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

My biggest fear is that I'm one of those type of people but I just don't know it. I have a lot of favorite movies spread about the timeline from Buster Keaton's The General on up, but it takes a considerable amount of effort to put on an older film on, especially concerning movies from the 70's to the early 90's. Maybe it's just the type of films made from that timeframe, or the aesthetic or what it is, but it takes a certain something for me to put one on. Of course I'd never be like "ew, I don't want to watch this interesting sounding movie because it was made in the EIGHTIES" but I tend to gloss over more movies from that time period than any other.

I'm the same Hoboiam, but it's nothing to be ashamed of or self concious about or anything. Cinema is absolutely massive. Aside time period you also have genres and countries, there's so much in film that it's just impossible to have seen it all. I've seen very little silent cinema, I've seen pretty much zero middle-eastern cinema, I've seen hardly any Russian cinema, I've only really seen landmark Japanese films (and even then not a whole lot)... It's hard, and not expected by anybody for you to have seen all that kind of stuff. I mean, most laymen of cinema would be "impressed" for lack of a better word if you watch French films and black and white films lol. Because they're not so advertised, they've become niche and so it implies a knowledge of films in general. And anyone who has explored that deeply will be aware of how big a task it is and how vast cinema is, and at that stage should hold no pretensions over it (and if they do, they're an asshole) I think a big thing about it is exposure. In the West, it's expected that we'll mostly know about Western films (not the genre). We hear about Star Wars, we hear about Psycho, Pulp Fiction. But we don't really hear about foreign film unless it's a massive classic like Seven Samurai or something. You know? You really have to look to find a lot of the great films in the world. You're not "one of those guys" just because you've not seen all the films from all over the world over the past 120 years. You're just someone exploring. So long as you're not sweepingly critical due to sheer ignorance then there's nothing up. It's about attitude, not how many films you've seen.

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;44696663]Is it bad I don't want to see TASM 2 because of the reviews its been getting? The first film to me felt like a real kick in the balls especially when compared with the originals.[/QUOTE] Why do people even hold the originals in high esteem, if you take the nostalgia factor away those movies were really fucking cheesy and more than often pretty bad.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44707194]Why do people even hold the originals in high esteem, if you take the nostalgia factor away those movies were really fucking cheesy and more than often pretty bad.[/QUOTE] I legit hate Spiderman as a character, but the first two films were the only way I could see him working on film. Of course I haven't seen either of them since 2005, and I'm not trying to Doctorhooves it, but I remember them being not too bad.

[IMG]http://puu.sh/8wFBW.jpg[/IMG] Wes Anderson is just a big fuckin anime nerd

the iron giant is so fucking good though god damn

now I want to see Wes Anderson adapt Evangelion into a movie bill murray as gendo

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44707194]Why do people even hold the originals in high esteem, if you take the nostalgia factor away those movies were really fucking cheesy and more than often pretty bad.[/QUOTE] well, cheesy =/= bad. also, they have a lot more heart to them than webb's films

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;44707516]now I want to see Wes Anderson adapt Evangelion into a movie bill murray as gendo[/QUOTE] I'm just imagining Rushmore but with mecha

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;44706508][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/VChcU4y.png[/IMG] One thing I don't like about the internet is that it opens up so many doors to witness many terrible human acts[/QUOTE] and this is why i don't post on reddit, facepunch at least has contained retardation [QUOTE=mikeyt493;44707359][IMG]http://puu.sh/8wFBW.jpg[/IMG] Wes Anderson is just a big fuckin anime nerd[/QUOTE] of all the 2d disney flicks to choose from you pick fucking 101 dalmatians? eat shit wes anderson, rescuers down under/jungle book/sword in the stone > those fucking dogs any day

lol calm down, 101 Dalmatians is a fine choice.

[QUOTE=Pops;44708360] you pick fucking 101 dalmatians? eat shit wes anderson, rescuers down under/jungle book/sword in the stone > those fucking dogs any day[/QUOTE] You must be joking, Cruella DeVille is top five villains in movie history hands down HANDS DOWN

Holy shit...Wes Anderson likes Evangelion? My mind is blown.

