I watched Pulp Fiction for the first time the other day. At first I kinda struggled with the violence and intensity but after watching the entire movie I think it's a true masterpiece, one of the most impressive movies I've seen
Watched Arrival the other day. Not bad, not what I was expecting and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Was an interesting philosophical movie. Intriguing as not too long ago I found myself debating the same philosophy this movie touched on, albeit in a different yet similar way than I was debating.
For those who have seen it -
Not sure how I feel about the plausibility of everything that happened in the movie. For some reason I feel like humanity would never get as far as they did in the movie. Trump and China would probably nuke those things the second they appeared in our atmosphere. I do however agree that as far as the exploration of space goes, we will never be able to do so to our potential as long as we are not all on the same page and together globally. Perhaps why the aliens needed to get the humans together so that in 3000 years they could be advanced enough to travel to wherever this race of beings is located and in need of help.
I saw Arrival in theaters awhile back. Being used to movies where Aliens come, turn out to be hostile and invade our planet, I came in with assuming it would be more of the same. I was wrong. Arrival is a deeply philosophical film. I understand and agree with your assertion that humanity probably wouldn't have got as far as they did in communicating with one another and working out that the aliens were not in fact hostile, but trying to bring humanity together and advance our technology. I think the film is a commentary on that very question. It investigates who were are as a people, shows us that the things that divide us, our language and culture will destroy us if we are not careful. The reason they did make it so far is due to a single plot device, the fact the main character played by Amy Adams can see into the future, and is able to use what she sees in order to convince China not to push the button. It is highly unprobable of happening out here beyond the silver screen, but hey reality doesn't sale anymore.
Just saw Logan the other day. It is one of the best in the wolverine series so far in my mind. Well Written. I'd recommend it. I was disappointed by a few plot points, but I left happy I chose watching it over Kong.
Below are huge spoilers. If you have not watched the film, I wouldn't read any further.
That said, for those who have seen it, it was also incredibly sad. I was not horribly surprised that Professor Xavier died, though I found it an interesting choice and a bit uncomfortable that they made him his character senile. I liked that they gave Wolverine a lab created daughter, and thought she was pretty bad ass, taking after daddy. I do think that there was too much time spent on running from the bad guys, and not getting more info on this company that was creating new mutants to form an army. Why? How exactly are they planning to use them? I know they failed with the children mutants as they couldn't erase their empathy and so couldn't create killers out of them. I liked how they made an evil wolverine clone, but Old Logan didn't stand a chance. He was dying the whole movie and ultimately was killed by evil Wolverine before his daughter beat him with a special bullet. Is Logan/Wolverine really dead? No after the credits scene? The children mutant's powers were horribly underused. They did band together to defeat the wannabe bad guy with the metal hand, who never made much of himself or did anything with that bionic hand. I don't like when movies are made leaving things out to pave way for sequels, if your going to tell a story, tell a story.
Sabotage....An early 1930's British film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I give it a -1 out of plus 1-10. The plot was confusing choppy and sound quality abysmal. It was so bad you could use the DVD for a cheese platter.
Sabotage....An early 1930's British film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I give it a -1 out of plus 1-10. The plot was confusing choppy and sound quality abysmal. It was so bad you could use the DVD for a cheese platter.
Hitchcock said that that film made a major mistake that he never repeated. It was...
...killing the little boy carrying the package. You're used to building up tension with somebody carrying a bomb - cut to clock, cut to bus getting caught in traffic, cut to clock again, etc. - but every other time the person escapes. Not this time. And when the kid dies any interest you had in the movie kind of drains away because there's not really anyone left worth saving.
Not to be confused with early American Hitchock movie Saboteur (which has a scene of hanging off the Statue of Liberty which prefigures the Mount Rushmore scene in North By Northwest, but is otherwise not great).
