What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

UnknownKadath wrote:

So I'm not alone on that one? I love both of them though, strange seeing as they embody the spirit of a generation I didn't care for. Then again I don't think I care for any generation of teens when I think about it, though at least the 50s looked cool.

Random statement - I know.

Personally, I hate the 50's and everything they stand for. I'd have been happier being a teen in most any other post WWII decade. The 40's don't count.

All-Star Superman 2/10-Man, what a huge disappointment this was. After hearing so much about this for so long I can honestly say that this is my least favorite of the DC Direct line of animated superhero films. The only positive I have for it is the score by Christopher Drake. Loved it and would pick it up, but the movie... dreadful.

Altered States
Naked Lunch
They Live

Son Of Jack Deth wrote:

All-Star Superman 2/10-Man, what a huge disappointment this was. After hearing so much about this for so long I can honestly say that this is my least favorite of the DC Direct line of animated superhero films. The only positive I have for it is the score by Christopher Drake. Loved it and would pick it up, but the movie... dreadful.

I concur. I heard all kinds of good things about it but it turned out a complete mess.

Dick Tracy:

Al Pacino was great in this, and the costumes and sets were absolutely gorgeous.

The Dude wrote:

UnknownKadath wrote:

So I'm not alone on that one? I love both of them though, strange seeing as they embody the spirit of a generation I didn't care for. Then again I don't think I care for any generation of teens when I think about it, though at least the 50s looked cool.

Random statement - I know.

Personally, I hate the 50's and everything they stand for. I'd have been happier being a teen in most any other post WWII decade. The 40's don't count.

Honestly I wasn't praising who they were, just that they looked cool. I like fancy suits and stuff like that. The 20s and 30s count for that too. I think I pointed out that I didn't really care for any generation of teens. Cause I hate teens. *shrug* I honestly doubt my idea of a "Good generation of people" would work in real life cause I'm an over critical bastard of my fellow man, but whatever.

UnknownKadath wrote:

I think I pointed out that I didn't really care for any generation of teens. Cause I hate teens. *shrug*

(Don't worry about it, I hate teens too)

UnknownKadath wrote:

Honestly I wasn't praising who they were, just that they looked cool. I like fancy suits and stuff like that. The 20s and 30s count for that too. I think I pointed out that I didn't really care for any generation of teens. Cause I hate teens. *shrug* I honestly doubt my idea of a "Good generation of people" would work in real life cause I'm an over critical bastard of my fellow man, but whatever.

When I think of the 50's, sweater vests and khaki pants are mostly what come to mind.

Goodbye Uncle Tom, both the Italian cut that focuses more on the Black power movement and the American cut, which is mainly recreated Southern plantaion footage. The Italian cut was far better, in my opinion, giving the set pieces more of a point and historical context. What was most interesting is that it seemed to have a bad opinion of everyone involved. The slaveholers were wrong, because it's bloody slavery, the Black Panthers were wrong, because hate is hate, no matter who it comes from, and the hippies were wrong, because the idealism of Woodstock just didn't work. It really makes you think, and since it doesn't take sides, is a great conversation piece.

The American cut, on the other hand, does give a more complete view of the horrors of slavery due to extended scenes on the plantations, but by changing the narration it changes the mood and impact of some scenes. The last scene, where a man in modern Miami fantasizes about killing white families based on The Confession of Nat Turner, seems very out of place without the supporting evidence of other bBack radical footage, thereby making it seem like we just randomly cut to a crazy guy with the world's largest chip on his shoulder; since the ending narration that basically amounts to "we must learn from the past, but get rid of all built up hate, black and white" is taken out, too, we're left with what amounts to a sweeping exploitation epic in the vein of Caligula with a really, really bizarre ending.

Two More Lynch movies:

Mulholland Drive. I still can't believe I waited until now to see this. It was incredible. Nuff said.

The Straight Story. It was pretty good - maybe a bit boring, but Richard Farnsworth was great in it. The scenery and the music was also great.

Just saw Toy Story 3 for the first time. Best !"#¤/&() ending in a film. EVER!
10 out of 10

obin_gam wrote:

Just saw Toy Story 3 for the first time. Best !"#¤/&() ending in a film. EVER!
10 out of 10

That was great. I'm yet another you can add to the crowd of "Kids who grew up with the original that went out to see the new one even over a decade later."

I just watched Clive Barker's "Book of Blood." I'll save my opinion for later, cause I'm writing a review of it.

Lady in the Water. It might have been the worst movie I've ever seen. The Room did some things better than it.

Relauby wrote:

Lady in the Water. It might have been the worst movie I've ever seen. The Room did some things better than it.

I never get why Benzai named it as one of the best films of the decade. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that, I guess.

The Dude wrote:

Relauby wrote:

Lady in the Water. It might have been the worst movie I've ever seen. The Room did some things better than it.

I never get why Benzai named it as one of the best films of the decade. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that, I guess.

I honestly didn't think Lady in the Water was god-awful. Good? No. Then again I went in expecting some form of torture, and I've sat through far more torturous pictures. I just thought it was "Meh." Plus I will maintain that while he can't write for shit - Shyamalyn is a decent director.

Just watched the 2006 remake of Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Mnyehhh. I can't say it was bad, but honestly it felt pointless. It was practically shot for shot, about the biggest difference was that the picture was clearer due to modern equipment.

UnknownKadath wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Relauby wrote:

Lady in the Water. It might have been the worst movie I've ever seen. The Room did some things better than it.

I never get why Benzai named it as one of the best films of the decade. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that, I guess.

