Anticipation: Movies I'm looking forward to seeing

Daniel Radcliffe finally gets to play an adult. I'm not expecting some great masterpiece, but I think Daniel Radcliffe looked a little too grown up for Harry Potter years ago. I'm excited to see him get free reign to act like the adult that he is.


VIEWED: November 15 2012
This was a well made movie. I liked that the director of photography held the camera steady, unlike so many other horror films that fail to scare. Daniel Radcliffe played his part well, and Ciaran Hinds was excellent, as he usually is. Although it was kind of a depressing journey, I still felt satisfied that I had watched a good movie when the credits started to roll.

A Wes Anderson movie before people really started taking notice of Wes Anderson movies. Yes, I missed this one, and I'm curious to see this one, and what it might be like.


VIEWED: November 11 2012
I love this movie. I'm glad I didn't see it back in 1998, because I'm not sure I would appreciated it back then. I'm extremely glad I watched it, and it's probably my favorite Wes Anderson film so far.

Jim Jarmusch directing a film about a young guy wandering around and encountering people... Actually, to me that sounds like a great premise to a movie. I want to see it.


VIEWED: December 16 2012
This movie was more and less than I expected. It has an interesting meandering style, sparse dialogue, and lots of broken buildings. It takes place in the mostly abandoned and run down areas of New York. As far as I know, this was Jim Jarmusch's first film, which he completed in film school. You could take this movie two different ways. Either you can analyze and see symbolism in every encounter and visual cue, or you can look at it as a series of unconnected events. Either way, this is the kind of stuff I love, so it gets high marks from me. People looking for a straightforward movie that makes sense should avoid this one.

A movie in which every screen cap tells me there are diners where coffee and cigarettes are playing part in a movie that seems to be made of unconnected scenes. How could I pass this up?


VIEWED: December 30 2012
As I have started to expect from a Jarmusch film, there are no beatings or blood. There isn't a linear plot, and the movie is made up of thousands of small details.

This particular film is a collection of short sketches that take place in diners. All of the characters are either drinking coffee, drinking tea, smoking cigarettes, or likely talking about either smoking cigarettes or drinking coffee. The interesting thing about this movie to me are the different characters. Tom Waits (as himself), Iggy Pop (as himself), Bill Murray (as himself), Jack and Meg White (as themselves), and Cate Blanchett playing two different characters.



But you must be warned. It's entirely possible that this movie has no symbolism, is not trying to make a point of any kind, and leaves you thinking- "Yeah, and? That's it?" It really depends on what you expect to get out of watching a movie. This movie is like an experience in eavesdropping. You get to see these little scenes of life that take place while sitting at diner tables and restaurants. So if your favorite movie is something like Transformers- because you must have action, tits and robots, this is probably a movie you want to avoid. But, if you like flicks that lean on the side of odd, this might be what you're looking for.



And just in case you watch the movie and say to yourself -"Shit, I want to go to a shitty diner and drink coffee and smoke cigarettes" it's illegal to smoke in diners and restaurants in a lot of places now (in America)... so this movie is sort of nostalgic already.

I have been told many times, "You should see the life aquatic." Sometimes when you get told the same thing too many times you can become deaf to it. But now that I have a netflix account, there are no more excuses. So, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray, and the rest, I'm giving it a shot.



VIEWED: January 9 2013

When it comes to Wes Anderson films, I think the mood that you're in before you watch the film is very important. If you're mad and feel like banging the coffee table, screaming at the movie, "Entertain me, Dammit!" you may want to watch the movie on a different day. Wes Anderson's movies develop slowly. The characters often speak quietly, and take their time to say something important.


I didn't do a survey, but I think this is a lot of people's favorite Wes Anderson movie... I have watched three now (Rushmore, The Royal Tannenbaums, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) and I have to say that overall the movie is a technical masterpiece, and visually the movie really captures the spirit of an underwater adventure without taking itself too seriously.


I loved Bill Murray's performance as Steve Zissou. This is easily one of his best roles.


