last hunger games. Didn't feel as rushed as the end of the book which was good. Some good action, not too much gooey stuff. I liked it.

Lancebloke wrote:Saw the last hunger games. Didn't feel as rushed as the end of the book which was good. Some good action, not too much gooey stuff. I liked it.

I haven't read the books and I've only seen the first film...it wasn't bad, but the shakeycam gave me a bit of a headache...

I thought the first Hunger Games was one of the most boring films I have ever seen. so I never bothered watching any more of them.

I recently stumbled on a small-budget documentary called "Keep on Keepin' On" about 90-year-old jazz trumpeter Clark Terry who's going blind, mentoring a 23 year-old blind piano student. Appearances by folks like Quincy Jones and Miles Davis who were also CT's students.

It's an intimate look at a really nice guy, and has a excellent score. It's a little film, but it's still got me thinking about it.

halfwise wrote:

davidjoneshoward wrote:And from the looks of it, we live in close areas! I'm live in Fort Washington (across the street from bennet park). How bout you?

Near City College.  Don't you get peeved when all the reviews of neighborhoods in Manhattan pretend anything north of Central Park doesn't exist?

Manhattan for me is only 181st, 42nd (times square), West 4th (Film Forum and IFC of course), and Central Park. Everything else is a blur. though I'm sure there are many more, if I thought about it.

'Central Park'- Davidjones

You have a famous park. Halfy has to wait till your the ridiculous age of 21 before he can invite you for a drink- sick minded country that- but you have a park- why aren't you in the park getting blind drunk already? Teenagers today- don't know they are bloody teenagers Its wasted on them. I'd be 3/4 of the way down a 2l bottle of woodpecker cider, spiced with a can of tennants lager in it and up to my ankles in my own vomit by now at your age!

Central park is too well patrolled.  Best bet is the neighborhood park. Actually for a bit more of a walk all kinds of stuff goes on in Inwood Hill park after hours.

Lancebloke wrote:Chatham? I am East of London... about 35 miles.

I read the book while I was in S. America and I didn't like Chris Kyle then.

The film tries to create a coherent narrative out of it all and in my opinion fails. The film didn't need a bad guy... it was based on real life events. The focus, in my opinion, was completely misguided and didn't really even get the bits right that made Kyle seem vaguely personable in the book.

Watching the film after reading the book may have affected your experience. But then again, if you didn't like Chris Kyle in the book the story probably just wasn't for you I guess.

I saw Man On Wire last night with my mom.
It was really good!

It's a documentary about Phillipe Petit, a French tight-rope walker who from 1971-1974 staged three separate walks (more like tight-rope dances, one person comments). He walked across a rope from one tower of Notre Dame to the other, and then did a similar thing on a famous bridge in Sydney and, finally, walked across a wire strung between the World Trade Center skyscrapers. 

It's a pretty film. There is a small amount of black & white footage that is re-created for dramatic purposes, but most of the movie is made up of interviews with those involved and a huge amount of the actual footage taken by Petit and his friends. This older stuff was clearly shot by amateurs and has the charming colouring and shaky bits of home-made footage that some films now-a-days actually try to emulate.

And the score is great. Much of it is predictable French music (*cough*gymnopedie*cough*), but there was one stretch when Petit was walking across the bridge-wire in Sydney when a really nice guitar piece was played that I hadn't heard before.

The main reason I enjoyed seeing the movie though, and the reason it was released popularly when it was several years after September 11, 2001, was the way the film makes you see the World Trade Center in a different light. Most people hadn't really heard of the WTC towers before 9/11 or at least certainly didn't think about much. There is an inseparable connection, therefore, between the two towers and tragedy. Seeing them not as the tombs of hundreds of people, but as the supports for an artist to demonstrate his talents from is a wonderfully cathartic experience. They become more like mountain-peaks, or symbols of human daring and achievement.

The movie has a lot of footage of the towers under construction. Watching them go up, level by level, is the opposite of what we saw on 9/11. Seeing them built is strangely comforting.
Petit is very French, and his tight-rope walking is whimsical and pure. It is driven by nothing more than his own dreams and creativity.

8/10! A great documentary.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'Central Park'- Davidjones

You have a famous park. Halfy has to wait till your the ridiculous age of 21 before he can invite you for a drink- sick minded country that- but you have a park- why aren't you in the park getting blind drunk already? Teenagers today- don't know they are bloody teenagers Its wasted on them. I'd be 3/4 of the way down a 2l bottle of woodpecker cider, spiced with a can of tennants lager in it and up to my ankles in my own vomit by now at your age!

I've had numerous glasses of wine before, and occasionally put gin in my coffee is that what you did at 14?

I've heard good things about Man on Wire before but your review is really making me want to check it out, Forest.

I've seen Philippe Petit perform. He mainly considers himself a street performer, but is artist in residence at the Cathedral of St John the Divine near Columbia University. Supposedly he has a practice wire strung high in the rafters, but I've never been able to pick it out.

Anyway, the cathedral was having an open house, and he did a 'street' performance in the main hall, all in pantomime. Came out on a unicycle blowing a whistle to attract attention, drew a circle in chalk and made signs threatening dire consequences to anyone who crossed it - he'll switch roles between someone tiptoeing across and an angry police type gesticulating angrily and slamming hands on his hips while shaking his head vigorously. Then he went around the circle greeting people and shaking hands while slipping off their watches, picking their pockets, etc. After some juggling and balancing acts he picked out a line of audience members from the biggest to a little 5 year old at the end, all holding a rope attached to a pillar. It looked like a Doctor Seuss setup with the little kid tugging on the end. Then he did a slack line walk to end the performance.

All in all he's a very talented and amusing performer; the tight rope is just a small fraction of his bag of tricks. Too bad he's getting old and rarely performs anymore.

Anyone else think Spectre was kind of meh?

But I'm going to see that today, Blue!

Well, you might very well disagree. (It has gotten a whole lot of praise.)

Well, I liked it! I didn't mind that it fell back on cliches. But I really miss the days of the evil villain and a giant super weapon. An all encompassing surveillance network just doesn't seem very menacing. That was really my only complaint.

Is Craig done with the Bond franchise? This film seemed to "wrap things up" in a way.

I agree !