The Unofficial Ongoing Current Movies in Theaters thread

[dookeyXXX]

THE OLD MAN AND THE GUN
4/5

At its core this is a film about obsession and adiction. Yet this theme is not in any way heavy-handed, instead focusing more on a person’s need to “live”, as in to be excited and exhilarated all the time, to have a constant adrenaline rush. The interesting juxtaposition comes in how the film unrolls with a casual, rather languid manner; the exact opposite of an adrenalin rush. And this is where the film succeeds. Its natural pacing and the easy-going demeanor of all the actors involved make it immediately likeable.
Redford, in the titular role, is sublime and his budding romance with Spacek showcases two Old School pros having a blast with well-written material. The supporting cast is equally solid. Danny Glover, in his usual curmudgeonly cautious self proves that he was expertly typecast here. And then there’s Casey Affleck, who gives a wonderfully understated performance as an ennui-infused police detective. The scene stealer, however, is Tom Waits, who probably only garners 10-minutes of total screen time, but mesmerizes the audience every time he pops up. In short, this is a cast that is clearly having fun with the material, but not at the expense of the material, which is rare these days.
On the surface, however, the film is a simple western: There’s an outlaw (Redford), his gang (Glover and Waits), a lawman (Affleck), and a lover (Spacek). The outlaws rob banks and outsmart the law who give chase, in the meantime the lead outlaw falls in love. This is where the all-encompassing droll humor of the screenplay comes into play. Rippling nicely throughout, the dialogue and story keep things light on the surface, but also allows for subtle, deeper layers to quietly resonate. The end result is so much more than just another revisionist western.
The other “star” of the film is the loose and lively score, crafted by North Carolina musician Daniel Hart, who seems to be channelling Lalo Schifrin by way of Dave Brubeck. It's jazzy, bouncy, and instills the film with not only a sense of fun, but provides intensity when needed and softer, more introspective tones, too.
Perhaps the most intersting aspect of The Old Man and the Gun is the look of the film. Shot in 16mm it is rendered in warm and washed-out tones immediately bringing to mind the films from 1970s era Hollywood (as if to accentuate this, director/screenwriter Lowery includes a prominant clip from Monte Hellman’s existential classic Two-Lane Blacktop). The catch is that the story here is from the 1980s, thus the “antiquated” look of the film creates a semi-dream-like, almost surreal atmosphere, as if we are watching a modern day fairy tale.

RIYL
The Electric Horseman; Going In Style (the 1973 George Burns/Art Carney/Lee Strasberg film); Harry and Tonto; the films of Jim Jarmusch

[willywhit]

red Box but worth a buck or free
Hotel Artemis

https://www.facebook.com/kmmovies123...6174147810434/

[Soups]

Haven't seen Bad Times at the El Royale yet, but I'm currently watching Boogie Nights (top 10 favorite). Just noticed the quick flash of the motel where they hatch the plan to rob Rahad, the Sister Christian guy. You guessed it...The El Royale. Even looks to have the same neon for the motel sign.

[dookeyXXX]

Haven't seen Bad Times at the El Royale yet, but I'm currently watching Boogie Nights (top 10 favorite). Just noticed the quick flash of the motel where they hatch the plan to rob Rahad, the Sister Christian guy. You guessed it...The El Royale. Even looks to have the same neon for the motel sign.

nice!

Only info I could scrounge up on the hotel featured in the film were a few interviews with Drew Goddard (writer/director of BTatER) where he states that the Cal/Neva in Crystal Bay (between Kings Beach and Incline Village on Lake Tahoe) was the inspiration for the film's story. He said in the interviews that the mystique, legends, and atmosphere of the hotel/casino in its glory days sparked the idea for the story in his film.

I still believe that they built a "fake" hotel or used an existing one in either Vancouver, Barnaby (BC) or Acton for the exterior shots and more than likely created the interior of the hotel on a set.

Saw the film on Monday with my mom (who is in her 80's). We both dug it. Lottsa twists, interesting theme focusing on illusions, and a ton of WTF!?! moments augmented by some serious jump scare tactics (I yelped a few times and jumped out of my seat a few more). Was not the film I was expecting from the trailers and I was pleasantly surprised. Great cast, too.

[dookeyXXX]

Venom: barely entertaining - Upgrade beats it 12 ways from Sunday.

I would concur.

