What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

Many, probably most players still have a region lock on it.

Cant you look up a code on the internet, Alex.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

The majority of Blu-ray discs seems to be codefree. It's mostly a studio thing. As for players, as far as I know there still are only one or two models that are not region locked. Apparently the company that produced mine got bullied by the content industry shortly after and forced to stop producing codefree hardware. They released a firmware upgrade that would code lock my model - haven't installed that.

Cant you look up a code on the internet, Alex.

What kind of code?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

For my Hiteker i found a code on the internet to change or disable the region.

Just punch it in via the remote. Had it for all my DVD players too.

[A24 5,156]

I have a JVC. I'm not gonna mess around with downloading firmware and then find out nothing works anymore. I'll just wait until I know for certain that a film is region free. For now, the review says it's region A but maybe he didn't test it.

[Nick1Ø66 8,330]

For my Hiteker i found a code on the internet to change or disable the region.

Just punch it in via the remote. Had it for all my DVD players too.

That generally works until the first firmware upgrade. I bought my BD player in Moscow where before selling they thoughtfully (and apparently, permanently) disable all region locking.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

Why would you upgrade firmware?

[BloodBoal 8,711]

Because the player won't be able to read the most recent Blu-Rays if you don't.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

For my Hiteker i found a code on the internet to change or disable the region.

Just punch it in via the remote. Had it for all my DVD players too.

it's standard for DVD players, and I know of it even for Blu players - but all I've heard is that they disable the DVD region lock. It's new to me that you can also disable the Blu lock now.

Because the player won't be able to read the most recent Blu-Rays if you don't.

I can't watch Hugo on my codefree player because some 2D/3D combo discs need a firmware upgrade...

[Quintus 6,499]

Still using the PS3 here. Never encountered region problems yet.

[crocodile 9,724]

I always thought that if Decard being a replicant twist feels really cheap and robs the film of all its complexity and meaning... You don't need that.

I don't understand how that would change anything. The point is made, regardless of Deckard's origin. After all, it's about the philosophy, not about the true origin of a character. I love the suggestion. In retrospect, I think it would've been naive not to suggest it, especially in a world with that kind of technology available. I only regret that Scott made the suggestion too explicit when he reinserted the unicorn sequence into the movie (DC and FC).

Alex

Unicorn doesn't necessarily has to mean that he's a replicant. There are far more interesting intepretations than this one. I don't mind it being suggested, as you say, and, as Hampton Fancher once said, it's more interesting as a question.

Karol

[Xander Harris 9,677]

Die Another Day

First 30 minutes are solid where Bond is captured in Korea and eventually exchanged. There are some good moments following this, but you've got to sift through pretty much of a crappy flick. There are a precious couple minutes of John Cleese's Q giving Bond gadgets, the sword fight and, well, a few good Bond quips here and there. That's about it.

Halle Berry...ugh. One of the most irritating actresses ever. I just don't know how she gets work. She gave a sexy ass performance as Fred Flintstone's secretary Sharon Stone in the 1994 live action Flintstones movie, that's not up for debate. However, when has she otherwise displayed any talent? I don't get it. Is she blowing every executive in Hollywood? But somehow the CGI is even worse than Halle.

p.s. I kinda miss Pierce Brosnan.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

Pierce was good in the role, a nice blend of Connery and Moore.

Die Another Day has a good first half, but starts to fall apart once they get to Iceland.

Halle is annoying...but seriously hot too!

[Xander Harris 9,677]

This is the the thing, though. She seems to be cast purely on looks and she's terribly unattractive when she starts to speak. That Rosamund Pike chick was a lot better, but she really only has one good little moment where she threatens Halle with a sword on the plane.

I also like the Madonna song, but I felt the score had too much electronics overall. There are also some really bizarre choices with the cinematography. It felt like Joel Schumacher ghost-directed the ice palace scenes, straight up Batman & Robin style..

[Quintus 6,499]

Never bought Brosnan's Bond tbh. Then again that was a seriously vanilla era for the franchise.

