Last movie you watched......

That's fair. I love the chances he takes. Even his failures are fun to watch.

And I love Melancholia irrationally. I know it has all kinds of flaws (I'm looking at Kiefer Sutherland), but I was hooked by the movie. I've re-watched it a couple times and my opinion hasn't changed. The opening scenes are breathtaking. Not that we really need to re-hash that argument. This thread had its thoughts on Melancholia a couple years ago.

 

I watched Fading Gigolo and I didn't see the point. It was an aimless meandering through a story, void of any plot, about love and sex, but without sex or sentiment.

 

Brick Mansions. Only checked it out because of the Paul Walker angle and 10 minutes in, I could tell it would be one of those unintentionally funny movies that is like porn for parkour fans, of which I am not one.
I would say it was so bad, it was fun to watch, but I'd be lying.
And, how come in movies like this, you can have the bad guy send like 10 people after one person, who inevitably takes off, and then the chase scene includes about 25 people after the guy?
There was one funny moment, which I'm giving the script writers the benefit of the doubt by saying it was on purpose, when RZA goes Wu-Tang and says, "Cash rules everything around me."

 

OK, well, no.

That's not to say Nolan isn't great with images. He's great there. And it's not to say I'm not fond of his work. I generally like his movies. But he doesn't write good roles nor, with the exception of a Heath Ledger role that Ledger himself shaped, does he get particularly good performances out of his actors.

 

About the only film of his I'd have no interest in seeing again is the most recent, two-volume picture.

Melancholia is a piece of work, man. Most people watch that and don't even see the sheer magnitude of misanthropy at play there. Talk about a deep plunge into a cold pool.

 

The last half of Melancholia is decent; the first half is just God-awful. Kirsten Dunst nude is nice, though.

 

Interstellar was good. But it could have been spectacular.

 

The musical (and the movie) Chicago had zero sentiment, but it works, well enough.

Broadway buffs can't see Birdman soon enough. Quite a ride.

 

I always find this take interesting. Of some movies, it can be true, especially if the movie needed to be edited down more, or if you're talking about a relative newcomer to the biz or, I dunno, somebody dies and their role feels undone.

I'm curious as to how it fits Interstellar. It's a $150 million movie. If it isn't "good," in some sense, it's either disgusting/insulting to our intelligence - Michael Bay's films - or it's a complete bomb.

I'm not sure what could have made it better than what it is.

The final act is, IMO, a ludicrous misfire, an epic "huh," but you can't say it wasn't intended or that they didn't (obviously) think about the implications of it.

 

Chicago, though, also had a coherent plot.
Agreed on Birdman, it was fantastic.

 

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with a serious take on a comic book hero. You just better do it well, as they did with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Not so much in The Dark Knight Rises. If you aren't going to play on the inherent humor in these movies, as Guardians of the Galaxy did, that can make for a lousy movie.

 

Not going to debate Nolan's films.
They leave me cold; I understand why they might appeal to others.
Guardians of the Galaxy, and the Lego Movie (with its meta-twist), have infinitely more charm- and soul- than Nolan's Batman trilogy.