Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched?


Ollie

Recommended Posts

And with the actors he used (save for Eric Bana), they can't do drama well.

Sandler can do bittersweet comedy/drama. Haven't you seen Punch-Drunk Love? Of course, Apatow isn't PTA.

I Wiki'd Eric Bana recently. I was shocked he started out as a stand-up comedian in Australia. I thought he was one of those talented actors slogging through Oz soaps like Home and Away (a la Simon Baker and Naomi Watts) before he got his big break. He's one of the better comedians-turned-actors.

The problem with Apatow's films is that they have nebbish twentysome guys (usually Jewish), and that's something in the casting that I find oft-putting. With a film like The 40 Year Old Virgin, the casting, appeal and story was universal for everyone. With Funny People, it feels... distancing. Apart from the really long runtime and belabored writing (it should've been less than two hours long).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam Sandler can do drama surprisingly well. He just hams it up by mixing it in with his slapstick comedies.

I have yet to see Punk Drunk Love, but he was fantastic in Reign Over Me.

It's actually odd that Apatow hasn't directed another movie since, he only has three films under his belt. But the formulaic Apatow produced movies have kinda been watered down in the industry. I don't remember the last really great comedy that I saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fast five was far more entertaining than Thor. Hopefully the box office will not allow for a stand alone sequel.

Saw that Mickey Rourkes movie did poor. Hopefully his career will go back to what it was before the wrestler. He's so unpleasant to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spawn

A rather poor and messily staged film. Some of the CGI is pretty good (Swapn's attachments nad cape. But the special effects used in the depiction of Hell is some of the worst I've seen. Even in 1997 this must have looked like shit. Michael Jai White manages to give a decent performance while buried in make-up.

* out of ****

Spider-man 3

Visually better then the first one I saw last week. With a few impressive action scenes. The script is a mess. I don't like all the cheap and cheesy melodrama. (Mary-Jane was fired from her job...boohooo). Performances were better then the first though. But why does Dunst play her character as such a wet blanket?

I do have some sentimental attachment to this movie, since I saw it on my first date with my girlfriend. It was a good night out. Better then the film.

** out of ****

It dawned on me that I never saw part 2, the supposed masterpiece of this trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thor.

God I hate 3D but it was the only way to see this this tonight. I found myself taking of the glasses off because it was so tiring. I hate how the picture is so dark. It doesn't serve the film at all. Anyway, the film wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Having said that, it is really cheesy. Hemsworth is quite good in the role as are most of the actors. But it is the kind of movie that will astonish 10 to 15-year olds mostly. I thought the entire climax arrived way too early, like we're missing one or two reels somewhere.

The one thing that surprised me was the Loki character. He's not your typical villain here. Nor is he one at all, to be honest. He has a motivation and it is quite reasonable. The relationship between brothers serves as spine of the story. Not that they spend much time talking. But it's a bit more complext than usually. And this alone is a nice change.

The score works very well in the film. Which is something I didn't expect, judging from the album and the previous Marvel films. There are actually themes I remember, even if they are somewhat simplistic and typical for Doyle. But the music is one of the strongest elements of the film, successfully bridging the fantasy with s-f (as I suspected before). I think I'm buying the CD.

Karol - who now realized (while watching) Superman is the most difficult superhero character to portray on screen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just tiring on eyes, that's all. It works to some degree when you do something like Avatar with all these landscapes and stuff like that. When you actually get some time to watch these images. But with fact cut action movie it doesn't achieve anything. It's just too chaotic. Also, some of the action takes place at night so, against dark sky, the already dark 3D image... you get the idea.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just tiring on eyes, that's all. It works to some degree when you do something like Avatar with all these landscapes and stuff like that. When you actually get some time to watch these images. But with fact cut action movie it doesn't achieve anything. It's just too chaotic. Also, some of the action takes place at night so, against dark sky, the already dark 3D image... you get the idea.

Karol

I've heard about how it can be tiring, but I've just never suffered from it myself. Same goes for motion-sickness apparently caused by shaky-cam; it's never ever bother me in the slightest. I guess I'm fortunate in that way.

Still can't work out why you would go out of your way to see a movie in such a disagreeable format though. It makes no sense. I'd avoid 3D like the plague, if it did my head so much. It'd be really stupid of me to go back for more.

Indeed - I'd stick to 2D. Even an average movie isn't worth ruining further as a result of sheer impatience on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they would only show it in this format and there wasn't many movies to choose from. Normally, I'd go with 2D.

