What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Crazy Heart

Forgot to write about this, watched it at least a week ago. Wasn't impressed, it's your typical biopic, except this time it's not true.

Che Part One

Could this be Soderberg's magnum opus? It's very possible. Really loved it, will try and watch Part Two sometime this weekend.

[crocodile 8,017]

Iron Man 2

This is odd. There are many good things about this film. It has more character than the previous one and does some things right. This is due Justin Theroux's writing, I guess. But on the other hand, it has major pacing problems. There is very little Iron Man in there, really. The film is more character driven than plot driven, but there are so many elements that some of them end up sacrificed. Mickey Rourke is completely wasted in the film. He's fine of course, but there is very little for him to do. And most of the things were already in the trailer. Acting is very good, the score is better (somewhat). But there is something missing here.

Karol

[King Mark 3,631]

Kick Ass.

Loved it .Ranged from flat out hilarious to incredible action sequences. A rare movie I'd see twice in theatre

[Morlock 11]

Kick Ass.

Loved it .Ranged from flat out hilarious to incredible action sequences. A rare movie I'd see twice in theatre

I would recommend waiting a while. I absolutely wanted to see it again after the first time. The second time was just plain boring.

Iron Man 2

This is odd. There are many good things about this film. It has more character than the previous one and does some things right. This is due Justin Theroux's writing, I guess. But on the other hand, it has major pacing problems. There is very little Iron Man in there, really. The film is more character driven than plot driven, but there are so many elements that some of them end up sacrificed. Mickey Rourke is completely wasted in the film. He's fine of course, but there is very little for him to do. And most of the things were already in the trailer. Acting is very good, the score is better (somewhat). But there is something missing here.

For me, there was everything missing from it. Just came back from it...and there was almost nothing I liked about this film. My GOD does Marvel suck at making movies. I was not the biggest fan of the first one, but I did enjoy it. This one- I was honestly wishing I could be in the Clash of the Titans screening next door. There are too many things I didn't like about it to go on about, so I'll just pick one- Samuel L. Jackson. This is it. He's finally given up acting. He isn't playing anyone here. He's just Samuel L. Jackson, appearing and speaking.

@Marvel, Justin Theroux and Jon Favreau: Stop. Please, for the sake of the childen, stop right now.

[crocodile 8,017]

I see what you mean and I'm not really satisfied with the entire film, but there are some nice little moments, dialogues and such. It is very campy in a way. Kind of like Tropic Thunder. I liked that, for some reason.

Karol

[Trent B 337]

"Don't call me tiny"

Star Trek III The Search For Spock...been a while since I had seen the film. I had forgotten how fun the movie is.

I'm hoping that FSM will be able to get the complete score released in time for Comic Con. If they do I will buy it in a heart beat. Quite a bit of good music was left off and I hope they include the real film version opening for "Stealing The Enterprise" with out those string over dubs.

[nightscape94 965]

Che Part One

Could this be Soderberg's magnum opus? It's very possible. Really loved it, will try and watch Part Two sometime this weekend.

Not as good as part 1, but still good.

I watched Ninja Assassin. Absolutely terrible.

[MattyO 62]

Why not watch Gallipoli? It's a terrific movie.

Morlock- going to see Iron Man 2 tonight

Gallipoli is a great movie, however I had to analyse it twice during high school, so it has sort of lost its interest. I should watch it again though.

And I'm also seeing Iron Man 2 tonight.

[John Crichton 4]

Finally saw Avatar today. Not under ideal conditions- DVD off a cheap projector to a small screen, never mind no 3D, but it was enough for me. The visuals are quite good. The environment stands out much more than any physical character, there's lots of pure beauty there. Reminded me of worlds from the Myst game series, for some reason. The characters did look good, proving once again that actor-mapped CG is the way to go, but just aren't groundbreaking in the way Gollum or Davy Jones were. In fact there wasn't one single point in the movie where I ever thought, "Gee, I've never seen anything like that before". The story was serviceable, not particularly memorable, with pedestrian, functionable dialogue. The love story was nice, definitely the best part of the movie.

