Last Movie Seen IV

[dban3]

According to Andrew, threads auto-close after the 1000 post threshold is reached so Last Movie Seen III is now closed. Time to start a new one.

Which brings me to my tracking down Waking Sleeping Beauty at Wal-Mart online and having that terrific documentary streamed into my home yesterday. The movie, directed by Don Hahn who produced the Disney classics Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, tells the story of Disney animation virtually given up on and left for dead in the early 80's by corporate Disney itself making a triumphant return to glory over a 10 year or so span that culminated in the 4 animated films now considered Disney classics - The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. It's not often that Disney takes an honest look at itself and Waking Sleeping Beauty pretty much does that which is surprising since Disney distributed the film. In the end, we see the typical story of high ranking Disney executives jockeying for position to be the very public focal point and taking credit for some pretty great movies. Egos collide, pettiness reigns, all the while in the background scores of nameless, faceless (mostly) animators, artists, craftsmen, technicians, and the like sacrifice virtually everything of themselves to produce great art on movie screens. A fascinating look at a period of time in Disney animation history that hasn't been duplicated since.

[oregontraveler]

I've seen bits & pieces of films over the last week, but the last one I saw in one sitting was Moonrise Kingdom. Not a big fan of Wes Anderson, but I liked the casting of the film.

[Alex S.]

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World - There are some very good bits in the movie but it is a bad sign that I left the theater thinking "You know, they really could have trimmed that down by 20-30 minutes" and then checking my watch and seeing it was only 90 minutes long.

So significant pacing issues. If I'd been watching at home where life has a way of interfering I probably would not have made it through (or would have watched it over a half dozen sessions).

It is also weird the that the bizarre social response to the premise didn't bother me but the violations of physics and stuff kind of did.

[candles71]

Took the girls (even G) to see Brave. We all loved it. Loved La Luna. Figured there was something at the end of the credits, but there was a broken water main near the theatre, so no available restrooms. Restroom was needed so we didn't stay through the credits.

[BlkPearlCptn]

John Carter It came on On Demand and I decided to watch it. I liked it... really really liked it! To the point that I am going to buy the DVD. Now I'm sick that I didn't get to see it on the big screen.

What I DIDN"T like was Mirror Mirror Couldn't get past the first hour and turned it off. And I wanted to watch it for Nathan Lane and Marty (Pirates of the Caribbean). It was just so embarrassingly bad. (And is it also bad to say that I couldn't get past Snow White's eyebrows. They were HUGE and HAIRY! Almost like a unibrow. They totally took away from her supposedly being so pretty. This was no Snow White and the Huntsman, that's for sure.)

[candles71]

I saw Mirror Mirror first. I liked it. I do have to agree about the eyebrow. My opinion mighthave been different if I had seen Snow White and the Huntsman first. But I went in with it being a different take on the story.

[tea4two]

...Which brings me to my tracking down Waking Sleeping Beauty at Wal-Mart online and having that terrific documentary streamed into my home yesterday...

We got to see that in the theaters when it first came out and bought it right after the DVD became available. It really is a very good film about the ups and downs behind the scenes during a pivotal time at Feature Animation. And the film gave us a fresh appreciation for the work produced during that time. By the way, this is one of the films screening at Destination D in August.

[dban3]

The Amazing Spider-man? Not Quite. More like The Pretty Good Spider-man.

Pros
Straight forward story that we pretty much have seen before. It's an easy movie to follow.
Probably more true to the character of the early Spider-man comic books.
Spider-man movements and gestures more in keeping with the original comic books.
Keeping veterans Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Denis Leary employed.
Best Stan Lee cameo in a Marvel movie


Cons
About 20 minutes too long
Trying to pass Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone off as 17 year olds. Fine actors but you know they are well into their 20's
A couple of plot points that flat out didn't make sense.
More dark and less engaging than The Avengers

Also, if they ever decide to remake National Lampoon's Vacation, Emma Stone would make a great Mrs. Griswold. Thought about that the whole movie.

[IllusionOfLife]

Probably more true to the character of the early Spider-man comic books.

I won't argue opinions with you because that's an entirely pointless endeavor, but I do have to say that this particular point is just objectively wrong.