But this isn't about 3D at all. I don't like it in general, that's true. But what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't work for Thor. It's poorly done, probably as an afterthought.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Machete was a freaking awesome movie, I don't care what anybody says :P

That is the reason why you shall always be an also-ran, here.

OK then, let me re-phrase that: I hate 3D in Thor. ;)

Karol

Ah, it makes more sense now.

Is it that fuckin' horrible theme park 3D? Hammer swung into the screen etc...

In my experience, 3D works best as a tool in which to manifest a strong sense of depth-of-field in a scene. It is far less powerful and a lot more gimmicky when it's used to throw inanimate objects at the audience. The quickest and easiest misuse of 3D is to have it pop out of the screen; rather than invert its effect for a far more profound sense of immersion. But what does this place give a shit? I'm going to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, 3D works best as a tool in which to manifest a strong sense of depth-of-field in a scene.

Yes. And it can only truly work with longer shots. 3D requires eye to make an effort and something that it wouldn't normally do (which makes it hard for some people to watch). So when you have a chaotic action scene with many quick cuts you just don't get the time to process everything. And, as I said before, 3D image is darker than normal one and in Thor you have some sequences that take place at night or in rather dark enviroment. Which makes it even harder for eyes. Not to mention the fact the night sky isn't exactly the most perfect background to create a three-dimensional effect. So the film is too dark and too fast to make any impact in 3D.

I'm not the fan of the format, but I can tell when it is used well (like in Avatar). Not so here.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thor wasn't filmed with 3D in mind at all. I thoroughly enjoyed my 2D showing.

"I need a horse!"

"We don't have those, all we've got are cats and dogs..."

"Well give me one big enough to ride!"

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen Thor, but yeah, in general, 3D needs to be shot very differently from 2D in order to truly work. Even the much-lauded 3D in Avatar has its flaws.

Having stuff pop out at the audience is a surefire way to elicit stronger emotional reactions than simply adding depth "behind" the screen. Some of those reactions will be positive, particularly among younger audience members and people who simply haven't seen that much 3D stuff, and some of those reactions will be negative, particularly from those who've become weary of seeing those effects crop up in soooooo many 3D films. When the 3D is mainly used to allow objects to recede beyond the screen, reactions will be less polarized. Some people notice it and appreciate the enhanced realism; others barely detect the difference and get mildly annoyed that they paid extra for this.

My problem is that my eyes are just generally really good at viewing fake stereoscopic images, whether they're Magic Eye stereograms or movies with polarized glasses or what have you. And not only that, but I'm pretty perceptive when it comes to the details of the stereoscopy. I suspect, for example, that the makers of Avatar didn't give the backgrounds as much depth as they could (and IMO should) have because that would mean a greater discrepancy between the focusing and the divergence of the eyes. I would have been able to handle that just fine, and I was constantly comparing what I was seeing to what it could have been, so it was disappointing for me.

Anyway, I still like the idea of 3D quite a bit, but there's going to need to be more technological and artistic growth before I can fully get behind the way it's being implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Is The Last Film You Watched?

Caught part of Journey to the Centre of the Earth (1959) on TV today :P

Bi-Winning James Mmmmasson and Bernard Herrmann, a great combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Mariachi and Desperado

Best double feature ever.

Too bad Once Upon A Time IN Mexico sucked so much. I love the first two as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way, El Mariachi is a super well made movie. It doesn't matter that is has lower production values, the storyline is lightyears better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching I Robot.

The Blade Runner of the 2000's. ;)

An audience pleasing big budget sci-fi that is interested in providing action and spectacle but not so concerned with making it's audience think.

Hordes of robots attacking people, not nearly as frighting as HAL 2000 or Rutger Hauer. And I'm pretty sure Will Smith, on a motorcycle, in the air grabbing for 2 guns and shooting "evil robots" is not what Isaac Asimov intended.

*1/2 out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching I Robot.

The Blade Runner of the 2000's. ;)

An audience pleasing big budget sci-fi that is interested in providing action and spectacle but not so concerned with making it's audience think.

Hordes of robots attacking people, not nearly as frighting as HAL 2000 or Rutger Hauer. And I'm pretty sure Will Smith, on a motorcycle, in the air grabbing for 2 guns and shooting "evil robots" is not what Isaac Asimov intended.

*1/2 out of ****

It's a kids movie. Or, at least, it treats the audience that way. My kid loved it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Towering Inferno

gee, while it may not be the best film ever, the scene at the end with the old man with the cat really got to me :crymore: (partly because I am a cat lover, and partly because of JW's score)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a kids movie. Or, at least, it treats the audience that way. My kid loved it!

