What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No its not, but there are scenes that are similar. High and the Mighty was withheld from distribution for years, but I'm glad to say I have it.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's mediocre. Doesn't hurt the film, but doesn't really add anything aside from the sound of music to accompany the frames. AKA wallpaper. And in that, it is your average RCP score.

Average RCP scores are hardly wallpaper, and this particular one stands out because of its orchestration and lack of synths.

Masterpiece, if you will?

[indy4 155]

Sorry to revive a topic that hasn't been discussed since the top of this page, but I too was bothered by the using-clumps-of-hair-as-a-remote-control in Ratatouille. I think it comes down to this: at some point in our lives, we all at least fantasize about animals being able to talk. Some of us even go so far as to believe that they really could if they wanted to. It's kind of a part of growing up for a lot of people, as far as I can tell. You talk to your pets, you imagine they talk back...if you've got toy animals, you make them talk...a lot of art has been written/filmed/painted/etc. about talking animals...it's a common idea. So even though it's not plausible, it's a nearly universal sort of fantasy.

But humans being directed by pulling on different parts of their hair? I've never heard of such nonsense. And I can test its implausibility simply by having someone pull on my hair - I might yelp, but I won't move my hands and body in a way that corresponds to each minute movement of the hair. Even though we know animals can't talk, that's a lot more difficult to disprove in such a direct and undeniable way.

Of course, it could indeed have been just a weird neurological glitch in Linguine's brain or body. But if that was the case, they should have at least made some passing reference to it, or somehow showed that not all humans in that film's world are like that. In any case, I enjoyed the movie and thought the animation was absolutely gorgeous, but it was not my favorite Pixar flick. (For more reasons than the hair thing.)

I agree, especially with your second point.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, and why it's a flawed concept:

1) The main reason I find it hard to believe is because it's altering fundamental facts of human anatomy, and because we all have access to a human body, it isn't going to be easily bought. Talking rats/fish...that's something that is at least a bit plausible, as nobody lives with rats 24/7, by some stretch of imagination it's possible that they're talking in secret.

2) Furthermore, it isn't something that you can just think up an excuse for. You can't just assume that Linguine has some sort of mutation that causes this--afterall, what type of mutation would allow someone to have perfect control over another person's body just by pulling the same two clumps of hair? No matter how genetically altered up a person may be, I guarantee that the hair thing will never result.

3) It's inconsistent. The rat is constantly pulling the same two clumps of hair in the exact same manner almost every time, yet he's making Linguine do hundreds of different things (chopping vegetables, walking, picking something up, sprinkling spice, etc.).

4) Even if if all this WAS somewhat believable, it still doesn't really fall in place with the rest of the story, because the general idea of the film is that Linguine is just a normal guy, with not weird physical traits or special powers.

[Ollie 1,059]

No its not, but there are scenes that are similar. High and the Mighty was withheld from distribution for years, but I'm glad to say I have it.

Me too, now if only the score would see a release as well.

[QMM 4]

I finished The Ruling Class.

It's definitely weird. The dialogue is frequently ridiculous, there are many moments where the actors speak directly to the camera as it zooms in on them, and there are bits where the characters will erupt into song and dance. The comedy yo-yos from black to very black, but it is worth it to see Peter O'Toole as a man who believes he is the God of love and later Jack the Ripper incarnate.

[Jeshopk 8]

Sorry to revive a topic that hasn't been discussed since the top of this page, but I too was bothered by the using-clumps-of-hair-as-a-remote-control in Ratatouille. I think it comes down to this: at some point in our lives, we all at least fantasize about animals being able to talk. Some of us even go so far as to believe that they really could if they wanted to. It's kind of a part of growing up for a lot of people, as far as I can tell. You talk to your pets, you imagine they talk back...if you've got toy animals, you make them talk...a lot of art has been written/filmed/painted/etc. about talking animals...it's a common idea. So even though it's not plausible, it's a nearly universal sort of fantasy.

