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

Palanhuik is also like a first year psychology student who just read some Sartre or Neitzche and had his whole world changed but then 2 years later when he turns 19 he realises he's just being a fucking asshole and a pretentious dumbass and grows the fuck up but Palanhuik never grew up [editline]25th July 2014[/editline] LOL IM READING PALANHUIKS WIKI PAGE AND LOOKING AT HIS CRITICISMS AND HE LITERALLY USED THE "ID LIKE TO SEE YOU DO BETTER!!" ARGUMENT "Until you can create something that captivates people, I'd invite you to just shut up. It's easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It's a lot more difficult to perform one." what a fuckin dumbass that's like LITERALLY the biggest ad hominem defence of art in the world

Okay guys, let's get back on topic here. I saw Neighbors the other day. I'd give it like a 7.5 or 8 out of 10. It was pretty funny for a modern gross-out comedy, and Seth Rogen and (surprisingly) Zac Efron were really good in the movie.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;45490402]I enjoy comic book (and video game) sequels/spinoffs on a different level than movies like, I'll read [I]Ghostbusters[/I] comics all day long but I don't want [I]Ghostbusters III[/I][/QUOTE] ghostbusters the video game is basically the third movie

[B]Oculus[/B] *sigh*... I admit there were some nice ideas in it, but sadly it just didn't succeed at being any better than the average meh ghost movie. The story is really cliche, there aren't even any unexpected twists, and the characters are boring. Also the constant jumping from past to present was frustrating. I think the biggest mistake was to not have the right atmosphere, at times the scares are plain comical, and overall it has that kind of "teen movie" feel to it that just takes me out of the experience. I honestly can't understand how this has a fresh rating on RT. I don't think it deserves more than a 5/10

[QUOTE=Wingz;45488244]so were allowed to spoil any movie as long as it hasnt been made within the last 5 years?[/QUOTE] dumbledore dies lmfao! bet u didnt know that

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45490416]Palanhuik is also like a first year psychology student who just read some Sartre or Neitzche and had his whole world changed but then 2 years later when he turns 19 he realises he's just being a fucking asshole and a pretentious dumbass and grows the fuck up but Palanhuik never grew up [editline]25th July 2014[/editline] LOL IM READING PALANHUIKS WIKI PAGE AND LOOKING AT HIS CRITICISMS AND HE LITERALLY USED THE "ID LIKE TO SEE YOU DO BETTER!!" ARGUMENT "Until you can create something that captivates people, I'd invite you to just shut up. It's easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It's a lot more difficult to perform one." what a fuckin dumbass that's like LITERALLY the biggest ad hominem defence of art in the world[/QUOTE] i had to study fight club this year and i wanted to fucking die, its so edgy and shit though i stand by my argument that the entire film (idk about the book i'm never gonna fuckin read it) is a deconstruction of Durdens beliefs by making them silly/OTT as fuck and making Tyler a hypocritical character (he always goes on about how u dont need to be packed into gyms and have great hair to be a real man yet he always wears fancy as fuck clothes and bathes and obviously styles his hair, and hes physically fit). i think fincher tried to mock the hippy dippy bullshit, and afterall, The Narrator who represents the boring every-man in society comes out on top. sorta. so, there's that. or maybe i'm crediting fincher/the film/book with too much intelligence

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;45491301]i had to study fight club this year and i wanted to fucking die, its so edgy and shit though i stand by my argument that the entire film (idk about the book i'm never gonna fuckin read it) is a deconstruction of Durdens beliefs by making them silly/OTT as fuck and making Tyler a hypocritical character (he always goes on about how u dont need to be packed into gyms and have great hair to be a real man yet he always wears fancy as fuck clothes and bathes and obviously styles his hair, and hes physically fit). i think fincher tried to mock the hippy dippy bullshit, and afterall, The Narrator who represents the boring every-man in society comes out on top. sorta. so, there's that. or maybe i'm crediting fincher/the film/book with too much intelligence[/QUOTE] David Fincher is too smart to have not had that in mind when he was making Fight Club. Honestly it's one of my favorites, partly because I love the two lead actors. But yeah the film is a [I]massive[/I] improvement over the book.

