What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

Stalker - it's weird, because this is the type of film I should hate; an accurate description of the film can be "Three men wander around a field for 2 and a half hours" but the philosophy, the characters, and the surrealism as well as the fucking beautiful and entrancing visuals make it one of my favourite "Art house" films - and is probably my favourite Tarkovsky.

Edit 9/26/2012 (I'd feel like a spammer if I created a new post when I was the last poster. :S):

Just saw The Amazing Spiderman now that it is out here. I'm sorry... but how was this an upgrade? I felt the pacing was awful, the villain was disappointing, and I don't know... I just don't see why so many people are applauding this one or even saying that its "How the original Spider-Man movie should have been!" I'm all for a less awkward, more serious Spider-Man film - but this one didn't do it for me. *Prepares his flamewall. I had 3 pages of flame dedicated to me disliking the film on the Escapist forums.*

UnknownKadath wrote:

Just saw The Amazing Spiderman now that it is out here. I'm sorry... but how was this an upgrade? I felt the pacing was awful, the villain was disappointing, and I don't know... I just don't see why so many people are applauding this one or even saying that its "How the original Spider-Man movie should have been!" I'm all for a less awkward, more serious Spider-Man film - but this one didn't do it for me. *Prepares his flamewall. I had 3 pages of flame dedicated to me disliking the film on the Escapist forums.*

Huh. I thought everyone hated ASM. I watched it a couple days ago and, well, I think I liked it more than you did - I thought the new actor playing Peter was good - but it was pretty bland overall.


Also watched EXPENDABLES 2, now that's a movie that made some improvements over the original. The tonal shifts weren't nearly as jarring as the first movie and the cameos were better utilized. Loads of fun, I preferred it to The Avengers (and now *I* have to prepare a flamewall.)

A special invitation screening of "The Hobbit".

"Ted"

I really didn't expect to like this. I'm a Seth McFarlane fan for the most part, but when I continuously hear from everyone about how funny a movie is (i.e. "The Hangover"), then my expectations plummet. I was really quite surprised by how much I enjoyed "Ted." It had me at the "Airplane!" dance scene.

Longinus wrote:

"Ted"

I really didn't expect to like this. I'm a Seth McFarlane fan for the most part, but when I continuously hear from everyone about how funny a movie is (i.e. "The Hangover"), then my expectations plummet. I was really quite surprised by how much I enjoyed "Ted." It had me at the "Airplane!" dance scene.

Much like the "Three Stooges" movie, this was one of those movies where everyone was all "This movie's gonna suck!" in the weeks leading up to it's release (Back when the flavor of the month was Seth McFarlane hate on a huge scale). I too had very low expectations for the movie, and was also very surprised at how funny it was.

I also bring up the Stooges movie as, much like Ted, I walked away from that movie enjoying it immensely.

The Hobbit and i fucking LOVED IT! i went and saw it last week. and even though brad didn't like it that doesn't bother me either. though he's right about one thing those songs did feel out of place. and they were kinda pointless as well.

wildhoney66 wrote:

The Hobbit and i fucking LOVED IT! i went and saw it last week. and even though brad didn't like it that doesn't bother me either. though he's right about one thing those songs did feel out of place. and they were kinda pointless as well.

Well, just in case you don't know ( I'm not saying you don't ) but these songs were a big part of the book and so, it makes a lot of sense to include them if you're adapting the story to the big screen.

actually i didn't. though i have some of the books, the way he wrote it they are a hard read for me. kinda like victor hugo's book Les Miserable though is a play i love and yes i'm a straight guy who loves stuff like that. anyways i tried reading that book in high school and i was unable to cause of how it was written. it was an EXTREMLY difficult read.

i've got a question for those who have seen the film what's left out of 'the hobbit? at least in the 1st part anyways.

You had trouble reading The Hobbit? Not to sound like an ass, but it was meant as a children book, a fairy tale. Are you sure that you are not confusing it with The Lord of The Rings?

Concerning your question about the movie: the problem is not what was left out but what was added, or changed altogether. I know, a movie adapted from a book will always have some things that are changed but in this case, Peter Jackson went nuts with the fanfiction and the result is something that is not relevant to what the book was meaning to convey. I said some things about that already in another thread but basically, Jackson decided he wanted to show as much of Middle Earth as he could with that movie because that is probably the last time he gets to make a movie that's based on Tolkien's writings. Why? Well, because the Tolkien estate does not like what he did so far and do not want to sell the rights to anymore of Professor Tolkien's work to him. I agree with them.