VENOM
1.5/5
Innocuously tepid.
Almost zero chemistry between the leads and both seemed to be sleep-walking through their line readings.
Speaking of which, the dialogue was elementary school level in terms of simplicity. Ditto for the story/plot.
Still trying to figure out why the villain's company was called LIFE (a nod to the sub-par film LIFE, which many pundits thought was a precursor to Venom, but which Sony and the filmmakers denied it as being such?).
The action sequences were lackluster and the key one, a motorcycle and SUV chase through the streets of San Francisco was one of the lamest, least exciting car chases I have ever seen committed to film.

Easily the second worst film I have seen this summer/fall behind The Predator.

[dookeyXXX]

Bad Times at the El Royale: Moderately entertaining, but a little disappointing given the cast; enjoyed the sound track.

I rather enjoyed it, even though none of it was filmed in Tahoe.

BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE
3.5/5
Saw this on Monday with my Mom, who is in her 80's. We both dug it. It's violent and crazy and owes no small debt to the early films of both Tarantino and the Coen Bros., but it is ultimately its own vision. The thing I enjoyed the most is that it kept me guessing. Nice layered performances (and some seriously against type casting, which felt odd at first, but ultimately worked) and a semi-buried theme regarding illusion/not taking things at face value. Oh, and there's plenty of jump-scares; I jumped out of my seat and yelled at each of 'em, too. Been awhile since a film caught me off guard like that with some serious "WTF?!" moments of jarring violence and unpredicted mayhem. I enjoyed figuring out a lot of the allusions to actual historical events, not to mention the motivations of the characters. It had a few moments that were shaky/odd in terms of unfolding the story, but in the end I was pleasantly surprised. Really enjoyed how the trailers, which felt like they gave away a lot of the movie, were really bait/switch red herrings as the film had quite a few didn't-see-them-coming left-hooks.

[PNWbrit]

THE OLD MAN AND THE GUN
4/5

At its core this is a film about obsession and adiction. Yet this theme is not in any way heavy-handed, instead focusing more on a person’s need to “live”, as in to be excited and exhilarated all the time, to have a constant adrenaline rush. The interesting juxtaposition comes in how the film unrolls with a casual, rather languid manner; the exact opposite of an adrenalin rush. And this is where the film succeeds. Its natural pacing and the easy-going demeanor of all the actors involved make it immediately likeable.
Redford, in the titular role, is sublime and his budding romance with Spacek showcases two Old School pros having a blast with well-written material. The supporting cast is equally solid. Danny Glover, in his usual curmudgeonly cautious self proves that he was expertly typecast here. And then there’s Casey Affleck, who gives a wonderfully understated performance as an ennui-infused police detective. The scene stealer, however, is Tom Waits, who probably only garners 10-minutes of total screen time, but mesmerizes the audience every time he pops up. In short, this is a cast that is clearly having fun with the material, but not at the expense of the material, which is rare these days.
On the surface, however, the film is a simple western: There’s an outlaw (Redford), his gang (Glover and Waits), a lawman (Affleck), and a lover (Spacek). The outlaws rob banks and outsmart the law who give chase, in the meantime the lead outlaw falls in love. This is where the all-encompassing droll humor of the screenplay comes into play. Rippling nicely throughout, the dialogue and story keep things light on the surface, but also allows for subtle, deeper layers to quietly resonate. The end result is so much more than just another revisionist western.
The other “star” of the film is the loose and lively score, crafted by North Carolina musician Daniel Hart, who seems to be channelling Lalo Schifrin by way of Dave Brubeck. It's jazzy, bouncy, and instills the film with not only a sense of fun, but provides intensity when needed and softer, more introspective tones, too.
Perhaps the most intersting aspect of The Old Man and the Gun is the look of the film. Shot in 16mm it is rendered in warm and washed-out tones immediately bringing to mind the films from 1970s era Hollywood (as if to accentuate this, director/screenwriter Lowery includes a prominant clip from Monte Hellman’s existential classic Two-Lane Blacktop). The catch is that the story here is from the 1980s, thus the “antiquated” look of the film creates a semi-dream-like, almost surreal atmosphere, as if we are watching a modern day fairy tale.

RIYL
The Electric Horseman; Going In Style (the 1973 George Burns/Art Carney/Lee Strasberg film); Harry and Tonto; the films of Jim Jarmusch

^ Really enjoyed this movie.

The New Yorker article the story came from is a good read too.

[Marshall Tucker]

crazy rich asians sucked ass. has anyone siad that yet?

