Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched?


Ollie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't like Hulk because all he does is run from the government. It'll be nice to see him chase someone for a change.

That's why they made The Incredible Hulk, for people like you (and Joey)

The Incredible Hulk was the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better made? What does that mean?! What did I miss? All I saw was a very dumb movie and a definite sign of Marvel going down in quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. It's baffling to me that people think he's the epitome of acting. Heck, he's the reason why I don't want to see the movie in the first place. A warning sign! A poor man's Robert De Niro. If he's so good, then why does he only pops up in shoddy material? Why doesn't he get better offers? Why are the big directors not interested in Edward Norton?!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't really love Ang Lee's Hulk, but I still thought it was better than the Norton version, which I had no desire to sit through. The Lee one was less of a thrown-together movie adaptation Marvel has been shitting out. I feel like none of those characters are getting any justice. The Marvels are formulaic, miscast, loaded with crappy CGI, and feature terrible original music and pop songs all over the place. You literally get the same thing every time, just with different characters. Lee went for more serious drama with a tormented protagonist, more impressive CGI and visually replicating the comic panels, which was kinda neat. Now, when you compare it to the other Marvels, it stands out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was. But then it doesn't say all that much. No matter how you handle it, the character (who is essentially a green CG giant) will always look stupid.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of the creature is that it's weird. Hence the bright green and all.

The only one by Marvel Studios I've seen is Iron Man. It was fun, but empty. It left me unsatisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down, geez.

Norton is a good actor, not the epitome of it. Don't know where you got that from.

From the internet, you silly. Steef's post ("Ed Nortons brilliant touch again") is an example of it but I think (hope) he was just parodying it. Like the name Norton immediately and automatically demands that we should be in awe.

In other words, it's you who should calm down, alright!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We share similar opinions about Norton. Who was really great in one or two roles (Primal Fear for instance) but decidedly boring in most of his other ones.

One reason why the great director may choose not to work with him is that he likes to rewrite the lines for his characters...to suit him more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason why the great director may choose not to work with him is that he likes to rewrite the lines for his characters...to suit him more.

Directors don't mind input from their actors. I really don't think that's the reason..

Post disappeared. So I repeat, The Illusionist is that film of Norton I wanted to see. It was a severe letdown and mainly because of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only one by Marvel Studios I've seen is Iron Man. It was fun, but empty. It left me unsatisfied.

It wasn't even fun but watchable thanks to Robert downey Jr. I can't think of any other positive things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have to see it in English but Norton seemed to be good in Fight Club.

It wasn't even fun but watchable thanks to Robert downey Jr. I can't think of any other positive things.

Downey was very good indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He lacks the quiet charisma for the sort of roles he seems to prefer the most. He's much better when he's not the lonely, brooding character.

From my internet roamings, I believe that most people endlessly respect him for that deep and profound film about the neo-nazi. I don't remember the title right now. Since then he's like some kind of god to some folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American History X.

Never seen it, should I?

To tell the truth, at the time I thought it was really good but then, a few years later, I watched it again and I couldn't see why I liked it the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Sugarland Express. It was great. I'd say of all Spielberg's films, this is one of the best at really amping up the tension. My heart was pounding pretty much throughout. Music is great too, I wish JW would allow a release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say of all Spielberg's films, this is one of the best at really amping up the tension. My heart was pounding pretty much throughout.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Pirates 4 over the weekend. I enjoyed it thoroughly. After 2 and 3 I had low expectations, which were exceeded. It was the kind of movie 2 and 3 should have been - straightforward plot, action packed, full of fun characters. It even explored what made the characters tick, a little bit.

Side note - the trailer for Transformers made it look better than the first two. I certainly hope it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason why the great director may choose not to work with him is that he likes to rewrite the lines for his characters...to suit him more.

Directors don't mind input from their actors. I really don't think that's the reason..

Depends on the director. Don't try and improv with the Coens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just subscribed to Netflix, and so I streamed the full series, including the special, of the original The Office. It was brilliant. The show was consistently hilarious, and effectively dramatic as well. Gervais was, of course, awkwardly hilarious. I'm VERY much looking forward to Martin Freeman's Bilbo after seeing this. The writing and acting on this show came together magnificently, and Gervais and Merchant made excellent use of their 12 episodes and finale. Speaking of the finale, well...not to say too much, but that's got to include the most satisfying "fuck off" I've ever heard in my life.

