Re: Good (or bad) Movies PART 2

[LennG]

Thanks for the heads up Ed. We don't get to the 'real' movies a lot lately, so I will watch for them on DVD.

[jimv]

"Affair to Remember" is in theaters tomorrow (Feb 12) & Feb 15,

[GiantFan67]

Sully was a good flick. I recommend "The Lion"-we really enjoyed it. We also saw La La Land-a musical but not like old time musicals. The music and dancing was very enjoyable.

[LennG]

While we were away, we had HBO on our TV. Really not much to watch but I did tune in to watch the latest remake of Tarzan, 'The Legend Of Tarzan' starring a bunch of people I had never heard of, except for Samuel L Jackson.

OK, over all my years of watching movies, I have seen many, many, many Tarzan movies, from the very beginning to Walt Disney versions and now to a 3D version. There have been so many Tarzan's, from Buster Crabbe, to the 'REAL' Tarzan, Johnny Weissmuller, to so many others, it just seems like anyone could do it, some very good, others very bad. After watching this 'new' version of Tarzan,  Edgar Rice Burroughs is probably turning over in his grave.

Let's get to it. This is a more updated Tarzan. He  has left the Jungle, married Jane and they live as Gentleman and wife in England. Tarzan/John Clayton is a Lord or something like that. Plot wise, he is goaded into going back to the Jungle to stop some man from taking over the entire continent. At first he refuses to go, but hey, how can you have a Tarzan movie without a Jungle and wild animals. They spend some time in flashback mode to how John/Tarzan became Tarzan, all really unnecessary stuff. Samuel Jackson is now his side kick buddy, =really there for absolutely no reason except maybe to have an educated Black man in the movie. At some point Jane gets kidnapped and, of course, Tarzan stops at nothing to rescue her. There you have it and you don't have to watch it.

So let's say what  we really think here. Overall, this may be the worst Tarzan movie I have ever seen. AND, we never even hear one good Tarzan yell. He swings thru the jungle as though he were Spiderman, he fights as if he were Batman, at points he is also Rambo like, so he is several superhero's rolled into one. Even the villain wasn't that villainous if that is a word. When I thought Lex Barker was the worst Tarzan I had ever saw, Hollywood comes along to establish new guidelines and a new low.
Oh, and yes, they also manage to blow things up along the way. After all what would a movie in the deepest Jungles of Africa be without explosions and rampaging wild beasts.

Edgar Rice Burroughs, rest easy, if you can, hopefully there won't be a sequel.   UGH

[jimv]

Lenny, I NEVER heard of this movie.  So, I guess a lot of people agree with you on how bad it is.

An interesting point - In the actual Tarzan books (which I've read), Tarzan DID become an English gentleman & still continue his adventures.  My favorite book was "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar."

[LennG]

Only if you want to see--

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_legend_of_tarzan

I've read several reviews where people actually liked this movie. I guess if you blow things up, people will watch.

[jimv]

Only if you want to see--

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_legend_of_tarzan

I've read several reviews where people actually liked this movie. I guess if you blow things up, people will watch.

"Stupid is as stupid does."

[LennG]

Jim

I think you did a quick review of this movie, a while ago, so I hope you don't mind if I expand on it a bit.

Yesterday we, or I should say I, watched 'Hacksaw Ridge', another of a few movies that I have been wanting to see. My DW wouldn't even give it a try once she saw what it was about, so I braved it alone. AND, I wasn't disappointed one bit. The movie was GREAT.
I guess you can say it starred a cast of unknowns as they truly were unknown to me. The star, a fellow by the name of Andrew Garfield, played Desmond Doss, the true story of a man who joined the Army during WWII but he refused to even hold a rifle. He wanted to be a battlefield medic, to save lives, rather than take them. He was a conscientious objector, but wanted to serve rather than stay at home.
The story follows Doss thru his childhood, into the Army and thru flashbacks we learn why he refuses to even hold a gun. It takes us thru his treatment among his fellow soldiers and his subsequent Court Marshall trial.

No need to go into the who's and hows, but Doss and his platoon are now on Okinawa and are ordered to take this mountain top, Hacksaw Ridge. The Army has been trying to secure this for many tries and now it was our turn. Again, I won't go into detail about the ensuing battle, as you really have to see it for yourself, but to cut to the chase. After they retreat off the summit. Doss is behind, trying to care for the many wounded. In one night, amid swarms of Japanese, he goes about saving 75 men, lowering them to safety below. For this act of heroism, he was awarded the Medal of Honor, the only conscientious objector, in the history of our Armed Services, to receive this honor.
Myself, I never heard of hacksaw Ridge, but it was supposed to be one of the bloodiest battles in the entire war, I never heard of Desmond Doss, but I can truly say I will never forget this story.

