What movies are you watching?

[Jorge]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, but especially the first, are in many ways movies about male responsibility to family.

Ehh, I don't think that's interesting at all. I think the family themes are mostly superficial. To Coppola's credit, they create some moments of great drama and keen observation, which results in something that feels compellingly authentic, but I think they are far from the most important element of this series.

I find the parts with Connie being part of meetings having to do with family business and giving orders that Vincent then follows very wrong. It doesn't work with the way that the family works in the first two movies, or even with the way her character is in the first two movies.

It's been decades since the first two movies. Part of the whole point is that Michael is very different man now. Hell, he keeps saying so over and over. He doesn't want to be the one making those decisions. It's the worst part of his life. He hates it, and he hates that its sucking Vincent into it.

Connie was radicalized by the events of the first two movies, and didn't find the longing for redemption Michael did, which I think has a lot to do with him being in power and her not. It's a logical (and interesting) progression for her character.

Also, a helicopter comes and shoots everybody.

And? It's a good set-piece.

Also, Sofia Coppola's acting in this may be the worst acting I've ever seen in a real movie.

As mentioned previously, I don't think it's that severe.

Also, Robert Duvall is missing.

His character is irrelevant.

The most quoted moment from III, "As soon as I think i'm out, they pull me back in" or whatever, takes place in a little kitchen. The setting doesn't match the moment. It always felt off to me.

I think that's on purpose. The whole tension of the film lies in Michael's struggle between legitimate family life and his mob ties. The setting should be intimate and family-centered because that's where he wants to be. It's the perfect place for such a vulnerable lament. The movie is filled with moments of intimate, vulnerable fragility from Michael; the settings should reflect that.

Where were you in 2008 when I originally made that post?
http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewto ... 9#p2408904

i don't know

I can't believe Kevin Costner used to post here

[lennytheweedwhacker]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, but especially the first, are in many ways movies about male responsibility to family.

Ehh, I don't think that's interesting at all. I think the family themes are mostly superficial. To Coppola's credit, they create some moments of great drama and keen observation, which results in something that feels compellingly authentic, but I think they are far from the most important element of this series.

I find the parts with Connie being part of meetings having to do with family business and giving orders that Vincent then follows very wrong. It doesn't work with the way that the family works in the first two movies, or even with the way her character is in the first two movies.

It's been decades since the first two movies. Part of the whole point is that Michael is very different man now. Hell, he keeps saying so over and over. He doesn't want to be the one making those decisions. It's the worst part of his life. He hates it, and he hates that its sucking Vincent into it.

Connie was radicalized by the events of the first two movies, and didn't find the longing for redemption Michael did, which I think has a lot to do with him being in power and her not. It's a logical (and interesting) progression for her character.

Also, a helicopter comes and shoots everybody.

And? It's a good set-piece.

Also, Sofia Coppola's acting in this may be the worst acting I've ever seen in a real movie.

As mentioned previously, I don't think it's that severe.

Also, Robert Duvall is missing.

His character is irrelevant.

The most quoted moment from III, "As soon as I think i'm out, they pull me back in" or whatever, takes place in a little kitchen. The setting doesn't match the moment. It always felt off to me.

I think that's on purpose. The whole tension of the film lies in Michael's struggle between legitimate family life and his mob ties. The setting should be intimate and family-centered because that's where he wants to be. It's the perfect place for such a vulnerable lament. The movie is filled with moments of intimate, vulnerable fragility from Michael; the settings should reflect that.

Where were you in 2008 when I originally made that post?
http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewto ... 9#p2408904

i don't know

I can't believe Kevin Costner used to post here

i love both the actor and the poster

[VinylGuy]

Dog Eat Dog.

FUCKIN AMAZING. PURE CINEMA. NICK CAGE YOU FUCKERS.

Tangerine.

Ok, consider me a big Sean Baker fan...I loved Starlet and with Tangerine he just stepped up his craft. The movie looks GORGEOUS and it was shoot on a fuckin Iphone...great music, great cast...
Whenever i see one of those corporate boring movies like the skeleton twins ill remember his movies.

This is indie film fuckers. This is cinema.

Why does VG always get angry with us when he really likes a film?

