› ›

Last Movie you Watched?

1…508509511513514…983

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    My precise feelings for the film. I watched the film for everyone else other than McCarthy. I mean, the Stath, Law, some other known action faces, Peter Serafinowicz (I love that guy!), etc. They made it all funny for me, and Rose Byrne is lovely as a sophisticated villainess. McCarthy, even though she was the star of the whole show, was the most uninteresting point for me.

    I'm really hoping we get a Rick Ford movie someday. Jason Statham was the funniest and the best thing in the film.

    McCarthy's main issue is she always plays the same characters and comedic notes in every movie she's in. Always the loony, cartoonish and oft-eccentric personality who stumbles (literally) into every over the top scenario she meets. She's usually good at it, but after a while it just gets old.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    My precise feelings for the film. I watched the film for everyone else other than McCarthy. I mean, the Stath, Law, some other known action faces, Peter Serafinowicz (I love that guy!), etc. They made it all funny for me, and Rose Byrne is lovely as a sophisticated villainess. McCarthy, even though she was the star of the whole show, was the most uninteresting point for me.

    I'm really hoping we get a Rick Ford movie someday. Jason Statham was the funniest and the best thing in the film.

    McCarthy's main issue is she always plays the same characters and comedic notes in every movie she's in. Always the loony, cartoonish and oft-eccentric personality who stumbles (literally) into every over the top scenario she meets. She's usually good at it, but after a while it just gets old.
    My main problem with her "comedic" display is that she doesn't have a slight bit of witticism in her delivery. She mostly relies on fat-jokes, over-composing the correction of mistaken objects in order not to embarrass herself in front of the others (her in-character routine), inept and incompetent persona that hardly serves a purpose to the plot, etc. All in all, she has her fans and the audience. But, she certainly isn't my cup of tea nor she'll ever be unless she changes her act into something rather logical, but that's hardly to be expected from any "comedian" nowadays.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @ClarkDevlin, ever since Ghostbusters she's really had me against her, to the point that I eye-roll whenever I see her. During the press tour for the film she seemed far too much like the radical feminists who call for female equality while also calling men pigs. That film was also the point where her shtick and the limitations of her style were more apparent than ever.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, ever since Ghostbusters she's really had me against her, to the point that I eye-roll whenever I see her. During the press tour for the film she seemed far too much like the radical feminists who call for female equality while also calling men pigs. That film was also the point where her shtick and the limitations of her style were more apparent than ever.
    Oh, so she's that delusional, then. Just another Amy Schumer with man-hating remarks and utter feminism, trying to display their ignorance via "comedy" (a lost art, nowadays) directed at likewise delusional audience (radical feminists). Slobs like these are easy to find a position of fame in Hollywood and be called a celebrity while decent and talented folk go unnoticed. Makes me wonder...
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    I expect a much higher standard for stunt work & special effects augmentation in reputed series like Alien, Bond and MI.

    I'm more likely to give newcomers like Skull Island a pass because they don't have such a storied history. The trailers definitely indicated to me that the film was played pretty much for laughs anyway. I didn't feel frightened even once because most of it was so fake looking.
    Now, I can understand the "stunt work & special effects" debate with regards to Bond and perhaps MI, but not Alien, which has never been celebrated for its major stunt work. Certainly it has been for its special effects, but not stunts, which is why I disagree. Alien Covenant, Life, Passengers, The Martian are all modern movies that are going to use today's advanced techniques, rather than using old-fashioned split screen, glass matte paintings, or stop-motion animated monsters and miniatures paired with forced-perspective photography. Film-making has moved on, guys. Again, I understand the argument against using CGI effects for Bond, especially when we want to see a stunt performed for real, but these creatures aren't real, so I don't think the comparison holds any water. I still don't believe you guys would rather see a man in a rubber suit compared to good CGI.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, ever since Ghostbusters she's really had me against her, to the point that I eye-roll whenever I see her. During the press tour for the film she seemed far too much like the radical feminists who call for female equality while also calling men pigs. That film was also the point where her shtick and the limitations of her style were more apparent than ever.
    Oh, so she's that delusional, then. Just another Amy Schumer with man-hating remarks and utter feminism, trying to display their ignorance via "comedy" (a lost art, nowadays) directed at likewise delusional audience (radical feminists). Slobs like these are easy to find a position of fame in Hollywood and be called a celebrity while decent and talented folk go unnoticed. Makes me wonder...

