Thyroid Posted December 25, 2011 Sounds like my most recent break-up, except mine was a year and a half. (Mind you, it was a dense year and a half. More happened in it than happened in any other relationship I've been in.) But anyway, movie sounds excellent. Thanks for the recommendation, miffy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted December 27, 2011 I watched MI4, and really enjoyed the first half (up to the sandstorm chase ) but then it just really lost momentum for me, and like someone said above just repeats itself a few more times. Still very efficient but by then I was acclimatised. Also watched Ides Of March, and for me that was more of a different role for Gosling than (iirc) Drive and Lars And The Real Girl. Still quite restrained but not as soft. The film was well-executed but felt about as substantial as an episode of The West Wing. It didn't really have an ending either, it felt like a very good first and second act of a film. Finally, Girl With Dragon Tattoo was about as good an effort as they could have made with such dreadful source material. They should have cut the guardian stuff though. I know it's setting stuff up for the next film, but you shouldn't fuck up your first film's structure in service of the second. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted December 27, 2011 Die Hard Because it's Christmas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 28, 2011 Great to see The Ides of March getting a lot of love here. Yesterday I went to see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Gadzooks, it was miles better than the first one! It had a lot more poise and refinement and had some really gripping moments. Gonna see that one again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted December 28, 2011 Finally, Girl With Dragon Tattoo was about as good an effort as they could have made with such dreadful source material. They should have cut the guardian stuff though. I know it's setting stuff up for the next film, but you shouldn't fuck up your first film's structure in service of the second. I wouldn't say that. It works in the Swedish film, at least, because it explains Salander a bit. But I've heard the character is a less vulnerable (emotionally) in the American film, so maybe it isn't needed. It's really weird the American film exists. I quit reading the book after about 50 pages... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted December 28, 2011 Well, I also thought it should have been cut out of the book. Either that or make it relevant to the narrative in some way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwardinen Posted December 28, 2011 Yesterday I went to see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Gadzooks, it was miles better than the first one! It had a lot more poise and refinement and had some really gripping moments. Gonna see that one again. Really? I thought it was mostly more of the same, with a little of the shine off the apple simply due to its not being novel anymore. Moriarty was played well, but apart from that the only thing that I really enjoyed beyond a general level of entertainment was Stephen Fry (and yes, I mean that scene as well). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 28, 2011 Sure, it was thoroughly entertaining. Nothing more, but I didn't expect more. The main point is that I thought it was better than the first, which lacked some clarity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 28, 2011 Here's been my experience with the Sherlock Holmes movies: I was super-surprised and delighted at how much I enjoyed the first one. Then I decided to watch it again and found it to be nowhere near as good as my first experience. The second one genuinely seemed to reach the heights I remembered the first one reaching (as I had much higher expectations this time around, and so wasn't going to be won over by mere surprise), and so (to me) was the better film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted December 28, 2011 The most important issue: was the film joking that Holmes invented the motor car, or just showing him to be an early adopter of it? (Thunderpeel, don't say what you think yet, you might sway the others.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 28, 2011 On an actual critical note (I'm assuming the motor car invention topic is a joke here), I was a bit disappointed at the matter-of-fact reveal at the end that Holmes had survived his classic, and completely breathtaking, waterfall dive with Moriarty. It was such a great moment, so it felt a little poor to write it away with a joke (surprise, Holmes is alive and back in camouflage costume). Takes the sting right out of it. Studio interference or poor judgement on Ritchie's end? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted December 28, 2011 I disagree regarding its relevance! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwardinen Posted December 28, 2011 I agree, Rodi, but as I thought about it on the way home I can't see it having been done any other way. You can very rarely actually end a film with a protagonist's death if you want to make another sequel. I can pretty much guarantee they want to make another sequel. Unless you're just concerned about how it was revealed that he survived - in which case, eh. I dunno. It sort of made the whole sacrifice meaningless either way, so I didn't mind that it was done in a silly way - the camouflage bit was actually somewhat funny at least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted December 28, 2011 (I'm assuming the motor car invention topic is a joke here) No. I want to know what your readings of this were, please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 28, 2011 I don't see Sherlock Holmes as an inventor per se, so I certainly didn't read the motorcar as being his invention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 29, 2011 Did I point out the logical flaw in Holmes here? There's no way Holmes could have written a "fish" pun because he was being soundly beaten by Moriarty at the time he was supposed to have switched Macguffins . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 29, 2011 You mean the flipbook animation of the fish? Holmes must have created that way in advance. Leave it to his overweening sense of superiority that he'd gamble on his own victory. Later in the film he also explains that he knew he had to put himself in harm's way to switch the notebooks (though his miraculous escape was by no means planned or assured, but hey). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted December 29, 2011 What Thunderpeel forgot to say is that Moriarty only brought up the fish/hook metaphor when he was torturing Holmes, so Holmes' reference to it in the flipbook - which he must have made before the torture scene in preparation for swapping it - doesn't make sense. (Unless Moriarty has brought this up before, it was a massive coincidence, or Holmes knew his nemesis SO well that he predicted exactly which simile and method of torture he would pick!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwardinen Posted December 29, 2011 Continuing my look at Ryan Gosling: The Man, the Myth, the Icon, I watched the recommended Blue Valentine. I concur with its recommendation, and it was definitely an intriguing and complex film. To see characters with such depth at two different points in their lives, and how their relationship differed between the two, was genuinely interesting. I also think I understand a little bit more of the praise Gosling has been receiving now. It was absolutely a different role to the ones he played in Drive and the Ides of March, so I can now see that he has some range. It's also fascinating to watch these three films close to each other because of how his characters portray the physical, intellectual and emotional reactions to their attendant crises respectively. Also, damn, I just looked at Ryan Gosling's IMDB page. That guy is working recently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 29, 2011 Yes, I forgot to mention that the pun was a reference to the very scene, giving Holmes no time to prepare any animations or puns. Also, can I say that I didn't make the connection that Holmes was supposed to have invented the car? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 29, 2011 Forgive me because I'm not sure of this, but didn't Holmes and Moriarty discuss favorite composers during their first meeting, with a shout-out to Schubert? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 29, 2011 ? I believe so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted December 29, 2011 (edited) So I started rewatching the Die Hard movies. Had a lot of fun watching them... until I reached Die Hard 4. Besides that this is one of those recent Hollywood movies that only has 2 color tones (Teal and Orange), my god what is it a terrible movie. The first 3 die hard movies were borderline realistic. But #4 contains super human people that can jump ridiculous distances. etc. It's really annoys the shit out of me. And I'm not even that bothered by the dumb "hacker" stuff. At this moment I'm 25 minutes in. And still not a single drop of blood on Willis' character. Terrible terrible movie. Edited December 29, 2011 by elmuerte Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted December 29, 2011 Only thing more monotonous than the Hollywood color palette is your continuous ranting about orange and teal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 29, 2011 ? I believe so. I thought maybe the topic of the fish could have come up at that time. I'll look for it when I see the movie again because I will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites