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

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49043517]Casino Royale was great, I need to watch it again. Skyfall was decent too but a lot of it was just so.. unmemorable aside from [sp]Scotland.[/sp][/QUOTE] The biggest issue with Skyfall was the script. I found the villain to be interesting, the visuals were absolutely stunning, and Craig to be very-Bondish, but the main plot was weak and the 'girl' was weirdly shoved in and then [sp]murdered[/sp]

[QUOTE=TheKritter71;49043584]Theatrical (aka Netflix version), and I do know about the director's cut but to be honest the theatrical cut is a much more better film, it's one of those 'american cuts that beats the international'.[/QUOTE] it gives the ending more weight, though.

[QUOTE=Bathtub;49043848]The biggest issue with Skyfall was the script. I found the villain to be interesting, the visuals were absolutely stunning, and Craig to be very-Bondish, but the main plot was weak and the 'girl' was weirdly shoved in and then [sp]murdered[/sp][/QUOTE] I really like skyfall but it feels like a study that is left unfinished. Its also REALLY out of place considering one of the major themes in the film is about a changing Britain juxtaposed against bond who essentially representative of the cold war era Britain. This in itself is not bad - but its completely out of place when you consider just two films before Casino Royale was a "reboot" and Bond was a freshly minted 007, not a grizzled old warhorse. Essentially it comes off like the writer was pretending the previous films didn't exist and this was an interesting project he had been planning for ages to play on how long the character has actually been around.

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;49045527]I really like skyfall but it feels like a study that is left unfinished. Its also REALLY out of place considering one of the major themes in the film is about a changing Britain juxtaposed against bond who essentially representative of the cold war era Britain. This in itself is not bad - but its completely out of place when you consider just two films before Casino Royale was a "reboot" and Bond was a freshly minted 007, not a grizzled old warhorse. Essentially it comes off like the writer was pretending the previous films didn't exist and this was an interesting project he had been planning for ages to play on how long the character has actually been around.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. Spectre had the same problem I found. [sp]We're supposed to suddenly buy into too much of Bond's backstory, and accept that Spectre's plan to fund and piggyback on a surveillance program all ultimately builds up to Blofeld sitting in a fake volcano stroking a cat while he feeds people to Piranhas and fends off Ninjas.[/sp]

[B]No Escape[/B] 6.8/10 Really intense and well shot. I had a good time. It almost felt like a zombie/horror movie at times, which was a plus. Shows that the director knows how to instill a sense of fear. The main negative is that it's riddled with cliches, which ruin some moments. Apart from that, the concept is great and they handled it decently. A lot of the negative reviews say its racist, which is false, so if you want a proper review listen to someone who sees it as a movie and not some kind of political statement.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;49045791][B]No Escape[/B] 6.8/10 A lot of the negative reviews say its racist, which is false[/QUOTE] Cool reasoning.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49031527]^ 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.[/QUOTE] so I assume you don't find south park funny either? let alone any animated adult sitcom?? all of which share similarities, relevant topics, jokes even..

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49046076]so I assume you don't find south park funny either? let alone any animated adult sitcom?? all of which share similarities, relevant topics, jokes even..[/QUOTE] oh yeah i hate family guy so i hate all other animated sitcoms that makes sense dude its not because family guy is random for the sake of random with nonsensical and dumb cutaway gags [editline]4th November 2015[/editline] south park is good because it is actually well written and the stuff that might seem random actually has a reason and meaning behind it. unlike family guy

[QUOTE=Pops;49039629]did you watch the theatrical cut or international cut? international has like an extra 40 min of scenes and whole subplot added back in that makes it an even better film than the theatrical already is. plus, that fucking score.[/QUOTE] Gonna have to disagree with you there, the extra 40 minutes kinda turns the film into soap opera level llama drama. International cut completely plays up the shmaltzy romance factor and turns it almost into a different movie. The original cut is a far better movie because it cuts out on that nonsense and instead tries to make the film a giant love letter to the art of cinema. And yea, dat score.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49046098]oh yeah i hate family guy so i hate all other animated sitcoms that makes sense dude its not because family guy is random for the sake of random with nonsensical and dumb cutaway gags [editline]4th November 2015[/editline] south park is good because it is actually well written and the stuff that might seem random actually has a reason and meaning behind it. unlike family guy[/QUOTE] And this applies to literally every single episode, and every gag, in both series, where South Park is always better while Family Guy is always the worse out of the two?

