Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meet The Parents is great because of Ben Stiller. I guess you either love him or hate him.

I like both Zoolander and Tropic Thunder, which I find vastly superior to his "acted only" flicks that I hardly enjoy, including Meet the Parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he was quite bad in Tropic Thunder. My favorite role of his is still Flirting with Disaster, with Dodgeball being the only other place I really like him in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angel Heart (1987): Didn't like it then, don't like it now. I wonder how the film is being perceived today because when it came out people were drooling all over it.

Edit: Well, apparently people still love it because it has a 7.3/10 at IMDb.

Strange.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Kelly's Heroes (which has Eastwood, Savalas and the Tiger tanks)

Battle of Britain

The Longest Day

Bridge at Remagen

The Hill (not quite WWII, but great Connery/Lumet flick in desert prison camp)

Too Late the Hero

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he was quite bad in Tropic Thunder. My favorite role of his is still Flirting with Disaster, with Dodgeball being the only other place I really like him in.

I meant the movies, not the acting. He is preety much the same in all of these pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

That's not a bad thing.

I agree. But there is good chaotic (Greengrass' Bourne) and bad chaotic (more than half of QoS).

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Kelly's Heroes (which has Eastwood, Savalas and the Tiger tanks)

Battle of Britain

The Longest Day

Bridge at Remagen

The Hill (not quite WWII, but great Connery/Lumet flick in desert prison camp)

Too Late the Hero

Thanks, I've seen a few of those like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain, but I actually meant the type where you have these bunch of men on a mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

That's not a bad thing.

I agree. But there is good chaotic (Greengrass' Bourne) and bad chaotic (more than half of QoS).

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Kelly's Heroes (which has Eastwood, Savalas and the Tiger tanks)

Battle of Britain

The Longest Day

Bridge at Remagen

The Hill (not quite WWII, but great Connery/Lumet flick in desert prison camp)

Too Late the Hero

Thanks, I've seen a few of those like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain, but I actually meant the type where you have these bunch of men on a mission.

...and don't forget "A Bridge Too Far". This film is in a class of its own.

Meet The Parents is great because of Ben Stiller. I guess you either love him or hate him.

I like both Zoolander and Tropic Thunder, which I find vastly superior to his "acted only" flicks that I hardly enjoy, including Meet the Parents.

I can honestly say that I only know Ben Stiller from his dad, Jerry. "Where's my man Lerxt?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

That's not a bad thing.

I agree. But there is good chaotic (Greengrass' Bourne) and bad chaotic (more than half of QoS).

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Kelly's Heroes (which has Eastwood, Savalas and the Tiger tanks)

Battle of Britain

The Longest Day

Bridge at Remagen

The Hill (not quite WWII, but great Connery/Lumet flick in desert prison camp)

Too Late the Hero

Thanks, I've seen a few of those like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain, but I actually meant the type where you have these bunch of men on a mission.

...and don't forget "A Bridge Too Far". This film is in a class of its own.

I consider films like those to be epic films about a major operation. What I'm looking for are films with a small (usually motley) bunch of men on a high risk mission, usually resulting in a lot of adventure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

That's not a bad thing.

I agree. But there is good chaotic (Greengrass' Bourne) and bad chaotic (more than half of QoS).

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Kelly's Heroes (which has Eastwood, Savalas and the Tiger tanks)

Battle of Britain

The Longest Day

Bridge at Remagen

The Hill (not quite WWII, but great Connery/Lumet flick in desert prison camp)

Too Late the Hero

Thanks, I've seen a few of those like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain, but I actually meant the type where you have these bunch of men on a mission.

...and don't forget "A Bridge Too Far". This film is in a class of its own.

I consider films like those to be epic films about a major operation. What I'm looking for are films with a small (usually motley) bunch of men on a high risk mission, usually resulting in a lot of adventure.

The Delta Force!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a film always be as clear, concise and obvious as possible? I like films that leave a little to the imagination or leave you feeling dazed. That's as much an aspect of life as certainty and comfort.

True. Sadly, QoS didn't succeed in any of that. It was simply chaotic.

That's not a bad thing.

I agree. But there is good chaotic (Greengrass' Bourne) and bad chaotic (more than half of QoS).

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

Kelly's Heroes (which has Eastwood, Savalas and the Tiger tanks)

Battle of Britain

The Longest Day

Bridge at Remagen

The Hill (not quite WWII, but great Connery/Lumet flick in desert prison camp)

Too Late the Hero

Thanks, I've seen a few of those like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain, but I actually meant the type where you have these bunch of men on a mission.

...and don't forget "A Bridge Too Far". This film is in a class of its own.

I consider films like those to be epic films about a major operation. What I'm looking for are films with a small (usually motley) bunch of men on a high risk mission, usually resulting in a lot of adventure.

The Delta Force!

The Great Muppet Caper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. Hey, this was pretty good! Lots of material for all the cast (except Sulu and Uhura, of course). Suspenseful. The score was great but emotionally I didn't quite tap into it. Spock's death was really well done but it felt like something they were determined to cram into the film from the start, not a natural evolution of the plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boring and nothing new. The story is over 150 years old. What were you expecting?

thats what I was thinking, I bet he's probably not familiar with the 30's and 50's version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spock's death was really well done but it felt like something they were determined to cram into the film from the start, not a natural evolution of the plot.

Disagreed. What makes TWOK stand out among all the Trek movies and as a movie in general is its consistency and structure. Many important themes are mirrored in different situations throughout the entire movie. It comes together beautifully at the finale, and makes repeated viewings very satisfactory.

