<p>Good day for me as we are under a wind chill warning. Surprisingly, I was only one of two people in the whole theater.</p>
<p>Weeks later, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is still resonating with me. I went in not expecting much. Great visuals, nice story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm…the music was written by a couple, Bobby Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez. Bobby was the composer for Avenue Q and Book of Mormon. They wrote the music for “Finding Nemo” at Disney World. Kirsten did write the music for the movie Winnie the Pooh. They both have other credits–those are just the ones I know.</p>
<p>I think it may have been more of hiring people who have worked primarily in live theatre to write the songs than a matter of telling them to go write songs that will work on Broadway.</p>
<p>BTW, their little girls are some of the chlldren’s voices in the movie.</p>
<p>Stradmom, I agree with you about Walter Mitty. Just a wonderful, feel good story with incredible visuals, and simply fun to watch. The soundtrack was nicely done too.
I thought Ben Stiller was excellent in this and Kristen Wiig perfect as his love interest.</p>
<p>In spite of the low critics ratings, I’ve recommended this movie to several. It’s a nice change from all the melodrama and excess in many of the most popular movies today.
While many are very good, Walter Mitty leaves you with a lighter heart.</p>
<p>Haven’t seen Walter Mitty, but American Hustle won’t disappoint! Can’t wait to see Frozen either–that’s next on my list</p>
<p>I haven’t been keeping up with this thread too much, but I just wanted to say that Her was fantastic. Definitely my favorite film of 2013. I haven’t seen a more plausible depiction of the future in any other film. Phoenix was stellar, ScarJo’s voice was perfect (and sexy, as usual), Adams was typically wonderful, etc. etc. etc. It’s amazing how many ideas Jonze was able to explore with just a whimsical “man falls in love with operating system” idea. In less capable hands, the film could have been a cheesy disaster. In Jonze’s, it was breathtaking. I saw it a few weeks ago and have yet to stop thinking about it. Do yourself a favor and see this movie in theaters. It’s worth it.</p>
<p>My son and his friends saw Wolf of Wall Street last weekend and really liked it. Son is a big movie buff, and loves Scorcese. He recently watched Raging Bull and loved it.</p>
<p>He’s thinking of seeing Her this weekend, but based on some of y’all’s reviews, I kind of discouraged him, but I wonder, he may just like it.</p>
<p>I really wanted to see Walter Mitty, just for the scenery, but it’s gone already. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be among the Oscar marathon weekends my local theater is having, so I’ll just have to wait for cable!</p>
<p>I went to see Nebraska last night and I’d highly recommend it. The movie was a little slow, but still interesting. Bruce Dern gave a great performance. The actress who played his wife was terrific as well. The whole father/son and extended family dynamic fascinated me.The film is shot in black and white, which emphasizes the bleakness of Dern’s quest.</p>
<p>Just read back a few pages, and I’m shocked by the Her hate. I didn’t find it boring at all; in fact, I was entranced the whole time. What exactly was boring about it? I thought the development of the relationship between Theodore and Samantha was impeccably paced, so there wasn’t much stagnancy there. And as absorbing as his relationship with Samantha was, it wasn’t even the only storyline–his dating, divorce, friendships, and job were all explored pretty thoroughly. Not to mention the moments of genuine hilarity (if you didn’t laugh at the “kid” in the video game, you don’t have a sense of humor).</p>
<p>I couldn’t remember who Joaquin Phoenix reminded me of in Her, that I can’t stand, so I typed in “news magazine reporter hyperbole”.
Oh yeah.
