What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Wojo 2,453]

Not interested in Skyline or Battle for LA. I like my alien invasion movies to show the whole campaign and end with either humanity winning or being crushed, not just one snippet of the occupation that leaves me hanging.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Not interested in Skyline or Battle for LA. I like my alien invasion movies to show the whole campaign and end with either humanity winning or being crushed, not just one snippet of the occupation that leaves me hanging.

skyline had earth losing which I'm okay with, but then the brain ending.....what????

battle los angeles ends sorta of like ID4 and SouthPark

Stefan, I usually agree with Roger, but he was so way off base, he must have been having a bad face day because he doesn't write reviews so blatantly negative, and bitchy to a point you know he's got something up his ass.

[Jeff 10]

I agree about Ebert's review. Not only was he extremely negative, but he ignored some of the facts, such as the dialogue scenes (which were pretty good for an action movie).

Oh, and thanks for the Skyline spoiler.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Monkey Business (1952)

This one surprised me, fantastic comedy that I found truly hilarious. Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers are fantastic, and Marilyn Monroe is just too goddamned sexy.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I agree about Ebert's review. Not only was he extremely negative, but he ignored some of the facts, such as the dialogue scenes (which were pretty good for an action movie).

Oh, and thanks for the Skyline spoiler.

Jeff, if I do anything nice for anyone it's to get them to steer clear of Skyline. It was the worst movie I've seen since Rob Zombies Halloween 2

[Jeff 10]

Well thanks for the warning then. I probably wasn't going to see it anyway, although Battle L.A. did kind of get me into an alien invasion mood.

[Ollie 1,059]

Watch the original War Of The Worlds and ID4.

[Brónach 1,302]

I thought the original War of the World was kind of boring.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It is.

[Ollie 1,059]

I thought the original War of the World was kind of boring.

As moderator I cannot be responsible for the grief that will brought upon you.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It is.

No it isn't.

[Brónach 1,302]

And also, it didn't have tripods!!

I'll rewatch it and make an analysis.

I would with ID4 too, but I don't feel like rewatching that thing.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

All I remember was that I felt absolutely no tension in any of the scenes.

[A24 4,333]

I thought the original War of the World was kind of boring.

It is now but it was terrifying back in the day. The only remake that is good is Cloverfield.

Alex

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

I thought the original War of the World was kind of boring.

Chaac; thinking of any world in particular, were you, or is it just a world that is well disposed to people?

[Brónach 1,302]

I thought the original War of the World was kind of boring.

It is now but it was terrifying back in the day. The only remake that is good is Cloverfield.

1) Back in the day there were much better adventure films that that. Back in the day, that film was still boring and unimaginative compared to the novel.

2) I love Cloverfield. What is it remaking? Why is it the only good remake?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Cloverfield is an original story.

[Red 75]

Cloverfield is an original story.

Depends on how you define original.

[Brónach 1,302]

"Not an adaptation of previously existing pieces"?

[A24 4,333]

Why is it the only good remake?

Because it's better than Spielberg's official remake ... and pretty close to the ground zero perspective of Orson Well's radio play. Of course, Cloverfield is not a literal remake but it gave me what I didn't get from Spielberg's film.

[crocodile 8,012]

Sure, but it doesn't translate very well to the big screen.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

H.G. Wells story doesn't translate well to the big screen?

[crocodile 8,012]

I meant Cloverfield.

Karol

[King Mark 3,631]

I was kind of hoping the reviews for Sucker Punch would be better. I might still see it

[crocodile 8,012]

I'm disappointed too. I wanted to see it earlier today, but I kind didn't.

Karol

[A24 4,333]

Sure, but it doesn't translate very well to the big screen.

It didn't? Maybe I saw a different film then.

[crocodile 8,012]

You saw it on big or small screen? Because on small it's fine. That's what I meant.

Karol

[A24 4,333]

I only watched it on my 50" plasma screen. I rarely go the theater these days. I might make an exception for Sucker Punch but I actually prefer to see the DC on Blu-ray. I don't know if I can wait 6 or 8 more months though.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Some films just work better on a small screen. I loved seeing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the cinema (twice), and I own the blu-ray, but it's most effective on a third-generation VHS on a 15" CRT.

[A24 4,333]

At least Cloverfield has an obvious and legit reason for being shot on video. One can't say the same about 28 Days Later. That's purely an artistic choice.

[Brónach 1,302]

Some films just work better on a small screen. I loved seeing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the cinema (twice), and I own the blu-ray, but it's most effective on a third-generation VHS on a 15" CRT.

I saw it on my laptop and it felt like an actual video on youtube or something.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I only watched it on my 50" plasma screen. I rarely go the theater these days. I might make an exception for Sucker Punch but I actually prefer to see the DC on Blu-ray. I don't know if I can wait 6 or 8 more months though.

The trailer looks moronic, you know that just as well as I do.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I only watched it on my 50" plasma screen. I rarely go the theater these days. I might make an exception for Sucker Punch but I actually prefer to see the DC on Blu-ray. I don't know if I can wait 6 or 8 more months though.

The trailer looks moronic, you know that just as well as I do.

I'm pretty sure the director's cut for that movie would have a health warning on the cover like a pack of cigarettes: WARNING - MAY CAUSE RETARDATION.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I know Alex is a devout follower of this director. but is a turd, brilliantly photographed and edited still nothing but a turd?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You don't realize, cinematography is the only thing that matters in film!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes I understand that that seems to be the new elitist approach adopted by people like Alex.

I'm sorry, there HAS to be more to a film then just brilliant technical aspects.

