Now Playing At a Theater Near You

Basically I can't decide if I found it disappointing or if I think it's the best thing Diablo Cody's done.

For me it was both. I wish it had gone more in depth and cut a bit deeper, but I honestly liked it far more then I have ever liked anything Cody has done (and I actually liked both her other movies to varying degrees). I loved the performances though. Charlize Theron, of course, but also Patton Oswalt.

I was dragged to Mission Impossible on IMAX and was surprised at how much I liked it. I'm no longer capable of seeing Tom Cruise as anything but the unbalanced man who jumped on couches, but he did a good enough job in this.

My guess is that Brad Bird is so awesome that he made everyone in the movie look awesome by default.

Putli Bai wrote:War Horse, or "Black Beauty meets Saving Private Ryan." I enjoyed it, but there were several times where it was really hard to watch. And the theater got very, very dusty there at the end of the movie.

Every time I see a trailer for that, I keep saying "WHO'S A PRETTY HORSIE? YOU ARE! YOU ARE!"

I think the ending of Young Adult is meant to be a disappointment. She doesn't learn a thing. And even worse, she STARTS to possibly learn something, but then completely reverts to type.

It's also my favorite thing Diablo Cody has done. It's a much more mature script. Not only in that the twee dialogue is gone, but that I think it's the most honest she's ever been as a writer. I think there was a lot of her in Mavis, and I appreciated that she was brutally honest about her flaws, and especially that she seemed to drop any pretense of her heroine being too clever for the rest of the world to handle. I couldn't help but feel like she's probably grown up a lot since her Juno days.

I think she has too. I think United States of Tara was a good show of the progression of that growth. Shes also in a very different place of her life that she was when she wrote Juno and that could play a role too. I also think Jason Reitman (and I know people hate him but I've actually liked to varying degrees all of his movies) is a director that is really good with her work.

I know shes directing a movie next (with Russell Brand) and it sounds interesting. I am actually excited to see it now.

I saw Girl with a Dragon Tattoo on Friday and I watched the swedish version on Netflix streaming that night. I may be in the minority but I preferred the Fincher version and actually preferred Rooney's Lisbeth to Noomi's.

I also think there may be something wrong with me that the only thing that upset me in the film was the

Spoiler:

.

The Adventures of Tintin which was a lot of fun. It's a shame it doesn't appear to be doing too well (I haven't looked at any numbers, just judging by the fact that there was only one non-3D screening for the movie at the theater I went to - on a screen it shared with MI4 the rest of the time - and only one dedicated screen in 3D).

Spielberg free of physical constraints is a marvel. Sometimes the movie is almost too "directed", but it's really hard for me to see that as a negative when we have a six minute chase sequence that is one completely uninterrupted shot from the moment Haddock fires the bazooka into a dam. An uninterrupted shot that includes a car, a motorcycle, a sidecar, a dog, a bird, a building knocked loose from its foundations, a tank, a clothesline, a power line, and a woman's dress.

I was under the impression that Spielberg was directing one movie and Jackson would be directing the next, but I haven't heard anything about Jackson's movie, whether it's finished or what. Spielberg has two movies out this winter - it'd be funny if Jackson had two out next Christmas.

I wanted to see Tintin, but couldn't actually watch it. Uncanny Valley. Either do it live action or do it animation, not the worst of both worlds, Spielberg!

See, I thought this movie was the example of how to do the mix - something Zemeckis could take notes from (though I admit, he did a much better job with A Christmas Carol than he did with Beowulf). It uses the actors for performance, but then uses the animation to push things in very stylized directions. Nothing's intended to be photorealistic - Tintin is probably the closest to it, but Haddock, Sakharin, and Thompson and Thomson are very cartoony. In fact, aside from Tintin, there isn't a single character in the movie, I think, with a believable body or face - too round, too angular, or too misproportioned.

Its doing alright but not great in the states but is a huge hit everywhere else, probably due to Tin Tin's popularity elsewhere. I want to see it because I've heard its great and due to my Indian parents grew up with Tin Tin.

tothemax wrote:I was dragged to Mission Impossible on IMAX and was surprised at how much I liked it. I'm no longer capable of seeing Tom Cruise as anything but the unbalanced man who jumped on couches, but he did a good enough job in this.

