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

i dont understand what yr saying killuah

My scale is pretty much based on how competently it was made, and how offensively it fucks up. Non-Stop was awful and offensive, but competently made, so it got a 3. Kickass 2 was awful and offensive, but was made by a 12 year old, so it got a 2.

[QUOTE=The Stills;44316480]I understood the main gist of the plot well enough, it was more there were scenes in there that I didn't really get what they were meant to symbolise and such. Like any scene with Mai and Julian apart from the dinner scene, the various visions Julian has of Chang and the various scenes of Chang doing karaoke. I probably could serve with another viewing just to get my head around the more esoteric and symbolic elements of the film.[/QUOTE] Idk I thought OGF was pretty easy to understand and I got a lot out of it, and I've only seen it once. There are strong religious themes in there too, but imo the film was about the whole Oedipus complex thing, and how the abuse Julien faced from his mother ruined his life and relationships. I thought this was the most interesting way to interpret the film, at least and I think there is more to it than the religious themes which are definitely there. My two favourite images portraying it are- [sp]Julien tied up watching the girl masturbate was symbolic of his mother's restraint, but also a BDSM thing (a common theme) of his submissive nature around people brought on by being physically and verbally abused by his mother since he was a child, and being raised to think he wasn't good enough[/sp] [sp]Julien putting his hand in his mother after she is killed- reaching into her womb, wanting to return. His mother was a terrible person who ruined him but he still loved her and was so dependant on her that despite her being damaging she still shaped him as a person and he was now lost without her- one of the reasons he accepts Chang's punishment imo at the end. Cos what else is there. There is a deleted scene which was supposed to be the last bit of the film (it's in the screenplay) of his girlfriend feeding the armless Julien, whihc I thought would be brilliant thematically as it shows how dependent he is on women, and so helpless. Would've been a fantastic ending.[/sp]

Just finished Back to the Future. No idea what took me so long to watch this great movie. Also, this movie gave me a crush on 50s hair/Lea Thompson [img]http://unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lea.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=cardfan212;44320899]I haven't been following Jurassic World much, what's going on with it?[/QUOTE] Basically from what I heard, Trevorrow is basically making a sequel reboot which is a sequel but has the first movies plot . Basically the park will be a rehash and of course the dinosaurs escape and chaos happens. I was expecting a return to the desolution of Jurassic Park, or where they find the barbasol can, not a total rehash of the first film with more modernized tech and new characters. Even the concept art Y U NO OBJECT posted on JP thread also confirms this idea.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;44320442]Life Aquatic, considered his worst[/QUOTE] wat who the fuck says this

at the very least its his most polarising, I've seen plenty people say it was boring or silly. I personally think it's his most compelling work.

Life Aquatic is awesome, the ending gets me every time.

[QUOTE=Pops;44322017]wat who the fuck says this[/QUOTE] I didn't like it. Even Wes says it's 30 mins too long.

have to admit :( I wasn't feeling Aquatic first time around. It's not on blu-ray where as the rest of his work was issued ages ago by criterion. That's his only slump for me. But it's still a good work.

The Royal Tenenbaums - 8/10 Really really good. Really loved Luke Wilson in this.

[QUOTE=AK'z;44322599]have to admit :( I wasn't feeling Aquatic first time around. It's not on blu-ray where as the rest of his work was issued ages ago by criterion. That's his only slump for me. But it's still a good work.[/QUOTE] You do realize Criterion is releasing Aquatic on Blu Ray, right? I've already preordered it.

47 Ronin 5/10 It had OK visuals, and some fight scenes were cool. But other than that it felt like a lackluster. I really couldn't connect with any of the characters, and there were so many names at one point that I didn't know who was who.

[B]Badlands[/B] I had no idea what this was going into it. I don't care much for romance movies, and for a while at the beginning, my hopes were low. However, about 20-25 minutes in, things start going, and I knew I was in for a good time. It was just a roller coaster from there to the end. This was the third movie I've ever seen with Martin Sheen (the other two being Apocalypse Now and Flatland), and I have to say, he had quite a nice performance. He pulled off the character well. I don't really want to give away any of the major plot points, but if you watch this, don't judge it by the first 20 or so minutes. Once it gets going, it goes. Give it a watch if you're looking for something interesting and exciting. [B]The Big Lebowski[/B] This is probably my favorite comedy of all time, and is up in my top movies in general, so I am a bit biased towards it. The whole trio of main characters just works so well as a comedic entity, you'll be rolling with laughter throughout. They work so naturally together, it just flows and works great. On a first view, the plot may seemed convoluted, but it ties up and goes together nicely. There are so many quotable lines from this movie you could fill a book. It also works well how we don't get any back story on The Dude, nor do we get much closure. We just get thrown into his life for a few days then it's over. Overall, if you watch movies and like comedy, watch this one. You will not regret it.

i had friends tell me that the big lebowski wasn't that great i had to of course keep control and tell myself they were worth living

its pretty good but its not that great sorry

[QUOTE=Rusty100;44327627]its pretty good but its not that great sorry[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ[/media]

how very original !!!