And while I know many who disagree, I think Shatner delivered a really fine performance here. He may not come across as a great actor, but even the most overacted ("Khaaan") and wooden ("his was the most... human.") moments seem absolutely right and fitting - I always found the pause in the latter line wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shatner's performance is TWoK is borderline astonishing, given who it is. There are none of the cliched "Shatnerisms", from start to finish it's the perfect pitch. I remember when I was revisiting these movies after quite a time away a few years ago and being shocked just how good he was in this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boring and nothing new. The story is over 150 years old. What were you expecting?

thats what I was thinking, I bet he's probably not familiar with the 30's and 50's version.

I am familiar with those versions. By nothing new, I meant it added nothing new to the story. The 3D was pointless, and the motion capture even more so. If it was live action with added special effects, good ones I might add, it could have been something a lot more engaging. Not to mention it excluded a lot that was in the text. It felt like a highly abridged, summary version of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From IMDB:

When released theatrically in the United States, the film ran approx. 146 minutes. However, as explained above, three weeks into its release, Kubrick cut the 2 minute coda from the end of the film, reducing its length to 144 minutes. After meeting with poor reviews and erratic box office, Kubrick decided to further edit the film for its theatrical release outside the US. He cut approximately 31 minutes of footage, reducing the length to 113 minutes. The 144 minute 'US version' is often erroneously called the Director's Cut when in fact director Kubrick regarded the 113 minute version as the superior cut of the film. When the film was released on home video in the US, Kubrick endorsed the shorter version of the film as the 'official' version. Nevertheless, the longer version is the version now most commonly available. The following is a list of all the scenes or parts of scenes not present in the shorter 'European version':

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2012, which was big, dumb and lots of fun. Emmerich's second best movie.

The Shining on Blu-ray. I just found out that the US cut is about 20 minutes longer. I'm shocked! Which version is known to be the best?!

Alex

What difference does it make, can't you just decide for yourself little sheepy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shining on Blu-ray. I just found out that the US cut is about 20 minutes longer. I'm shocked! Which version is known to be the best?!

What difference does it make, can't you just decide for yourself little sheepy?

Eh? Little sheepy? What a strange remark. How can I decide when we only have access to the European version? ROTFLMAO

And how can you call anyone who swims against the tide a "little sheepy"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NTSC version is easy to get hold of via the net, as I found. The shorter version is the best cut, it ain't even close. I came to the conclusion all by myself!

I noticed that a lot of people download their movies. I'm not into that. If that makes me a sheep, so be it!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NTSC version is easy to get hold of via the net, as I found. The shorter version is the best cut, it ain't even close. I came to the conclusion all by myself!

I noticed that a lot of people download their movies. I'm not into that. If that makes me a sheep, so be it!

Alex

You don't have to download it, just purchase the Region 1 DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they make region free DVD software programs for computer. I know, what's the fun in watching a movie at a 20" monitor or cabling it to your TV via RCA cable. Or in ripping something you legitimately bought just in order to watch it.

But I'm in the reverse boat. The Basil Poledouris DVD plays black and white in all my hardware players, and is only in color on my computer. And I haven't figured out how to easily convert PAL into NTSC. Insert fuming man icon here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to download it, just purchase the Region 1 DVD.

Regrettably, my players can't read Region 1.

In my opinion, film enthusiasts shouldn't buy region-locked players. That's why I'm still waiting for my backordered Blu player...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2012 (spoilers forthcoming)

For the most part I'd agree with earlier reviews, most of it was brainless fun with some amazing effects and unintentionally funny moments. However, the last act, with the hydrolic problem on the ark, was intermitable. It was almost as bad as the last part of Transformers 2, just wondering when in the hell it was all going to end. Nice ending though. Emmerich successfuly checks off just about every one of his cliches.

Performance wise, it was great to see Chiwetel Ejiofor again. He was great as the Op in Serenity, was a rumored finalist to become the 11th Doctor, and is quickly becoming one of my favorites. Woody Harrelson was very funny in his short-lived role. The rest, like the score, were serviceable.

Oh, and...

contrary to what Joe would have you believe, there are no aliens. Naughty Joe!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was much easier to stomach than a Bay film. You could actually take in and enjoy most of the effects shots instead of trying to figure out what the hell just flashed by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a Emmerich vs Bay poll.

Anyway I just watched UP which is pretty much the most uneven film Pixar has made to date. I didn't like the talking dogs at all, not because they were unbelievable (come on, a house is being floated around by balloons) but they just seemed totally incongruous to the overall tone and direction of the movie. However, IMO when UP hits its many good parts, its the best bits of film Pixar has ever made. It is unfortunate though that this causes the less good parts to stand out in even starker contrast to the good bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention one thing I was going to: the engines will only start when the back hatch is closed? Who's f#&^ed up bass ackward design was that? The whole thing might have just painted itself purple, danced naked on a harpsichord, and sang "Oh, look at me, I'm a big obvious plot device!". Sheesharama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to download it, just purchase the Region 1 DVD.

Regrettably, my players can't read Region 1.

In my opinion, film enthusiasts shouldn't buy region-locked players. That's why I'm still waiting for my backordered Blu player...

I agree. It's 2009 and you're a huge movie geek yet don't have a region-free player?

Watched STAR TREK. Still a blast, very fun and the emotional beats worked even better this time around. Great performances, a really fun score, brilliant effects. The only thing not great is some of the writing - the excuse to get Kirk off the ship is Transformers-level writing, really. My only wish for the sequel is that it doesn't fall back on jokes so often. And I'm still uncomfortable with the Spock-Uhura relationship, however watching it again it totally seems like she's into it, but he's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.