In the comics Peter has always been a social outcast, someone who doesn't fit in with the cool crowd and is constantly bullied because of it, yet he never really fights back or stands up for himself because he has neither the physical strength nor the strength of will. This aspect is completely missed in The Amazing Spider-Man. Here he's certainly not the most popular kid in school, but with the exception of Flash Thompson there really doesn't appear to be anyone who actively dislikes him or even really makes fun of him, and he even stands up to Flash *before* he has his powers, something that Peter Parker would never do.

Then, when he gets his powers, he's just a great big selfish jerk through the whole movie and doesn't even have any defining moment that forces him to grow up and take his powers seriously. "With great power comes great responsibility" is the very fundamental essence of Spider-Man, but this reboot completely jettisons it. Even at the end when he is maybe taking things seriously by

 

cutting ties with Gwen Stacy, the end scene shows that he's really still just a selfish jerk who is totally willing to put her in harm's way just because he wants a girlfriend.

There's no arc to the character at all, he stays exactly the same for the entire movie.

In addition

 

there's this whole conspiracy surrounding his parents and their research which ends up being the reason he gets these powers (and, further, there are still enough references to an earlier version of the script in which Peter Parker *always* had these powers, they were just unlocked by the spider bite, that its safe to call it at least tentatively canon).

Again, this undermines the very foundation of who Spider-Man is. Spider-Man is this accidental hero. Unlike Captain America, Iron Man, or Batman he didn't volunteer for this, he didn't have any ambitions to be a hero, he didn't train or prepare or build up to it, he just happened to be gifted (and cursed) with these amazing powers due to a freak accident. He has no idea what it takes to be a hero, what the stakes are, how to fight super villains, etc. He's just making it up as he goes (which is why, traditionally, Spider-Man has pretty lousy luck when it comes to things like secret identities, family, friends, love interests, respected mentors, etc.). Having these powers being pre-destined nonsense completely guts the character of a huge aspect that makes him compelling.

The bottom line is, regardless of whether you liked it (as you did) or hated it (as I did) you really can't deny that what they did in this movie is a drastic and fundamental change of who Peter Parker/Spider-Man is as a character. It's far far less true to the comics than the Raimi/Maguire films and it's completely counter to many of the elements that are at the core of who the character has always been.

(For more on this subject see HERE and HERE)

[MidwayManiac]

Brave. I enjoyed it very much. It's witty and sophisticated enough for adults. The plot is simple and fast-moving enough and action packed for the kids. And, true to Pixar, it's visually stimulating for all audiences.
While I dabbled in the threads about Brave on here before seeing it and acknowledge what they convey, namely that Brave can be theme rich and interpreted from multiple perspectives, I'd rather not overthink it at least for now.

In the spirit of seeing the film with 5 young kiddos I'll suffice to adopt their perspective: it's a really good movie.

[tea4two]

Brave. I enjoyed it very much. It's witty and sophisticated enough for adults. The plot is simple and fast-moving enough and action packed for the kids. And, true to Pixar, it's visually stimulating for all audiences... it's a really good movie.

We just saw this tonight and agree with your assessment. Had read the mixed reviews, tried to stay away from the spoilers, and tried to keep an open mind. Enjoyed the movie much more than we had expected to, thought Emma Thompson was terrific (when is she not?), and really liked the scenery and soundtrack (big Patrick Doyle fans here!). Looking forward to the DVD.

[dban3]

I won't argue opinions with you because that's an entirely pointless endeavor, but I do have to say that this particular point is just objectively wrong.


The bottom line is, regardless of whether you liked it (as you did) or hated it (as I did) you really can't deny that what they did in this movie is a drastic and fundamental change of who Peter Parker/Spider-Man is as a character. It's far far less true to the comics than the Raimi/Maguire films and it's completely counter to many of the elements that are at the core of who the character has always been.

I think you have put a little more thought into this than I have. It was 100 degrees outside here yesterday. A couple hours with Spider-man was a nice way to keep cool.

