What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[publicist 4,643]

No love for Police Academy 3?

Those were the days. SUMMER RENTAL, SPIES LIKE US, PLANES, TRAINS & AUTOMOBILES, MY FAVOURITE YEAR, TRADING PLACES, DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS. Against those, E. T. can suck it. The only thing that i really love about it is the whole forest prologue with Williams in full Herrmann mode.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No love for Police Academy 3?

Those were the days. SUMMER RENTAL, SPIES LIKE US, PLANES, TRAINS & AUTOMOBILES, MY FAVOURITE YEAR, TRADING PLACES, DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS. Against those, E. T. can suck it. The only thing that i really love about it is the whole forest prologue with Williams in full Herrmann mode.

You're as WRONG AS ALEX. NO credibility from you.

[publicist 4,643]

You're as WRONG AS ALEX. NO credibility from you.

I can live without it if that means i can skip E. T. on telly.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Publicist is the new Morlock, credibility wise.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Add Evil Dead to that list.

I watched it tonight. I much prefer it over Evil Dead 2.

[Matt C 454]

A Sound of Thunder

I never get tired of this. The movie flounders between plot-riddled B-movie territory and absurdly bad SyFy movie cheapness. 99% of the CGI in this movie is hilariously bad -- especially the baboon dinosaurs and giant mutant fish. Edward Burns is plainly miscast (seriously he feels really out of place here!), Ben Kingsley phones in his performance, and poor Jemima Rooper and Catherine McCormack are left holding the pieces. Still, even with its mile-long plotholes, hilarious CGI, illogical ending and awful dialogue -- there's something endearing about the film.

I don't know what it is, but it's fun revisiting it. This is long overdue for a good MST3K/Rifftrax treatment.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

A Sound of Thunder

I never get tired of this. The movie flounders between plot-riddled B-movie territory and absurdly bad SyFy movie cheapness. 99% of the CGI in this movie is hilariously bad -- especially the baboon dinosaurs and giant mutant fish. Edward Burns is plainly miscast (seriously he feels really out of place here!), Ben Kingsley phones in his performance, and poor Jemima Rooper and Catherine McCormack are left holding the pieces. Still, even with its mile-long plotholes, hilarious CGI, illogical ending and awful dialogue -- there's something endearing about the film.

I don't know what it is, but it's fun revisiting it. This is long overdue for a good MST3K/Rifftrax treatment.

yes there is. Its more than a guilty pleasure

its also long overdue a good remake.

[A24 4,338]

Its more than a guilty pleasure

It's a great movie, Joey?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I like Nick Glennie-Smith's score. That's about it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Its more than a guilty pleasure

It's a great movie, Joey?

no it's anything but, yet it is a Matt says there is something appealing about it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Trash can be appealing

[A24 4,338]

Of course, we all know it's not the quality of the scripts or the performance of the actors that makes it easy to watch. No matter how bad it gets, something still makes it intriguing ... but what? The Star Wars universe? John Williams? What?!

Trash can be appealing

I think we finally found it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Skyfall!

Its' something different from Bourne indeed Alex. And something different from Bond......

[A24 4,338]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?

[crocodile 8,017]

Skyfall!

Its' something different from Bourne indeed Alex. And something different from Bond......

Now is the question of whether it's good or not, isn't it?

I can't decide.

Karol

[A24 4,338]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?

Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

I thought it was great! On par with Casino Royale. Much better then QoS.

My Skyfall review is up on the reviews site.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?

Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!

how nebbish of you.

with your idiotic way of thinking all Bonds are the same.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

This one isn't.

For you Alex!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I sure was worried that you might have found your way out of paying.

[Matt C 454]

I like Nick Glennie-Smith's score. That's about it.

It is nice. Shame it wasn't for a better movie, though.

[A24 4,338]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?

Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!

how nebbish of you.

with your idiotic way of thinking all Bonds are the same.

Calm down, Joey. Except for this one, I probably have seen all Bonds and I never had to let them sink in. What idiotic way of thinking? Based on this experience, I'd say that's pretty rational reasoning of me. Even if this one if like the Tarkovsky of Bonds, it would be very unique and unusual, not really warranting your response.

So yes, Joey, they are the same in this regard. Bond movies are not movies one needs to let sink in for days before one can understand them. I think they all have that in common. Maybe your brain works a bit slower? Could it be that?

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

I thought it was great! On par with Casino Royale. Much better then QoS.

That's to be expected. QOS was terrible, IMO. The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a decent film, marred by shaky cam and sifting.

[A24 4,338]

That didn't bother me (doesn't bother me in Bourne either). What did bother me was how bland everything was. So bland that it failed to be engaging. No matter how hard I tried to find something stimulating, I got nothing in return. A shame, because Casino Royale was decent.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Yay, I'm not alone in my indifference to shaky cam!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?

Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!

how nebbish of you.

with your idiotic way of thinking all Bonds are the same.

Calm down, Joey. Except for this one, I probably have seen all Bonds and I never had to let them sink in. What idiotic way of thinking? Based on this experience, I'd say that's pretty rational reasoning of me. Even if this one if like the Tarkovsky of Bonds, it would be very unique and unusual, not really warranting your response.

So yes, Joey, they are the same in this regard. Bond movies are not movies one needs to let sink in for days before one can understand them. I think they all have that in common. Maybe your brain works a bit slower? Could it be that?

But you're not sure if it's great or not?

I thought it was great! On par with Casino Royale. Much better then QoS.

That's to be expected. QOS was terrible, IMO. The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

Alex I'm not at all worried that you might be smarter to me, your need for superiority is your undoing.. we agree Quantum of Solice was a terrible name, it was not a good movie. More Bourne than Bond

Watched Robert Wise's great horror film The Body Snatcher. Among Karloff's finest performances. Beautiful camera work,

[crocodile 8,017]

The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

It's an interesting title. I love it.

Karol

[Matt C 454]

Yay, I'm not alone in my indifference to shaky cam!

You and he aren't the only ones. I'm fine with a handheld approach done sparingly, and when it fits the subject matter. I really don't like how Paul Greengrass, Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams made it 'fashionable.' The numerous handheld shots in Abrams' Star Trek, as well as the lens flares, were very distracting. And it was particularly glaring in Quantum of Solace, which wasn't helped by the rapid-cut editing too.

I did watch the original Friday the 13th, Friday the 13th Part 2 and the 2009 remake last night. They're not the epitome of great horror films, but they're fun for an annual October viewing. The original film copies the Halloween formula and suffers for it. The low budget does lend some natural atmosphere, particularly later on in the film. But the final 20 minutes are very campy and hilarious, and Betsy Palmer's acting is hilariously awful.

Part II boasts a bit more atmosphere, and the final girl has some working brain cells. While he doesn't have the hockey mask, this Jason is actually more menacing and frightening. He's not supernatural or absurdly quick, and some of the attack scenes still shock. It's a mostly bloodless affair. As for the 2009 remake, I'm honestly scratching my heads at why a lot of die-hard fans prefer the original films. This film follows the original films' formula to a T (token characters, nudity, gore, stupid plotting) and Jason Mears is quite intimidating as the leading role.

But the 2009 remake is also plagued with handheld shots... ugh. It's quite aggravating in the kill scenes.

[A24 4,338]

The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

It's an interesting title. I love it.

Karol

It's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

It's an interesting title. I love it.

Karol

It's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.

Did people have trouble understanding it? It's the one thing about the film I don't have a problem with.

[A24 4,338]

The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

It's an interesting title. I love it.

Karol

It's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.

Did people have trouble understanding it? It's the one thing about the film I don't have a problem with.

Funny. Even Paul Haggis didn't know what it meant.

[crocodile 8,017]

The name of the movie is terrible too.