So bottom line, this movie is a war movie. Spielberg set the tone with Saving Private Ryan, for what war is REALLY like, and this movie spares nothing. There is blood, there is gore, there is everything that one would see in a battle like this, or any battle in a war, for that matter. It is NOT for anyone squeamish, not for any children or young adults. It is VERY realistic of war, so be prepared for that.

I just have to add my own opinion here. I have watched movies my entire life. I would say Westerns are still my favs, and then come war movies. I have seen them all. As I said in my review of Lawrence of Arabia, the need, in today's movies, to show EVERYTHING, well, I sometimes wonder about that. In every war themed movie, basically up to Saving Private Ryan, war was war, people died--good people, but they were never shown with their guts hanging out. We knew war was rough but now the need to show war as it truly is, I don't know if that is a good thing or not. Myself, I have been to Viet Nam in wartime. I never saw a lot action, but saw some of the devastation from it. Movies like this show you everything any soldier would see in an actual battle. Is it a movie to try and prevent wars and their terrible effect? I don't know. Would I have liked this movie more if it weren't so graphic, Maybe. My point is, do they have to show all this graphic gore to make you feel that you understand what is happening? Myself, I think less is better. We all get the point.

I highly recommend this movie, but be prepared.

[LennG]

Yesterday we watched another movie that has gotten rave reviews and was nominated for several Academy Awards, "Arrival" a real thinking mans SciFi movie. It stars Amy Adams as a linguist who is called upon to help decipher what Aliens have been saying after they arrived on Earth.

Wait, I am getting too ahead of myself here. As I said this movie got rave reviews as a real modern day, thinking mans science fiction movie. AND, to be honest, it was all of that. The entire movie consists of basically the relationship between Ms Adams and Abbott and Costello, what the two Aliens were named. There are NO explosions, no Earth Vs the Flying Sauces mentality here, just talk, more talk and even more talk. So, what did I think, I wasn't thrilled with it. Why, because it was slow. did I say slow, that might be putting it mildly. You do have plenty of time to think during the movie. PLUS, IMVHO there are so many things that just didn't make sense. Seems the Army was in full control here, making decisions without even consulting Washington. Ms. Adams seems to have learned their language, which is a mish mash of circular drawings, in a very short time. Plus she is teamed with a physicist who does basically nothing at all. Some parts are almost laughable, as Ms Adams, in order to make contact, takes along a sort of small chalkboard and writes things on it. has she not ever seen Close Encounters. I couldn't read what was on the board let alone the aliens.

A quick synopsis, 12 alien ships land (or sort of land) all over the world.  We are trying to make contact with the aliens, each country doing their own thing, and all are sharing their discoveries with each other. But China and Russia are getting inpatient and are threatening to attack the space ship since no real progress is being made. They all have no idea why these ships are even there. But wait, Ms Adams is making progress and finds they are here to help humanity, or maybe to make war, no one really knows. 

Closing, the movie was OK. It does have a real twist ending, but overall, it was a combination of the Day the Earth Stood Still (just a much better movie than this), Contact, which wasn't that great either. Where they should have/could have done much better, was watch Close Encounters and used inspiration of how they made contact with aliens. I know they didn't want to be a clone, but really, a chalk board??

Overall, it was OK, but very slow and dull for a real SciFi movie, at least for my taste. Don't know what the Academy was thinking when nominating this movie for awards.

[LennG]

This has turned into SciFi weekend. Last night we watched 'Passengers' a very new release of a 2016 SciFi adventure. It stars Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt.
If you haven't heard much about this movie here is a trailer.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=passengers&view=detail&mid=E95A71EF9D21F1579FBFE95A71EF9D21F1579FBF&FORM=VIRE0&mmscn=tpvh&ru=%2fsearch%3fpc%3dCOSP%26ptag%3dD061616-AA0769CF3FB%26form%3dCONBDF%26conlogo%3dCT3335584%26q%3dpassengers

Let's see if I can relate some of this movie. We are in the future. This space ship is carrying 5000paying people to a far off planet which will take 120 years to reach. Everyone is in hibernation but about 30 years into the flight, the ship hits an asteroid and one pod is damaged and the man wakes up (Chris Pine). He is now alone on a voyage where the rest of the people won't wake up for another 90 years. He can only talk to the android bar keeper. About a year into his being awake, he sees a beautiful girl, in one of the pods, who he basically falls in love with. He wrestles with the dilemma of waking her up to have company, but that will basically doom her to never getting to their destination and spending the rest of their lives just traveling to the destination. He can't bear to be alone anymore and awakens her, pretending to have also been awakens by accident.
They exhaust every effort to be re-podded, if you know what I mean, to no avail, so they are to spend the next 90 years together on this ship.

I won't go into any more detail, as you should see it for yourself. My take on it, the special effects are just dazzling. You really feel you are on this ship and when troubles happen along the way, they are fantastic. Overall, it is basically a love story. Boy is alone. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, they fall out of love, danger brings them back together, but for good????????????