However, within the incredibly large cast, certain characters failed to become three dimensional, as often happens in a movie that lasts less than two hours. Klaus' character needed more screen time, and I felt as though the back story with Hennessey deserved more attention, but these are small things compared to the overall success of the story.


So overall, a great film, and very fun to watch. This movie feels less personal and more technical than the other two Wes Anderson films I watched, but that's not a bad thing at all.

This looks like it's a slice of life film, following people in a particular town, and they experience their shortcomings and disappointments. I actually love this kind of movie, but whether or not I love this movie in particular remains to be seen.



Viewed: March 30 2013

This is one of those movies that comes upon you slowly. In the first twenty minutes, I started to think "What the hell? Nothing is happening!" But by the end credits I felt like I saw something very special.


The Last Picture Show has great acting, good story and dialogue (originally a novel by Larry McMurty) and good cinematography. I'm looking forward to watching more Peter Bogdanovich movies in the future.

A German film about humans and angels, and it's probably a thousand times better than City of Angels. I'm looking forward to watching this Wim Wenders film.


Viewed: May 1 2013
This is a movie that requires some patience. It wasn't incredibly long, but the cinematography was well paced, and the story was told gradually. The combination of the cinematography, the use of black and white film, and the music were impeccable in creating the mood for this movie. One question you probably shouldn't ask when watching this movie is "What's it about?" My advice would be to let that question go and enjoy the cinematic experience. Definitely an art film, this movie isn't for everyone.

Faraway, So Close! is a, sequel to Wings of Desire? I'm actually not sure. I'm trying not to read anything about it, because I don't like getting too much information about a movie if I know for sure that I'm going to be watching it.


Viewed: May 18 2013
A very different experience than Wings of Desire. I think that some people have mistaken this movie for a remake, when it is in fact a sequel. This movie focuses on the character Cassiel, the counterpart to Dameil, the protagonist of the first film.

I imagine it would be hard to like both of these movies to the same degree. Where Wings of Desire is mostly art, with a pinch of story, Faraway, So Close! is mostly story, with a pinch of art. I still liked this movie, but understand that it has different merits than the one that came before it. There were many characters in the movie, and almost all of them had something to say. Because some time was spent with each character, the movie is almost two and a half hours in length.

I think people that absolutely loved the first movie might be better off not seeing this one. But if you watched 'Wings of Desire' and felt it lacked direction and purpose, you might enjoy 'Faraway, So Close!' more.

I somehow managed to not only miss seeing this movie, but also know nothing about it. So, it's time I watched it.


Viewed: May 23 2013
This movie was not what I expected. I was expecting a semi-comedic existential journey with a quirky ending. I was so wrong. This movie ended up being a lot more serious than I expected. The characters are flawed and damaged, the story is depressing at times. At the credits, you're left feeling somewhat unresolved, but in a good way. I can honestly say I haven't seen a movie like this one before. But for all I know, a movie just like this was made in Europe a decade earlier.

John Malkovich, John Cusack, and Catherine Keener played their characters excellently. I should watch more movies written by Charlie Kaufman.

It's basically a tour of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. But the whole movie is shot in a single take (WHAT?!!) so I'm curious to see what this movie is going to be like.


Viewed: June 11 2013
This movie is an interesting one. A one hour thirty minute movie, shot in one take. It flows through multiple time periods, all taking place in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia. I loved this movie. A wonderful artistic experience, but I don't know how well I could recommend it. If you like art films, you might like it.

Wes Andreson again making a film that I have yet to see. I heard from some that this is his best film. Who knows, but only time will tell, and I'm looking forward to finding out.


Viewed: June 15 2013
Some of the expected Wes Anderson elements are in this one. However, Anderson seems to have toned down some of his stylistic elements and focus more on storytelling and character progression. This movie had focus, a small core of characters, and great casting/acting. The dialogue was succinct and memorable. The movie was rather short, but that may have aided the movie. I feel like the IMDB and listal rating for this movie is way too low, but I guess people were looking for another Life Aquatic, and found themselves disappointed.

Yep, I didn't yet see The Fountain. From what little I know about it, it looks like it might be a visual masterpiece. That's reason enough to want to see it.


