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

[Quintus 5,399]

Romcoms now? God you've hit rock bottom!

What happened to you Alex?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I bet you anything he is dating someone, and he is watching the kinda movies she likes.....and isnt telling her what he really thinks of them.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

King Kong (2005)

The quintessential remake of the 2000's. It remains faithful to the basic outline of the source material while taking it in a different direction emotional direction. I particularly like the stylistic CGI-enhanced cinematography which is much more expressive than the cinematography of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. The score by James Newton Howard is also very impressive, especially considering it was written under such short notice. It hits each emotional beat perfectly and also functions as an outstanding listening experience on album. The length never really bothered me too much either. Even with a fair share of unnecessary scenes and overly long action sequences it's still more engaging than nearly all blockbusters that are being released now.

9/10

[Quintus 5,399]

I bet you anything he is dating someone, and he is watching the kinda movies she likes.....and isnt telling her what he really thinks of them.

Do people dating really watch romcoms together though? I never have. It's always been horrors or straight-up comedies, the Farrerlly Brothers sort.

If Runaway Bride was on the menu I'd runaway and hide!

[A24 4,338]

Romcoms now? God you've hit rock bottom!

What happened to you Alex?

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about, Quintus, I have always liked Judd Apatow romantic comedies.

[Quintus 5,399]

"From the producer of Bridesmaids"

A chick flick. You like chick flicks. I knew it all along!

[A24 4,338]

All I know is that Judd Apatow is the producer and it certainly has that vibe. He makes romcoms for guys. They are from a male perspective.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

How the mighty have fallen!

[DreamTheater 131]

King Kong (2005)

The quintessential remake of the 2000's. It remains faithful to the basic outline of the source material while taking it in a different direction emotional direction. I particularly like the stylistic CGI-enhanced cinematography which is much more expressive than the cinematography of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. The score by James Newton Howard is also very impressive, especially considering it was written under such short notice. It hits each emotional beat perfectly and also functions as an outstanding listening experience on album. The length never really bothered me too much either. Even with a fair share of unnecessary scenes and overly long action sequences it's still more engaging than nearly all blockbusters that are being released now.

9/10

Love that film. Andy Serkis steals the show (and not in his cameo). And I was quite surprised that the extended edition of the film (about 20 minutes extra footage) is not all character exposition but including 2 exciting action sequences with other big monsters roaming the island. Not that the movie needed any more, but still it came to me as a bit of a shock.

[A24 4,338]

How the mighty have fallen!

Only the mighty see the difference between an Apatow movie or a chick flick.

OTOH, the day before yesterday, I did switch off The Expendables 2 after only 5 minutes, so maybe there is something wrong with my manhood.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

They felt an already unnecessarily long film wasn't long enough?

[filmmusic 1,829]

Firestarter (1984)

Drew Barrymore's next film after E.T., from a Stephen King novel.

I enjoyed it (since I'm an 80s freak) although it could have been better.

[Marian Schedenig 8,198]

My sister tried reading Angels and Demons a while ago and just gave up on it.

But she really liked the movie.

Unlike Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons (the first book, even though it's the second film) is one of the most gripping books I've read. It's badly written (anything I've seen by Brown is), but I've rarely read a book that was so hard to put down. Edge of your seat level wise, I'd compare it to Gravity.

Which is why I was more disappointed by the film version than I was with Da Vinci Code. Because A&D the book was so much better, but the film wasn't able to outclass DVC. It had its moments (so had DVC), but it should have been much more exciting than it ended up being.

They felt an already unnecessarily long film wasn't long enough?

I never thought the PJ KK was too long. But the EE doesn't add anything that's necessary. Some stuff is nice to have, the rest doesn't hurt much, but nothing about the added scenes is important.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Five -Year Engagement:

Comedy that starts off being not so funny, then after 50 minutes it becomes very funny, only to end with all the clichés in the book. It must be said, the two leading actors have a pretty good chemistry together. Enjoyable. 6/10

Alex

I really liked this one. It's way too long (I think 2 hours 20 minutes?), but there's a lot of good material in it. Segel is a really talented writer/actor.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles. What can I say? It will always be one of my favorite films. 2 hours of Brad Pitt pouting with big gothic Elliot Goldenthal score, Tom Cruise in the role he was born to play, Kirsten Dunst before she grew up and became a terrible actress and Antonio Banderas speaking in a different accent every other line.

[Matt C 454]

Spaceballs

Mel Brooks should've never made this movie. There, I said it. It might be amusing for die-hard Star Wars fans, but it's still lame and desperately unfunny. Darth Vader is Rick Moranis, Jabba the Hutt is a fat supreme pizza, John Candy's hideous with the makeup and prosthetic ears. I think the Airplane and Naked Gun folks would've done a sharper and wittier Star Wars spoof than this flaccid and dated 'spoof.'

