What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Morlock 11]

I can't imagine a huge amount of the The Sopranos cast fitting in in other genres....

[A24 4,326]

Actually, I can see them play a variety of real people but I can't see them playing Indiana Jones or replace Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible.

[Morlock 11]

I don't see many of them as having a particularly large range. They were born to paly certain parts, and do them better than anyone. But I ain't lining up to see Tony Sirico's Lear.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

As for HBO recommendations, I definitely recommend Generation Kill, which I loved, and I also like Six Feet Under a lot (I've only seen the first three seasons, though). The miniseries From the Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers are also terrific, and I haven't seen John Adams yet but can only assume that it is, too.

Big Love is decent, although the recently-completed fourth season was awful. Honestly, I'd say that series is skippable.

I've heard good things about Oz, which I've never seen a single episode of.

There's True Blood, which is mostly just trash.

For anyone who loved Deadwood, I'd say John From Cincinatti is worth seeing. It's pretentious, super-weird, and utterly without resolution, but I personally loved it despite all of those things. I'm a huge fan of the way Milch writes dialogue, so I would have enjoyed it if only for that, but I also liked most (but definitely not all) of the actors a lot.

I wish HBO would tackle a Trek-like sci-fi show. It's too bad Ronald D. Moore's Virtuality couldn't have ended up there; that pilot showed a lot of potential. The network does have a high fantasy series on the way, A Game of Thrones, which should be interesting. Like Morlock mentioned, Treme has just begun, and later this year we'll get Boardwalk Empire, which is bound to be good.

I'd also recommend AMC's Breaking Bad, which maybe isn't quite as great as that channel's Mad Men ... but if it's not, it isn't off by much.

[Morlock 11]

Oz is terrific. Although not nearly as heralded as some of the others, it really started HBO's run of dramatically uncompromising shows. John Adams is worth it for Stephan Dillane's performance alone (though I seem to recall Alex having seen it).

[QMM 4]

David Milch's new show, Luck, should be airing sometime soon.

[A24 4,326]

I don't see many of them as having a particularly large range. They were born to paly certain parts, and do them better than anyone. But I ain't lining up to see Tony Sirico's Lear.

I think some of them have a much larger "range" than film actors. They just aren't leading actors or stars.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's called "Character Actor"!

[A24 4,326]

As for HBO recommendations, I definitely recommend Generation Kill, which I loved, and I also like Six Feet Under a lot (I've only seen the first three seasons, though). The miniseries From the Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers are also terrific, and I haven't seen John Adams yet but can only assume that it is, too.

Big Love is decent, although the recently-completed fourth season was awful. Honestly, I'd say that series is skippable.

I've heard good things about Oz, which I've never seen a single episode of.

There's True Blood, which is mostly just trash.

For anyone who loved Deadwood, I'd say John From Cincinatti is worth seeing. It's pretentious, super-weird, and utterly without resolution, but I personally loved it despite all of those things. I'm a huge fan of the way Milch writes dialogue, so I would have enjoyed it if only for that, but I also liked most (but definitely not all) of the actors a lot.

I wish HBO would tackle a Trek-like sci-fi show. It's too bad Ronald D. Moore's Virtuality couldn't have ended up there; that pilot showed a lot of potential. The network does have a high fantasy series on the way, A Game of Thrones, which should be interesting. Like Morlock mentioned, Treme has just begun, and later this year we'll get Boardwalk Empire, which is bound to be good.

I'd also recommend AMC's Breaking Bad, which maybe isn't quite as great as that channel's Mad Men ... but if it's not, it isn't off by much.

John From Cincinatti: Not available around here. I like Milch but I've heard bad things about the show.

From Earth To Moon: Never heard of. Not available. Will look into it.

Band Of Brothers: Didn't really care for it. I even sold my DVD box.

Breaking Bad: Unknown to me. Will try to remember it. Will look into it.

John Adams: Not as good as people say.

Six Feet Under: I liked the first season so I probably watch that.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's called "Character Actor"!

Yeah.

[Morlock 11]

I don't see many of them as having a particularly large range. They were born to paly certain parts, and do them better than anyone. But I ain't lining up to see Tony Sirico's Lear.

I think some of them have a much larger "range" than film actors. They just aren't leading actors or stars.

