What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

In the previews I've seen, it looks like
the whole movie is some black guy
shooting his guns, like in a Western.
The book isn't like that at all. The
book fans like me are seeing this and
mocking the crap out if it.

The reviews I've seen from (non-racist) diehard fans of the book make no mention of his race. They hate the movie for legitimate reasons.

A Cure For Wellness

Quote:

An ambitious young executive is sent to retrieve his company's CEO from an idyllic but mysterious "wellness center" at a remote location in the Swiss Alps, but soon suspects that the spa's treatments are not what they seem.

I had intended to see this in theaters when it was released in February, but it was a box office bomb and it was gone before I had a chance...

Directed by Gore Verbinski (The Ring, Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3), I had high hopes. But unfortunately I found the script to be a muddled mess. At nearly 2 and a half hours, I don't think there was enough of a story to sustain that length.

The cinematography is absolutely stunning. This is a gorgeous movie to look at. But other than that, there's not much I would recommend about it.

Quote: Pacomartin

Quote: ‘Dunkirk’ and the 70mm Experience:

But ultimately Dunkirk belongs to Nolan and cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who have crafted the rare film that positively demands to be seen on a large screen. The movie was shot entirely on large-format film (75 percent of it IMAX) and it is being released in 70-mm projection in a remarkable 125 theaters across the country. As George Miller did two years ago with Fury Road, Nolan has made the film using practical effects rather than CGI whenever possible—he even spent $5 million on a vintage Luftwaffe plane in order to crash it—and the difference is palpable. Rarely has the beauty of aerial flight (or the unpleasantness of its failure) been captured so vividly.
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/dunkirk-70mm-projection-imax-christopher-nolan-1201857599/

I have yet to see an article about the discontinuity of lighting. Perhaps it is inevitable in the effort to reduce CGI effects.

I saw "Dunkirk". After reading this thread, I was expecting the lighting differences to be worse, and there are a few "clear blue skies" A-camera shots combined with "overcast" B-camera sequences, but I was wondering if I was noticing them because I was warned to look for them.

The movie's intersecting stories are told over the course of a week, a day, and an hour, from different points of view, so the unmatched lighting is somewhat disguised. I thought a lot of the characters looked similar, and were dressed alike, so it was hard for me to recognize when the stories crossed, or when a character we had been following went below on a ship while his traveling partner decided to stay on deck. The music, and the scale of the film are compelling.

I noticed credit for "65mm" film staffers in the end roll. I hadn't noticed that in other films, so I wonder if it is some new format? There are some dogfight shots from the p.o.v. of the hood of the plane that are vertigo inducing. If you see it, it is worth the extra money to see it in IMAX.

Edit: Just read the article Paco referenced and learned what "65mm" is, and that it is not new. Thanks, Paco! I learned something new today.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I saw "Dunkirk". After reading this thread, I was expecting the lighting differences to be worse, and there are a few "clear blue skies" A-camera shots combined with "overcast" B-camera sequences, but I was wondering if I was noticing them because I was warned to look for them.

Probably. I wouldn't expect many people to notice it unless they knew to look for it.

I've always been fascinating by how movies are made and all the work that goes on behind the scenes. So I pay attention to the little stuff that most common moviegoers don't give a crap about.

Lighting continuity mistakes are pretty common. Another recent notable one is in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. After Maz's castle is destroyed, the battle scenes outside were clearly shot at different times on days that alternated between overcast and sunny. The scene where Han and Leia first reunite was clearly shot on a sunny morning, by the angle of the sunlight. The other scenes immediately before that were shot on an overcast day. Most people wouldn't notice. I do.

It's a trade off for directors: do you want to shoot your movie outside and let mother nature decide what you can shoot and when, or do you want to shoot your movie on a soundstage with blue screen backgrounds (and most likely have your movie look like crap)?

Christopher Nolan would choose option 1 every time, he despises blue screen. George Lucas would choose option 2.

Annabelle: Creation



The creepy ass doll is back.

The rare prequel to a prequel. Annabelle: Creation takes place before Annabelle, which took place before The Conjuring.

The Conjuring is probably my favorite horror movie of this decade. Annabelle was a quick cash grab that no one liked.

Thankfully, this one is much better (although not Conjuring-level good). It has likeable characters (mostly young orphan girls) and some pretty decent scares. What more could you ask for from a movie like this?

Quote: ams288

The creepy ass doll is back.

Well, that's the first problem right there. Who lets their kid have a creepy doll? You know you're just asking for trouble. Sheesh.

Quote: rxwine

Well, that's the first problem right there. Who lets their kid have a creepy doll? You know you're just asking for trouble. Sheesh.

Ha!

Here's a review someone posted on Amazon for the first Annabelle movie:

Quote: Ayecarumba

have yet to see an article about the discontinuity of lighting. .

Watch Comedians Getting Coffee in Cars if
you want no continuity in editing. Seinfeld
talks to his guests for at least an hour and
they edit it down to 12-20min. They jump
all over the place, food is there, then it's
gone, then it's there again. Over and over.
But that's fine, it flows seamlessly, which is
the point of editing.

Quote: ams288

It's a trade off for directors: do you want to shoot your movie outside and let mother nature decide what you can shoot and when, or do you want to shoot your movie on a soundstage with blue screen backgrounds (and most likely have your movie look like crap)?

I've read that in the earliest days of commercial movies, they were all shot outdoors, even the indoor scenes (with sets/sound stages built out in the open). And that this is one big reason why movie-making took off in California (lots of sunny days and little chance of clouds). I don't know if this is so.