    @ClarkDevlin, the whole film was essentially the cinematic embodiment of the radical feminism of today, where the whole team did to the male characters what women hate to see done to their gender on films. The men were either idiots or assholes (or both) and the constant references to gender made it all so obvious. When a film ends with
    a bunch of women shooting a ghost in the dick to kill it
    you know what you're getting in for. But it was all so funny and innocent because it was women doing it, whereas if the script was flipped and it was men doing all that the world's women would burn the actors at the stake in the center of Hollywood. This concludes todays lesson on gender double-standards.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Truer words were never spoken.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I expect a much higher standard for stunt work & special effects augmentation in reputed series like Alien, Bond and MI.

    I'm more likely to give newcomers like Skull Island a pass because they don't have such a storied history. The trailers definitely indicated to me that the film was played pretty much for laughs anyway. I didn't feel frightened even once because most of it was so fake looking.
    Now, I can understand the "stunt work & special effects" debate with regards to Bond and perhaps MI, but not Alien, which has never been celebrated for its major stunt work. Certainly it has been for its special effects, but not stunts, which is why I disagree. Alien Covenant, Life, Passengers, The Martian are all modern movies that are going to use today's advanced techniques, rather than using old-fashioned split screen, glass matte paintings, or stop-motion animated monsters and miniatures paired with forced-perspective photography. Film-making has moved on, guys. Again, I understand the argument against using CGI effects for Bond, especially when we want to see a stunt performed for real, but these creatures aren't real, so I don't think the comparison holds any water. I still don't believe you guys would rather see a man in a rubber suit compared to good CGI.
    @bondsum, I perhaps wasn't clear in my previous post. The crux of the point I'm making is that I hold Bond, MI & Alien to a higher standard no matter what they do. Not only are they beloved franchises (for me) but they are also highly reputed ones with a history spanning multiple years. Audience expectations have been legitimately and understandably built up based on the trend setting nature of the earliest films. They have a pedigree, if you will, and all have a reputation for using 'best in class' effects for their time, whether that be state of the art animatronics, prosthetics or model work.

    That's why if I see obvious CGI (which is of course in the eye of the beholder) in any of these entries, I'm very critical of it. I think most are, which is why the disgraceful DAD surf is so lambasted - because it pisses on the history and hard work of its series predecessors, which were painstakingly crafted to look as real as could be given the time they were made.

    Certainly I don't want to see a man in a rubber suit today. However, whatever I see, I want it to look 'best in class'. I loved Prometheus and thought the effects work was absolutely spectacular. In fact, it was one of my reference films when optimizing/calibrating my LED large screen tv.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I think I get the thrust of what you're saying, @bondjames. But let's not forget that there were equally terrible practical effects around when there was also great practical effects around at the same time. It can come down to budget, timescale, the special effects house and who was directing. The same can be said of CGI today. You can either get terrible, good and great CGI, all depending on these very same factors. Being someone that was a paying audience member when these "pedigree" movies first came out, I can tell you that if they had John Dykstra or Douglas Trumbull's name attached to them, then you knew you were in for a visual treat. Maybe less so with Brian Johnson, but what he achieved looked pretty good, but nothing on Dykstra or Trumbull's scale. The Alien creature was all H.R. Giger, so reproducing his design into a workable costume is down to him, though credit can go to Carlo Rambaldi for following Giger's designs closely.