But humans being directed by pulling on different parts of their hair? I've never heard of such nonsense. And I can test its implausibility simply by having someone pull on my hair - I might yelp, but I won't move my hands and body in a way that corresponds to each minute movement of the hair. Even though we know animals can't talk, that's a lot more difficult to disprove in such a direct and undeniable way.

Of course, it could indeed have been just a weird neurological glitch in Linguine's brain or body. But if that was the case, they should have at least made some passing reference to it, or somehow showed that not all humans in that film's world are like that. In any case, I enjoyed the movie and thought the animation was absolutely gorgeous, but it was not my favorite Pixar flick. (For more reasons than the hair thing.)

I agree, especially with your second point.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, and why it's a flawed concept:

1) The main reason I find it hard to believe is because it's altering fundamental facts of human anatomy, and because we all have access to a human body, it isn't going to be easily bought. Talking rats/fish...that's something that is at least a bit plausible, as nobody lives with rats 24/7, by some stretch of imagination it's possible that they're talking in secret.

2) Furthermore, it isn't something that you can just think up an excuse for. You can't just assume that Linguine has some sort of mutation that causes this--afterall, what type of mutation would allow someone to have perfect control over another person's body just by pulling the same two clumps of hair? No matter how genetically altered up a person may be, I guarantee that the hair thing will never result.

3) It's inconsistent. The rat is constantly pulling the same two clumps of hair in the exact same manner almost every time, yet he's making Linguine do hundreds of different things (chopping vegetables, walking, picking something up, sprinkling spice, etc.).

4) Even if if all this WAS somewhat believable, it still doesn't really fall in place with the rest of the story, because the general idea of the film is that Linguine is just a normal guy, with not weird physical traits or special powers.

I've not seen this movie, but I am very surprised by this. It doesn't seem to fit with the overall marketing of the film, nor the wave of unanimous praise it got. It seemed like something with a more classic set of fantastic elements - talking mice - Disney/Fables sort of stuff. But he cooks by pulling 2 clumps of hair? It seems like the idea was to make the human like a giant robot outfit for the mouse. That would certainly fit with the director's sensibilities, but it seems a little crazy to put it in there. Of course, isn't the idea that the guy doesn't know he is in there at first? That makes it even crazier if so. Like the mouse is some sort of microscopic alien virus that uses humans as a host. I guess I will have to see it.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Watched Airport 1975 last night. Airplane! just got funnier to me now.

Elaine: A hospital!? What is it!?

Doctor: It's a big building with patience's in it, but that's not important right now.

I recommend you also watch The High & The Mighty.

I want too. I heard that the Zucker Bros. bought the rights to that and that Airplane! is almost The High and the Mighty verbatim.

I thought that was ZERO HOUR?

[Wojo 2,453]

It is Zero Hour. There are scenes from The High and the Mighty spoofed in Airplane!, but it's more of a remake of Zero Hour.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

The main reason I find it hard to believe is because it's altering fundamental facts of human anatomy, and because we all have access to a human body, it isn't going to be easily bought. Talking rats/fish...that's something that is at least a bit plausible, as nobody lives with rats 24/7, by some stretch of imagination it's possible that they're talking in secret.

Talking rats or fish are also an anatomic impossibility. As are talking or thinking toys, or talking and thinking cars. Monsters don't even exist. Neither do thinking desk lamps.

Seriously, you buy all that, you accept films with obviously flawed time travel concepts, films featuring magic, films where characters have telephatic or telekinetic abilities, not to mention a whole bunch of classics featuring fantasies which I can't mention due to board rules... and you complain about *this*?? At least it's an original idea, it's presented during the film's exposition, and it surprises the characters even more than it does the viewers. Considering this, most mainstream movies care less about presenting their fantasies as plausible or consistent.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

not even that, there are at least 4 or 5 films it spoofs

[Carnifex 5]

Actually I finished the series called Murder One, easily the best law related story I have seen. Daniel Benzali ought to be placed next to Jack Nicholson or Marlon Brando, stunning performance I say!

[Quintus 5,399]

Those debating the hair pulling in Ratatouille need to get a life. Seriously, take a step back and listen to yourselves.

