Last Movie you Watched?

1170171173175176984

Comments

  • edited August 2014 Posts: 4,813
    Ew- that scene made no sense!! Why would 'the police' know about the Fortress of Solitude? That would be like Batman calling the police to come pick up the villains of the evening at his Batcave!!

    r-ADAM-WEST-BATMAN-large570.jpg?6

    "Gordon? Yeah hey it's Batman. Listen I just caught these guys and I was JUST about to go to sleep. You think you could just come by and pick them up on your way to work? I'll leave the door unlocked."
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    :))
    Silly silly British man...
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Bud Abbott and Lou Costello in Hollywood (1945)

    Lou Costello was a comedic genius and his scenes in this film are hilarious.
  • Posts: 2,107
    Pirates of the Caribbean 1-4
    Puplic Enemies
  • edited August 2014 Posts: 2,081
    Key Largo (1948), directed by John Houston, starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Edward G. Robinson, Claire Trevor, Lionel Barrymore. Hadn't seen this in years, so it was about time to re-watch.

    The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre (1948), directed by John Houston, starring Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt, Walter Huston (uncredited small parts by Robert Blake as a kid, and John Houston). A great film I hadn't seen before for some peculiar reason. Better late than never. Bogart and Walter Houston were both fantastic - these were surely among their best performances.

    Key Largo was done right after The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre, and was more popular with audiences at the time, but while Key Largo is a very good film, I think The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre is much better, and Bogart is much better in it - and the role is obviously far more interesting - maybe it just wasn't what audiences wanted from the big star at the time, and maybe the movie was too downbeat and cynical in tone, but oh, it's wonderful. Btw, I was surprised that there were no subtitles for the parts of dialogue in Spanish (at least on this dvd) - not that it bothered me (my limited Spanish was enough - and even if it hadn't been I'm sure it wouldn't have really mattered).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Two great one Tuulia. Just got done watching TRAINSPOTTING (1996), by Danny Boyle, for the first time in years. Very good movie, bordering on excellent. I'd forgotten all of the Bond references. Funny how DR. NO and GOLDFINGER are dwelled on, even THUNDERBALL and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER get a mention, but FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is entirely skipped over, which is universally hailed as a classic.


    Yeah but Sick Boy is the one giving the comments. He's no Ebert. ;-) I guess the message to all of us is: don't do heroin or you'll forget about FRWL! :-)

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Thought I'd post this here

    After being inspired by @DarthDimi's different retrospectives and @MajorDSmythe's different rankings for actors and actresses, I've decided that I'm going to watch every Sylvester Stallone film ever made.

    Well, I say that, I'm not watching all of them. If he only has a cameo, or a background part or a tiny part from in a film before his career took off, I'm not gonna watch that film. I'm also not going to watch films where he's just directing or writing and not acting, this marathon is for Stallone the actor, not the writer or director. And I'm not watching the porn flick he did before he was famous either :P Also I think I might miss some films out because I just don't want to watch them (EG- I found out on IMBD that he was in Spy Kids 3 and I don't want to watch that).

    When I told my wife about this she said "I'll watch Rocky with you but I'm never watching f***ing Cobra again" :)) The first film I'm watching is a film I've already seen, Death Race 2000. I'll watch it at some point this week.

    You'll need to *dramatic turn* D-Tox after that. ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Won't anyone of us be brave enough to do a Steven Segal retrospective? :D
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2014 Posts: 13,978
    I think @Baltimore_007 is a Steven Seagal fan.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Troll 2

    4.jpg

    This film is so bad it's epic. @-)
    I mean, Troll was bad but this is just nuts! And both films aren't even related. I can see why so many people love it: there's something amusing about celebrating such a mess. ;-) Still... wow!
  • Posts: 4,813
    Is that the one with the blonde guy with glasses butchering the line "they're eating her. (Gasp) and then they're going to eat ME. Oh my goddddddddddd"
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    @Master_Dahark, that's the one. :D Hilarious moment. And bad. Let's never forget bad when talking about this film. ;-)
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    001 wrote: »
    The Artist (2011)

    It's was claimed to be an experimental film when they made it. (black and white with no sound)??????
    I found this movie boring and i think it is one of the most overrated films ever.