Nonetheless, Mr Jackson decided to go forth with this idea of expanding upon The Hobbit ( which he had the rights to ) and to add storylines which tied into The Hobbit's tale but were developped into other books by Tolkien ( which he doesn't have the right to ), the result is, you have guessed, 100% Peter Jackson fanfiction that has nothing to do with what actually was written in the first place. He has to invent all of it if he doesn't want to get sued but we have to ask: why bother? Why not stick to The Hobbit which he has the rights to? It's much less troublesome this way and it increases the chance of actual fans loving the movie instead of angering them. I have seen the movie and I'll be honest: the parts where it sticks to the book are great. The parts where it does not, the parts where Jackson meddled with it, well... they stink bad and I'm pretty sure that even the people who have not read the book are able to pinpoint those scenes as they clash both in tone and in quality with the original story.

He did that with The Lord of The Rings as well, but it went a lot more smoothly than in this one.

i may have been thinking of the trilogy to be fair. another book i have trouble getting into is "Dune' cause of his it's written. anyways. really he changed that much? i didn't know that tolkan's family didn't like his take on it. i wonder did you see the extended versions of the trilogy?

it's funny how through the years this is what i've found out about this about those 3 films. some love it and some hate it.
regardless if you've read the books or not. for those who have read it i have talked top people who love the films. but than there's also a percentage that also hate it like you do. so it's interesting to always hear what people who love the books think of the films. i have seen the (1977) rankin-bass film though not for many years, i grew up watching it and i love it. so it's been a long time since i last saw it. and according to Josh Hadley the dvd version of it has the sound effects changed and isn't as good. well

i take him for his word. though i wonder if the blu-ray version is the same version?

For the record, I didn't hate it, I just thought it could have been a lot closer to the source material without all the fuss and spectacle Jackson seems to be unable to spare us. Like I said, the bits that were right, were right on, but the bits that weren't ( and there's a lot ) were awful. So I am more disapointed than filled with hatred.

A few example to illustrate what I mean:

When Radagast ( who is not even part of the book ) flees from Dol Guldur after his encounter with a Nazgûl and The Necromancer ( which in reality never happened; it was Gandalf who was supposed to be there and there never was any encounter with Nazgûls or The Necromancer, this is, instead, where Gandalf got the key he gives to Thorin from Thorin's father who was a prisoner there ), he happens to get right where the dwarves and Bilbo and Gandalf are, ready to leave the lair of the trolls in what looks like a few minutes of pursuit while in fact, Dol Guldur is all the way over the Misty Mountains in the southern part of Mirkwood so it would litteraly take days, if not weeks, for him to get there, assuming he could cross those mountains with that stupid sled. Anachronism? Hell yes.

The stone giants. Later on, when the company actually attempts to cross those very mountains ( oh! so they do exist after all... ) they happen to be right in the middle of some stone giants squabble which is, as is Jackson's habit, illustrated as an over the top spectacle meant to impress the viewers when all it does is undermine the sense of danger the dwarves and Bilbo are supposed to be in since none of them dies or even gets hurt in the slightest. In the book, the stone giants are far away upon the top of the mountains quarelling amongst each other and the dwarves are never even close to them.

Another one is Azog, the albinos orc that chases Thorin and company. He's not even part of the book! In fact he was killed by Thorin's cousin, Dain ( which we will see in the last movie if all goes as planned ). It's his son, Bolg who is supposed to be seeking vengeance upon Thorin and never before the end of the book, at the battle of the 5 armies. The addition of Azog to the storyline fucks it all up, not only historically, but also litteraly since there is a shift of focus from Bilbo's story and character development, to Thorin's own story arc which is not even supposed to exist in the first place. Why? Who the fuck knows? It's as if Jackson thought the original story wasn't entertaining enough. If that's the case, why did he decide to do it in the first place?

Theres a lot more but I'll end it here.

