Watch, Watched, Watching : Series or Stand Alone? Home or Theater?

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

I always thought Rupert and Tom Felton were the only kids with any level of aptitude for acting in the first film, Emma and Daniel struck me as awfully stiff. As for the magic… I’m trying to remember what I thought as a kid… I know I wasn’t impressed with the film at all because it was “not like the book” (that is not like how I imagined the book). I don’t suppose the magic ever bothered me, if anything I really appreciated that magic didn’t look like a light saber duel in the first films. 

Have to say I completely agree with this. Rupert had great comic timing and so did Tom, Daniel and Emma were horrible in almost all of the movies. 

However its those second 2 who ended up with the more successful careers. Radcliffe I think has actually become very interesting to watch and I feel like I enjoy him in everything, hes taken the Robert Pattison route of taking risks with his roles, even if hes a bit more limited. But fair play to him.

[Zorral]

Destiny (1997) a French-financed Egyptian film written around the philosopher Averroes, in Cordoba, in the 12th C. I'm liking this a lot, despite its small budget. It's so much about the culture of Al-Andalus, of the time, with great deal of dancing and music and poetry. Delightful, really.  Averroes is reputed to have danced when he had worked through a complex of philosophic conundrums.

Currently available on Netflix.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-rushd/

Quote

"The Andalusian philosopher, physician and judge Ibn Rushd [Averroes] (1126–1198) is one of the great figures of philosophy within the Muslim contexts, and a foundational source for post-classical European thought."

Reviews of the film:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_(1997_film)

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/17/style/IHT-reason-and-revelation-the-destiny-of-youssef-chahine.html

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/destiny-1999

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

For me it’s probably 2-1-3-6-7/2-7/1-4-5? 5-4? 4-5. OotP was my second favorite of the books and they butchered it. 

Rare is it that someone picks the second film as their favorite. I like it more than most people, but I also think the first two movies just lack the weight of many of the other films.

I should probably clarify, I didn't hate the fifth book. It was just the only of the seven that I kept setting down and walking away from. The other six were cover to cover reads for me. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Got around to watching Triple Frontier. I'm not sure how highly I'd recommend it but it was better than I expected.

The Writer/Director is J.C. Chandor, who also wrote/directed Margin Call, which I liked a lot. 

It did a great job of creating and maintaining tension. Great cinematography. Good performances but nothing remarkable.

[Spockydog]

Watched An American Werewolf in London the other night. Stands up really well. The makeup is amazing for its time, and nurse Jenny Agutter is every bit as sexy as I remembered. Bow chicka wow wow!

[RhaenysBee]

21 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Have to say I completely agree with this. Rupert had great comic timing and so did Tom, Daniel and Emma were horrible in almost all of the movies. 

However its those second 2 who ended up with the more successful careers. Radcliffe I think has actually become very interesting to watch and I feel like I enjoy him in everything, hes taken the Robert Pattison route of taking risks with his roles, even if hes a bit more limited. But fair play to him.

Indeed they were. There was some improvement for Emma in the last couple films, but Dan remain hopeless. 

Well they were more eligible and motivated for fame, I suppose. I have seen Dan in Miracle Workers which too mediocre a show to form an opinion on his acting. I haven’t seen any of his more unusual projects. As for Emma, I admire her academic accomplishments and beautiful RP, but I can’t say I have seen good acting from her in any of her films I happened upon (certainly not in Little Women, Beauty and The Perks of Being a Wallflower, but perhaps I happened to see all the misses and none of the hits)

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Rare is it that someone picks the second film as their favorite. I like it more than most people, but I also think the first two movies just lack the weight of many of the other films.

I should probably clarify, I didn't hate the fifth book. It was just the only of the seven that I kept setting down and walking away from. The other six were cover to cover reads for me. 

I think the second film improved on the first in terms of acting, the kids got more comfortable and the story is a bit more complex already, as well, with all the setting up of characters and world-building out of the way. But I can’t really find a significant  difference between the two, they are both adorable. 

I read it quite a few times, though Azkaban was certainly my most read novel of the 7. To be honest I didn’t really enjoy either after ootd. My book ranking’s got to be: 3-5-4- 21-76 with little to no difference between the latter two groups. 

[Argonath Diver]

I hadn't seen a film starring a younger Michael Caine, so I finally got around to watching Get Carter (1971).  My goodness what an absolutely ruthlessly violent film. The actual depictions of violence aren't as blood-spattered as current action movies, but Carter's an absolutely brutal thug - especially toward women. I had a physical reaction, sitting back and wincing, looking away from the screen and all, at one scene where he loses his temper on a woman he just seduced. Spoiler for a 50 year old film:

Spoiler

Shouting "You bitch!" forcibly, beating her, then allowing her to drown in the car trunk he's locked her in. My goodness. 

