Movies, books, tv
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I like the Leftovers. Then I remembered it’s Damon Lindelof’s show.
Explains the utterly disappointing exposition, mysticism mixed with spiritualism. No polar bears yet though. So I remain hopeful.
Explains the utterly disappointing exposition, mysticism mixed with spiritualism. No polar bears yet though. So I remain hopeful.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Haven't seen many of these:
I’ve seen all best picture nominees but Tar and Triangle of Sadness. Tar streams later this week. I normally see all of the nominated ones. My favorite was The Whale, with Everything Everywhere All at Once a close second. Think it will win.Haven't seen many of these:
Did anyone else see All Quiet?
First, it isn't the book. The director borrowed some general ideas from the book, but much of it is totally different. They share a time and space.
I liked the movie, couldn't love it. Maybe its stark antiwar message cannot be loved, it can be brutal. But at times it seems a bit too ham handed in that message.
The one part of the movie that struck me was the soundtrack. I cannot come to a conclusion on it. The director wanted a score that attacked the senses, and it does. Supposedly when the conductor played part of it for him the first time, the director exclaimed "that's Led Zeppelin". To the extent that he wanted a score to really hammer the audience, it does and then some. But I also found it jarring my suspension of disbelief. I will get around to seeing it again and that may settle the debate for me
The original was a solid A, the 70s remake a B-. This one is a B.
That said, it might change on rewatch. I gave Dunkirk a D originally, on a second watch it rocketed up to a B+ as I really appreciated the story format once I knew it. Maybe in a rewatch I won't be bothered by "that isn't the book" for All Quiet.
First, it isn't the book. The director borrowed some general ideas from the book, but much of it is totally different. They share a time and space.
I liked the movie, couldn't love it. Maybe its stark antiwar message cannot be loved, it can be brutal. But at times it seems a bit too ham handed in that message.
The one part of the movie that struck me was the soundtrack. I cannot come to a conclusion on it. The director wanted a score that attacked the senses, and it does. Supposedly when the conductor played part of it for him the first time, the director exclaimed "that's Led Zeppelin". To the extent that he wanted a score to really hammer the audience, it does and then some. But I also found it jarring my suspension of disbelief. I will get around to seeing it again and that may settle the debate for me
The original was a solid A, the 70s remake a B-. This one is a B.
That said, it might change on rewatch. I gave Dunkirk a D originally, on a second watch it rocketed up to a B+ as I really appreciated the story format once I knew it. Maybe in a rewatch I won't be bothered by "that isn't the book" for All Quiet.
For my snow day, I watched two movies:
The Lobster is a dark comedy about a society in which single people are given 45 days to find a new partner (in a highly controlled setting) or they are turned into an animal. It's weird, but I liked it because it acted as a double satire, exposing both our culture of obsession with coupling/pairing off, as well as the extreme individualistic alternative.
The Mule is a Clint Eastwood offering many of you probably already saw, but I didn't. It was a fun little story, but it had kind of a blah ending. That said, the acting was wonderful. Clint wasn't as good as his best - I think he's reached a point where he's a far better director than actor - but many of the other actors were brilliant. I'd give it a recommend just because of the quality of the performance overall.
The Lobster is a dark comedy about a society in which single people are given 45 days to find a new partner (in a highly controlled setting) or they are turned into an animal. It's weird, but I liked it because it acted as a double satire, exposing both our culture of obsession with coupling/pairing off, as well as the extreme individualistic alternative.
The Mule is a Clint Eastwood offering many of you probably already saw, but I didn't. It was a fun little story, but it had kind of a blah ending. That said, the acting was wonderful. Clint wasn't as good as his best - I think he's reached a point where he's a far better director than actor - but many of the other actors were brilliant. I'd give it a recommend just because of the quality of the performance overall.
I remember vaguely that this was such a big deal when it first came out:
And later having moved to KC and knowing the area pretty well, its amazing how little had changed.
And later having moved to KC and knowing the area pretty well, its amazing how little had changed.
Don't you bring that in here and not mention the most grotesque envisioning of post nuclear war.
I give you......Threads
Bookmarked it. Will watch when I need to cheer myself up.
On a related note, Sheffield.....
Full Monty....
