The Warriors - 1979
Going to the Movies: past, present, future.
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
I hate Goodfellas, but it's still a great movie and a better one than Ghost, which I actually enjoyed. I'd take Falcon over the field.
Garner's Sheriff was a very funny film. And his Americanization of Emily was my second favorite film of that year, though I don't believe it was even nominated that year for best film.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Go see Dunkirk. In IMAX if possible.
Shot Caller
"Some criminals...are made in prison."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm157yQ7g1E
Knew a guy like this once...
Rom. 5:8
"Some criminals...are made in prison."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm157yQ7g1E
Knew a guy like this once...
Rom. 5:8
Read a blisteringly sad review of it by Mehera Bonner, who seemed determine to put the worst possible face on feminism and view it through that lens...egad.
An excerpt:
The thing is, I just don't think
Dunkirk is a very good movie—if your definition of the word movie is "moving images held together by a plot." Like, yes: Dunkirk is very well-made. I felt like I was going to vomit during it, because that's how intense it was. And if your interests include riding a visual roller coaster called war, you will love it. But if you're a fan of films with plots, Dunkirk doesn't play that game. It's as if Christopher Nolan (sorry, "Nolan") plucked out the war scene from a script, and was like "let's just make this part extra long and call it a movie, lol."
Setting aside the sophomoric spirit of the bit, there's the internal contradiction present in this second paragraph. If you like a movie that's moving images held together by a plot it's well made. A few sentences later if you're a fan of plots, the thing that was a pillar of her admission, this isn't your film. Or, her review wasn't nearly as well put together as the film she calls "basic" by which she means low and lacking.
Why not Dunkirk? Because it's about men. Where are the other stories she wants to know? Well, they weren't on the beaches of Dunkirk, which is the examination at hand.
I plan to see the film anyway. I don't plan to read much more of Ms. Bonner...or anyone who believes "lol" belongs in something not produced by a teenager.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yeah, I don't agree with her at all. The movie is about a moment in time, and the men involved in that moment of time.
You really should, and while it's still in the theaters.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Just finished watching a new release on Hulu called Colossal. It stars Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudakeis.
The plot: Hathaway is a writer with a drinking problem that is wrecking her life. When we meet her, she's in the process of being kicked out of her boyfriend's apartment for the same reason. It sends her back to her small town and the family home there, where she meets a childhood friend (played by Sudakeis) who owns and operates his father's bar. In short order the seemingly charming Sudakeis gives her a job and a new circle of friends. Meanwhile, a monster is appearing in Seoul, Korea, that has a special connection to both of them.
I don't want to say much more other than it's surprising, a bit dark, and ultimately satisfying. I think it didn't play well with audiences because a) Hathaway has simply gotten under the skin of many in a bad way and one I can't entirely fathom. That and Jason's character plays into and then dramatically against type and I suspect the dissonance of that hurt the film. It was generally well reviewed but no one went to see it. It garnered an 80% favorable RT score, but only a 60% favorable audience score. That's not helpful word of mouth.
I thought it was refreshingly novel.
The plot: Hathaway is a writer with a drinking problem that is wrecking her life. When we meet her, she's in the process of being kicked out of her boyfriend's apartment for the same reason. It sends her back to her small town and the family home there, where she meets a childhood friend (played by Sudakeis) who owns and operates his father's bar. In short order the seemingly charming Sudakeis gives her a job and a new circle of friends. Meanwhile, a monster is appearing in Seoul, Korea, that has a special connection to both of them.
I don't want to say much more other than it's surprising, a bit dark, and ultimately satisfying. I think it didn't play well with audiences because a) Hathaway has simply gotten under the skin of many in a bad way and one I can't entirely fathom. That and Jason's character plays into and then dramatically against type and I suspect the dissonance of that hurt the film. It was generally well reviewed but no one went to see it. It garnered an 80% favorable RT score, but only a 60% favorable audience score. That's not helpful word of mouth.
I thought it was refreshingly novel.
As close to perfect as a movie gets. Wonderful story-telling, weaving together many different points of view. Lots of action, but at the same time, the story brings us into the lives and emotions of so many different people. '
My favorite moment was toward the end of the film, when the commander at Dunkirk, a rock of courage and example for his men, realized that countless small British boats were coming into the harbor to evacuate his men, and his eyes reddened.
