Last movie you saw? Created 15 years ago2009-09-07 16:21:32 UTC by Saribous

So saw Prometheus yesterday and i gotta say im not impressed. Im not that type of guy who pays a lot of attention to logic, but it seemed a bit nonsense to me. The ship was nice, very "Alien" like and spacious (About the only thing i liked). But the urns it just wasn't the place for them. I can't think of this as an Alien prequel because how could a mindless flesh eating creature escape from a planet like that, although...

The problem is that the movie is not a prequel, it's a standalone movie within, let say, alien universe. There are some hints towards the original Alien, although it's really original.

This thread is about films so I'll post here anyway:
World War Z postponed to June 21 2013

Noah!

I blame this 100% on Archie's involvement in the project

It's was pushed back to June 2013 about 4 months ago. The news is that the latter third is getting a complete rewrite - a decision only made within the last month.

Luckily the Glasgow scenes are all during the opening act, so I should still be rockin' it and getting my shit pushed in by zombies.

Four Lions.

Was quite funny, although pretty sad at the end. I watched it again just because as a yank it was quite hard to understand a couple of the things they said.

Upcoming animated film "Deep" to be powered by the Source Engine

Well, it's not that surprising, in the sense that even I experimented with making machinimas if you remember. I didn't expect though this going commercial on such a big scale...

I saw Prometheus last night and i LOVED IT!!!!
Now i have to watch all the Alien movies because i haven't yet....

Tet/noSICK: did you see it in IMAX?

All the IMAX showings were sold when i went ;(

The Grey.

Watched it based on Crollo's recommendation.

I knew nothing about it going in. I had never watched a trailer or even heard of it except seeing posters for it outside cinemas when it was released.
It's an odd thing to experience. It has some genuinely upsetting moments that are quite uncomfortable to watch and then it ruins it by turning into a by-the-numbers completely predictable thriller for the entire middle act.

The dialogue is atrocious and the frankly excellent actors are wasted on it.

Also the ending is hugely disappointing, but it couldn't have ended any other way without being cheesy bullshit.

I guess I don't know where I stand with this. The director was very brave, genuinely, to include many of the events of this story. I get the feeling it was a meddling studio pushing for it to be more accessible that resulted in the garbage middle section.

It's a movie for TV then.

I decided to go back in time and rewatch The Girl Who Leapt Through Time.

It was much, much better the second time.
Like any good drama, the effects of repeated emotional strain were portrayed remarkably well. The measures the creators took to avoid most "time-control-can-solve-everything" plot holes were also very smart.
The ending still seemed very lackluster, though, and the animation was so-so--very fluid, but the shading was meh.
Still a very good watch.

I watched that awhile back. It was pretty good, and time travel is the 'in' thing right now (watched steins;gate?)

My take on Batman 3: The Dark Knight 2, The Dark Knight Rises:

I didn't expect it to be nearly as good as The second film, but I was still sort of let down. It was wildly entertaining, but it was not special. It was, as far as I'm concerned, just another action flick.

Spoiler alert
Three problems that stood out among many were:
1. Batman was nobody special. He didn't even save anyone--his flying car did. Anybody with the keys to that thing could have taken that role. Batman did not outsmart or outfight anyone.
2. The use of Hollywood clichés was mindblowing. I thought Mr. Nolan was more clever than this. I could have done without the bullshit "45-minutes-to-save-Gotham" ordeal, among other suspense gimmicks.
3. Worst. Twist. Ever. That "twist" didn't need to be included in the first place. I don't even see why Bane couldn't have been the mastermind that we were led to believe.
He legitimately beat Batman.
I'm extremely disappointed that this film fell back on the old "brawny-leader-turns-out-to-be-a-puppet" bullshit.

I couldn't agree more with your comments Soup.

Why the writers feel they have the make the plots so fucking crazy/grandiose/rediculous i will never understand.

It's a pretty simple reason everyone likes batman in my mind, and that is because he stands up for the weak and fights crime, in a selfless campaign to protect the people. WHY then, does the city always have to be under threat to be blown up or some other crazy thing? Just make it a normal, fucking semi-plausiable storyline FOR ONCE...

Don't get me wrong, it's not that the writing is bad, it is very good actually, it's jsut the story is fucking dumb, period.

For the aformentioned reasons, i stop paying attention to the plot almost halfway through the movie, and just waited to savor the cool action sequences and awesome batman gadgetry, which is spot on. (And... any chance to see Anne Hathaway in a skin-tight, patent-leather suit, kicking people in the face is also very enjoyable)

Fuck Batman! Kato 4 ever!

Jacky owns

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

The best movie I have seen in such a long time. The characters were so endearing and were played spectacularly by the excellent cast. All the stories were touching and given enough screen time despite the wealth of characters.
I was hooked from the first ten minutes and thoroughly enjoyed it the whole way through.