[Nick1Ø66 8,330]

I thought Brosnan was an outstanding Bond, but unfortunately his great performances were let down my increasingly poor films. I thought GoldenEye was quite good, but after that is just kind of went downhill. Die Another Day was just this side of unwatchable, and the director either did not understand, or completely misjudged, what a Bond picture should be.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

TWINE is one of the best Bonds

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

Still using the PS3 here. Never encountered region problems yet.

I stopped using the PS3 and got a region free player when, after two codefree seasons, Lost S3 turned out to be region locked (and the UK release significantly more expensive than the US version).

[Delorean90 47]

I always thought that if Decard being a replicant twist feels really cheap and robs the film of all its complexity and meaning... You don't need that.

I don't understand how that would change anything. The point is made, regardless of Deckard's origin. After all, it's about the philosophy, not about the true origin of a character. I love the suggestion. In retrospect, I think it would've been naive not to suggest it, especially in a world with that kind of technology available. I only regret that Scott made the suggestion too explicit when he reinserted the unicorn sequence into the movie (DC and FC).

Alex

Unicorn doesn't necessarily has to mean that he's a replicant. There are far more interesting intepretations than this one. I don't mind it being suggested, as you say, and, as Hampton Fancher once said, it's more interesting as a question.

Karol

Agreed. I like the idea of the unicorn origami being Gaff's way of letting Deckard know that he could've killed Rachel, but he's going to let them run (even if only on a head start), almost a "Round up the usual suspects" moment.

Also, I feel that if Deckard's a replicant, it becomes a far more plotty, sci-fi twist thing than anything that contributes substantially or beneficially to the principle themes at play. Once Deckard is a replicant, I have to start thinking about things like why they would program a top blade runner replicant to hate his job. With Deckard as a human, I find the climax especially to be FAR more satisfying and rich. Now, if the film had been constructed around the replicant or not question, then perhaps I might feel differently. But once your main human character is revealed to not be so, then you can't know if anyone in the film is human, and then the questions and themes raised by the replicants confronting real people with their own humanity start to take less prominence, and that's just not as interesting to me.

[Nick1Ø66 8,330]

TWINE is one of the best Bonds

Yeah, it wasn't bad...I liked it about as much as Tomorrow Never Dies but not quite as much as Golden Eye. I'll overlook a lot of things in Bond films, but Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist is just about at the limit of my suspension of disbelief. I actually pretty much liked all the Brosnan Bonds with the exception of Die Another Day to varying degrees. As I said, I thought Brosnan was an outstanding Bond...perhaps the best. I thought he combined Sean Connery's suave toughness with Roger Moore's humour pretty perfectly.

But Die Another Day? It's surpassed only by Quantum of Solace in its complete misunderstanding of what a 007 movie should be, and those two are equalled only by the embarrassing View To A Kill as the worst in the franchise.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

I never really clicked with Goldeneye, prefer TOD and TWINE.

Maybe its the music.

[Ollie 1,375]

In spite of the music, Goldeneye is a good film.

DAD is just a big mess with the worst Bond songs, never mind that fact it would qualify as one the worst songs ever written in the history of music.

[A24 5,156]

I always thought that if Decard being a replicant twist feels really cheap and robs the film of all its complexity and meaning... You don't need that.

I don't understand how that would change anything. The point is made, regardless of Deckard's origin. After all, it's about the philosophy, not about the true origin of a character. I love the suggestion. In retrospect, I think it would've been naive not to suggest it, especially in a world with that kind of technology available. I only regret that Scott made the suggestion too explicit when he reinserted the unicorn sequence into the movie (DC and FC).

Alex

Unicorn doesn't necessarily has to mean that he's a replicant. There are far more interesting intepretations than this one. I don't mind it being suggested, as you say, and, as Hampton Fancher once said, it's more interesting as a question.

You can say that, but It's impossible for me to misread the intent and the mechanisms behind it, especially when it's so evident (in the DC and FC, that is). Also, I feel there's no ground for other interpretations. The reason why I feel like this is probably because I already felt the innuendo that Deckard might be rep in the '80s. When the DC came out, it felt like it was answering a long-standing question.

Alex

[Quintus 6,499]

The chick in Goldeneye was gorgeous. I remember being in love with her face, in my teens

..

..

OMG look at her now!