Your thoughts are pretty much mine. I actually went more for the supporting cast (love Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, and Simon Pegg), but found it to be not bad. But I was a little bit confused about one thing:

Spoiler:

Has anyone seen The Darkest Hour? It looks intriguing, and hopefully not so scary that it will be too much for my non-scary-movie-loving husband.

According to IO9 it's not too scary, but not too good either.

I also did a Girl With The Dragon Tattoo doubleheader and preferred the Fincher one. I thought Rapace was excellent, but she came across as a tough angry Goth girl in the end, whereas I think Mara brought more depth as a severely disturbed and frankly kind of creepy child-woman. (On a shallower note I preferred Daniel Craig because he is Daniel Craig and not Michael Nyqvist, an apparently very good actor who still brings to mind a skeevy Russian landlord.)

One thing I did like about Rapace's Lisbeth is

Spoiler:

.

I had a slightly different view:

Spoiler:

Snarryfan wrote:
I also think there may be something wrong with me that the only thing that upset me in the film was the

Spoiler:

.

Me too.

I thought it was okay, but I felt kind of unfulfilled. I haven't seen the originals to compare, though. On a super shallow note, I wouldn't mind living in the guest cottage at all.

I think the real question is, how do the film's sandwiches compare to the book's?

There's a shit ton of sandwiches. Seriously, the whole movie is like Brad Pitt in Ocean's 11.

MtOlivePickles wrote:

tothemax wrote:I was dragged to Mission Impossible on IMAX and was surprised at how much I liked it. I'm no longer capable of seeing Tom Cruise as anything but the unbalanced man who jumped on couches, but he did a good enough job in this.

Your thoughts are pretty much mine. I actually went more for the supporting cast (love Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, and Simon Pegg), but found it to be not bad. But I was a little bit confused about one thing:

Spoiler:

Agreed with all of this. It was pretty much the only movie my entire family could see on Christmas, and we did. I've never seen any of the other MI's (again, with the relatively recent Tom Cruise allergy I seem to have), but I thought it was pretty decent.

As for your question,

Spoiler:

I regret not seeing it in IMAX though; it seems like it was really made for it, especially the Burj Khalifa stuff, which was pretty rad. This is a question for another thread, I suppose, but I get motion sickness in planetariums, and that's why I avoid IMAX and 3D movies. I'm pretty sure the latter would still bug the hell out of me (plus, I oppose them on principle), but would I be okay in, say, the last row at an IMAX theater? I'm not willing to shell out the ~$17 or so bucks to find out myself quite yet.

On a shallower note I preferred Daniel Craig because he is Daniel Craig and not Michael Nyqvist, an apparently very good actor who still brings to mind a skeevy Russian landlord.

See, this is the one thing I think the US version really has going for it. It never made sense to me in the book (or in the original movie) that EVERY woman who encounters Blomkvist ends up throwing herself at him, but with Daniel Craig playing him this seems slightly more plausible.

naughty zoot wrote:I think the real question is, how do the film's sandwiches compare to the book's?

Hee hee hee. So many sandwiches. Sandwiches, coffee, 22-page digressions about toilet manufacturing, and violent

Spoiler:

How could it not become a bestseller?

I have to say that when I saw the Swedish movie I kind of thought of the actor as a poor man's Daniel Craig (and I happen to find Daniel Craig quite tasty), so the fact that the real Daniel Craig is in this one seems right and proper to me.

I'm hoping to see it maybe this weekend sometime.

I haven't read the book or seen the original (but it's on my queue) and I saw it today. I wish it were scarier. Plenty of horrible things happen and I cringed in my seat but I thought it would be more psychologically frightening.

I saw both The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I found both fairly....eh. I was surprised that Mara was the best thing about GWDT. The very thing I liked about her Lisbeth was that she felt alien/odd and not like a "real" person, and Noomi did feel as though she was a little too..normal. I do agree that it's a heavily, and definitely creepily, directed performance though.

Spoiler:

I think MI4 was a just a little oversold, it was solid piece of entertainment, I guess, but for 9 bucks I could have waited for Netflix.

Saw Sherlock and Young Adult so far this week. Enjoyed them both in different ways. I actually really liked Sherlock a lot, though I totally get the annoyance friends of mine had at

Spoiler:

But it was a lot of fun. Young Adult wasn't fun, though I laughed a lot, but Charlize and Patton were both fantastic.