2013 TV/Movie Thread

Post #21 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:27 pm

I've had A Storm of Swords sitting on my shelf for months and still haven't picked it up. March 31st is gonna get here too damn soon.

JimmyTheKid · Post #22 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:43 pm

vegaspacker wrote:Game of Thrones on HBO is my pick... A twisted tale with tons of intrigue, deceit, and some flesh for good measure...

Game of Thrones is the best show on television. Period.

JimmyTheKid · Post #23 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:45 pm

europa wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:Looking forward to House of Lies. Season 1 was fantastic.

I enjoyed it too. I'm a big Kristen Bell fan.

Didn't know much about her until House of Lies. Dictionary definition of a "spinner." I love her

europa · Post #24 » by **europa** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:47 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
europa wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:Looking forward to House of Lies. Season 1 was fantastic.

I enjoyed it too. I'm a big Kristen Bell fan.

Didn't know much about her until House of Lies. Dictionary definition of a "spinner." I love her

I watched "Veronica Mars" back in the day. That's when I first saw her. Been a fan ever since. She seems like a very cool chick. Perfect example of the girl who lived next door to someone other than me.

chuckleslove · Post #25 » by **chuckleslove** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:48 pm

DrugBust wrote:Here's my question. From that article:

Those bundles are core to today’s TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don’t want “a la carte” programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more.

Alright, how much? I'm waiting to see someone put a specific dollar amount. Say I want ESPN, FSN and the Food Network in HD. That's it. Maybe that's only $25 a month. If I can get that, I'd pay.

I'm just glad someone is finally going to leave the choice in the consumer's hands instead of making it for us, and I have a feeling we are going to find out that the big boy cable companies were full of **** with their line of thinking and were really just trying to protect their monopolies.

Post #26 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 8:53 pm

I honestly think the Intel service never sees the light of day, at least not in the way we would want it.

upnorthfan · Post #27 » by **upnorthfan** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:38 pm

House of Lies was awesome Season 1. It sounds like the gay kid and his lifestyle will be more prevelant this season.

Aaron It Out · Post #28 » by **Aaron It Out** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:51 pm

DrugBust wrote:I honestly think the Intel service never sees the light of day, at least not in the way we would want it.

Yeah. They are going to have a hard time getting any networks to agree to this.

El Duderino · Post #29 » by **El Duderino** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:52 pm

DrugBust wrote:I wouldn't say LIncoln was bad by any means, I just didn't think it was entertaining, save a couple LOL moments.

Yea, i slept bad the night before going to see Lincoln with my father and ended up struggling to stay awake during that long movie.

Then a few days later my brother came into town and he wanted to see Jack Reacher. I went to be nice to my brother and expected that movie to suck. Well, it lived up to my expectations by being awful. I just can't enjoy lame action movies where the lead character should have died countless times as the "bad guys" all armed with automatic machine guns can't seem to hit the star, but he can pick them all off with with a pistol or some combination of dental floss, a pencil, and a container of Tic-Tac's.

RiotPunch · Post #30 » by **RiotPunch** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:57 pm

Lincoln was very good, but I would not call it great. It was very slow and focused a bit too much on the wrong things, I thought. Some people raved about it, but it was something like a 7/10 for me.

Post #31 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 10:00 pm

It was worth seeing for a couple performances, but not one I'd watch again.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #32 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Wed Jan 2, 2013 10:35 pm

I have a hard time sitting though really long movies in the theater, so I am planning on renting Lincoln and the Hobbit instead of checking them out in the theater. I think I am getting more ADD as I get older, that and I'd prefer to lay on a couch if the movie is going to be ridiculously long.

RiotPunch · Post #33 » by **RiotPunch** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 2:46 am

If you are a big Tolkien fan, The Hobbit is a very fast 3 hours. Some people have complained about the length and pace, but I absolutely loved everything about it. I was very satisfied, even went to see it a second time.

