What Movies Did You Watch in January 2020?

eastisbest said:
It's 100% correct. I asked myself again and yes, that's my opinion. I'm a stickler for authenticity and so I double checked my opinion before posting it. :ROFLMAO:

Oh, while I have your ear; since you're such a stickler can you find me a raging river and a water fall running SE in that part of France? I'm sure you already noticed, being a stickler, that the woods are NW of the village. We all have our sticky points a guess. And those were English rats, not French ones. You can tell by how polite they are.
Click to expand...
I liked 1917 but was not overwhelmed by any means. One thing did bother me, and I didn’t think of it till later, since there wet aeroplanes in the war zone why not just drop a note to the commander from the sky? Seems like it would make a lot of sense and save a lot of lives. Anyone think of a good reason why not?
 
Joker (2019) 6/8 Second time around seeing this one and I have to admit it lost a bit of it's luster this time. I still thought it was really good and Phoenix was outstanding, but I guess some of the shock value wore off the second time around.

Rambo: Last Blood (2019) 4/8 Not an outstanding movie, but definitely worth seeing. I liked that it didn't have a happy, feel good ending where John Rambo saved the day. It was more a revenge story where John Rambo went bad- one last time.

Bad Boys 4 Life (2020) 6/8 Agree with one of the earlier post that this one definitely had more of a story, but still plenty of action. I still think the second one is the best of the three, but this one was right there. I also thought this one was the funniest of the three and I liked that it had a bit of a surprise twist.
 
Irwin20 said:
I liked 1917 but was not overwhelmed by any means. One thing did bother me, and I didn’t think of it till later, since there wet aeroplanes in the war zone why not just drop a note to the commander from the sky? Seems like it would make a lot of sense and save a lot of lives. Anyone think of a good reason why not?
Click to expand...


Would have put a fairly early end to the movie. ;)

They were flying. They even had wireless. And if there were weather reasons (blatantly dispelled by that silly dog fight in which the german conveniently crashed in to the barn holding the conveniently placed bucket of milk (German must have known it would be needed later for a dramatic scene and was just doing his part). Which isn't meant to imply that didn't or couldn't have happened, but relates the impression I got.

Here is the quick google I could find on the withdrawal.

Ancre

Historical movies, there's usually a plethora of "what they got right/wrong websites. I've not had time nor likely to bother because I took such a poor impression from the movie. I'm sure they got the buttons right.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
I suck at subtitles, was it hard to hang in? I'd like to see it but really don't want to be waiting for a re-make with hollywoods latest golden boys and girls of the moment.

Ford v. Farrari 4/8 Definitely a story worth making, glad it got made. Reading about the characters after the fact, major points off for what was apparentl a very unfair characterization. Mangold has made some movies I really enjoyed so tis was a disappointment.

The story would have held up on it's own historical merits, even better. I started to think what this would have been as a Ron Howard or Clint Eastwood movie, both who have done well received character driven movies in a technical setting. (Apollo 13, Sully).
Click to expand...
I don’t have an issue with subtitles, so I may be a little biased, but it doesn’t take away from the film at all. Give it a go and see if you can make it through.
 
eastisbest said:
It's 100% correct. I asked myself again and yes, that's my opinion. I'm a stickler for authenticity and so I double checked my opinion before posting it. :ROFLMAO:

Oh, while I have your ear; since you're such a stickler can you find me a raging river and a water fall running SE in that part of France? I'm sure you already noticed, being a stickler, that the woods are NW of the village. We all have our sticky points a guess. And those were English rats, not French ones. You can tell by how polite they are.
Click to expand...
Ah, it was raining wasn't it? The creek behind my house gets pretty thrift when we have a good amount of rain. With that, I will have to concede to your geographic argument. I did not have a map with me at the cinema. The waterfall, like the meeting with the French civilian was unnecessary.

Had the film been perfect, I would have given it an 8. As it was, a 7 is certainly justified.
 
Last edited:
Purplemojo said:
a 7 is certainly justified.
Click to expand...



You didn't need a map, it was a comment in the movie. If you'd noticed it, your impeccable attention to detail and knowledge of the WWI theatre would no doubt have taken care of the rest.

I didn't in the least little bit dispute nor disagree with your desire to give it whatever score you desired nor with any desire you had to enjoy the movie. I only quoted you because YOU quoted me. It felt rude not to respond.

It's just opinion. Neither right nor wrong. A one is certainly justified.

Careful with that waterfall in the backyard.
 
