[gwnn]

Has anyone else seen Her? This is such a personal film and I will likely watch it several times. Maybe it touched me that much because I'm a bit of a technology addict myself? The film is so sad and so non-judgemental at the same time. The soundtrack is perfect, too.

I saw Rush as well, BTW, and I liked how it went out of its way to avoid taking sides. I more or less took Lauda's but I was also impressed at Hunt's treatment of that reporter.

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2014-February-09, 17:36, said:

Has anyone else seen Her? This is such a personal film and I will likely watch it several times. Maybe it touched me that much because I'm a bit of a technology addict myself? The film is so sad and so non-judgemental at the same time. The soundtrack is perfect, too.

I saw Rush as well, BTW, and I liked how it went out of its way to avoid taking sides. I more or less took Lauda's but I was also impressed at Hunt's treatment of that reporter.

Gave both of them 2.5 stars out of 4.....a bit over average.

/by comparison saw the Lego movie 3 stars and Monument Men 2.5 this weekend .

Also rewatched one of my fav movies this past month. North by Northwest and am watching Hard Days Night on Monday another truly great movie.

by way of comparison the last 4 star movie I saw at the local theatre was Enough Said.

[Mbodell]

gwnn, on 2014-February-09, 17:36, said:

Has anyone else seen Her? This is such a personal film and I will likely watch it several times. Maybe it touched me that much because I'm a bit of a technology addict myself? The film is so sad and so non-judgemental at the same time. The soundtrack is perfect, too.

I think Her is my favorites of the best picture nominees that I've seen (still need to see Dallas Buyers Club and Nebraska). It is tough though as a lot of the best picture nominees were also very good, but not fantastically great, IMO. I think I'd go:

Her
12 Years A Slave
Philomena
American Hustle
<small gap>
The Wolf of Wallstreet
Captain Phillips
Gravity

Any of the top 4 could be reordered and any of the bottom 3 reordered for me too. I don't think any of them are particularly undeserving of a nomination, but I'm not sure any are deserving of the win.

[mike777]

Mbodell, on 2014-February-09, 19:26, said:

I think Her is my favorites of the best picture nominees that I've seen (still need to see Dallas Buyers Club and Nebraska). It is tough though as a lot of the best picture nominees were also very good, but not fantastically great, IMO. I think I'd go:

Her
12 Years A Slave
Philomena
American Hustle
<small gap>
The Wolf of Wallstreet
Captain Phillips
Gravity

Any of the top 4 could be reordered and any of the bottom 3 reordered for me too. I don't think any of them are particularly undeserving of a nomination, but I'm not sure any are deserving of the win.

For comparison from your list:

Gravity 4 stars
Dallas 3.5 stars
American Hustle....3.5
Captain Philips...3.5
12 years a slave...3
Nebraska.....3
Her 2.5
The Wolf...2
Philomena ..did not see.
-----

Her has been on many top ten lists; for me I found it cold and a bit of a disappointment. Still a movie worth seeing. I guess I don't find the fact that men can fall in love with a phone voice that shocking. the fact that the program gains free will at some point is a worth a discussion, the fact that it becomes super intelligent not so surprising given my many posts over the years.
-----------------------

Off topic but we just went and saw the play /boeing/boeing in our local artsy theatre here. A very cute farce worth your time if it comes to your local town.

"Boeing-Boeing is a classic farce written by the French playwright Marc Camoletti. The English language adaptation, translated by Beverley Cross, was first staged in London at the Apollo Theatre in 1962 and transferred to the Duchess Theatre in 1965, running for a total of seven years.[1] In 1991, the play was listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most performed French play throughout the world"

http://en.wikipedia....ng-Boeing_(play)

[Mbodell]

mike777, on 2014-February-09, 21:14, said:

Her has been on many top ten lists; for me I found it cold and a bit of a disappointment. Still a movie worth seeing. I guess I don't find the fact that men can fall in love with a phone voice that shocking. the fact that the program gains free will at some point is a worth a discussion, the fact that it becomes super intelligent not so surprising given my many posts over the years.

While I think there is the interest in technology and AI (as well as the interesting 'look' and 'style' of the future) I think the movie is as much or more about relationships between people, how they evolve, and what is real versus projection.

The job writing letters, the "cat strangler", the video game kid, the friend and her controlling spouse, the ex-wife, etc. are all aspects of all that devoid of any AI versus non-AI perspective. Samantha is just the most interesting and foregrounded aspect of that exploration (and leads to other like the "3-way" or the double date).

But yeah, different strokes for different folks.

For me Gravity was the worst of all these films mostly because for me there wasn't really much there. The lack of backstory, character development, etc. made for a tense and exciting moment, but I felt a hollow "So what?" upon leaving the theater.

[mike777]

Samantha is just the most interesting and foregrounded aspect of that exploration (and leads to other like the "3-way" or the double date).