I honestly didn't think Lady in the Water was god-awful. Good? No. Then again I went in expecting some form of torture, and I've sat through far more torturous pictures. I just thought it was "Meh." Plus I will maintain that while he can't write for shit - Shyamalyn is a decent director.

Just watched the 2006 remake of Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Mnyehhh. I can't say it was bad, but honestly it felt pointless. It was practically shot for shot, about the biggest difference was that the picture was clearer due to modern equipment.

They remade it again? I only ever heard of the 1962 remake.

The Dude wrote:

UnknownKadath wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Relauby wrote:

Lady in the Water. It might have been the worst movie I've ever seen. The Room did some things better than it.

I never get why Benzai named it as one of the best films of the decade. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that, I guess.

I honestly didn't think Lady in the Water was god-awful. Good? No. Then again I went in expecting some form of torture, and I've sat through far more torturous pictures. I just thought it was "Meh." Plus I will maintain that while he can't write for shit - Shyamalyn is a decent director.

Just watched the 2006 remake of Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Mnyehhh. I can't say it was bad, but honestly it felt pointless. It was practically shot for shot, about the biggest difference was that the picture was clearer due to modern equipment.

They remade it again? I only ever heard of the 1962 remake.

Yeah. I wasn't aware of the 1962 one, I only heard about the 2006 one because a friend of mine was an extra and worked on recreating the sets.

Like I said, it wasn't bad - it was just mostly recycled and felt pointless. I get argued at a lot when I say that remakes should differentiate from the source material, yet not tarnish it. Most people think I'm being contradictory when I say that.. I just don't see the point in remaking something shot for shot.. I guess if you have a friend who is too stubborn to put up with the silent version, you can show them this one.

I agree that with remakes there's a very fine line that needs to be walked. You want to make a movie that retains it's relation to the source material, but is not so similar that it becomes redundant. That's why I enjoyed The Wolfman remake. It was a pretty different movie, but really, what would be the point in remaking it scene-for-scene anyways?

Back to the point of the topic though, I watched Crazy Heart today. Pretty solid Jeff Bridges flick.

Five Graves To Cairo-7/10 Surprisingly good little war thriller directed by Billy Wilder.

Ball Of Fire-8/10 Silly fun from Howard Hawks. The rapid fire dialogue gets me everytime.

The Dude wrote:

I agree that with remakes there's a very fine line that needs to be walked. You want to make a movie that retains it's relation to the source material, but is not so similar that it becomes redundant. That's why I enjoyed The Wolfman remake. It was a pretty different movie, but really, what would be the point in remaking it scene-for-scene anyways?

Back to the point of the topic though, I watched Crazy Heart today. Pretty solid Jeff Bridges flick.

My only beef with the remake of the Wolfman was the heavy CG. I know that it gets shit for that from pretty much everyone, but otherwise I didn't think it was as bad as I had heard from some people.

UnknownKadath wrote:

The Dude wrote:

I agree that with remakes there's a very fine line that needs to be walked. You want to make a movie that retains it's relation to the source material, but is not so similar that it becomes redundant. That's why I enjoyed The Wolfman remake. It was a pretty different movie, but really, what would be the point in remaking it scene-for-scene anyways?

Back to the point of the topic though, I watched Crazy Heart today. Pretty solid Jeff Bridges flick.

My only beef with the remake of the Wolfman was the heavy CG. I know that it gets shit for that from pretty much everyone, but otherwise I didn't think it was as bad as I had heard from some people.

From what I've heard, Rick Baker would have prefer to accomplish the transformation scenes with practical effects, but consented to use CGI as a trade-off that he made with the producers behind the movie. In exchange, they agreed to let Baker model the Wolfman make-up after the original Jack Pierce design, rather than a more bland, basic werewolf design.

The Dude wrote:

UnknownKadath wrote:

The Dude wrote:

I agree that with remakes there's a very fine line that needs to be walked. You want to make a movie that retains it's relation to the source material, but is not so similar that it becomes redundant. That's why I enjoyed The Wolfman remake. It was a pretty different movie, but really, what would be the point in remaking it scene-for-scene anyways?

Back to the point of the topic though, I watched Crazy Heart today. Pretty solid Jeff Bridges flick.

My only beef with the remake of the Wolfman was the heavy CG. I know that it gets shit for that from pretty much everyone, but otherwise I didn't think it was as bad as I had heard from some people.

From what I've heard, Rick Baker would have prefer to accomplish the transformation scenes with practical effects, but consented to use CGI as a trade-off that he made with the producers behind the movie. In exchange, they agreed to let Baker model the Wolfman make-up after the original Jack Pierce design, rather than a more bland, basic werewolf design.

Huh. That's kind of odd. They wouldn't allow Jack Pierce's design be used with practical make up? Or was there another reason?

Anyways, just saw Rango. As for my opinion - writing a review.

M - A very good film which is not too dated considering when it was made. Pretty atmospheric and chilling.

Birdemic (Rifftrax version) - I like Rifftrax. I've seen Birdemic. Why not?

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

M - A very good film which is not too dated considering when it was made. Pretty atmospheric and chilling.

Peter Lorre: Defining what it means to be a sketchy fuck.

As for me, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

M - A very good film which is not too dated considering when it was made. Pretty atmospheric and chilling.

Birdemic (Rifftrax version) - I like Rifftrax. I've seen Birdemic. Why not?

M has such a modern feel for a film so old. I truly believe you could film that exact same script today and it would be just as powerful and timely.