Rate The Last Movie You Watched - April V3 - no tv shows - General

[B]Gravity[/B] A- amazing to watch, only major gripe was that scene where the director was like [sp]"yeah go ahead sandra talk about your dead daughter for a while"[/sp]

[QUOTE=Yogkog;42761592]To this day, I'm still amazed by the complete and utter polarization of the reactions of Cloud Atlas. It's either the greatest movie ever made or pile of doodie.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of the furor when [I]Spring Breakers[/I] came out

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42761864]this kind of thing only works for something that isnt in complete shambles by incompetant directors. a good example of filmic art polarizing people is only god forgives an example of a smelly overwritten and just plain dumb turd is cloud atlas. you might as well tell me you either love or hate ray william johnson because it's an art form u just dont understand [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] halle berry in old asian man makeup PROFOUND ART[/QUOTE] what's funny is that i have a friend who tries to tell people that OGF isn't good of course i have to step in with "it's too deep for you" and "you clearly didn't get it" then again all he really loves is action flicks, but like shit son don't criticize a film and call it crap just because you weren't following all the way through. i think i'm too smart for my friends.

[QUOTE=Pops;42762121]what's funny is that i have a friend who tries to tell people that OGF isn't good of course i have to step in with "it's too deep for you" and "you clearly didn't get it" [/QUOTE] well i mean of course saying shit like that makes you look like a stupid asshole so maybe try to word yourself differently

been meaning to see a couple for a while: [B]On The Waterfront[/B] Really magnificent, so natural and memorable in all respects. I was almost on the fence with it but after realising how much it made me think and feel at the end, I had to give in. It's a very solid and special film for the times, challenges things that are relevant in today's life. Marlon Brando here is something else, so poised and real. Probably the strongest aspect of the film was the writing, but the attention to detail with regards to filming is just superb. Filled with conscience and humility, I'll have to watch it again in the future. [B]Tyson[/B] Now I'm not much of a boxing fan. I have always had an indifferent opinion on Mike Tyson, I knew he was brutalised and humiliated. I knew he had a painful life, but I didn't know his spirit. I didn't really [I]get[/I] him. With this documentary though, you get a stream of consciousness from Tyson with full openness. Just simply the man pouring his mind out through speech without any useless alterations. I loved this documentary so much that I rewatched it with the director's commentary to get an even deeper insight into the film and about what the director learned about the man. What's staggering here is how simple the film really is, yet it uses techniques in such a way that you feel like you're almost in the mind of this man. Having seen this, I've gained a massive respect for him. No other man of his status has been this up front about himself in any public setting. He's a tortured soul, convicted (wrongly) as a rapist and deemed a monster by some. With this film, you realise how matured he's become and how he's grateful to just see what life is and not put the blame on everyone else for the demise. Honestly, if you're after a really personal documentary, this is the way to go. Even if you don't like boxing; similar I didn't much like Ballet yet Black Swan was such a strong film in the way it conveyed the true spirit of the sport. It's just so depressing how broken up he was, but I'm glad he managed to set his ways and reflect like he did here. At moments he doesn't shy from letting the emotions of his terrible upbringing shatter him. A final thing, is the documentary itself, which is made in such a way that you really feel the stream of consciousness coming through. It's so much more than the average bio.

[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;42761790]Pulp Fiction- 9/10 as always Watched it with my mom for the first time. She recorded the cut-for-TV version because she's always been iffy with language so I had to explain some stuff to her, but it was interesting to see how they glossed over all the curses. Now I want to watch it unedited again.[/QUOTE] I remember watching the tv cut one day and found that they removed the Gimp, quite a lot of shooting Marvin in the face and some of Mia's overdose. But they did add some of the deleted scenes which fit in rather well, so there's that.

I saw About Time today. Normally I wouldn't go and watch a film like that but my mum was going so I tagged along instead of doing nothing all night. 7/10 I enjoyed it, had some really nice scenes in it.

So the other day David Cronenberg had this to say about Kubrick and The Shining- [quote]“I think I’m a more intimate and personal filmmaker than Kubrick ever was,” Cronenberg said before throwing a huge blow. “That’s why I find The Shining not to be a great film. I don’t think he understood the (horror) genre. I don’t think he understood what he was doing. There were some striking images in the book and he got that, but I don’t think he really felt it. “In a weird way, although he’s revered as a high-level cinematic artist, I think he was much more commercial-minded and was looking for stuff that would click and that he could get financed. I think he was very obsessed with that, to an extent that I’m not. Or that Bergman or Fellini were.”[/quote] I feel like he's right personally. I've always considered Kubrick to be utterly soulless and heartless. Incredibly clinical, painfully so. Sure he's a technical master but his films lack any human element. The only one that really hits that nail is Paths of Glory (his best film- mainly because it does have the human element, and it's there very clearly) back in 57. No other film manages it. Maybe cos the dude was autistic as hell (p sure he literally was-- not a bash) and didnt grasp it. Like what Cronenberg said about him not understanding horror.

