# What Movie Have You Seen Today? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Movie Discussion\ **Created:** [September 17, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343 "2017-09-17T03:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 122
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2025, 2:35pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2442 "2025-02-22T14:35:05Z")
**TRAP** My flip-flopping on M. Night Shyamalan continues. Josh Hartnett delivers a fantastic performance in this thriller about a dad attending a pop concert with his daughter when he notices a huge police presence outside the venue - they are trying to trap and find a serial killer, and as the trailer already has spoilt: the dad is the killer. Shyamalan goes full Hitchcock with this premise in the first hour, and it is absolutely entertaining and darkly funny to watch the killer avoid being captured and still be a great dad. Then the film makes another turn… and another… and another… and another - but I really enjoyed this. I heard people saying “it´s not scary at all” (it really isn’t a horror movie but a thriller which creates tension by making us question when, how or if the killer gets caught)- or that it is just a cheap B-movie (Shymalan has retreated to small budgets in order to keep creative control, and even if one might not like his efforts, he always delivers astonishingly layered visuals and a distinct perspective on his themes). If you’re interested in a longer analysis, go here: > **[Forget your stupid Dad: M. Night Shyamalan’s superhuman escapism in Trap](https://montagesmagazine.com/2024/08/forget-your-stupid-dad-m-night-shyamalans-superhuman-escapism-in-trap/)** > > Great entertainment is provided in an audacious film where a virtuoso, multi-layered performance by Josh Hartnett shall seduce us into accepting Trap as an arena of pure playfulness. ---
**Author:** ![byline](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/byline/32/506_2.png) [@byline](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/byline)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2025, 3:55pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2443 "2025-02-23T15:55:54Z")
_Memento_ (2000 Christopher Nolan film): We had previously watched this film a couple of decades ago. A couple of weeks ago, my husband spotted the DVD at our library book sale and bought it, and so we rewatched it last night. What a mind-bender! There are two alternating time sequences, one shot in color and shown in reverse order, the other shot in black and white and progressing in linear fashion. The two timelines meet in the middle of the film (although I didn’t realize it at the time I was watching it). Showing it this way puts us in the mind of the protagonist, who has anterograde amnesia, making him unable to form new memories. Because we’re largely unaware of what happened to Leonard before the scene we’re watching, the audience is put into his perspective. After all, he can’t retain memories of anything that happened after the incident that gave him anterograde amnesia. Or, so he says. By the end, I was also left wondering just how reliable a narrator Leonard really is. There’s an extra of the film edited in reverse, which I hope means that we’ll see it in chronological order, without the timelines moving in opposite directions. We plan to watch that later today. ---
**Author:** ![Orion](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/orion/32/1276_2.png) [@Orion](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/Orion)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2025, 4:25pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2444 "2025-02-23T16:25:29Z")
The alternate edit puts things into chronological order. It makes it a VERY different film. ---
**Author:** ![byline](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/byline/32/506_2.png) [@byline](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/byline)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2025, 8:22pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2445 "2025-02-23T20:22:36Z")
Watched the “reverse” sequence this afternoon. Yes, it’s a very different film! ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 9:29am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2446 "2025-02-26T09:29:37Z")
**NOSFERATU** I liked Robert Eggers´ breakthrough film “The Witch” for its truly uncanny atmosphere. I didn’t see “The Lighthouse”. But I was curious how his Bram Stoker version turned out, with the trailer not really convincing me. So the first hour I liked a lot. The atmosphere again is wonderfully created, and despite all the legal rights demanding characters to be re-named, it is very close to the Stoker novel in that first hour. But in the second hour, despite one truly great scene between the married couple (both excellent: Lily-Rose Depp and Nicholas Hoult), my engagement with the film severed. Too many scenes were filmed and staged with a theatricality which distanced me. Tone shifts like the first one with Willem Dafoe made a wobbly impression on me. And “Orlock”/Nosferatu/Dracula lost his allure after becoming completely visible. The strange voice that Skaarsgard employs was effective in the first hour. But then it seems to sound mostly like a tongue(throat)twister. I still prefer the John Badham version of “Dracula” and much of the Coppola version (despite its narrative fumbling). **Conclave** Sometimes when I watch movies I notice how much I love something and then I get worried that the rest of the film will not stay on that level. “Conclave” is one of those movies. Everything starts out with such quality from everyone involved that I wondered whether the film could end that way and become a favorite of mine - or whether at one point it would not