I've seen a few of those:
I loved the Redford Great Gatsby, which I felt was very true to the book(one of my favourites).
So I was kind of dreading seeing Leonardo di Caprio's version, in case he ruined it...
It was very different, but I still loved it.
I loved Inception, too.
I only saw the start of Blood Diamonds..I really need to see it through, as I liked what I saw.
The original Titanic film terrified me when I was a kid, so I've never been able to watch any other version since!
Also, you kind of know what's going to happen. Ha!
I saw Gangs of New York when it first came out.
It wasn't what I expected, but I thought it was brilliant.
But I'm really a Daniel Day Lewis fan!

A Night To Remember is one of my all time favourite movies (I have watched probably at least 6 times) so I was also apprehensive when we went to see Titanic.  It was a very different movie from the 1958 film but I loved it for very different reasons. 

There was tons of chemistry between the lead actors, the special effect were seamless and the cinematography was spectacular IMO.  It always amazes me that the subject matter can be the same and yet the approach of each film is so different that both totally work for what they are meant to be   

I remember seeing the Robert Redford version of The Great Gatsby at the show (it was the very first movie Dan and I saw as a married couple) and enjoying it very much although I didin't like Mia Farrow as Daisy. 

As for the 2013 version by Baz Luhrmann was in my mind something that captured the true essence of the novel (regardless of whether it set it out on film in canonical fashion).  There was a really interesting piece written in the New Yorker by Joshua Rothman when the film came out that explains my feelings about the film perfectly (and the book as well) that is well worth the read...

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-serious-superficiality-of-the-great-gatsby

I think L diC did probably a finer job than RR in the role of Gatsby (and I really liked RR in the role) in that he captured both the "now" aspect of the character and the historic aspect as well - that makes the character relatable to the book's wider themes that resonate now in today's society. 

Gangs of New York was a bit too stylised for my personal tastes so I didn't really like it as a whole.  The acting was superb though along with many other elements of the film.  Just as a collective story it was a bit too much for me. 

Blood Diamond... sweeping epic-like in its form, personal and intimately emotional at its core.  I like that it takes its time to set the story up and that delivers all the more of a gut punch in the end.  Kind of reminds me of Inception in that way.  Sometimes I thought "Why should I care about that detail???" but then by the end of the movie you realise why the filmmaker did it that way.  The impact blows you away completely and you really feel for the characters.  Just remarkable.

tonnaree: Thanks for sharing about meeting Jim Carroll.  Cool!  I am glad that he was able to overcome his earlier difficulties and become so creative.

-Val

Gosh what a movie it was! 

Besides be a totally thrilling story of man against nature, it also touched on the theme of man's hubris (almost in a Victor Frankenstein way) as well.  The story is all the more powerful by being told in a reserved fashion through the eyes of the stoic Second Officer Charles Herbert Lightoller.  The very British "stiff upper lip" approach to disaster is very evident throughout and makes total sense seeing how the UK was still suffering the repercussions of having gone through WWI and WWII.  Actually four clips from the Nazi propaganda film Titanic (1943) were utilised in A Night to Remember ironically. 

Just a note: A very young David McCallum (who went on to star in Man From U.N.C.L.E.) played a a wonderfully empathetic role as the youthful Junior wireless Officier on board the Titanic.  I have seen him in a couple of his eariler roles (Violent Playground and Robbery Under Arms - both from 1957) but here he did so much with such a small role.  My favourite film role of his was the part he took in The Great Escape and a close second was his role in Billy Budd (which I have only seen once and would really love to see again).

Television: McCallum playing Illya Kuryakin is wonderful of course but I love just as much his portrayal of Simon from the TV series Colditz.  I'm not really fond of his work in NCIS - his part is just poorly written IMO. 

As well, did you know that Sean Connery had an uncredited role in A Night to Remember?

Gosh all this talk about the film makes me want to view it again!

-Val

Yeah, I love everything about The Great Escape except Steeve McQueen!  I just can't stand him as an actor and I wish his role had been played by someone else.  But Donald Pleasence, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, David McCallum and even Charles Bronson (who I usually don't like as an actor) all did bang-up jobs in their rolls. 

And the music!! 

As a Canadian I am a bit ticked that the role of the Canadians in the escape was negated but I do understand that's Holywood and Canadians, especially at that time, just don't sell tickets.  Wally Floody, who was the real life "Tunnel King" (portrayed by Charles Bronson in the movie) was the technical advisor for the film and was born in a small city not far from where I was born and raised (and still live to this day).

I really am a sucker for POW stories and this is one of the best.  About the same time I started reading Sherlock Holmes I also read every WWII POW story I could find.  By the time I saw the movie (movies didn't come around that often to our city back then, so I believe it was later than the release date - probably in the mid-sixties) I had already read the book as well as others like it eg. The Wooden Horse, The Colditz Story, etc..  There is a whole genre of just POW escape movies.