Whelp, done away with a mortal movie sin. I had never watched Back to the Future, only the second one somewhere around 10-12 years ago (OHGODIFEELREALLYOLDRIGHTNOW). It's frigging awesome. Christopher Lloyd is an absolute riot.

Thor 2 8.5/10

also just watched Tyson because of ak'z's review, ill give it around a 7.5/10 its tyson giving commentary on his own life, it really feels like youre going through time along with him, great documentary. the scene with him choking up and almost not be able to speak was just crushing, he really loved his mentor like nothing else

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;42765673]So the other day David Cronenberg had this to say about Kubrick and The Shining- I feel like he's right personally. I've always considered Kubrick to be utterly soulless and heartless. Incredibly clinical, painfully so. Sure he's a technical master but his films lack any human element. The only one that really hits that nail is Paths of Glory (his best film- mainly because it does have the human element, and it's there very clearly) back in 57. No other film manages it. Maybe cos the dude was autistic as hell (p sure he literally was-- not a bash) and didnt grasp it. Like what Cronenberg said about him not understanding horror.[/QUOTE] i feel like this is so far from the truth. didn't understand horror? that movie is fucking mesmerizingly chilling. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] even the soundtrack purely by itself. it is hair-raising to say the least. fuck anyone that thinks the guy didn't get horror.

Body horror will never reach the levels of scariness that The Shining gave me. Sure, I love the effects that Cronenberg films have, but the films themselves still pale in comparison to Kubrick's films.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42761450]god I seriously don't know how anybody enjoyed cloud atlas. it was almost so bad it was funny, if it wasn't just tragic. haphazard, uninteresting stories that really reach to have anything in common, horrible HORRIBLE acting, and very mediocre direction. wachowskis havent made something GENUINELY good since matrix one. i like reloaded but it's sort of a guilty pleasure.[/QUOTE] well fuck me I guess I'm a schmuck for enjoying it then I can understand why people hated it, but I still loved it. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=cardfan212;42772635]Body horror will never reach the levels of scariness that The Shining gave me. Sure, I love the effects that Cronenberg films have, but the films themselves still pale in comparison to Kubrick's films.[/QUOTE] For me personally, Videodrome will always be creepier than The Shining, and I don't know why. Probably because I saw it in 2010 instead of when it came out. I've seen countless parodies of it and a Simpsons episode lampooning it before I actually saw the movie itself. I still think it's totally unsettling and a fantastic movie altogether, but every spoof and ripoff since then has kind of softened it for me. If I were alive in the 80's and saw it sometime near its release, I'd be terrified to this day.

[QUOTE=blooregardo;42774070]well fuck me I guess I'm a schmuck for enjoying it then I can understand why people hated it, but I still loved it.[/QUOTE] Nah don't beat yourself up for enjoying Cloud Atlas. It's very obvious that you found something (or many things) in it that we simply didn't get or like but hey, it's just a movie. You should feel free to enjoy it as much as you want without feeling like a dumb idiot. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] speaking of the Simpsons, I knew a guy who could only watch The Shining film after seeing the Simpsons Halloween parody. He couldn't watch the movie by itself because it scared him so much. (then again, I knew this guy back in the 8th grade so I dunno if he's still like that)

I never saw cloud atlas but it looks like babbys first and I kind of want to watch it just to justify my opinion but I probably won't. Well maybe but it's 3 hours lonf

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;42774146]Nah don't beat yourself up for enjoying Cloud Atlas. It's very obvious that you found something (or many things) in it that we simply didn't get or like but hey, it's just a movie. You should feel free to enjoy it as much as you want without feeling like a dumb idiot. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] speaking of the Simpsons, I knew a guy who could only watch The Shining film after seeing the Simpsons Halloween parody. He couldn't watch the movie by itself because it scared him so much. (then again, I knew this guy back in the 8th grade so I dunno if he's still like that)[/QUOTE] I was being snide and passive aggressive but that's awfully nice of you :) [QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;42756326]I should watch Dark City again the first time it was at like 2 in the morning and I don't remember anything about it[/QUOTE] I also watched it at 2am and had a little to drink. It was a fantastic movie overall though.

I never saw cloud atlas but it looks like babbys first and I kind of want to watch it just to justify my opinion but I probably won't. Well maybe but it's 3 hours long so

Jaws 5/5 My local theater decided to start showing classic films, so I went to see it with a couple of friends. I didn't know that they hadn't seen it before. They were blown a way by it.

I just realized I haven't seen Jaws. Need to fix that pronto. Maybe this weekend.