be able to hold on to the standard it set for itself. I did not read the Robert Harris´ novel on which this was based. So I did not know the final twist of the story. When it arrived I was at first disappointed because it seemed too gimmicky. And since that was the ending of the film the whole collapsed for me. But thinking about the film later on I must admit even that gimmick is kind of foreshadowed throughout the film, and it makes sense for the statement the film makes. It is a valid and even hopeful statement, although it might be total science fiction in these times. In the end, I remain very impressed by Edward Berger´s new film and loved it a lot more than his “All quiet on the Western Front”-remake. It is the kind of movie the Oscars used to love and reward: an interesting topic, told within a concise dramatic framework, expertly made, cast with many name actors doing fantastic work, especially Ralph Fiennes and Stanley Tucci, with Isabella Rossellini in a small but hugely impressive supporting role. But maybe the final twist is what hurts this movie. It makes the intent too visible. Without it, one could have imagined the movie to end a few minutes earlier, having a much deeper impact. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2447 "2025-02-26T15:53:15Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > But maybe the final twist is what hurts this movie. What is the movie without the twist? (Though I agree it can feel gimmicky) > [@secretagentfan](#): > > It makes the intent too visible. Yet in this moment in time, visibility is what is desperately needed, especially with the recent and ongoing acts of erasure. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > Without it, one could have imagined the movie to end a few minutes earlier, having a much deeper impact. Not sure that invisibility can have a deeper impact than visibility in this case. I know Hemingway’s iceberg theory, but in this case, the twist is what the movie builds to, so it doesn’t work–even exist–without it. You might enjoy these articles: > **Summary** > > [We Need to Talk About the Queer Twist in ‘Conclave’ | Them](https://www.them.us/story/conclave-movie-ending-explained-queer-twist-discussion-trans-intersex-transvestigate-explained) > > [https://www.out.com/gay-news/oscars-conclave-transgender-church-acceptance](https://www.out.com/gay-news/oscars-conclave-transgender-church-acceptance) ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 5:10pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2448 "2025-02-26T17:10:54Z")
I understand what you mean - and I am going back and forth on it. As I wrote: the twist is foreshadowed and does not come totally out of the blue. It´s just that without that twist - as I thought the film would end, not knowing the novel - it would have been a story about > **Summary** > > Lawrence, a man full of doubts, even his own religion, realizing that he indeed has the ambition to become Pope, and through his uncovering of the other candidates´ ruthless methods finds himself in the position to actually follow that ambition to its fruition. > > I also imagined that Bellini, introduced as soft and unwilling to be a candidate, then brilliantly portrayed as someone who indeed is just putting up that facade, totally yearning to win the election, would even scheme to push Lawrence aside and then be the Pope at the end. > > Both possibilities would have turned the story into a parable of ambition. > > But I am fine with the actual ending (not wishing another on the film, I have made those mistakes with the Craig era recently) which was given us. And I agree: this should be put more front and center in the ongoing discussion. I certainly hope that “Conclave” will win the Oscar, by the way. Because there is no other film nominated which I consider as worthy. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2025, 11:51am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2449 "2025-02-27T11:51:23Z")
> [@MrKiddWint](#): > > WICKED (2024) in theater > > As is our custom, my husband and I travelled to the movies on Christmas Day to watch a film. This year’s choice was WICKED–a musical, which I hoped he would enjoy. Alas, this back half of Glicked is truly a rear end. > > The first act of a two-act stage musical stretched to a running time of 2 1/2 hours, WICKED is the poster child for bad musical adaptations. Having made the decision to split the film in two, John Chu, the director, proceeds to inflate the first act proceedings beyond all reason. He does not add anything to them; he just makes everything longer. The result is that what is appealingly swift on stage, is cumbersome here. The sketchiness of the plotting, which is not a problem on stage, comes across as underdone. The resulting combination of lack and bloat sinks the movie. > > And then there is “Defying Gravity.” Despite his mishandling of the musical numbers–with performers atwirl, and the camera either circling around them or pushing in–I thought at least there is the first act closer with Cynthia Erivo, who can both sing and act. What could he do to it? > > Boy, was I wrong. Here too, Chu’s deadhand direction interferes. He chops the song up, vitiating its power. Note to John Chu: this is not the Bench Scene from 'Carousel." By the time this sorry spectacle limped to its close, I was ready to leave, and did not stay for the credits (a huge mark of disrespect on my part). So, I finally saw WICKED, part one. I´m quoting you, MrKiddWint, here, Sir, because I read your review last year and was surprised how much you disliked the film. Surprised simply because of the many rave reviews I had read. I even had people who usually do not like musicals tell me how great the film turned out. I myself am not averse to musicals. Quite the contrary, I think it´s a very interesting way to tell a story, appealing even more and more directly to emotions through the use of music. Of course, this only works with the right kind of score and songs. Personally, I often have to hear songs more than once to really like them. There are first impression songs which stayed with me or imprinted themselves on me immediately. But they are the exception from the rule. So, musicals do have to work very hard to win me over - if they don’t just click with me. My favorite ones are “A Chorus Line”, “Grease”, “Sweeney Todd” - and of the recent ones definitely “LalaLand” and “Tick… tick… Boom!”