Movie Season

Michael Bluth

Michael Bluth

Well-known member
After what has been a slow year in theaters, I've gone three straight weekends and will probably be going again this weekend because Captain Phillips is getting great reviews.

I've seen three in a row that have all been good.

Prisoners
Rush
Gravity (the best)

12 Years a Slave comes out next weekend.
The Counselor comes out the weekend after that.
Wolf of Wall Street Nov 15.
Inside Llewyn Davis Dec 6.
American Hustle Dec 13
The Hobbit Dec 13
The Monuments Men Dec 18

This is shaping up to be a great season for movies.
 
 
I have not been to a theater this year but got a tip to see Gravity 3D Imax and checked it out this week. I have to admit visually one of the best films I have ever seen, not only the SFX but also the way the director moves between 1st and 3rd person. Score was also one of the best and added to the experience. This movie will probably be a lock for winning the cinematography and best score Oscars, should also get a best picture nominee.

 
From what I've read, 12 Years a Slave should be BP front-runner come February. Hopefully 2013 is better than 2012, which turned out to be fairly disappointing.

Gravity is my #1 of the year thus far, by a fairly wide margin. Still need to see Prisoners, Rush and Don Jon.
 
Still need to see Man Of Steel, despite hearing that it was pretty average. Still playing catch-up from summer.
 
I would hesitate to call it science-fiction, because everything that happens in the movie could probably actually happen (unlike Star Wars/Trek, Matrix, Inception, Blade Runner, etc), but if you don't like space movies, you don't like space movies. I will say that it's a quick 90 minutes though.

But if you're on the fence about seeing it, wait until Redbox or something cheap comes along.
 
Wolf Of Wall Street is getting pushed back. Typically that means it's not as good as it should be. We'll see. Still excited for it though.
 
DennisRodman said:
I am not surprised Gravity is good, but honestly from the previews it did not spark my interest at all.
Click to expand...

My exact feelings. Bullock and Clooney leads me to believe it'll be a good movie but from what I saw I just have no interest in seeing it. But many people have told me it is pretty damn good so I may change my opinion and go see it.

The only movie I've heard of that the director did was Harry Potter so I dunno what to expect from him.
 
wildcatbuckeye95 said:
My exact feelings. Bullock and Clooney leads me to believe it'll be a good movie but from what I saw I just have no interest in seeing it. But many people have told me it is pretty damn good so I may change my opinion and go see it.

The only movie I've heard of that the director did was Harry Potter so I dunno what to expect from him.
Click to expand...

This was my feeling heading into the film too. I am not a huge Bulock fan and hate her look after plastic surgery; never got George Cloony and see him as a 1 note actor. Then a friend who knows cinema and sees films weekly told me I had to see this thing in a theater and in the best format possible; I admit it was well worth the $s and am still thinking about it almost a week later. While the acting is strong it is about the directing, visuals, and sound. I am also not a space movie fan and it is just so different then anything out there. The Hollywood elites will make sure this movie doesn't sniff a best picture Oscar, that will go to some "important" piece of work but cinema students will be talking about this film years from now.
 
wildcatbuckeye95 said:
My exact feelings. Bullock and Clooney leads me to believe it'll be a good movie but from what I saw I just have no interest in seeing it. But many people have told me it is pretty damn good so I may change my opinion and go see it.

The only movie I've heard of that the director did was Harry Potter so I dunno what to expect from him.
Click to expand...

Alfonso Cuaron is pretty awesome. He also directed Y Tu, Mama Tambien? and Children of Men, the latter being possibly the best movie of 2006. But yes, he also directed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and go figure that it's probably the best film of that entire series, IMO.
 
Auggie said:
This was my feeling heading into the film too. I am not a huge Bulock fan and hate her look after plastic surgery; never got George Cloony and see him as a 1 note actor. Then a friend who knows cinema and sees films weekly told me I had to see this thing in a theater and in the best format possible; I admit it was well worth the $s and am still thinking about it almost a week later. While the acting is strong it is about the directing, visuals, and sound. I am also not a space movie fan and it is just so different then anything out there. The Hollywood elites will make sure this movie doesn't sniff a best picture Oscar, that will go to some "important" piece of work but cinema students will be talking about this film years from now.
Click to expand...

Bullock is okay, but I thought she was pretty damn good in Gravity. As for Clooney, I don't think there are too many actors out there that I'd take over him in a lead role. I'd say he's this generation's Paul Newman.

I saw the movie only in 2D. I think I'm going to see it in 3D simply because everyone's been raving about it.
 
recently said:
Alfonso Cuaron is pretty awesome. He also directed Y Tu, Mama Tambien? and Children of Men, the latter being possibly the best movie of 2006. But yes, he also directed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and go figure that it's probably the best film of that entire series, IMO.
Click to expand...

I'll have to watch the series again and look at it from a non-pure entertainment standpoint but I do remember that movie being one of the better of the 8.
 
The issue I had with movies 4, 5 and 6 were that the books were so long and so many important things were cut from the movies. The first three books were short enough that the movies were relatively faithful.
 
recently said:
The issue I had with movies 4, 5 and 6 were that the books were so long and so many important things were cut from the movies. The first three books were short enough that the movies were relatively faithful.
Click to expand...

Then you compare that to The Hobbit, which is shorter than any of the Harry Potter books, and it's being made into 3 movies! :wallbang:
 
That's purely a financial decision, not a creative one. I couldn't believe how boring the first hour of the first installment was last year. Filler, all of it. Second installment looks a little more promising.
 
BTW speaking of the Hobbit, I saw the trailer for the new one before Gravity and I am so over that series and the drawn out cash grab it has become. The scene of Orcs crawling over each other to attack some gang of heroes could have been from any of the other movies. I dug the LOTR trilogy visually and the story is cool but even those films were too long. I think one of the best things about Gravity is it showed you how with good editing a film can work just as well if not better in 90 minutes.
 
You could never compress LOTR into 90 minutes. The amount of stuff they shortened or left out to make those movies was enough to make several additional films. It's a very dense and long book series.

The Hobbit's story will be covered mostly in 2 movies. The third will cover extra things that will more or less link The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring. They also added extra scenes to the first film, like Radagast and pretty much everything involving the sword he found.


As for Harry Potter, Prisoner of Azkaban is probably the best. Shouldn't be, but it is. One of the issues I've always had with the movies is how they toned down things that really didn't need to be. And how poor a job they did of making Voldemort an intimidating, power hungry sociopath. I mean, he's basically Hitler and he comes off as a more of a major nuisance to people instead of a mass murderer, the vast majority of the time.
 
Last edited:
Crusaders said:
As for Harry Potter, Prisoner of Azkaban is probably the best. Shouldn't be, but it is. One of the issues I've always had with the movies is how they toned down things that really didn't need to be. And how poor a job they did of making Voldemort an intimidating, power hungry sociopath. I mean, he's basically Hitler and he comes off as a more of a major nuisance to people instead of a mass murderer, the vast majority of the time.
Click to expand...

Spot on
 
With regards to the Harry Potter series you have to remember the target audience and the need for a PG rating. No way does Universal allow some sort of super boogey man to muck up the cash cow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top