The Pitters' Place

Whiplash - To put it simply, if you haven't seen this movie yet, you're a bad person. It's as close as you can get to two hours (or whatever) of cinematic perfection. Its ambiguity, first of all, is pretty fascinating - even though it sounds like it's following the traditional "harsh yet inspirational mentor" storyline, the direction it actually took was pretty unique. JK Simmons was pretty intense and terrifying as the antagonist, of sorts. He's sort of reminiscent of that lame sergeant dude from Full Metal Jacket, although that's fairly insulting, as he could easily make the FMJ dude start crying after about three minutes. Seriously, I can't think of a character more consistently intimidating in a movie. It's strengthened by the ambiguity - that you really don't know if he's a good guy "deep down" or not or whether he has other peoples' best interests in mind. But the entire movie is pretty visceral and intense, not just him. It doesn't let up, ever. I don't know how it'll let up on repeat viewings - that was a problem with Black Swan, it was pretty electrifying the first time I watched it and pretty dull the second time - but it's still amazing.

THG: Mockingjay - sucked

Oculus - wtf? This was lame as hell. It wasn't scary, it wasn't atmospheric, it wasn't nothing. The characters were dumb, the haunted mirror was dumb, the fingernail torture scenes were dumb, the "twist" or whatever was dumb, it all sucked. It was like a slightly better version of the Grudge.

Skins - this is a British drama show starring at least two actors from Game of Thrones. I liked them much better here. I dunno, it's a pretty slow-paced teenage drama thing, following the melodramatic adventures of a group of teenagers who are simultaneously far too mature and far too immature for their age group at the same time. They're mature so you can sympathize with them as adults, and immature so they can get into some unrealistic misadventures to keep the plot going. But despite my tone it's fairly well-done, the characters are all sympathetic and well-rounded, the actors are good, the humor works, the tone is consistent, the soundtrack is very good. There isn't any overarching narrative or anything, it's basically a soap opera where nothing that happens seems to be building to anything (much like Game of Thrones!), but whatever, I enjoyed it. It's a guilty pleasure thing, as I would probably feel faintly embarrassed if I admitted I liked it to anyone I know. I've only seen the first two seasons, and it seems to rotate whole new casts of characters every two seasons or so. I don't know why.

Jupiter Ascending - no.

Pontypool - pretty unique horror movie. Good in the first two acts, basically took a nose-dive in the last third when the "twist" was revealed. Turns out it was trying to make some heavy-handed social commentary about the media and politicians or something. Lame. The first half is good enough to watch, though.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot I also saw Fury a few days ago. Here's my recap: boring military guns war violence gore war guns military guns war RAPE SCENE RAPE SCENE RAPE SCENE war guns train tank war last stand death end. It sucked.

I saw the first two series of Skins and it just made me feel so entirely ugh. I could not relate to it in any way. I was 20 at the time and I just kept thinking 'None of this reflects anything even close to my experience of being a young person'. Which is not the greatest sin in the world, I don't need to relate to a show to enjoy it, but I remember all the reviews at the time talking about what a brilliant representation it was of being a modern British teen when it might as well have been set on the moon for me. The Inbetweeners is a million miles closer to most people's experiences of being a young and desperately awkward adult.

I liked "Skins". Did not like Whiplash. Maybe I'll try again as it's been a while.

lololololol, never for a single second did I think "this is a realistic representation of the lives of young people" as I was watching it, and when it was recommended everyone kept saying that it was very good despite it being horribly unrealistic. And yeah, I liked and sympathized with the characters despite what they were doing not being very realistic at all. I don't know what life is like for modern British teens but I can't imagine it being too terribly different from what life is like for modern American teens, and... yeah, none of that stuff happens. I think you might have enjoyed it more if you hadn't been expecting it to be a good representation of real life and instead just accepted it for what it is, because it is a pretty good show, generally speaking, in a guilty pleasure sort of way. At least I think so.

I got to admit even though I liked the characters I was getting pretty tired of them as season two ended. My favorite was probably Jal, followed maybe by Sid.

sikax wrote:I liked "Skins". Did not like Whiplash. Maybe I'll try again as it's been a while.

Well, you heard me. You're a bad person.

TBH I don't really know what to say because I don't really know what your tastes are or you judge the qualities of a movie.

You said if we haven't seen it we're bad people. I have seen it. Just...didn't love it. Simmons should not have gotten all those Supporting awards. Those belong to Edward Norton. God damn thief.

Everything deserves a second chance, though. (Not Boyhood, but everything else.)

What didn't you like about it?

I...don't remember. Forget I said anything. I'll revisit this thread after I watch it again.

Now that's more like it.

Have you seen Birdman yet?

Nope. I don't have any particular desire to. Maybe someday.

Well that's silly.

You're silly.