Last movie you watched......

Thank you. The Social Network was a well-made movie, but I couldn't stand the dialogue. I hope it doesn't win anything but "Most WPM in a Motion Picture."

Watched Fargo over the weekend. Great movie - loved Frances McDormand in her role. I understand why it is considered a classic piece of cinema. Absolutely riveting. Macy's acting annoyed me a little bit, although I'm not sure why. It could just be the weakness of his character that I detested.

Started reading No Country for Old Men. As someone else pointed out, there is no point once you've watched the actual movie. Scene for scene, the book and movie are an exact match.

I had a sick day and started watching The Verdict yesterday. I fell asleep early on, but I look forward to finishing it this evening. Nobody commands a camera like Paul Newman once did.

 

Exactly. Read the book,saw the movie. Enjoyed both but could not understand why people complained about the ending of the movie. What did you expect? Puppies and balloons?

On the other hand, I read McCarthy's The Road and started to watch the move on TV but then couldn't do it. It may be a great movie, but I don't need to be that depressed for two hours.

 

I've seen The Verdict a gazillion times and never get tired of it.

When I saw "The Natural" a long time ago, having read the book, my reaction to the (profoundly altered) ending was "Hollywood, you suck so bad it makes my head hurt."

 

There is an extended scene in the book with Llewellyn and a hitch-hiker that is not in the movie and a little bit more Anton Chigurh rampaging, but other than that, yes, it's an almost identical match.

 

Just finished "Inception."

For a critical darling and Best Picture nominee, man did it suck hard. I mean hard.

 

I loved the Swedish one so much, I can't bring myself to watch the American version.
I really loved that movie.

 

Don't know a highly-rated picture which is drawing such a divergence of opinion.

Was it the best thing I saw last year? No.

Was it the worst thing I saw last year? Not even in the same solar system.

And at least they showed SOME imagination, unlike the braindead trolls behind the bulk of the parade of knockoffs, redos, and tripe.

 

Here are some reasons I hated it:

* Clunky exposition. And lots of it. Ellen Page's character existed for the sole reason of letting Leonardo DiCaprio explain the science of dream extraction to her. And explain it. And explain it. And explain it. And also to explain his situation with his wife. And explain it. And explain it. And explain it.

* Poor character development. DiCaprio's character is about the only real character in the movie. Maybe the guy they kidnap. Or whatever you want to call it.

* Way, way, way, way too much extended action. There is about an hour straight of gun play and Matrix-style battle scenes. Some people love that shit. I was bored off my ass. It's like Nolan had a great concept, but knew he had to stuff it full of shit blowing up and machine guns blasting in order to draw audiences. And why were they on Hoth?

* Confusing. I'm told that it's not confusing, but that I'm just not smart enough or engaged enough to follow it. I guess a better explanation is that I just didn't care enough to follow it by the time they got to all the explosions and dream hopping. The characters were so poorly drawn an the set-up so excruciatingly contrived and boring that it didn't feel worth it to me to go along for the ride.

* Ridiculously low stakes. Some energy mogul that we don't give a shit about wants to implant an idea into some other energy mogul we don't give a shit about in order to get ahead in the business world. Wow. Be still my heart.

I could go on and on, but a lot of critics have done a much more eloquent job explaining why it sucks than I can. And, trust me, it sucks. SUCKS.

 

I liked the movie. I didn't love it. Essentially, it's just a big, blockbuster, special-effects movie.

A couple of your points interested me:

* Clunky exposition. And lots of it. Ellen Page's character existed for the sole reason of letting Leonardo DiCaprio explain the science of dream extraction to her. And explain it. And explain it. And explain it. And also to explain his situation with his wife. And explain it. And explain it. And explain it.


I agree. Detailed exposition was necessary because of the convoluted plot, but that detailed exposition was not elegantly executed.

* Poor character development. DiCaprio's character is about the only real character in the movie. Maybe the guy they kidnap. Or whatever you want to call it.

If everything is the dream, which is the way I viewed it, then DiCaprio's character should be the only real one. He's the only character and everyone else are just figures to further the dream. This doesn't aslways make for good movies, but it makes sense within the dreaming construct.

* Way, way, way, way too much extended action. There is about an hour straight of gun play and Matrix-style battle scenes. Some people love that shit. I was bored off my ass. It's like Nolan had a great concept, but knew he had to stuff it full of shit blowing up and machine guns blasting in order to draw audiences. And why were they on Hoth?

Absolutely agree.

* Ridiculously low stakes. Some energy mogul that we don't give a shit about wants to implant an idea into some other energy mogul we don't give a shit about in order to get ahead in the business world. Wow. Be still my heart.

Once again, I viewed the entire assemblage as the dream. As a result, the heist plot is immaterial. The planting of the idea in Cylian Murphy is a McGuffin. The only thing that matters to the dreamer is that the dream maintain forward momentum.

 

Buck, thanks for the thoughtful point-for-point response. I thought it seemed like a big blockbuster special-effects movie, too. Thing is, I don't see too many of those. Hardly any at all. So my point of reference for "Inception" is to other movies, like dramas. And it's tough for me to watch a movie like, say, "The Wrestler," which I saw for the first time the other day, and find that "Inception" measures up to it.

Watched "The Social Network" last night. Thought it was entertaining as a double-cross business movie. But I think a lot of the praise is overblown for that one, as well. Maybe I'm spoiled by the slow burn character development of television series like "The Wire," "The Sopranos," and "Mad Men," which movies have difficulty pulling off in two hours.

I definitely think the social commentary aspect of "The Social Network" is overblown and overhyped, and almost a critics' invention out of whole cloth. There was a conceit that it was a world-changing invention. But that's about as far as it went. Might as well have been about television or the microwave or the Model T, as far as that goes. Facebook itself was just a stand-in for a story about cut throat corporate backstabbing. What made it more than mildly interesting was the age of the characters and the setting - college kids rather than accomplished boardroom businessmen.

 

Finally saw "True Grit," Meh. I mean, it was OK but best picture. Uh no. Saw "Sanctum" yesterday. Pretty interesting movie. If you're at all into scuba diving, it's a must see.

 

Piranha - Pure B movie schlock, but quite fun. Wish I would have watched in 3D. Elizabeth Shue can still hold her own.