Amazing how women can completely transform themselves with a bit of self-grooming

[Ollie 1,375]

Famke Janssen wasn't too bad either.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

Hollands pride!

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

DAD is just a big mess with the worst Bond songs, never mind that fact it would qualify as one the worst songs ever written in the history of music.

It wasn't as bad as the song from QoS. I think. I've forgotten that one.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,391]

DaD is a good Madonna song atleast.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Jessica Chastain keeps the movie together. Even with a ridiculous short brunette wig and fake tattoos, her chemistry with the two girls is superb.

Had to look her up - I've never seen a single movie she's been in. And she's been in a lot! 7 in 2011!

She's pretty good. You need to see The Tree Of Life.

Scott has tons of watchable but not altogether mind-bending films.

The best are:

BLACK HAWK DAWN

HANNIBAL

AMERICAN GANGSTER

and maybe BODY OF LIES.

Black Hawk Down is probably my favorite Ridley Scott film. Hannibal is great too; but I found American Gangster to be horrible. I attempted the Director's Cut and it was even worse. On paper (or rather trailer), it looked like it could be really good. I like the atmosphere and air Denzel and Crowe gave to their characters, but on a purely technical level it was mediocre at best. Poor writing, editing, some bland cinematography with some decent shots here and there. Streitenfeld's score is the only good thing to come of it.

Matchstick Men and Gladiator are up there with my favorites.

[KK 3,313]

Beasts of the Southern Wild

One of the best indie films I've seen in a long time. A bold, creative venture, and a very moving one at that. Quvenzhané Wallis is also a great asset to the film, and following her journey and her understanding of the world offers emotionally potent stuff. And to be honest, I must confess that the end was one that nearly brought me to tears (but perhaps I'm over-sentimental). The fantasy concept and the bit of plot at the end is a bit hard to follow, but that doesn't take away from the film. In the end, I found it all very fascinating.

It's definitely one of my favourite films of the year and I heartily recommend it to others.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Pitch Perfect and Ted.

Enjoyed both.

[Wojo 2,458]

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

Funny, but not as funny as I remember it being. Might have to do with Steve Martin's dorkiness. John Candy's naivete and overall good nature makes him very hard to dislike, even as annoying as his Del Griffith is. Wonderful array of cameos, though.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Oh MY,

Kirk just died

and

Data cried.

[Wojo 2,458]

I watched the first half of The Wind and the Lion. Very enjoyable. Classic epic in the style of Lawrence of Arabia, but made in 1975. I should finish the movie sometime this week.

[Matt C 605]

Adventures of Don Juan (1948)

The production values still look great (especially the interior castle shots and the crowd scenes), and for a film that didn't get a Ultra Resolution restoration... the three-strip Technicolor image looks good for the most part. Errol Flynn still embodies that roguish handsome swashbuckler role well, even though 1) his 'party hard' ways started to affect his looks by then and 2) he's a little long in the tooth to be playing Don Juan.

And Max Steiner's score is just really well-done. I can't get enough of that main theme. It's just not as good as Flynn's defining role in Adventures of Robin Hood, especially the pacing, but it's still really enjoyable.

[Matt C 605]

The Dawn Patrol

I'm on an Errol Flynn kick, so I decided to watch this one today. I don't think it's one of Flynn's best films, but it's a different side to him other than the womanizing, ass-kicking roles he's known for. It's actually a very nuanced performance, where he tones down the swagger and gives us a more human and troubled character. The aerial dogfights haven't aged well, but the main draw is Flynn and David Niven's chemistry and their animosity for their commander (Basil Rathbone). But the movie just... ends, with no true ending or catharsis.

But this cements Flynn's acting range.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

After Frankenstein I decided to watch Mel Gibson in Signs. I had not seen the film is quit some time. It's amazing how many diverse reactions there are to this film. Very little middle ground.

I'd give it 4 stars out of 4, as Roger Ebert did, but then you read other reviews and they trash the film for reasons I just don't see, but clearly that person does.

I love M Night's use of the camera in the movie. His framing sometimes tells a story in itself.

I love the intimacy of the film. It's the story those of us far from a big city might well experience if something like this occurred.