I won't be bothering with the CD. I didn't really hear anything much beyond what we've come to expect from Horner the last 10-15 years. I almost burst out laughing when the danger motif played over the first shot of Pandora. The final battle cues did have some nice stuff, but not enough for me to fork out for the CD or seek out the [name withheld].

All in all, one viewing was enough.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Avatar: Anyone agrees that Sigourney Weaver deserved a Razzie Award for her role? **/****

I liked her. I thought she was one of the better aspects of Avatar.

The characters did look good, proving once again that actor-mapped CG is the way to go, but just aren't groundbreaking in the way Gollum or Davy Jones were. In fact there wasn't one single point in the movie where I ever thought, "Gee, I've never seen anything like that before".

I disagree. Perhaps 3D on a somewhat large screen helped, but this was the first time that CGI characters didn't just look (as far as mimics go) like well-acted CGI characters to me, but like the actual actors portraying them.

[Morlock 11]

They looked damn good, but there was still the disconnect, where the voices did not seem to be truely coming from these characters.

[Datameister 2,043]

Finally saw Avatar today. Not under ideal conditions- DVD off a cheap projector to a small screen, never mind no 3D, but it was enough for me. The visuals are quite good. The environment stands out much more than any physical character, there's lots of pure beauty there. Reminded me of worlds from the Myst game series, for some reason. The characters did look good, proving once again that actor-mapped CG is the way to go, but just aren't groundbreaking in the way Gollum or Davy Jones were. In fact there wasn't one single point in the movie where I ever thought, "Gee, I've never seen anything like that before". The story was serviceable, not particularly memorable, with pedestrian, functionable dialogue. The love story was nice, definitely the best part of the movie.

I won't be bothering with the CD. I didn't really hear anything much beyond what we've come to expect from Horner the last 10-15 years. I almost burst out laughing when the danger motif played over the first shot of Pandora. The final battle cues did have some nice stuff, but not enough for me to fork out for the CD or seek out the [name withheld].

All in all, one viewing was enough.

Sounds like we had pretty similar experiences with the film, even though I saw it in theaters in 3D. And yes, I definitely had to suppress a laugh when the danger motif made its unabashed first appearance. I must admit, the score is more original than I initially gave it credit for. But still...Horner wasn't breaking much more new ground than the story of the film.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Che Part One

Could this be Soderberg's magnum opus? It's very possible. Really loved it, will try and watch Part Two sometime this weekend.

Not as good as part 1, but still good.

Watched Part Two tonight. Since it's essentially one film, I wouldn't say one is better than the other. Loved the POV of his execution, took me by surprise.

[King Mark 3,631]

I was looking at the summer movies...slim pickings this year. I'll probably see whatever movie of the week there is (Iron Man 2, Robin Hood ,Prince of Persia, Last Airbender, Salt...) but nothing I'm really looking forward to .I have absolutely no interest in the last Shrek and Toy Story 3. And already a new Twilight film..sigh

Sad that the days of the JW scored event movies are over

[A24 4,337]

Avatar: Anyone agrees that Sigourney Weaver deserved a Razzie Award for her role? **/****

I liked her. I thought she was one of the better aspects of Avatar.

I don't know if it's her or the bad writing (they are all such silly charicatures) but her intonations are often 'off'. She was less convincing and her acting was less confident than the performance of the digital creatures. The overall level of acting reminded me of the Star Wars Prequels. Artificial environment = artifical acting?

[King Mark 3,631]

I don't think i could sit through Avatar a third time.

[A24 4,337]

I don't think i could sit through Avatar a third time.

That was the question I asked myself while I was half through the movie: "Do I want to see this again? Not really. Damn, and I bought the friggin blu-ray!"

The image quality is very good, BTW.

[Quintus 5,399]

I shall probably never buy it - it's not got the rewatchability factor. A great 'event' pic it was, but of limited use outside of theaters.