Last edited:
Irwin20 said:
I liked 1917 but was not overwhelmed by any means. One thing did bother me, and I didn’t think of it till later, since there wet aeroplanes in the war zone why not just drop a note to the commander from the sky? Seems like it would make a lot of sense and save a lot of lives. Anyone think of a good reason why not?
Click to expand...
Lines were down so would they have even been able to get a message to the aircraft to deliver to that front line? I am presuming those planes weren't taking off too local from where the General was issuing said order.
 
thavoice said:
Lines were down so would they have even been able to get a message to the aircraft to deliver to that front line? I am presuming those planes weren't taking off too local from where the General was issuing said order.
Click to expand...

As I posted, wireless existed and was used during this war. And they only used one team, no reason given.

As I understand it, this movie isn't meant to be a historically accurate depiction of that particular theatre, just .. inspired by it. It's just entertainment. So, to have used any of the available real-life methods would have put an end to the movie. They could have mentioned a reason other means weren't available and depicted it (bad weather, too far away...) but skies were clear, Germans were clear of the area and it was only a 9 mile hike.

I more suspect they just presumed the average movie goer wouldn't know there were other options so why bother? As depicted, yes it was probably poor strategy but better drama don't you think?
 
LaSalle2016 said:
1917: 7.5/8 Mendes is a phenomenal director. Thomas Newman’s soundtrack helps set the mood for this riveting tale. Highly recommend.
Click to expand...
Lol Mendes is just copying Christopher Nolan. He’s done it with the Bond films and now he’s doing it with 1917, which is essentially just Dunkirk 2
 
Also as far as the Best Picture contenders go, I’ll rank them:

1. Parasite - 8/8
2. Marriage Story - 7.5/8
3. Little Women - 7.5/8
4. Jojo Rabbit - 7/8
5. 1917 - 6/8
6. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood - 6/8
7. The Irishman - 6/8
8. Ford v Ferrari - 5.5/8
9. Joker - 3.5/8
 
BlueJayFan said:
Also as far as the Best Picture contenders go, I’ll rank them:

1. Parasite - 8/8
2. Marriage Story - 7.5/8
3. Little Women - 7.5/8
4. Jojo Rabbit - 7/8
5. 1917 - 6/8
6. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood - 6/8
7. The Irishman - 6/8
8. Ford v Ferrari - 5.5/8
9. Joker - 3.5/8
Click to expand...


awesome that you've gotten to see all of them. I haven't gotten to 1917 or Parasite yet, and the closest theater showing JoJo Rabbit is 25 miles away so I haven't seen that yet either. Little Women I probably won't see. I don't care much to see it and my wife wants my daughters to read the book before seeing it.

Of what I've seen, I'd go:

Marriage Story 6.75/8
Ford V Ferrari 6.75/8
Joker 6.5/8
The Irishman 5.75/8
Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood 4.75/8


While I think it's been a relatively strong year for movies, I haven't loved the best picture noms that much as far as giving them a 7/8 or 8/8. I think 1917 and JoJo Rabbit may change that though.

I think Knives Out should have been nominated, which I had at a 7.25/8.
 
The Cold Light of Day: 3.5/8

Decided to go back through from the beginning of my Vudu account and watch anything that I for some reason haven't yet. This was a movie that came free when I signed up for Vudu.Pretty sure this was a straight to dvd movie.

With a cast of Bruce Willis, Henry Cavill and Sigourney Weaver, you'd think this would be at least decent. Cavill was still very early in his career yet and you could tell he lacked polish as an actor. His American accent was also pretty bad. Willis phoned his part in. Weaver was ok, but I don't think she was given much to work with character wise. Willis/Cavill play father/son on a vacation abroad with the rest of the family. Cavill goes in town for a new phone (after Willis throws his other overboard), and when he comes back the entire family is missing. It goes on from there, Israeli mercenaries get involved who are sometimes against Cavill, sometimes helping. I appreciated that they made it a man looking for his parents and siblings rather than the typical wife/girlfriend, but that was one of the few appealing things I saw in the movie.


Hardcore Henry: 3.5/8

I was pretty disappointed by this. The thought of an action movie filmed entirely in the first person like a video game sounded pretty cool, and I had seen some good reviews about how fresh and original it was. The coolness of the first person POV wears off pretty quickly though. There's basically no plot. After the beginning 20 minutes, which are kind of boring, it's just a guy being chased for the next hour by soldiers from the company that made him into a cyborg (I think?). the bad guy has superpowers. I don't think we ever find out how or why. It was hard to stay interested. Some semi-interesting twists at the end keep it from being a complete fail, but this movie just proves that even with a cool action concept you still need good writing and plot.
 