[dookeyXXX]

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY
3.5/5

This film is something of a strange beast in that it’s essentially a bunch of vignettes and montages strung together into a full-length film. On many levels it felt like an extended Behind The Music, but delivered in flashy excess. Yet while it felt contrived more than once, it also moves along briskly, the acting is top-notch, and the musical moments (I believe the actors lip-synched since only Queen (the real band) is credited at the end for all the songs) are actually spine-tingling and immersive. While the film largely focuses on Mercury, it also feels like they gloss over his life (no mention of his operatic background) and quite a bit of the band's history (for example they don't include any bits about the work on Flash Gordon or the duet with Bowie) with a little too much haste; many times I thought this would have played out better as a 12-episode streaming series (I kinda yearned for a bit more depth). Yet at the same time they showed Mercury not only as a rock god, but an insecure gay man, and a completely self-absorbed asshole, so in that respect it was somewhat well-rounded. Despite its flaws and contrivances (and, yes, I got damn close to tearing up at all the manufactured emotional moments, being fully aware that the filmmakers were manipulating me and the rest of the audience), I would say it’s essential viewing not just for Queen fans, but also those of us too young to have seen them live, but who grew up on their ubiquitous hits on FM radio. Sure, it could have benefited from a bit more meat (i.e. exposition, delving deeper into the creation of their hits, Mercury’s double-life, the rest of the band’s behind-the-scenes-activity, etc.), but it’s a brisk and enjoyable faux rocumentary nonetheless. In retrospect, the film could have done with a bit more fantasy elements and some heightened surreality, but then again, that's just how I llke my rock dramas.

PS: For those who geek out over such things, there's a few ironic casting elements to keep an eye out for.

[muted]

crazy rich asians sucked ass. has anyone siad that yet?

An Asian acquaintance of mine said it sucked. He was a bit miffed that Asians finally get their chance to make a movie (I think most of the crew was Asian too) and it sucks just as much as everyone else's movies.

[PB]

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY
3.25/5 .........

Any time you throw in a quarter point yer reaching, Dooks!

[dookeyXXX]

Any time you throw in a quarter point yer reaching, Dooks!

Fair enough.

Upon further reflections, I'll give it a solid 3.5.
The film is very, very entertaining. I was glued to the screen for the entire 2-and-a-half hours.
I laughed.
I almost cried.
I got chills up and down my spine.
It's brilliant in many spots, but also transparently manipulative and treacly in others.
It's just that I went into the film expecting something truly EPIC and it fell just shy of that due to some terribly cliche moments (all the interactions with the parents for example) and glossing over elements that I found fascinating too quickly.
Again, the film unravels like a bunch of interconnected vignettes glued together with montages and then a massive musical finale. I would have liked a little more fleshing out.
The best way to describe it is that it was like one of those meals you have at a beloved restaurant, a meal which is really, really good and everything is super tasty, yet the minute you leave the restaurant you discover that you're still hungry. If that makes sense.
I felt as if they could easily have done the film as a 2 or even 3-parter, kind of like what Soderbergh did with his Che Guevara films or Richet did with the Mesrine films.

[PB]

Overlord: simple entertainment, neither strong nor weak, I enjoyed it, but except for the opening scene, the small screen will suffice.

[dookeyXXX]

I saw the original 1977 Susperia last night with a reformed version of Goblin (the band who composed the original score) playing along live to the film. Film is still visually stunning and equally hokey, but it is still, IMHO, the granddaddy of all "artsploitation" horror films. The colors Argento uses and the architecture are amazing. And the score? One of the classics of the Italian giallo/horror genre for sure.
And while I detest remakes of bonafide classics such as this, I think I may actually go see the new Susperia this week, because I'm curious now as to how they tweak it and how Thom Yorke's score differs in comparison to the original proggy, keyboard driven one.

For those who care about such cinephile things, Goblin/Susperia tour still has a grip of dates happening and if you are a horror fan, it's definitely worth seeing on the big screen with the added live accompaniment.

Tour Schedule:

https://consequenceofsound.net/2018/...ia-tour-dates/

[dookeyXXX]

Just in time for the holidays (or post-holidays wind-down, as the case may be in some theaters)...

DIE HARD: 30th ANNIVERSARY



Wednesday, November 14th @ Cinemark/Century and other related chains:
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/...th-anniversary


Sunday, December 30 and Wednesday, January 2 @ Galaxy and other related chains:
http://www.flashbackcinema.net/new-b.../3/14/die-hard

[Caucasian Asian]

The Grinch

3/5
It was alright. I expected more humour. The computer animation of the snow was phenomenal. Opening scene had some skiing who-fowl, and it looked like a ski movie. Interesting take on a classic story, with the addition of a few new characters.
It was far better than that creepy Jim Carey sack of shit. Still not as good as the original, but decent.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[dookeyXXX]

Overlord: simple entertainment, neither strong nor weak, I enjoyed it, but except for the opening scene, the small screen will suffice.