Give me Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles and Men in Tights over this claptrap.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

No, no, no, go past this. Past this part. In fact, never play this again.

[Matt C 454]

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles. What can I say? It will always be one of my favorite films. 2 hours of Brad Pitt pouting with big gothic Elliot Goldenthal score, Tom Cruise in the role he was born to play, Kirsten Dunst before she grew up and became a terrible actress and Antonio Banderas speaking in a different accent every other line.

If you've seen her leaked photos, she still has that vampire look. Scary.

[filmmusic 1,829]

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles. What can I say? It will always be one of my favorite films. 2 hours of Brad Pitt pouting with big gothic Elliot Goldenthal score, Tom Cruise in the role he was born to play, Kirsten Dunst before she grew up and became a terrible actress and Antonio Banderas speaking in a different accent every other line.

i love this film of course since I saw it in my teens, but I feel something is missing..Or that it doesn't have a good structure.

Or that I don't like Tom Cruise with blond hair..

Anyway, it's been tooooo long since I last saw it.

I'm waiting to buy the new Bluray with the lossless sound.

and of course the Goldenthal score is a masterpiece!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Spaceballs

Mel Brooks should've never made this movie. There, I said it. It might be amusing for die-hard Star Wars fans, but it's still lame and desperately unfunny. Darth Vader is Rick Moranis, Jabba the Hutt is a fat supreme pizza, John Candy's hideous with the makeup and prosthetic ears. I think the Airplane and Naked Gun folks would've done a sharper and wittier Star Wars spoof than this flaccid and dated 'spoof.'

Give me Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles and Men in Tights over this claptrap.

Wrong.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Right!

Spaceballs is fairly mediocre.

[Quintus 5,399]

Spaceballs is terrible, it always was. Then again, what do you expect from a director who stopped making good movies nearly 40 years ago?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future, nothin' works!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I remember the "fuck" was edited out of the network TV version and never knew it was there until I got the DVD!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

How can there be a cassette of Spaceballs: The Movie? We're still in the middle of makin' it!

[DreamTheater 131]

Spaceballs

Mel Brooks should've never made this movie. There, I said it. It might be amusing for die-hard Star Wars fans, but it's still lame and desperately unfunny. Darth Vader is Rick Moranis, Jabba the Hutt is a fat supreme pizza, John Candy's hideous with the makeup and prosthetic ears. I think the Airplane and Naked Gun folks would've done a sharper and wittier Star Wars spoof than this flaccid and dated 'spoof.'

Give me Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles and Men in Tights over this claptrap.

C'mon now, as a parody Spaceballs is hilariously funny... May the Schwartz Be With You !

I thought Men in Thights is where Mel Brooks ran out of steam.

Another good one is History of the World Part One.

Wonder when he'll get off his butt and do the sequel?

[Jay 37,368]

Looking at this list, he's been in a pretty steady decline critically since the 70s, but was still always good for about 30 mil at the box office apart from Life Stinks and Dracula

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mel_Brooks_films

[Bilbo 3,709]

Spaceballs

Mel Brooks should've never made this movie. There, I said it. It might be amusing for die-hard Star Wars fans, but it's still lame and desperately unfunny. Darth Vader is Rick Moranis, Jabba the Hutt is a fat supreme pizza, John Candy's hideous with the makeup and prosthetic ears. I think the Airplane and Naked Gun folks would've done a sharper and wittier Star Wars spoof than this flaccid and dated 'spoof.'

Give me Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles and Men in Tights over this claptrap.

I love a good Star Wars parody but I've never "gotten" Spaceballs. I just don't find any of it funny. It might have been the first but it's been done better since.

[nightscape94 965]

There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

I think Mel himself said it best: "I cannot parody something that I haven't loved". That's why his first films work so well, because he's spoofing what he loves, particularly the highlight being Young Frankenstein, where he even got the little details right. Spaceballs doesn't work *as well* -although it's still pretty funny in some parts- because it's quite obvious Star Wars wasn't such a big thing with him.

Robin Hood is a mistery why it doesn't work so well, because it's obvious he's a big fan of Erroll Flynn. Maybe he was trying too much to be like the Kevin Costner version, I dunno...

[Bilbo 3,709]

I think Mel himself said it best: "I cannot parody something that I haven't loved". That's why his first films work so well, because he's spoofing what he loves, particularly the highlight being Young Frankenstein, where he even got the little details right. Spaceballs doesn't work *as well* -although it's still pretty funny in some parts- because it's quite obvious Star Wars wasn't such a big thing with him.

Robin Hood is a mistery why it doesn't work so well, because it's obvious he's a big fan of Erroll Flynn. Maybe he was trying too much to be like the Kevin Costner version, I dunno...

Yes, I've always felt that the best parodies come from a love of the material.

[Romão 2,274]

He did parody Hitler...