I think that is only true in very specific parts and given a great deal of time. TV is the best possible place for limited actors. In the right role, they can over time achieve greatness. On film, they don't have the time to transcend charicature, even if cast in the one role they were born to play.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't see many of them as having a particularly large range. They were born to paly certain parts, and do them better than anyone. But I ain't lining up to see Tony Sirico's Lear.

I think some of them have a much larger "range" than film actors. They just aren't leading actors or stars.

I think that is only true in very specific parts and given a great deal of time. TV is the best possible place for limited actors. In the right role, they can over time achieve greatness. On film, they don't have the time to transcend charicature, even if cast in the one role they were born to play.

that is why Ricardo Montalban received some bad reviews for his performance as Khan. Of course the critics were wrong.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Montalban was awesome in Wrath of Khan (and in "Space Seed," for that matter). Anyone calling his performance in that movie bad is somebody whose opinions I would automatically discount as being too dissimilar to my own to be of any practical value to me.

[indy4 155]

Chicago:

Excellent film. Fast-paced, energetic, entertaining, with a wonderful style and mood. Brilliantly filmed and edited.

Fantastic Mr. Fox:

I love the animation, a truly unique and creative way to bring the idea to life. The same can be said for the other aspects of the film, actually.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh yes oh yes oh yes they both, oh yes they both, oh yes they both, reached for - the gun the gun the gun the gun, oh yes they both reached for the gun, for the gun.

Thank you, thanks. I'm here all week.

[Andy 4,079]

I also like Six Feet Under a lot (I've only seen the first three seasons, though).

That show gets really really good in it's final two seasons. The finale episode was one of the best endings to any series ever. First time my wife and I watched it, we immediately hit rewind to watch the last 5 minutes again.

[Andy 4,079]

True Lies

Man, I haven't seen this in about 12 years, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. James Cameron's movies used to be more fun and less self-important.

[crocodile 7,983]

How To Train Your Dragon: What can I say? The film is enjoyable and fun. Nice animation and such. But I won't remembering anything in a week. That sums it up pretty nicely, I think. The score is nice in the film, but sometimes goes a bit over the top.

Karol

[Ollie 1,059]

True Lies

Man, I haven't seen this in about 12 years, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. James Cameron's movies used to be more fun and less self-important.

Cameron needs to get his ass in gear and give that film a proper release on DVD. I have the original non anamorphic DVD.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's great fun that movie. I miss Arnie.

Watched Miller's Crossing last night, which was a really good gangster soap opera of a movie, featuring a solid cast and plenty of fun twists in the plot. After hating her character in The Myst, I was surprised at just how damn sexy Marcia Gay Harden was, as the squeeze. 4/5.

[Jay 37,281]

True Lies

Man, I haven't seen this in about 12 years, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. James Cameron's movies used to be more fun and less self-important.

Cameron needs to get his ass in gear and give that film a proper release on DVD. I have the original non anamorphic DVD.

I'm sure it's all to do with Fox, and nothing to do with Cameron, why The Abyss and True Lies are available in non-anamorphic only

[Andy 4,079]

Yeah, it's a film that, given a decent transfer, could look stunning.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The old BSG. Although some of it is clearly terrible, I still like it a lot. Lorne Greene was great, Starbuck was a loveable rascal, and well, the music is kick ass. If it's a choice between McCreary and Phillips, I'll take the latter every time.

[ST-321 4]

The old BSG. Although some of it is clearly terrible, I still like it a lot. Lorne Greene was great, Starbuck was a loveable rascal, and well, the music is kick ass. If it's a choice between McCreary and Phillips, I'll take the latter every time.

Wow. The last time I saw some of the old BSG on TV they were showing my favorite episode which I hadn't seen since way back when it was first on TV. I found it to be totally unwatchable.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Clearly you have issues unsolveable by Glen A. Larson's majestic television poetry.

[Quintus 5,399]

A Serious Man. Two hours of my life I'll never get back. The lowest point in the Coens careers. Terrible, awful movie.

The only positive is it cost me nothing to see it, thank God.

[Morlock 11]

If by that you mean that it is one of their better efforts, a critical film in their canon and one of the very best films of last year than I am forced to agree.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

^ What he said.

