What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's still very impressive to me, and ignore the other comment because it was stupid.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

No. All the music heard in Fight Club is original music by The Dust Brothers, until the Pixies song plays at the very end

Maybe I'm thinking of Seven then. I know Fincher used a NIN song at one point.

According to Wikipedia, Reznor was at one point attached to Fincher's own plan of turning Fight Club into a musical. Don't know what happened to that.

[Morlock 11]

Saw this last night. It had some good scenes, and it did more or less keep me entertained...but that end scene was howlingly bad.

Douglas walks away from the camera, bare cheeks on view?

Far, far better than what was there.

[crocodile 7,988]

It's still very impressive to me, and ignore the other comment because it was stupid.

It's a fine film, but some of its initially shocking revelations and twists grow a bit thin after a while. You have to admit it's a bit of a one-trick-pony. That's what I meant. I wasn't talking about anyobody's taste.

Karol

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's still very impressive to me, and ignore the other comment because it was stupid.

It's a fine film, but some of its initially shocking revelations and twists grow a bit thin after a while. You have to admit it's a bit of a one-trick-pony. That's what I meant. I wasn't talking about anyobody's taste.

Karol

Oh yeah, I certainly agree. After seeing it a few times it's hard to match the intensity of that first time. Thankfully the craft of the film brings it up. I never get tired of watching it just because of the sound.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The astonishing...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

This is still the best of the trilogy for me. It's the most emotionally involving, the most intriguing, and just has a perfect mix. And it's the only place (as far as I know) where you get to see a tree dropkick someone.

[Quintus 5,399]

Amazing movie, but for me it's the weakest out of the three. Still a five star film though.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

Out of the three, TTT is the one that really suffers from too much cuts in the theatrical version. I think FOTR gets lots of great material in the EE, much of which is quite important. ROTK gains some great and some bad stuff. But most of what was removed from TTT was essential. Faramir in particular doesn't make sense and seems like a bastardisation of his book character, but although they obviously changed some critical bits, the EE convinces me that they ultimately make him more true to his backstory.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Out of the three, TTT is the one that really suffers from too much cuts in the theatrical version. I think FOTR gets lots of great material in the EE, much of which is quite important. ROTK gains some great and some bad stuff. But most of what was removed from TTT was essential. Faramir in particular doesn't make sense and seems like a bastardisation of his book character, but although they obviously changed some critical bits, the EE convinces me that they ultimately make him more true to his backstory.

Agreed. TTT was the movie that which was the most improved through its EE. I mean, FOTR EE didn't change the film drastically, and ROTK was already an awesome movie in its theatrical version. But TTT additionnal scenes really transformed the film... But we still need the Glittering Caves battle sequence !

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Willow. Not a bad flick. Val Kilmer is good. So is Warwick Davis. It's nothing too special, but it's an entertaining way to spend a couple hours. Better than many fantasy movies made in the last couple decades I can think of, easily.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Let Me In

Wow, I loved every minute of this film. It has almost a retro tone to it. Reminded me a lot of No Country for Old Men. It was excellent, truly. This is one of a few films I feel like I could watch again and only gain appreciation for it. The score worked excellently. The audio samples seemed rather bland, but hearing them in the film, I understand their value. Giacchino's music is always so important to be heard in the context. I felt the same way about Up and Lost.

And then I saw another movie...

The Social Network

Eh, I wasn't interested to begin with. I like Fincher, but he doesn't give me an erection like he does some moviegoers. I liked the movie, but I can't help but feel the movie was just fundamentally flawed. There is such a clear sense of all the effort put in by everyone involved in the film, and yet, it doesn't really amount to much, imo. Let Me In doesn't feel like nearly as much thought or time went in to it, but it's just better from its basis. It's hard to explain. Fincher fans will certainly be satisfied.

[King Mark 3,626]

I can't wait to see Let Me In. Looks like it has a Spielbergian vibe to it, like a very dark version of E.T. . The reviews are stellar, except for the fanboys of the Swedish version that think this remake is for retarded Americans who can't read subtitles and bash the remake just for existing. 95% of movies now are remakes of something that was made before at some point.

