Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[TJCams]

I too would like to see that one. I really admire what Hawking has done for the world of science and our understanding of the cosmos, as well as bringing us closer to understanding the origins of the universe.

[Dan Hocker]

Has anyone seen Fury yet? I'm pretty interested in it, but am not sure I'm gonna have time to get out and see it.

[Sock Monkey]

The Taking of Deborah Logan: The central premise--a documentary crew detailing a woman's struggle with Alzheimer's realizes that something supernatural might also be occurring--is intriguing and the actress playing the title character does a great job giving it her all, unfortunately a few missteps derailed the movie for me. The movie falls in the "found footage" category and while I don't have a problem with this type of film in general, I do believe that most movies don't do well with this kind of format, though the ones that do handle it well I really like (Blair Witch, Cloverfield, the first Paranormal Activity). This movie won't be joining the chosen few that I do like. The footage has been "edited" from numerous sources--documentary footage, outtakes, home and hospital security tapes--and after a while the movie felt more like a collection of scenes rather than a movie. The characters are barely sketched out with no substantial depth and no character arcs. The movie also abandons the documentary feel early and the Alzheimer's thread early on which was a shame because that was more interesting than what we are giving when we start dealing with the supernatural elements. On the plus side there were one or two decent jump scares and if the script had stuck with either the movie as a documentary or had changed to a straight narrative all along it would have been so much stronger. Unfortunately, we get a lot of unrealized potential. Not an amateur production but not worth recommending. Grade: D+

[Sock Monkey]

Cold in July: Based on the Joe R. Lansdale book of the same name, this movie deals with a family man dealing with the repercussions of his actions when he kills a burglar who broke into his house. The story has more than a few twists and turns in it, leading the viewer down a dark, and darkly funny, path. I have to give director Jim Mickle a lot of credit for owning the late eighties time period that the movie is set in, even giving the movie one of those cheesy eighties scores that could have derailed the flick, but instead makes the film feel like a hidden gem you've found hidden in an old box of VHS tapes. Michael C. Hall, Sam Shepard and Don Johnson all kill their respective roles, with Johnson almost stealing the movie. The special features on the DVD also include a Q&A with the both Mickle and Joe Lansdale that I found very entertaining (they also discuss that they are developing a Hap & Leonard show for Sundance, I believe, which would be awesome!) I loved every single minute of this movie and give it the highest level of praise possible: it feels like Joe R. Lansdale through and through. Grade: A (no, seriously, go check this movie out! )

[Sock Monkey]

Has anyone seen Fury yet? I'm pretty interested in it, but am not sure I'm gonna have time to get out and see it.

Haven't seen it yet but looking forward to checking it out. Its gotten pretty good reviews so far (78% on Rotten Tomatoes).

Here's a shocker: the new Keanu Reeves film, John Wick is currently sitting at 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. Reeves has more misses than hits for me, but I might have to give it a shot.

[Dan Hocker]

Haven't seen it yet but looking forward to checking it out. Its gotten pretty good reviews so far (78% on Rotten Tomatoes).

Here's a shocker: the new Keanu Reeves film, John Wick is currently sitting at 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. Reeves has more misses than hits for me, but I might have to give it a shot.

Oh yea I'm really looking forward to that one as well. I've heard nothing but good things about it.

[marduk]

"The Paranormal Diaries" - "A filmmaker leads a team of researchers on a tour of the notoriously haunted St. Mary's Church at Clophill in this supernatural shocker based on actual events. Over the course of three terrifying nights, the investigators realize they have stirred a evil force that's determined to spread its malevolent influence."

Well, first of all, those three nights were not terrifying. There was nothing remotely scary about this movie. I grew up out in the country and often found myself traipsing through the surrounding fields and woods on my own, often at night; I was even making "documentaries" about nothing even when that meant lugging around a big VHS recorder back in the mid-80's. That's what this film made me think of. A lot of darkness, a lot of talk, and not much happening. And even when something did happen, it was not thrilling or scary - and is so often the case these days with books and movies, there was no real ending. The main character even says at the ending something like "I don't know if there's anything up there or not. You'll just have to go see for yourself." I don't know what "actual events" this film refers to, and I certainly don't feel like investigating after this waste of time. I was going to say at least it had good atmosphere, but after the first night it's the same old thing over and over.

[srboone]

Fury: A typist/clerk for the US Army gets his first taste of war when he is assigned to a tank crew as an assistant driver. Hard-hitting, gut-wrenching look at coming of age in wartime. Great claustrophic setting is used to maximum effect. Writing, acting and directing are all top-notch, but it covers familiar ground. Not particularly memorable compared to some of the great war films of the last 40 years (The Big Red One, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, etc. ), but it's entertaining and a solid entry in Pitt's filmography.

4/5

[mhatchett]

I will admit, as a tanker/scout(Armored Recon Specialist 19D), I’m looking forward to seeing this movie. I usually cringe at how much they get wrong in military films, despite all the money they spend on military advisors…I’m sure the directors probably don’t listen, but we’ve all seen some whoopers!

