Last Movie you Watched?

1885886888890891984

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    ROBIN HOOD (W. Reitherman, 1973)
    20199171.jpg
    A real blockbuster in its day, and one of my biggest favourites. One of a small handful of films that I went to see more than once in the cinema.

    Very entertaining.
    Peter Ustinov and Terry Thomas are a great double act!

    Yes, two of my favourite villains of all time. The Norwegian dubbers, Gisle Straume and Rolf Just-Nilsen were wonderful as well.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Operation Crossbow!
  • Posts: 526
    Watching the recut of ROCKY IV. The main fight is about to begin, and I gotta say this whole thing feels kinda pointless. Aside from new additional scenes with Apollo at the beginning (as well as cutting out the brief scenes of the robot), there’s really nothing substantially different about this cut.

    I watched it the other night. I thought it was quite a bit different, a lot of editing, and more dialogue. Just my 2 cents though. I enjoyed it a lot more than the original (which I still like a lot). Fight with Drago was more detailed, and thank God they got rid of the robot and Paulie’s birthday party. Never could stand that scene. Did you finish watching it?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    THE BLACK CAULDRON (1985)
    Walt-Disney-Posters-The-Black-Cauldron-walt-disney-characters-32565530-2006-2902.jpg
    Definitely not among my favourites, but kudos for going so dark in certain scenes, and I do love the Elmer Bernstein score.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,402
    Last Night in Soho was a MESS. Diana was brilliant in it, though. Curious distinction: this may be the only film of any kind to date that is dedicated to TWO Bond girls, as the film begins with "For Diana" and the end credits feature a dedication to Margaret Nolan.
  • Posts: 526
    Thanks for saving me some $ @StirredNotShaken . Was thinking about renting it.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Thanks for saving me some $ @StirredNotShaken . Was thinking about renting it.

    It's not terrible, but it definitely goes off the rails for at least the final third of it, and it is unquestionably Wright's weakest film.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 9,847
    Planes trains and automobiles


    Is this John Hughes best film… in my opinion yes absolutely. I love candy. Heck I even love Steve Martin.

    I love the bit players like Ben Stein
    The Kansas cab driver from hell

    Just perfect
    Films I have seen in 2021
    1. Casino Royale
    2. Quantum of solace
    3. John wick
    4. Jaws 2
    5. Skyfall
    6. Planes trains and automobiles
    7. Halloween 6 the producers cut kind of
    8. No time to Die
    9. Batman the long Halloween part one
    10. Coming to America
    11. Highlander
    12. Monterey Pop Festival
    13. My big fat Greek wedding
    14. Batman: dying is easy
    15. Across the universe
    16. Spectre
    17. Batman hush
    18. Batman ninja
    19. Casino Royale 1954

  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,847
    "Casablanca" (1942) - for about the 500th time.

    Interesting twitter observation from last night (11/24/2021).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    THE RETURN OF JAFAR (1994)
    El+retorno+de+Jafar.jpg
    This is pretty bad. I liked it when it came out, maybe I was stoned.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,021
    This is pretty bad. I liked it when it came out, maybe I was stoned.

    BiodegradableConsciousAustralianshelduck-size_restricted.gif
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,148
    scale?width=1200&aspectRatio=1.78&format=jpeg
    Captain America: Civil War in IMAX, very impressive. One of my favourite MCU films.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »
    This is pretty bad. I liked it when it came out, maybe I was stoned.

    BiodegradableConsciousAustralianshelduck-size_restricted.gif

    Typical jews. Just because someone likes an Arab movie.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited November 2021 Posts: 25,148
    1816?1624007758

    Documentary by Peter Jackson...Part One, I am a huge Beatles fan so this was a joy to watch. Excellent restored footage, brilliant sound as expected. Compelling looking at the group dynamics.

    For those interested its now streaming on Disney+
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,847
    1816?1624007758

    Documentary by Peter Jackson...Part One, I am a huge Beatles fan so this was a joy to watch. Excellent restored footage, brilliant sound as expected. Compelling looking at the group dynamics.

    For those interested its now streaming on Disney+

    I've only watched the first part so far (I'll watch the 2nd part with dinner tonight), but the restored footage is astounding. I'm glad that you're enjoying it as well. As a big Beatles' I've been following along with the companion "Get Back" book, which contains day by day transcripts.

    At over 7 1/2 hours (across all three parts), it may not be for the casual fan, but even I am learning and seeing things only touched upon in the various Beatles' books that I've read over the years. Seeing part one end with the demo version of "Isn't It a Pity" was very moving.