The movie is basically a 4 person cast. There a few extras for a few seconds along the way, but it's 4 people and that's it, but I found it a pretty good movie. It does bog down a bit in the middle,a s it just turns into a real love story and everything else is secondary, but overall, it is a good watch and a very interesting premise. What would you do if you were going to be alone for the rest of your life and you have to power to raise some one to spend that time with. You are basically dooming them to also spend the rest of their lives, not fulfilling their dream. Can you call that murder.

This one was much better than Friday nights movie,a t least for me. it wasn't a super movie and not a must see, but entertaining and if you are a scifi person you will like this one. There are a couple of bare butts, and a sort of mild sex scene, but overall it can be good for teens and an older child.

[LennG]

Last Wednesday, I went to see "Patriots Day."  (Mark Wahlberg was in this one too.)  For those who might not remember, it's the story of the bombing of the Patriots Day Race a few years ago in Boston.  It's very much a two part story like Lenny described "Deepwater Horizon."   The first part slowly describes the lead up to the explosions.  Once the explosions occur, the picture really takes off.  And, it's a little gory; made more so by the fact that these things DID happen.  Even though you know how the whole thing comes out, it's suspenseful & exciting.  I recommend it.

To follow up on what Jim said, which I hardily concur, I watched "Patriot 's Day' last nite and thought it was excellent. Jim hit the nail right on. The first half basically sets up the bombing, showing some of the people who were 'main' participants, including the two bombers, telling us what they were doing right up until the bombs went off. That takes place not yet half into the movie, but after that, the movie does take off. Kevin Bacon plays the FBI agent who is overseeing the investigation and the pursuit of the bombers and he is good, as usual. It takes us to the hospitals, the families of those involved, the police and how they started the investigation, thru the FBI involvement, to ID the bombers and then the pursuit and capture of one and killing of the other.  Just good stuff and Mark Wahlberg is excellent. Like he was born to play this role.

Like movie that tell a story that you already know the outcome (Titanic, for example) it is still gripping movie telling and,a s I said, I enjoyed it very much. It is definitely not for kids, maybe not even young teens as there is graphic displays of what the bombs did to some of the people and there is a lot of cursing (they are cops, after all).
I would recommend this movie.

[Ed Vette]

We saw the Shack last week. I liked it very much but Linda thought it was just ok. Not for everyone.

We saw The Lion King in 3D Imax surround sound. It was delightful. I don't know if it would be better or worse at home or on the regular screen theater.

[LennG]

Thanks Ed. I never even heard of The Shack, but looking it up, sounds like something that I would most definitely be interested in.

[Ed Vette]

It's relates to the Holy Trinity but think new age, not Christianity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LennG]

Last night we sat down and watched 'Jackie', the story of Jacqueline Kennedy following the assassination of JFK. It stars Natalie Portman in a role, I feel she played very well, in fact, I feel she was excellent.

Let's see, where to start. First of all we (my DW and I) both felt that people who lived thru the tragedy of losing JFK and remembering Jackie, would relate to the movie more than say a younger audience, who really never saw Jackie  Kennedy and really knew nothing about her.

The movie itself was a bit of a surprise to me. I don't know if it was supposed to be sort of true to life or they took 'poetic license' with many points, you will just never know as we have no way of ever knowing what really went on behind closed doors after the assassination. That said, I never knew Jackie was so really into herself, never knew she was basically a chain smoker (only in private) and, TO ME, sort of a 'cold fish'. Others may feel differently, but she did come across as a lot more than just a grieving widow.

The movie itself opens a week after the assassination and Jackie is doing an interview with an unnamed reporter. It goes, thru flashback, the murder of JFK and a lot of the events that followed, including the induction of LBJ as the next president on Air Force One, the funeral arrangements, and the funeral itself. Myself, I always thought that the funeral was sort of tradition, the horse drawn casket, the long march to the church, but that was all Jackie's doing. She wanted it to be spectacular. That's what I mean, she comes off as caring more about appearances than her actual grief.

A couple of things I have to mention because it bothered me to no end. Jackie is the main character and she dominates the movie. Along with the actor who plays Bobby Kennedy (who looks nothing like him) sort of dominate the other parts.Ted Kennedy is never even mentioned, I think you may catch a glimpse of him at the funeral, but why they basically eliminated him when he should have been right there with the family, I just don't know. Also eliminated was JFK's mother, Rose Kennedy. I know she was old, but I'm sure she had to be at the funeral and other functions and we never see her at all, never even mentioned either. I found that very strange.

So, to sum up, we sort of enjoyed the movie as I said at the beginning because we lived thru this part of history. I would recommend it, if only to see Ms Portman's excellent portray of this remarkable woman, There is minor cursing and the assassination is show with a couple of very quick gory parts. Would I recommend this to kids, no, but teens should see it, just to know and learn some parts of American history if they can weed out the soap opera parts that interject.