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The way he runs things, it won't last 100.

[Matt C 454]

I think Mel himself said it best: "I cannot parody something that I haven't loved". That's why his first films work so well, because he's spoofing what he loves, particularly the highlight being Young Frankenstein, where he even got the little details right. Spaceballs doesn't work *as well* -although it's still pretty funny in some parts- because it's quite obvious Star Wars wasn't such a big thing with him.

Robin Hood is a mistery why it doesn't work so well, because it's obvious he's a big fan of Erroll Flynn. Maybe he was trying too much to be like the Kevin Costner version, I dunno...

You can tell Brooks has a genuine affection for the Errol Flynn film (the funnier scenes are when he's riffing on that), and certain aspects of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Tracey Ullman's Latrine was a wonderful skewering of the Thieves counterpart (especially breaking the fourth wall), whereas the other characters are hit-and-miss. Richard Lewis' Prince John = big miss. Roger Rees' Sheriff of Rottingham = bullseye. Amy Yasbeck's Marian = mixed. Achoo = mixed.

Even with all of its flaws, it still makes me laugh. Even though some of humor is dated and doesn't hold up well.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Under The Skin

Enigmatic is probably the word best suiting much of this film, the other is alien.

This sci-fi films opens with shots clearly homemaking CE3k (the light), Blade Runner (the eye) and 2001: ASO (the first shot of the motorcyclist in high speed looks like Dave Bowman going on his transcendental voyage).

After that is really becomes it's own thing.

Toi describe it's plot is to basically describe what happens on the screen. There isnt a traditional plot. Scenes happen, often for a reason, but at no point is it clear what will happen next.

Scarlett Johansson literally stars in this movie. She once started in indie cinema to become a big movie star, but is able to toss all of that away and pretty much returns to where she started, though more bizarre.

She plays her character (nameless, like every character in the film) as a complete empty vessel. An alien of some sort seemingly programmed to lure Scottish men into her den, where they are processed in a large liquid substance and eventually removed from their skin. For reasons never quite made plain.

Johanssen's enigmatic smile and her voice are used by her character, but only when she is on her mission. For the rest her facial expressions are either completely blank, a subtle curious bemusement, discomfort and a bit later mild enjoyment and panic.

At first a effective predator she begins to falter in his task as she is overwhelmed by the sensory output she is receiving on this planet. Without even a hint of exposition the film is able to tell a lot about her character. Her home planet must be completely different. without the variety of colors, objects, and especially sounds. After a while it begins to overwhelm her and flees, for reasons probably not clear for herself either.

Jonanssen strips herself from any glamor she has as an actress,and become essentially someone acting out of an unknown impulse, going through the world with a very limited vocabulary, or frame of reference (the only engaging dialogue scenes she has are the pick-ups. In other scenes she is barely able to express anything, as if it wasnt part of her programming).

It's a brave performance, because it gives the viewer so little to latch on to.

Jonathan Glazer's direction purposely tries to avoid the viewer getting too close. It has a distinct 70's feel in how it was shot. Long, lingering shots from an extreme distance which would have made Kubrick proud are alternated with the convined conditions of the truck Johansson drives.

Music is used sparingly and very effectively. Lots of unearthly atonal string stracting. an almost ritualistic theme with strings and a drum to signify the scenes where Johanssen lures men to their demise. (repeated in an almost ironic fashion later in the film)

This is a very puzzling film. If you think 2001: ASO was frustrating then stay away, because that film is a picture of clarity compared to this one.

Yes, it's very involving, for the right audience, the person who doesn't always need to be led by the director, writer or even the actor. I loved how the film was able to make things clear, or suggest things to me simply be showing whats going on, rather then telling me. And even though I'm sure my conclusions about it may be completely different to what might have been intended...but maybe thats the point.

Yes Johanssen has a few nude scenes here, particularly one where she examines herself in the mirror. It shows that she is indeed a gorgeous woman, yet there is something "normal" about here.

This is the sort of film many many will hate, because they think it's about nothing, and nothing happens.

That might actually be so. yet there is something irresistible about it.

Enigmatic

[filmmusic 1,829]

Is there any French here?

How do you feel about Luis de Funes?

He's a great comedian, I love him.

Saw yesterday Oscar (1967)

(there is a remake of it with Sylverster Stallone that I had first watched)

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

You can tell Brooks has a genuine affection for the Errol Flynn film (the funnier scenes are when he's riffing on that), and certain aspects of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Tracey Ullman's Latrine was a wonderful skewering of the Thieves counterpart (especially breaking the fourth wall), whereas the other characters are hit-and-miss. Richard Lewis' Prince John = big miss. Roger Rees' Sheriff of Rottingham = bullseye. Amy Yasbeck's Marian = mixed. Achoo = mixed.