Ya I thought it was the least and most predictable.

men fall in love with her.....predictable.
she is super intell.....predictable.



she has free will ...debate. but they don't.
In fact for most of the movie she is a slave.

this is really a movie for a slave and those who love a slave.
thus it is as I said cold..

as for gravity yes if you need a backstory......development......you make two huge points.

If you feel so what.....yes this is not 4 stars.

again my fav was fast and fury...... silly fast and fun...

AND YES IT HAD A BACK STORY.... I FOUND IT tense and fun with great stunts....again good movie.

[Mbodell]

mike777, on 2014-February-10, 02:01, said:

again my fav was fast and fury...... silly fast and fun...

AND YES IT HAD A BACK STORY.... I FOUND IT tense and fun with great stunts....again good movie.

Wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but you'll get no argument from me that it was a good well executed movie. I think it was the best of the sequels. The original was the only better one, IMO.

[kenberg]

Philomena is the only one of these nominees that I have seen although I hope to see American Hustle and Her. I've been busy. There are a couple of aspects of Philomena I will comment on.

Here is a link to a Washington Post article about the "real" Philomena.

Added: This link seems to activate a plugin that seems to, at least for me, be a (manageable) pain in the butt. You may want to just go with my excerpt.
http://www.washingto...4dae_story.html

An excerpt:

Quote

Like her son, Philomena's story has made its way in the world in all kinds of ways she couldn't have expected. Sixsmith's book focuses largely on the biography of the son, Michael/Anthony, who became the chief legal counsel to the Republican National Committee in the 1980s before dying of AIDS-related complications at 43. The movie, adapted by Jeff Pope and Steve Coogan, goes a step farther into fiction and depicts Dench's Philomena and Coogan's Sixsmith going together on an oddball road trip to Washington in search of Philomena's son — a trip that never actually happened.

I suppose that I am too old to really be shocked, but this does annoy the hell out of me. The fundamental story, a woman in her 60s hoping to meet the son she gave up for adoption in her teens, is of interest to many, me more than some. So why not tell it straight? I guarantee you I would be interested in seeing a portrayal of the story as it happened. A little dramatic license is ok, I suppose Caesar did not really say et tu, Brute, but why insert a whole trip that never happened? Write a fictional story about a fictional mother if you want, but if you put it out there as the true story of a real person, tell it straight.

The movie takes a highly critical view of the place that took in Philomena's mother and arranged for the adoption, although Philomena, at least in the movie, takes what I regard as a more balanced view. More than once, as they learn of the life of the adopted child, she says "I couldn't have given him this". Exactly. Philomena herself went on to successful life with marriage and children, and the boy grew up successfully (He died of AIDS but we should not hold the Sisters responsible for that). And the Sisters took money for the adoption. So? They weren't hiring male strippers with the money, they were running a shelter for unmarried women in poverty. My own circumstances of birth were similar, and I strongly suggest that those who are not offering assistance go very carefully on criticizing those who are. One more thing about this. Philomena was working with a journalist to uncover this story, with the agreement it would be published. Really? And what exactly gives her the right to do this? It's convenient that her son, and I gather his adoptive parents, are dead. If not, it is a great invasion of their privacy.

I enjoyed the movie, who doesn't like Judi Dench, but in tackling the real issues I thought it was lazy.

[hrothgar]

Shout out for "The Lego Movie"

[gwnn]

If anyone doesn't like Her, I think I need to use my "You are too old to understand" card, developed as a natural reaction to the "you weren't even born yet when they made it" card employed by people who think To Kill a Mockingbird or Gone with the Wind have aged well.

In unrelated news, I am watching Hitchcock these days and I'm constantly impressed, and I don't need to give them any handicap for historical context, they stand up for themselves.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2014-February-11, 03:08, said:

If anyone doesn't like Her, I think I need to use my "You are too old to understand" card, developed as a natural reaction to the "you weren't even born yet when they made it" card employed by people who think To Kill a Mockingbird or Gone with the Wind have aged well.

In unrelated news, I am watching Hitchcock these days and I'm constantly impressed, and I don't need to give them any handicap for historical context, they stand up for themselves.

From this I am guessing you also wouldn't think A Tree Grows in Brooklyn has aged well. How about The Long Hot Summer ? Or Picnic ? But I suppose this is all for another thread. Tastes change. I think I will accept the challenge and see Her. As for Hitchcock I liked Notorious, even if Cary Grant (well, his character) is remarkably obtuse. He usually is. But as Doris says in The Man Who Knew Too Much, Que Sera, Sera. I'll report back on Her, although Becky has us schedule for some foreign film this weekend.

[mike777]

It is important to note that the Man in Her is extremely narcissistic. I think that is what makes the movie feel so cold. The program is all about pleasing him. As the program develops outside needs and desires and takes on other lovers and thousands of friends the relationship falls apart. Ultimately the movie seems much more about self love rather than love for others.

