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

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;45577302]rewatched the avengers. still a great film, although it's kinda funny seeing some of the cgi looking outdated despite it only being released a couple years ago :v: also, after seeing guardians of the galaxy, the chitauri and everything like that has the effect of making it seem totally believable that all this would be happening in the same universe. when i was watching GotG, it felt like it was far too different to make sense being part of the wider marvel universe, but the chitauri kind of bridge the gap imo. so yeah, it totally works [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] also after typing that out it would probably make more sense in the marvel universe thread but eh[/QUOTE] The Collector has a chitauri on display

haven't delved seriously into a new movie for a little while so thought I'd throw one on last night and then turn in, so I chose what I thought was a nice relaxing romantic drama, nothing too bone-crunching: [B]Michael Haneke's La Pianiste (The Piano Teacher)[/B] OH GOD WHY DID I DO THIS. This is on par with some Lars Von Trier shit and Lars has NEVER done anywhere near what this film did. This film destroyed my soul through and through and now I'm done for. I was recovering after months of torture watching depressing flicks; and I just wanted one night to see a soothing film but this film didn't let any of this happen. This woman.. I have no clue what to think any more, she's on a whole new level of psycho-sexual madness that I can't comprehend. I thought things would unfold and people would get it together and have a cup of tea or something. But when the film ended, I've never felt so devoid of feeling in my life... :suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide::suicide:

confirmed for never going to watch that

Sex Tape 1/10 Abysmal movie. The plot is so stupid and bland it's painful to watch. Hell, there's not even a plot for the first half hour. I can usually understand when a writer is trying to make characters seem incompetent and moronic bht this movie takes it to such an extreme its no longer believable. And the worst part about it? The movie is nothing but a commercial for Apple. I don't know why Apple wants to be affiliated with sex and cocaine but there it is. Every computer in this movie is a mac. The entire plot focuses on how the main character gave all his friends iPads and accidentally uploaded the sex tape to.the cloud. Of course, the sex tape was recorded on an iPad too. It wouldn't be so bad but the dialogue decides to "subtly" advertise the iPad. Like when the mom throws their kid's iPad out the window and when they go to retrieve it the dad say, "wow the construction on these things are phenomenal." Or the scene in which the dad looks at the sex tape to see if its really that bad. He freaks out and says people can totally tell its them because the camera on the iPad is "amazing." Fuck this turd. It's not even a movie. The only reason why this movie is even getting a 1 is because the Rob Lowe/Jack Black cameos were the only funny parts of this "comedy."

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;45579728]confirmed for never going to watch that[/QUOTE] but it's a brilliant film, i just wasn't doing the healthy thing by looking briefly what it was about. :(

[QUOTE=Yogkog;45574264]Blade Runner Absolutely nothing like I expected. I was assuming it was an action movie in an interesting setting. What it actually was was a lot more thematic and unnerving. I really liked the atmosphere of it (which is what everyone talks about when there's discussion about it) and I can definitely see how it pioneered what we see in modern cyberpunk, but I don't think we got to see enough of it. I thought the movie in general was very oddly paced. I much rather watch scenes like [sp]Deckard chasing the replicant through the rainy streets of grungy future LA[/sp] than him staring at a picture on a TV for 6 minutes, or the climax that was actually very very slow, taking up 20 minutes of [sp]Deckard and Roy running around Sebastian's building without anything actually happening until they made it to the roof, where the excellent "tears in rain" speech happened.[/sp] I also felt like the theme of Blade Runner about human nature wasn't as explored as much as it could have been. And lastly, I honestly don't think the characters were that interesting, except for Roy, who was brilliant and should have been in the film more. [editline]2nd August 2014[/editline] I'm probably gonna get buttdestroyed for saying this[/QUOTE] it's a noir film, man.

[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;45579777]Sex Tape 1/10 Abysmal movie. The plot is so stupid and bland it's painful to watch. Hell, there's not even a plot for the first half hour. I can usually understand when a writer is trying to make characters seem incompetent and moronic bht this movie takes it to such an extreme its no longer believable. And the worst part about it? The movie is nothing but a commercial for Apple. I don't know why Apple wants to be affiliated with sex and cocaine but there it is. Every computer in this movie is a mac. The entire plot focuses on how the main character gave all his friends iPads and accidentally uploaded the sex tape to.the cloud. Of course, the sex tape was recorded on an iPad too. It wouldn't be so bad but the dialogue decides to "subtly" advertise the iPad. Like when the mom throws their kid's iPad out the window and when they go to retrieve it the dad say, "wow the construction on these things are phenomenal." Or the scene in which the dad looks at the sex tape to see if its really that bad. He freaks out and says people can totally tell its them because the camera on the iPad is "amazing." Fuck this turd. It's not even a movie. The only reason why this movie is even getting a 1 is because the Rob Lowe/Jack Black cameos were the only funny parts of this "comedy."[/QUOTE] The leading cast is Jason Segel and Cameron Diaz I think you should've known better

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;45579806]The leading cast is Jason Segel and Cameron Diaz I think you should've known better[/QUOTE] Jason Segal movies are usually entertaining though. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my favorite comedies.