John Stossel.</p>
<p>Wow! The resemblance is uncanny.</p>
<p>I loved Saving Mr. Banks. Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson were both excellent and while I’ve never been a fan of Colin Ferrell, his performance blew me away. I think he was robbed by not being nominated for an Oscar for supporting actor this year. He really made the movie for me.</p>
<p>I didn’t read any of the Her hate back a few pages, but I pretty much hated it, too. My wife refused to go see it because the premise was so creepy (and because she has an irrational hatred of Scarlett Johansen). I thought the premise was creepy, too, but the previews and many positive reviews had given me the idea that it was a visually beautiful movie that found a way to tell its creepy story without creepiness.</p>
<p>Wrong. It was a visually beautiful, overwhelmingly creepy movie. The acting was fine, there were some funny bits, but I and the friends with whom I saw it all had a deeply negative reaction:</p>
<p>-- Scarlett Johansen’s babydoll voice performance was direct from porn, and borderline kiddie-porn at that. I think I now share my wife’s aversion to her – she has played the teenage-muse-to-middle-aged-lech card so often that it has to be a choice, not just the parts she is offered. The voice was gross, and Theodore’s tumescent reaction to it grosser still.</p>
<p>-- The problems with that are somewhat compounded by the fact that Theodore’s ex-wife, of whom he says “we grew up together,” is played by Rooney Mara, who looks, and I think is, 20 years younger than Joaquin Phoenix.</p>
<p>-- One reasonably explicit scene of phone sex/masturbation would have been more than enough. But this film does not stop at one.</p>
<p>-- The characters in the film lived in the trappings of significant wealth, with no real explanation how they could be that wealthy. The main character is the equivalent of a drone copywriter for a tiny internet ad agency. He lives in a huge, gleaming, brand new apartment in Westwood or Beverly Hills with all the latest gadgets. His employer occupies quite a deal of Class A office space. His boss seems to have a yacht. Nothing they do could possibly produce that kind of wealth. This wouldn’t matter, except the character is presented as a kind of everyman.</p>
<p>-- Basically, no one in the movie has friends, family, children, any connection to life except a job and memories of ex-lovers. They are all presented as being in their mid-to-late 30s, and they look maybe older than that.</p>
<p>-- The level of self-absorption is oppressive.</p>
<p>-- I am sooooo tired of the movie convention that if Amy Adams is wearing a sweatshirt, has no makeup on, and has somewhat frizzy hair, no one is supposed to notice that she is so beautiful she could suck the air out of the room. If they didn’t want the character to be that pretty, there are plenty of fine actresses they could have cast. Having made the character that pretty (as well as completely engaging and completely available), it only deepens the creepiness inherent in having the Phoenix character reject her in favor of a masturbation/geisha app.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such a common phenomenon in so, so many movies! :)</p>
<p>Must admit I was not all that thrilled with Her either.</p>
<p>JHS - I don’t dare repeating what you said about the movie to my H since he wants to see Her tonight. The last time I mentioned that someone on this forum compared it to “2 hours of listening to two 20-something talking about themselves”, he got such a kick out of it that he insisted we go see it!</p>
<p>I wonder if the hate for the movie is a generational thing. My D thinks Frances Ha is the best movie last year and identifies with the characters, which worries me since they are so self absorbed, whiny and clueless. The movie is visually beautiful in B&W, but halfway through, I turned to her in exasperation “Am I supposedly to like these people”?!?"’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t seen the movie, but…</p>
<p>IRL, there is a 10 year age gap between Phoenix and Johansen (39 vs. 29) and Rooney Mara is only a year or so younger than Johansen (28).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you might have hit the nail on the head. Having loved the movie so much, I referred it to many of my friends. Three have seen it so far, and all of them have loved it (two girls & one guy, if you’re curious). </p>
<p>JHS, I’ve been reading these forums for quite some time now, and I’ve found that I generally agree with your posts. You are a clearly articulate individual with many well-founded, strong opinions. In this case, though, I could not disagree more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much borderline kiddie-porn have you seen? Goodness, that’s just her voice. Johansson’s voice has always had a sultry timbre to it, especially when she’s conversing with a man whom she’s interested in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone pointed out, they’re actually 11 years apart, and with the tricks of Hollywood, that difference really only looked to be about 5 years. But this is really just splitting hairs; are such age disparities really that uncommon? Regardless, they seemed to be compatible age-wise to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess this is another sign of the generation gap. If I recall correctly, there were a grand total of two sex scenes, the second of which was fascinating and downright hilarious conceptually. Most films have a lot more than two sex scenes, but in this case, two is egregious because it’s not a normal relationship, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Part of the explanation for this is its future setting; the idea is that society has become a lot more utopian. People have everything they need, in theory, but Jonze explores: is that enough? The fact that Theodore is so unhappy despite his affluent position says a lot about how much happiness money can buy. Besides that, you really don’t have much basis upon which to support your claim that nothing he or his boss does could generate that kind of wealth. Higher-ups in Hallmark probably make quite a lot of money; how is this any different?</p>