Yesh, the sad thing is. The material (Asimovs 3 laws of robotics) really have the potential to make an excellent sci-fi film.

Oh well, Harry Potter is next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The films moves around at a snails pace, really it must be the slowest movie ever. and it's a detached viewing, you never feel you are involved in it. Strangely that's how Harry appears in this one, most of the time watching others, doing what they tell him to do, or not to do.

However detached, I did find it a very entertaining watch and my attention never wavered for an instant. The cinematography looks breathtaking, really beautiful colour-grading.

*** out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the IMDB Alternate Versions page:

•An entire alternate ending scene was cut from the film involving a huge custard pie fight between everyone in the war room. Following is the events as they occurred: This footage began at a point in the War Room where the Russian ambassador is seen, for the second time, surreptitiously taking photographs of the Big Board, using six or seven tiny spy-cameras disguised as a wristwatch, a diamond ring, a cigarette lighter, and cufflinks. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) catches him in flagrante and, as before, tackles him and throws him to the floor. They fight furiously until President Merkin Muffley intervenes: "This is the War Room, gentlemen! How dare you fight in here!" General Turgidson is unfazed. "We've got the Commie rat redhanded this time, Mr. President!" The detachment of four military police, which earlier escorted the ambassador to the War Room, stands by as General Turgidson continues: "Mr. President, my experience in these matters of espionage has caused me to be more skeptical than your average Joe. I think these cameras," he indicates the array of ingenious devices, "may be dummy cameras, Just to put us off. I say he's got the real McCoy concealed on his person. I would like to have your permission, Mr. President, to have him fully searched." "All right," the President says, "permission granted." General Turgidson addresses the military police: "Okay boys, you heard the President. I want you to search the ambassador thoroughly. And due to the tininess of his equipment do not overlook any of the seven bodily orifices." The camera focuses on the face of the ambassador as he listens and mentally calculates the orifices with an expression of great annoyance. Why you capitalist swine!" he roars, and reaches out of the frame to the huge three-tiered table that was wheeled in earlier. Then he turns back to General Turgidson, who now has a look of apprehension on his face as he ducks aside, managing to evade a custard pie that the ambassador is throwing at him. President Muffley has been standing directly behind the general, so that when he ducks, the president is hit directly in the face with the pie. He is so overwhelmed by the sheer indignity of being struck with a pie that he simply blacks out. General Turgidson catches him as he collapses. "Gentlemen," he intones, "The president has been struck down, in the prime of his life and his presidency. I say massive retaliation!" And he picks up another pie and hurls it at the ambassador. It misses and hits instead General Faceman, the joint Chief representing the Army. Faceman is furious. "You've gone too far this time, Buck!" he says, throwing a pie himself, which hits Admiral Pooper, the Naval Joint Chief who, of course, also retaliates. A monumental pie fight ensues. Meanwhile, parallel to the pie-fight sequence, another sequence is occurring. At about the time that the first pie is thrown, Dr. Strangelove raises himself from his wheelchair. Then, looking rather wild-eyed, he shouts, "Mein Fuhrer, I can valk!" He takes a triumphant step forward and pitches flat on his face. He immediately tries to regain the wheelchair, snaking his way across the floor, which is so highly polished and slippery that the wheelchair scoots out of reach as soon as Strangelove touches it. We intercut between the pie fight and Strangelove's snakelike movements -- reach and scoot, reach and scoot -- which suggest a curious, macabre pas de deux. When the chair finally reaches the wall, it shoots sideways across the floor and comes to a stop ten feet away, hopelessly out of reach. Strangelove, exhausted and dejected, pulls himself up so that he is sitting on the floor, his back against the wall at the far end of the War Room. He stares for a moment at the surreal activity occurring there, the pie fight appearing like a distant, blurry, white blizzard. The camera moves in on Strangelove as he gazes, expressionless now, at the distant fray. Then, unobserved by him, his right hand slowly rises, moves to the inner pocket of his jacket and, with considerable stealth, withdraws a German Luger pistol and moves the barrel toward his right temple. The hand holding the pistol is seized at the last minute by the free hand and both grapple for its control. The hand grasping the wrist prevails and is able to deflect the pistol's aim so that when it goes off with a tremendous roar, it misses the temple. The explosion reverberates with such volume that the pie fight freezes. A tableau, of white and ghostly aspect: Strangelove stares for a moment before realizing that he has gained the upper hand. "Gentlemen," he calls out to them. "Enough of these childish games. Vee hab vork to do. Azzemble here pleeze!" For a moment, no one moves. Then a solitary figure breaks rank: It is General Turgidson, who walks across the room to the wheelchair and pushes it over to the stricken Strangelove. "May I help you into your chair, Doctor?" he asks. He begins wheeling Strangelove across the War Room floor, which is now about half a foot deep in custard pie. They move slowly until they reach the president and the Russian ambassador who are sitting crosslegged, facing each other, building a sandcastle. "What in Sam Hill..." mutters General Turgidson. "Ach," says Strangelove. "I think their minds have snapped under the strain. Perhaps they will have to be institutionalized." As they near the pie-covered formation of generals and admirals, General Turgidson announces gravely: "Well, boys, it looks like the future of this great land of ours is going to be in the hands of people like Dr. Strangelove here. So let's hear three for the good doctor!" And as he pushes off again, the eerie formation raise their voices in a thin, apparition-like lamentation: "Hip, hip, hooray, hip, hip, hooray!" followed by Vera Lynn's rendition of "We'll Meet Again." The camera is up and back in a dramatic long shot as General Turgidson moves across the War Room floor in a metaphorical visual marriage of Mad Scientist and United States Military. The End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Stylistically very similar to the previous one, the same...very slow pace. But this time Hogwarts is no were to be seen. Nice change!

