Rate The Last Movie You Watched - This Thread Took 12 Years To Make Edition - General

I usually agree with Rusty, just not with Brazil.

Bridge of Spies: Pretty good, Tom Hanks and Spielberg as reliably entertaining as ever. Nice to see Alan Alda.

[QUOTE=matt000024;49025673] Oh, I already know Rusty has bad opinions, it's okay. [/QUOTE] well that is just false

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49025651]this but i was both of those people because i loved it as a little kid and now i hate it (because its not funny)[/QUOTE] You only dislike it now because people ran those jokes into the fucking ground.

[QUOTE=megafat;49025756]You only dislike it now because people ran those jokes into the fucking ground.[/QUOTE] it is because it is 'xd random' humour, just before it's time. it still isn't funny regardless of how early it was. unless you're a kid who goes in for contextless random comedy

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49025767]it is because it is 'xd random' humour, just before it's time. it still isn't funny regardless of how early it was. unless you're a kid who goes in for contextless random comedy[/QUOTE] At least it came out in a time where the 'lol random' humour wasn't spammed all of the time.

I liked Brazil, but I have to admit it lacked depth. It could have been so much more. But it surely is a very memorable movie nonetheless. And Holy Grail is just amazing. Gotta respect the classics.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;49024650]Worst part about showing Holy Grail to a friend is that if they haven't laughed within the first ten minutes, it probably isn't for them. Has anyone in here seen this movie with someone who absolutely hated it? It's one of the most awkward situations imaginable.[/QUOTE] Yep, my Girlfriend. She just doesn't like Monty Python and told me this halfway through the Holy Grail.

I dont like Holy Grail either. I laughed one or two times but that was it. Id rather watch Robin Hood Men in Tights

Just saw the Babadook. Fantastic horror movie, it has a great story, characters, meaningful symbolism, and of course it's scary af. [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FUzADoeIYRw/VLSGkOISajI/AAAAAAAABzQ/bvLgqiWhjYc/s1600/babadook%2B3.jpg[/IMG] He's funny, don't you think?

[QUOTE=matt000024;49025673]Oh, I already know Rusty has bad opinions, it's okay. Except he likes John Carpenter which is 👌 in my book.[/QUOTE] Who doesn't like John Carpenter though

I've been getting back into some things I used to be, Street Fighter being one of them. I remember hating The Legend of Chun-Li but back then, I was a borderline fanboy about a few things. Perhaps I was overly harsh towards it. As it turns out, I totally, totally wasn't. The word 'poorly' is an almost frighteningly apt way of describing this movie; poorly written, poorly adapted, poorly acted, poorly cast, poorly filmed, poorly made in every conceivable way. The only thing about this movie that isn't poor is Michael Clarke Duncan hamming it up like it's going out of style. Everything else is a total pile of dogshite.

[b]Naked Lunch[/b] - What the fuck just happened/10 I really did enjoy it but holy shit, I went in completely blind and it wasn't at all what I expected. [sp]I love the whole writing machine bit, I can relate to that.[/sp]

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;49025236]Way of the gun 6/10 This is a hard movie to judge. Its failings are also its strengths, its a very unconventional movie and thats probably why critics didn't care for it but it had something of a cult following when it came out on VHS/DVD. The protagonists aren't good guys, in fact they are almost certainly scumbags. The plot slowly becomes more complex over the course of the film, and characters that initially appear incidental are revealed to have deeper connections and motivations to central characters. The dialogue is almost David Mamet-esque sharpness but without mamet's goobly gook-no-one-actually-talks-like-this-IRL execution. Gun nerds like this film because it showcases firearms and some real world tactics, but I didn't care for that as much as I did about how differently and more realistically this film portrays violence compared to every other hollywood film: the "good" guys don't have perfect aim, the "bad" guys don't have stormtrooper aim, people aren't always sure footed and decisions made in the heat of the moment end up having appropriately unconsidered consequences. For example in one fight in the film, Phillipe's character leaps over a wall to take cover, in doing so, lands on a pile of broken glass and beer bottles tearing his arm up painfully. Del Toro's character hides behind a pillar and needs a few moments to gather his courage. People miss their shots, a lot of wasted ammo - it feels like an actual fight, not a dance. This is all a far cry from the usual hollywood shootout affair where in the main characters cooly walk through the set shooting in all directions and hitting their marks without breaking a sweat[/QUOTE] yea the ending shootout was cool as hell. fun movie to watch