[crocodile 8,012]

What Snyder needs is somebody else to write a script for him. Just think of what he can do with action scenes in a Superman film, with his visual sense. Could be exactly what this character needs.

The Dark Knight. It was on TV tonight and I watched most of it after more than a year.

Karol

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Cloverfield is an original story.

how true, I mean a giant monster attacking a large metropolitan area has never been done before.

also, idiot cards are in the mail to those who thinks War of the Worlds is boring, an Chaac, (which sounds like a cat puking), there are 3 powerbeams that lift the craft, a much smarter idea than the tripods in Spielberg's film or Well's original as 3 legs don't work as walkers.

[Brónach 1,302]

also, idiot cards are in the mail to those who thinks War of the Worlds is boring, an Chaac, (which sounds like a cat puking), there are 3 powerbeams that lift the craft, a much smarter idea than the tripods in Spielberg's film or Well's original as 3 legs don't work as walkers.

I was not referring to the three legs, but rather to the concept of a giant military vehicle that moves and behaves fast and fluidly like an animal. Like they are described in the novel and appear Spielberg's version. It's fascinating to watch and it represents the difference in tecnology between the aliens and us. We are into machinery, the aliens are into colonizing our ecosystem with their species of photosyntethic organisms.

Oh, flying UFOs with "power beams", how imaginative.

PS: I guess three legs can work if you move one at a time while you modify your center of gravity the same way we do while walking with two legs.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Cloverfield is an original story.

how true, I mean a giant monster attacking a large metropolitan area has never been done before.

Well it's obviously an homage to Godzilla and older monster movies. I meant that it's not directly based on a previous work.

[gkgyver 1,645]

That it isn't based on a previous story is true in so far as Cloverfield's plot is so simplistic that it could be derived from anything.

It's probably a mix between Blair Witch Project and Godzilla 1998.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

also, idiot cards are in the mail to those who thinks War of the Worlds is boring, an Chaac, (which sounds like a cat puking), there are 3 powerbeams that lift the craft, a much smarter idea than the tripods in Spielberg's film or Well's original as 3 legs don't work as walkers.

I was not referring to the three legs, but rather to the concept of a giant military vehicle that moves and behaves fast and fluidly like an animal. Like they are described in the novel and appear Spielberg's version. It's fascinating to watch and it represents the difference in tecnology between the aliens and us. We are into machinery, the aliens are into colonizing our ecosystem with their species of photosyntethic organisms.

Oh, flying UFOs with "power beams", how imaginative.

PS: I guess three legs can work if you move one at a time while you modify your center of gravity the same way we do while walking with two legs.

no, they figured that out making Speilergs WotW's. It doesn't work.

And while your sarcasm drips UFO's with power beams is imaginative. Remember this was 1951 when it was filmed. Damned imaginative.

[A24 4,333]

Yes I understand that that seems to be the new elitist approach adopted by people like Alex.

I'm sorry, there HAS to be more to a film then just brilliant technical aspects.

Yes, and there is. I already 'tried' to explain this a long time ago but all that you, Charlie, Crocs and Koray (or 99% of JWfan) seem to see is slow motion and pretty colors.

Alex - who is the other 1%

It's probably a mix between Blair Witch Project and Godzilla 1998.

So I take it that you disagree that it's mostly based on Orson Well's version of WOTW? All you have to do is to replace the creatures and you have the same story, feel, atmosphere, you name it. The shape or origin of the creature itself doesn't matter.

[Brónach 1,302]

also, idiot cards are in the mail to those who thinks War of the Worlds is boring, an Chaac, (which sounds like a cat puking), there are 3 powerbeams that lift the craft, a much smarter idea than the tripods in Spielberg's film or Well's original as 3 legs don't work as walkers.

I was not referring to the three legs, but rather to the concept of a giant military vehicle that moves and behaves fast and fluidly like an animal. Like they are described in the novel and appear Spielberg's version. It's fascinating to watch and it represents the difference in tecnology between the aliens and us. We are into machinery, the aliens are into colonizing our ecosystem with their species of photosyntethic organisms.

Oh, flying UFOs with "power beams", how imaginative.

PS: I guess three legs can work if you move one at a time while you modify your center of gravity the same way we do while walking with two legs.

no, they figured that out making Speilergs WotW's. It doesn't work.

And while your sarcasm drips UFO's with power beams is imaginative. Remember this was 1951 when it was filmed. Damned imaginative.

Yes, actually that is how they are described in the novel, tentacles included (although in the novel they build flying machines, additionally, and use chemical warfare instead of invisible shields, and have only one ray cannon instead of two). The also make these chilling calls if I remember correctly. Would you explain why it doesn't work? Because I find it quite intimidating.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yes I understand that that seems to be the new elitist approach adopted by people like Alex.

I'm sorry, there HAS to be more to a film then just brilliant technical aspects.

Yes, and there is. I already 'tried' to explain this a long time ago but all that you, Charlie, Crocs and Koray (or 99% of JWfan) seem to see is slow motion and pretty colors..

I don't even think the colors are pretty. It's over stylized crap.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Its just an overexageration of Peter Jacksons style.

[A24 4,333]

Funny, I don't even like Peter Jackson. It seems like a hasty comment from someone who quickly looked at it from a far.

It's over stylized crap.

Why is it crap? I know you're just Koray but can you at least try a little harder to make a point? Defend your point of view. Give me some arguments, be constructive ...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Now he is even using the same actors!

[A24 4,333]

Wow!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Frankie and Johnney

Michelle Pfeiffer is supposed to be a plain, unattractive women in this film.

She's not, she actually breathtakingly beautiful, so the film does not work at all. Al Pacino was already starting to become a parody of himself.

Waste of time...