    Anyone else who has seen this and what do you think about it..........

    Count me in the same camp, while I didn't think it was rubbish I found it particularly underwhelming, Juardin getting an Oscar for this was the biggest insult depriving Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor.

    I found the Juardin character not very nice, just a selfish stick in the mud and the fact he got a feel good ending really rubbed me up the wrong way, this is my review below after I saw it.

    The Artist 2011

    Every year there is a film that ends up dominating best film lists and leaving other more likely better films in it's wake, last year it was The King's Speech a cosy old fashioned film which stole the thunder from the very relevant and now The Social Network, yes Firth's performance is extremely impressive but did Tom Hooper deserve best director over David Fincher's ability to make a film about Facebook so fascinating and thrilling, it's a moot point and like King's Speech this years awards juggernaut is also from Harvey Weinstein's stable, The Artist.

    Harvey who goes after the golden baldy with such ruthless efficiency leaving other films in it's wake. Lets get one thing straight I did not hate The Artist it was an extremely enjoyable 100 minutes, Laurence Bennett's production design capturing the period perfectly, Ludovic Bource's impressive score showing echoes of Max Steiner and Bernard Herrman effectively accompanies the film. Director Michel Hazanavicius produces a breezy enjoyable pace and elicits some good performances from his cast. The idea of making a silent film about the end of the silent era and having the protagonist deal with this is a canny idea, his cast adapting to acting in a different style to accompany the silent era but and there is more than one. Jean Dujardin's so called hero of the piece George Valentin is a charming performance on the surface but lets look a little deeper something a countless amount of reviews seem to have missed or failed to mention.

    Valentin is a successful silent film star but the era is coming to a close with the advent of technology allowing the actors to actually speak and John Goodman's Al Zimmer George's producer see's this, unfortunately our hero? does not want to comply, he feels this is some fad and will go away and how could people not want to see his style any more or be even seduced by the gimmick of sound. Hazanavicius illustrates this vividly with using emerging sound in a dream sequence that George has, the quite literal nightmare of being obsolete a possibility. Though our hero? and I'll continue to use the question mark because if he is so likeable and charming why is he self centred, egotistical and although never seen on screen, contemplating adultery with new bright young star Peppy Miller.

    A brief appearance of Penelope Ann Miller as George's neglected wife elicited more sympathy from me than any George's so called dilemma's. He is unable to talk to her (it's a silent film geddit?), but it is his constant moping about feeling sorry for himself that kind jars with this so called feel good film, there is more genuine human behaviour in any number of films this and last year it all feels somewhat contrived and once the silent device is removed you've got a rather old fashioned and corny story which has an outcome that seems neither plausible or deserved. I know the director is making a tribute to Hollywood and this is a love letter to cinema itself, this must have charmed a number actors, the likes James Cromwell turns up as Valentin's faithful Chauffeur and Malcolm McDowell appears most briefly (blink and you'll miss it). Maybe in this day and age people need something warm and fluffy to take their mind off what is going on in the modern world by harking back to a time when things seemed that much more simple and nice although Dujardin's George is an utter arrogant stick in the mud with no desire to move on and the fact he gets his own way by the end really rubs me up the wrong way, there is no lesson learned.

    The one thing of comfort for me is that this thing cannot be attempted again it's a one off and like so many award juggernauts will no doubt be forgotten about as time goes on and the snubbed real masterpieces will endure. My opinion is clearly not a popular one as this has seduced critics and viewers across the globe but while enjoying it I can't really recommend it or applaud it like others have but I hated Forrest Gump wasn't impressed with Saving Private Ryan and absolutely detest Titanic, so go figure?