Social Network: I'll probably see it if I can get in for free as a second movie , but every clip I've seen of it is turning me off. The main character seems very grating (though I liked that actor in Zombieland) and I can't stand Justin Timberlake in anything

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Yeah, Let Me In actually does remind me of E.T. a lot, in a good way.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

I can't wait to see Let Me In. Looks like it has a Spielbergian vibe to it, like a very dark version of E.T. . The reviews are stellar, except for the fanboys of the Swedish version that think this remake is for retarded Americans who can't read subtitles and bash the remake just for existing. 95% of movies now are remakes of something that was made before at some point.

I'm generally critical of the whole "remakes suck" mentality. Some of the great classics of Hollywood history are remakes - Ben-Hur, The Wizard of Oz, The Adventures of Robin Hood... (some more, some less). I am, however, highly skeptical when it comes to Hollywood remakes of new "foreign" movies which do seem to be made just for those retarded Americans who can't read subtitles you mentioned.

[King Mark 3,626]

I think Let Me In was actually made for the intellectual movie crowd, the average American mall dweller who saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 5 times won't see this movie. If this new version can stand on it's own (and it looks like it was made with a lot of care and has great acting performances), then it shouldn't be put down on the basis that it's a remake alone.

Nobody I heard of saw the Swedish version ...but suddenly 100% of the reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes are intimately familiar with it like it was some untouchable classic?(yeah,right...they probably rented it after seeing this one just to make pretentious comparisons in their reviews ).

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I think you can usually tell based on the marketing what kind of remake it is. If it's marketed as an overly grotesque or pointlessly scary, manipulative horror film(such as many, if not all of the Japanese remakes), it's gonna be crap. However, Let Me In wasn't really marketed that way. In fact, I didn't see much of any marketing for it.

[King Mark 3,626]

It's going to tank at the box office anyways so I better hurry to see it in the cinema

[Jacob 0]

"The only good subtitles are for Nazis, Colombian drug lords, and space aliens."

[Morlock 11]

Nobody I heard of saw the Swedish version ...but suddenly 100% of the reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes are intimately familiar with it like it was some untouchable classic?(yeah,right...they probably rented it after seeing this one just to make pretentious comparisons in their reviews ).

I'm sorry, but that is just not the case. The original (only three years old) garnered a huge amount of positive word of mouth, I'm pretty sure on this forum, too. I know the feeling, where some film you never heard of is all of a sudden everybody's longtime favorite...but that's not the case here. The original got ecstatic buzz when it first came out. I remember because I was there, less impressed than everyone else was.

Saw The Town. WTF happened? Gone Baby Gone was really good! This one is kinda embarrassing.

Also saw Animal Kingdom. Australian crime-drama. Fantastic, least flawed film I've seen this year (It may not be especially great, but I didn't notice a single thing it did badly). It is well written, shot, acted and paced.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's going to tank at the box office anyways so I better hurry to see it in the cinema

I'm waiting for it to get the hell outta theater 3 so I can watch it on a big screen. I would have watched The Social Network tonight but I had a couple print moves.

[A24 4,326]

I'm generally critical of the whole "remakes suck" mentality. Some of the great classics of Hollywood history are remakes - Ben-Hur, The Wizard of Oz, The Adventures of Robin Hood...

Those 'remakes' took the material from the dark ages into the renaissance of filmmaking. They introduced new and vital elements like color, sound and had very high artistic ambitions. It's really a far cry from the usual junk that created the whole "remakes suck" mentality (e.g.: Planet Of The Apes - The Day The Earth Stood Still - Psycho - King Kong - Poseidon - The Stepford Wives - The Pink Panther, ..., ..., ..., ...).

[publicist 4,643]

Saw The Town. WTF happened? Gone Baby Gone was really good! This one is kinda embarrassing.

You mean THE TOWN everyone else loved?

[A24 4,326]

Yeah, the Tomatometer exploded with The Town! Exploded!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Town was good, but Gone Baby Gone was better.

[A24 4,326]

Thanks for the tip.

[Quintus 5,399]

I thought Gone Baby Gone was was alright. Quite fancy The Town, but will wait for the dvd.

This thread is the first I've heard about the "stellar" reception Let Me In is apparently getting; I haven't followed the film's progress at all - I thought the original was very good, but in no way is it some kind of beloved modern classic, it's not that good.

Anyway, suddenly I'm quite interested in the remake. I'm assuming it's nothing like the stark original; otherwise these E.T. comparisons are complete nonsense.