[QUOTE=Loadingue;49027051]Who doesn't like John Carpenter though[/QUOTE] I don't know, Rusty has some pretty bad opinions. Luckily that isn't one of them though.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49025767]it is because it is 'xd random' humour, just before it's time. it still isn't funny regardless of how early it was. unless you're a kid who goes in for contextless random comedy[/QUOTE] This is such a gross misrepresentation of Surreal humor, and as an extension the Surrealistic art movement which it was birthed from (and other forms of Modernistic art). There's a huge difference between comedy derived from messing with your expectations with the use of non-sequitur or strange juxtapositions (Probably one of my favorite Python sketches is the Hermit one, where a couple of Hermits are talking about how great it is to be away from idle-chit chat and gossip, while doing the same themselves and living within a community. Or during Life of Brian, when Brian is approached by a Leper, who turns out to not actually be a leper but instead was acting so he could get more money from begging. Or in Airplane when Ted says "I have a drinking problem". One's normal expectation would be that he has an issue with alcohol, instead however he actually can't drink and just spills his drinks over himself), and "meow im a cat im so random and funny xD!!!". While there is an element of randomness to Surreal humor, it's a far cry from what you said. [editline]1st November 2015[/editline] basically it's based off of the modern art movement that built up over the 20th century, which was all about subverting an audience's perceptions and ideals of what art "is". That's why Surrealist humor works by subverting your expectations.

[QUOTE=bdd458;49030931]This is such a gross misrepresentation of Surreal humor, and as an extension the Surrealistic art movement which it was birthed from (and other forms of Modernistic art). There's a huge difference between comedy derived from messing with your expectations with the use of non-sequitur or strange juxtapositions (Probably one of my favorite Python sketches is the Hermit one, where a couple of Hermits are talking about how great it is to be away from idle-chit chat and gossip, while doing the same themselves and living within a community. Or during Life of Brian, when Brian is approached by a Leper, who turns out to not actually be a leper but instead was acting so he could get more money from begging. Or in Airplane when Ted says "I have a drinking problem". One's normal expectation would be that he has an issue with alcohol, instead however he actually can't drink and just spills his drinks over himself), and "meow im a cat im so random and funny xD!!!". While there is an element of randomness to Surreal humor, it's a far cry from what you said. [editline]1st November 2015[/editline] basically it's based off of the modern art movement that built up over the 20th century, which was all about subverting an audience's perceptions and ideals of what art "is". That's why Surrealist humor works by subverting your expectations.[/QUOTE] "lets be as silly and nonsensical as we can and call it 'surreal'" be real. it's not subverting anybody's expectations. even when it was new, people knew exactly what to expect with monty python. that is all a bunch of bull honkey excuse for 'random humour'. but in all fairness, life of brian has a lot more actual jokes than the holy grail. but shit like 'biggus dickus'. ha ha. its like big dick. and they made it roman sounding!!!! #comedy

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49031185]"lets be as silly and nonsensical as we can and call it 'surreal'" be real. it's not subverting anybody's expectations. even when it was new, people knew exactly what to expect with monty python. that is all a bunch of bull honkey excuse for 'random humour'. but in all fairness, life of brian has a lot more actual jokes than the holy grail. but shit like 'biggus dickus'. ha ha. its like big dick. and they made it roman sounding!!!! #comedy[/QUOTE] Again, you're missing the point and its almost as if you missed my examples. Of course people knew what to expect from Python, their brand is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_humour"]Surrealist Humor[/URL]. That's not the expectation that's subverted. It's the expectations within each situation. The hermits that I mentioned prior, the Leper too. In Holy Grail you've got the Bridge scene, the rabbit, the ending, the black knight, the shrubbery, and so many more examples of where your normal expectations for what would happen in a scene or situation are then subverted. Peasants talking about collective forms of government, living without a lord. Like come the fuck on Rusty, you can't be that dense. I mean for Christ's sake my favorite book is considered in part to be Surrealist Humor, later adapted for film ironically enough by Gilliam, [I]Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas[/I]. So I do kinda know a bit about what the hell I'm talking about here. To quote Wikipedia on this [quote]Surreal humour (also known as absurdist humour) is a form of humour predicated on [B]deliberate violations of causal reasoning, producing events and behaviours that are obviously illogical[/B]. Constructions of surreal humour tend to involve bizarre juxtapositions, non-sequiturs, irrational or absurd situations and expressions of nonsense.[/quote] And I'm glad I'm not being real, because to be surreal is to not be real. My favorite painting is by a local Surrealist artist, he's since passed away and the painting was done during the height of the Surrealist movement, but I revel in it. Surrealism, Dadaism, Modernism, that's my thing (I work at an art museum for god's sake). And to try to dismiss Monty Python's work as anything but Surreal Humor, is well, quite silly. You don't have to like it, that's fine. But you're conflating your opinion for fact, while at the same time misrepresenting the actual facts to justify your opinion. You don't need to justify why you don't like something, you can just not like it.

Bdd458 I don't disagree with u that monty Python is surrealist but at the same time it's still childish as fuck and lowbrow and often random for the sake of being random (like yea stupid xD humour). Just cos it takes influence from an art movement doesn't make it inherently great lol

cut down a tree with... a herring!!! lol!!! so random and epic [editline]2nd November 2015[/editline] ^ you will never change my mind and make me think that shit is funny for the same reason you will never convince me that family guy is funny. even if you told me that family guy actually also stems from an art movement.

