What Is The Last Movie You Saw?

[speedz99 145]

MoneyballI really wasn't that impressed with Brad Pitt's performance...I mean, he was fine, but it was nothing special. Jonah Hill was great though.I could have done without the 15-20 extra minutes at the end. I know it was there to establish the fact that they had, in fact, changed the game, but that could have been done with some of the written epilogue. Basically, I got bored, which is never a good way to end a movie. Overall, I liked it, didn't love it.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

MoneyballI really wasn't that impressed with Brad Pitt's performance...I mean, he was fine, but it was nothing special. Jonah Hill was great though.I could have done without the 15-20 extra minutes at the end. I know it was there to establish the fact that they had, in fact, changed the game, but that could have been done with some of the written epilogue. Basically, I got bored, which is never a good way to end a movie. Overall, I liked it, didn't love it.

Agreed on all counts. Brad Pitt is just annoyingly charismatic though - even when he's just being 'fine'.

[brvheart 1,752]

I really liked Moneyball. Apparently a lot more than both of you.

[mk 11]

I really wasn't that impressed with Brad Pitt's performance...I mean, he was fine, but it was nothing special.

I've always thought the criticism people love to level at Tom Cruise (that he always plays slight variations of himself) is a lot more fitting for Brad Pitt.My big problem with Moneyball was that there absolutely no explanation for why Beane INSTANTLY bought in to the Jonah Hill character's stats-based valuations. Like, there's the scene in the parking garage, which is about 4 lines of dialogue, and he's immediately all in with a totally new way of running the team. I still liked it.

[speedz99 145]

Spirited AwayFun movie, probably should be watched with someone that's already into it. It's not something I would have ever sat down and watched alone.

Agreed on all counts. Brad Pitt is just annoyingly charismatic though - even when he's just being 'fine'.

That's a fair point. It's like with his character in the 'Ocean's' movies...he can just stand there eating something and be charismatic.

I really liked Moneyball. Apparently a lot more than both of you.

YOU WOULD.

I've always thought the criticism people love to level at Tom Cruise (that he always plays slight variations of himself) is a lot more fitting for Brad Pitt.

Also a fair point.

My big problem with Moneyball was that there absolutely no explanation for why Beane INSTANTLY bought in to the Jonah Hill character's stats-based valuations. Like, there's the scene in the parking garage, which is about 4 lines of dialogue, and he's immediately all in with a totally new way of running the team. I still liked it.

I don't know, I thought they did ok with it. He wanted a new way of thinking, saw that Hill's character was being listened to by the other GM, and the garage scene was set up to show that they talked more than just the few lines of dialogue we actually get to see, as we jump in mid-conversation.But yeah, I guess it should take a lot more than even that.

[Dubey 1,035]

They also showed his impatience with the 'traditional' scouts in the first scene of the movie, I thought it was explained pretty well, though I read the book too, so maybe that made a difference.

[Mercury69 3]

Margin CallReally liked it a lot, definitely in my top 5 of the year.

I def want to see this

[DJ Vu 176]

Billy Beane never trusted scouts because all the scouts loved him and he thought he was a failure. I thought the movie explained most things well enough considering the time restraints, but it's hard to know how someone might perceive it who either hasn't read the book or follows baseball.The problem with the ending is that they put so much emphasis on the winning streak that it felt like that should've been the climax of the movie. Maybe they felt like they needed to make it more like a traditional sports movie.I liked Spirited Away a lot.

[speedz99 145]

Billy Beane never trusted scouts because all the scouts loved him and he thought he was a failure.

Also they relied on things like the attractiveness of a prospect's girlfriend.

The problem with the ending is that they put so much emphasis on the winning streak that it felt like that should've been the climax of the movie. Maybe they felt like they needed to make it more like a traditional sports movie.

Pretty much every movie needs a climax, and it was either that or the division series they lost. I like the decision, but it just dragged on after that.

[SBriand 4]

Spirited Away

I love that movie. I have most of his movies on DVD. I suggest My Neighbor Totoro and Castle in the Sky. Princess Mononoke and Kiki's Delivery Service are good too. I suspect Howls Moving Castle is as well but I have yet to see it.

[DJ Vu 176]

I suspect Howls Moving Castle is as well but I have yet to see it.

Yes. And Ponyo too, but that one is even more geared towards kids.

[The Ocho 970]

Also they relied on things like the attractiveness of a prospect's girlfriend.

Ya they do!

Pretty much every movie needs a climax

Ya it does!

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I've always thought the criticism people love to level at Tom Cruise (that he always plays slight variations of himself) is a lot more fitting for Brad Pitt.

I don't totally agree. I think Pitt has shown more range over his career, but lately has been relying on a lazier, phone it in performance that still works due to his laid back charisma (much like Redford). Cruise is always the same character, but always shows that Cruise laser-beam focus and intensity. It's not a lazy character at all (unlike Pitt) but IMO there's less range apparent over his entire body of work, which is a different kind of lazy I think.

Billy Beane never trusted scouts because all the scouts loved him and he thought he was a failure. I thought the movie explained most things well enough considering the time restraints, but it's hard to know how someone might perceive it who either hasn't read the book or follows baseball.