Bill Nighy is spectacular in everything he's in, and it was nice to see another side of Judi Dench than the cold, tight-lipped characters she usually plays.

Watch it, you won't be disappointed!

Edit:
This extract from an IMDB review sums it up excellently:
"I came out of the cinema exhausted. The range of emotions this movie drags out of you, and the speed it does it, is incredible and I have to thank the scriptwriters and director for that. It is a while since I saw a movie that made me laugh out loud so much and so frequently. Dev Patel's character is one of the most likable you will ever come across but then all the characters, bar one, have characteristics that just grow on you."

Saw both The Hunger Games and Project X on the plane just now. All of the 747's I've been on have had crappy, blurry, low resolution screens, whereas the A380 had nice sharp Hi-Res screens.

I watched Project X out of curiousity, as my brothers have been talking about it a lot and I had never heard of it. Quite a good movie, but I would have preferred to have watched it with friends. Not to mention all the topless teenage girls made watching it on a plane awkward.

The Hunger Games, I watched in part because I thought I might not get a chance to see it soon, and because a lot of people are talking about it. I had just bought the book the other day as well and I haven't even had a chance to start it, leading to an internal debate as to whether it would be a good idea to watch it.
Also quite a good movie. I liked it. Not really what I was expecting though, after seeing a few of those Minecraft Hunger Games maps.

[Edit]:
I saw Man On A Ledge on the plane later, and I saw The Dark Knight Rises last night. Man On A Ledge was quite good. I wasn't really expecting anything, so it was a pleasant surprise. I didn't really like the climax, but overall I liked the movie.
I missed the first minute or so of Rises, so I didn't really know what was going on for a few minutes, but overall I was quite impressed by the movie. I noticed that a lot about the second half of the movie had a similar feel to the game Arkham City, which I quite liked. I don't really want to say anything more about it. There were a few things I liked about it which mentioning might spoil for those who haven't seen it, so I will just stop typing now.

Getting my ass to Mars to see Total Recarl right now! =)

Total Recall? I saw the trailer the other day. I just can't get it through my skull. WHY do they have to remake perfectly good films?

I understand it might be a desirable option if the original was in poor taste, or in terribly low budget and it sucked, or if it plain flopped. But Total Recall, despite being a bit old, had nothing wrong in my opinion. I think it's still pretty good, despite some a bit aged visual effects or the lack of foresight in putting 18" CRTs from the 80s in a film taking place in a distant future.

Total Recall aside, we also have Robin Hood, and even Spiderman.

I firmly believe that it is only a lame excuse for the lack of creativity from the Hollywood writers. They can't come up with something good.

Take The Wizard of Oz, from 1939 (the one starring Judy Garland). I believe it is still an amazing film despite being 73 years old. Infinitely better than anything with the Muppets in it.

We've been in an age of film reboots for years.
I see it more as directors wanting to try their own version of the same film as opposed to writers not having any new ideas.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with that, because there's still such a plethora of totally new films coming out alongside the remakes. What we really end up with is multiple versions of the same film that suit different tastes. I'm all for that.

We live in a world of remix.

Watched The Terminal a couple of days ago.
[EDIT] Btw, here are some really funny movie cliches.

Watched The Dark Knight Rises. Not as awesome as the first, but still a thrilling cinematic experience. The interesting part of the plot for me was the change of the 'bad guy' figure. While the Joker was still evil, he had humor, something that humanizes him. Bane( why did they use the servant actor's name?), on the other hand, lacks this. He is the expression of pure evil, even though it turns out... well, not spoiling this. It just gave me the chills...
Also, the name of the mentor could only bring me to mind Razagul( sorry for not spelling right), a Protoss character. Weird...

Jesus Camp

I'd seen bits of it before, but man it's something else altogether when you see the entire thing. It's such a depressing reality to see these kids brainwashed to such a degree, often by their own parents. They have no chance whatsoever, and it should be classified as child cruelty.

( why did they use the servant actor's name?)

What?

What?

Oh dear, it's Michael Caine, not Michael Bane. Sorry, my bad.

DEATH TO VIDEODROME

LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH

Just watched Fargo.

Really not sure what I think about it, or what I'm supposed to think about it.

Sure, it was good. I just don't understand why.

Fargo was hilarious
I'm like 99.9% sure it's supposed to be a black comedy with some shocks thrown in here and there.

Hmm, seems like a World War Z trailer was released.
Seems to be interesting and quite action-packed. BRAWWWWWWWUUUUUUMMMMM ( really, does every movie need this audio effect these days?).

Skyfall ='(

Really i'm going to hold my tounge before passing judgement on this, but it doesn't look good...

I will say this, your state of mind when walking into a flick can really impact how receptive you are to it, e.g., the first time i saw cloud atlas, i thought it was the most profound movie i ever saw; the second time i felt it was nothing special.