Oh and I forgot, yes I've seen the extended versions of LOTR. Like I've said, it's good where Jackson sticks to the books, but when he doesn't and tries to '' improve '' on the source material ( which is foolish when you consider how Tolkien was a master storyteller ) is when it all goes wrong, very wrong.

did you think that the longer cuts were better than the theatrical cuts? and also that is a good question why did Peter Jackson decide to even do 'the hobbit' as a film anyways? didn't he way back when the original films came out and even after the films came out say for a long ass time how he wasn't ever going to do the prequel?

how the story is done in his eyes or something along the lines of that. how if someone else wanted to do it that's fine it just wasn't going to be him? i wonder what changed his mind, my guess money and as for making this 3 parts his reason is he added more stuff like you said.

but still 3 parts in my eyes is all about money even though he fucking denies it! 2 parts i can live with that but 3 for a book that is by far the shortest of the series. why? and yes i know the answer is money but still you get what i'm trying to say i'm sure.

I sure do man, and I agree. Let's say you take out all the made out stuff he added to '' An Unexpected Journey ''. You get a movie that's about 2 hours long, that's pretty close to a perfect adaptation of the book, nothing missing, no extravagant changes and which leaves room for another 2 hours long movie to cap it up next year; once again, without anything extra, that's pretty close to the second half of the book. How can you go wrong with that? You make the Tolkien fans happy, you make the fans of the LOTR movies happy as well and you run the chance of redeeming yourself in the eyes of the Tolkien estate so that, maybe, just maybe, they'll change their minds and they'll let you get the rights to some other books from the professor.

But no!... he had to fuck it up. Like many other people, I would have liked to see what Guillermo Del Toro would have done with it. He has a different approach, a different way of making movies. It would have been interesting to see but Jackson, for whatever reason decided he could improve Tolkien's storytelling and try and tie up The Hobbit with his LOTR trilogy by putting too much emphasis on The Necromancer/Sauron and the ring of power instead of focusing the story on Bilbo and the quest to reclaim a treasure from a dragon.

That said, yes, I prefer the longer cuts to the theatrical one. There are ways to get what are called '' purists edits '' which consist of Jackson's LOTR movies without all the added spectacle and tweaked storylines. The people who made those can't wait to apply the same treatment to The Hobbit movie, I can tell you that much

Well, let's see what I saw recently:

Saw The Hobbit pt.1: Think I summed up my thoughts in another threat. Basically: I'm a fantasy nerd so I really enjoyed every minute of it, but I can also understand a lot of criticisms of it. Mostly, yea, it didn't need to be 3 movies. 2 2-hour movies would have given the book room to breathe without the need for filler. (or an epic 4 hour movie, with an intermission and all that, but we don't do those anymore).

Also saw Les Miserables, and haven't heard anyone say much about it on the site (guess it really isn't up Brad and co's alley). I'm not a big fan of the musical, but I'd heard the music before. I really liked it. It's good to see a musical adaptation that keeps all of the songs, and for a sung-through type show, doesn't try to turn some of the songs into spoken scenes (I'm looking at you, Rent). The acting was really well done, I think the whole process of recording the singing on-set really paid off. I agree that Russell Crowe was the weak point in the movie, though.

Saw Gangster Squad this weekend. I made the mistake of going into it expecting a more serious drama, but in the end, I really liked the gory action movie that unfolded.

i love the play. and yes i am straight. i say it that way cause you know how people joke about how only gays love musicals. for the play theirs 2 versions the short version and yes i know there's a french, german i think and other different versions of different languages as well. but the english versions that i have heard the broadway one is a good one.

but it's cut. songs are cut out of it. the longer and better version is the (1989) version with the black box called Symphonic i think it's called? that's the entire fucking play. and far superior than the broadway version that is cut. they did the same thing to 'miss saigon' as well. in my family we call it Les Mis and my brother saw the film and he enjoyed it and he was i think going by the longer version which he also loves. and he says they cut some of the stuff out.

meaning they went with the broadway version i am guessing. i am dying to see it though. other than that he enjoyed it.
that was the weak spot for him. i can't see brad and company wanting to go and see it even for the site.

since he didn't like the hobbit cause he's not a fan of the series and that's fine with me. i can't see him sitting in the theatre and enjoying Les Mis. he'd nitpick it to death and no enjoy it. and he's i think smart not to go and see if it that isn't his thing. i think the key to going to see certain films is not expect much and you may enjoy it more.

like i may have loved the hobbit but i do understand why people who love the series didn't love it. and if you read in last couple posts he had good and valid reasons not to love it. and i can respect that.

if you give a film or a tv show etc.. a good valid reason why you don't like something and don't just say i don't like it.
i can respect you for it. even if some of the films i love aren't everyones taste. for example brad

loved that nic cage film New Orleans or whatever the hell that film is called that came out a couple years back. i thought it was a piece of shit that i was bored while watching it, it moved to damn slow and i cared really nothing about the chracters. i couldn't even sit through the whole thing! but he loved it and for those who did that's fine.

no judgement here. he he

Thought I'd get back on topic!