EDIT: And not to mention, the scenery and visual effects are breathtaking. Definitely something worth seeing in theaters, and even worth the extra for 3-D.

jakecronus8 · Post #34 » by **jakecronus8** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 3:36 am

Django is tough to gage for me. I don't think it is on Basterds' and Fiction's respective levels, but it was as entertaining a Tarantino flick I've seen with very little down time, and was able to illicit more emotion than maybe any of his films.

Waltz is truly a wonder to watch on screen. While the rest of the ensemble held its own, he carried every scene and played a hero just as incredibly as he played a villain. I also thought Dicaprio did the most he could with a character that somewhat disappointed.

Probably should be a best pic nom but doesn't have a chance to win.

unklchuk · Post #35 » by **unklchuk** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 3:58 am

Different strokes for different Bucks fans re Lincoln. Lincoln with its slower pace but great acting, sharp dialog, and interesting politics completely redeemed a succession of previews that bored us stiff. Some highly-aclaimed films make my eyes heavy. (Like Solyaris, sp?). Even though the critics say they're great.

Lincoln doesn't have physical action, but it's full of thoughts, feelings, and intriguing personalities. With all of it serving the story -- not just grafted on entertainment. Not for everyone. And not neccessarily better than movies I wouldn't like. But for Jane and I it certainly delivered. A history lesson and instruction in how governments work. Including how a good constitutional amendment happens through the combined efforts of less than good people.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

jakecronus8 · Post #36 » by **jakecronus8** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 4:09 am

What annoyed me about Lincoln was it seemed that DDL was the only actor that didn't overact.

unklchuk · Post #37 » by **unklchuk** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 4:57 am

jakecronus8 wrote:What annoyed me about Lincoln was it seemed that DDL was the only actor that didn't overact.

Interesting point. Didn't bother me, but conceivably it should have. Guess I think that Lincoln was such an interior character that some outward sizzle was needed for balance. And that the political crowd in real life was likely made up of over-actors.

If you're including Sally Field as Mrs. Lincoln as an over-actor, I'd likely disagree. I haven't read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, but some writers have described the mercuric challenge that she presented to Lincoln. Seems her mix of savvy insight and mood swings was very real. Her bad health made her a regular emotional drain. His patience and sustaining commitment to her was a fine flash of his character.

Post #38 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 5:06 am

I made a list of my favorite fifty or so flicks and I'm gonna re-watch them all in the coming months. First one up tonight was LA Confidential. I can't imagine the kind of buzz a flick would get like this in the Twitter age. I remember it getting buried in terms of hype by Titanic, The Full Monty and Good Will Hunting in '97. It would kill everything in recent memory.

Nebula1 · Post #39 » by **Nebula1** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 2:17 pm

I loved Lincoln and was glad the assassination wasn't shown. Thought it was a great film and an excellent look at the function of US government and Lincoln himself.

I've watched Lawless a couple times now and think it's fantastic. Tom Hardy is on another level and the music lead me to rewatch The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Post #40 » by **humanrefutation** » Thu Jan 3, 2013 4:47 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:Django is tough to gage for me. I don't think it is on Basterds' and Fiction's respective levels, but it was as entertaining a Tarantino flick I've seen with very little down time, and was able to illicit more emotion than maybe any of his films.

Waltz is truly a wonder to watch on screen. While the rest of the ensemble held its own, he carried every scene and played a hero just as incredibly as he played a villain. I also thought Dicaprio did the most he could with a character that somewhat disappointed.

Probably should be a best pic nom but doesn't have a chance to win.

See, I'd rank those three:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Django
3. Basterds

The thing that Basterds was missing to me was that it seemed to gloss over some of the brutalities of the Nazi occupation, while Django was willing to address them openly (though, they could've gone much further). That gave Django a bit more credibility in my eyes.

I agree on Waltz, too. He was really fun to watch, though he pretty much played the good version of the character that he did in Basterds. Samuel L. Jackson played possibly one of the most evil characters I've ever seen and made me hate him, which is just a testament to his acting ability.

I thought Jamie Foxx was alright. I do wonder what it would've been like if Will Smith accepted the role when he was offered it first.