    ...Isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame,
    how we break each other's heart
    and cause each other pain....

    Speaking of which:
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,847
    Let It Be (1970 / dir. Michael Lindsay-Hogg).

    With Peter Jackson’s 7+ hour “The Beatles: Get Back” documentary running on Disney+ this week I decided to watch the original film so that I could compare the two. Because I dare not even attempt to play my old VHS copy of the film (purchased quite legally back in 1982 BTW), I watched a bootleg copy of “Let It Be” that I downloaded from YouTube about a year ago - before it was taken down.

    For the few of you that are unaware of the story:

    In January 1969, The Beatles decided to have themselves filmed while they were worked on songs that they would then play before a live audience. The original idea was for this footage to comprise a TV program which would include the live concert. Of course, things didn’t quite work out that way in the end. In the end, the idea of a live concert became the famous rooftop performance and the TV film became a movie instead. The later point is critical since much of what we see was filmed in 16mm and then blown-up to 35mm. As a result, “Let It Be” has always had a grainy quality, perhaps befitting the nature of these sessions.

    image.jpg

    As many people have noted in recent weeks, when viewed in hindsight “Let It Be” isn’t really all that depressing – just a little bit. It shows a band a work – building songs from the ground up, disagreeing with each other on somedays, full of giggles and enjoying each other’s company the next. Of course, that wasn’t my impression when my mother took me to see the film back in late 1970/early 1971. Released more than a year after it was filmed, by that time The Beatles had broken up and John Lennon and Paul McCartney were in open warfare. As they (*) say “Let It Be” was released as a film, an album, and a lawsuit!!! 😊

    It will be interesting to see how much overlap between the film “Let It Be” and the new Peter Jackson led documentary, and whether the original film will finally be released on DVD/Blu-Ray next year (**).

    Best Scenes: The rooftop concert, of course. I’ll really be interested to see how Peter Jackson manages to integrate the concert footage, the comments from passersby, and the police making their way to 3 Savile Row. Again, it’s iconic. Also, a loud shout-out to 6-year-old Heather Eastman (Paul’s soon to be step-daughter) for her dancing as the fabs play “Suzy Parker” (an unreleased Beatles’ song).

    PS: With his trademark cigar in hand Michael Lindsay-Hogg really does look like Orson Welles’ son. It’s been long rumored, but DNA tests done back in the day proved inconclusive.

    *From the 1978 Beatles parody “The Rutles”, this was titled “Let It Rot.”
    ** Based on part 1 - which runs for 2 ½ hours(!) - there is almost no overlap in footage.

  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,148
    Dwayne wrote: »
    1816?1624007758

    Documentary by Peter Jackson...Part One, I am a huge Beatles fan so this was a joy to watch. Excellent restored footage, brilliant sound as expected. Compelling looking at the group dynamics.

    For those interested its now streaming on Disney+

    I've only watched the first part so far (I'll watch the 2nd part with dinner tonight), but the restored footage is astounding. I'm glad that you're enjoying it as well. As a big Beatles' I've been following along with the companion "Get Back" book, which contains day by day transcripts.

    At over 7 1/2 hours (across all three parts), it may not be for the casual fan, but even I am learning and seeing things only touched upon in the various Beatles' books that I've read over the years. Seeing part one end with the demo version of "Isn't It a Pity" was very moving.

    Three geniuses in a room conflict ensues well from two of them, and not the two most obvious that people would immediately think of.

    Harrisons opinion on Clapton was great and made me smile. When they jammed to a certain movie theme it was bloody amazing.

    Jackson's editing is superb despite the long run time it keeps it going at a swift pace.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,021
    The Night of the Generals. Riveting movie from beginning to end, full of interesting characters --from large roles to small ones-- and terrific dialogue. Great music by Maurice Jarre.

    Screenplay partly written by Paul Dehn; appearances by Donald Pleasence, Charles Gray and Michael Goodliffe; titles by Robert Brownjohn.



  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    POCAHONTAS (1995)

    This is far better than I remembered. I know it isn t historically accurate, but when was that a Disney rule anyway? Maybe they overdo it a bit with the scmaltzy songs, but other than that it s pretty great.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 24,183
    Schindler's List

    neeson-schindlers-list.jpg

    This may very well be my favourite "unpleasant" Spielberg film, one of those rare cases of a film that elicits a strong emotional response in me, so strong, in fact, that while I tremendously respect the film, it ruins my mood for at least a few days. Then again, I suppose that's a good thing since the subject matter is not supposed to be taken lightly.