I think I need to find another of his earlier films where we get a bit more of his charm; his completely unrepentant thug in this film simply wasn't very much fun to watch, though he has a magnetic screen presence. Quite a shocking final scene as well, one that you don't see these days.

[Derfel Cadarn]

17 minutes ago, Argonath Diver said:

I hadn't seen a film starring a younger Michael Caine, so I finally got around to watching Get Carter (1971).  My goodness what an absolutely ruthlessly violent film. The actual depictions of violence aren't as blood-spattered as current action movies, but Carter's an absolutely brutal thug - especially toward women. I had a physical reaction, sitting back and wincing, looking away from the screen and all, at one scene where he loses his temper on a woman he just seduced. Spoiler for a 50 year old film:

  Hide contents

Shouting "You bitch!" forcibly, beating her, then allowing her to drown in the car trunk he's locked her in. My goodness. 

I think I need to find another of his earlier films where we get a bit more of his charm; his completely unrepentant thug in this film simply wasn't very much fun to watch, though he has a magnetic screen presence. Quite a shocking final scene as well, one that you don't see these days.

The Italian Job is an interesting watch. Not the remake.

Zulu maybe?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

I think the second film improved on the first in terms of acting, the kids got more comfortable and the story is a bit more complex already, as well, with all the setting up of characters and world-building out of the way. But I can’t really find a significant  difference between the two, they are both adorable. 

The tone is different. The first film is a fun adventure flick with only a few short moments of real tension. The second film is darker with a sense of danger throughout.  

 

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The Italian Job is an interesting watch. Not the remake.

Zulu maybe?

Or maybe The Man Who Would Be King.

[Spockydog]

8 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Or maybe The Man Who Would Be King.

Loved that movie back in the day. I wonder how it stands up.

[williamjm]

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Loved that movie back in the day. I wonder how it stands up.

It has been a long time since I've seen it as well. I remember Caine and Connery being very good in it.

[Nictarion]

Went and saw The French Dispatch tonight. I wouldn’t say it’s one of Wes Anderson’s best, but I enjoyed it (he never really disappoints me). The segment with Benicio Del Toro and Léa Seydoux was my favorite. 

[Argonath Diver]

You lot had me at "Caine and Connery".  3 bucks on Amazon sounds just fine.

I realized I'm a total cad - I have absolutely seen the original The Italian Job and loved it. The DVD is gathering dust in a cardboard box in my storage closet. I have actually also seen Zulu about 25 years ago - my roommate my freshman year of college was a war buff and absolutely loved it and its sequel. I don't remember a thing about them except disliking the slaughter of all the indigenous warriors. The heist film is on Amazon for free so that's definitely going to happen soon. 

Thanks for the recs! I mentioned the other day that Caine is one of my favorite actors, and yet I am missing most of about 40 years of his film career. 

[Scott_N]

On 10/24/2021 at 11:25 PM, Annara Snow said:

Well, sorry to disappoint, I guess my intellectual abilities just aren't at such a level to comprehend the laws of physics where a slow thrust of a weapon can pierce a force field but a fast one by the same weapon can't. My bad.

It is silly but, without it, there can't be any 'cool' hand-to-hand combat. I can't think of any other reason for it existing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Finished another Hitchcock film, Suspicion. A must see! I didn't know this was his only film that landed an actor an Oscar. And it's absurd he didn't win so many of them himself.

Why do they always have to make Rope so expensive on demand? 

[Derfel Cadarn]

8 hours ago, williamjm said:

Or maybe The Man Who Would Be King.

Sean Connery’s character’s love interest (or obsession rather) was Caine’s RL wife

[RhaenysBee]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The tone is different. The first film is a fun adventure flick with only a few short moments of real tension. The second film is darker with a sense of danger throughout.  

 

Certainly, I meant I can’t find a significant difference between how much I enjoy the two, I love them nearly equally. 

[Ran]

3 hours ago, Scott_N said:

It is silly but, without it, there can't be any 'cool' hand-to-hand combat. I can't think of any other reason for it existing.

I will say that the explanation of it in the Dune universe is one where there was at least a little thought behind it. Namely, in the Dune universe, you can indeed make shields that are completely impervious to objects... but then they will be impervious to air and you will suffocate. So they have to be "tuned" to allow normal life function, which in turn means that things moving slow enough can get through them. Hence hand-to-hand weapons. 

[Scott_N]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I will say that the explanation of it in the Dune universe is one where there was at least a little thought behind it. Namely, in the Dune universe, you can indeed make shields that are completely impervious to objects... but then they will be impervious to air and you will suffocate. So they have to be "tuned" to allow normal life function, which in turn means that things moving slow enough can get through them. Hence hand-to-hand weapons. 

I appreciate an explanation is offered - it had to be - but it stretches credulity and I don't think it passes muster. Anyway, some hand-waving is often required in SF so it is what it is.