On a sidenote in response to comments above, I'll repeat that I thought the special effects were incredible, the very best I've ever seen in fact, inside of a [3D] movie theater. Screen quality appears to be key.

I liken those who criticise the special effects (upon HOME viewing) to the sort of people who watch dodgy camcorder copies of great movies - they're not really in a position to judge.

I remember years ago some dickhead inlaw telling me he thought Fellowship of the Ring was "shite", after he'd watched a god awful camcorder pirate of it. Funnily enough I didn't take him very seriously.

[fommes 153]

I don't think i could sit through Avatar a third time.

I don't think I could sit through Avatar a second time.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I do think I could sit through Avatar a second time, but I'm not sure I feel compelled to do so.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

. ..though I did forget to mention McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

That one contains one of the best shots ever. We all know which one I'm talking about, right?

My choice would be the dreamy 3 Women.

Alex

Good chioce, Alex. I also like "A Wedding", but then, I'm a bit of a romantic.

Strange that no-one's mentioned "Popeye"...

[John Crichton 4]

I do think I could sit through Avatar a second time, but I'm not sure I feel compelled to do so.

Exactly. Given time, and a better presentation, I could sit through it again. But I can't picture motivating myself to do it.

[fommes 153]

Well, isn't that what "I don't think I can sit through it a second time" means?

[MattyO 62]

Iron Man 2 - I enjoyed it. It was a fun two hours and Robert Downey Jr is still funny as hell. There is some great dialogue in the film, although sometimes it halts the limited action scenes in the film. As for Debney's score, I couldn't tell you how it was since it's damn near impossible to hear amongst everything else. It's funny that score is barely audible, yet the obligatory rock songs are mixed loud enough to burst ear-drums. Favreau certainly knows his audience, presumably. Still, I liked the film and I will check out the score once it arrives in July (!) and it certainly beats the irredeemable Transformers 2 and likely tops the first Iron Man.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Well, isn't that what "I don't think I can sit through it a second time" means?

I wouldn't refuse a second viewing. I'm just not about to actively pursue one.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Go figure. I'm supposedly regarded here as an avatar 'hater'.

Yet i think i'm the only one who wants to watch it again (or even more times?)

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I don't want to see Avatar again, either. No desire to own the Blu-ray.

[Brónach 1,302]

Me neither. It's a wasted oportunity. As much as I love space-opera, it would work better in a hard sci-fi context.

Martin Keamy from Lost is a better "military bad guy" than Colonel Quaritch. That says something.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The evil military dude was one of the things I disliked about the movie. He was so one-dimensional, purely an over-the-top twirley moustachey bad guy. Also that Michelle Rodriguez broad wasn't in it enough.

[Quintus 5,399]

Personally, I thought he was one of the best panto villains in ages. Cameron specialises in mobilising such scenery chewing performances.

And Skywalker, who said you're a Avatar hater? You don't come across as one, to me.

[Delorean90 42]

I am interested in seeing the extended cut--not buying it, but seeing it, definitely. It seems like (surprise, suprise!) there was some stuff that would have at least helped things a little bit from a thematic/character development perspective, but were cut. The original opening scene on Earth was indeed filmed, as evidenced by one of the trailers. I'm curious to see whether all of the added footage really does help anything. But the theatrical cut? Meh.

[crocodile 8,017]

Martin Keamy from Lost is a better "military bad guy" than Colonel Quaritch. That says something.

Indeed he is.

Karol

[A24 4,337]

And the Razzie for worst military bad guy goes to ... James Cameron ... for writing it.

[QMM 4]

Stephen Lang elevated that role to something watchable and entertaining.

[A24 4,337]

Stephen Lang elevated that role to something watchable and entertaining.

It's storytelling at its most infantile and obvious. The humans (the western men) are evil and bad, the aliens (the Indians) are wonderful and good. Of course, with mosters like the 'military bad guy', the audience is inclined, no, driven to choose the side of the characters who are in touch with their lovely surroundings. And hey, notice how they are literally in touch, just in case things weren't already overly clear.