[QUOTE=Shaun555;44706926][B]Chronicle[/B] This was a lot of fun. Teenagers putzing around with superpowers and [sp]proof that you can have a really good final battle between two supermen without tearing down half a city[/sp].[/QUOTE] Thanks for this. Just finished watching it. While i'm not a fan of the style used, I quickly got used to it. Loved this movie.

I can't watch movies made from about 1930 to 1960, I just can't. I don't like watching them (with the exception of monster movies). I can watch a 1920's silent film just fine, but I do not enjoy early talkies or any of the dramas from that time period. I just don't know what it is.

y'all got no souls

So, Amazing Spiderman 2. Maybe, like, a 6/10 at most. I wasn't expecting anything brilliant, but I needed to go out and do something with my dad and it had Dane DeHaan in it. There was an abundance of weird, little things that kept the movie from being a lot better, but the whole thing did feel kind of scattered and cluttered. [sp]Little things, like, how ridiculously caricature-like pre-Electro Max was, along with the scientist guy who was experimenting on him. Then there's the thing with the planes, how creepy and forceful Peter acted over Gwen wanting to split up, and a bunch of other things.[/sp] It had its merits, like Dane DeHaan being great, as usual. Electro looked fucking sick, too. I just feel like it could have been so much better, though. Especially if Green Goblin and Rhino's integration into the story had been handled better, or just saved for the next installment entirely.

where in the bible does it say there are rock transformers?

[QUOTE=AK'z;44710995]where in the bible does it say there are rock transformers?[/QUOTE] Nowhere, but Noah just kinda did it's own thing. I liked how it approached it as, well, a story, rather than a sacred text that must be taken with absolute seriousness.

[QUOTE=Katska;44711012]Nowhere, but Noah just kinda did it's own thing. I liked how it approached it as, well, a story, rather than a sacred text that must be taken with absolute seriousness.[/QUOTE] I got that but rock transformers still baffle me :(

i liked em. they were my fave part of the movie

Drive [sp]9/10[/sp] There were a couple of subplots and background details that could have been expanded upon. Other than that it's probably one of the best I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=AK'z;44710995]where in the bible does it say there are rock transformers?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://biblehub.com/genesis/6-4.htm"]Genesis 6:4[/URL] mentions the "nephilim". It's usually translated as "giants", but nobody is really sure what exactly they were. They're not really mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. Also, Genesis 6 is where the story of Noah begins. Best I can figure, Aronofsky took that concept and ran with it.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;44711138][URL="http://biblehub.com/genesis/6-4.htm"]Genesis 6:4[/URL] mentions the "nephilim". It's usually translated as "giants", but nobody is really sure what exactly they were. They're not really mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. Also, Genesis 6 is where the story of Noah begins. Best I can figure, Aronofsky took that concept and ran with it.[/QUOTE] just as long as they're canon with jesus then it makes sense. maybe jesus turned into a rock transformer and ascended into space like that.

is noah worth watching? would you actively recommend it

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44707533]well, cheesy =/= bad. also, they have a lot more heart to them than webb's films[/QUOTE] The first trilogy was not serious enough and the new ones are too serious. The other thing is, Andrew Garfield works better as spider-man but Tobey Maguire worked better as Parker. [editline]3rd May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=cricket50;44711516]is noah worth watching? would you actively recommend it[/QUOTE] It's an interesting 2h40 watch to say the least. Clearly not the best movie of this year but it has a certain feel and scale to it. Although it falls down pretty hard about half-way through once the flood actually happens (oh noes spoiler there's a flood), but the first half is good in its own right.

[QUOTE=cricket50;44711516]is noah worth watching? would you actively recommend it[/QUOTE] It's ok. It's an interesting watch but it isn't a must see

Hollow Man So exciting, but such visual effects overload. 6/10

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44707194]Why do people even hold the originals in high esteem, if you take the nostalgia factor away those movies were really fucking cheesy and more than often pretty bad.[/QUOTE] I thought that they were quite competently written and that you really felt you wanted Peter Parker to succeed and as a result you cheered him on. The villains didn't feel entirely 2D either. And who can forget this guy? [video=youtube;IgL8h_u2PHw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgL8h_u2PHw[/video]

I didn't like Noah really, I felt it was really too dark and the rock monsters were unnessecery