    Now here's the thing: I'll bet those that are being critical of CGI usage in Alien Covenant won't be as critical of the same usage in Bladerunner 2049, which was all originally practical effects by Douglas Trumbull, because Roger Deakins and Denis Villeneuve are involved - who are geeky fanboy favourites. Basically, the same argument can be levelled at Bladerunner 2049, but we know it won't be, don't we. I guess I'm talking about double standards.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    Now here's the thing: I'll bet those that are being critical of CGI usage in Alien Covenant won't be as critical of the same usage in Bladerunner 2049, which was all originally practical effects by Douglas Trumbull, because Roger Deakins and Denis Villeneuve are involved - who are geeky fanboy favourites. Basically, the same argument can be levelled at Bladerunner 2049, but we know it won't be, don't we. I guess I'm talking about double standards.
    That's a fair point @bondsum and we'll see if this ends up being the case.

    A good point was made at the end of that youtube clip which @ClarkDevlin posted on the last page about CGI - namely that if the narrative is tight and engaging, then we, the audience, are far more forgiving of a lot of things, including poor CGI usage. I think the same can be said of colours, cinematography, score etc., all of which can appeal to our senses and help us to overlook a badly crafted monster or effect. Conversely, if a film is subpar in other areas, we tend to notice the CGI more readily.

    Essentially, our perceptions can be manipulated by other factors.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think I get the thrust of what you're saying, ... But let's not forget that there were equally terrible practical effects around when there was also great practical effects around at the same time. It can come down to budget, timescale, the special effects house and who was directing. The same can be said of CGI today. You can either get terrible, good and great CGI, all depending on these very same factors. Being someone that was a paying audience member when these "pedigree" movies first came out, I can tell you that if they had John Dykstra or Douglas Trumbull's name attached to them, then you knew you were in for a visual treat. Maybe less so with Brian Johnson, but what he achieved looked pretty good, but nothing on Dykstra or Trumbull's scale. The Alien creature was all H.R. Giger, so reproducing his design into a workable costume is down to him, though credit can go to Carlo Rambaldi for following Giger's designs closely.

    Now here's the thing: I'll bet those that are being critical of CGI usage in Alien Covenant won't be as critical of the same usage in Bladerunner 2049, which was all originally practical effects by Douglas Trumbull, because Roger Deakins and Denis Villeneuve are involved - who are geeky fanboy favourites. Basically, the same argument can be levelled at Bladerunner 2049, but we know it won't be, don't we. I guess I'm talking about double standards.

    I haven't seen Alien: Covenant yet (which isn't out yet where I am) and nor have I seen Blade Runner 2049 (obviously), but I'll tell you this: if Alien: Covenant has atrocious CGI I will rag on the CGI and it will most definitely detract from my film-viewing experience. By that same token, if BR 2049 has atrocious CGI I will rag on the CGI and it will most definitely detract from my film-viewing experience. The two are not related, and yes, I am a huge fan of both of the original films. Alien in particular had phenomenal visual effects. Blade Runner did as well, but even there you had spinners being lifted on visible cables (something which, let's bear in mind, was corrected digitally, along with other things, for the 2007 Final Cut). Bad CGI is bad CGI and doesn't get a pass because of the filmmakers involved. Roger Deakins shot Skyfall and did a stellar job, but I'll be the first to point out the film's wonky CGI and how it pulled my attention while first viewing the film—Roger Deakins or no.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I've posted a continuation of my comments over on the Alien Franchise thread with regards to the CGI argument. However, I will just add that Alien Covenant does use both practical effects alongside CGI. There's men in rubberized monster suits plus the use of animatronics, which certainly squashes the rumour that Scott just used CGI in his latest movie.