I liked the first few seasons of Family Guy, then it went to shit. It overstayed it's welcome, just like The Simpsons.

[QUOTE=Ntag;49042196]. Very enjoyable especially at the front row of the cinema I was at.[/QUOTE] said no one ever

I wasn't in the front row, but I was close to the front when I watched [I]The LEGO Movie[/I] and that actually lent a fun sense of scale to it at times

[QUOTE=Scot;49045993]Cool reasoning.[/QUOTE] I didn't want to delve into the issue... but it just isn't racist. It portrays a scenario that's not really unrealistic, and it leaves the actual location ambiguous purposefully to not point fingers at any particular nation. And who's seen the movie knows there's a part that implies the 'asians' aren't really bad guys, and that it's a matter of perspective. And anyone should be allowed to make movies like this set in foreign countries just for entertainment, without being accused of racism and such things.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49046628]And this applies to literally every single episode, and every gag, in both series, where South Park is always better while Family Guy is always the worse out of the two?[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, South Park doesn't do any random humor and rarely ever relies to cutaways or call backs. Family Guy is pretty much nothing but cutaways and call backs.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;49045791][B]No Escape[/B] 6.8/10 A lot of the negative reviews say its racist, which is false, so if you want a proper review listen to someone who sees it as a movie and not some kind of political statement.[/QUOTE] [del]why is it false?[/del] [editline]4th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=KlaseR;49047545]I didn't want to delve into the issue... but it just isn't racist. It portrays a scenario that's not really unrealistic, and it leaves the actual location ambiguous purposefully to not point fingers at any particular nation. And who's seen the movie knows there's a part that implies the 'asians' aren't really bad guys, and that it's a matter of perspective. And anyone should be allowed to make movies like this set in foreign countries just for entertainment, without being accused of racism and such things.[/QUOTE] Intention vs. impact here, though. maybe the director and writers didn't personally believe in the portrayal of non-white folk in the movie, but are they not treated overall like dangerous enemies to be fought and avoided?

[QUOTE=simkas;49047749]No it doesn't, South Park doesn't do any random humor and rarely ever relies to cutaways or call backs. Family Guy is pretty much nothing but cutaways and call backs.[/QUOTE] Yeah.. that's pretty much exactly what it is.

[QUOTE=DChapsfield;49048014][del]why is it false?[/del] [editline]4th November 2015[/editline] Intention vs. impact here, though. maybe the director and writers didn't personally believe in the portrayal of non-white folk in the movie, but are they not treated overall like dangerous enemies to be fought and avoided?[/QUOTE] There was motive behind their actions, they weren't just some flat out crazy baboons who hated americans. And why should it even matter, they're clearly portrayed in that way because the movie is a thriller, there is no deep political agenda anywhere. It could have been set in any third world country, it just so happened to be in Asia. There are plenty of normal non-threatening asians in the movie, those who acted that way were just a specific group of bloodthirsty people.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49048381]Yeah.. that's pretty much exactly what it is.[/QUOTE] Have you watched an episode of South Park?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49048381]Yeah.. that's pretty much exactly what it is.[/QUOTE] it seems like you have not watched this show

crimson peak really really appreciated the eerie atmosphere of it: the house was gorgeous with the red clay mines under it and the corpses were simply horrific especially for how del toro managed to make them move and interact during the various scenes. with the plot, the movie falls short but i expected that. in the end, i really liked it. it's not a great movie for sure but the attention to details and guillermo's masterful characterization of everything did the job, at least for me. i wanted more twitchy screaming red bodies than the tacky [sp]incest plot[/sp].

