General Movie Thread

[Martin]

Haven't seen them, but I'd go with The Hurt Locker and Moon for the visuals alone. The Hangover is definitely not "must see in cinema" material - in fact, I didn't like it that much at all, save Zach G. Haven't seen the others - I'm guessing Food Inc is not overly "cinematic".

[JonFromMaplewood]

Oh, and In the Loop is on my short list too.

[Martin]

OK, In the Loop it is. 

[Chris L]

In The Loop, definitely, and since I already compared it with Hurt Locker I'm sort of obligated to pick that instead of Hangover (but that's the only reason).   I haven't seen Moon.  

[JonFromMaplewood]

Thanks guys. I'm thinking Hurt Locker and In the Loop is the ticket.  The others I will watch on TV later (with the understanding that I will lose the visuals on Moon).

[masterofsparks]

I vote Moon.

[JonFromMaplewood]

"The Hurt Locker" and "In The Loop" made for an incredible double feature. It was as if they were meant to be seen together.  In ways, ITL left me more depressed about the nature of war than did THL.


P.S: How long do you think before Entertainment Weekly does an interview with Kathryn Bigelow and entitles the article "Lady Hurt Locker?"

[masterofsparks]

P.S: How long do you think before Entertainment Weekly does an interview with Kathryn Bigelow and entitles the article "Lady Hurt Locker?"

I believe that is the title of a chapter in Spike's upcoming book.

[orator]

I just watched In Bruges. Damn, that was funny. Loved it.

[masterofsparks]

This is just my own little hang-up, but I have a really hard time seeing any sort of animal cruelty rendered on-screen (though I strangely have no problem watching people be killed*). It pulls me out of the movie and upsets me enough that I usually end up either being unfairly harsh towards the movie or just turning it off.

For whatever reason, I seem to be on a really hot streak as far as picking just this sort of movie lately. First was Terrence Malick's Badlands. The most recent, and much more egregious offender, is Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev. I only made it about 2 hours before I was so upset that I had to turn it off. Every time something happened, I kept trying to reassure myself that what I'd just seen wasn't real, that there was some way to fake it, but a couple of the instances seemed real. I just don't see any reason for that sort of stuff to happen on-camera. If such story points are really so important to the film (and I can't really think of a reason why they are), at least do it like the dog's death in Jaws where it happens completely off-camera.

Yes, I'm a spaz, and I realize it. This hang-up probably subtracts from my enjoyment of some really great art, but I can't help it. Does anyone else have something that similarly impedes their enjoyment of films/books/whatever?

/blog

* - In movies. Obviously. What kind of monster do you think I am?

[Sarah]

Predictably, I'm with you on this one.  I flinch whenever a beast has more than a bit part in a movie, worrying that it's going to meet an awful end.  Hell, I was a little concerned when the dog showed up in the Ice-T video.

[jbissell]

Have you seen Gummo?

[orator]

 I just watched the MST3K version of Boggy Creek 2 last night, and it has a couple scenes of a live deer swimming and then they show its decapitated head floating in the water, and some moron in an apesuit dragging its headless body around.

 It pissed me off. I mean, killing an animal for a movie is pretty crappy anyway, but for such a shitty movie and for all of two stupid scenes, that's even worse.

[masterofsparks]

I just did a little quick internetting and it seems that at least two of the most egregious scenes in Andrei Rublev were not faked (i.e. the animals were maimed and/or killed). I guess there was no such thing as the SPCA in the mid-60s Soviet Union.

I should've stopped watching after the monk beat his dog to death for no reason. The scene was shot in such a way that it's obvious the dog was not harmed, but it happened early in the film and it made me uneasy. I should've listened to my gut, but I kept watching because this movie is so highly regarded as an important classic.

Now I'm going to be upset for the rest of the day. Great.

[hugman]

I just did a little quick internetting and it seems that at least two of the most egregious scenes in Andrei Rublev were not faked (i.e. the animals were maimed and/or killed). I guess there was no such thing as the SPCA in the mid-60s Soviet Union.

I should've stopped watching after the monk beat his dog to death for no reason. The scene was shot in such a way that it's obvious the dog was not harmed, but it happened early in the film and it made me uneasy. I should've listened to my gut, but I kept watching because this movie is so highly regarded as an important classic.

Now I'm going to be upset for the rest of the day. Great.

This is what you get for watching arty farty movies.  I guarantee no guinea pigs were harmed in the making of G-Force.

On another note, I just finally watched a lovely cartoon called Gran Torino.  This could have been such a good movie if it weren't perhaps one of the worst executed movies I've ever seen.