    @Some_Kind_Of_Hero, I think you need to go back and reread what's been discussed between some of us here. The discussion was on practical effect vs CGI, not atrocious practical effects vs atrocious CGI. Obviously anything that's atrocious on film is up for being criticized. That wasn't the point that was being made. It was about one visual effect versus another.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    edited May 2017 Posts: 6,844
    I've been following. Why would anyone care one way or the other—practical vs. CGI—unless it's done poorly? If it's good CGI, you don't notice it. Or you're just able to tell that it's CGI but it blends so seamlessly with the action and scenery around it that you don't mind. CGI only becomes an issue when it's done poorly. If people complain about amazing CGI in movies, they better limit their genre film intake to the 80s and earlier.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    My point entirely, @Some_Kind_Of_Hero. It just seems that the use of CGI in the latest Alien movie has been something to hit Ridley Scott over the head with and deduct points on his movie-making prowess. I've posted a very good video link for the making of Alien Covenant over on the Alien Franchise thread, if you're interested? Of course, don't watch it if you haven't seen the movie as it shows stuff not seen in the trailers.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    I haven't seen Covenant yet—another week to go here—so I'll hold off on that video. I guess my point is that if the CGI featured in Alien: Covenant (and this is an if; I haven't seen it yet) is dubious, that's fair game to criticize. If the CGI is amazing, there's nothing to be critical about. Rather that would be a point in the film's favor, the strength of the visual effects!
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    From everything I've read, and if comments from those that have seen it are anything to go by, @Some_Kind_Of_Hero, then the CGI is very good. That's not to say there hasn't been some dissenters complaining about the usage of CGI, preferring a man in a rubberized suit. But as I pointed out, Scott did in fact use a man in a full Alien rubber suit in parts, so it must have been seamless as no-one has been able to make the distinction.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That opening scene of the Engineer near the Falls in Prometheus is one of the best I've seen in recent years. Give me more like that and you won't hear any complaints from me.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    A Warrior's Way
    18_26_1299729462_31_10032011PhimAnhJangDongGun1.jpg
    The western genre collides head-on with the martial arts genre. An odd little film, not odd bad, but different. Has a surprising cast (for such a film) as well, Danny Huston, Geoffrey Rush and Kate Bosworth. The fight sequences are crazily ott in a stylized way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GONE GIRL (2014)
    syEGlRc.jpg

    This was my first viewing of this David Fincher psychological thriller (based on a Gillian Flynn bestselling novel) since its release in the theatre. I really enjoyed it both times. Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy (DAD's Rosamund Pike) are Missouri suburbanites. Their marriage isn't going well, as Nick has been having an affair with a college student, and Amy is aware of it. He wants out, but she resents (even envies) his attempts at happiness with anyone else. On their 5th anniversary, she goes missing and there is evidence of a struggle at their home. Nick soon becomes the prime suspect, on account of shifty behaviour and his apparent lack of concern for his wife's disappearance. The two cops investigating the case, Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) and Jim Gilpin (Patrick Fugit) are increasingly doubtful about him. It doesn't help that Amy seemed like such an all American sweetheart (and was even the inspiration for a line of bestselling books written by her parents). Even Nick's twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon) and Amy's parents begin to suspect Nick. As the noose tightens, he is forced to seek assistance from high priced celebrity lawyer Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry). Bolt suggests using the media to cast Nick in a more favourable light and turn the tables on Amy. After all, she had been less than fair to a few prior suitors, including Desi Collings (Doogie Howser's Neil Patrick Harris). As Nick, Tanner and Margo go on the offensive, we realize that all is not as it seems, and there is more to Amy than we previously knew.

    Fincher imbues this film with his trademark atmospheric style. Long time cinematographer & collaborator Jeff Cronenworth expertly makes a suburban setting appear mysterious and creepy. Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross create a score that is unsettling, similar to what they did on The Social Network and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The film is a delight because we travel back and forth in time, with narration by both Nick and Amy. Neither is entirely truthful to us, and so we learn the truth about them as we go along, which keeps it interesting. The characterizations are all quite strong and watchable, which is impressive given none are entirely sympathetic. Carrie Coon is superb as concerned sister Margo, Kim Dickens is also very good as the open minded cop, as is Tyler Perry as the smart lawyer. However Pike steals it as Amy. She is at once vulnerable and frightening. Recommended.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    The title certainly catches my interest, @Birdleson.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    I'll be watching the film in about an hour, @Birdleson. Turns out a friend of mine has it in a "Warner Gangsters Collection" so I went and picked up the DVD. ;-)
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Jason Bourne - an ice straight forward spy thriller with some great actionscenes which were done for real and the chases were excellent as expected from this franchise, and I was really relieved to find out that the Cassel character was nobody;s half or step brother. A welcome return from Greengrass & Damon.