[crocodile 7,988]

I don't want to see the remake for one sole reason: it just seems to be exactly the same movie. I liked the original and that's it. I don't mind remakes as such, but what I want to see is a completely different take on the material. Like Insomnia, for example. It is the same film, but not really.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't mind English language remakes at all. I really enjoyed The Ring and stuff like that. The Grudge was throwaway fun at the cinema.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Tarantino version of Battle Royale, or a Spike Jonze version of Oldboy.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I think Let Me In was actually made for the intellectual movie crowd, the average American mall dweller who saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 5 times won't see this movie. If this new version can stand on it's own (and it looks like it was made with a lot of care and has great acting performances), then it shouldn't be put down on the basis that it's a remake alone.

Nobody I heard of saw the Swedish version ...but suddenly 100% of the reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes are intimately familiar with it like it was some untouchable classic?(yeah,right...they probably rented it after seeing this one just to make pretentious comparisons in their reviews ).

You obviously don't really pay that much attention because as Morlock said people here (myself included) have mentioned it many times before. It made a big splash amongst film fans and critics when it came out.

[King Mark 3,626]

I don't want to see the remake for one sole reason: it just seems to be exactly the same movie.

Several reasons I want to see it:

1)86% Rotten Tomatoes and 80% Metacritic

2)From the trailers the general look of the film seems great (cinematography,lighting,colors...)

3)Chloe Moretz from Kick-Ass

4)The Giacchino score that sounds really good from the samples

5)It's set in the 1980's

Saw The Town. WTF happened? Gone Baby Gone was really good! This one is kinda embarrassing.

It's a perfectly fine film. Not sure what's so embarrassing about it

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I don't want to see the remake for one sole reason: it just seems to be exactly the same movie.

Several reasons to see it:

1)86% Rotten Tomatoes and 80% Metacritic

2)From the trailers the general look of the film seems great (cinematography,lighting,colors...)

3)Chloe Moretz from Kick-Ass

4)The Giacchino score that sounds really good from the samples

5)It's set in the 1980's

1) Any sane person does not back up their claims with the Tomatometer.

2) Quality of cinematography does not relate in any way to a movie being good.

3) If Chloe Moretz did not call people cunts in Kick-Ass, but instead put in a very strong performance in a romcom or a family drama, no one would even know her name or care.

4) I know we're all score freaks, but does anyone here really go to see a movie because it may have a good score?

5) Go see the Back To The Future rerelease, that's also set in the 80s and I can guarantee it's a better movie.

[King Mark 3,626]

What is this "aggressive" reply about? Did I get you pissed off in some way?

I was just pointing out reasons why I want to see it.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I didn't intend it to be aggressive in any way, so I'm sorry if that's how it sounds, I just thought your reasons didn't work and had no relation to Karol's reason, which to me is a much better reason as to why this movie doesn't need to even exist.

[King Mark 3,626]

1) Any sane person does not back up their claims with the Tomatometer.

2) Quality of cinematography does not relate in any way to a movie being good.

3) If Chloe Moretz did not call people cunts in Kick-Ass, but instead put in a very strong performance in a romcom or a family drama, no one would even know her name or care.

4) I know we're all score freaks, but does anyone here really go to see a movie because it may have a good score?

5) Go see the Back To The Future rerelease, that's also set in the 80s and I can guarantee it's a better movie.

1) In some cases I see a film based on the RT score ... The Town being a recent example.

2) Of course it's in some way related

3) It's getting a bit pointless to defend her performance in Kick-Ass to some people. The vast majority of critics loved her in that film so I'll just stand behind them.

4) Yes,in some cases.

5) That doesn't make any sense

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Actually most of Back To The Future is set in the 1950's. So Chuck Bridgen is clearly talking out of his ass (again).

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I'm the first to admit that I generally talk out of my ass, but BTTF starts and ends in the 80s so it clearly qualifies, even if the bulk in the film takes place in another time period. Boy, that's a semantics argument waiting to happen.

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

I'm generally critical of the whole "remakes suck" mentality. Some of the great classics of Hollywood history are remakes - Ben-Hur, The Wizard of Oz, The Adventures of Robin Hood...

Those 'remakes' took the material from the dark ages into the renaissance of filmmaking. They introduced new and vital elements like color, sound and had very high artistic ambitions.

Like the colour Psycho?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes Marian, that is exactly the same thing!