<p>That said, this is yet another instance of splitting hairs. Never mind the main plot, acting, and direction–the main character doesn’t seem to make an appropriate amount of money! Horrible movie.</p>
<p>Oh, and I’m not sure what you mean by saying that he’s presented as kind of everyman. He’s a somewhat awkward, sensitive, self-inhibitory fellow who falls in love with an operating system. It’s a stretch to say that he’s supposed to be a representation of just an ordinary guy; in fact, he appears distinctly set apart from the other, more functional men in the movie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first statement is just factually wrong. Theodore, the most lonely character in the film, has friends (his boss and Aimee). His boss has a girlfriend. For most of the movie, Aimee has a husband. Would a few jovial family get-togethers have appeased you? Did they not meet your arbitrary number of acceptable friends and family? Is it unimaginable that there are people more isolated than yourself in the world?</p>
<p>And god forbid the other characters be around the same age as the protagonist! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a vague and unhelpful statement. Theodore is enamored with Samantha for nearly the entire film. Theodore and Aimee had lengthy heart-to-hearts about each others’ feelings. Is Theodore self-absorbed because he’s unhappy and finally met someone with whom he clicks? Does it not count as love since she’s not actually a person?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I for one think they did quite a good job of giving her an appropriately homely appearance. What you’re suggesting here is that Jonze should have cast someone uglier? How silly. Adams played the part exceptionally, and at no point did I think “What the hell is this movie star doing being friends with this creep?” Not to mention that Phoenix is a plenty handsome man himself.</p>
<p>Are you intentionally forgetting that she was married for the majority of the film? And did you miss the final shot that hinted strongly at a future between Theodore and Aimee? </p>
<p>And finally, your prejudice against Samantha as a being is intriguing. It would be nearly impossible to enjoy this film if you were thinking the whole time, “I can’t believe he’s actually falling in love with a program!” That’s the entire point. The OS was not so much an OS as it was a consciousness (as clarified in the film). What are you but a collection of neural circuitry, anyway? What makes your consciousness superior to Samantha’s? I get that the visceral reaction to someone falling in love with a computer is one of combined disgust and disbelief. A major part of this film was dedicated to challenging that reaction; maybe an advanced operating system and a human could fall in love after all. There’s beauty in that. But it’s lost on people so drenched in skepticism that they can’t even accept the concept of the film before it’s even begun. </p>
<p>Surely, nothing I say will likely change your mind about the film. I’m just responding to clarify my thoughts on the movie and defend the film against what I feel are pretty poorly-founded criticisms.</p>
<p>Hey, JHS, I’ll agree with you on creepy. It was creepy, self-centered, disgusting, but still totally believable. ( I wasn’t analyzing ages or income during the movie. I did briefly think how wonderful it was that poverty seemed to have disappeared.) I found myself thinking, “Yes. I can see that happening” in many parts of the film. You’re not going to leave the theater feeling all warm and fuzzy. This was a movie that will make you “think”, and I would expect most people on cc would appreciate that.</p>
<p>Studious, that was such an amazing breakdown of the movie, you’ve almost made me want to see it. If I do, I will go in with a more open mind than I would have. I agree this is probably a generational divide thing, and I fear that I’m in the old fogey camp. I saw Spike Jonze last night on Letterman, and he was soooo not what I expected. I admit that I’m really curious now …</p>
<p>Youdon’tsay, I appreciate that. Definitely see it with an open mind! I’m sure plenty of “old fogeys” enjoyed the film; after all, a lot of the respected reviewers who gave the film positive feedback are a generation or two older than I am.</p>
<p>As for the creepiness factor, it’s there. It’s supposed to be. Falling in love with an operating system is an uncomfortable concept, made even more unsettling by the feeling that it could really happen. But the initial creepiness fades once the viewer accepts the relationship as feasible–then it becomes quite beautiful.</p>