• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

The Official Movie Thread

I hope none of you wasted your money on After Earth. I was "fortunate" enough to see a preview of it last week, and, my word, it is terrible. The acting is horrible (seriously, if it wasn't for his father, Jaden Smith would never have been cast in anything), the dialogue is bad, the story is so painfully predictable, it's laughable and, while the special effects were nice, they were pretty ordinary by today's standards. Just truly awful.
 
bustaheims said:
I hope none of you wasted your money on After Earth. I was "fortunate" enough to see a preview of it last week, and, my word, it is terrible. The acting is horrible (seriously, if it wasn't for his father, Jaden Smith would never have been cast in anything), the dialogue is bad, the story is so painfully predictable, it's laughable and, while the special effects were nice, they were pretty ordinary by today's standards. Just truly awful.

Just got back from it.  My wife thought is was ok...  I concur with your analysis.  Awful.
 
saw star trek this weekend... I enjoyed it. But I can see why true 'trekkies' may hate these new movies - these are just pure action movies now.

On another note, I watched the 30 for 30 doc on Gretzky, and it is one of the most boring docs I've ever watched.

It didn't give any new insight on the trade to LA... anyway, I guess what I'm saying is unless you don't know who Gretzky is, then this doc isn't worth your time.
 
Iafrate said:
On another note, I watched the 30 for 30 doc on Gretzky, and it is one of the most boring docs I've ever watched.

It didn't give any new insight on the trade to LA... anyway, I guess what I'm saying is unless you don't know who Gretzky is, then this doc isn't worth your time.

Yeah, I thought the same for the most part(although I thought it was interesting that Gretzky could have chosen to go to Detroit instead of LA). That said, it was intended for US audiences so I don't think it's really meant for hockey nuts.

If people want to watch a good sports documentary, they should look on Netflix for Undefeated, which won the oscar a few years back. It's about the volunteer coach of a football team at a poor Memphis high school and while it's maybe a little straight-forward for some tastes I thought it was terrific.
 
I've always been a big superman fan. I have high hopes for the new movie. I've been trying to avoid watching trailers so as not to spoil as much as possible but it's hard.
 
TheMightyOdin said:
I've always been a big superman fan. I have high hopes for the new movie. I've been trying to avoid watching trailers so as not to spoil as much as possible but it's hard.

well if it helps any the trailers look fantastic. And to be honest, I like Snyder's movies, even Sucker Punch; I think that movie had potential, it was a great concept, the execution just didn't hit the mark, but honestly, the movie looked stunning.

So worst case with superman is your going to at the very least have a stunning looking movie.
 
Saw HBO's Behind The Candelabra on the weekend. It was easily the best post-Oscar season movie I've seen this year. Not even close to any others.

Michael Douglas gave an impeccable performance as Liberace. He played the character perfectly, and it was one of those acting performances you really get in awe of. Matt Damon was great too, but Douglas absolutely stole the screen. The writing was also excellent. Both main roles were fairly complex characters and Douglas and Damon pulled it off. It's truly is amazing how MATT DAMON and MICHAEL DOUGLAS can portray an on-screen relationship and make it look extremely touching and convincing. Kudos to them.

Rob Lowe's character was also hilarious, mainly because he looked like a cross between Kato Kaelin and Michael Jackson:

i
 
KoHo said:
Saw HBO's Behind The Candelabra on the weekend. It was easily the best post-Oscar season movie I've seen this year. Not even close to any others.

Michael Douglas gave an impeccable performance as Liberace. He played the character perfectly, and it was one of those acting performances you really get in awe of. Matt Damon was great too, but Douglas absolutely stole the screen. The writing was also excellent. Both main roles were fairly complex characters and Douglas and Damon pulled it off. It's truly is amazing how MATT DAMON and MICHAEL DOUGLAS can portray an on-screen relationship and make it look extremely touching and convincing. Kudos to them.

You think? I don't know. They're both talented actors, no reason to think they couldn't.

Anyways, I'm fairly conflicted about the movie. I thought it was a great piece of technical filmmaking and there are some amazing performances in the major and minor roles but, and I know that there's no requirement for a movie to be didactic in this way or anything, I thought it was a little distasteful how they presented this really awful relationship, as you say, as "touching" or in any way genuine. Could you imagine a movie about a heterosexual relationship between a wealthy and famous man in his 60's dating/sleeping with a 17 year old girl, pressuring her to get plastic surgery so that she looks more like him, talk openly about adopting her and then dumping her a few years later for someone younger and the guy not coming off as a complete monster? Or the relationship not being a terribly exploitative/borderline abusive one? I don't know, it seemed a little creepy to me.
 
Nik the Trik said:
KoHo said:
Saw HBO's Behind The Candelabra on the weekend. It was easily the best post-Oscar season movie I've seen this year. Not even close to any others.

Michael Douglas gave an impeccable performance as Liberace. He played the character perfectly, and it was one of those acting performances you really get in awe of. Matt Damon was great too, but Douglas absolutely stole the screen. The writing was also excellent. Both main roles were fairly complex characters and Douglas and Damon pulled it off. It's truly is amazing how MATT DAMON and MICHAEL DOUGLAS can portray an on-screen relationship and make it look extremely touching and convincing. Kudos to them.

You think? I don't know. They're both talented actors, no reason to think they couldn't.