Alex

[indy4 155]

Stephen Lang elevated that role to something watchable and entertaining.

It's storytelling at its most infantile and obvious. The humans (the western men) are evil and bad, the aliens (the Indians) are wonderful and good. Of course, with mosters like the 'military bad guy', the audience is inclined, no, driven to choose the side of the characters who are in touch with their lovely surroundings. And hey, notice how they are literally in touch, just in case things weren't already overly clear.

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

It's storytelling at its most infantile and obvious. The humans (the western men) are evil and bad, the aliens (the Indians) are wonderful and good. Of course, with mosters like the 'military bad guy', the audience is inclined, no, driven to choose the side of the characters who are in touch with their lovely surroundings. And hey, notice how they are literally in touch, just in case things weren't already overly clear.

Alex

Well, quite so, but that was not what i took away from seeing it in digital 3D. Intellectually, i would have been much more stimulated if Cameron tried for something like GATTACA (or even a new METROPOLIS?) but he took the safe route and made a square BB...so?

What bothers me much more is that even now in CLASH OF THE TITANS, the hero of AVATAR sports this damn marine corps crewcut. I don't necessarily see a nervous jewish type in those roles, but no dim-witted army brat, either.

[Quintus 5,399]

I completely agree with Alex's description of the character and his summary of Cameron's exceedingly basic execution of Quaritch as a plot device. And yet I still thoroughly relish and enjoy his character. Weird. See, I don't think it's particularly clever or insightful to point out something so blatantly obvious like the fact that Quaritch is a wholly two dimentional character whose design is one purely of basic cinematic necessity - that's because I suspect every single person on this planet who saw the movie already realised that, after they watched it. They probably didn't think about it, or 'discuss' it, but they new it. But hey, people will always enjoy beating the dead horse on message boards, I suppose.

Indeed, [un]luckily for me, there are folk out there on the internet who love nothing more than pointing out the bleedin' obvious to anyone who might listen, sure in their thoughts that what they're spouting is bursting at the seams with insight like it's the latest season in fashion and they know what's gonna be hip before everyone else does. Of course, the normal guy on the street just rolls his eyes and quietly chuckles to himself over the silly pretentiousness of it all. Guys like Roger Ebert.

Gotta love the internet!

[Morlock 11]

Yes, but that is a hypocrisy we all practise- discount the nitpicking on a film we liked, yet pick every nit on a film we didn't. Besides, there are worse things than stating the obvious. The fact that it's been said doesn't mean it isn't lazy craftsmanship, and it can't hurt for lazy craftsmanship to be unanimously acknowledged as such.

12 Monkeys (1996). It's more effective than I remembered. It doesn't belong on the visionary sci-fi shelf it's often put on, but it's a good story, well-told. The driving image (spoiler)

of a man being haunted by a vision of his own death

did carry more resonance this time, after I've seen La jetée. It must be the most controlled film Gilliam's made, even more than The Fisher King, which kind dulled the futuristic scenes- they seemed a bit like Brazil leftovers, with far less of the beguiling detail that makes that film compelling. On the other hand, I don't think I've seen a Gilliam film that is carried to such an extent by the good performances of the actors. Willis, back when he could act, Stowe doing a very convincing of going from incredulity to being convinced, and Pitt doing of his signautre oddballs.

I think the film would have worked better if the conflict of whether what we're seeing is real or inside Willis' head was more present. It is toyed with, but not sufficiantly.

Good score, love the main motif.

One of the least compelling of Gilliam's films, not to mention writer David Peoples...but it's nice enough.

[Quintus 5,399]

Indeed Morlock, which is why I've openly agreed with criticisms on numerous occasions and stated that I completely understand where Cameron's critics are coming from. 'Tis the same for Horner, but we've been saying stuff about him for even longer.