    As a Belgian, I find myself very much interested in all things WWII. My grandparents and great-grandparents told a young me many a story about the things they had witnessed and experienced during the war. I currently work in a city where dozens of Jews were rounded up and put on a train to Auschwitz. Those wounds still bleed sometimes.

    Spielberg is known for his sentimentality. Schindler's List is no exception. Spielberg, Kamiński, Williams and others understand the craft of manipulating our feelings. But unlike certain cynical types, I passionately admire that gift. "Nolan is too cold" and "Spielberg is too manipulative!" Yeah, yeah, whatever; unintelligent complaints come cheap. So what if this film makes me cry, even at the end, when things turn "kitsch" according to some critics? Is there really any other response? I simply cannot understand, furthermore, why historians and critics feel the need to point out the elements that were missing from Schindler's List, as if a project like this is only acceptable if it covers the entire historical baseline. Films take liberties, and they probably should too. If not, I might as well read a book on the subject.

    Neeson and Kingsley turn in amazing performances. Heck, so does everybody else. This story couldn't have been in better hands. Leave it to Steven Spielberg, my favourite still living filmmaker, to direct this film and one of the best adventure films of all time in the same year. Spielberg knew what he was doing and the film is a true masterpiece.

    I won't be seeing the film again very soon, simply because it leaves me utterly gutted. But I don't think we should underestimate its educational value. Every once in a while, we should desire to remind ourselves of precisely why ultra-nationalism, fascism, hatred against peoples, ... are simply inexcusable. We have that moral obligation. We don't merely owe it to those who come after us, but also to those many who suffered through worse than hell in the past. And these events took place a mere 80 years ago. Many lessons to learn. Unfortunately, recent history shows that people are poor learners. Another viewing of Schindler's List might help.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MULAN (1998)
    qLqg5GugxSdlCW1gp7AL4Guh2XOTS9Ui.jpg
    This is very good, but I could have done without the stupid dragon and the flea.
  • Posts: 7,434
    MULAN (1998)
    qLqg5GugxSdlCW1gp7AL4Guh2XOTS9Ui.jpg
    This is very good, but I could have done without the stupid dragon and the flea.

    Yes, I do agree with you. Very enjoyable film and I love the opening intro of the villain!
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I simply cannot understand, furthermore, why historians and critics feel the need to point out the elements that were missing from Schindler's List, as if a project like this is only acceptable if it covers the entire historical baseline.

    Speaking of which, I don't agree with Terry Gilliam's criticism of this film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited November 2021 Posts: 45,489
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    MULAN (1998)
    qLqg5GugxSdlCW1gp7AL4Guh2XOTS9Ui.jpg
    This is very good, but I could have done without the stupid dragon and the flea.

    Yes, I do agree with you. Very enjoyable film and I love the opening intro of the villain!

    What an evil creep, gleefully murdering a little girl. Not that we see it, but it is more than implied. Maybe that isn t all he does.

    FANTASIA 2000 (1999)
    Nowhere near the level of the 1940 original, but still glad it got made.

  • Posts: 5,994
    Interstella 5555 : The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem

    All right, I'm not a fan of Daft Punk (not my kind of music, you see), but I love Leiji Matsumoto's work since the days I've watched Albator (that's Captain Harlock's name in the french version) way back when at the end of the Seventies. It was nice to dive into his work "One More Time".

  • edited December 2021 Posts: 2,402
    So, I am seeing (or have seen, depending on when you're reading this) nine new films all in about 24 hours. Gonna keep it really simple considering how many films there are.

    TICK, TICK...BOOM! 8.5/10
    THE BETA TEST 9/10
    IN THE HEIGHTS 6.5/10
    THE LITTLE THINGS 3.5/10
    KING RICHARD 10/10!!!
    C'MON C'MON 8.5/10
    THE FRENCH DISPATCH 7.5/10
    BELFAST 8/10
    GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE 7.5/10
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    EmperorsGroove.jpg?fit=1234%2C1760&ssl=1
    (M. Dindal, 2000)
    Not among the absolute classics, but fun enough.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    MV5BMWYxNWFkN2MtMGJjNi00YzAyLTlmOTEtZmEwZmI0MGRhM2RiL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc1NTYyMjg@._V1_.jpg

    Bronson and Winner give us their take on Dirty Harry.
  • Posts: 5,994
    John Gardner didn't like what they did with his novel, BTW. He even refused to watch the movie when it was on TV.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    Is this our John Gardener or the American author John Gardener?
Sign In or Register to comment.