Even with all of its flaws, it still makes me laugh. Even though some of humor is dated and doesn't hold up well.

Lend me your ears!

[crocodile 8,017]

Enigmatic

Indeed, I really liked it. I think its brave thing for Scarlett to take on a role that requires of her virtually no acting and being simply an "object". Really liked the almost Lynch vs Kubrick kind of feel. And the score is awesome. On its own difficult to "like", but brilliant in execution. More of stuff like this, please!

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Under The Skin

Enigmatic is probably the word best suiting much of this film, the other is alien.

This sci-fi films opens with shots clearly homemaking CE3k (the light), Blade Runner (the eye) and 2001: ASO (the first shot of the motorcyclist in high speed looks like Dave Bowman going on his transcendental voyage).

After that is really becomes it's own thing.

Toi describe it's plot is to basically describe what happens on the screen. There isnt a traditional plot. Scenes happen, often for a reason, but at no point is it clear what will happen next.

Scarlett Johansson literally stars in this movie. She once started in indie cinema to become a big movie star, but is able to toss all of that away and pretty much returns to where she started, though more bizarre.

She plays her character (nameless, like every character in the film) as a complete empty vessel. An alien of some sort seemingly programmed to lure Scottish men into her den, where they are processed in a large liquid substance and eventually removed from their skin. For reasons never quite made plain.

Johanssen's enigmatic smile and her voice are used by her character, but only when she is on her mission. For the rest her facial expressions are either completely blank, a subtle curious bemusement, discomfort and a bit later mild enjoyment and panic.

At first a effective predator she begins to falter in his task as she is overwhelmed by the sensory output she is receiving on this planet. Without even a hint of exposition the film is able to tell a lot about her character. Her home planet must be completely different. without the variety of colors, objects, and especially sounds. After a while it begins to overwhelm her and flees, for reasons probably not clear for herself either.

Jonanssen strips herself from any glamor she has as an actress,and become essentially someone acting out of an unknown impulse, going through the world with a very limited vocabulary, or frame of reference (the only engaging dialogue scenes she has are the pick-ups. In other scenes she is barely able to express anything, as if it wasnt part of her programming).

It's a brave performance, because it gives the viewer so little to latch on to.

Jonathan Glazer's direction purposely tries to avoid the viewer getting too close. It has a distinct 70's feel in how it was shot. Long, lingering shots from an extreme distance which would have made Kubrick proud are alternated with the convined conditions of the truck Johansson drives.

Music is used sparingly and very effectively. Lots of unearthly atonal string stracting. an almost ritualistic theme with strings and a drum to signify the scenes where Johanssen lures men to their demise. (repeated in an almost ironic fashion later in the film)

This is a very puzzling film. If you think 2001: ASO was frustrating then stay away, because that film is a picture of clarity compared to this one.

Yes, it's very involving, for the right audience, the person who doesn't always need to be led by the director, writer or even the actor. I loved how the film was able to make things clear, or suggest things to me simply be showing whats going on, rather then telling me. And even though I'm sure my conclusions about it may be completely different to what might have been intended...but maybe thats the point.

Yes Johanssen has a few nude scenes here, particularly one where she examines herself in the mirror. It shows that she is indeed a gorgeous woman, yet there is something "normal" about here.

This is the sort of film many many will hate, because they think it's about nothing, and nothing happens.

That might actually be so. yet there is something irresistible about it.

Enigmatic

Great write up. I need to see this one immediately.

[Matt C 454]

V/H/S

Barely made it through the first half hour before turning it off. I think the found-footage genre needs to be scrapped, personally. It's led to a surplus of crap within the past five years.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Nah it's been crap since Blair Witch made it popular.

[Wojo 2,453]

I lost a waterproof camera in the Atlantic Ocean while it was filming video. Now there's a found footage film I'd like to see.

[Marian Schedenig 8,198]

Nah it's been crap since Blair Witch made it popular.

Blair Witch was good. Cloverfield was very good.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The only two good ones from the past 15 years

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I love found footage movies! And I tbought VHS was good because I think these stories work better in anthology form rather than feature length. However the one that I had trouble following was Blair Witch Project, so I don't like that one as much as the others.

[Hurmm 91]

REC was bloody good too. The problem isn't with the format.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Oh I love that Spanish lass who plays the reporter. The bride in the third one was a heart breaker too.

[A24 4,338]

What was The Blair Witch Project supposed to be? Scary? Suspenseful? Funny? I mean, I watched it, but outside the found footage concept, I couldn't figure out what was intended.

[DreamTheater 131]

The Paranormal Activity's are well done. 1,3 and Tokyo Night

Cloverfield is awesome but that's done with a big budget.

The first Grave Encounters is creepy as hell. The second is rubbish.

REC ditto. First one is excellent.

Chronicle is hit or miss. It becomes way too gimmicky after a while.