Viewed: June 28 2013

The movie was indeed a visual masterpiece. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz had great chemistry, and the movie seems truly original. In the days where artistic cinematography is dying a slow death in favor of quit cut close ups and shaky cam, The Fountain is a visually rewarding experience. I can admit that I didn't exactly get it. But even not understanding the film, I still enjoyed it. I'm glad I watched this one.

What? I didn't see Donnie Darko? How is that even possible? I don't know. Maybe it's not going to be as great as it would have been if I had watched it at age 18. But I'm going to see this movie with no expectations or reservations.

Viewed: About a week after I watched 'The Fountain'

I was worried that waiting until now to watch this movie would somehow negatively affect my reception to it. I'm glad I was wrong.


This cinematography and film grain used in the movie gives it an appearance of being a much older movie than it actually is. I'm pretty certain that was done on purpose. The underlying philosophy of time and the ripples that form from certain crucial individual events was really interesting. The movie looked good, had the right feel, and was enjoyable on top of everything else. I'm surprised this movie isn't talked about more.

Viewed: July 27 2013
I had dialed this up on my Netflix Queue quite a while ago, and I finally watched it. I heard too much about this film before seeing it, and tried not to listen to what people were saying about it. The general consensus is that people either love or hate the film, and they often waste time comparing it to the 2002 version starring George Clooney.

My advice: Don't compare the two movies. They essentially tell two different stories, even if they are supposedly taken from the same novel.

This film took its time painting the story as well as telling it. Emphasis on clever cinematography and sharp filters enhanced the visual aspects of the film.


Also, the dialogue was thought provoking and emotional. The characters were extreme, but believable. It's a movie that leaves you with a certain feeling in your gut after watching it. A feeling that stays for a few days. I like it when movies do that. It's part of the reason I try and see movies I'm not familiar with- the hope that it will affect me, perhaps in a way I haven't been affected before, by a movie. Solaris managed to do that.

Viewed: November 30, 2013
I heard so many great things about this movie. I think that was probably why I didn't like it as much as many other listal members that rated it. Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with the movie. However, too much anticipation sometimes leads inevitably to minor disappointment. Had I watched the movie ten years ago, I probably would have considered it genius, and maybe it would have been one of my favorites. But my impressions last week were it was a well written, well executed film, but a little too positive for me. The last ten minutes of the movie didn't seem to mesh well with the first hour and forty minutes. The mood of the film didn't carry through the end.

Viewed: May 15 2014

Written by Sam Shepard and Directed by Wim Wenders= Perfection. This is a movie with space, silence, expression, perspective, great cinematography and great acting. I knew nothing about this movie (a good place to start, usually) and I was completely blown away at how much I enjoyed the execution of this film. One of the best movies I have watched since starting a netflix account.

Bill Murray in the Razor's Edge? I watched the 1940's version with Tyrone Power, and didn't even know about this version. But Bill Murray... I'm so damn curious to see what this movie is like.


Viewed: July 12 2014
This was an interesting one for me. Not having read the novel that this movie was based on, I of course can't make the "It was like/not like the book" comment. However, it went much deeper than the 1946 movie version starring Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney. Although I love that version as well. The older version was basically a romance story in comparison to this version, which has the main character (played by Bill Murray) going through a much deeper spiritual and existential journey. Bull Murray does a good job here in a serious role. He isn't perfect, but I applaud the director for taking a risk casting a comedian in a serious movie. Most of the movie is shot on location, which brings power to the experiences of Larry Darrell (the main character). Overall, I'd say that the movie was well played by the cast, very beautifully shot, and I enjoyed it immensely.

A story about young people in the 90's... I pretty much get suckered into watching any 90's movie about young people in the 90's. It's a compulsion, I guess. It sounds like it's all about love stories, but looking at my lists, I hardly watch any love stories. Maybe I need to watch a few more.


Sunday, February 15 2015
This movie was both better and worse than I was hoping for. It had a lot of the 90's charm that I liked. I sometimes enjoy it when characters are allowed to address the camera in conversation. I don't think there's enough of that.