[Quintus 5,399]

It started out great (the prologue) and then it tanked, once the film began proper. I had ZERO sympathy for the main character - I'd struggle to empaphise with any man who was such a wimpish pushover as the lead character was in this movie, so it was downhill from there for me. The softarse deserved to fail, living his life as sheepishy as he did. I simply did not care about his plight and wasn't interested in the slightest to find out if by the end things improved for him - he bored me to tears. This guy deserved the 'Jewish Curse'.

I could not relate to anything else about this movie, nothing. I dunno, maybe if I was Jewish I'd have garnered some enjoyment from it, but I'm not and it thought it was dire. Dullest movie I've seen since Napoleon Dynamite, of all things, but at least that was mildly amusing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I simply did not care about his plight and wasn't interested in the slightest to find out if by the end things improved for him - he bored me to tears. This guy deserved the 'Jewish Curse'.

Ich habe mich einfach seine Zwangslage nicht mich kummerte um und interessierte mich nicht für die Verunglimpfung herauszufinden, wenn durch die Enddinge, die für ihn verbessert worden sind - er mich zu Rissen gebohrt hat. Dieser Bursche hat den ‚jüdischen Fluch‘ verdient.

[A24 4,326]

I had ZERO sympathy for the main character ...

No sympathetic characters, no good film?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's how most people see it.

[Quintus 5,399]

One of the reasons I didn't really enjoy Where the Wild Are was because I thought the kid was a little shit; but that movie did have other characters whom I saw qualities in and yes, liked. A Serious Man had nothing.

I can't think of many movies which I enjoy despite the fact I couldn't care less about the characters. The characters in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, especially the guy in the wheelchair are prime examples of characters I couldn't care less about - I actually enjoy the part where the wheelchair dude gets slaughtered, he annoyed me that much (as he was meant to). But I began to root for the girl, I wanted her to survive - a quality a movie should have. Plus the fact that Hooper entertains with virtuoso directing skill and there you have a movie which is very enjoyable to sit through. The direction in A Serious Man was very dull, though it was nicely lensed, I'll give it that.

So tell me Alex, what movies are out there with no agreeable characters, but are very good inspite of it?

Ich habe mich einfach seine Zwangslage nicht mich kummerte um und interessierte mich nicht für die Verunglimpfung herauszufinden, wenn durch die Enddinge, die für ihn verbessert worden sind - er mich zu Rissen gebohrt hat. Dieser Bursche hat den ‚jüdischen Fluch‘ verdient.

Anti-semite!

[publicist 4,643]

One of the reasons I didn't really enjoy Where the Wild Are was because I thought the kid was a little shit; but that movie did have other characters whom I saw qualities in and yes, liked. A Serious Man had nothing.

I can't think of many movies which I enjoy despite the fact I couldn't care less about the characters. The characters in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, especially the guy in the wheelchair are prime examples of characters I couldn't care less about - I actually enjoy the part where the wheelchair dude gets slaughtered, he annoyed me that much (as he was meant to). But I began to root for the girl, I wanted her to survive - a quality a movie should have. Plus the fact that Hooper entertains with virtuoso directing skill and there you have a movie which is very enjoyable to sit through. The direction in A Serious Man was very dull, though it was nicely lensed, I'll give it that.

I wouldn't be quite as harsh to A SERIOUS MAN, but i had the same nagging feelings about this and some other acclaimed films this year (or the end of last year). In this case, i just don't know why the Coens wanted to tell this and this has nothing to do with me not caring about the character(s), i just didn't got why they so desperately wanted to tell the story of this man. What was it all about? What about this bloody curse?

All the people who supposedly liked it could only give superficial reasons why they did so.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I loved it because it was left open to interpretation. It was dark, it was hilarious, and it was shot beautifully. Good thing for this thread, because I completely forgot that I have it on Blu and never watched it.

[Quintus 5,399]

The only amusing thing about the movie was the canoe scene, and not because of the sudden surprise at the end of the sequence. Other than that, I was decidedly straight-faced throughout.

[publicist 4,643]

I loved it because it was left open to interpretation. It was dark, it was hilarious, and it was shot beautifully.

WHAT was left open to interpretation? I'm really at a loss here, i saw the film, i didn't saw anything more than the story of a midlife crisis in the context of jewish middle-class/mid-60s US. The curse sequence seemed like a crutch, as if the Coens were stung by a Sam-Raimi-reflex and hastily added a macabre prologue. And the point was? That all shit which happens to us is destiny? Some fine point, that is. Or that it happens only to weak middle-agend jewish intellectuals in the 60's? Or what?