[publicist 4,650]

DJANGO UNCHAINED

The italo western genre seems too paltry for Tarantino's grandiose meta dreams of racism then and now, genre reflexion and plain old orgys of gratitious violence: World War 2 and the killing of Hitler in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS was a perfect vehicle, a simple story of revenge vehicled on cheap Spaghetti westerns not so much.

So what remains is QT's newfound love for Christoph Waltz delivering dandy-like fish-out-of-water soliloquies as german bounty hunter - basically Hans Landa's cheerful brother. It doesn't exactly gel with Jamie Foxx's taciturn Django, who at least follows the genre conventions with his undying desire to revenge his abducted and slaved wife.

The film ebbs and flows, having its strongest moments within the first 100 minutes, basically a good old buddy movie, which also feel much less telegraphed about the whole 'racism then and now' sociological reflection which really gets a bit overripe in the last act. As soon as mandingo fights and decadent perverted whites enter the story (which at least give Jerry Goldsmith his 3 minutes of glory if you not ask why the quichotic latin march from UNDER FIRE is played against black slaves marching towards Leo DiCaprio's Mississippi home) it all gets a bit too bent on showing us a parade of of white and black archetypes acting out greek drama - but it does move breezily until the prolonged finale, which loses Waltz and DiCaprio (being much better than expected in a role so totally unfitted to this particular actor's age and physical appearance) so we're stuck with Foxx and gratitious shootouts that accomplish not very much - this may sound like a rather puzzling criticism of this particular director but after the effortless balance that INGLORIOUS BASTERDS had, i found DJANGO a bit long in the tooth.

QT's usual record selection sometimes worked (mainly when he implanted gritty Morricone underscore pieces), sometimes not, when we are subjected to minutes of glossy folkpop while Django and King are seen frolicking on green pastures. All the (late) italo westerns that milked this post-EASY RIDER hippie vibe basically sucked, anyway.

So all in all, it's no match for IG, but still a feast for the senses - even in its flawed form. I will watch it again, for sure. Maybe some of the concerns will vanish after a but more studying about QT's reasoning behind the film. For now, it's 3,5/5.

[mrbellamy 8,245]

Jessica Chastain keeps the movie together. Even with a ridiculous short brunette wig and fake tattoos, her chemistry with the two girls is superb.

Had to look her up - I've never seen a single movie she's been in. And she's been in a lot! 7 in 2011!

The most amazing thing is that prior to 2011, she had done hardly anything of substance. That was as big a breakout year for her as probably any actor in history.

[Jay 46,245]

After Frankenstein I decided to watch Mel Gibson in Signs. I had not seen the film is quit some time. It's amazing how many diverse reactions there are to this film. Very little middle ground.

I'd give it 4 stars out of 4, as Roger Ebert did, but then you read other reviews and they trash the film for reasons I just don't see, but clearly that person does.

I love M Night's use of the camera in the movie. His framing sometimes tells a story in itself.

I love the intimacy of the film. It's the story those of us far from a big city might well experience if something like this occurred.

The directing is fine bu the script makes no sense. If the aliens die if they are touched by water, why would they want to take over a planet whose surface is 71% water?

[JoeinAR 1,957]

After Frankenstein I decided to watch Mel Gibson in Signs. I had not seen the film is quit some time. It's amazing how many diverse reactions there are to this film. Very little middle ground.

I'd give it 4 stars out of 4, as Roger Ebert did, but then you read other reviews and they trash the film for reasons I just don't see, but clearly that person does.

I love M Night's use of the camera in the movie. His framing sometimes tells a story in itself.

I love the intimacy of the film. It's the story those of us far from a big city might well experience if something like this occurred.

The directing is fine bu the script makes no sense. If the aliens die if they are touched by water, why would they want to take over a planet whose surface is 71% water?

they don't want to take over the planet Jason, they are raiding the planet for us, they simply want to take humans for food. They make that clear later in the movie.

besides the 29% that is land is a large amount of land.

[KK 3,313]

The ending was the biggest problem with Signs.

And publicist, Django was bloody fun imho up till

the death of DiCaprio and Waltz.

The remaining 15-20min of film seemed anti-climactic. But heck, it was one of the most fun movies of year.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

the ending was the best part of Signs. It wraps it up neatly, that is until the aliens return one day.