Last edited:
BlueJayFan said:
Lol Mendes is just copying Christopher Nolan. He’s done it with the Bond films and now he’s doing it with 1917, which is essentially just Dunkirk 2
Click to expand...
I love Nolan as much as the next film bro and I definitely see the similarity of following a character around but IMO the plots different enough that it works. I honestly never understood why Nolan chose Dunkirk to make a film about. Probably the most boring storyline in WW2 that he could’ve picked.
 
LaSalle2016 said:
I love Nolan as much as the next film bro and I definitely see the similarity of following a character around but IMO the plots different enough that it works. I honestly never understood why Nolan chose Dunkirk to make a film about. Probably the most boring storyline in WW2 that he could’ve picked.
Click to expand...


How did it do overseas? It may be boring to Americans, but if I’m not mistaken it was a pretty big deal to England.
 
LaSalle2016 said:
I love Nolan as much as the next film bro and I definitely see the similarity of following a character around but IMO the plots different enough that it works. I honestly never understood why Nolan chose Dunkirk to make a film about. Probably the most boring storyline in WW2 that he could’ve picked.
Click to expand...
I’m talking aesthetically and topically. The Bond films were almost homages to Nolan’s entire aesthetic and then Mendes chose to do a war film right after Nolan did.
 
Frozen 2
Wife and I took our 2.5-year old daughter to see Frozen 2. It was her first movie ever, and she did great! I thought the movie was really good, and the storyline/plot fit very well into the first movie, it came to a clean conclusion, and it even left open the possibility for a 3rd movie without making you feel like it was a cliffhanger.
 
El Paramo (2011)

Horror: A military unit discovers that a strange woman is the sole survivor following an attack at a base. Could not get into this one.... 2.5/8
 
It Comes At Night (2017)

Horror: A family will do anything to survive following a deadly outbreak. This is one of those slow burns and is not for those who want everything explained to them. I got into this one and felt that is one of the more realistic movies of this genre..... 5.5/8
 
BlueJayFan said:
Lol Mendes is just copying Christopher Nolan. He’s done it with the Bond films and now he’s doing it with 1917, which is essentially just Dunkirk 2
Click to expand...
I have been struggling to understand this. "Dunkirk 2" ? How so? Both films involve people shooting at each other, the Brits used the same helmet in both films and they had English accents in both films. Otherwise, they could not have been more different. In Dunkirk they structured the film on four points of view and four intersecting time lines. 1917 couldn't have been more narrow with the soldier's eye level point of view and a single continence time line/narrative.

Are you one of those people who believe that there is nothing worth telling about WWII that have not already been told? The critic who said that there was "no reason to see Midway if you have already seen Pearl Harbor" was an idiot.

Please explain.
 
I really disliked Dunkirk personally.


About 1917...emember it came from stories a grandpa told who was there so who knows how accurate and how much they had to fill in.
 
thavoice said:
I really disliked Dunkirk personally.


About 1917...emember it came from stories a grandpa told who was there so who knows how accurate and how much they had to fill in.
Click to expand...
Ok. I wasn't sure if I was the only one that didn't like Dunkirk that well. And the comment about 1917 being Dunkirk 2 had me concerned as I haven't seen it yet. So, 1917 is worth seeing in your opinion? I was going to try to catch it this weekend.
 
winbypin said:
Ok. I wasn't sure if I was the only one that didn't like Dunkirk that well. And the comment about 1917 being Dunkirk 2 had me concerned as I haven't seen it yet. So, 1917 is worth seeing in your opinion? I was going to try to catch it this weekend.
Click to expand...
Absolutely worth seeing, and I disliked Dunkirk!


Another good one coming out this weekend...>Last Full Measure.
 
Purplemojo said:
I have been struggling to understand this. "Dunkirk 2" ? How so? Both films involve people shooting at each other, the Brits used the same helmet in both films and they had English accents in both films. Otherwise, they could not have been more different. In Dunkirk they structured the film on four points of view and four intersecting time lines. 1917 couldn't have been more narrow with the soldier's eye level point of view and a single continence time line/narrative.

Are you one of those people who believe that there is nothing worth telling about WWII that have not already been told? The critic who said that there was "no reason to see Midway if you have already seen Pearl Harbor" was an idiot.

Please explain.
Click to expand...
www.slashfilm.com

Why Does Sam Mendes Keep Making Movies That Feel Indebted To Christopher Nolan? - /Film

Sam Mendes and Christopher Nolan keep making movies that echo each other's work. Seriously, what the heck is going on here?
www.slashfilm.com www.slashfilm.com
 
The Gentleman - 8/8

An absolute masterpiece. It's chock full of dry British humour which I love and every character was pretty much perfectly cast for the role. Had to control myself several times during the movie so I didn't burst into a laughing fit. I'll probably go see it again next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top