OVERLORD
2/5

Gonna back PB up on this (should have heeded his advice, too!). Reno theaters only charge $5 before 6pm every day, so I was only out a fin (well, that and the 40-minute drive), but I would totally classify this as a rental or a drive-in movie if you can sneak in a case of beer and a sofa (and you still have a drive-in near you).
Slickly made, but devoid of any soul or depth. 1-dimensional cardboard cliche characters and a plot that was pretty simple. No jump scares (expected a few of these, at least) and no real twists to elevate it above paint-by-numbers fare.
I was hoping that they would tweak the familiar Nazi mad scientists thematics, but alas, no (we don't even get a sufficiently evil mad scientist, either). Plus the main villain is really lackluster.
So, yeah, to echo PB, wait for it on VOD or Redbox or Netflix/Amazon (and I'd recommend a few brews or some smoke for added enhancement).

[Mike Pow]

Three Identical Strangers
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7664504/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Amazing. Best film I've seen in ages.

[Tippster]

Any of you guys seen "Widows" yet? Supposed to be damn good.

[dookeyXXX]

Any of you guys seen "Widows" yet? Supposed to be damn good.

On the hit list for next week when I get a day off...

[Caucasian Asian]

Fair enough.

Upon further reflections, I'll give it a solid 3.5.
The film is very, very entertaining. I was glued to the screen for the entire 2-and-a-half hours.
I laughed.
I almost cried.
I got chills up and down my spine.
It's brilliant in many spots, but also transparently manipulative and treacly in others.
It's just that I went into the film expecting something truly EPIC and it fell just shy of that due to some terribly cliche moments (all the interactions with the parents for example) and glossing over elements that I found fascinating too quickly.
Again, the film unravels like a bunch of interconnected vignettes glued together with montages and then a massive musical finale. I would have liked a little more fleshing out.
The best way to describe it is that it was like one of those meals you have at a beloved restaurant, a meal which is really, really good and everything is super tasty, yet the minute you leave the restaurant you discover that you're still hungry. If that makes sense.
I felt as if they could easily have done the film as a 2 or even 3-parter, kind of like what Soderbergh did with his Che Guevara films or Richet did with the Mesrine films.

My wife and I both really enjoyed it.
I didn't realize ho much I enjoyed Queen's music until I saw and heard it on the big screen. I mean, I like them, I just didn't know that I loved them.

My only takeaway was the cameo appearance where the producer says "kids aren't going to be rocking out in their cars to this" made me McKayla Maroney-face. If that conversation ACTUALLY happened, that's awesome. If they just put it in as a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge", I'm not a fan.

[reckless toboggan]

...made me McKayla Maroney-face.

Had to look it up, then I remembered once I saw it.

Pretty hilarious.

[PB]

Well played, sir.

[Caucasian Asian]

Had to look it up, then I remembered once I saw it.

Pretty hilarious.

That was the only way I could describe my reaction.


Sent from inside the house

[dookeyXXX]

SUSPERIA (2018)

3.5/5
I broke down and saw the new Susperia.
Gotta say, it was much better than I expected.
FWIW, I was really hesitant/resistant to seeing it as I enjoy Dario Argento's 1977 classic immensely, but after seeing the original recently in Oakland accompanied by a new incarnation of Goblin performing the score live, it got me intrigued by the new film and I figured I'd give it a shot, more out of curiosity than anything else.
I was pleasantly surprised, to say the least.
For starters, it's less of a remake than a re-imagining as the director (Luca Guadagnino, who is primarily known for deep dramas and romantic films, which immediately makes any true blue horror fan shake their head) takes the basic story from the original and not only tweaks it, but expands on it to include some of Argento's other mythology (The Three Mothers, to be exact). He also eschews Argento's lush, ultra-bright colors in favor of a darker, slightly more drab feel that gives the film a much more gothic and creepy feel.
Granted, the new film has a few problems, most notably the sappy Thom Yorke score (the film would have benefitted from hiring Jonny Greenwood instead, imho, as the abrasive and intense score he did for You Were Never Really Here was pretty fantastic and his style would have fit the horrific undertones of the film more), but overall it's solid.
I kinda recommend watching the original and then seeing this if you are a gung-ho horror nerd.

RIYL
Rosemary’s Baby; The Sentinel; The Lords of Salem