Striker: NIce sir i can't wait to see that.. did you read the books too?(this and zombie survival guide)

Hmm, seems like a World War Z trailer was released.

Tried to spot Archie. Failed.

"Stroszek", a movie about an alcoholic street musician who leaves Germany to live a new life in Winconsin with his two friends, a prostitute and an old man. The movie was ok and I liked it.

Megamind. I liked it, it asked some of the same questions I always find myself asking, like "even if the bad guy wins, what the hell does he do then?".
Oh, and the soundtrack? MmmmMMmmm. Exactly my kind of stuff.

Seems to be interesting and quite action-packed. BRAWWWWWWWUUUUUUMMMMM ( really, does every movie need this audio effect these days?)

I think thats pretty much a requirement for a production company to pick up and run with any proposal they get.

I recently saw Battleship. Its pretty much just a Micheal Bay movie. Lots of big, cool looking explosions and battles, no real story or character development. Meh.

Never let me go

It was a really sad film about passion and pure, innocent love. I think there are also other hidden aspects in this movie with roots to real life society.

Besides that, it was a movie with Carey Mulligan, and I always enjoy seeing her face in a movie.

Gigli. It really is as bad as they say.

I know IMBD scores are relative, but 2.4? I wouldn't even considered watching it!

Brave

The art direction was abnormally good, even by Pixar's standards. But the story itself was generic incarnate, and major and minor characters were equally shallow due to poor, unnecessarily fast pacing.

I think the trailers misled me, because I expected a much different, more adventurous plot but got "the unreasonable parent and child learn to be open minded" instead. It was far, far too straightforward to begin with, and the sheer amount of foreshadowing that accompanied it had me begging, "Stop telling me what's going to happen 10 minutes from now."

It was overall decent for the eye candy and generally witty dialogue, but it was absolutely nothing special. Maybe angsty teenage girls would appreciate it more.

Pride and Prejudice

This is one of the finest movies I've seen in a while. What I love about these movies is their civilization inspiring feel. The romance is ingeniously combined with classic laughable moments. Films like these prove that cinematography can also be a source of culture, not just sensational explosions and action.
The big surprise came after I watched the films. Turns out I had the book in my library. I wonder if I should read it after watching the film .

Looper

Started off really strong. I really dug the concept of the whole movie. Then they focused on some little kid being a fuck (won't go into details, spoilers), and it kinda threw the whole movie off for me.

Not to mention the ending itself. That just...doesn't work.

I saw the hobbit in cinemas recently, I thought it was very good. The difference between the hobbit and lord of the rings movies, is that in the hobbit, each scene seems to be dragged out slightly longer, and whilst the movie might not be as fast paced and go through as much content as the lord of the rings movies did, it's still great, I don't see why people are complaining about it, by making the book into three movies rather than two, they just give us more content, more lore, more content from the book, which isn't that bad.

I read the Hobbit, and the main differences between it and the rest of the Lord of the Rings is that it DOES drag scenes out and it's necessarily a kid's story.

I thought that the movie was pretty spot-on, aside from the unnecessary made up Pale Orc shit.

Hey, Tolkien or not, if they're gonna make three movies out of it, they've gotta have something to keep the tension up for each of them. While the "Pale Orc shit" itself is not required, they needed to add SOMETHING on. Unnecessary it ain't.

They did something similar with Lurtz in The Fellowship of the Ring.Grr.

I like how they've mined the Lord of the Rings appendices for more backstory, there's quite a bit more in there than in the novel. It's a pretty light story, with very little dialogue or character work.

I think the Looper ending caught me by surprise. When he shot himself and the older copy also disappeared reminded me about reading in some astronomy book about spontaneous particles creation: when a particle and antiparticle appear and combine to instantly disappear. I don't know if this had to do anything with the energy of the void, but I know it's the basis for Hawking radiation.

Can you imagine this happening in real life? Spontaneous events that happen in fractions of a second that occur just to maintain the equilibrium of good nature?

I know. I escalated quickly.

How do we know it doesn't happen?
But as for the ending, that's what ultimately left me unsatisfied. It creates a time paradox where the entire events of the movie did not happen. (Maybe 10%) And they ignored the paradox completely, because everything was still the same in regards to the actions of the older copy and reaction to those actions, which never could have happened because he ceased to exist long before he had a chance to do that in his personal timeline.

As one of my friends put it: "It didn't happen. We didn't watch a movie just now. We stared at a blank screen for 2 and a half hours."

WELL, I MEAN, SPOILERS ARE COOL

I think the Looper ending caught me by surprise.

How do we know it doesn't happen?
But as for the ending,

Crollo, if those starts of posts didn't automatically imply spoilers to you, there's something wrong with you.