My comment that rebooted version of The Amazing Spider-man was more truer to the comic book version (at least the comic books read when I was a kid) had more to do with the Spider-man character itself and not so much about Peter Parker and his struggles with high school bullies. Like many people who go to superhero movies, I go to see my heroes with their working suits on, kicking the rear-ends of the bad guys up one side and down the other. Spider-man in full costume in the comics was pretty much of a wise guy with caustic tongue who would not only beat down the bad guys physically but would taunt and ridicule them at the same time. I thought the Andrew Garfield Spider-man had more of that edginess about him once the mask was on. That was the Spider-man I remember reading about years ago. Now maybe that was present with Raimi/Maguire version but I didn't notice it as much as Garfields. I thought they had the Spider-man vocabulary down as well as the movements and gestures. Spider-man confronting the car thief was spot on from the comics.

As for Peter Parker, since I didn't buy either of the two leads as high schoolers, I thought what they did was good enough. Loved the basketball scene though. Sony has already announced on their Facebook page that this is the first installment of a new trilogy (a week's worth of pretty good numbers will do that). Hopefully when the second comes out, Peter Parker will have moved beyond high school and into his position as a newspaper photographer which will be interesting since newspapers are basically dying a slow death across the country. The one missing character from The Amazing Spider-man was J. Jonah Jameson the newspaper publisher. Then again, no one could have done that role better than J. K. Simmons did in the Raimi films.

I thought they handled the responsibility aspect of Parker just fine. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben made that clear without resorting to what is the now cliche statement "with great power comes great responsibility". More than responsibility, I thought the supporting actors did a fine job of building up the confidence factor of Parker/Spider-man. By the end, all knew he had something special inside and needed to use whatever it is with wisdom and purpose.

Not a perfect movie by any means but solid entertainment. It lacked the rollicking good fun of The Avengers that threw everything at the audience but the kitchen sink but still, I did like it, better than I thought I would since the trailers weren't all that impressive. Rottentomtoes.com has the movie at a solid 73% on the positive side from film critics and 84% positive from audience feedback. Sony was on to something all along. Two more are coming.

One last thing, since Sony licenses the Spider-man character from Marvel and finances/distributes the movie, what do all those producers those producers from Marvel really do? I'd like to think that a few of them are around to make sure these licensed characters are handled in a way that is true to the character as Marvel created them within certain specifications. I'm sure Sony would not be allowed to take Spider-man in the same direction that DC is taking its Green Lantern as an example. So If Stan, Kevin, Avi and the rest of Marvel's brain trust were OK with this reboot, I'm good with it too.

[IllusionOfLife]

Spider-man in full costume in the comics was pretty much of a wise guy with caustic tongue who would not only beat down the bad guys physically but would taunt and ridicule them at the same time. I thought the Andrew Garfield Spider-man had more of that edginess about him once the mask was on. That was the Spider-man I remember reading about years ago. Now maybe that was present with Raimi/Maguire version but I didn't notice it as much as Garfields. I thought they had the Spider-man vocabulary down as well as the movements and gestures. Spider-man confronting the car thief was spot on from the comics.

See, the problem I had with this was outside of that one scene (which I felt went on waaay too long and was waaaay more grating and annoying than funny) they really didn't do much with the whole "wise-crackin' Spidey" angle. And even if that scene had been effective, it had already been spoiled by the 25-minutes of footage Sony released before the film. Raimi's Spider-Man had fewer funny quips, but spread them out across the film so that they had punch and relevance. This one felt like it was pulling out a checklist and said, "oh, we need some wise-crackin', let's get it all out of the way in this one scene." Throughout the rest of the movie, especially the finale, Spider-Man is completely silent.

Then again, no one could have done that role better than J. K. Simmons did in the Raimi films.

As I said in my review, this is one of the only good decisions they made on the film.

I thought they handled the responsibility aspect of Parker just fine. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben made that clear without resorting to what is the now cliche statement "with great power comes great responsibility". More than responsibility, I thought the supporting actors did a fine job of building up the confidence factor of Parker/Spider-man. By the end, all knew he had something special inside and needed to use whatever it is with wisdom and purpose.

But then, in the *very last scene of the movie* he shows that he hasn't learned anything. That he's not going to be responsible and put the safety of others over his own personal wants. He's going to willfully get Gwen Stacy killed by the Green Goblin (oh, spoiler for those who have never read comics) in some future sequel for the simple reason that he hasn't learned that critical lesson. Like I said, the character has no arc. He learns nothing in the over-inflated run time of the film.