Spent a bit of time in Sheffield a while ago for work. Have some decent bands from Sheffield:
Artic Monkeys:
Last edited:
I watched it and was disappointed. Not much like the book at all which I thought was great. I felt like it didn't really get into the backstory of the main characters and tell their story. To me it felt like the entire movie was just war action scenes. I did think from a production standpoint that the movie was very well done and I thought the soundtrack seemed to fit well. I get it that it is a war movie and it is going to be violent - I just would have liked a little more interaction between the characters rather than war scenes all the time.
They did skimp on character development, I am thinking the director viewed the war as the main character and not Paul.
I wish they had named it something else, other than the names and a couple scenes, it had nothing to do with All Quiet. Though one of the best scenes was their teacher addressing them, which was taken from the book.
Just finished the Young Pope tonight, and holy shit, this show is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than I gave it credit for. What a brilliant turn of television. So many complicated things going on that all come together on a rewatch, it's like a puzzle.
I think ironically I was able to see it clean on a second watch because I wasn't biased by expectations that were pushed on me before the first watch. After that wore off, this show is f*cking brilliant. It's a satire of religion, a satire of modern celebrity culture, a satire of commercialism, it's a satire of just existence, really, but at the same time, it's also a celebration of faith, of dedication, of love. It's a show that is a contradiction of itself.
If you missed this the first time around, watch it. It's brilliant.
We went to see Otto today, I really liked it. We had seen the source movie at IU Cinema but I don't recall it very well. Otto really hit home. Largely my solution for trying to age well is not to be the grumpy old man I know is in there.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The book is sentimental and funny. I liked it.
I liked the book also and the original movie A little corny and cliche, but still hard NOT to be touched.
Looks like I blew it.
Could be worse. You could have people calling you Mcnutt
Best way to not be a grumpy old man….buy a puppy.
Instagram so a little off, and I’m reluctant to put it out there, but there’s an instagram account I watch where the comments make me literally laugh out loud. It’s stupid humor but… the account is calob887. He’s a cook. Read the comments where he has his steaks in the same pan as his seafood. Read the comments for any of the older posts. Funny
I just finished Kaleidoscope on Netflix. A heist series starring Giancarlo Esposito. The catch is that Netflix gives you different options to watch the episodes, with everyone ending on the same. I enjoyed it.
After reading good things about the first couple of episodes, I started The Last of Us tonight. First episode was excellent. I'm familiar with the Cordyceps plot device, but the only thing I know about this particular video game other than the basic premise is that it got good reviews. I read up on it last year when I was thinking about a new purchase, but I passed.
I thought the GoT-inspired fungus city opening was pretty lame, though. I fear that's going to be the style of opening for every new HBO show for a decade.
I thought the GoT-inspired fungus city opening was pretty lame, though. I fear that's going to be the style of opening for every new HBO show for a decade.
That’s on my list. I have a hard time watching anything I can’t binge now. So waiting until it’s over to start. I know, not care nothing about the gaming aspect, but heard it was good anyway.
Just watched first episode of The Last of Us.
#1 impression - Wow, Anna Torv looks like crap.
#1 impression - Wow, Anna Torv looks like crap.
I just finished reading A Bright Shining Lie about John Paul Vann. In another age, movies would have been made about Vann. But Vietnam commanders weren't going to get movies. Even without the baggage.
Vann was an early advisor, he was a true believer. What was a Lt Colonel assigned to the ARVN corps in the Mekong Delta, which was where the VC were the most successful. He developed a series of hammer and anvil attacks for ARVN to try and crush the VC, but they all failed because the commanders didn't actually carry them out. What Vann didn't know at that moment, the president of the South wanted no combat, he feared a military coup. He was happy to make a big show and have the VC flee before his troops as he wanted no casualties.
Vann grew very upset with how the war was being run and told details to reporters like Sheehan (the author) and David Halberstam. They published this stuff, and it was clear it came from Vann. They felt bad because they were sure they destroyed his career. In fact, Vann had committed statutory rape in the 50s and while the evidence wasn't enough to convict him, he would never make general.
Vann would leave the army, and eventually, go to State where he would be a higher-up in the USAID program. Vann developed the pacification program, convinced the US would never win a war of attrition. He was also sure the war was going to take a long time. When people like Westmoreland said the war would be over in 6 months, Vann would tell reporters "No, I am an optimist, I am sure the US will hold out longer than 6 months".