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;45491162]dumbledore dies lmfao! bet u didnt know that[/QUOTE] what if i didnt get to that movie yet but again, i did, so theres that spoilers are serious business

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;45491550]David Fincher is too smart to have not had that in mind when he was making Fight Club. Honestly it's one of my favorites, partly because I love the two lead actors. But yeah the film is a [I]massive[/I] improvement over the book.[/QUOTE] it becomes a much better film when you wonder if it's purposefully hypocritical if you take it at it's face value it's quite bad. loads of people take away "yeah! fuck society, man!" from it when i think it's obviously supposed to be saying "yeah, capitalism and consumerism is quite bad, but so is this extreme alternative.", because Tyler ends up becoming the bad guy. i don't think the film puts this across clear enough. I think this is because Pitt is a lot more charismatic than Norton, therefore the audience likes him a lot more.

On the subject of film v. book: I finished reading Neil Gaiman's Stardust, and so decided to watch the movie. Talk about dumbing down the source material. The story was shortened to take place over a week, Victoria went from being an actually decent person to a cartoonish snobby bimbo, and the climax which was originally quiet and character-driven became loud, obnoxious, and stupid. A lot of people enjoy the film's world-building, but the novel's is even better. However unlike the movie, the novel has no comedic elements. I also caught Belle de Jour on TV last night, a classic of arthouse cinema about a woman who genuinely loves her husband but is sexually desperate and so secretly becomes a prostitute. It's the sort of film that will knock around inside your head for a while, trying to decipher the symbolism and surreality. Belle de Jour herself is a wonderfully complex character. I also noted that there was no soundtrack: only words and bells. Highly recommended.

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;45491621]i think it's obviously supposed to be saying "yeah, capitalism and consumerism is quite bad, but so is this extreme alternative."[/QUOTE] actually im pretty sure the author of the book said something like this

I know he did say that one of his original ideas was to write a form of "apostalic fiction," like The Great Gatsby. [editline]25th July 2014[/editline] I still like the book. It's decently funny. [editline]25th July 2014[/editline] And I do like Palahnuik's writing style.

Fight Club is absolutely what you guys are saying, it mocks Tyler and it's meant to make you realise he's talking shit and that everything gets worse and worse around him, my issue with it is that it doesn't do it that well. It indulges in Tyler too much. As mentioned, it's really easy to take as it's face value where Tyler is right but there's not really enough there to make it a strong satire. The film is a great watch but it does fall in on itself morally. [editline]25th July 2014[/editline] I mean you just need to look at the legions of people who misinterpret the movie as exactly what it's trying to be against as an indicator of its inability to convey it's message in an effective way

fight club owns b/c brad pitt is super dreamy

Wasn't Fight Club the first film that started the "character looks muscular and dreamy, but he actually is just low body fat percentage"?

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45493437] I mean you just need to look at the legions of people who misinterpret the movie as exactly what it's trying to be against as an indicator of its inability to convey it's message in an effective way[/QUOTE] i blame the legions of stupid fans for misinterpreting it, not the work itself for not conveying its message well enough

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45495694]i blame the legions of stupid fans for misinterpreting it, not the work itself for not conveying its message well enough[/QUOTE] I think it's made pretty clear that you're not supposed to idolize Tyler (at least not after a while into the movie, of course Tyler is the cool, free dude Edward Norton wishes he was at first), which makes it all the more awkward that so many people do.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;45496045]I think it's made pretty clear that you're not supposed to idolize Tyler (at least not after a while into the movie, of course Tyler is the cool, free dude Edward Norton wishes he was at first), which makes it all the more awkward that so many people do.[/QUOTE] Nah, I don't think it's clear enough in the film. I didn't dislike Tyler at any point, even when he was beating up the Narrator at the end. It's because Pitt is so damn charismatic.

i guess i can see that, the same thing happened with nolan's joker (though maybe nolan did want the joker to be liked for some reason?) but still, i think plenty of people got the message

Aliens - 9/10, makes so much more sense whenever I watched it right after Alien than 6 months apart. So much enjoyable stuff that I missed the first time. Still prefer Alien, but Aliens is great and has my favourite character from the franchise (Vasquez).