Alex

It's an interesting title. I love it.

Karol

It's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.

Did people have trouble understanding it? It's the one thing about the film I don't have a problem with.

Funny. Even Paul Haggis didn't know what it meant.

Well, I do.

Karol

[A24 4,338]

Well, I do.

Paul Haggis doesn't so it seems I do have a point. I'm glad it's not my favorite movie otherwise I always had to say "Quaaaantum Of Sooooolaaaace is my favorite movie, man".

[crocodile 8,017]

Well, I do.

Paul Haggis doesn't so it seems I do have a point. I'm glad it's not my favorite movie otherwise I always had to say "Quaaaantum Of Sooooolaaaace is my favorite movie, man".

If you're familiar with the Ian Fleming's stories it's pretty clear what it stands for. And also it fits into the subtext of this story, quite well.

What I think Paul Haggis means (and Marc Forster probably too) is that they didn't get to pick the title and this is an insulting way of saying that.

I didn't like the film very much, but I liked the title. It's so strange for a film like that.

Karol

[crocodile 8,017]

Blade Runner

It's still alright.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Prometheus

Didn't enjoy it as much as I did in theaters, a lot of the tension was gone, but loved the score more than I initially did. I still withhold that it's a good movie, and after watching the deleted scenes, I put more blame on Scalia than Spaihts and Lindelof this time around. A lot of poor editing decisions that would have cleared up a lot of the ambiguity in the final cut. I can see why they cut a lot of it though. Most have terrible acting, and it tightens the pace a lot. I still haven't watched the making of feature, so I don't know what other insight there is to gain on the production; much more I predict.

The Game

Still as engrossing as ever. A time when Fincher and Shore dominated the thriller. The score is brilliant in this movie; and Criterion's transfer is gorgeous. It's slightly dated in its pay phones, car phones, giant cell phones, giant computers and small tube TVs, but it all still works.

[Quintus 5,399]

Scott is to blame, no one else.

[A24 4,338]

Yes, because he is the supreme supervisor and he went along with it. He let it happen.

We now know that sci-fi does not bring out the best in him.

Alex

[Jay 37,368]

I'm curious to see those deleted scenes.

Wasn't there also supposed to be a version of the film released with deleted scenes integrated back in? Did that get canceled or is it coming out later?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't know about that, but the deleted scenes explain why the biologist went all touchy feely for the alien snake, what was going on in the first hologram with the Engineers running, what was happening to Fifield to a certain extent, more insight as to what happened on that planet, etc.

Good changes were the final confrontation with the Enginner, and the sex scene.

[Jay 37,368]

Damn now I really want to see those!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It was all about 40 minutes in total, and the missing information is why I turned the blame over to Scalia. Yes Scott shares a big portion of whoever I'm talking about specifically, but I also think the studio put a lot of pressure on this one. Wasn't this originally supposed to be PG-13? I imagine they had to do a lot of reshoots and editing to keep it a certain length and rating.

[Jay 37,368]

I think it was always R. But you can't blame the editor what what is or isn't in the film. He's cutting the scenes the director is telling him to.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Fincher never dominated anything theatrically. has he ever actually even had a blockbuster.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I think it was always R. But you can't blame the editor what what is or isn't in the film. He's cutting the scenes the director is telling him to.

Depends on the collaboration. Some editors are given a lot more breathing room, and like I said I include Scott as well whenever discussing a particular person. He's been working with Scalia since at least Gladiator.

[A24 4,338]

Fincher never dominated anything theatrically. has he ever actually even had a blockbuster.

Benjamin Button made quite a few bucks worldwide but few will say it's his best film.

[crocodile 8,017]

It's worse than Alien 3

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Fight Club may not have been financially successful, but it certainly is critically.

[A24 4,338]

It's worse than Alien 3

Karol

It was too Spielberg for Fincher. I like the score though.

Seven is his most commercially succesful film.