Just got back from that Steve Jobs biopic, actually pretty dope. Very obviously Oscar bait, but enjoyable on its own terms and a good example of a purely dialogue-driven film I'm even more impressed because I don't really care for Danny Boyle aside from Trainspotting

careful you guys don't bring down the wrath of our family guy writing staff overlords [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/my6YbO1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=AltF4 All Day;49046420]Gonna have to disagree with you there, the extra 40 minutes kinda turns the film into soap opera level llama drama. International cut completely plays up the shmaltzy romance factor and turns it almost into a different movie. The original cut is a far better movie because it cuts out on that nonsense and instead tries to make the film a giant love letter to the art of cinema. And yea, dat score.[/QUOTE] that's because it's a romance film. toto has two loves in his life, the girl (can't remember her name off the top of my head) and film. theatrical just cuts her out of the loop entirely without any sort of ending to it, it's just straight up "she's gone, deal with it." theatrical makes the ending seem as if toto had no problem with this and just went on living and being successful, whereas the intl cut shows that he had the chance to rekindle things, but was somewhat cockblocked by alfredo wanting him to become successful in film. idk, opinions are opinions. i think both cuts are great, just like apocalypse now. also, is ennio morricone capable of producing bad music? i don't think so. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR8AdjQ8HeM[/media]

[QUOTE=simkas;49048427]Have you watched an episode of South Park?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rusty100;49048830]it seems like you have not watched this show[/QUOTE] No you misinterpreted that post. Read it again as something like "Sigh, fine. You win." At the end of the day, I can see a bit of more value or thought behind SP writing too. Two episodes back and their message to the world appeared to have been that "Reality is Dead" or that "We killed Reality" ... which was interesting to say the least. So yea, FG is more random and retarded, or completely nuts at some points. But "completely nuts" does apply to South Park too quite often. They do rely on some of the same sources for entertainment, no? Like going crazy with blood alone sometimes for a comedic effect. Even if South Park was the most "intellectual" and critically acclaimed animated sitcom there ever was, they are still comparable in some aspects? Or I'm just completely delusional, and wrong.

[b]Spectre[/b] Overall it wasn't bad, but it completely falls apart in the third act, which makes the entire experience less enjoyable. A shame, really, because it starts brilliantly. At times it feels like makers tried to beat Skyfall at any cost and failed miserably. Many cool scenes but the story lacks soul. And proper ending. And how the fuck can you ever underuse both Christoph Waltz, Monica Bellucci and Andrew Scott among many other brilliant actors is beyond me. Actually, everyone except Craig and Seydoux felt like pieces of scenery put there just to make these two look better.

[QUOTE=Joz;49053569][b]Spectre[/b] Overall it wasn't bad, but it completely falls apart in the third act, which makes the entire experience less enjoyable. A shame, really, because it starts brilliantly. At times it feels like makers tried to beat Skyfall at any cost and failed miserably. Many cool scenes but the story lacks soul. And proper ending. And how the fuck can you ever underuse both Christoph Waltz, Monica Bellucci and Andrew Scott among many other brilliant actors is beyond me. Actually, everyone except Craig and Seydoux felt like pieces of scenery put there just to make these two look better.[/QUOTE] Was gonna go see it tomorrow, but I'm having second thoughts after hearing mediocre reviews. Is it worth going to see in theatres?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49052188] So yea, FG is more random and retarded, or completely nuts at some points. But "completely nuts" does apply to South Park too quite often. They do rely on some of the same sources for entertainment, no? Like going crazy with blood alone sometimes for a comedic effect. Even if South Park was the most "intellectual" and critically acclaimed animated sitcom there ever was, they are still comparable in some aspects? Or I'm just completely delusional, and wrong.[/QUOTE] The difference is, when SP goes "completely nuts" it stays within context and the flow of a given episode's story-line. In Family Guy, with every instance of "randomness" or "going crazy with blood for comedic effect", they don't. These things could be stripped from an episode entirely and you'd be left with maybe 10 minutes of "plot"

[QUOTE=KlaseR;49053587]Was gonna go see it tomorrow, but I'm having second thoughts after hearing mediocre reviews. Is it worth going to see in theatres?[/QUOTE] You probably won't miss much if you'll pick it up on Blu-Ray. I wanted to see it early, to avoid spoilers but the biggest spoiler is [sp]there's no twist. Everything was obvious and predictable.[/sp] Which was very disappointing, because the hype was gigantic.

[QUOTE=Joz;49053656]You probably won't miss much if you'll pick it up on Blu-Ray. I wanted to see it early, to avoid spoilers but the biggest spoiler is [sp]there's no twist. Everything was obvious and predictable.[/sp] Which was very disappointing, because the hype was gigantic.[/QUOTE] there was a twist tho