[Wojo 2,453]

It's a kid's movie! It's a cartoon! The fact that you are a 20-something year old young adult who paid to see it and is now overanalyzing it is irrelevant!

It's an old gimmick that cartoons have always used: pull the hair and the person does what you "want" them to. How? It doesn't matter, it's a cartoon! They've already established that the guy is taking orders from a talking rat that cooks fancy cuisine! After that, why do you expect to take anything seriously?

I have an idea! Let's have the rat climb into the guy's ear and meld with his spinal cord, for complete neruological symbiosis! Would you prefer that much more plausible Star Trek II-ish explanation?

[Trent B 337]

Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II. All though the second one was not as good as the first one but it was still enjoyable to watch and I loved the bits with Slimer too. I love the part when Lewis got on the bus to go to the art museum and Slimer was the driver. "Oh it's you." *slimer motions for him to get on* "Oh okay I didn't know you had your license."

[indy4 155]

I've not seen this movie, but I am very surprised by this. It doesn't seem to fit with the overall marketing of the film, nor the wave of unanimous praise it got. It seemed like something with a more classic set of fantastic elements - talking mice - Disney/Fables sort of stuff. But he cooks by pulling 2 clumps of hair? It seems like the idea was to make the human like a giant robot outfit for the mouse. That would certainly fit with the director's sensibilities, but it seems a little crazy to put it in there. Of course, isn't the idea that the guy doesn't know he is in there at first? That makes it even crazier if so. Like the mouse is some sort of microscopic alien virus that uses humans as a host. I guess I will have to see it.

The human is aware of the rat, but it still isn't very realistic.

The main reason I find it hard to believe is because it's altering fundamental facts of human anatomy, and because we all have access to a human body, it isn't going to be easily bought. Talking rats/fish...that's something that is at least a bit plausible, as nobody lives with rats 24/7, by some stretch of imagination it's possible that they're talking in secret.

Talking rats or fish are also an anatomic impossibility. As are talking or thinking toys, or talking and thinking cars. Monsters don't even exist. Neither do thinking desk lamps.

But like I said, the fact that it's humanly impossible makes it less believable. True, science and common sense says that rats, cars, toys, etc. can't talk. But because I'm not a rat etc, I can't really test that theory 100%. I know it's ridiculous, but it can't really be tested that easily. Especially since in the films all these things are talking in secret, where humans won't know.

[Wojo 2,453]

So let's take every Walt Disney cartoon -- no, wait, let's take every bloody cartoon ever made -- and throw them all into the dumpster, just because they are anatomically impossible! Because we are shortchanging the educational experience of little kids by showing them talking, anthropomorphic animals, vehicles, and objects. Let's make little kids wiser by showing them the harsh realities of a world without imagination when they're between the ages of birth and about 8 when they "learn the truth."

You guys are incredible, really!

[indy4 155]

Yes.

[Wojo 2,453]

No cartoon ever took itself so seriously to warrant such ridiculous over-analyzing such as you present. They each exist in their own cartoon world with their own peculiar rules, and you are sad silly men if you cannot accept this.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm with Wojo. It's a movie with talking, cooking rats.

[Wojo 2,453]

That's saying something coming from a man who over analyzes a movie with genetically created dinosaurs and schizophrenic terrain formations.

[Ollie 1,059]

It's a CGI cartoon folks.

Wojo is correct, the main film for Airplane! is Zero Hour.

[Wojo 2,453]

I saw Monsters vs. Aliens over the weekend. I rather enjoyed it. I didn't have any expectations for the movie other than to be entertained for 94 minutes. It was funny and kept my attention throughout, even though it's cliched and I knew basically how it would end. I didn't see it in 3D, but I got the idea of what sequences would be better in 3D, like the paddleball. The villain was one of the stupidest villains ever, in terms of raw intellect and motivation, but he was a send-up of bad villains from B-sci-fi and bad Bond-like movies so it was ok.