Also in Fight Club, Tyler is all "fuck the establishment maaaan" but by the end Fight Club is pretty much an establishment, with ranks and organized roles and whatnot. The hypocrisy isn't hard to see.

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;45491621]it becomes a much better film when you wonder if it's purposefully hypocritical if you take it at it's face value it's quite bad. loads of people take away "yeah! fuck society, man!" from it when i think it's obviously supposed to be saying "yeah, capitalism and consumerism is quite bad, but so is this extreme alternative.", because Tyler ends up becoming the bad guy. i don't think the film puts this across clear enough. I think this is because Pitt is a lot more charismatic than Norton, therefore the audience likes him a lot more.[/QUOTE] is there even a single person alive who thinks that brad pitt was the good character from whom to take values from? [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] because that blows my mind that is even possible to interpret it that way

[B]The Dark Knight Returns part 1 and 2[/B] 9/10 [B]Primer: 7/10[/B] Good movie, massive mindfuck though [B]The Last Stand - 6/10[/B] [B]Kick-Ass 8.5/10[/B] I know that a lot of people didn't like it, but I've always had a soft spot for this movie, especially since I'm reading the comics, and it's a pretty faithful adaption.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;45497033]is there even a single person alive who thinks that brad pitt was the good character from whom to take values from? [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] because that blows my mind that is even possible to interpret it that way[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=tyler+durden+quotes&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FZDSU7DlOKnhsAS43IHgBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955#q=tyler+durden+quotes&tbm=isch&imgdii=_][B]Look at all this edgy shit[/B][/url]

I lost brain cells reading a few of those.

[QUOTE=NotAName;45496975]Also in Fight Club, Tyler is all "fuck the establishment maaaan" but by the end Fight Club is pretty much an establishment, with ranks and organized roles and whatnot. The hypocrisy isn't hard to see.[/QUOTE] Literally the entire point of the film

[QUOTE=Rusty100;45497033]is there even a single person alive who thinks that brad pitt was the good character from whom to take values from? [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] because that blows my mind that is even possible to interpret it that way[/QUOTE] he's just super-quotable, as shown by all those images. asking that question is like asking if randall and dante from clerks are the good characters to take values from (protip, none of them are, just like with fight club)

Alien: The Director's Cut 5/5 To state the obvious, it's still a great movie. It's well written, the characters feel real, the Alien effects are amazing, and it's aged remarkably well. Considering I've seen the Extended Cuts of the other 2 movies, I felt like it was finally time to watch this one. I've only put it off because Scott himself sort of dismissed it. And it's two minutes shorter. I hardly noticed. A smattering of lines and a scene or two are missing, but it's nothing major. Some interesting extra scenes are included, particularly the Dallas and Brett cocoon scene. I kind of wish they kept with this concept, the fact that the Alien is taking it's victims and turning them into eggs because it puts a whole new spin on the whole egg room. All those eggs were the crew of that ship, all spawned from the poor space-jockey/engineer in the chair. Rather creepy. And this time around, I realized how little of the Alien we actually see in the movie. I remember his presence being rather minimal before, but this time it felt much less than that, and I felt an odd longing for it. I wish there was more of it, kind of lurking in the distance, but that goes against the very reason why Alien was so brilliant- because it [I]wasn't[/I] there. You didn't know when it was going to show up again, you didn't know where, and you weren't sure how. It was suspense at it's finest. Not a detractor or anything, but it's just how I felt.

[QUOTE=Pops;45499797]he's just super-quotable, as shown by all those images. asking that question is like asking if randall and dante from clerks are the good characters to take values from (protip, none of them are, just like with fight club)[/QUOTE] Take yr values from Silent Bob [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] His Chasing Amy scene is A grade material as is the entire film. Fuckin love that movie so much, seriously under appreciated imo. Smiths best and one of my favourite films for a lot of reasons. Incredible film.

Paths of Glory 5/5 An excellent film from Stanley Kubrick, and one of the first films where he became reputed as a perfectionist. It's rather moving, as Kirk Douglas plays a French colonel who defends men in his company as they are on trial for cowardice, but it becomes rather apparent that he cannot save them and they are sentenced to die because of an officer's "tarnished reputation." [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] I have no real good way to describe how I felt about this movie other than I rather liked it. [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] Fuck.