Again I gave the movie an above average rating...just not a top ten movie for me.

I certainly think men can and will fall in love with computers or advanced robots.
I certainly think people will have more and more machine made parts integrated into our bodies and at some point the internet will be connected to our bodies.

In some sense those that own cell phones seem connected to the internet, just not internal yet....

[gwnn]

I don't think he is narcissistic. In my eyes, he shows no obvious signs of liking himself particularly. He has some issues, for sure, but he's not obviously immoral or twisted. Other thoughts best kept inside a spoiler tag (maybe you could look into it if you are interested in continuing this conversation):

Spoiler

The fact that he was bothered by his computer GF not talking to him is simply explained by the fact that he is still conflicted between accepting Samantha as a person and not just a very smart computer. Treating your computer as a slave is completely normal, even if it has a nice voice, treating a person as a slave is completely abhorrent, and he had to solve this conflict somehow. Anyway, this was not really the point of the film at all. People being in love being selfish is definitely not unheard of. Your GF telling you that she loves you as much as before but now having 600 other boyfriends, all of them orders of magnitude smarter and more compatible to her is likely to hurt you, even if you are as understanding as they come. I just think this aspect of the film -the way she was growing and he couldn't possibly keep up- was very well made and I do not think he was being unreasonably possessive.

[gwnn]

Also, thanks for the films kenberg, I admit I haven't seen any of them!

[mike777]

I don't know how to do spoiler tags but good idea. How do you do them?

btw being narcissistic is not immoral or twisted.

Anyway good film, worth seeing,but I just found it cold for the above post reasons.

For me it sort of all came back to the whole singularity threads I have posted over the years and how man and machine become ever more combined not just in a physical sense but a deeply emotional sense as this movie explores as computers become more intelligent. Of course this ignores issues such as free will or consciousness as they seem to be undefined and unmeasurable.

[Mbodell]

mike777, on 2014-February-13, 19:32, said:

For me it sort of all came back to the whole singularity threads I have posted over the years and how man and machine become ever more combined not just in a physical sense but a deeply emotional sense as this movie explores as computers become more intelligent. Of course this ignores issues such as free will or consciousness as they seem to be undefined and unmeasurable.

Just saw the remade Robocop movie tonight. It sort of touches on these but doesn't really explore it and devolves into mostly senseless action sequences. Average to average minus movie overall (not bad for a February release).

[gwnn]

Well, narcissism is a personality disorder, but being extremely narcissistic is not at all twisted? Being on the wrong side of an abusive relationship is immoral. Anyway, you put them with [spoiler ] text here[\spoiler ] but take out the spaces.

[kenberg]

If I call a person a moron it does not mean that I have given him an intelligence test or even that I know what level of performance would qualify him for that label. I suppose calling him a narcissist is similar. I am not a trained psychologist. The label goes more like this: I saw the last part of My Sister Eileen on TCM last night and one of the characters is excitedly praising an article written about her. "And it's all about me", she says.

Anyway, I have to get to this movie so I can give my analysis. I have no doubt that everyone is waiting breathlessly for this.

Semi-serious comment. I rarely if ever call a person a moron or a narcissist. Or a psychopath or a paranoid. Better, I think, to focus on specific objectional actions. If there are just too many of these, this is a person you do to want to be around, no matter what the accurate diagnosis might be.

That being said, there was this partner I had who was in 4♥, had ten absolutely certain tricks, no way to make an eleventh trick, and condensed them to nine tricks. Even Homer nods. Or whatever.

[Fluffy]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 19:12, said:

The wizard is Radagast the Brown. The dwarf's name is Thorin Oakenshield, so named because he once use the branch of an oak tree as a shield during an orc attack.

Bad guys in stories are almost always lousy fighters - although perhaps not as lousy as these orcs.

The Lord of the Rings was Tolkien's magnum opus. He put a lot of work into it, and it shows. The Hobbit was just a tale he wrote for his children, long before LOTR. I put the decision to expand a one book novel into three movies down to pure greed - it makes no sense otherwise. Also, neither Legolas nor Tauriel appeared in the novel, although Legolas was of of course, one of the Fellowship of the Ring in LOTR.

I was as glad to see Beorn though as I was disappointed in LOTR not to see Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.

I missed Glorfindel the most because I loved the scene where he appeared, but just the same as Tom Bombadil it is just not for the picture, you can't make the public understand that Tom Bombadil simply doesn't care the least about the ring because he is way above it, also making the Nazgul who are suposed to be the toughest in the world, feel scared when they see an Elven Lord among a house of princes is pretty hard.

[Fluffy]

I watched Gravity the other day and yes its pretty, yes, the plot is nice for an space movie, but also yes, the things they do are simply too improbable to believe them.

I still don't know what force did attract Clooney on the ISS which made him lift.