Also, the music of the times was well represent with performances from Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and a few others. Overall, the 'happy ending' aspect of the movie was a little much for me, but I still enjoyed seeing the movie. Good performances by the actors, and overall, a good experience.

Viewed: April 27, 2015

A movie about... a lot of things. My favorite movies are the ones I can't describe in a single sentence. This one was definitely interesting.


It stars Tim Roth. He plays a professor who is trying to write the ultimate compendium of knowledge about the origin or human language. But the movie is not really about that.


It's about regrets, second chances, youth, old age, death, love, reincarnation, and a few other things. I couldn't tell you if it's an excellent film, or if you'll enjoy it. But I feel you should give it a try. You may like it. I did.

Viewed Part I: May 4 2015


Viewed Part II: May 14 2015

The most difficult thing to do in storytelling is to keep the audience engaged and interested without car chases, gunfights, and graphic sex. This movie managed to do that. Broken into two parts, the total length is somewhere around six and a half hours. But I didn't get bored watching it.


The movie featured a lot of beautiful locations, and weaved in moments in Italian history into the story and the characters' lives. I would recommend this to anyone who is tired of movies that focus on action with no character development.

Viewed: May 20 2015


The movie starts as a fairly straightforward private detective story. Some of the storytelling elements hearken back to the great pi movies of the 1940's. However, it becomes more complex as it moves along, and delves deeper into a few of the main characters' insecurities. In the end, I think that it may have diverged a little too much from a focused story.


However, it was well put together, and featured a very good performance from Gene Hackman. Really, when has the guy ever mailed it in?

The world is going to end soon. What to do? That's what the characters in this film are trying to figure out. These are the premises that pique my interest. And so, I look forward to seeing this one.


Viewed: May 23 2015

This was a good one to see. I like movies with an interesting premise. This is not a convoluted introspective exposition with long scenes of inner reflection. It's fairly linear, and moves along rather quickly. The characters were oddly interesting, especially that of Craig, played by Callum Keith Rennie. I can't say that I recommend the movie to you, because I can't predict your taste or expectations. But it's in the vein of the kind of movies I like.

Harvey Keitel and Robert Deniro, directed by Martin Scorsese in the 1970's? Sign me up! It worked in Taxi Driver, maybe it worked here too.


Viewed: June 21 2015

Even without reading the credits you know this is a Scorsese movie. Long handheld sequences, a lot of street scenes, and some interesting POV and fixed perspective shots were employed.

But more than that, I like Scorsese's small movies more than his big ones. Taxi Driver, After Hours, these are the movies of his that I like most. Many people really love Departed or The Aviator. That's fine, they're just not my favorites. To his credit, his movies are pretty different through the years, so there's a lot to like, whether you like all of them or just some of them.

Mean Streets felt like a more closed personal story. Most of the movie was heated conversations, and really good scenes between Harvey Keitel and Robert DeNiro. I don't think everyone will like the movie, clearly some of the listal crowd doesn't, based on their very unfavorable ratings. But don't count it out, if you haven't watched it yet.

The Magician is a story about - I have no fucking clue, and that's why I'm so excited to see it. An Ingmar Bergman film that I haven't heard people talking about all the time. I'm actually going to get to see the movie before already being exposed to a bunch of film clips and scenes.


Viewed: Sometime last year

This movie was much more earthbound than I had anticipated. Sometimes when a film goes against your expectations, you end up appreciating it more. It seemed like it was going to be a very strange film at the beginning, but ended up much more conventional and human of a story. I enjoyed it though, and want to make watching Ingmar Bergman movies a project unto its own. Not that that's new or anything, but it's new to me.

Another Scorsese film I haven't watched, but have been meaning to watch. I don't know anything about this one, which is probably a good thing.

Kelly's Heroes. A classic, right? Well, it's not a classic for someone who hasn't watched it. Somehow, I didn't get around to seeing this one. Just looking at the cast is enough to get me excited about this movie. Donald Sutherland, Clint Eastwood, Don Rickles, Telly Savalas.

Michael Caine when he was young and cool. I didn't watch the remake because I wasn't interested. But I'm interested in this one for sure, and I hope I enjoy it.