Hooligans Sportsbook

Movies and TV

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    13,849 Replies •
  • Views 1,022,098 Views
Follow
It would be a mercy killing. Those are terrible forums. Humanity at its worst.

Okay that was a bit hyperbolic but yeah, there is a huge concentration of stupid-heads there.

I do use them. I pick through the trolls and people who are too stupid to ignore trolls and people who will live their life angry because they don't know the difference between opinion and fact. There are little nuggets that I want buried in there.

But no, I'm sure there is a better way. I could definitely move on in life without the stupid imdb forums.
 
Saw Split last night with my roomie and her friend. I was disappointed. Not the worst movie, but certainly didn't live up to my expectations. I thought it would be more fucked up, and far more psychological than what it was.
I'd have to rate it a 5 out of 10 for now.
 
Jackie (2016) - Most movies - even bad ones - I can see why they were made. This one, I don't know. Just the thinnest of justification. I mean sure, Jackie has always been one of those figures - like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean - with a following/popularity that dwarfs their actual accomplishments IMO. Some people are going to be interested no matter what. But the actual point of the movie beyond the fact she was jarred by the assassination of her husband? That you can try to artificially influence hearts and minds through the media and then believe what you want to believe about the result? Something like that?

:dunno:

Natalie Portman is nominated for an Oscar and she seemed very good, although I don't remember Jackie Kennedy well enough to really know how accurate the portrayal is. Maybe I'll see what I can find on YouTube. I bet she was pretty damn good.

Anyway I found the movie tedious and I would never watch it again.

3.3 out of 10

Natalie-Portman-Jackie-Movie.jpg
 
Oh.


IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content. As part of our ongoing effort to continually evaluate and enhance the customer experience on IMDb, we have decided to disable IMDb's message boards on February 20, 2017. This includes the Private Message system. After in-depth discussion and examination, we have concluded that IMDb's message boards are no longer providing a positive, useful experience for the vast majority of our more than 250 million monthly users worldwide. The decision to retire a long-standing feature was made only after careful consideration and was based on data and traffic.
 
And while I'm here, the Mudcat Roundup of nominees for Best Actress:

Emma Stone, La La Land...............................7.6
Natalie Portman, Jackie.................................7.5
Meryl Streep, Florence Foster Jenkins..............7.1
Ruth Negga, Loving......................................7.1
Isabelle Huppert, Elle....................................7.1
 
Nocturnal Animals (2016) - Michael Shannon is nominated for Supporting Actor and I like him in pretty much everything and this is no exception. So there's that. There are a bunch of top actors in this right on their games. Writer/Director Tom Ford is confident and bold.

But . . . this is a movie that brings up the question: how do I rate something that is well-made but about stuff I don't want to see? Talkin' a movie I basically don't want to watch - knowing that the things I find repulsive are acceptable and maybe even attractive to some/many. In other words, I see a case for recommending those bits. They just aren't for me. So how does that translate to a rating? Don't know. I guess I just find a balance that feels right. Now Nocturnal Animals contains some repulsive stuff to me - there are a couple bits of varying length - if one had gone on just a tiny bit longer I would have bailed - BUT - that is not all it is. I stuck with it and a lot of the movie is quite interesting. Inspired in some ways. Good.

It is well designed and there is a lot to think about. Not to the level of Manchester by the Sea but a high level

But there is the repulsive part. To me. I'll say 5.6 out of 10 for now.

th
 
Yeah actually, I was thinking about Nocturnal Animals all through the day and my rating is going up significantly. It's ingenious. Not in terms of plot, but in terms of character and psychology, if you're into that, which I am.

From 5.6 up to 7.3
 
Meanwhile, Ben Affleck on the possibility of brother Casey (who did not thank Ben when he won the Golden Globe) winning the Oscar:


"[It would be] the very first time someone would win an Oscar who didn't brush his teeth from ages 10 to 14. It would be the very first time someone would win an Oscar who pulls his pants all the way down at the urinal. Most Oscar winners don't do that. This would be historic in many ways."
 
The Man in The High Castle - The obviously fascinating alternate-history idea that Germans got the atomic bomb first and won WWII deserves much better acting and writing than that. This is unwatchable. TV-movie quality.
 
Supporting Actor nominee Mud-ratings:


Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals................8.21
Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water.......................8.2
Mahershala Ali, Moonlight...............................7.4
Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea.............7.1
Dev Patel, Lion.............................................6.2



Looks like Mahershala Ali, who is also in Hidden Figures, is going to win.
 
This Is Us

This show is on ABC network I think. I never thought I'd like a show on one of the major networks. Because so many of them are beyond terrible.

It isn't Breaking Bad. But it's a pretty good show that I look forward to watching. It can be funny and tender. And it has just enough edges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.