[epilogue]

I've only seen Godfather III once. It was a long time ago. I should revisit the thing. My memory is that I didn't get why everybody hated it so much and that Pacino (and his melodrama) really worked well for the final chapter and that most of the movie was fine outside of a few really overblown and terrible scenes. I remember not loving the dialogue. I remember not loving much of the cast. But that's all I remember. It was a pretty forgettable experience for me that first time.

The opposite is true of the first two Godfather films. I saw those once and they stuck. Big time. Especially the second one (which is probably my favorite of the three). I've seen that one more than the others, however. So maybe that's why I like it so much.

Also, I saw I and II (at different times) both for the first time on the big screen. Which I think really helps their impact. Those movies deserve a cinema screen. Whereas, part III I watched for the first time at home on DVD.

[bune]

After completing my rewatch, The Godfather: Part III is absolutely my favorite of the trilogy. The last five minutes are overpowering.

I saw this coming the moment he started watching the trilogy. Still disheartening to see it play out.

It's like a Trump presidency writ small.

[VinylGuy]

Too Late.

I really appreciate the effort. It felt sincere and there is enough here to keep me interested, specially John Hawkes. The story? well its a mediocre version of a tarantino movie, its not even a cool film noir. But it really tries, and its more cinematic than pretty much every movie out there.

I just wish it could have been better.

[VinylGuy]

Blue Jay.

Smart, funny, sad. Its a beautiful movie, Sarah Paulson and Duplass shine here. The cinematography is great. Man, this movie should be nominated for something...Really powerful.

[Jorge]

Nocturnal Animals was spectacular. There are some slightly frustrating things about it-- some of the David-Lynch-perfume-ad indulgences, and a few really dumb lines of dialogue-- but I found it altogether engrossing, affecting, generous. It's precise but visceral, sumptuous but gritty. Beautiful score, gorgeous cinematography, and remarkable performances from just about everybody in the cast. Michael Shannon especially. I really loved it

[Strat]

Sleek but vigilant; subtle yet effective

[Jorge]

Munificent but intransigent; loquacious but taciturn

[Jorge]

I'm now watching the Zemeckis Christmas Carol. I really loved it when it came out but holy hell this animation has not aged well

[epilogue]

Nocturnal Animals was spectacular. There are some slightly frustrating things about it-- some of the David-Lynch-perfume-ad indulgences, and a few really dumb lines of dialogue-- but I found it altogether engrossing, affecting, generous. It's precise but visceral, sumptuous but gritty. Beautiful score, gorgeous cinematography, and remarkable performances from just about everybody in the cast. Michael Shannon especially. I really loved it

Strongly considering seeing this today on my lunch break.

[Jorge]

The first 10 minutes had a lot of stuff that had me going "this is dumb. This is stupid. This is obvious." But once the story-within-a-story gets going, all the sterile-art-world-trappings clichés stop mattering

[epilogue]

Fuck. Looks like I won't be able to fit this in to my break today. I'll try to go Monday or Tuesday after work.

[epilogue]

So, turns out I was able to see Nocturnal Animals today. Still processing. The movie ended about 15 minutes ago. My initial gut reaction is that I really liked it. But it wasn't at all what I thought it would be. I do agree that the cinematography is stellar and the performances across the board are outstanding. The score might have bugged me a bit in that I noticed it an awful lot. But I'm not ready to commit to an opinion on that just yet. Have to think about this some more. What a strange and brutal film.

[Jorge]

Aaron Taylor Johnson was great as Basically Kaius.

[epilogue]

Aaron Taylor Johnson was great as Basically Kaius.

[epilogue]

I read this review on Roger Ebert dot com and the first paragraph really echoes my initial feelings of Nocturnal Animals:

This may or may not be one of the best films of 2016, but it’s absolutely one of the most interesting. Or maybe I should say least boring. If I sound puzzled, it’s because I am. Sort of. A little bit. “Nocturnal Animals” is a work of exceptional, undeniable craft, but it’s also a movie that’s meant to stick to you a little bit. Indeed, so vehement is writer/director Tom Ford in articulating his vision at times that you think he’d be disappointed by a viewer that wasn’t at least a little bit angry with him over the movie.

[Kaius]

Aaron Taylor Johnson was great as Basically Kaius.

I don't see a problem.

[Rangi Guy]

The Big Short - was really interesting and depressing at the same time