[B]The Fellowship of the Ring EE[/B] 9/10 Great movie, probably the best [I]movie[/I] out of the three, though the other two are way more epic in their presentation. Its hard to ignore the fantastic battles of the Hornburg and Pelennor Field. Some inaccuracies but for the most part I could ignore them. (Like Arwen helping Frodo get to Rivendell as opposed to Glorfindel, and Aragorn not receiving Anduril at the council meeting) [B]The Two Towers EE[/B] 8/10 Fairly good as a movie but I couldn't excuse the gross number of inaccuracies between the book and the movies on this one. Wargs never attacked the caravan, and the elves never went to Hornburg. Eomer was not banished, but was imprisoned and freed when Theoden comes back to himself. The ents were supposed to decide at entmoot to attack Isengard, and the Dunlendings/Orcs were entirely missing from the battle. Since Eomer was with the main force the entire time, it was instead Erkenbrand and Gandalf that came to their aid (and on foot too). So many glaring changes to the plot made it hard for me to enjoy the movie, I feel like it would've been better had they adhered to the book. Probably the second most insulting after the Hornburg bastardization was Faramir falling into the ring's temptation. Faramir knew from the start that he should've had nothing to do with the ring. [B]Return of the King EE[/B] 8.5/10 Probably the most epic of the trilogy because of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. I'm not sure how I felt about Aragorn taking the oathbreakers all the way to Minas Tirith as opposed to having them just relieve the southern cities/take the corsair ships. Additionally, why did he make the men of Rohan resent Aragorn/question what he had done? In the book he outlined his need to take the Dimholt road to acquire the Army of the Dead, and people thought he was courageous. Also it wasn't just the trio that went, but also Aragorn's friend rangers and Elrond's sons. Also at Minas Tirith, the entire outer wall is gone. Probably the most disturbing change was Grima killing Saruman at Isengard. Never happened. The reason that I hated this was that it completely derails the Battle of Bywater. For those who don't know, Saruman went to conquer/ravage the Shire, so when Frodo and friends returned, Saruman had taken over. The hobbits had to round up their own strength to defend their lands from the invaders, and Saruman was killed by Grima outside of the door at Bag End, so the entire adventure began and ended at Frodo's door. The entire purpose of this story was to show that no one was untouched by the evil stirring in Middle Earth and that all had to contribute to defend themselves. In the movie they literally say the opposite thing, because the Hobbits are basically oblivious to everything - missing Tolkien's entire vision. Overall great movies, but the inner-Tolkien in me made it hard for me to enjoy a few parts. Would recommend the movies to pretty much anyone (but make sure to watch the EEs). I have to say, Jackson could've done better with the source material and the movies would've been leaps and bounds better. Sorry for coming across as a neckbeard.

no worries Polly, it wouldn't be you if you didn't nerd out [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/heart.png[/IMG] we all have something we nitpick on as fans [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] Fist of Fury 8/10 Didn't like it as much when I was a kid because of its rather darker tone compared to Bruce Lee's other movies but watching these days made me appreciate it a lot more. Definitely would recommend.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;42764413]I saw About Time today. Normally I wouldn't go and watch a film like that but my mum was going so I tagged along instead of doing nothing all night. 7/10 I enjoyed it, had some really nice scenes in it.[/QUOTE] The good thing is that it isn't like the typical RomCom, and is one of the few Romance movies that I enjoy. It doesn't do all the stuff romance movie do as well, like all that drama.

Just saw Snitch the other day. Pretty decent film,even tough not without its flaws. Dwayne Johnson played ok in this one, and the fact that it had John Berthnal (Shane from The walking dead) is a win. I give it a 9/10

I have watched [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2718492/]Ida[/url] in my local cinema. This film got really good reviews from critics at festival in Toronto and London. I didn't have high hopes - modern polish cinema mostly sucks, and it's either a poor rehash of American box-office hit (mostly comedies, romantic) or yet another melodramatic, serious film about WWII or communism, friendly reminder about how terrible and harsh times it was. I've got more of a latter one, but it was sort of a background, not a main plotline, which was a delicate and simple story about nostalgia and religiousness. I liked the visuals, trying to imitate this old climate, something similar to French New Wave. With Academic format and in black and white it definitely worked. It wasn't perfect and it's not for everyone, but I liked it. A very solid film, worth something around 7.5 or 8 out of 10.

Searching for sugar man 9/10 Simply the best documentary i've ever seen. That story is just too good to be true.

I have to write a research paper on Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now. This should be interesting

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;42779217]I have to write a research paper on Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now. This is gonna be interesting and hard as fuck at the same time.[/QUOTE] you watched the documentary or is that what you're writing about too? listen to the commentary too, so damn good.

[QUOTE=AK'z;42779235]you watched the documentary or is that what you're writing about too? listen to the commentary too, so damn good.[/QUOTE] I'm writing a comparative paper on the book Heart of Darkness, then I'm gonna watch Apocalypse Now. Never read the book before and I saw the movie a while ago, so I'll rewatch that too speaking of which what would be a good general thesis for HoD?

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;42779254]I'm writing a comparative paper on the book Heart of Darkness, then I'm gonna watch Apocalypse Now. Never read the book before and I saw the movie a while ago, so I'll rewatch that too[/QUOTE] watch this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_of_Darkness:_A_Filmmaker's_Apocalypse[/url] It will help a bit, I need to read Hearts of Darkness but from Coppola, I understand how very loosely based it is upon the material. It takes its own path and steps into a lot more of a twisted and lost place. Being that book was written in another century, I'm guessing it dealt with a whole other world of social gatherings. The redux version of the film probably goes a bit further so than the original in terms of its own path too, I don't think the extra 45 minutes had anything to do with the book.