I don't follow baseball at all or read the book (but was aware of saber metrics thanks to the sick thread) and my wife follows sports even less than I do and neither of us had any problem understanding what was going on.

[SuperJon 175]

I don't necessarily think more range equals better acting. Denzel Washington > Johnny Depp

[Mercury69 3]

8 Actors who look the same on their posters

[speedz99 145]

I don't totally agree. I think Pitt has shown more range over his career, but lately has been relying on a lazier, phone it in performance that still works due to his laid back charisma (much like Redford). Cruise is always the same character, but always shows that Cruise laser-beam focus and intensity. It's not a lazy character at all (unlike Pitt) but IMO there's less range apparent over his entire body of work, which is a different kind of lazy I think.

It's still lazy if he's playing a version of himself in different situations, even if his default personality is intense.

I don't necessarily think more range equals better acting. Denzel Washington > Johnny Depp

I think you probably just like Denzel better than Depp. I'm not saying Depp is definitely better than him, but I'm not sure you'd find many people who agree with your little chart there.

[Mercury69 3]

Despicable MeNo, not me, the movie.I really liked it. Great animationa dnvoice work; funny plot. While sometimes overly obvious, this is kid stuff first and foremost. Well worth seeing, esp if you have kids. It about achieving your goals!!!7/10

[DJ Vu 176]

I don't really know how to judge acting. I can tell when it's bad, but it's hard for me to differentiate between good performances. I mean, Daniel Day Lewis was a beast in There Will Be Blood, right? But how much of that is because it's a fascinating character who is always on screen? On the other hand, who else could've played that role to such good effect? I thought Pitt was good in Tree of Life.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think Pitt is great in everything he does. You guys are crazy.

[BillyPilgrim 1]

I mean, Daniel Day Lewis was a beast in There Will Be Blood, right? But how much of that is because it's a fascinating character who is always on screen? On the other hand, who else could've played that role to such good effect?

no one else. no one else could have done that.

[mk 11]

I don't totally agree. I think Pitt has shown more range over his career, but lately has been relying on a lazier, phone it in performance that still works due to his laid back charisma (much like Redford). Cruise is always the same character, but always shows that Cruise laser-beam focus and intensity. It's not a lazy character at all (unlike Pitt) but IMO there's less range apparent over his entire body of work, which is a different kind of lazy I think.

I don't totally agree. I think Pitt has shown more range over his career, but lately has been relying on a lazier, phone it in performance that still works due to his laid back charisma (much like Redford). Cruise is always the same character, but always shows that Cruise laser-beam focus and intensity. It's not a lazy character at all (unlike Pitt) but IMO there's less range apparent over his entire body of work, which is a different kind of lazy I think.

After looking at each actor's major roles, I've found that they've each played outside their comfort zones about the same number of times with Pitt probably having the slight edge. They both had major career stretches where they played the same character a bunch of times in a row. I guess we could rank the degree to which each role goes outside the comfort zone too in order to better quantify. For the sake of comparison, here are the roles I feel each goes at least a little outside their standard "handsome, cool guy" roles:Pitt:2011 The Tree of Life - Mr. O'Brien2008 The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Benjamin Button (Fincher technical wizardry responsible for much of his perceived performance)2008 Burn After Reading - Chad Feldheimer1995 Twelve Monkeys - Jeffrey Goines (lotta multi-colored contact lens acting in this one)1993 True Romance (stoner cool guy)1993 Kalifornia (murderous cool guy)Cruise:2008 Tropic Thunder - Les Grossman2004 Collateral - Vincent (murderous cool guy)1999 Magnolia - Frank T.J. Mackey1999 Eyes Wide Shut - Dr. Bill Harford1989 Born on the Fourth of July - Ron Kovic

[DJ Vu 176]

For the sake of comparison, here are the roles I feel each goes at least a little outside their standard "handsome, cool guy" roles:Cruise:2008 Tropic Thunder - Les Grossman2004 Collateral - Vincent (murderous cool guy)1999 Magnolia - Frank T.J. Mackey1999 Eyes Wide Shut - Dr. Bill Harford1989 Born on the Fourth of July - Ron Kovic

Cruise might not always be "handsome, cool guy," but he always has, as Jubi put it, "laser-beam focus and intensity." I think that still applies in at least a few of those.I think they're both fine actors.

[speedz99 145]

2008 Tropic Thunder - Les Grossman

Not sure a cameo counts, but I guess.

2004 Collateral - Vincent (murderous cool guy)1999 Eyes Wide Shut - Dr. Bill Harford

I don't consider these to be outside his comfort zone at all.I feel like Snatch has to be on the for Pitt.

[SBriand 4]

I was never a big Cruise/Pitt fan until the last few years. I could be off but it seems to me that they both no longer seem to take themselves as seriously as they once had which in turn has allowed me to enjoy them more on screen than I once did. Just my opinion.In response to Despicable Me. I loved that movie. My text tone on my iPhone is "It's so FLUFFFFY!"

[DJ Vu 176]

"Three little kittens love to play. They had fun in the sun all day. Then their mother came out and said, 'Time for kittens to go to bed'."Wow, this is garbage. You actually like this?