    3/5
  • Posts: 12,473
    Disney's Robin Hood! It's always been my favorite version of the Robin Hood legend, and a real treat to watch (full of adventure, comedy, and romance). I'm a sucker for a lot of Disney films just as a heads-up (mostly 90s and below).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    We just watched V For Vendetta.
    Just wow. Such a powerful flick IMO. Portman is a great actress (dodgy British accent aside), and Weaving deserved an Oscar for bringing that character to life without once showing his face.
    I was in tears more than once.
  • edited August 2014 Posts: 2,081
    The Caine Mutiny (1954), starring Humphrey Bogart, Robert Francis, Van Johnson, Fred MacMurray, Tom Tully, José Ferrer, Lee Marvin, based on Pulitzer Prize winning Herman Wouk novel... and it got multiple Oscar nominations and was very successful at the box office. Nevertheless, I found it boring. I was watching it because I had decided to watch all the Bogart movies I could get my hands on at the local library and this was the last of them. If it had been just a random film on tv I'd have given up pretty early on. Anyway, many of the cast are good, and Bogart is excellent, and the character and his story are actually interesting. Mostly, though, the film on the whole... yawn...


    So, the Bogart films I've seen - some again, some for the first time - during the past few weeks:

    1936 The Petrified Forest
    1938 Angels With Dirty Faces
    1939 The Roaring Twenties
    1941 The Maltese Falcon
    1942 Casablanca
    1944 To Have And Have Not
    1946 The Big Sleep
    1947 Dark Passage
    1948 The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre
    1948 Key Largo
    1951 The African Queen
    1954 Sabrina
    1954 The Caine Mutiny
    1955 The Desperate Hours

    My faves of those as movies were The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, To Have And Have Not, The Big Sleep and The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre. As far as Bogart's performances were concerned I'd also recommend to anyone interested: The Petrified Forest, The African Queen and The Caine Mutiny.

    I really liked the two Cagney films - Angels With Dirty Faces and The Roaring Twenties - but they're hardly essential Bogart-wise. I realized I need to see more Cagney, though.

    There are plenty more Bogart movies to watch, of course. Maybe someday... I hope. :)
  • edited August 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Machete Kills

    machete_kills_ver10_xlg.html

    I didn't bother seeing it at the cinema then sort of forgot about it, but it's on Netflix now so I watched it last night. I actually really regret not seeing this at the cinema. It's a fun, grindehouse style action flick with cartoony ultra violence and an epic cast who are all clearly really enjoying themselves.

    I loved it. Much, much better than the first one. The half arsed social/political commentary and bland story (I can't even remember what the first one was about, something to do with Robert Di Niro trying to get rid of Mexican immigrants) that dragged the first one down is gone. Instead we get a big, dumb, OTT plot where Machete is sent by the president (Charlie Sheen!) to stop a missile being fired at Washington. Things are actually much more complicated than they seem and by the end of the film Machete is trying to save the entire world from a space obsessed Mel Gibson (who is brilliant in this by the way).

    And that's what this film is really. Fun. And that's brilliant because it's so rare. It didn't try to be gritty and serious and it didn't have some dull, cliched attempt at depth. Instead it has a gun that literally turns people (and objects) inside out. It has Sofia Vergara as a psycho brothel owning prostitute with a machine gun bra and a strap on cannon. It has an assassin with a golden gun called the chameleon, who wears loads of different masks and as a result is played by loads of people (including Lady Gaga and Antonio Bandereas). It has a scene where Machete rips out a henchmans intestines then uses them as a rope and swings him into rotating helicopter blades. It has a brilliant character with multiple personality disorder (and a missile wired to his heart) who flicks between being a cartel member turned revolutionary, an insane psychopath and a deadly ex secret agent. It has a bad guy turned gun wielding priest (because he felt guilty after killing the gun wielding priest in the first one). It has another scene where Machete attatches his grappling hook onto spinning helicopter blades then spins round and round, beheading loads of henchmen as he does.

    Plus, with its secret bases (complete with uniform wearing goons who have infinite ammo and are crappy shots), fit girls (one of which turns out to be a villain), OTT villains, gadgets (an iphone with a built in knife, a machete that doubles as a bomb, a grappling hook, etc) and its silent and invincible henchman, Machete is essentially a big, trashy, Mexican, Grindehouse throwback take on James Bond. Except instead of a suave British agent who uses gadgets and easily seduces some ridicuously hot girls, the main character is a machete wielding, permanently pissed off looking ex federale.... who uses gadgets and easily seduces some ridiculously fit girls.

