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

[b]Shane (1953)[/b] 8/10 A great classic western, that I haven't seen in a long time. I've been looking for this movie for like forever, until one day when I was looking for something else on Google, I saw a familiar picture of this: [img]http://knoji.com/images/user/shanejackpalanceshoots.bmp[/img] [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046303/[/url] A weary gunfighter attempts to settle down with a homestead family, but a smoldering settler/rancher conflict forces him to act. Shane rides into a conflict between cattleman Ryker and a bunch of settlers, like the Starretts, whose land Ryker wants. When Shane beats up Ryker's man Chris, Ryker tries to buy him. Then Shane and Joe take on the whole Ryker crew. Ryker sends to Cheyenne for truly evil gunslinger Wilson. We wonder about Shane's relation to Joe's wife Marian. Shane must clear out all the guns from the valley before he can ride off with Joey hollering "Shane ... Shane ... Come Back!" [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AbsyU8QBEik/UO90qFbXOzI/AAAAAAAASpg/fn1t3fnOm-E/s1600/shane-alan-ladd-bar-fight.jpg[/img] [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fJaZebVmr8A/UO90s0syLbI/AAAAAAAASqM/iGx3Ha4kPQk/s1600/shane-jack-palance-gun.jpg[/img] [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KbXUMEahFlg/UO90q6aXs0I/AAAAAAAASps/YnvQ7N5uHmc/s1600/shane-alan-ladd-gun.jpg[/img]

[B]Lone Survivor[/B] 8/10 Very enjoyable and tense experience. Its simplicity is really what makes it work, unlike other boring ass modern military shit-stains this one is actually interesting and well made. The fact that it's based on a true story makes it even better (supposing it's faithful to the actual events that took place). It has a slow start building the characters and such, but it soon picks up the pace and keeps you intrigued until the very end. I definetly recommend this one. The pacing reminded me of Captain Phillips, starting in a normal situation and slowly getting more and more threatening and out of control. It doesn't have a lot of substance to it, might get boring after two or three rewatches but that's really an inherent issue with the style of movie itself. [B]Shoot Em Up [/B]3/10 (rewatch) For some reason I remembered enjoying this movie, but after this rewatch I just can't figure out why. The style is pretty dull and generic (even though they tried their best not to make it that way), the story is awful and completely forgettable and the characters are shit (except for maybe Clive Owen, [I]maybe[/I]). The movies gimmick is obviously to have cool action scenes, but they fail to bring any excitement because they are totally absurd and boring. It's just people shooting at other people, and that's about it. They tried to be original with the fights but it just looks dumb. And as a cherry on the cake they slap a lame-ass excuse to why the bad guys never fucking land a single bullet, that I totally didn't buy and it just passes as ridiculous and incoherent. Might be fun to watch while you're drunk though.

it's mainly faithful to the real events except [sp]luttrell didn't see the helicopter crash, and couldn't use his legs at that point. and the gun fight at the end didn't happen[/sp]

[video=youtube;cJ8O-Y2CXk8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ8O-Y2CXk8[/video] [B]La Grande Belleza[/B] Worth the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Feature. 10/10

[b]Red Dragon[/b] This film is surprising in two ways. One, it's a worthy successor to Silence of the Lambs, really well done prequel, which is a joy to people who saw SotL and for those who did not. Obviously they're not on the same level, mostly because the story of Francis Dolarhyde is not that interesting as Buffalo Bill, and because Hannibal's chemistry with Will Graham wasn't as impressive as with Clarice Starling. Even though Hopkins got old and at certain moments he weirdly overacts (compared to calm and stoic character from SotL) the very beginning and ending of this film are as good as Silence of the Lambs. But the bigger surprise is it was made by Brett Ratner, whom I wouldn't call a particularly good director. But I guess one could say similar thing about Jonathan Demme. Anyway, I can't wait for third or fourth season of Hannibal, that will show the story from Red Dragon.

