[2015071]

Enemy: 9.1/10

Slow pace symbolism film that will bored you to painful death without a correct mind set. Otherwise, this movie is great. Very thought provocative.

 

[linglingjr]

Enemy: 9.1/10

Slow pace symbolism film that will bored you to painful death without a correct mind set. Otherwise, this movie is great. Very thought provocative.

Sounds like my kind of movie! lol I'll give it a try.

 

[Focker]

Wanted to find something to watch tonight to get the bad taste out of my mouth from The Gambler. Turns out I made a great decision...actually I can't take the credit. I mean come on, how can you go wrong with Tom Hardy and James Gandolfini in the same movie, right? Gandolfini's role wasnt' quite as meaty or profound as I would have liked for his final film, but Hardy...what can I say? This guy just knocks it out of the park every single time. Not only is he among the very elite character actors today, both within and outside of his generation, but he just brings characters to life in a way that makes them interesting. That's probably the best compliment I can pay the guy...no matter what role he's in, he makes you want to know more about the character.
 
I know it was a polarizing film here on Head-fi, but the performance he gave in Locke just blew me away. I was riveted by that film and I feel very confident saying that MAYBE 2 or 3 other guys could have been effective under those circumstances. No way anyone would have been better, though...not a chance. 
 
Anyway, I know some of you are Hardy fans like I am, so I highly recommend checking out this film. 
 
"The Drop" - 8.4/10

 

[Hutnicks]

Enemy: 9.1/10

Slow pace symbolism film that will bored you to painful death without a correct mind set. Otherwise, this movie is great. Very thought provocative.

Brilliant choice. Have to like Jake's ability to take risks in film choices and squeeze the most out of a script. Doesn't seem to pick "Academy friendly" stuff but more content of interest.
Run this one back to back with "Under the Skin" and you'll be wondering around work with a glazed look all week
 
I think he's on a Harrison Ford career trajectory. He'll be around for ages and all of a sudden someone will figure out that "hey this guys done some spectacular work".

 

[oqvist]

What good has Harrison Ford done?

 

[2015071]

What good has Harrison Ford done?

Indiana Jones
The original Star Wars trilogy, not the one with kid Anican and Ja Ja Blinks. MI SOS STUPID.
Blade Runner
1993 Tak3n without Liam Neeson and a better script, and a better director
Air Force One
Etc...

 

[Hutnicks]

What good has Harrison Ford done?

Before he got popular and was in everything.
 
The Conversation.
 
Apocalypse Now
 
American Grafitti
 
Raiders of the lost Ark
 
Witness
 
Frantic (arguably the inspiration for the whole Taken series)
 
Regarding Henry
 
Patriot Games.  The Original Jack Ryan.

 

[tdockweiler]

The Last Man on Earth (1964) - 4/10
 
Way worse than the Omega Man (which was terrible too) and "I Am Legend". Made me want to see "The Dawn of the Dead" and it's remake again.
Not a fan of horror movies usually. Tempted to see "The Walking Dead", but might be too graphic/gory. Then again, it's only a TV series..
 
BTW another similar movie is "The Quiet Earth". No zombies in that one though. It's from New Zealand but is easy to find in the USA.
 
I also went to see "The Imitation Game" a second time. Surprised so few on here have seen it.
Just as good the 2nd time around. There is not much i'd change and usually I'll find something to dislike on the 2nd viewing.
I really like it's main character and the comedy helps too. It's not LOL comedy, but there's quite a few amusing parts.
Could have easily been PG if they removed one scene.
 
Sadly only one other person in the theater when I saw this at 10pm on Sunday.
Somehow the whole theater seemed dead though.

 

[Hutnicks]

  The Last Man on Earth (1964) - 4/10
 
Way worse than the Omega Man (which was terrible too) and "I Am Legend". Made me want to see "The Dawn of the Dead" and it's remake again.
Not a fan of horror movies usually. Tempted to see "The Walking Dead", but might be too graphic/gory. Then again, it's only a TV series..
 
BTW another similar movie is "The Quiet Earth". No zombies in that one though. It's from New Zealand but is easy to find in the USA.
 
I also went to see "The Imitation Game" a second time. Surprised so few on here have seen it.
Just as good the 2nd time around. There is not much i'd change and usually I'll find something to dislike on the 2nd viewing.
I really like it's main character and the comedy helps too. It's not LOL comedy, but there's quite a few amusing parts.
Could have easily been PG if they removed one scene.
 
Sadly only one other person in the theater when I saw this at 10pm on Sunday.
Somehow the whole theater seemed dead though.

How can you not like Last Man On Earth? It at least gives the explanation for him being the Legend that the Will Smith version completely managed to leave out. Vintage top notch B movie fare there.

 

[mutabor]

American sniper ( 2014) 7.5/10
 

 For all the talk of American Sniper's pro-war ideology, the most troubling aspect I felt was that the film doesn't appear to have an ideology at all.

 
I watched that movie in two viewings. When I watched the first half I thought that it was moving in an interesting direction. It seemed that this guy was becoming an addict-killer. Those people who find their worth in war conflicts incapable of returning to normal peaceful life. Then I watched the second half. My expectations didn't realize because the dude suddenly recuperated and the rushed ending finished on an affirmative note. The inner conflict of the soldier which seemed to be the main point of the movie disappeared, the guy became a hero and we were left wondering what Eastwood was going to say? Was it just a biopic? But why did he shoot the movie now? Was his message: hey we are getting softer with Obama and loosing it to our enemies, we need to support our soldiers even if their service is considered harmful and inhumane by modern standards?