One last thing, since Sony licenses the Spider-man character from Marvel and finances/distributes the movie, what do all those producers those producers from Marvel really do? I'd like to think that a few of them are around to make sure these licensed characters are handled in a way that is true to the character as Marvel created them within certain specifications. I'm sure Sony would not be allowed to take Spider-man in the same direction that DC is taking its Green Lantern as an example. So If Stan, Kevin, Avi and the rest of Marvel's brain trust were OK with this reboot, I'm good with it too.

Just because Marvel execs are putting their name on the project doesn't automatically give it a free pass (otherwise we'd have to hand out free passes to the likes of Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Fantastic Four, X-Men: Origins – Wolverine, etc.). For all intents and purposes this is Sony's baby, not Marvel's. Even Green Lantern (which, as you point out is famously awful) has more ties with its creator than this does (DC Comics is wholly owned by Warner Bros. in the same way Marvel is owned by Disney). Like I said, I have no problems with anyone liking it, I may disagree, but I'm not going to try to argue that anyone's opinion is wrong because that's stupid and arrogant. These, though, are some of the reasons that I feel that the film simply does not work, either from a thematic point of just telling a solid story, from the standpoint of adapting a classic character to the screen, or even from the standpoint of rebooting a highly popular and beloved series of films that are only ten years old.

[dban3]

But then, in the *very last scene of the movie* he shows that he hasn't learned anything. That he's not going to be responsible and put the safety of others over his own personal wants...... he hasn't learned that critical lesson. Like I said, the character has no arc. He learns nothing in the over-inflated run time of the film.


Just because Marvel execs are putting their name on the project doesn't automatically give it a free pass (otherwise we'd have to hand out free passes to the likes of Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Fantastic Four, X-Men: Origins Wolverine, etc.).

The again, he's 17. Having teenagers apply life lessons is a difficult and risky proposition. I got one sleeping down the hall. Maybe you are expecting a bit too much out of him. Ben, May, and others all saw the potential of what was in his heart, having to wisdom and maturity to apply it out of someone so young is another story and probably another movie.

As for Marvel executives signing off on a Sony's movie. I don't know how it works but I'm not sure they are there to handle another studio's quality control. I think they are there to make sure that legally licensed characters are not hijacked by another studios whims and taken beyond the scope in which the characters were originally created by Marvel.

[jananafish]

I was with my cousin and 5 kids this past week and we were running out of ideas when my nephew suggested we go to the movies. The choices were Ted, Spiderman, etc etc...when he finally asked "Is Moonrise Kingdom playing?" and I smiled from ear to ear. So we went to go watch that again hahaha and ALL OF THE KIDS LOVED IT!!! I was so happy. The next day I dropped off nephew at his mommy's and that night he took her on a date (he's 9) and guess what movie he took her to?

[MidwayManiac]

Movie night with the kids.
We're just finishing up National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

Nevermind I've seen this thing 20 times or more. It's hysterical as always.

[cstephens]

"Oz the Great and Powerful" - I thought it was ok, and visually stunning, but I thought the script was very lacking. And I wasn't keen on the multiple times that they utilized the gimmick of 3D. I posted a bit more on the thread for Alex's review of the film.

[cstephens]

"Jurassic Park" in 3D - I went to a screening on Tuesday that was preceded by a panel that included many of the special effects folks who worked on the film (including Dennis Muren and Phil Tippett), as well as the actor who played the lawyer. It was fun to listen to them talk about the challenges involved in making the film, especially with the storm that hit when they were filming, with some of the footage of the actual storm making it into the film because Steven Spielberg thought it would be great. It's too bad Stan Winston wasn't there, but there was lots of praise heaped on him. It was great seeing the film on the big screen again. Dang, that T-rex is *really* impressive, even by today's standards, though I have a soft spot in my heart for them wily raptors.