Late to the party, but re: Brazil. It's my dad's favorite so I've seen it a lot. I like it, think it's a very solid film, but I don't see it as the masterpiece everyone says it is. It really bugs me how he just randomly decides to pursue a lady he thinks is pretty for no other reason than infatuation and the fantasy sequences are kind of bad, but overall Brazil is definitely above-average. I really appreciate films that have unique world building behind them and Brazil really hits the sweet spot for me in that aspect I also like Holy Grail but if I had to pick my favorite Gilliam film it'd be Fear and Loathing hands down [editline]2nd November 2015[/editline] Mikey, what DO you like? I feel like you usually only come in here to say you don't like something

he comes in here to agree with me because i am right [editline]2nd November 2015[/editline] i like fear and loathing a lot but that's probably because it actually has a narrative and interesting characters/things happen instead of relying just on visuals alone which is how i feel about brazil. probably because fear and loathing is based on a book. is brazil based on a book? i feel like it's not. but if it is, damn, what a shitty book.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;49031483]Bdd458 I don't disagree with u that monty Python is surrealist but at the same time it's still childish as fuck and lowbrow and often random for the sake of being random (like yea stupid xD humour). Just cos it takes influence from an art movement doesn't make it inherently great lol[/QUOTE] For starters, that implies that implies that there's something wrong with being lowbrow. The entire lowbrow/Highbrow distinction is retarded as fuck and only breeds elitism, implying some forms of culture are better than others (and in my experience much of the pushback against a lot of modern art, like Fountain for example, is that some forms of art are better than others, there really isn't). That implies that there is something wrong with being that, and there's nothing wrong with it. But that wasn't really my original intended point. My original intended point to Rusty is that he's completely misrepresenting it to justify his own dislike of it. It's not that it being derived from an artistic and cultural movement makes it fantastic, it's that it's far more than what Rusty is attempting to portray it as. Again, going back to the lowbrow/highbrow distinction. There's a huge difference between a teenage girl on facebook going "meow I'm a cat haha xD im so random and funny look at me xDD!!!!" and what Holy Grail, or Airplane! or Life of Brian or Meaning of Life or Fear and Loathing were doing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to entertain for entertainment's sake, and doing it in a silly way. But I'm really starting to notice that as Rusty's pattern, completely misinterpret something to justify his own dislike of it. Don't like it? Great, you don't [I]need[/I] any justification as to why you don't like it. [editline]2nd November 2015[/editline] Like, Rusty could have simply said "I don't like it". Great! That's his opinion and no one can really argue that. But what I, and I'm sure others take issue with, is his reason for disliking it because it's completely misconstruing it. Anyway, not going to post about it any more. Don't want to shit the thread up more.

nobody is forcing you to interact with me

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49031545]he comes in here to agree with me because i am right [editline]2nd November 2015[/editline] i like fear and loathing a lot but that's probably because it actually has a narrative and interesting characters/things happen instead of relying just on visuals alone which is how i feel about brazil. probably because fear and loathing is based on a book. is brazil based on a book? i feel like it's not. but if it is, damn, what a shitty book.[/QUOTE] It's not based on it, if anything it's wildly different tone wise, but Brazil is probably the best adaptation of Orwell's 1984 that we'll ever get at least thematically.

fear and loathing sucks tbh nothing really happens in it. dont much care for brazil either found the main character insufferable and the romantic plotline shoehorned in.

fear and loathing is a fun film, but as an adaptation of the book it doesn't really work. a lot of the major themes and observations of the book are lost in the transfer to film, it just ends up being 2 hours of Depp and Del Toro monkeying around. Which is entertaining, but its a like the high brow version of a stoner comedy when its all said and done. In fact I just realized thats probably the only Terry Gilliam film I've seen, and it definitely is a style over substance movie, which makes me think Rusty's opinion of Brazil probably isn't wrong.

Nothing really happens in Fear and Loathing but it's a very enjoyable experience and honestly I don't really want much else from a film [sp]that and drugs don't hurt[/sp]

[QUOTE=cheetahben;49031919]Nothing really happens in Fear and Loathing but it's a very enjoyable experience and honestly I don't really want much else from a film [sp]that and drugs don't hurt[/sp][/QUOTE] I think the important thing about Fear and Loathing to remember is that even the novel didn't have much going on in terms of plot, it was just really Thompson and Acosta fucking around Las Vegas while doing a variety of drugs. Though I definitely think the movie loses some of the themes the book had, much like dilz stated. Also if you've seen the movie but not read the book, seriously read the book. It was the first book to actually make me laugh out loud, well worth it.

fear and loathing is a fun experience even though there's like nothing going on plotwise but i couldnt even make it through brazil