Absolutely wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason why the great director may choose not to work with him is that he likes to rewrite the lines for his characters...to suit him more.

Directors don't mind input from their actors. I really don't think that's the reason..

Depends on the director. Don't try and improv with the Coens.

Well, I haven't heard of that but, normally, one of the things that makes a good director is the ability to be open-minded for better ideas and suggestions. That doesn't necessarily mean improvisation. A lot of great moments wouldn't exist without the contributions of the spontaneous inspiration of the actors. Of course, as with everything, there's always that one exception. It would surprise me though. Then again, the Coen brothers act as their own scriptwriters as well, and as we all know, writers can be very difficult when someone wants to change their script. Anyway, this is all beside the point. If some director admires Norton, he's going to want to work with him, no matter what. You admire someone for what he is and what he does. If that includes some occasional creative outburst like improv, then that's a part of that person too.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just subscribed to Netflix, and so I streamed the full series, including the special, of the original The Office. It was brilliant. The show was consistently hilarious, and effectively dramatic as well. Gervais was, of course, awkwardly hilarious. I'm VERY much looking forward to Martin Freeman's Bilbo after seeing this. The writing and acting on this show came together magnificently, and Gervais and Merchant made excellent use of their 12 episodes and finale. Speaking of the finale, well...not to say to much, but that's got to include the most satisfying "fuck off" I've ever heard in my life.

Absolutely wonderful.

:thumbup: Unsurprisingly, I was exposed to the American version first, and I was a little wary of trying the British original at first, but then I gave it a shot on Netflix, too, and it's indeed brilliant. It shares a lot with its American cousin, but there's so much that's different about it, and it's rewarding in a very different way. Far more grim and depressing at times, with a decidedly British sensibility to the whole thing (big surprise!). But most importantly, it never wavers or falters or fails in any way. They knew exactly what they were trying to do from the very start, so the show wastes no time trying to "find itself", and then there are so few episodes that they had no time to lose their way. (IMO, the American version did both - it started off trying too hard to mimic the original, and then they figured out how to be awesome for a while, and then they lost it.) Overall very well put together, and pretty hilarious a lot of the time, even when I have some trouble understanding them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

Karol

...and?

Rango again. Story's unfortunately thin, but still lovely to look at.

Too Big To Fail. Quite good, and, in a way, more compelling than many of these star-studded made for tv movies about recent history. It is also more disturbing than most of them. Superb cast, of course, doing superb work. And the Marcello Zarvos score wasn't terrible. Still, it's sad to see Curtis Hanson reduced to this.

The Borgias. Great fun. It's so wonderful to see a real filmmaker get a chance at this trashy tv format. Good music, too.

The Incredible Hulk started well enough, but got quite boring by the end. I wouldn't be surprised if X-Men: First Class is the best movie to be based on Marvel characters to date. And Edward Norton can be very annoying, but there are about 3 films where he is absolutely perfect (I agree with Alex, he did hurt The Illusionist, though I do still like the film).

One reason why the great director may choose not to work with him is that he likes to rewrite the lines for his characters...to suit him more.

Directors don't mind input from their actors. I really don't think that's the reason..

Depends on the director. Don't try and improv with the Coens.

You make it sound like they're agressive on the set...they generally allow their actors to improvise. They just don't use it.

Morlock- who attended a Q&A with the Coens a couple of weeks ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

Karol

...and?

It's looks really gorgeous. The story (or lack of it) is very simple and the official synopsis pretty much describes everything. And old man is waiting to die and is visited by spirits. And, bizzarely, there is nothing morbid about that. You just contemplate the images and natural sound effects. No music at all (if you don't count source music). I don't know if it's good or bad, but I couldn't stop watching. It was very late and I was really tired... so it must mean something. "Hypnotic" is the best way to describe it. More of a experience than a film.

Oh and there's a sex scene between a woman and a catfish. But not silly at all, as strange as it may seem.