Best early Hitchcocks (IMHO):
39 Steps (maybe my fave of all Hitchcocks, although nothing like the book)
Young and Innocent
The Lady Vanishes (All British)
The first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much is good too, but tends to be really poor quality. Has Peter Lorre in it.
Lesser-known but great early American ones:
Shadow of a Doubt (Hitchcock called it his fave of his own films)
Foreign Correspondent
Stinkers:
I Confess
The Wrong Man
Not much of a fan of The Trouble With Harry either.
I watched Pulp Fiction for the first time the other day. At first I kinda struggled with the violence and intensity but after watching the entire movie I think it's a true masterpiece, one of the most impressive movies I've seen
I gotta be a dissenter on this one. I think it's a bunch of stories, each of which is pretty threadbare in itself, strung together in a flashy way (messing with time in a way that had been done already) so that you overlook that it doesn't really add up to much. And some of the stories are just bad. That whole Bruce Willis stuff? Meh. I personally prefer both Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown (which is the only Tarantino movie with actually fleshed-out characters, rather than walking speeches, because it was written by Elmore Leonard).
Realize I'm in the minority here... But I did love Reservoir Dogs when it came out, even if it did ruin Stuck In The Middle With You forever after.
I gotta be a dissenter on this one. I think it's a bunch of stories, each of which is pretty threadbare in itself, strung together in a flashy way (messing with time in a way that had been done already) so that you overlook that it doesn't really add up to much. And some of the stories are just bad. That whole Bruce Willis stuff? Meh. I personally prefer both Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown (which is the only Tarantino movie with actually fleshed-out characters, rather than walking speeches, because it was written by Elmore Leonard).
Realize I'm in the minority here... But I did love Reservoir Dogs when it came out, even if it did ruin Stuck In The Middle With You forever after.
Hitchcock said that that film made a major mistake that he never repeated. It was...
...killing the little boy carrying the package. You're used to building up tension with somebody carrying a bomb - cut to clock, cut to bus getting caught in traffic, cut to clock again, etc. - but every other time the person escapes. Not this time. And when the kid dies any interest you had in the movie kind of drains away because there's not really anyone left worth saving.
Not to be confused with early American Hitchock movie Saboteur (which has a scene of hanging off the Statue of Liberty which prefigures the Mount Rushmore scene in North By Northwest, but is otherwise not great).
Best early Hitchcocks (IMHO):
39 Steps (maybe my fave of all Hitchcocks, although nothing like the book)
Young and Innocent
The Lady Vanishes (All British)
The first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much is good too, but tends to be really poor quality. Has Peter Lorre in it.
Lesser-known but great early American ones:
Shadow of a Doubt (Hitchcock called it his fave of his own films)
Foreign Correspondent
Stinkers:
I Confess
The Wrong Man
Not much of a fan of The Trouble With Harry either.
I gotta be a dissenter on this one. I think it's a bunch of stories, each of which is pretty threadbare in itself, strung together in a flashy way (messing with time in a way that had been done already) so that you overlook that it doesn't really add up to much. And some of the stories are just bad. That whole Bruce Willis stuff? Meh. I personally prefer both Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown (which is the only Tarantino movie with actually fleshed-out characters, rather than walking speeches, because it was written by Elmore Leonard).
Realize I'm in the minority here... But I did love Reservoir Dogs when it came out, even if it did ruin Stuck In The Middle With You forever after.
When you think of the civil war anyone could be a doctor, even serial killers. The rank and file kill them all format was destroyed after these horrible battles. Generals were placed in rank because of their family or if lucky, prior war experience. General Ambrose Burnside/re incarnated as Donald Trump.
Just saw The Master. By far one of the best films about the unconscious mind and the lives we choose to lead. Amazing performances by both Joaquin Phoenix and the late Seymour Hoffman too. Paul Thomas Anderson is by far the best American film maker going. He likes Quentin Tarantino's younger brother if he was more literate and had a classic education. I don't think I've ever seen him make a bad feature film.