Unlike for instance, the never ending Star Wars prequel debates (vain attempts by the most die-hard fans to justify them), I suspect there are many who enjoy Avatar for what it is; whilst still having the capacity to understand and even agree with the criticisms. That is why I find this particular discussion to be completely futile - there is no divide here, not really. There is just a difference in what people find acceptable, nothing more and nothing out of the norm. Of course, the side with the backing of the general critical consensus and the greater public at large will always have the obvious advantage in these [futile] debates, but since when has that made an ounce of difference on the quite cubbyholes of the internet? The answer is never. The whiners will still say their piece regardless, over and over again...

[indy4 155]

I don't understand what you mean by "futile" debates. I don't think anybody here is seriously trying to change anybody's opinion about the film. I think the debates are the end that we're aiming for, not some sort of revolution. In that sense, the debates themselves are always successful, regardless on who comes out the "winner."

[Quintus 5,399]

The reason these particular debates are futile is simply because nobody is the "winner". One way or another, we, in this instance, agree about the criticisms of this movie. It's just that unlike some, I'm able to accept the problems as merely being genre mainstays - clichés of the genre I can accept, and not let them spoil my enjoyment of the movie. There are gonna be movies made from the same blueprint for years to come yet, so one may as well quit moaning and get used to it, perhaps even just avoid these sorts of movies entirely and not be a complete dumbass and go out and buy the Blu ray to a movie which one doesn't expect to enjoy in the first place.

That's why this debate is futile and that is why I'll call out foolish idle chit-chat when I see it.

[indy4 155]

But, at least for me, the futility of the debates isn't determined by who the winner is, or even if there is a winner. I debate about films and scores because I enjoy it, that is the end I am seeking. I'm not trying to make a world where more people like the prequels or dislike Avatar.

[Quintus 5,399]

Everyone likes a good discussion, but thankfully only a few like to revel in their own 'insightful' juices. Of course, insightful to some is BS to others . The winner matters not in such settings.

[crocodile 8,017]

Yes, but that is a hypocrisy we all practise- discount the nitpicking on a film we liked, yet pick every nit on a film we didn't. Besides, there are worse things than stating the obvious. The fact that it's been said doesn't mean it isn't lazy craftsmanship, and it can't hurt for lazy craftsmanship to be unanimously acknowledged as such.

12 Monkeys (1996). It's more effective than I remembered. It doesn't belong on the visionary sci-fi shelf it's often put on, but it's a good story, well-told. The driving image (spoiler)

of a man being haunted by a vision of his own death

did carry more resonance this time, after I've seen La jetée. It must be the most controlled film Gilliam's made, even more than The Fisher King, which kind dulled the futuristic scenes- they seemed a bit like Brazil leftovers, with far less of the beguiling detail that makes that film compelling. On the other hand, I don't think I've seen a Gilliam film that is carried to such an extent by the good performances of the actors. Willis, back when he could act, Stowe doing a very convincing of going from incredulity to being convinced, and Pitt doing of his signautre oddballs.

I think the film would have worked better if the conflict of whether what we're seeing is real or inside Willis' head was more present. It is toyed with, but not sufficiantly.

Good score, love the main motif.

One of the least compelling of Gilliam's films, not to mention writer David Peoples...but it's nice enough.

I always liked this film. Not because it's great or anything.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'd say it's my favorite Gilliam film, although that's not really saying anything since I've only seen like 3 of them.

[crocodile 8,017]

I'd say it's my favorite Gilliam film, although that's not really saying anything since I've only seen like 3 of them.

It might be mine too. But then again I'm not a fan of his movies. I like the guy, but his films tend to annoy me. But he has some of the best "making of" documentaries ever (like The Hamster Factor or Lost in La Mancha). They are very honest and auto-ironic.

Karol

[A24 4,337]

Besides, there are worse things than stating the obvious. The fact that it's been said doesn't mean it isn't lazy craftsmanship, and it can't hurt for lazy craftsmanship to be unanimously acknowledged as such.

What do you mean?

I completely agree with Alex's description of the character and his summary of Cameron's exceedingly basic execution of Quaritch as a plot device. And yet I still thoroughly relish and enjoy his character. Weird.

Weird indeed.