-Val

True!

lol, True.  I didn't like that Argo won Best Picture.  1. Shortchanging the Canadian involvment 2. I found it boring, regardless.  I saw other films that were nominated that year and though they deserved it more.  I think it was one of those cases where they picked Best Picture based on which film made the most money (but THANK GOD they didn't do that this year, I would have been angry).

I watched the documentary on the same event, Our Man in Tehran and though it was much more interesting, plus it's a documentary so you got the real story.

Can't help being sad at the thought of eliminating Andrew!

Last night we watched one of the most unusual films I have seen in a long time - Synecdoche, New York.

Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman, the same person who did Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, (among others) this movie was much admired by Roger Ebert.  But the film wasn't universally acclaimed by any means - in fact it was subject to a slate of highly polarised reviews with some major critics calling it "incomprehensible, pretentious, depressing, or self-indulgent."  But it is also listed on over 100 "best film of 2008" lists with 20 of them giving it the #1 spot. 

It has been compared very favourably with Federico Fellini's masterpiece 8 1/2.  Like Inception it is very difficult to describe (without writing a veritable tome) but more useful perhaps is citing a few films that it reminds me of in theme, tone and look. 

For me I think it is most like any other Kaufman movie (you have to be drawn into a very special universe where things aren't always the way they seem in real life) in tone.  It is really hard in one of his movies to tell where imagination stops and reality takes hold.  Things are always shifting - the characters, the locations, the physical world... everything.  Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation

I think if you liked Birdman, Grand Budapest Hotel, Barton Fink or Inception you can be comfortable with Synecdoche, New York. 

It also reminds me of Steven Soderbergh's Full Frontal in that it is a movie about creating art (movies, plays, canvases) which is about re-creating the life around us but done with a sense of the artist's purpose.  This movie is self-referentiaing like Full Frontal.  The lines are often blurred between what you are watching and what the characters are suppose to be experienceing.  It can be hard to understand where the "movie/play" part ends and the world of the characters take over.  In this one, you have to constantly ask yourself - Is this the character's world and truth, or is this his/her world bleeding into ours?   

In theme it is also about solipsism vs. altruism that constant struggle between the selfish and the caring in society and in personal relationship - just like Full Frontal was.  After watching this film last night Dan and I searched out an analysis of the movie and came across a huge article on the moral philosophy behind it - https://deathbeddecameron.wordpress.com/tag/synecdoche-new-york/, but don't even attempt to read this unless you have seen the movie first. 

BTW: for those not familiar with the term synecdoche it is from the Greek meaning "simultaneous understanding" and is a type of metonymy where you use either a small part to represent the whole (like saying a person needs a hand when you mean they need the help of another person or organisation) or a larger entity to represent a particular group or person (such as when you say "the world is watching, when you mean certain people within the world will be paying attention to what you are doing).  The title definitely ties into the theme, motifs and perspective of the movie that uses macrocosms and microcosms to deliver its message.

Initially we were drawn to watch this movie because of the fine cast (that and the fact that Roger Ebert mentioned it in another review as being a great film) - it is filled with wonderful actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman (god how I miss him!!), Catherine Keener, Michelle Williams, Dianne Wiest, Samantha Morton and Emily Watson in a small role. 

It is an incredible film, worthy of watching and it has haunted me since last night (I can't stop thinking about some of its ideas) but it isn't an easy film to watch - it just isn't accessable enough (which I do consider a fault of sorts).  It's just too esoteric to be as "useful" as it could be... and that is a bit of a shame. 

Do I highly recommend this film? 

I do... BUT I don't. 

I do...

IF you like philosophical movies that ask really big questions that aren't often asked but doesn't give a clear cut answer.

IF you like movies steeped in symbolism, thematic metephors and hanging tensions.

IF you like non-linear formats

IF you like confusing realities presented.

IF you love almost anything PSH has done (like me) and would watch him watching wet paint dry (I am sure he would have leant some unusual insight into that activity!!!)

But I certainly don't recommend this film...

IF you find dislikable/irredeemable characters hard to take (Hoffman's character can be highly irritating and not charming at all).  There are no... make that NO saints in this movie - just sinners to higher or lower degrees.

IF you like your stories in straight lines with characters presented with problems... barriers... resolutions... happiness or lesson learned... the end.  There are no straight lines in this film at all.

IF you didn't like Birdman, The Truman Show, Adaptation, Inception, Mulholland Drive or any of Fellini's work. 

-Val

Interesting recommendation criteria there, Val.  I loved Birdman but I found 8 1/2 boring, even if there were some elements that could have been interesting.

Today my mum and I saw The Peanuts Movie.  It was fun, and they used elements of the original cartoon within the new story, so it was quite enjoyable.  We had lots of laughs and it was sweet.  Glad they included the original music amid the new stuff, also.

Yitzock wrote:

Interesting recommendation criteria there, Val.  I loved Birdman but I found 8 1/2 boring, even if there were some elements that could have been interesting.

I'd have pretty much the same problem here, Didn't like Birdman, loved The Truman Show, didn't like Mulholland Drive, loved Inception, don't like Fellini's films, loved Adaptation.