[B]Philomena[/B] Enjoyed it quite a bit. Read some views that it was "mediocre and pointless", but I dug it. Subtle humour was neat, and the acting skill by the two screen actors Judi Dench and Coogan work well together on screen. Again, I had no real clue what it was about going into it, other than it was a true story. It's a short, sweet film and worth the watch. It may be marketed as "oO uplifting story about a search into the past" but it's way more than that and it's actually quite a big deal. I'm guessing the aura that it was nominated for best film will probably haunt it, but I don't give a shit.. I was only after a certain vibe of film and this film surprised me. Others may be disappointed that it doesn't shock and twist like most acadamy nominees but it's just a simple, small British film with good on-screen chemistry and it's funny.

Attack the Block - 8/10 Very enjoyable movie. Even though Nick Frost takes a backseat role in this film, it's nice to see all the other youth actors really step into their own.

I just finished watching I Melt With You. Holy fuck. I have no clue why it gets all the shit it does, because it was [I]amazing[/I]. Any ideas?

I didn't know this but Bryan Cranston (credited as Phil Williams) was in Street Fighter 2 the Movie as Fei Long, and that was a kickass anime movie. He was also in Macross Plus (alot of people in that was in SF2 too) [video=youtube;yTeFELGlbdA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTeFELGlbdA[/video]

[B]21 Jump Street (re-watch) - 7.5/10[/B] I love this film. It is so funny and so smart. One of the funniest films of the past few years for sure. It definitely took me by surprise the first time I watched it, I expected a kinda dumb, reasonably entertaining popcorn flick but it's a very self-aware, brilliantly witty and on point comedy about teenagers, how you never really grow up (you just have to pretend you did), the absurdity of trends and peer pressure that pokes fun of spy films, cop shows, action films and coming of age films, whilst also managing to fall neatly into each of those genres without being a parody. The characters are fleshed out, even the supporting characters. The direction is solid, the acting all round really good, especially Channing Tatum proving he can own comedy. His comedic timing is perfect. The screenplay is great with surprisingly realistic but still really funny dialogue and it's filled with great moments. The film is as well surprisingly touching at moments, when we realise that between the jokes these characters are having real troubles with identity and fitting in, with their friendship being put at risk as they realise life as high school has changed (jocks aren't cool, and it's cool to be smart etc) there's lots of little jokes about how it's all changed in just a few years that I really liked. The onestrap/twostrap thing, being dumb isnt cool any more etc etc. I found the film just as funny second time round and I'd recommend this to just about anyone looking for a good laugh that's actually pretty clever too. it also has a fucking amazing cameo in it that made me lose my shit both times. [B]Maniac (remake) - 8/10[/B] Maybe worth noting I've not seen the original This was a great film. Starring Elijah Wood as a mannequin shop owner traumatised by his past and obsessed with women's scalps, he hunts by night when no one is around for helpless women, judging by the profile, probably women that [sp]remind him of his mother[/sp]. At first I was suspicious of his casting, but upon watching it I realised he was perfect for the role. His baby-faced features combined with his character's disturbed mind and brutal actions make him a terrifying character. The film is shot almost entirely POV from Elijah, we see only glimpses of his face in mirrors/reflections and a couple times in the film we go third person, but not often. This makes the audience not just a viewer, refusing the viewer the voyeuristic appeal of many slasher films. Instead it puts you in the shoes of the killer and makes you watch everything, and it is relentless. This film is partly a throughback to 80's slasher flicks, partly a subversion. The subversion comes heavily from the idea of making the killer the main character, and making the whole film POV. It doesn't glorify his murders. in fact, they are straight up disturbing and brutal. The first scene of the film is from his car, watching a girl as she tries to call a taxi. he follows her, and she notices him, so she runs home. He keeps following her... Stalks up behind her, grabs her and stabs her in the jaw ( then a smash cut of the title filling up the entire screen in a really cool 80s fashion). It's disgusting. It's not a thrilling experience. This is a scene where, if it was done from the third person, would be quite an exhilarating chase, I'm sure. However the scene is really tense because you know what Frank is going to do before we've even seen him doing it, and we see it from the eyes of the disturbed killer, and it's gruesome, not fun. It's a really unsettling movie. We see into the mind of the killer, he's a total weirdo and a creep. There's no glorification. The violence isn't exploitative, I'd say it's necessary to understand his character and see inside the mind of a killer. (although there is a lot of very visual gore) Not a wholely realistic film if you think about it too much, although there's not enough to ruin the film at all. Frank is an interesting character played well by Elijah Wood who totally abandoned his character from LOTR, and it's cool to get an insight. His reactions to women and people in general are pretty fascinating. He knows what he might do and he's scared of himself, he has triggers that set him off and he has rituals he does to control himself. It's creepy, as there is even one point where you realise that you empathise with Frank. You totally understand why he wants to kill. You almost want him to succeed, and that's what makes this film great. It puts you in the mind of a serial killer. You don't root for a murder because of the adrenaline like a Halloween movie or a zombie film, you are forced to witness the killings even though you don't want to, but the film is so mesmerising, atmospheric, and tense you can't look away, much the same as our protagonist Frank. He doesn't want to kill girls (as shown very clearly after murdering one girl specifically) but, like our urge to look, he can't control himself. When you watch the film, you [I]are [/I]Frank. The film reminds me a lot of films like Taxi Driver, Martyrs, and Psycho, and I got Funny Games vibes from it too, but it's also definitely a grindhouse film of the modern day. And its ending is ballsy and brilliant. Props to them for it. If you don't like gore this isn't a film I'd recommend, (the director said that people left, vomited or even fainted during screenings, which he took as a compliment)however if you can handle some very graphic violence then I recommend it a lot as it's a truly unsettling and disturbing horror film that is quite unique and fascinating.