It's just that unlike some, I'm able to accept the problems as merely being genre mainstays - clichés of the genre I can accept, and not let them spoil my enjoyment of the movie.

Yes, we all know you like the big clichés and one-dimensional predictacle stories that operate on a kiddie level, Quint. Does that mean no one is allowed to point that out? Is this not a forum? Should we all agree from now on? Would that make you happy?

There are gonna be movies made from the same blueprint for years to come yet, so one may as well quit moaning and get used to it, perhaps even just avoid these sorts of movies entirely and not be a complete dumbass and go out and buy the Blu ray to a movie which one doesn't expect to enjoy in the first place.

That's why this debate is futile and that is why I'll call out foolish idle chit-chat when I see it.

Everyone likes a good discussion, but thankfully only a few like to revel in their own 'insightful' juices. Of course, insightful to some is BS to others . The winner matters not in such settings

Hehe, it's clear that you're very hurt because I, not someone else, but I don't like Avatar. All your bitter posts are directed to me. I've never seen someone act so defensive, and not by debating or defending the film, but by trying to trivialise the people (me) who critique what you like. You're obvious, Quint. It's your little soul ... it's your little taste that you feel is under attack. Don't take it all so personal.

[Morlock 11]

Besides, there are worse things than stating the obvious. The fact that it's been said doesn't mean it isn't lazy craftsmanship, and it can't hurt for lazy craftsmanship to be unanimously acknowledged as such.

What do you mean?

Not pointing these things out is a tacite agreement that 'good enough' is okay. We should constantly be striving for great craftsmanship, great artistry. That is why a criticism of a valid example of less than greatness should be repeated over and over again. The fact that we may accept it in a particular instance should not deter us from repeating it, even if it is flogging a dead horse. Much of Avatar is dumb, dumb, dumb. We deserve better. It's the settling for 'good-enough' that leads to junk like Iron-Man 2. I'm sure it will be very popular as a fun entertainment, and I find that rather sa as its craftsmanship is sub-par almost across the board.

Same in film music- yes, we've all heard a million times about Horner's Hornerisms. But he still does it, and it is still and ear-sore. The fact that he does so much so well may make for an acceptible compromise, but it doesn't negate the douche-baggery he shows in every single score.

I'd say it's my favorite Gilliam film, although that's not really saying anything since I've only seen like 3 of them.

It might be mine too. But then again I'm not a fan of his movies. I like the guy, but his films tend to annoy me. But he has some of the best "making of" documentaries ever (like The Hamster Factor or Lost in La Mancha). They are very honest and auto-ironic.

I neglected to mention that- the documentary is indeed superb. None of the glorified press kits here- it is down and dirty and actually feels like its capturing a real production with real problems. In fact, Lost in La Mancha is the film that got me to change my mind about Gilliam, and gave me a far more generous attitude towards him.

[A24 4,337]

Not pointing these things out is a tacite agreement that 'good enough' is okay. We should constantly be striving for great craftsmanship, great artistry. That is why a criticism of a valid example of less than greatness should be repeated over and over again. The fact that we may accept it in a particular instance should not deter us from repeating it, even if it is flogging a dead horse. Much of Avatar is dumb, dumb, dumb. We deserve better. It's the settling for 'good-enough' that leads to junk like Iron-Man 2. I'm sure it will be very popular as a fun entertainment, and I find that rather sa as its craftsmanship is sub-par almost across the board.

Well, yes, I fully agree! I did not expect major greatness but I expected more from Cameron (and lots of people do rave about this movie). The thing with Avatar is that I truly feel the passion Cameron has for technological development, but I felt, as I was watching it, that the story and the substance were rushed and amazingly uninspired, as if Cameron just needed something fast so that he could try out his new super-toys. I could forgive the big clichés, one-dimensional characters and predictable story if Cameron managed to show me something else, like 'inspired vision', or 'sublime storytelling', but for me (!) those things was totally absent too. Would I have liked this movie if I had been much younger and not seen many movies before it? Probably, but the reason why I didn't like is that we are the sum of our experience.

Alex