[Henry B 50]

But like I said, the fact that it's humanly impossible makes it less believable. True, science and common sense says that rats, cars, toys, etc. can't talk. But because I'm not a rat etc, I can't really test that theory 100%. I know it's ridiculous, but it can't really be tested that easily. Especially since in the films all these things are talking in secret, where humans won't know.

oh my dear god

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Hush, Henry, I find it very amusing. By the way, I have been literally forced to watch Ratatouille for at least 200 times (literally), so I should not say anything of the film.

[Quintus 5,399]

A few people in this thread have gone a few notches down the ladder, that's for sure.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

This is akin to the genius who sits next to me at work saying he didn't like IRON MAN because it wasn't realistic.

[Trent B 337]

A few people in this thread have gone a few notches down the ladder, that's for sure.

That much is certain.

[Wojo 2,453]

Come to think of it, I didn't like the movie Alien. There are no such thing as big scary aliens that hatch out of people's chests, or massive spaceships the size of city blocks. Even though the movie was called Alien, I think there should have been no alien at all in the movie, and it would have been better.

[Quintus 5,399]

Come to think of it, I didn't like the movie Alien. There are no such thing as big scary aliens that hatch out of people's chests,

Without being an alien yourself, you can't be 100% certain though.

[Wojo 2,453]

That's very true.

[Wojo 2,453]

Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II. All though the second one was not as good as the first one but it was still enjoyable to watch and I loved the bits with Slimer too. I love the part when Lewis got on the bus to go to the art museum and Slimer was the driver. "Oh it's you." *slimer motions for him to get on* "Oh okay I didn't know you had your license."

I'm looking forward to Ghostbusters: The Video Game to be released this summer. It should basically be the third movie, just as a video game.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

NO MAN'S LAND

Slick 80s thriller about a Porsche-stealing ring with Charlie Sheen. Basically the template for POINT BREAK and THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS. Lots of fun, though. Great editing.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Come to think of it, I didn't like the movie Alien. There are no such thing as big scary aliens that hatch out of people's chests, or massive spaceships the size of city blocks. Even though the movie was called Alien, I think there should have been no alien at all in the movie, and it would have been better.

"Oh no! Not again!!"

[QMM 4]

How did Indy survive being on the submarine in Raiders again?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He held his breath!

[John Crichton 4]

But like I said, the fact that it's humanly impossible makes it less believable. True, science and common sense says that rats, cars, toys, etc. can't talk. But because I'm not a rat etc, I can't really test that theory 100%. I know it's ridiculous, but it can't really be tested that easily. Especially since in the films all these things are talking in secret, where humans won't know.

oh my dear god

Your reactions are still second to none, Henry.

John- :cool:

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That's saying something coming from a man who over analyzes a movie with genetically created dinosaurs and schizophrenic terrain formations.

I didn't over analyze the movie. The people who did are those that looked at the scene 100 times to make up an explanation for it. No one's paying attention to the placement of hazard signs on the fence and the types of bushes in the background.

[Wojo 2,453]

You know, I don't think "Fantasia" was very accurate scientifically, either. I don't see how magic could possibly be used to duplicate a single broom into a thousand. That's creation of matter and energy, which is impossible. And to have a broom get up and walk around, and be used for simple slave labor? That's just brutal. It gives kids the wrong idea about the way the world really works.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

It introduced me to Petrovich Mussorgsky, so shut up.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I watched BEHIND THE PLANET OF THE APES. A very good doc, if not always the most in-depth. I need to watch the sequels again, I forgot they effed the last one for the sake of a family-friendly rating.

[Trent Hoyt 13]

The Blu-Ray collection looks very cool, too bad I bought the Ape Head already. Oh well, I might end up buying it on Blu.

[A24 4,345]

Little Miss Sunshine: The film is actually better than I thought it was. I still don't like the ending where the whole family gets on stage. It feels like it's meant to be funny but it isn't.

Quantum Of Solace: Terrible! It reminded me why I'm not a Bond fan, even though most of it resembled a Bourne film.

Burn After Reading: This one felt like an in-between movie to me. Not bad, there are good performances and several funny moments, but lets not get carried away, not everything the Coen brothers touch turns into gold.

The best of the three? Little Miss Sunshine.