[QUOTE=Joz;44409304] Anyway, I can't wait for third or fourth season of Hannibal, that will show the story from Red Dragon.[/QUOTE] id be surprised if hannibal got renewed for a third season

[B]Misery[/B] Really good. Incredibly similar to the shining though (makes sense considering they're both based on steven king novels, but the number of similarities is ridiculous) [B]Hard Candy[/B] Pretty good but has an unsatisfying ending. Believable performances and stuff. [B]Spaceballs[/B] I guess it was ok? I'm not a massive fan of cheesy slapstick stuff. Probably won't watch it again. Go ahead and crucify me

i absolutely despise spaceballs it just isnt funny?? i get the jokes but they're terrible

Blue Jasmine was painfully good.. Wasn't expected such a powerful cast tbh. Cate's character really hits you like a rock and her loss of balance just cuts through me. Also wonderful casting of her sister, I hope she makes it in more films, she's great. There are also minor roles which are marginally better than it first seems imo. It's not just the bland hand-picked folk, but here I think they're so very well cast it only gives the film a boost. Woody's really made his comeback here.

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;44409513]i absolutely despise spaceballs it just isnt funny?? i get the jokes but they're terrible[/QUOTE] same. I liked the bit where the ship keeps going (except for when it kept going and it got boring) and when the president was being beamed next door, but enjoying like two jokes out of a full length movie doesn't exactly equal "having a good time"

[B]Midnight Cowboy (1969)- 7/10[/B] I suppose overall I'm slightly disappointed in this, but only a little, since it is often regarded as one of the greatest American pictures of all time and that is a very high standard to live up to. However, it was still a very good film with fantastic lead performances (especially Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of a homeless crippled conman) who both recieved a nomination in the Best Actor category, which is interesting. The film also has excellent, creative and I'm sure original at the time and still quite stylish direction. A pretty compelling story of a naive young Texan with high hopes of making it hustling in New York. However things don't go well for him, and he's taken under by Hoffman's conman (who, as we learn, is not very good) and it's more about the bond they form rather than prostitution. It does however also deal with the moral implications of being a prostitute, but not in the way you'd think, as well as their major financial issues. Overall, I enjoyed it a lot. Especially for 1969 it doesn't censor itself at all, and caused quite a stir because of that- its themes and nudity, as well as homosexual undertones were a big deal back then apparently. It is one of only 3 X-rated films to be nominated for an Oscar (the other 2 being A Clockwork Orange and Last Tango in Paris) and the only X-rated film to win anything (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay) and I'd recommend it if you're looking for a good American film. Very enjoyable and gets very moving towards the end.

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;44409438]id be surprised if hannibal got renewed for a third season[/QUOTE] I was afraid during the first season but right now, I think that there's no need for a fear. Hannibal maybe doesn't have the highest ratings, but at least they're even and stable for now. It already has a faithful fanbase and a cult status among certain demographics. It is shown late on Fridays, so it's not the best spot, that can easily be replaced and give better ratings. Despite being gruesome and full of gore it doesn't spark that much controversy - surprisingly I haven't seen any protests against this show. So I'd say that third season is rather safe. And if the rumours about guest stars in future storylines will come true (e.g. David Bowie), then it may only reach even wider audience.

didn't even realise there was a show... and the fact that Mads was cast as Hannibal is just superb.

I tried watching Hannibal but the first episode put me to sleep and I gave up. Some Dexter-ish ~psychological outcast~ homicide investigator serial killer show doesn't interest me right now, or am I wrong and I should give it another try?

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;44410007]I tried watching Hannibal but the first episode put me to sleep and I gave up. Some Dexter-ish ~psychological outcast~ homicide investigator serial killer show doesn't interest me right now, or am I wrong and I should give it another try?[/QUOTE] you're wrong, it's 10/10

i watched the first couple episodes but lost track. I always do that with tv shows. But it seemed good. Better than Dexter post-season 1 (cos season 1 was really good but continually more shit as it went on)

[QUOTE=AK'z;44409526]Blue Jasmine was painfully good.. Wasn't expected such a powerful cast tbh. Cate's character really hits you like a rock and her loss of balance just cuts through me. Also wonderful casting of her sister, I hope she makes it in more films, she's great. There are also minor roles which are marginally better than it first seems imo. It's not just the bland hand-picked folk, but here I think they're so very well cast it only gives the film a boost. Woody's really made his comeback here.[/QUOTE] Still need to watch that.

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;44410007]I tried watching Hannibal but the first episode put me to sleep and I gave up. Some Dexter-ish ~psychological outcast~ homicide investigator serial killer show doesn't interest me right now, or am I wrong and I should give it another try?[/QUOTE] There's not much action, there's a lot of subtext and implication but it's beautifully shot and mesmerizing, and it doesn't stick to the usual "killer of the week" formula.