[publicist 4,650]

Yeah, but i'm not entirely sure it was just fun that QT was after.

[Jay 46,245]

After Frankenstein I decided to watch Mel Gibson in Signs. I had not seen the film is quit some time. It's amazing how many diverse reactions there are to this film. Very little middle ground.

I'd give it 4 stars out of 4, as Roger Ebert did, but then you read other reviews and they trash the film for reasons I just don't see, but clearly that person does.

I love M Night's use of the camera in the movie. His framing sometimes tells a story in itself.

I love the intimacy of the film. It's the story those of us far from a big city might well experience if something like this occurred.

The directing is fine bu the script makes no sense. If the aliens die if they are touched by water, why would they want to take over a planet whose surface is 71% water?

they don't want to take over the planet Jason, they are raiding the planet for us, they simply want to take humans for food. They make that clear later in the movie.

besides the 29% that is land is a large amount of land.

Yes but 60& of humans are water! The whole movie makes no sense!

[KK 3,313]

the ending was the best part of Signs. It wraps it up neatly, that is until the aliens return one day.

The film does well to build suspense and explore the themes of troubled family life in a more intimate manner, but the ending makes the product as a whole seem rather silly, absurd and far-fetched in its concept. All that great suspense prior to the finale is now a bit hard to take seriously. Had their been a better device than water for the elimination of the aliens, than it would have succeeded.

Yeah, but i'm not entirely sure it was just fun that QT was after.

Perhaps. Tarantino speaks as if he was trying to really portray the plight of the slaves, but honestly, I see none of that. It looked like Tarantino was trying to do what he does best, make a riveting film experience as a whole.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

After Frankenstein I decided to watch Mel Gibson in Signs. I had not seen the film is quit some time. It's amazing how many diverse reactions there are to this film. Very little middle ground.

I'd give it 4 stars out of 4, as Roger Ebert did, but then you read other reviews and they trash the film for reasons I just don't see, but clearly that person does.

I love M Night's use of the camera in the movie. His framing sometimes tells a story in itself.

I love the intimacy of the film. It's the story those of us far from a big city might well experience if something like this occurred.

The directing is fine bu the script makes no sense. If the aliens die if they are touched by water, why would they want to take over a planet whose surface is 71% water?

they don't want to take over the planet Jason, they are raiding the planet for us, they simply want to take humans for food. They make that clear later in the movie.

besides the 29% that is land is a large amount of land.

Yes but 60& of humans are water! The whole movie makes no sense!

water may be poisonous in it's natural form but within a human body it may be no problem. we eat almonds and yet cyanide can be made from almonds. the whole movie makes perfect sense.

[Jay 46,245]

the whole movie makes perfect sense.

Good one, Joey

[BloodBoal 8,711]

All they had to do was to pee on the aliens, and it would all have been over.

[Jay 46,245]

Right. The aliens show up surrounded by that which kills them without as much as a rubber coat on to protect them. Ridiculous!

[Uni 307]

Gotta go with the majority on this one. Signs was as close as Shyamalan ever came to recapturing the quiet intensity of The Sixth Sense; too bad for him (and for us) the payoff at the end wasn't nearly as substantive or satisfying.

Jason's already nailed the problem I've always had with this movie. Imagine yourself recruited to conquer a planet made up mostly of hydrochloric acid, where the indigenous aliens drank it, bathed in it, swam in it, and lived in houses that had it coming out of every spout in sight. The air's breathable, so you won't need a spacesuit; and, apparently the budget's so tight they're not allowing you any armor, either (why is it that invading aliens in every movie, who happen to be centuries ahead of us in technology, always show up naked?). But don't worry . . . you'll be given a small supply of toxic gas you can dispense in single doses to one alien at a time. Sound like a good plan?

Disappointing. And hardly a clever "twist." It's really too bad M. Night blew it for himself on his first film. He made everyone believe (partly by his own design, it should be noted) that every movie would have an ending that threw you for the same sort of loop Sense did. Now that he's run out of that particular angle, he's left making horrid live-action adaptations of cartoons. Pathetic.

- Uni