Vann grew converts in the military and would become the only civilian US 2-star general in history. Vann took amazing chances, he would order his pilot to fly low and slow over battles to spot enemies as they fired on him. Sometimes he would land and take command of attacks. He drove across Vietnam with no escort, showing up in hamlets no one thought possible. He was convinced that he needed to show the villagers he was not afraid of Charlie, and he escaped numerous ambushes. He did not believe he would die, and he was right. Right up until he was wrong.
His plans in the North's 72 Easter Offensive went to hell because the South did what the South would always do, nothing. He had laid out plans for them to be mobile, to recon, to retreat under pressure and extract casualties until air power and artillery destroyed the attackers. His commanders instead buried themselves in trenches and waited. Commanders would commandeer anything they could to get out, leaving behind leaderless units and wounded who would no longer fit on the transports. Vann literally had to take command of units and lead them into battle to save his encircled forces because the South's generals wouldn't. After the battles ended, he died when his plane crashed flying to a front-line position. His experienced pilot finally had enough of taking all the risks, and a new guy flew that mission.
Vann's name came up in the Vietnam book by Max Hastings. Where the author of A Bright Shining Lie said that Vann had the same myopia about his plan that Westmoreland had in his, Hastings had a different view. He said Vann's death was the last chance the South had to win the war. But Sheehan points out in Lie that Vann's successes like the '72 offensive came when he personally led. That wasn't a model that was going to win the war, he couldn't be everywhere leading everyone.
The book was excellent, but huge, 862 pages. The book makes it clear that we never got the buy-in from ARVN. Speaking of that, at the end of the book by Hastings discusses the fall of the South. His point is interesting. We had taught ARVN to fight the American way, overwhelming firepower. ARVN was incapable of doing that. Supplies weren't rushed to the front fast enough, pilots wouldn't take risks in flying missions. Hastings is VERY critical of us abandoning the South, at the same point he makes it pretty clear there was very little we could do. ARVN wasn't interested in fighting and wasn't capable of fighting the way we taught them even if they wanted.
Vann was an early advisor, he was a true believer. What was a Lt Colonel assigned to the ARVN corps in the Mekong Delta, which was where the VC were the most successful. He developed a series of hammer and anvil attacks for ARVN to try and crush the VC, but they all failed because the commanders didn't actually carry them out. What Vann didn't know at that moment, the president of the South wanted no combat, he feared a military coup. He was happy to make a big show and have the VC flee before his troops as he wanted no casualties.
Vann grew very upset with how the war was being run and told details to reporters like Sheehan (the author) and David Halberstam. They published this stuff, and it was clear it came from Vann. They felt bad because they were sure they destroyed his career. In fact, Vann had committed statutory rape in the 50s and while the evidence wasn't enough to convict him, he would never make general.
Vann would leave the army, and eventually, go to State where he would be a higher-up in the USAID program. Vann developed the pacification program, convinced the US would never win a war of attrition. He was also sure the war was going to take a long time. When people like Westmoreland said the war would be over in 6 months, Vann would tell reporters "No, I am an optimist, I am sure the US will hold out longer than 6 months".
Vann grew converts in the military and would become the only civilian US 2-star general in history. Vann took amazing chances, he would order his pilot to fly low and slow over battles to spot enemies as they fired on him. Sometimes he would land and take command of attacks. He drove across Vietnam with no escort, showing up in hamlets no one thought possible. He was convinced that he needed to show the villagers he was not afraid of Charlie, and he escaped numerous ambushes. He did not believe he would die, and he was right. Right up until he was wrong.
His plans in the North's 72 Easter Offensive went to hell because the South did what the South would always do, nothing. He had laid out plans for them to be mobile, to recon, to retreat under pressure and extract casualties until air power and artillery destroyed the attackers. His commanders instead buried themselves in trenches and waited. Commanders would commandeer anything they could to get out, leaving behind leaderless units and wounded who would no longer fit on the transports. Vann literally had to take command of units and lead them into battle to save his encircled forces because the South's generals wouldn't. After the battles ended, he died when his plane crashed flying to a front-line position. His experienced pilot finally had enough of taking all the risks, and a new guy flew that mission.
Vann's name came up in the Vietnam book by Max Hastings. Where the author of A Bright Shining Lie said that Vann had the same myopia about his plan that Westmoreland had in his, Hastings had a different view. He said Vann's death was the last chance the South had to win the war. But Sheehan points out in Lie that Vann's successes like the '72 offensive came when he personally led. That wasn't a model that was going to win the war, he couldn't be everywhere leading everyone.