 

[Focker]

  American sniper ( 2014) 7.5/10
 
 
I watched that movie in two viewings. When I watched the first half I thought that it was moving in an interesting direction. It seemed that this guy was becoming an addict-killer. Those people who find their worth in war conflicts incapable of returning to normal peaceful life. Then I watched the second half. My expectations didn't realize because the dude suddenly recuperated and the rushed ending finished on an affirmative note. The inner conflict of the soldier which seemed to be the main point of the movie disappeared, the guy became a hero and we were left wondering what Eastwood was going to say? Was it just a biopic? But why did he shoot the movie now? Was his message: hey we are getting softer with Obama and loosing it to our enemies, we need to support our soldiers even if their service is considered harmful and inhumane by modern standards?

 
 
I don't necessarily mean this to be directed to you, but I don't understand why this film can't simply be a story about one man's life as it pertains to his service in the military and his marriage/family. Why does there always have to be some larger message or political statement being made? Maybe Chris Kyle was just a man who was raised (as the movie indicates) as someone who stands up and protects himself and those he cares for. And that value was projected onto the other men who fought along side him, to the point where he knew he had nothing further he could offer. Why does it have to be more than just that? 

 

[Hutnicks]

   
 
I don't necessarily mean this to be directed to you, but I don't understand why this film can't simply be a story about one man's life as it pertains to his service in the military and his marriage/family. Why does there always have to be some larger message or political statement being made? Maybe Chris Kyle was just a man who was raised (as the movie indicates) as someone who stands up and protects himself and those he cares for. And that value was projected onto the other men who fought along side him, to the point where he knew he had nothing further he could offer. Why does it have to be more than just that? 

It doesn't have to be more than that. Unfortunately here it most certainly is. A film is very much a series of directors choices. He ultimately decides what gets shot on film and in Eastwoods case what gets left in and left on the editing room floor. Why this is becoming a controversial film is a lot of those choices do not reflect the ACTUAL experiences of Kyle or his piss poor attitude toward the Iraqis as a whole. When you move from fact into "artistic license" in a film as grave as this one, you open a door for scrutiny. Every choice that departs from the truth (or the authors statement of the truth in this case) begs to be questioned as it plays to the Directors agenda. Unfortunately today people will go to a film an that will be their sole source of information on something historical. When that film injects or omits factual events it needs to be scrutinized.
We are really running the risk of becoming who we despised during the Cold War, by practicing Revisionist History in the media and hoping it gets a free pass.
 
Look into Eastwoods political stances and then take a good long close look at what he did with the film J Edgar. He cherry picked and sanitized that one as well to give us a very skewed half portrait of what the man actually was. There are more than one critic and analyst out there who believe he did the same thing with American Sniper

 

[jodgey4]

Snowpiercer I want to add, just because - another 4/5 star movie - very intriguing to me as I'm a political philosophy nerd, lots of amazing statements and overtones!

 

[Focker]

 
It doesn't have to be more than that. Unfortunately here it most certainly is. A film is very much a series of directors choices. He ultimately decides what gets shot on film and in Eastwoods case what gets left in and left on the editing room floor. Why this is becoming a controversial film is a lot of those choices do not reflect the ACTUAL experiences of Kyle or his piss poor attitude toward the Iraqis as a whole. When you move from fact into "artistic license" in a film as grave as this one, you open a door for scrutiny. Every choice that departs from the truth (or the authors statement of the truth in this case) begs to be questioned as it plays to the Directors agenda. Unfortunately today people will go to a film an that will be their sole source of information on something historical. When that film injects or omits factual events it needs to be scrutinized.
We are really running the risk of becoming who we despised during the Cold War, by practicing Revisionist History in the media and hoping it gets a free pass.
 
Look into Eastwoods political stances and then take a good long close look at what he did with the film J Edgar. He cherry picked and sanitized that one as well to give us a very skewed half portrait of what the man actually was. There are more than one critic and analyst out there who believe he did the same thing with American Sniper

 
The problem is that I've yet to see anyone actually back that up with specific examples. I've read excerpts from his book (source material for the film) and watched some of his live interview segments. He very clearly differentiates between the civilian Iraqis (whom he lumps in with his fellow soldiers and American civilians as those he is defending) and the terrorists. That being said, even if he DIDNT do that, who cares? Solidiers don't make decisions on where they fight, who they fight, or for what purpose. Many of these criticisms I'm reading should be directed at the decision makers within the US Government and Armed Forces...not at the soldiers. And quite frankly, I couldn't care less what his attitude was toward anyone. Every man and woman who signs on the dotted line at the recruiter's office agrees that they may end up makign the ultimate sacrifice for thsoe they are protecting. That is a sacrifice that the vast majority of Americans have absolutely NO concept of, let alone appreciation for. If someone who has taken on the burden of protecting America wants to be a complete jerk or call people savages, I truly couldn't give a single ounce of a crap. 
 
Further, movies are not bound to the truth standard that documentaries are. Pretty much every film that falls under the heading of biopic or something along those lines takes dramatic license. Clint's views are no less valid than anyone elses, so if he wants to take artistic license, good for him. 

 

[oqvist]

Indiana Jones
The original Star Wars trilogy, not the one with kid Anican and Ja Ja Blinks. MI SOS STUPID.
Blade Runner
1993 Tak3n without Liam Neeson and a better script, and a better director
Air Force One
Etc...

I have seen most of these. Good movies but I don´t think Harrison is all that good in them. He is a bit like Keanu. Is in some good movies and some bad but he never impresses