What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[MSM 126]

Inglorious Bastards. Not a bad movie (quite good acting especially from some of the Bastards; Brad Pitt was awful), but the movie didn't make any sense to me.

How?

I didn't really get why they came up with the idea of an alternate WW history other than to just have an excuse to show slaughtering people without having to feel guilty about it (because they are Nazis).

It wasn't informative, it wasn't exactly funny, however it was shocking at times (but not so much compared to other Tarantino movies). What message did Tarantino want to convey with this fake historic war comedy?

It wasn't an excuse, it was just Tarantino. I don't understand what there is to be informed about. Were you expecting to learn something new about WWII?

No but in a way I think it is odd to make a fake historical movie. Did you like the movie? What kind of movie do you regard it to be? It's not a comedy, it's not action or drama. It's just a weid mix but maybe that's just what is Tarantino.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No but in a way I think it is odd to make a fake historical movie. Did you like the movie? What kind of movie do you regard it to be? It's not a comedy, it's not action or drama. It's just a weid mix but maybe that's just what is Tarantino.

I loved the movie. Only one I've seen twice this year. I don't feel it's necessary to pin a genre onto the film. I mean it's Tarantino, so naturally it's going to be violent and comedic. I think if you wanted to put Tarantino into a specific genre, it would be crime drama. Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs would fit in there. But Inglourious Basterds is simply an original Tarantino story, that homages an endless amount of classic cinema.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

No but in a way I think it is odd to make a fake historical movie.

Most movies set in the era are.

Did you like the movie? What kind of movie do you regard it to be? It's not a comedy, it's not action or drama. It's just a weid mix but maybe that's just what is Tarantino.

First third is a Leone-style drama, rest is a 60s-type thriller. All with a very dark sense of humour and obviously a strong Tarantino touch.

[Red 75]

No Country For Old Men: I liked it a lot. Might be even my favourite film from Coen brothers. Which isn't hard, since I'm not really a fan of theirs. But I have yet to see Fargo. Great pacing and use of silence (no music).

Karol

It isn't by a long shot (not at all actually), but Fargo is their best movie.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No Country For Old Men > Fargo

[A24 4,331]

No Country For Old Men: I liked it a lot. Might be even my favourite film from Coen brothers. Which isn't hard, since I'm not really a fan of theirs. But I have yet to see Fargo. Great pacing and use of silence (no music).

Karol

It isn't by a long shot (not at all actually), but Fargo is their best movie.

I'm a fan of the Coen Brothers but I got tired of Fargo pretty fast. I think, upon revisiting, it nags like hell. The more interesting ones, in my point of view, are Barton Fink and Miller's Crossing. I suppose Fargo and The Big Lebowski are good movies but I find them a little bit too ordinary in content and spirit. They don't excite me. Of course, Intolerable Cruelty steals the cake for being the most ordinary of the bunch. It's hard to believe that the Coen brothers ever made such a common movie.

Alex

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

While watching No Country for Old Men, I kept thinking to myself "okay, everyone else loves this movie, so I have to find a reason to love it too". Then I got bored while watching it, but kept reminding myself to love it, or else!

[Nick Parker 3,040]

That sounds practically identical to my experience watching American Beauty. Kevin Spacey was good, though, I suppose.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

It's interesting the way people's perception differs like that. I can never get through TTT EE in one sitting myself, but the theatrical version is like a breeze.

I'm convinced that TTT suffered the most from the theatrical running time. FOTR had integral scenes, but still flowed well in the theatrical cut and made sense. ROTK misses some key scenes, but works well without them, and also gets a few ridiculous moments in the longer cut. But TTT flows only moderately well in the theatrical version, and completely messes up Faramir's character.

I found that TTT EE just ground to a halt in the build up to Helm's Deep. I wasn't too bothered about Faramir coming off as a douche as I was prepared to accept some deviation from the source.

Quantum of Solace.