The book was excellent, but huge, 862 pages. The book makes it clear that we never got the buy-in from ARVN. Speaking of that, at the end of the book by Hastings discusses the fall of the South. His point is interesting. We had taught ARVN to fight the American way, overwhelming firepower. ARVN was incapable of doing that. Supplies weren't rushed to the front fast enough, pilots wouldn't take risks in flying missions. Hastings is VERY critical of us abandoning the South, at the same point he makes it pretty clear there was very little we could do. ARVN wasn't interested in fighting and wasn't capable of fighting the way we taught them even if they wanted.
Pretty solid. Since HBO obviously doesn't care about runtime with this series, I would have liked to have seen a few more of the interactions between Bill/Frank and Joel/Tess, to experience their hesitant partnership develop, instead of just being told that it did. I'm also a sucker for when a story departs for an episode and examines something tangential, especially involving flashbacks (I think the best episode of Lovecraft Country by far was "Meet Me in Daegu"), so that was a big plus for me. And as expected, Nick Offerman was brilliant.
So far, after three episodes, I definitely rate this series as a "Watch."
Having never played the game I figured Bill was just part of the series.
HBO just casually dropping one of the best mature, gay relationships ever on television for fun.
Also The Leftovers is stronger than I originally gave it credit for. I let Lost taint my opinion of Lindleof. The last two espisodes of the first season were fantastic. They take a lot of risks with that show and expect the audience to follow along.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Just watched Banshees of Inisherin and Everything Everywhere All at Once. I highly recommend both.
Both deal with a big question of human existence in different ways: why are we here? what's the point? Both are intelligent in different ways. I found the acting in both extremely good.
Everything is more satisfying by the end, I think, but also a bit more manipulative. That said, I kinda like manipulative sometimes and I don't think I've ever genuinely laughed out load at more things, and then cried later, while also laughing and crying at the same time. But then, I'm a mess.
Banshees has cinematography that made me wish I'd seen it on the big screen, but happy that I at least watched on my TV rather than my laptop. Banshees is also slower and more sparse than Everything: if the former is mellow cool jazz you'd see with trio of piano, bass, and drums, the latter is beebop at its fastest with lots of horns. In other words, your kids will like the tempo of Everywhere; your parents will like Banshees. I liked both.
Both deal with a big question of human existence in different ways: why are we here? what's the point? Both are intelligent in different ways. I found the acting in both extremely good.
Everything is more satisfying by the end, I think, but also a bit more manipulative. That said, I kinda like manipulative sometimes and I don't think I've ever genuinely laughed out load at more things, and then cried later, while also laughing and crying at the same time. But then, I'm a mess.
Banshees has cinematography that made me wish I'd seen it on the big screen, but happy that I at least watched on my TV rather than my laptop. Banshees is also slower and more sparse than Everything: if the former is mellow cool jazz you'd see with trio of piano, bass, and drums, the latter is beebop at its fastest with lots of horns. In other words, your kids will like the tempo of Everywhere; your parents will like Banshees. I liked both.
I just had to explain to a friend why I liked Banshees and what exactly I found funny about it. I saw it at Heartland Film Festival and I do think both of those films were good to see on the big screen. I need to see Everywhere again. I enjoyed it but it was so bizarre, I know I missed a lot. The hot dog fingers? What?!!
Saw Otto yesterday. Good movie, but I’m getting to the age where I can’t do movies about old people missing their spouses. (Spoiler Alert?)
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Hot dog fingers, butt plugs, and raccoon stuff had me laughing out loud. Great stuff.
"Why did the scarecrow win an award?"
I officially love this show.
"Did you know diarrhea is hereditary?"
Best episode so far. This show is awesome.
I officially love this show.
"Did you know diarrhea is hereditary?"
Best episode so far. This show is awesome.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
‘Yellowstone’ Spinoff With Matthew McConaughey in Talks Amid Report of Kevin Costner’s Uncertain Future
McConaughey could lead an extension series of the Taylor Sheridan hit at Paramount.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
We watched episode 1 of Poker Face. It has amazingly good reviews, and its Columbo take is certainly something to attract me to it. But I was a little disappointed, it wasn't bad, but ep 1 wasn't great. Maybe it will get better as I become better acquainted with the character.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
On 12/16 the 80th Anniversary of The Battle of the Bulge will be recognized...- Latest: MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
-