[marduk]

"Neighbors" - 2.5 out of 5. Not overly funny, not really engrossing. It's like it didn't try hard enough to be more than some funny lines here and there.

[srboone]

No "new" movies this week, but a couple of older ones:

RiffTrax Live! Anaconda: Those silly RT people are at it again, this time riffing the the 1997 actioner with Jennifer Lopez and Jon Voight. I have to admit, this movie always confounded me. I couldn't decide if it was a spoof or a movie that looked good on paper and didn't translate well to the screen. And I still can't decide. Roger Ebert found it to be a three-and-a-half star serious actioner and strongly advocated Voight for a Best Supporting Actor nod (which I find hilarious). Either way, it was a ripe candidate for riffing and the RT guys did a great job with it. Love the scene where the acnaconda regurgitates Voight to make room in his belly for Lopez.

Anaconda: 2.5/5
RiffTrax Live: Anaconda: 5/5

Saw: The 10th Anniversary Edition: I missed this one in theaters back in 2004 (I saw the next 6 in the theater), but since it is back in AMC theaters for one week, I decided to catch it. And I was the only one. I hadn't had a private showing for a movie since The Blind Side opened (everybody else was there to see Twilight: New Moon) and it was pretty creepy being in a darkened theater by myself watching it. A solid supsense film with some pretty graphic sequences it is by far the best of the series and it's easy to see why James Wan became the "it" director in horror films. Definitely not for the squeamish.

4/5

[Tommy]

No "new" movies this week, but a couple of older ones:

RiffTrax Live! Anaconda: Those silly RT people are at it again, this time riffing the the 1997 actioner with Jennifer Lopez and Jon Voight. I have to admit, this movie always confounded me. I couldn't decide if it was a spoof or a movie that looked good on paper and didn't translate well to the screen. And I still can't decide. Roger Ebert found it to be a three-and-a-half star serious actioner and strongly advocated Voight for a Best Supporting Actor nod (which I find hilarious). Either way, it was a ripe candidate for riffing and the RT guys did a great job with it. Love the scene where the acnaconda regurgitates Voight to make room in his belly for Lopez.

Ha! I was there too and had a blast, My favorite line was "I'd rather have a cap in my ass than a fish up my dick any day!" I remember reading Ebert's review at the time and then seeing the movie and thinking he must have been in a really good mood that day but looking back, he did tend to give films with Lopez in them a higher score than other critics at the time, I think he had a major crush on her and could easily sit through anything with her in it as such, Now I am waiting on Rifftrax Live Santa Claus which should be a riot

[srboone]

I've been anxiously awaiting it all year; and last night, I was able to see it in IMAX:

Interstellar: Christopher Nolan takes on the vastness of space and the survival of Mankind in this 3-hour pic. As Mankind lives through it's final years, a group of rogue NASA scientists undertake a series of missions to discover a habitable planet where our species can survive. It sounds great on paper, but Nolan slows down the action, which is unfortunate, because his story is wonky on emotional and intellectual levels and his actors have no chemistry (with the exception of Matthew McConaughey and Mackenzie Foy). Nolan never was that gifted with the human touch needed to pull off a movie without action, and it painfully shows here. I have to admit I was bored for most of this movie. It's the SFX that give Interstellar any life at all. This film is something that Hollywood hasn't made in a long time: A big-budget SFX movie that uses no green screens. The sets were all three-dimensional and painstakingly detailed. All the effects were created and then projected around the sets. For that reason, the FX have a realism to them that CGI simply can't give you. Because no green screens were used, the perspective of FX shots was limited, but they are played to maximum effect. But all these SFX will lose their power and majesty on the small screen. If you plan on seeing it, do it in the theater.

This is a major disappointment from the man who gave us The Dark Night trilogy and Inception.

2.5/5

[srboone]

Birdman: Michael Keaton stars as a movie star whose career crashed when he gave up the role of Birdman, a winged superhero. Currently he is getting ready to make his Broadway debut in an adaptation of Raymond Carver's "What People Talk about when They Talk about Love" that he wrote, directs and stars in. Delightfully profane, foul-mouthed and vulgar; splendidly acted; and directed with a virtuosity that most directors can only dream of achieving, this movie is also a very stagy and pretentious pitch-black comedy that is full of magical realism, inside jokes that you may not get, and insightfully painful jabs at Hollywood and the celebrity lifestyle. This backstage comedy is a marvel of acting (Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone should all get noms out of this) and storytelling (screenplay and directing noms also) that simply won't appeal to everybody; but it appealed to me. This is one of the very best films of the year.

5/5

[Dan Hocker]

Nolan never was that gifted with the human touch needed to pull off a movie without action, and it painfully shows here.

I dunno I would argue that The Prestige and Memento aren't action laden movies and are both fantastic. Not that I'm arguing about Interstellar, as I haven't actually seen it yet.