[Quintus 5,399]

I must admit, Charlie does seem to have an extreme aversion to this remake. A bit pointless to have such strong feelings about it, I would've thought.

[Morlock 11]

I initially wasn't interested, due to the fact that it's from the director of Cloverfield. But it would be obtuse of me not to check it out after all the nice stuff I've heard about it.

Saw The Town. WTF happened? Gone Baby Gone was really good! This one is kinda embarrassing.

It's a perfectly fine film. Not sure what's so embarrassing about it

It's only kinda embarrassing...but this one can't hold up to even the most elementary of probing. No good characters, nothing interesting happens, things that are supposed to be interesting feel even less original here than they usually do. I remember kind of enjoying it in the theater, but once that ending started, the suckiness of it dawned on me very fast. The action scenes are not bad, but otherwise, everything about this film is far worse than it was in his first film.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I must admit, Charlie does seem to have an extreme aversion to this remake. A bit pointless to have such strong feelings about it, I would've thought.

I do admit I feel strongly about it, mainly because of my fondness for the original film itself. I just don't like it when a foreign language film is remade for a Western audience, especially since due to the budget of the film and its marketing it usually gets a better chance at being seen than the original film itself. I know people say that this will usually in turn cause the audience to seek out the original film, but I've never been convinced of that.

So yeah, whether rightly or wrongly, I don't feel this is a good thing and think Reeves' talent, as well as the money spent, probably could have been better spent on something else. But I'm probably in the minority on this.

[Quintus 5,399]

Probably.

I think any good remake can only be a good thing. Truth is, more people will see and enjoy this story now than ever would've done before.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

"We had part of a slinky, but I straightened it"

- Ghostbusters II

[Taikomochi 1,136]

1) Any sane person does not back up their claims with the Tomatometer.

I do

2) Quality of cinematography does not relate in any way to a movie being good.

It helps

3) If Chloe Moretz did not call people cunts in Kick-Ass, but instead put in a very strong performance in a romcom or a family drama, no one would even know her name or care.

But she does here.

4) I know we're all score freaks, but does anyone here really go to see a movie because it may have a good score?

I do

It's only kinda embarrassing...but this one can't hold up to even the most elementary of probing. No good characters, nothing interesting happens, things that are supposed to be interesting feel even less original here than they usually do. I remember kind of enjoying it in the theater, but once that ending started, the suckiness of it dawned on me very fast. The action scenes are not bad, but otherwise, everything about this film is far worse than it was in his first film.

That's exactly how I felt. The characters were pretty lame. So remarkably flat. The archetypes were at times thicker than those of Avatar.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Cliffhanger. It's okay, y'know. Decent fare for a Sunday afternoon, but I'm not sure I could sit through it again. The music is decent enough, a little overblown, but the use of score is awful, and borders on parody at times.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Cliffhanger is a great action flick. Just proves that John Lithgow needs to do more films.

As for all the talk about Let Me In. I see movies for directors, actors, etc. So why would I not see a film for a particular composer? Cinematography is also a big factor.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Cinematography is important to me. Not only does good cinematography usually signify a good film(for me, at least), but I also find it to be an important tool for how accessible a movie is. For example, the reason I felt I was able to get into a movie like Avatar or The Dark Knight was because the scenes were shot in a very good way. The scene where Neytiri holds Jake at the end is just from the perfect angle and it works to the extreme benifit of the scene,imo.

[Morlock 11]

I don't know, a cinematographer or composer being on a film could reasonably attest to their elements, but simply are less indicative of a good film than director or writer. I love Roger Deakins, but I'm not going to see Levity or Anywhere But Here solely because of him, and his fine work doesn't make me regret seeing The Siege or The Reader any less. I did see The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford because of the cinematography, but that's because the trailer made it look like something special even for a master like Deakins. And composers' track record seems to me to be even more variable. I'll watch a film for a score I like or am intrigued by, but not solely based on the name in the credits.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well yes, it's all collective. I'm not going to see Sky High for Giacchino. Like you said, I care more about who's directing and writing. But it's a good thing when I see a trailer and can get a good glimpse at what the cinematography is like. The Social Network is a good example. I was skeptical when I first heard about it, saw the trailer, and instantly knew Fincher was at the top of his game. The gloomy atmosphere, the great tracking shots, all in a few short clips.