The plot is more dense, lot of names, places that I'll need to remember for the next film.

The acting is very solid. But apart from the 3 leads, everyone else feels like an extended cameo. (again Fiennes looks scary...and is hardly in the movie).

The music...

Nicholas Hooper did not do this one? Did not really notice much difference. No new themes worth remembering, some heavy drums ala RCP. Musically after Doyle this series really has degraded.

Like HBP I was entertained. I wonder if part 2 will elevate this instalment above that level.

*** out of ****

PS: The effects on both these films is amazing, but after Cuaron, the visuals lacked a certain "magical" touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once Upon A Time In Mexico

Good end to the El Mariachi trilogy. The film's major weakness is the pacing. Seems like there are a few too many scenes that could have been cut down on. Otherwise, you've got his signature action set pieces, which are fantastic, an awesome score and his usual lovable characters. Johnny Depp, in particular, is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POTC: Dead Man's Chest

The film looks like a million dollars. (well countless millions) the set design and make-up effects are fantastic, and ILM did a brilliant job with the effects (save some of the Kraken shots, which are dreadful.

Pity it's such an illogical mess of a film, with a bunch of backstabbing, un-sympathetic characters.

* 1/2 out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grindhouse

The original theatrical presentation. I take it back, this is the best double feature ever. I do prefer the extended cut of Death Proof, it fixes some of the pacing problems, but the overall package here is one helluva fun ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POTC: Dead Man's Chest

The film looks like a million dollars. (well countless millions) the set design and make-up effects are fantastic, and ILM did a brilliant job with the effects (save some of the Kraken shots, which are dreadful.

Pity it's such an illogical mess of a film, with a bunch of backstabbing, un-sympathetic characters.

* 1/2 out of ****

up.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SecretofNimhPoster.jpg

The most amazing animated film I have seen in a long time. Fantastic score too, very Stravinsky-esque.

Why can't they make more edgy animated films like this one anymore?

9/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most amazing animated film I have seen in a long time. Fantastic score too, very Stravinsky-esque.

Why can't they make more edgy animated films like this one anymore?

9/10

This i saw as a kid and i guess one of the first encounters with filmmusic magic happened when the amulet magically lifts itself out of the mud and Goldsmith lets this mystical string arpeggio loose for a few seconds. Never forgot that one...

Wonderful to watch again after all these years. The film has dates, certainly. But has not lost much of it's charm.

**** out of ****

I love the first 30 minutes, but find the whole resolution terrible. Go figure. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

watch Psycho last night on Blu, other than content I do not see much improvement on the BLACK AND WHITE compared to the B&W on dvd. Still at 14 bucks it was a decent price.

I still stand by my statements the the tranfer for Close Encounters is not a great transfer. Its a film in need of major restoration. Spielberg was always to worried about changing the film's content rather than quality of the image. Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography deserves the utmost respect.

sorry Quint, I don't get your comment that it's Spielberg's most dated movie by far. It is a representation of the middle 70's. It is a film of it's time. It's not supposed to look like a 21st century film, and as far as visual effects good transfer or not the quality is timeless. The color pallete of the film is and always has been superb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Priest, fun B horror film. Christopher Young is decidedly better than almost all other film composers.

Bridesmaids, funny as shit, and I mean that literally and figuratively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death Race: An okay-ish B-movie that looks like a Michael Bay movie.

natalie-martinez-6.jpg

Are all babes called Martinez or Rodriguez these days?

Alex - who never saw the original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.