    If you're a film snob then stay well away from this. But if you're like me and you love stuff like this then watch it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    @thelivingroyale, Amber Heard talks about how she wants to win from Miss Corpus Christi. I love this film. :D
  • Amber Heard :x I've fancied her ever since I saw her in All The Boys Love Mandy Lane.

    I loved it too. Do you agree that it's better than the first Machete @DarthDimi?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited August 2014 Posts: 24,183
    I will say this: Machete had better characters IMO but Machete Kills was overall far more enjoyable! :-)

    And yes! @thelivingroyale, All The Boys Love Mandy Lane is a movie I bought as soon as it came out on the basis of the awesome title alone. :P Amber hasn't sunk below my radar since. ;-) Of course she can always sink below my... um ... 8-| ... what's that, mother? I-)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2014 Posts: 13,978
    I didn't see all the fuss about All The Boys Love Mandy Lane. I thought Heard was quite good in Carpenter's The Ward and the little I have seen of Syrup.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    The Ward certainly wasn't a bad film I reckon. Syrup I have yet to see. ;-)
  • Posts: 1,631
    FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009)
    2ae9d7c7-48a0-40a1-b248-3612ea8dbce8_zps10e0eca7.png?t=1408735137

    What a missed opportunity this was, although that's hardly a surprise since it one of the countless horror remakes to come from Platinum Dunes.

    2009's take on Jason isn't really a remake of the 1980 original, as it covers the major events of the original film before the opening credits have finished. What follows is instead a re-imagining of the Friday the 13th franchise. In some ways, the filmmakers do a terrific job with it. In others, it just feels like the same tired cliches that the franchise has been forcefeeding its audience for a while now.

    First, the good: Derek Mears. Hands down, this man is the best Jason to date. Granted, part of it has to do with the way the filmmakers intended to portray the character, which is to say that he's more athletic, more mobile, and just generally more frightening, but Mears delivers all of that in spades. Jason is scary again (or, perhaps this is the first time?). He's menacing, he's athletic, non-supernatural, and there's no sense that you could escape him just by walking briskly away from him.

    Much like Tyler Mane two years before him as Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's Halloween, Mears shines in a dialogue-less performance that relies solely on physicality and physical nuance to bring the character to life. Mane was good as Myers, but Mears is fantastic as Jason. The manner in which he begins amassing his body count in the film is more impressive than it's ever been, highlighted by the final attack of the opening act of the film, in which we actually see Jason run. At that point, Mears and the filmmakers had me sold on the new take on Jason, as it made the character more frightening than he'd ever been.

    As for the other good thing about 2009's Friday the 13th, that would be Danielle Panabaker. She's the only member of the cast that rises above the seriously subpar writing and makes her character somewhat likable. The rest of the cast is littered with the same tired, cliched characters we're used to seeing in Friday the 13th films, except this time they're all also terribly unlikable to the point that the viewer just doesn't care what happens to them. Panabaker, however, shows how much talent she has, rising above all of that to give the film a much needed protagonist.

    Aside from those bright points, there's not a whole lot to like. The story is tired and uninteresting, and basically is there simply to serve the body count and nothing more. It's a tired story even for a slasher film, and that's saying something. All the characters really do is sit around the lake house until Jason begins his assault on them.

    Visually, Friday the 13th looks good, but it falls completely flat in terms of its story, creating a flimsy slasher film that doesn't deserve the immense talents of Derek Mears and Danielle Panabaker, as both of them combine to make this remake far better than it would otherwise be.
  • Posts: 4,813
    The Woman in Black: Here's my review: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Not even joking, I paused it to grab a drink and saw the little 'progress bar' and said "This movie's over halfway over and nothing has happened yet??"

    My girlfriend on the other hand was terrified, so go figure, lol

    Personally, I think it had a bit to do with all the creepy things happening in the mansion and Daniel Radcliffe's face never changes

    danielle-radciffe-woman-in-black.jpg

    He's obviously a good actor but, I dunno, maybe you just had to be in the right mood to like it. I just wasn't feeling it :(
  • Posts: 12,473
    The Woman in Black: Here's my review: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Not even joking, I paused it to grab a drink and saw the little 'progress bar' and said "This movie's over halfway over and nothing has happened yet??"