(and please, no 'it's up to you, that's the beauty of it'answers - or you'll be punished with three sittings of SUPERGIRL...and the 140-minute long DIRECTOR'S CUT, at that!!!)

[A24 4,326]

That's how most people see it.

That's a pretty limited way to watch a film, don't you think?

[Morlock 11]

WHAT was left open to interpretation? I'm really at a loss here, i saw the film, i didn't saw anything more than the story of a midlife crisis in the context of jewish middle-class/mid-60s US. The curse sequence seemed like a crutch, as if the Coens were stung by a Sam-Raimi-reflex and hastily added a macabre prologue. And the point was? That all shit which happens to us is destiny? Some fine point, that is. Or that it happens only to weak middle-agend jewish intellectuals in the 60's? Or what?

I think it is saying nothing of the sort. It has no opinion on destiny, beyond 'shit happens'. I think it is saying that it is a question of how you take that shit. Larry searches for answers that do not exist. He is looking for meaning which he will never be able to find. The Coens are punishing him for being so goddamn serious. Of course he's a nebbish. But they've never been able to stand pettiness, which is why, I think, almost no one comes off in this movie well. Petty people dealing in petty things for their own selfish reasons, so that when shit happens, they continue to see it through their own small prism, and the indignities are multiplied, because they seek some great meaning to their own suffering.

The prologue sets up the concept of the unknowability of certain things, which the film illustrates in various ways throughout. I think that the film is ultimatly saying what the last two rabbis said, what the Jefferson Airplane song said. You'll never really know. Get over it, enjoy what you can. Marge Gunderson figured it out, so did The Dude. Larry hasn't, which is why every single that happens to him is an indignity. Shit happens, get over yourself. It's not an angry film (like Burn After Reading was), but the Coens are bemused and impatient with the pettiness. I certainly don't think it's great because its open to interpretation- I have a very concrete idea of what it is. I think it's great because of how wonderfully executed the most personal film two of my favorite filmmakers is, the summation of their career to date. It is a natural end to this trilogy (their last three films go from sorrow to anger to acceptance), all three of which kept me thinking a lot longer than most other films I've seen recently.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's a pretty limited way to watch a film, don't you think?

I never said I agree.

But it's the truth.

[publicist 4,643]

I think it is saying nothing of the sort. It has no opinion on destiny, beyond 'shit happens'. I think it is saying that it is a question of how you take that shit. Larry searches for answers that do not exist. He is looking for meaning which he will never be able to find. The Coens are punishing him for being so goddamn serious. Of course he's a nebbish. But they've never been able to stand pettiness, which is why, I think, almost no one comes off in this movie well. Petty people dealing in petty things for their own selfish reasons, so that when shit happens, they continue to see it through their own small prism, and the indignities are multiplied, because they seek some great meaning to their own suffering.

The prologue sets up the concept of the unknowability of certain things, which the film illustrates in various ways throughout. I think that the film is ultimatly saying what the last two rabbis said, what the Jefferson Airplane song said. You'll never really know. Get over it, enjoy what you can.

Well, thank you. I guess i drew the same conclusions, albeit much more vaguely - but it still doesn't add up to anything comprehensible for me. Maybe i'm just not as haunted by petty seriousness? Or not jewish enough? Only Jehovah knows...

As for the prologue, it communicated too many other allusions in a sinister quasi-theological sense - if what you said whas indeed the intent, i feel they should've presented it much more leightweight. As it is, it doesn't really gel well with the main part of the film. Sadly, these days the Coens seem to be on the fence of either being too shallow (BURN AFTER READING) or too esoteric (SERIOUS MAN) for me. I didn't like the philosophical tone in their big Oscar winner either (the suspense was brilliant, though).

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Re-watched Quantum of Solace. I really enjoy it, especially in the comfort of my home theater with no annoying date blabbing during critical dialogue and plot points.

[Morlock 11]

As for the prologue, it communicated too many other allusions in a sinister quasi-theological sense - if what you said whas indeed the intent, i feel they should've presented it much more leightweight. As it is, it doesn't really gel well with the main part of the film. Sadly, these days the Coens seem to be on the fence of either being too shallow (BURN AFTER READING) or too esoteric (SERIOUS MAN) for me. I didn't like the philosophical tone in their big Oscar winner either (the suspense was brilliant, though).