I've recently watched the whole Bourne Series. I liked it a lot! Even the latest one, The Bourne Legacy. I was expecting to be disapointed and I ended up liking it quite a bit. In fact I think it's better than The Bourne Supremacy, which I think is the weakest in the series. All in all, I thought it's a great series of movies if you like high-tech espionnage stuff.

that's a series while i don't love it, it's a fun watch. i've never sat through all of them in order like you did though.

and i haven't seen the last one yet so i can't comment on that one. and as for my last post i forgot to post my point which i actually forget what it is was! he he

Barefoot Gen (1983)
This film had me invested. Was a depressing journey with the remnants of the Japanese family in the Hiroshima nuking. Although, the sadness of it was soon replaced by a sort of funny suspense as to if the baby was going to live or not. That's about it...

Little Children (2006)
I drove in and was greeted with a very enjoyable film with characters and situations I could sympathize with and understand. Much worth the time of viewing, highly recommended for those whom enjoy drama films. I was expecting something incredibly disturbing from this film, but, I'm relieved that my fears were subsided gently. Not a light hearted movie, but certainly more uplifting than most of the stuff I've watched on my own accord...

August Underground's Mordum
My reaction to this film was one of chuckling, some smiling, and lots of time when bored stiff. This movie might be illegal in America's Hat for the bathtub scene, not sure. Seeing as Fred Vogel got arrested for obscene materials up there and released after 10 hours. The only thing that got to me was the hammer to teeth scene, but they fumbled that up, so it was a short lived reaction. Movie was a disappointment of garbled shit that I wouldn't recommend to anyone.

Rise of the Guardians (2012)
Seen this a couple days ago with my family. To be honest, it took me a good while to remember this movie as I had completely forgotten what it was right after seeing it. It's another kids movie. Nothing special. Some of the effects are a little creepy but that's about it. One big cliche.

The Hobbit
Seen this right after Rise of the Guardians. Beautiful scenery, nice characters and such. Was quite worth it. Also had a charming sense of humor too. I await the next installments to the series. I seen it in 2D. You've probably seen it already, but if you haven't, I recommend it.

My Little Princess (2011)
A lost-childhood movie about erotic modeling that I wet into knowing quite well of the director's issues and more notorious films and that I would likely dislike this movie. The whole thing feels like an arrant rant, to the point where It's actually a bit annoying. It's not anywhere near as bad as Maladolescenza, hell no. I believe she should have canned this movie and made something that wasn't built off her fucking baggage.

Killing them Softly with Brad pitt. couldnt really get into it.

I seen myself some Orphan a couple days ago and enjoy it quite muchly. Isabelle Fuhrman reminds me of Gaspard Ulliel from Hannibal Rising. A nice performance. The adult characters weren't very enthralling and the father in particular was totally overplayed as an idiot. This film's twist at the end, for me, killed the movie a bit. I think if they had stuck with the 9-year-old girl scenario instead of the 30+ mental hospital escapee it would've been a bit more interesting. In reference to Chloe Davis or something. More fun and the like.

Makeup was good though. Enjoyable movie.

i also haven't seen Orphan but i have heard it was a good one. and funny enough my mom wants to see that one! and she hates horror films! which to me has me curious to see it. and yes i know how it ends. i still want to see it either way.

i have seen the Hobbit and loved it! i am now waiting for the extended cut on blu-ray i heard there is one coming out is this true? and the 2nd half of course.

John dies at the end. was alot of fun.

that one i haven't seen either. i have been meaning to download it though. cause i want to see it before i buy it ya know?

Just watched Hideous Kinky. The story was a bit hard to grasp and didn't explain much about the father. The mother came off as a huge failure parent. Seriously, hauling your two 5 and 7-year-old kids out to Morocco just to "Look for answers"? Obviously, it's a wondrous place full of adventure, scenery, sexism, and child marriage. The degree of neglect involved here is to the point where the mother actually loses a kid into orphanhood.

The kids were good, if not a bit stagy. Although, I especially enjoy the screen time of the Bilal character whom also reminds me of Johnny Depp. To be honest, I much would've rather had this movie been about him. Just him.

The ending was the best part of the movie. It was cute. Though, I'll likely never watch it again.