    The Assassins Creed - a sometimes more than impressive shot movies with some nice fightscenes, but at the end of the movie I was somewhat puzzled what it was all about. Perhaps because I am not so familiar with the game I did miss a lot.

    Suicide Squad ext ed - a good and decent DC bad boys and girl group that have to safe the day. The interaction between the various characters was well done. Not being familiar with the source material as so many are not I found the movie more than enjoyable. Nice to see the new Batman show up as well. Harley Quin did steal the movie which must have been surprising for Will Smith.

    My name is Nobody - with a very good Henry Fonda but one of the best slapstick actors of our time in the form of Terence Hill who made the movie absolutely excellent. Great Spaghetti western with a brilliant soundtrack from none other than Morricone
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited May 2017 Posts: 24,173
    Recommended by @Birdleson:

    THE AMAZING DR. CLITTERHOUSE

    The-Amazing-Dr.-Clitterhouse-1938.jpg

    Edward G. Robinson, Claire Trevor and Humphrey Bogart star in this clever and anything but outdated crime film in which a doctor examines the medical details of a criminal’s life by behaving as one. It’s a theme I find intriguing since I can only imagine how tempting it must be sometimes to flip one’s own ethics to the ‘other side’ when studying or investigating the nature of crime. Surely we must all have a dark fantasy in which we’re the crime boss of the century in some safe, old ‘film noir’ kind of way, if only to get an idea of what it feels like. Robinson’s Dr. Clitterhouse—that name!—dares to make that leap and I’m licking my lips in guilty envy all the way. Also, I can imagine that in 1938, many Americans were dreaming of a career in crime with lots of seemingly easy pay-offs too.

    Robinson, who would also star with Bogart in KEY LARGO, is a pure delight. How he performs a medical research on a police inspector for example while shaking him for information, always scheming and plotting… it’s hard to pry one’s eyes away from such brilliance. He’s almost always several steps ahead of the professionals and he wastes no time in turning the table to his advantage even when the heat is on. Who can resist such an intelligent opportunist who manages to court tough criminals and have them build more loyalty to him than to their previous leader? He’s calculated and determined, not physically imposing but extremely gifted upstairs. And that’s the type of well-mannered outlaws I like. Things become especially interesting when others trade muscle for brains too and start challenging him on the terms of his own game.

    The film gains momentum right from the start. As fresh and alive as a film made yesterday, THE AMAZING DR. CLITTERHOUSE is short and concise but addictive all the way through. Don’t fear being bored or having to plow through an hour of dull set-ups; this stuff takes off like a bullet. Unlike many films that struggle with keeping the tension up until the end, here’s a fine example of a film that keeps burning fuse after fuse, never losing grip even once. With every turn of events, another surprise awaits us.

    The power of nostalgia is an additional treat. There’s something irresistibly charming to that. The fast speech, the aspect ratio, the pristine black and white, the hats and suits and haircuts and classy dames, the cars, the stages, the ‘innocence’ of crime, words like ‘daffy’ … this is where the old phrase, “they don’t make ‘em like they used to”, makes perfect sense. In that respect I wouldn’t appreciate it if the film got remade; no modern version could deliver the magic, no matter how good it might be technically. The film doesn’t even have to be viewed in a time capsule. It doesn’t defy any modern sensibilities as far as I’m concerned.