I certainly do connect with what I deem to be their overriding philosophy, so naturally these recent films speak to me for a number of different reasons.

I do agree, however, that there is definitly something missing in these recent films that existed in their 80's and 90's films. I don't know how to put it, though...a certain meat-and-potatoes type of entertainment, I guess. As much as I love No Country, it is on a different wave-length as the earlier ones. But it's also the most beautifully crafted film they've made, and the most assured...I don't know. Although I love it in a different way than Lebowski and Miller's Crossing, but I do genuinely I love it. And I'm pretty sure that True Grit is going to be something else altogether. Coens are still the current filmmaker with the highest batting average in my book.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Kick-Ass

It was alright. Definitely entertaining, but it was very cliche for a movie that's trying to not be cliche. A friend of mine who's a big fan of the comic book said a lot was changed, and what he told me was changed sounds like it would be better if kept in the film.

Chloe Moretz and Nick Cage were the best part of the film IMO. Not as graphic as I was expecting, especially based on Morlock's reaction. The CG blood kinda took it away, it's no where near the likes of Kill Bill or other films.

The score was just plain weird, probably because 5 "unrelated" people did it. Lots of unoriginal music as actual thematic material, which is the first that I've seen. Murphy's 28 Days Later is heard several times throughout, as well as his score for Sunshine. There's also an awkward use of Morricone's A Fistful Of Dollars. I have Henry Jackman's material, and he was the one that homaged the Superman theme, and the Batman material, which seems appropriate. Danny Elfman scored one part, and the rest was done by Ilan Eshkeri and 2 other people I don't know.

[Morlock 11]

I'm fairly certain that Elfman had nothing to do with the film. I didn't say it was amazingly graphic. But it is perpetrated by an 11 year old girl.

[A24 4,326]

As much as I love No Country, it is on a different wave-length as the earlier ones.

I suppose you've never seen Blood Simple? Heck, even Fargo deals with the same stuff that's found in No Country.

Fear: Okay-ish standard thriller with Marky Mark.

The Gingerbread Man: Terrible. Is this Robert Altman from McCabe & Mrs. Miller and 3 Women? Get the frag out of here!

[Morlock 11]

It really is that bad, right? I saw it a couple of years back, and was shocked at how utterly dreary, boring and ugly it was.

As much as I love No Country, it is on a different wave-length as the earlier ones.

I suppose you've never seen Blood Simple? Heck, even Fargo deals with the same stuff that's found in No Country.

Of course it deals with the same things- just about all their films do (Miller's Crossing is probably the most anomalous thing they've done, thematics-wise)...but I get a very different vibe out of it. It's certainly more emotionally charged than those, for one.

[Quintus 5,399]

You gonna enlighten me then or what, Alex? Or were you planning on just skipping the request I made?

@Morlock

I think you summed A Serious Man up perfectly. Yet despite the fact that I'm privvy to the Coens motivations, I still thought the film was a completely pointless exercise in boredom. I'm simply not interested in the story they were trying to tell and especially in the way that they told it.

[A24 4,326]

You gonna enlighten me then or what, Alex? Or was you planning on just skipping the request I made?

How can I enlighten you when it is your belief that a film is no good without sympathetic characters? What's the point of me naming a title and you saying how bad it is? The conclusion at the end is that you need lovable characters and I don't. In my point of view, characters don't have to be likable or lovable to be engaging. The movie in itself can be compelling without relying on sympathetic characters. I can be fascinated, intriguid or repelled, either by a character or by the film itself. Anyway, if you want examples, here goes nothing: Redmond in Barry Lyndon, Rick Deckard in Blade Runner, Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane, Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, Jim Graham in Empire Of The Sun, Dave Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jack Torrance and family in The Shining, Patrick Bateman in American Psycho, ...

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

All of the films above feature AGREEABLE characters; apart from There Will Be Blood that is, which funnily enough I didn't enjoy that much... do I see a pattern emerging? Hmmmmmmm. Having said that, that film does have strong directorial merit and is far more watchable than A Serious Man. There Will Be Blood had a good story, which also goes a long way, would you believe it!

Charles Foster Kane in an incredibly watchable character, ya loon!

So yeah, you've just proved my point, cheers.

*Goes back to watching Lassie*