. Maybe that’s no surprise because all of them I encountered first as movies (I know, “LalaLand” only is a movie; and only “A chorus line” I actually saw as a stage production, in New York on Christmas Day 2007). All of these also had a story which I could connect with, even if they had not been told as musicals. I heard of “Wicked”, of course, and knew that it was a hugely successful prequel/reimagination of “The Wizard of Oz”. And I had heard the show stopping song of it, “Defying Gravity” which I immediately loved. That’s everything I knew about “Wicked”. When I watched it this morning I was a bit anxious about the long running time - I just did not think I was in the mood for such a long engagement. But I wanted to give it a chance, having the spare time. And I am glad I saw this. The story is a parable for fascism and how it works - wrapped in an eye-candy fantasy which, of course, is so heavily CGI that that element is the most “been there done that”-part of the film. However, “Wicked” really has terrific songs which have that quality needed to catch me right from the start. And it has two stars who absolutely nail their parts: the truly magnificent Cynthia Erivo (who I already loved as Holly in the Stephen King adaptation of “The Outsider”) and Ariana Grande (whose pop songs I never heard, I’m just not her target audience, but who seems perfectly cast for this role). Also, there is such a bittersweet undercurrent right from the first scene which constantly made me think of the times we are now living in - and this gave the film another dimension which might not have been part of it before (although the obvious depiction of racism, unfortunately, will always add a realism to the proceedings). Now, not having seen the musical on stage before might have made me the perfect or the wrong audience. I did not see where this first part was lengthened, nor did I feel any padding. In fact, I do think the script has no fat at all, all scenes wonderfully contribute to the story, giving the characters depth and surprising us with unexpected developments. The long dance hall sequence? I think it works wonderfully to show how Elphaba subjects herself to ridicule and fights her way through it until Galinda comes to regret her behavior and chooses to engage with her. And the whole sequence with Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard poignantly shows how he can charm people with his act, hiding his hubris ever so barely under a supposedly humble showmanship. Finally, I agree on this with you: “Defying Gravity” has more power if it is not interrupted - but it still worked for me in this stop-and-go version because it always added those character and story beats which resulted in that heart-breaking conclusion. I really have to say I not only enjoyed “Wicked Part One”, I even loved it and consider it one of the best movies of the last year. Maybe that’s also due to my attitude towards adaptations per se. I never need to see one which sticks to the text. The novel or the stage play or the musical are their own entities, and when I want to experience them I will go to their particular art forms. A movie has very different goals, and I invite filmmakers to take liberties, to show me their vision of it rather than stick to every detail I already know. I´m now looking forward to “Wicked Part Two” a lot. I´m wondering whether I should check out the stage play first, however, or stay without expectations on how it will all end. ---
**Author:** ![Dustin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/dustin/32/7_2.png) [@Dustin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/Dustin)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2025, 1:12pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2450 "2025-02-27T13:12:33Z")
They way you approach these different iterations of one story or theme you ought perhaps keep away from Wicked’s other versions and compare them only after you fully enjoyed this film adaptation. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2025, 5:11pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2451 "2025-02-27T17:11:18Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > an eye-candy fantasy which, of course, is so heavily CGI that that element is the most “been there done that”-part of the film. I did not think of it before, but maybe one of the off-putting elements of the film was its heavy CGI-ness. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > And it has two stars who absolutely nail their parts Agreed. Erivo and Grande are, well, wicked. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > gave the film another dimension which might not have been part of it before That dimension is part of the “Wicked” novels, and a significant contributor to the long-tern success of the musical version. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > but it still worked for me in this stop-and-go version because it always added those character and story beats which resulted in that heart-breaking conclusion. For me it cut against the way the song is written. Character and story beats are odd things to jam into a first act curtain number just to make it longer. Maybe they should have re-thought the song, rather than merely distending it. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > I never need to see one which sticks to the text. I do not think it is a matter of sticking to the text. One of my favorite musicals–GUYS AND DOLLS–not only does not follow the text, but radically alters it. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > I invite filmmakers to take liberties It is great when filmmakers take liberties. All I ask is that they be competent when doing so. In some ways the filmmakers were stuck. WICKED had to keep enough fidelity to the stage original to make fans happy, but present it in the contours of the big screen. Had they reimagined the songs the way Burton did with SWEENEY TODD, it might have been different matter. But in this era of slavish fan service, the filmmakers’ chosen path of adaptation was inflation. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > I´m wondering whether I should check out the stage play first, however, or stay without expectations on how it will all end. See it if you love musical theatre. Otherwise there is no need. They have added new songs to WICKED: FOR GOOD, since the second act of a musical is always shorter than the first, and increased the role of Dorothy Gale. It will be interesting to see the adjustments. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/pushkin/32/515_2.png) [@Pushkin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2025, 5:51pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2452 "2025-02-27T17:51:40Z")
Excellent sequel. I’ve probably watched it 8-10 times. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2025, 9:49am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2453 "2025-02-28T09:49:42Z")
**Here** The reviews were terrible, the box office even more so. And I was full of doubts from the start whether a static camera pointing into one room, even if top actors directed by a top director filled that room, would carry anyone‘s attention for 100 minutes of film. And the last two decades in Robert Zemeckis‘ filmography have often been summed up by critics and audiences as a let down, with too much focus on motion capture and too little attention on the crowd pleasers he used to make during the 80‘s and 90‘s. The tenor of it all was: Zemeckis has lost his touch. I disagree. While I did not love many of his later movies I had to at least admit that he would try something interesting, expertly made as only a director with his abilities can achieve it. „Here“ is the kind of movie, financed and distributed by a major studio (MGM/Amazon, by the way), which would never have been financed and distributed without the power of the Zemeckis/Hanks/Wright-combination, and such a movie will never be financed and distributed again. It is so obvious that MGM/Amazon bought the package thinking they would get „Forrest Gump 2“. They even sold the film that way, while secretly hating what they got instead, knowing that this kind of film would never ever delight the mass audiences of today. Why? Because this movie is an experiment. An arthouse idea made with mainstream movie stars. And even if the movie is true Hollywood in its goal to stir up emotions by focusing on a white American family, it is at the same time a look at life from a distance - in order to give us a perspective we otherwise would not have, being too close. We are looking into a room in which generations experience the whole spectrum of life, but we‘re capturing it in vignettes, short scenes which jump through time, back and forth, juxtaposing moments to give us a glimpse at how fleeting everything is even if we all are thinking our own lives are the only ones which truly matter. Zemeckis employs a directorial trick to keep the movie from remaining too static: he opens up panels within the frame to guide our attention to other moments in time which then fill the whole screen again. Also, the house we‘re looking in has, of course, not been there forever, so we are also getting to see the old road which led through it or the forest in which the indigenous population experienced life, love and death, and even, in the beginning, the devestation which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. All of this flows so intelligently and beautifully into each other that I remained captivated from beginning to end, and when the last scene arrived, with a seemingly banal recollection literally opening up everything (and a well of emotions), I was in tears. Because this film reminded me of things going on in my own life - and no doubt in all of our lives. Some reviewers snarked about the banality of these characters‘ experiences. Well, they apparently still believe that some lives are just above banality. When we actually are all just living the daily experiences which some might consider banal but really are just universal. And „Here“ might also be one of the most courageous studio movies of the last years because it does not tell a story of love conquers all or dreams do come true. Instead everyone here suffers from broken dreams, unfulfilled expectations and potential, even forgotten or lost love. No wonder why audiences rejected this film: it is too real, not the expected happiness generator. And the dialogue, also ridiculed by many critics, is so subtly written and perfect, that people who have lost the ability to listen and to interpret won‘t even get it. When, for example, the Tom Hanks character states in the end that he has no regrets, we know how many he actually has, and how much he has had to talk himself into believing the opposite. „Here“ is not an easy film, nor is it the crowdpleaser people might have been yearning for. Is one of its messages too banal, when it reminds us that we are just visiting this planet for a short