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - There was a screening last night of the film, which was then followed by a panel of people who worked on the film, including director Robert Zemeckis, the writers, two of the producers (including Don Hahn), Charles Fleischer (voice of Roger Rabbit and others) and Joanna Cassidy (Dolores, Eddie Valiant's girlfriend). It's been a really long time since I've seen the film, and again, you marvel at what an amazing job they did. Robert Zemeckis made a point that I've been using every time I've explained the film - part of the reason why the film works so well is that you wholeheartedly believe that Roger and the other toons actually exist, and that's in large part thanks to Bob Hoskins' performance. His Eddie Valiant believes in the toons, so you do as well. During the Q&A session, a question was asked about the Warner Bros. and other non-Disney characters in the film. They said that the appearance of the non-Disney characters was mostly thanks to Steven Spielberg, who approached Warner Bros. and the other license holders to obtain permission to use those characters in the film. When asked if there was a character they wanted and couldn't get, they said "Fritz the Cat", which got a chuckle out of some of us. There was also discussion about a lot of "hidden" things in the film, particularly towards the end when you see a train in Toontown go by. They said there might be interesting things to see through the train windows. Hmmmm.

Alice Davis was in the audience last night, so it was nice that they gave an acknowledgement to her and Marc's memory as well. I saw Dave Smith in the lobby after the film. I didn't see Tony Baxter, though I kind of expected he was there. I did see him at the "Jurassic Park" screening on Tuesday though.

[cstephens]

"M" - I found out that a not-too-far-away theatre was showing a restored version of the film, so I couldn't pass it up. It's been many years since I've seen the film, and this restored version was released in 2011. I don't remember the version I originally saw ending quite as abruptly, but I did notice there were lots more sections of this film which were completely silent. Still a very powerful film.

[cstephens]

"Iron Man Three" - Thoroughly enjoyed the film. Was pleased with myself for figuring out one plot development before it was revealed. Everyone else probably already knew, but I tend to have trouble with that. One other plot development didn't bother me like it apparently is bothering some people, probably because I'm not familiar with the back story anyway.

Robert Downey, Jr. and Ben Kingsley were both terrific. LOVED the scene after the end of the credits.


They showed the trailer for "Thor: Dark World" before the film. So looking forward to seeing that, and I'm glad everyone is back.

[cstephens]

"Oblivion" - The trailer and the premise looked interesting, so we went in spite of Tom Cruise being the lead. Besides, we figured having Morgan Freeman in the movie would balance him out.

The movie was ok, but it felt like the first 3/4 of the movie was intro, and then this big thing happens and then it was over.

Re: Morgan Freeman as well as the ending of the movie:

 

Morgan Freeman's role was mostly a slightly extended cameo. I would have liked him to have actually been a co-star. And the ending just seemed a little too "nicely wrapped up in a bow". And women in film and TV seem to be *THE* most fertile people on earth.

[cheshirecatgirl]

I saw Finding Nemo 3D tonight. It was fun to see it on the big screen again! Just as funny and touching as ever. The 3D was nice enough, but I wouldn't pay for it again!

The new Pixar short, Partysaurus Rex, was fun. Nice to see Rex in a fun role!

[tea4two]

I saw Finding Nemo 3D tonight. It was fun to see it on the big screen again! Just as funny and touching as ever. The 3D was nice enough, but I wouldn't pay for it again!

The new Pixar short, Partysaurus Rex, was fun. Nice to see Rex in a fun role!

Good to hear! We're planning on seeing Nemo tomorrow night.

[jananafish]

My youngest friend just turned 21 last Monday and she didn't want a big to-do to celebrate so tonight I took her to watch Perks of Being a Wallflower. I read the book when it first came out 13 years ago and she was just reading it and it kind of made me feel old hahah .

Anyway, we were going to go to the Arclight in Hollywood at first because there are lots of things to do before and afterwards so I figured we could just skip around town and be a couple of misfits (lol) but I ended up choosing the Landmark in West LA because it was closer. Well I am so happy I did because Stephen Chbosky himself!!! was there and gave us an introduction to the film. It was a treat. She was so happy.

And man did that movie take me back to how I felt the first time reading it. It was so good. It's not getting the greatest critical praise (mehhhhh) but for a coming-of-age story I think that it was a wonderful adaptation.

[codewoman]

Finding Nemo 3D with CodeBoy (12). Very fun!