Lego Movie - 7/10 Pretty good

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5198Q19EYGL.jpg[/img] 8/10 [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBPx_nxzyQ]Good as always.[/url] Literally the best Charlton Heston film. Screw Planet of the Apes, this is the real shit here.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;44330617]Airplane! 9.5/10 WOW. I have been putting this movie off pretty much my whole life, but I finally saw it this weekend, and it's one of the best comedies I've ever seen. If you like puns, this movie is a goldmine. Some of the best comedic timing and writing evee. Made me miss Leslie Nielson more, though.[/QUOTE] I have a drinking problem.

I've decided to rewatch in order Polanski's Apartment trilogy during the weekend [b]Repulsion[/b] Disturbing, is the best word that can be used when describing this film. I find it amazing that after almost 50 years this film is not only scarier but also creepier than modern productions. Delicate visual imagery and Polanski's subtle play with the silence and repeating noise is much more effective than showing gruesome gore. There's nothing better than a little bit of crazy - it's the very definition of a good psychological thriller. [b]Rosemary's Baby[/b] This is one of these films that lose it's charm after time, especially when it grows and becomes popular. I absolutely hate that it is spoiled by the modern pop culture (The basis of this film is as popular as Psycho's, and also [url=http://wellmedicated.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/rosemarysbaby.jpg]that fucking poster[/url]). This films works only in subtleties, that's why I hate one particular scene in it: [sp]The conception scene - it would work so much better without revealing that everyone was involved in the cult, husband's including. And what's more important - if the viewer wouldn't be sure till the birth whether Rosemary's deluded or her dreams and thoughts were real. It would be so much powerful if the viewer had the chance to discover everything in time with her[/sp] It's also not a traditional horror; just like The Shining it scares by the ambience, the unsettling feeling, the implication of something bad happening. That's why the whole ending should be shorter: [sp]End with Rosemary coming to the baby with sheer horror look on her face when she sees it. Maybe show the eyes for the moment. We don't really need screaming "Hail Satan" for a minute, we don't need the explanation about reversed Jesus - not only it's irrelevant, but it also treats the viewer as a moron who is unable to connect the dots[/sp] Overall it's not bad, but I think it's Polanski's the most overrated. Although I heard that it's one of the most faithful adaptations ever created, so that's for the plus. [b]The Tenant[/b] Out of all three, The Tenant is the weirdest, the most ambiguous, and arguably the best. By saying and revealing very little it shows amazingly well the stadiums of irrational paranoia and crazyness. And Polanski handles his role of a little awkward and out of place young tenant perfectly, to the point where his transition is creepy. This film may not be understood properly during the first watch, but by the next time a viewer realizes that there wasn't that much to understand. Some people will hate the enigma of this film, and some will love it.