Anyways, I'm fairly conflicted about the movie. I thought it was a great piece of technical filmmaking and there are some amazing performances in the major and minor roles but, and I know that there's no requirement for a movie to be didactic in this way or anything, I thought it was a little distasteful how they presented this really awful relationship, as you say, as "touching" or in any way genuine. Could you imagine a movie about a heterosexual relationship between a wealthy and famous man in his 60's dating/sleeping with a 17 year old girl, pressuring her to get plastic surgery so that she looks more like him, talk openly about adopting her and then dumping her a few years later for someone younger and the guy not coming off as a complete monster? Or the relationship not being a terribly exploitative/borderline abusive one? I don't know, it seemed a little creepy to me.
I didn't have knowledge of the true nature of the real-life relationship until after I watched the movie so obviously none of those thoughts took away from the movie while I was watching it. Either way, it didn't bother me since the actor playing Thorson was Matt Damon and not an actual 17 year old. THAT would have been creepy.

I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.
 
KoHo said:
I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.

That's not what I'm saying though. The reason I found the movie problematic isn't whatever liberties they took from the actual events, like you I'm not really familiar with their real-life relationship but the tone of what was being depicted and what . When Liberace is pressuring Scott to get plastic surgery so that he looks more like Liberace, it's played almost for laughs when I think we can all agree that those are the actions of a profoundly disturbed individual and we never really got more of just what made the guy such a nutcase/sleazy user of people.

I mean, it's like if in What's Love Got to Do With It, the scenes of Ike Turner beating Tina were scored to Yakety Sax. Tone matters.
 
Nik the Trik said:
KoHo said:
I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.

That's not what I'm saying though. The reason I found the movie problematic isn't whatever liberties they took from the actual events, like you I'm not really familiar with their real-life relationship but the tone of what was being depicted and what . When Liberace is pressuring Scott to get plastic surgery so that he looks more like Liberace, it's played almost for laughs when I think we can all agree that those are the actions of a profoundly disturbed individual and we never really got more of just what made the guy such a nutcase/sleazy user of people.

I mean, it's like if in What's Love Got to Do With It, the scenes of Ike Turner beating Tina were scored to Yakety Sax. Tone matters.
To be honest when Liberace took out the picture in that scene I thought he was kidding. When I realized he was completely serious about wanting Scott to look like him I was like "oh..."

I suppose Liberace was quite disturbed in real life, but Steven Soderbergh did a pretty good job of towing the fine line of not making him seem TOO creepy/disturbed. He gave the audience enough to chew on without having it really affecting the audience in a way that would take away from the movie.
 
KoHo said:
Nik the Trik said:
KoHo said:
I always thought movies showed be viewed through the sphere of entertainment value and not much else. If a movie is based on real life events that are modified in the movie, I don't really care as long as the movie is good. That's why I wasn't really on board with the Argo/Canadian angle criticism. Hollywood's primary job, in this case, isn't to depict a truly accurate picture. It's to entertain me - and Behind the Candelabra did a very good job of that.

That's not what I'm saying though. The reason I found the movie problematic isn't whatever liberties they took from the actual events, like you I'm not really familiar with their real-life relationship but the tone of what was being depicted and what . When Liberace is pressuring Scott to get plastic surgery so that he looks more like Liberace, it's played almost for laughs when I think we can all agree that those are the actions of a profoundly disturbed individual and we never really got more of just what made the guy such a nutcase/sleazy user of people.

I mean, it's like if in What's Love Got to Do With It, the scenes of Ike Turner beating Tina were scored to Yakety Sax. Tone matters.
To be honest when Liberace took out the picture in that scene I thought he was kidding. When I realized he was completely serious about wanting Scott to look like him I was like "oh..."

I suppose Liberace was quite disturbed in real life, but Steven Soderbergh did a pretty good job of towing the fine line of not making him seem TOO creepy/disturbed. He gave the audience enough to chew on without having it really affecting the audience in a way that would take away from the movie.

I felt kind of 'meh' about the movie. I found that I just didn't care about either of the main characters. The acting was certainly good (although I'd give most of my kudos to Damon as he showed more of a 'transition' over the course of the film), but they both just seemed like such users.  I guess I just didn't feel any kind of depth to the story.
 
Just got back from a screening of Man of Steel. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is and it's very watchable. If you like superhero movies and/or action movies, it's worth watching. If you're a stickler for superhero canon, you might have some issues.
 
bustaheims said:
Just got back from a screening of Man of Steel. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is and it's very watchable. If you like superhero movies and/or action movies, it's worth watching. If you're a stickler for superhero canon, you might have some issues.

I enjoyed it though I've always crushed on Amy Adams. Nothing to do with the movie at all but my wife knows I like her and she asked me if I though she was 'hot.' I found it rather difficult to explain but in the end I came up with that (IMO) she's not really 'hot' but more 'pretty.' At the same time, I really haven't decided if she's a wonderful actor yet or not either. - Anyway, big crush nevertheless.
 
Dr. Bobby Leafer said:
bustaheims said:
Just got back from a screening of Man of Steel. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for what it is and it's very watchable. If you like superhero movies and/or action movies, it's worth watching. If you're a stickler for superhero canon, you might have some issues.

I enjoyed it though I've always crushed on Amy Adams. Nothing to do with the movie at all but my wife knows I like her and she asked me if I though she was 'hot.' I found it rather difficult to explain but in the end I came up with that (IMO) she's not really 'hot' but more 'pretty.' At the same time, I really haven't decided if she's a wonderful actor yet or not either. - Anyway, big crush nevertheless.

She was awesome in Talladega Nights.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top