Karol - who purchased the third season of Mad Men today :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did like Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, but the whole iconography of character he as playing helps a great deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this kind of performance Hugo Weaving did better in V for Vendetta. But then again he's got one of the most distinctive voices in film business at the moment. He can create an entire character around that.

Ed Norton is fine. But there's nothing remarkable about him at all. He does his job and films mostly don't suffer for that.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karol - who purchased the third season of Mad Men today :)

And what a great season it is! I hope you bought it on Blu-ray. The quality of the DVD isn't very good.

You make it sound like they're agressive on the set...they generally allow their actors to improvise. They just don't use it.

Or tyrants!

I did like Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, but the whole iconography of character he as playing helps a great deal

Like Steef says, he can be good ... in supporting roles. ;)

Biloxi Blues: I still love it!

000906_181.jpg

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason why the great director may choose not to work with him is that he likes to rewrite the lines for his characters...to suit him more.

Directors don't mind input from their actors. I really don't think that's the reason..

Depends on the director. Don't try and improv with the Coens.

You make it sound like they're agressive on the set...they generally allow their actors to improvise. They just don't use it.

Morlock- who attended a Q&A with the Coens a couple of weeks ago

Well yeah. I forgot where I read it and for what film, but the actor said he tried to add a line of his own and they said "That was great, but let's stick to the script."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched a couple of westerns:

Appaloosa - could've done with fewer scenes with Harris & Mortensen talking (I noticed a critic on RT mentions the same thing), but otherwise enjoyed this. Story seemed overly simplistic at times but Harris' direction was clear and engaging. Nice score from Beal.

Once Upon a Time in the West - Note to self: stop trying to watch critic-ass-sucked epics.

I really wanted to like this, because it's set in one of my favourite places in the world, but I didn't. Problem with these epics is that if you're not immediately drawn to the fate of these characters (and I wasn't), where's the emotional connection to what happens to them over the next several hours? This one failed to draw me in, and while I made it to the end credits, I simply didn't care any more.

Morricone's absolutely classic score was the only part of this film I truly enjoyed.

The Godfather is next in my lovefilm queue. I hope I'm still awake by the end of that :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once Upon a Time in the West - Note to self: stop trying to watch critic-ass-sucked epics.

I really wanted to like this, because it's set in one of my favourite places in the world, but I didn't. Problem with these epics is that if you're not immediately drawn to the fate of these characters (and I wasn't), where's the emotional connection to what happens to them over the next several hours? This one failed to draw me in, and while I made it to the end credits, I simply didn't care any more.

Morricone's absolutely classic score was the only part of this film I truly enjoyed.

But what about the 'silent' 15 minute opening scene? To me, this is how the whole film should've been. It's time for a remake! But like you said, you can't beat that score though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silence is even worse than dialogue.

I'm against the idea the a film should be about challenging the viewer to work out what the hell it is you're saying to them.

I think I just don't like epics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just don't like epics.

The silence in film is what it's all about. The image and editing is what makes film unique as an art form. It's only then that film is communicating in its own distinctive laguage. Saying you hate silence is like saying 'words' are the worst thing about books.

Between you and me, I don't think you like movies. ;)

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The silence in film is what it's all about. The image and editing is what makes film unique as an art form. It's only then that film is communicating in its own distinctive laguage.

False. If it uses sound or music it's still communating in its own distinctive languaje because it's still using images and editing. :P

And using sound in the way it does pretty much unique too. Plain text stories or comics don't have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dialogue is not essential for the art of film. Images (moving images, of course) and editing is. Not that dialogue or sound aren't important, especially in mainstream cinema, although several of my favorite moments in recent history have been when cinema didn't rely on the spoken word. (first part of There Will Be Blood, Wall-E and No Country)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just don't like epics.

Between you and me, I don't think you like movies. ;)

I'm saying that in this particular case I thought the silence didn't help in establishing the story and characters.

I've seen plenty of critic-loved films that I enjoy. I just didn't like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just didn't like this one.

To be honest, I was disappointed too the last time I watched it. Is it really that respected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange. Perhaps people are sentimentalists. The film's many interior scenes didn't really captivate me anymore. First part is indeed lovely.

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.