[QUOTE=Katatonic717;44331542][img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5198Q19EYGL.jpg[/img] 8/10 [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdBPx_nxzyQ]Good as always.[/url] Literally the best Charlton Heston film. Screw Planet of the Apes, this is the real shit here.[/QUOTE] maybe someday we will get a proper adaptation of i am legend.

[B]Le Mépris- 8.5/10[/B] As a big fan of Jean-Luc Godard, I felt it time to watch one of his lesser known but most critically acclaimed films (if that makes sense- not his most popular but those who have rate it among his best) and I can understand totally why. It is a harder film than say, Breathless, perhaps, as it's far less "cool", it's a sadder film. It's one that works more on an emotional level than a critical or technical one, although I don't dismiss the film's credit in either field- it is fantastic in all 3. and it also doesn't star his muse and wife at the time, Anna Karina. It instead stars Bridgette Bardot, a sex symbol of the 60's who created the "sex kitten" persona in her film [I]And God Created Woman[/I]. The film is absolutely stunning, probably the best looking collaboration between Godard and cinematographer and collaborator Raoul Coutard. Emotionally, it's perhaps his strongest. This film was absolutely raw and devastating, but in a way that you don't really notice. It's a film about a relationship falling apart, it's a film clearly based on Godard's real life. It's about Godard and Karina. It's about his commitment to filmmaking and art, and the strain it put on his relationship, and how he didn't know what to do. I bet Godard considering stopping making films, but, knowing Godard's mentality as I like to think I do, it'd be impossible for him (and evidently he didn't, as he has a new feature film coming out this year at age 83. He's not going to give up) There is so, so much to say about this film. But I'm not gonna write an essay (although if I get the chance in college to write about something relevant, I certainly will) As much as it's a film about Godard's love life, it's a film about film itself. The main character is a screenwriter hired to rewrite [I]The Odyssey[/I], an adaptation of the story directed by Fritz Lang (played surprisingly well by Fritz Lang himself), the director of critically acclaimed films [I]Metropolis [/I]and [I]M[/I]. It's about his struggle to handle his commitment to writing (even though he doesn't want to write this script, he's only doing it for her so that they can keep their apartment) and his love for his wife, whom he thinks doesn't love him any more and he's not sure why. Lang faces similar problems with the making of his film, stuck between his want of artistic expression and the pressure of his "dictator" producer Prokosch (mirroring Godard's real life producer, who forced Godard to shoot in cinemascope, in colour, and to have nude scenes of Bardot. It was the only time Godard worked with American money and he hated everything about it), wanting a commercial film. In Le Mépris, Paul [sp]sells his artistic expression for commercial, and that is why Camille leaves him, and it's why Camille dies. Camille is represented as a goddess, a beauty, but also a muse. She even at several points wears a wig reminiscent of Karina in Vivre Sa Vie. To me, her death represents the death of the artist, the death of legitimacy. However also with Prokosch dying, it shows that commercialist film doesn't exist without artistic merit. In the end, yes, Paul sells out. In real life, Godard didn't. That's why he stayed with Karina, and that's why Paul lost Camille, that's why Godard is well respected and Paul lost it all[/sp] The film is about him trying to learn what's wrong, while also trying to work out what to do with his career. It's very much a piece of meta-cinema although it's not in your face. The opening of the film is a very long take credits roll. Only, instead of appearing on screen, they are read by a narrator. ("This film is based on a novel by Alberto Moravia. Starring Bridget Bardot and Michel Piccoli... This is a film by Jean-Luc Godard" listing the rest of the crew in between. And on screen, we see a long tracking shot take place, of an actress walking. By "we see a long tracking shot", I mean that literally. We stay static as the credits are spoken, while we see a camera crew follow the woman walking. Right away we are shown that we are inside the film, and that this is a film about film. Also this film has a 34 minute argument. They go to their apartment at about 30 minutes in and don't leave until you're over an hour into the film. Pretty crazy, didn't even notice it was so long at all. But I suppose that's a testament to Godard's writing- keeping an argument interesting for over half an hour. They talk about so much and it goes a lot of ways. It's a fascinating film that has a massive amount to say while still remaining intimate and human. One of Godard's best for sure. Highly recommend this although I suppose if you're not into arthouse stuff it could easily be said to have an air of pretension (I don't think it does). [editline]24th March 2014[/editline] also the soundtrack is [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUs4awmb3-o]absolutely phenomenal and beautiful[/url]

wow, how many movies do you watch each day