This movie's awesome! I went in expecting all these bad things and they never showed up. The action scenes are like crack. They're hard to follow, but that's what makes them work. Absolute pandemonium. The movie has a lot of heart: Daniel Craig's wounded James Bond, his relationship with M, with Mathis, with Camille; it was all very well developed. Yeah, Olga Kurylenko doesn't get much screen time, but she doesn't need it. The score is very good, as is the title song. There seems to be a lot of unreleased music, including the most obvious uses of the Bond theme. I guess it's strange that this movie is an immediate sequel to Casino Royale but is directed in a totally different style. Problems? Just a little incoherent. I wasn't clear on Greene's plans. Then again, I missed a few lines of dialogue due to friends talking about German pronouns.

Unfortunately it does fail to feel like a Bond movie for most part.

[Wojo 2,453]

I found that TTT EE just ground to a halt in the build up to Helm's Deep. I wasn't too bothered about Faramir coming off as a douche as I was prepared to accept some deviation from the source.

I thought the theatrical version ground to a halt in the same place anyways. With the wolf chase sequence, the "death" of Aragorn, the dream sequence (i.e. the only way to get Liv Tyler so high in TTT's billing), and the need for Elrond & Galadriel's "here's what's happened so far" intermission commentary. I realize it was the only mechanism to allow Aragorn to view the impending Orc Army from the White Tower, but it really put its toll on the flow.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

yes, the theatrical did grind to a screeching halt too, but the EE extended it!

[John Crichton 4]

I wasn't too bothered about Faramir coming off as a douche as I was prepared to accept some deviation from the source.

There's deviation and there's character destruction. Faramir is the latter.

[Quintus 5,399]

The theatricals are the best, but there are one or two extended bits which I'd feel lost without. Saruman's demise and the Mouth of Sauron springing instantly to mind.

The Mouth of Sauron bit was something I really missed in the theatrical release, but the ending of the scene is one of the few really bad moments in all three movies.

I'd bin the majority of the EE content (like Bilbo's premature ring-in-the-pockets search early in FotR)

Premature?

Yeah, it's too much drama too soon. The audience doesn't need to see a panicky reaction like that from a key character at such an early stage, especially since one might barely understand Bilbo's motivations at that point. Seeing Isildur vanish during the EE prologue is another thing that bugs me - it's a massive spoiler for Bilbo's birthday party vanishing act later on - the surprise effect on an unknowing audience at that point is surely lessened to a huge extent, which is a bad editing decision and bad for the movie, imo. My girlfriend (at the time) was as surprised as the Hobbits themselves when Baggins suddenly disappeared.

Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron on the other hand has never bothered me, in fact I like it. Yes it is out of character, but in the language of film its a cool way to wrap up a grim scene, something which the majority of the audience no doubt appreciated.

[Wojo 2,453]

Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron is Peter Jackson's way of apologizing for Lucas making Greedo fire first.

[Ollie 1,059]

[Quintus 5,399]

He is possibly more right than he knows!

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

There's deviation and there's character destruction. Faramir is the latter.

In the theatrical edition it's destruction. In the EE, it's well-done deviation. He may not be as "pure" as in the book, but I think his actions make perfect sense in the long cut, making him one of my favourite characters.

Yeah, it's too much drama too soon. The audience doesn't need to see a panicky reaction like that from a key character at such an early stage, especially since one might barely understand Bilbo's motivations at that point. Seeing Isildur vanish during the EE prologue is another thing that bugs me - it's a massive spoiler for Bilbo's birthday party vanishing act later on - the surprise effect on an unknowing audience at that point is surely lessened to a huge extent, which is a bad editing decision and bad for the movie, imo. My girlfriend (at the time) was as surprised as the Hobbits themselves when Baggins suddenly disappeared.

You have a point regarding the Isildur bit, but I'm still happy they kept it. Ideally, they wouldn't have switched Shadow of the Past for a prologue, but in the end it never bothered me. Bilbo's panic is a nice touch that perhaps wasn't necessary, and perhaps would make more sense in another place, but as someone who knows the story, I was again just happy to have it.

Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron on the other hand has never bothered me, in fact I like it. Yes it is out of character, but in the language of film its a cool way to wrap up a grim scene, something which the majority of the audience no doubt appreciated.