See it as soon as you can.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
So I went to see Thor: Ragnarok this afternoon.
Loved it, I had a blast and so did the rest of the audience, and the theater was full so it was fun. Laugh out loud fun.
But I have to say I'm extremely bad with faces. (Also with remembering any semblance of plot if I saw the movie more that a few years ago but that's another problem.) Anyway, I'll just get this over with. I had no idea, absolutely not a clue until I got back to my laptop and IMDB that Hela was Cate Blanchett. And, um, also that Odin was Anthony Hopkins. I'm so ashamed.
What a nice way to spend an afternoon.
Loved it, I had a blast and so did the rest of the audience, and the theater was full so it was fun. Laugh out loud fun.
But I have to say I'm extremely bad with faces. (Also with remembering any semblance of plot if I saw the movie more that a few years ago but that's another problem.) Anyway, I'll just get this over with. I had no idea, absolutely not a clue until I got back to my laptop and IMDB that Hela was Cate Blanchett. And, um, also that Odin was Anthony Hopkins. I'm so ashamed.
What a nice way to spend an afternoon.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
1962 Lawrence of Arabia/To Kill a Mockingbird
1968 Oliver/Charly
1971 The French Connection/The Last Picture Show
1976 Rocky/Taxi Driver
1980 Ordinary People/Raging Bull
1989 Driving Miss Daisy/My Left Foot
2003 The Lord of the Rings/Mystic River
2014 Birdman/American Sniper
Last edited:
:think: 62 and 71 are a coin flip to me.
Taxi is better but I like Rocky better. Ordinary People...(shudders). Agree completely with 80, 89 and 68.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I agree with you about 2012, 2004, 1998, 1979 and 1941. And especially 1952!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Yes, Charly was a GREAT film.
Cliff's best work, though he brought instant credibility to any film he was in...I should, in fairness, also say that while I'm with you on the choices offered by you for 89 I'll still take Field of Dreams over anything that year. It's Capra come back from the grave.
I thought the winner was the weakest of the four films considered.
I'd take them:
1. Field of Dreams
2. My Left Foot
3. Dead Poets Society
4. Born on the 4th of July
5. Driving Miss Daisy
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Cliff's best work, though he brought instant credibility to any film he was in...I should, in fairness, also say that while I'm with you on the choices offered by you for 89 I'll still take Field of Dreams over anything that year. It's Capra come back from the grave.
I thought the winner was the weakest of the four films considered.
I'd take them:
1. Field of Dreams
2. My Left Foot
3. Dead Poets Society
4. Born on the 4th of July
5. Driving Miss Daisy
I just thought Daniel Day-Lewis knocked it out of the park!
Now for the 50's. Here is another winner which I don't think deserved it, especially with the inceredible performances by Bogart and Hepburn:
1951 An American in Paris/The African Queen
And one of the most suspenseful movies of all time did not even get a nomination for Best Picture or Best Actor (Jimmy Stewart):
1954 On the Waterfront/Rear Window
And finally a film which didn't even get a nomination but it is one of America's all time greatest films and in it was my all time favorite Actor (Jack Lemmon):
1959 Ben-Hur/Some Like it Hot
By the way, in 1973 Lemmon beat out Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, and Robert Redford for Best Actor in his role in Save the Tiger. Is that an impressive group of actors or what?
He's best actor without a question. But working on 30 years later Field is still getting a lot of pub. Part of it is probably the baseball connection. Part of it is the father/son dynamic. It's going to be like Capra's best and be watched and talked about for a very long time. I think Foot is more the sort of film that film lovers talk about and then mostly in terms of Lewis and as part of his evolution/legacy of important work.
They're both great to my mind. One year when I can be happy either way. I almost feel that way about 62.
I'd have booted Crosby and given Stewart the slot, but the winner was right on actor. Looking at it I'm inclined to go with Mutiny over the field, though I'd have included Rear Window and shed Three Coins.
It's hard for comedies to compete with drama.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Also in 62 Jack Lemmon was nominated for Best Actor for his appearance in another great movie, "Days of Wine and Roses."
Not only that, but in the same year Kirk Douglas starred in what he consider his best film, "Lonely are the Brave." But no nomination for him or the movie.
What a great year for the movies.