    THE AMAZING DR. CLITTERHOUSE is not typically considered a ‘Bogart’ movie since Bogart is always acting in the shadow of Robinson. But since I consider myself a Bogart fan, I’m both angry with myself for never having paid any attention to this one before, and thankful to @Birdleson for dropping this surprise gem in my lap. That said, Bogart in this film is like Benicio Del Toro in LICENCE TO KILL: one day he’ll be great, but he needs some more practice to find his footing. And don’t get me wrong now, Bogart is really good here and a lot better than Del Toro in ’89, but this isn’t Sam Spade or Rick Blaine yet. In fact, I’ve come to understand that Bogart himself called this one of his least favorite performances. Still, a Bogey fan I am and this is yet another one on my Bogart list to check off. (I was also pleased to catch Curt Bois from CASABLANCA.)

    In summary, THE AMAZING DR. CLITTERHOUSE delivers what it promises: something amazing. About an hour and a half of a fast-paced, cerebral, interesting crime fantasy, not hampered by redundant love stories or pointless scenes. Cut to perfection. The immortal Max Steiner provided the score and Russian Anatole Litvak directed. Probably not everyone shall enjoy this film as much as I do, but I’m quite confident that if you’re not necessarily afraid of traveling back in time to explore some older movies, you might like this one.

    Once again I must thank @Birdleson for the suggestion, and like him, I can only say: highly recommended.
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    I have to take that film into consideration.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    Me, too. I'm also a big Bogart fan but I haven't seen this one.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Added to my list too! Bogart is life.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    So I haven't watched any of the alien movies but I already booked my tickets for covenant we're going opening day so I though why don't I watch the Alien movies. So for the sake of time I picked two. Alien and Prometheus I haven't watched Prometheus yet I'm watching it tomorrow but I watched Alien today and it's pretty good. Considering the time it was made it must have been incredible and I can see why people like it so much but it didn't really leave an impact for me for some reason. It wasn't the 10/10 buy on blu ray for me it was the pretty good I'll probably not watch it for twenty years kind of movie. I liked the alien and the special effects but some scenes were a little dragged out. Maybe I only feel this way because this film was built up so much before I watched it I mean how could it live up. Solid 7/10.
    Onto Prometheus.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    Recommended: ALIENS. Very different style, intense action.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    So I haven't watched any of the alien movies but I already booked my tickets for covenant we're going opening day so I though why don't I watch the Alien movies. So for the sake of time I picked two. Alien and Prometheus I haven't watched Prometheus yet I'm watching it tomorrow but I watched Alien today and it's pretty good. Considering the time it was made it must have been incredible and I can see why people like it so much but it didn't really leave an impact for me for some reason. It wasn't the 10/10 buy on blu ray for me it was the pretty good I'll probably not watch it for twenty years kind of movie. I liked the alien and the special effects but some scenes were a little dragged out. Maybe I only feel this way because this film was built up so much before I watched it I mean how could it live up. Solid 7/10.
    Onto Prometheus.
    I just finished watching it, in preparation for the upcoming Alien: Covenant. I've seen it before of course, but can understand your perspective. By today's standards it's quite slow, but it's still a benchmark film for the genre. It was one of the first to establish a strong female heroine (perhaps the first) with Weaver's Ellen Ripley. Her intelligence and steely determination are impressive even in comparison to today's ubiquitous female protagonists. The loneliness of space is beautifully captured by Scott. He takes his time with the scenes, and I can appreciate that they may seem somewhat boring, but the steady slow buildup underscores the magnitude of the discovery of the alien ship. Finally, the one on one finale has been repeated in several future films, including Resident Evil.
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Recommended: ALIENS. Very different style, intense action.
    Agreed. I'll be watching this one tomorrow.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Solid 7/10.

    Yikes! I shudder to think where the sequels will land starting out Alien at a 7! ;)

    But yes, as RTB says, do check out Aliens next. Then Alien 3. Then Alien: Resurrection. All very different styles, all very worth seeing.
Sign In or Register to comment.