It's not just out of character, it's completely against the spirit of the book, and of Tolkien, and single-handedly turns Aragorn from a worthy king into a cold-blooded murderer who shouldn't even get close to a throne.

(Greedo shooting first is harmless in comparison)

[Quintus 5,399]

Aragorn the noble murderer... yeah, I like that

It isn't really murder if the guy he killed was a baddie

[Wojo 2,453]

Murderer? Why, because a diplomat's supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunity? You do have a point, though a diplomat's probably not supposed to taunt and tease the other side, either, without suffering consequences.

The Mouth of Sauron is a man, just like Aragorn, but corrupted by evil into the abomination he sees before him. It's not like he had only been killing orcs up to this point.

In the heat of the moment, Aragorn figured that if the Mouth of Sauron is taunting him with Frodo's mithril, then Frodo is dead and the Ring is moments away from Sauron's recovery. His little army will not stand a chance, and he will never be king. He figures, "What the hell! Avenge Frodo!"

Afterwards, there wasn't a man, dwarf, elf, wizard, or hobbit who would bring him to trial for what he did, and he becomes king without a hitch.

[Quintus 5,399]

Accept he did snag his boxer shorts on the Coronation platform landing rail. It's in the appendices.

[Wojo 2,453]

he becomes king without a hitch.

Ok, he married Arwen. I suppose that counts as a hitch.

[Quintus 5,399]

Arwen put her elven arse out on demand. That's no hitch from where I'm standing; Aragorn died a very happy king of men.

Perhaps we have differing outlooks on shit like that.

[Wojo 2,453]

I was using the phrase "to get hitched" simply to invoke marriage. I didn't imply any of the negative connotations the term has carried or still does.

[Quintus 5,399]

Indeed. As said my second sentence previously.

[Wojo 2,453]

I just like repeating things in different ways. It's the fine art of bullshitting, learned from years of maxing out page limits for term papers and reports.

[Quintus 5,399]

Not to worry, I got you down already (as you no doubt have me).

[Wojo 2,453]

My friend, I'm sure I'll learn more from you about British slang and other vernacular than I ever could from my well-worn copy of British Slang and Other Vernacular: For Dummies!

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

It isn't really murder if the guy he killed was a baddie

Yeah, that's what it tries to seem to convey. Which is exactly my issue.

Murderer? Why, because a diplomat's supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunity? You do have a point, though a diplomat's probably not supposed to taunt and tease the other side, either, without suffering consequences.

Not supposed to, but they do. Aragorn wouldn't have a justified reason to kill someone just for mocking him under any circumstances, least of all a diplomat (arse though he may be).

The Mouth of Sauron is a man, just like Aragorn, but corrupted by evil into the abomination he sees before him. It's not like he had only been killing orcs up to this point.

For all we know, he killed noone.

In the heat of the moment, Aragorn figured that if the Mouth of Sauron is taunting him with Frodo's mithril, then Frodo is dead and the Ring is moments away from Sauron's recovery. His little army will not stand a chance, and he will never be king. He figures, "What the hell! Avenge Frodo!"

Which is exactly the kind of action that separates the "bad guys" from the "good guys" in Tolkien's view (and, dare I say, mine too). And even if killing someone would in any odd way be a kind of justice or justified revenge, killing a messenger would still hardly qualify.

Afterwards, there wasn't a man, dwarf, elf, wizard, or hobbit who would bring him to trial for what he did, and he becomes king without a hitch.

In the movie, yes.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

oh, and the Mouth of Sauron's body and his horse disappear moments later

[King Mark 3,631]

Last few movies I saw i theater:

Public Enemies:meh

GIJOE:meh

District 9: great

Hurt Locker:Very good

Gamer: *I* liked it

Inglorious Bastards:Tarantino=overrated

9:meh

Whiteout:terrible

Jennifer's Body:terrible

[Wojo 2,453]

The Mouth of Sauron is a man, just like Aragorn, but corrupted by evil into the abomination he sees before him. It's not like he had only been killing orcs up to this point.