time and that we have to seize the moment? Maybe. Then again, it is the most basic wisdom anyone can achieve. ---
**Author:** ![MaxZorin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@MaxZorin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MaxZorin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2025, 5:29am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2454 "2025-03-01T05:29:32Z")
Great reviews @secretagentfan your viewpoints on Wicked are similar to mine. I’m more interested in reading the original book over seeing the play, honestly. I’m happy that I brought into the hype, it was worth it. As for Here, the only real audience members at my movie theater were of an older demographic. Tom Hanks has been truly playing it too safe with his movie choices lately. I still believe that Robert Zemeckis has never made an unwatchable movie. The Back to the Future screenplay is flawless. He may overdo it at times with special effects, but they do truly feel part of the story. Compared to James Cameron, he doesn’t always use visual effects to boost his ego. He uses them to try and make the art forms better. As David Thomson, a prominent film critic, wrote that “no other contemporary director has used special effects for a more dramatic and narrative purpose.” I still stand by Zemeckis over a lot of directors today. Because he isn’t afraid to try new things, ideas and genres, and it shows him as a true pioneer in movies, in more ways than one. Thomson Quote Source: _The New Biographical Dictionary of Film_ pg 895. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2025, 8:57am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2455 "2025-03-01T08:57:56Z")
> [@MaxZorin](#): > > Tom Hanks has been truly playing it too safe with his movie choices lately. „Here“ proves he isn’t. „Asteroid City“ and the next Wes Anderson also underline that he is at that stage of his career where he does what he wants (remember „Elvis“, too), and he does not care whether the movies make tons of money anymore. This is where actors often have their most interesting phases. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 2:39am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2456 "2025-03-09T02:39:17Z")
MICKEY 17 (2025)–theatrical screening. In a near empty theater. Maybe 10 people. 42nd Street in Manhattan. Sci-fi satire that hits it marks, had me wondering what comes next, made me laugh, and kept me absorbed. Bong’s _mise en scene_ is exquisite, demonstrating a precision that is rare in not just this kind of film, but in cinema in general. The acting was also superb. Have to sit with the movie more, and also see it again. But I better do it fast: > **[Box Office: ‘Mickey 17’ Freezes Up With Chilly $7.7 Million Opening Day](https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/box-office-mickey-17-opening-day-1236331556/)** > > Bong Joon Ho and Robert Pattinson's sci-fi comedy 'Mickey 17' is getting a cold opening at the box office. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 8:18am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2457 "2025-03-09T08:18:57Z")
Definitely a must see for me. But even if this is sci-fi, it all boils down to Woody‘s one-liner „too much reality is not what people want to see“… ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 6:30pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2458 "2025-03-10T18:30:52Z")
**Anora** Definitely well directed, shot and edited, with convincing performances and a, I suspect, realistically displayed setting. But this one was definitely not for me. And I am flabbergasted why this won so many Oscars when a perfectly calibrated movie with a great topic like „Conclave“ did not. And boy, had any Oscar winner so many sex scenes before? ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 6:51pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2459 "2025-03-10T18:51:45Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > realistically displayed setting. Very realistic. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > a perfectly calibrated movie Too perfectly calibrated, maybe? > [@secretagentfan](#): > > had any Oscar winner so many sex scenes before? Or deployment of what my mother used to refer to as “the F word”? ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 8:08pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2460 "2025-03-10T20:08:00Z")
Maybe I am just too old for that kind of filmmaking and prefer the kind „Conclave“ employs (which would have won more 20, 30 years ago, I guess). Also, I did not like any of the characters in „Anora“. But that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 8:53pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343/2461 "2025-03-10T20:53:39Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > Maybe I am just too old for that kind of filmmaking I do not think it is a matter of age. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > the kind „Conclave“ employs (which would have won more 20, 30 years ago, I guess). CONCLAVE is more classical in it structure, approach, and _mise en scene_. I go back and forth on whether I find this invigorating or airless. I love bringing back old approaches to filmmaking, and I think it was probably the right choice with this material, but doubts nag at me. I know that l have to watch the movie again, but keep putting off the viewing (last night I watched Mamoulian’s HIGH, WIDE AND HANDSOME from 1937). > [@secretagentfan](#): > > Also, I did not like any of the characters in „Anora“. But that’s just me. Understood. That could affect your reception of the film. [Previous page](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343.md?page=121) [Next page](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-movie-have-you-seen-today/343.md?page=123)