Alex

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Burn After Reading: This one felt like an in-between movie to me. Not bad, there are good performances and several funny moments, but lets not get carried away, not everything the Coen brothers touch turns into gold.

It's at least silver.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

Quantum Of Solace: Terrible! It reminded me why I'm not a Bond fan, even though most of it resembled a Bourne film.

I wouldn't call it terrible, because it's not one of those movies I found actually disgusting. It just wasn't good at all.

Burn After Reading: This one felt like an in-between movie to me. Not bad, there are good performances and several funny moments, but lets not get carried away, not everything the Coen brothers touch turns into gold.

This sums it up pretty well.

[Morlock 11]

Quantum Of Solace: Terrible! It reminded me why I'm not a Bond fan, even though most of it resembled a Bourne film.

Yes, it does rip them off shamelessly. I really have no desire to see this film a second time...maybe just the opera scene.

Burn After Reading: This one felt like an in-between movie to me. Not bad, there are good performances and several funny moments, but lets not get carried away, not everything the Coen brothers touch turns into gold.

It's certainly not gold. But it's a very interesting entry in their ouvre. And the J.K. Simmons scenes are as perfect as anything.

Klute (1971). The Parallax View gave me confidence that Alan J. Pakula is actually an interesting director (something The Pelican Brief, Sophie's Choice and even Presumed Innocent, which I like quite a bit, failed to so.) So I went back a few years. It's not a great film. But Jane Fonda does give a great performance in it, and there's a whole other story going on with her than the one that Klute (Donald Sutherland in a thankless role) is involved in. There's there's weird alluring quality to it, even though it doesn't seem like it should work in retrospect. The ending in particular is horrible, both the confrontation and the coda. Michael Small's score isn't nearly as paranoid as I was expecting...but that voyeuristic piano stuff is wonderfully creepy.

Pakula got so much more interesting and inventive by the time he got to Parallax. I look forward to checking out more of his stuff.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008). I was wondering why a documentry that seemed so straight forward was getting so much buzz, so I checked this one out, even though Polanski and rape are not topics I'm particularly fond of. The reason the film got buzz, and what indeed makes it such a terrific documentry, is that it's not about exonerating Polanski. It's about the circumstances of trial, his verdict, his sentence, and his eventual flight from the US. The film doesn't hide the fact that it's pro-Polanski, and, yes, it does seem to think that the circumstances of his life and his trial out-weigh his crime. However, it doesn't hide this fact, and does not use trickery to try to convince us of this. It's remarkably level-headed, with topical, non-emotional interviews from all the relevant sources. I am immensely grateful that this film did not go for cheap theatrics. It does have a bias- but it builds a case, and shows you exactly what you'd want to see to come to a conclusion. Terrific movie, one of the few that I think will survive the general mediocrity of 2008's film year.

[Ollie 1,059]

I watched BEHIND THE PLANET OF THE APES. A very good doc, if not always the most in-depth. I need to watch the sequels again, I forgot they effed the last one for the sake of a family-friendly rating.

The last film looked like it was made in someone's backyard over the weekend.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I watched BEHIND THE PLANET OF THE APES. A very good doc, if not always the most in-depth. I need to watch the sequels again, I forgot they effed the last one for the sake of a family-friendly rating.

The last film looked like it was made in someone's backyard over the weekend.

With their uncles as mutants. And an old school bus.

[Quintus 5,399]

I see the novelty of QoS is finally wearing off with most of the initial fans here. I thought it was mediocre when it came out.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I see the novelty of QoS is finally wearing off with most of the initial fans here. I thought it was mediocre when it came out.

I've only just seen it but I thought it was brilliant. But then again, I've gone off most of the older Bonds. As films, anyway.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I liked QoS quite a bit more the 2nd time around actually. Definitely around the middle of the Bond movies list and nowhere near 'bad'. Yes, it looks like Bourne, but the actual setup of the action is pretty much Bond. It is definitely better than all the Moore films save for perhaps TSWLM and FYEO, its better than DAD, its better than the Dalton films and it is better than DAF.