For all we know, he killed noone.

I meant Aragorn, not the Mouth of Sauron. Aragorn had not been killing only orcs, he had also been killing evil men in league with Sauron.

I'm sorry you don't like Aragorn's cold blood kill, but it's in there. I don't have an issue with it at all.

oh, and the Mouth of Sauron's body and his horse disappear moments later

He joined with the Force. Or PJ was lazy and didn't want to change the existing footage of the heroes getting surrounded. I can live with it.

[Jacob 0]

He could ask Lucas to 'fix' it for him...

[Ollie 1,059]

He could make him shoot first so Aragorn would have a reason.

[Quintus 5,399]

I've often wondered what aragorn would look like stepping on jabba's tail.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

in any case, the scene doesnt serve any real purpose. The reveal of the Mithril armor doesn't deflate the audience's spirit the way it does in the book because of the reworked narrative structure, Aragorn acts rather out of character as has been mentioned and a glaring continuity error is introduced.

[Wojo 2,453]

I think an orc should've walked up, made a one-handed wolf whistle, and summoned a winged Ringwraith to carry the Mouth and his horse back to Barad-Dur. Yes, that would have cleaned up the continuity error nicely, since spontaneous combustion would be far too silly.

[QMM 4]

Up

Second time I've seen it and it's grown on me even more. I was in a packed house of adults, at least half being seniors, and I've been in few movies more crowd-pleasing. I wasn't a big fan of the score when I first listened to it, but now I can say that I can't watch the movie without it. Ed Asner was also in attendance and he is a wonderful man.

[King Mark 3,631]

Pandorum --boring except the last 15 minutes

The Surrogates--Very mediocre sci fi film..ok I guess

both of these films had interesting concepts and could have been better

snuck into a chick flick for free:

Love Happens...

[Red 75]

Up

Second time I've seen it and it's grown on me even more. I was in a packed house of adults, at least half being seniors, and I've been in few movies more crowd-pleasing. I wasn't a big fan of the score when I first listened to it, but now I can say that I can't watch the movie without it. Ed Asner was also in attendance and he is a wonderful man.

It may be my favorite Pixar film to date. I love the score as well.

[Morlock 11]

Up

Second time I've seen it and it's grown on me even more. I was in a packed house of adults, at least half being seniors, and I've been in few movies more crowd-pleasing. I wasn't a big fan of the score when I first listened to it, but now I can say that I can't watch the movie without it. Ed Asner was also in attendance and he is a wonderful man.

I found it to be the most infuriating movie of the summer, and of Pixar in general. Half an hour of a masterpiece, followed by another hour that totally goes back on what was so remarkable early on. It's good all the way through. But this is the movie that crystalized just how lazy and even cynical Pixar had become. Still miles ahead of everyone else, but they are settling for less.

Seen a bunch of movies, as usual. A whole bunch of New Wave films- Godard, Truffaut, Rivette, Resnais, Chabrol. I'm no expert on Lynch, but I'm sure he's a big fan of Rivette- Celine and Julie go Boating (1975) is the most Lynchian film I've seen that was not made by him.

Also saw Public Enemies again. Somehow, it was even more elusive the second time around. It seems so simple, yet I feel like there's a whole other thing going there that I can't put my finger on. Either way, it's one of my top films of the year so far. I really liked the score in the movie this time around, too.

Oh, and after seeing it twice, mulling it over, reading about it, and, finally, writing about it (3,000+ words), Inglorious Basterds is my favorite Tarantino movie, and I suspect that that's where it's going to stay.

Next week should be interesting- passes to two different film festivals, one heavy one (hope to catch the new Romanian depression-fests, and maybe Anti-Christ, if I can work up the courage), one fun one (A sci-fi convention, where I hope to see at the very least Moon and District 9, and Dark City, Metropolis and other great sci-fi movies on the big screen).

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Up

Second time I've seen it and it's grown on me even more. I was in a packed house of adults, at least half being seniors, and I've been in few movies more crowd-pleasing. I wasn't a big fan of the score when I first listened to it, but now I can say that I can't watch the movie without it. Ed Asner was also in attendance and he is a wonderful man.