    My girlfriend on the other hand was terrified, so go figure, lol

    Personally, I think it had a bit to do with all the creepy things happening in the mansion and Daniel Radcliffe's face never changes

    danielle-radciffe-woman-in-black.jpg

    He's obviously a good actor but, I dunno, maybe you just had to be in the right mood to like it. I just wasn't feeling it :(

    I agree; the movie bored me and I was thoroughly disappointed most of the time. I'd give it like a 2/5 star rating.
  • Posts: 11,189
    That shot of Radcliffe reminds me of Toby Stephens at the Ice Palace in DAD.
  • Posts: 2,165
    Lost in Translation.

    There something that's just so mesmerising about that film. It truly is wonderful.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Man, how I love Lost in Translation!
    One of my favorites and my absolute fav Bill Murray, and that is saying something. Scarlett was perfect. Japan was perfect. Just hard to put a finger on, it is a different kind of film. Yeah, I love it still.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I agree with what you liked about the film, but not with what you disliked. Jenna (Panabaker) was my favourite of the potential victims, but the only outright unlikeable one was Travis. Travis was the one we were not supposed to like, and cheer when he's impaled on those spikes. The other characters weren't unlikeable, they just didn't stand out in the way that the polar opposites of Jenna & Travis did.

    I still don
    dalton wrote: »
    FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009)
    2ae9d7c7-48a0-40a1-b248-3612ea8dbce8_zps10e0eca7.png?t=1408735137

    What a missed opportunity this was, although that's hardly a surprise since it one of the countless horror remakes to come from Platinum Dunes.

    2009's take on Jason isn't really a remake of the 1980 original, as it covers the major events of the original film before the opening credits have finished. What follows is instead a re-imagining of the Friday the 13th franchise. In some ways, the filmmakers do a terrific job with it. In others, it just feels like the same tired cliches that the franchise has been forcefeeding its audience for a while now.

    First, the good: Derek Mears. Hands down, this man is the best Jason to date. Granted, part of it has to do with the way the filmmakers intended to portray the character, which is to say that he's more athletic, more mobile, and just generally more frightening, but Mears delivers all of that in spades. Jason is scary again (or, perhaps this is the first time?). He's menacing, he's athletic, non-supernatural, and there's no sense that you could escape him just by walking briskly away from him.

    Much like Tyler Mane two years before him as Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's Halloween, Mears shines in a dialogue-less performance that relies solely on physicality and physical nuance to bring the character to life. Mane was good as Myers, but Mears is fantastic as Jason. The manner in which he begins amassing his body count in the film is more impressive than it's ever been, highlighted by the final attack of the opening act of the film, in which we actually see Jason run. At that point, Mears and the filmmakers had me sold on the new take on Jason, as it made the character more frightening than he'd ever been.

    As for the other good thing about 2009's Friday the 13th, that would be Danielle Panabaker. She's the only member of the cast that rises above the seriously subpar writing and makes her character somewhat likable. The rest of the cast is littered with the same tired, cliched characters we're used to seeing in Friday the 13th films, except this time they're all also terribly unlikable to the point that the viewer just doesn't care what happens to them. Panabaker, however, shows how much talent she has, rising above all of that to give the film a much needed protagonist.

    Aside from those bright points, there's not a whole lot to like. The story is tired and uninteresting, and basically is there simply to serve the body count and nothing more. It's a tired story even for a slasher film, and that's saying something. All the characters really do is sit around the lake house until Jason begins his assault on them.

    Visually, Friday the 13th looks good, but it falls completely flat in terms of its story, creating a flimsy slasher film that doesn't deserve the immense talents of Derek Mears and Danielle Panabaker, as both of them combine to make this remake far better than it would otherwise be.

    I agree with what you liked about the film, but not with what you disliked. Jenna (Panabaker) was my favourite of the potential victims, but the only outright unlikeable one was Travis. Travis was the one we were not supposed to like, and cheer when he's impaled on those spikes. The other characters weren't unlikeable, they just didn't stand out in the way that the polar opposites of Jenna & Travis did. I enjoyed it, and was looking forward to pt2. Oh well, butter luck next reboot.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Hook; makes me sad to think Robin and Bob Hoskins are already gone. I've always loved the movie though.
Sign In or Register to comment.