Peabody and Sherman. I'm really pretty pissed off nobody ever [sp]hit the fat bitch trying to take Sherman away in the mouth with a hammer[/sp] but overall it wasn't absolutely horrible. And one of the protagonists you have to deal with is one of those cliche "I'M A HUGE BITCH IN THE BEGINNING BUT WE TRY AND FORGET THAT TO MAKE EVERYONE LOOK GOOD AND HAPPY IN THE END" people.

The Passion of the Christ Highly recommended. 10/10

28 days later since i've been in London, it really is both strange and fascinating me how they managed to make it look so desolated. Although i didnt really much care for the rest of it. Now im on a roll for movies that share that same emptiness The World, The Flesh And The Devil is the only one comes to mind that i plan on seeing.

True Grit (2010) I haven't watched the original so I can't compare it. Though I really enjoyed the movie as a whole and I thought Jeff Bridges did a wonderful job as Rooster Cogburn and Matt Damon was also pretty cool. It felt a little slow however but whenever an action scene appeared it was always great and tense. 4/5 Might watch the original when I have the chance.

The original's pretty good, especially if you like John Wayne, but I think the Coens did a much better job. Mimic: Director's Cut 4/5 Pretty good horror film. I really liked the cast they had in it.

[B]The Heat[/B] with Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy 8/10 i expected shlock and it was pretty good

[b]Hannibal[/b] by Ridley Scott. There are two theories circling around Ridley Scott. One is saying that he is a bad director being lucky from time to time with few awesome films, and other saying that he is a good director who has the misfortune of sometimes working with bad material. Probably because I love Blade Runner and Alien I prefer to go with the latter one. In case of this film, I'd say the problem is with original source. Because here we have two extremely talented writers (one who is the creator of brilliant Glengarry Glen Ross, and the other one being Steven Zaillian who understands the medium and is able to transform adapted source into a screenplay smoothly) writing incoherent mess. I'd say the screenplay is the biggest flaw of this film and the awfulness of it is not Ridley's fault, or even writers' fault, but Thomas Harris'. Problem #1 is taking away different serial killer. This time it's Hannibal 'the Cannibal' Lector who is in the spotlight, and that's the big misunderstanding of this character. He works great in the shadows, having minimal screen time being memorable as it is. Both in the Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, seemingly main plotline is catching the baddie, yet we all know that interaction between main protagonist and Lecter, being cherry on the top, steals the spotlight. This straight-forwardness, of giving people as much of Anthony Hopkins as it is possible, doesn't work at all. I'm not mentioning the fact that Julienne Moore doesn't even come close to Jodie Foster with her performance as Starling, that's a topic for another discussion. Other big problem is no plot. No change in any characters. Starling has to catch Hannibal, and [sp]at the end she's returning to the exact same situation from the very beginning. At the end Clarice may or may not return to her job, Lecter may return to his shenanigans around the world, there's nothing that would indicate that this film changed anything in characters.[/sp] What's more, there's no villain, because Hannibal Lectera as sure wasn't presented as one, even to Clarice. IMDb or someone else would start saying that Mason Verger was a villain, and that is correct to a certain degree. But [sp]you don't dispose the villain in a one shoe-horned scene by an absolute logical leap. "Just throw him in." 15 seconds and no argument - that's the force of persuasion of a man that was able to convince someone to cut his face off. When I saw this scene I couldn't believe it. Wait, that was it, that is the result of a manhunt that took over 50% of this film?[/sp] Maybe I'm just mad, because Verger has a great potential as a villain to Hannibal Lecter, and I hope if by some miracle NBC will get rights to this parts of story and will see a proper Verger. There's also problem of Hannibal having crush on Clarice. This concept is flawed from the very beginning and it's beyond saving, it has to be cut out completely. Same thing with the final dinner which wasn't just stupid, but borderline retarded. I could also mention many "plotholes", like Hannibal being able to fly in both ways to and out of America despite being on FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted Men, having always money, etc. etc. but I think I've made my point really clear. Hannibal is a bad film, but I wouldn't say it was Ridley Scott's fault - to make it work at all, heavy altering of the original source is necessary.

imo Ridley Scott is never the problem with bad Ridley Scott films

When I see a new Ridley Scott film coming out, I always say "Oh great, I can't wait to see the directors cut."

end of evangelion i understood more than i thought i would but god, it's still so confusing

Robin Hood was pretty much the only Ridley Scott that i didnt like that much.

let's all pray and hope that daemon lindelof isn't brought on for any future scott sci-fi films