I found it to be the most infuriating movie of the summer, and of Pixar in general. Half an hour of a masterpiece, followed by another hour that totally goes back on what was so remarkable early on. It's good all the way through. But this is the movie that crystalized just how lazy and even cynical Pixar had become. Still miles ahead of everyone else, but they are settling for less.

I liked it, but I just couldn't get over the talking dogs. There's much brilliance about it, the ending is exciting enough, and Plummer's villain is wonderful, but the dogs I just can't take seriously. I liked it less than cars (and I really liked that a lot - I've only seen it once so far, though). Probably liked it better than Bug's Life (I know we have different opinions about this one), but at the same time I have stronger complaints about Up. Still, there's much in it that's just adorable, especially the convincing portrayal of Fredericksen and the opening mini-bio. Also, from a technical perspective, I was amazed by how real the various photos in the movie look.

Still, the only Pixar movie - aside from Cars - since Monsters, Inc. which I don't consider possibly their best yet, and probably even less so than Cars.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm glad Up has more problems than the usual Pixar flick, maybe a deserving animated film will win this year (Not to say they haven't been deserving before). Here's hoping for Fantastic Mr. Fox, which looks nothing short of brilliant from all the trailers and features.

[Red 75]

I'm glad Up has more problems than the usual Pixar flick, maybe a deserving animated film will win this year (Not to say they haven't been deserving before).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Pixar name carries a lot of weight. Honestly, I thought Up wasn't a particularly special film. It starts off pretty magnificent, but then starts to decline rapidly once they reach the Amazon or wherever it was they went. All I meant was that I hope it doesn't get an Oscar just because it's Pixar.

[Morlock 11]

Still, there's much in it that's just adorable, especially the convincing portrayal of Fredericksen and the opening mini-bio.

I think the opening is not just adorable- I think it is positively remarkable. The rest of it denies the power of the opening, and the ending is just one big fat, complacent lie. I would have no probem accepting the escapism under most circumstances. But the begining tells you that fairy-tales end. The ending tells you that, no, they don't end. Everyone we like will live happily ever after. (This is another film I've worked though in writing...it can work wonders in helping one really get to the bottom of their true impressions of the film).

[MSM 126]

Supergirl. Pretty watchable I must say, mostly due to Helen Slater's lovely presence Also nicely fits with the (slightly more serious) Superman movies with Christopher Reeve. And Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of the best film scores ever written.

[QMM 4]

Still, there's much in it that's just adorable, especially the convincing portrayal of Fredericksen and the opening mini-bio.

I think the opening is not just adorable- I think it is positively remarkable. The rest of it denies the power of the opening, and the ending is just one big fat, complacent lie. I would have no probem accepting the escapism under most circumstances. But the begining tells you that fairy-tales end. The ending tells you that, no, they don't end. Everyone we like will live happily ever after. (This is another film I've worked though in writing...it can work wonders in helping one really get to the bottom of their true impressions of the film).

I agree, but most people are hooked into the film so much that they don't realize it or it's irrelevant. That said, I wasn't thinking about it much.

[Trent B 337]

Supergirl. Pretty watchable I must say, mostly due to Helen Slater's lovely presence Also nicely fits with the (slightly more serious) Superman movies with Christopher Reeve. And Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of the best film scores ever written.

There are other scores that were done by Goldsmith that are far better than Supergirl in my honest opinion.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture being one of them.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Supergirl. Pretty watchable I must say, mostly due to Helen Slater's lovely presence Also nicely fits with the (slightly more serious) Superman movies with Christopher Reeve. And Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of the best film scores ever written.

There are other scores that were done by Goldsmith that are far better than Supergirl in my honest opinion.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture being one of them.

MSM said "one of", and I agree with him. Supergirl is a score soaring with thematic beauty and heroism.

[A24 4,331]

Supergirl is a score soaring with thematic beauty and heroism.

I have the CD. It's kitsch!