Kraut783
SOF Support
Looking forward to this on August 18th.......need something to laugh at, with all this crap going on in the world.
Super Sweet Movie Discussion Thread
- Thread starter amlove21
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,236
I'm beginning to get burned out on Sam Jackson, he's becoming as frequent in my movies as Tom Hanks was for a while. Hope it's good!
On the bright side, Ryan Reynolds is always watchable. No homo.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,236
LOL - Do people still say that?
Looking forward to this one. I'll wait for the DVD, but still. Also, no Jeep vehicles were destroyed in the making of this movie.
And this one also seems to have an interesting premise/story.
And this one also seems to have an interesting premise/story.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,236
I am a fan of Daniel Craig; so am pleased to see this movie is getting good reviews.
Packed with charm, Channing Tatum's 'Logan Lucky' pulls off the perfect heist
Packed with charm, Channing Tatum's 'Logan Lucky' pulls off the perfect heist
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
- Messages
- 99
I'm a dad, been told by my 9yrold, she has to see this! Drug the IPad video in and watched this video prolly 5 times.
Just putting it out there in case you have kids that are into this.
Just putting it out there in case you have kids that are into this.
I am a fan of Daniel Craig; so am pleased to see this movie is getting good reviews.
Packed with charm, Channing Tatum's 'Logan Lucky' pulls off the perfect heist
I don't usually do blondes, but Daniel Craig with no shirt faking a Southern accent defo gets 4 puppies.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
Shhh don't say it so loud, my daughter might here. lol
I don't think I'm friends with a single person who doesn't like Heat. You either like the movie or GTFO of my life. Michael Mann is a beast.
Devildoc
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,236
Based on the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn (RIP and fuck cancer).
I have a lot of hopes for this movie, it could be a great series if they do it right. A few things that concern me with modern day Hollywood though:
- The actor looks like a scrawny douche, Mitch was a tall beast.
- Vince made it very clear that Islamic terrorists were a major threat
- I had reservations with Stan Hurley being played by Michael Keaton, Bruce Willis was originally slated. Hopefully Keaton can pull it off.
- Some people are pissed that the incident that makes Mitch Rapp join the CIA has been modernized. I've no problem with that. You had to do that or the story could not take place in modern times.
Fingers crossed. I just saw that Kyle Mills signed a deal to do 3 more Rapp books. It's his series now, I guess.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,522
A few more things that concern me. That movie looks like trash. It is being produced by CBS studios, which makes trash. If Jerry Bruckheimer was doing it, or Ridley Scott, or Peter Berg, I might see it. It looks nothing like the books, which I loved. I hate to be that guy but at least translate them halfway decent...
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,026
I just go back to that still shot promo that @Ooh-Rah posted awhile where the dude wasn't even close to using his sights correctly...that sealed it for me before even seeing the trailer. The star, whoever he is, just isn't the least bit convincing. I'm with @TLDR20; it looks like trash. Hard no from me.
On the other hand, I'm checking out Logan Lucky later today... :)
Devildoc
Verified Military
Eh. I'll still watch it. Maybe Red Box, though.
I think we are getting very close to exhausting all that is truly exciting to watch this year. So why not mention the 2017 Criterion release of Tarkovsky's "Stalker" (1979)?
Here is a link to a much, much better review of it than I could hope to write:
Why Andrei Tarkovsky’s interminably dull 1979 sci-fi masterpiece “Stalker” is the movie we need right now
The film feels longer than it is. Here is an excerpt from the review:
Mark Le Fanu describes the Strugatsky bros.’ source book as a hard-edged genre piece. “Yet hovering beneath the surface,” Le Fanu writes, “one can discern a difficult-to-define tenderness of outlook.” The same holds true for Tarkovsky’s adaptation.
Le Fanu’s phrasing is curious. Typically things are said to hover over other things, as hydrofoil may be said to hover above the miry waters of a Florida swamp, or Criss Angel, festooned in pewter jewellery and dense coils of bandanas, hovers an inch above a sidewalk on the Las Vegas Strip, for the amusement of some easily-amused tourists. Things don’t usually hover under. Underneath things are more likely to teem or coil or seethe, like those chittering bugs at the beginning of “Blue Velvet.” The underneath is gritty, ugly, hostile, nurtured by decomposing dead things and other stuff best left unseen. Not in “Stalker.” Midway through the film, when Stalker prays for the pliancy necessary to make it through his journey, he looks not towards the heavens but down into a well, into the depths of the earth itself. In “Stalker,” the landscape itself offers a faint promise of our innermost desires registered in mundanity.
The film is composed of about 145 shots only. To those who are given to contemplation, and have an appreciation for Terrence Malik's films, this is great cinema. Tarkovsky is way up there with Bergman, Ford and Kurosawa.
Similar threads