I like Jason Segal too, Cameron Diaz sucks though. Did she only become famous because of her looks, or is she actually a good actor? [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] Jason Segal is best when paired with Paul Rudd

[QUOTE=loopoo;45579955]she only become famous because of her looks[/QUOTE]

cameron diaz is a shit

She doesn't even look that good in my opinion

She has this weird smugness in every movie I've seen her in that I can't stand

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;45579728]confirmed for never going to watch that[/QUOTE] Watch it. It's a total masterpiece. (as is par for Haneke)

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45580993]Watch it. It's a total masterpiece. (as is par for Haneke)[/QUOTE] No offense but I can't really stomach "offensive", sexual-deviant LVT type stuff

[QUOTE=Rusty100;45575388]i thought everyone agreed that the final cut was the definitive and best cut ??[/QUOTE] I like Final Cut better in every way except that I prefer "I want more life, fucker."

[B]Ghost In The Shell - 10/10[/B] Really loved the art style and the Neo Tokyo setting, very neat. [B]Apocalypse Now: Redux - 10/10 [/B] For the 3 hour length, the movie seems a little overwhelming, but there are so many memorable scenes and quotes that makes it worth watching. The acting is spectacular and captures the distress and madness that the war brings on to the soldiers very well. Easily one of my most favorite Vietnam War movies.

[QUOTE=Joz;45578396]It's not about the quality, but if we take 1 Marvel film to 1 DC film, the latter one can have up to 3 good villains (without it being too much), to Marvel's zero, let's just focus on the last 10 years, you have 7 DC films but let's just exclude Watchmen, cause it will be unfair. Even in the shitty Man of Steel, or even shittier Green Lantern you have villains with proper backstory, proper motivation, giving them some sense of realism in the terms of character's creation. Marvel prefers to take time in their films to focus more on the protagonists, and that would be fine, if they wouldn't forget about the antagonists. I don't even remember the villains in Hulk, Iron Man 2, or Thor (beside Loki that was a half-villain there), and give me a month and the same will be with GotG. And maybe that proves the strength of the last one - it can work basically without villains, based only on the interactions between main characters. Loki was good in Thor and The Avengers, and that should be the end of it for at least 5-6 years. He was unnecessary in Thor 2, and I can assure that we will see him in the next few films.[/QUOTE] i'll have to disagree again. just because a character has time dedicated to his backstory it doesn't mean that it is a good or memorable one. are you telling me zod had a good motivation? "oh i am a power hungry warlord but even though this planet's atmosphere basically makes us gods i'm going to [sp]turn it into krypton, where we don't actually do anything special[/sp]. and what about sinestro? how was he given a proper backstory? he's honestly the definition of a plot device. i'll give you hulk and iron man 2, but loki was actually pretty memorable in thor, and they did tell his story relatively well. and what about the mandarin in im3, ben kingsley's portrayal was really memorable and guy pearce's character had a decent backstory, while dc villains like the scarecrow and lex in superman returns felt underwhelming. but more importantly, if we're going ~10 years back and using movies associated with the company regardless of whether or not they're related in any other way to the other movies, why not bring up the raimi trilogy? is there anyone who doesn't think dafoe's goblin and molina's dr octopus weren't memorable?

[QUOTE=loopoo;45579955]Jason Segal is best when paired with Paul Rudd[/QUOTE] or with Muppets

Anyone here who has not yet seen Guardians of the Galaxy needs to go see it, cannot emphasize enough how good it is. They did literally everything right, I already want to go see it again. It was surprisingly funny too, movies can be so good when they don't take themselves too seriously. Visually it looked great, soundtrack was great, almost never a dull moment. It's definitely one of my favorite action movies up there with the original Die Hard. I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a movie in theaters this much. Try to see it in IMAX if you can though, there are parts it that looked funky and seemed like they were just not meant to be seen in standard definition at all. [sp]We are Groot.[/sp] <3

Howdy guys! I decided to drop by and share the last word on everything thats being debated here. Naturally I'll use the degree of tact and diplomacy I got my reputation for on here. Truth is as follows: Directors cut of Blade runner is better The original cut of Apocalyse Now is better. Marvel is shit I am Jewdozer That will be all. Except, I watched [B]Tim's Vermeer (2013)[/B] which is a doc from last year about the famous Dutch artist from the 1600's who did 'Girl with the pearl cockring'. His realism, control of contrast and technical accuracy has led some to wonder if trickery was used to paint these masterpieces. The outcome of this docu is facinating, especially if you love the old masters like I do. Much love comrades. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt of banned user" - Rusty100))[/highlight]

what asshole thinks the Redux of Apocalypse Now isn't just convoluted overlong messy shit (far too many people) [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] Apocalypse Now is a film that was saved in the editing room. The Redux sucks.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45583824]what asshole thinks the Redux of Apocalypse Now isn't just convoluted overlong messy shit (far too many people) [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] Apocalypse Now is a film that was saved in the editing room. The Redux sucks.[/QUOTE] This man speaks truth, original is an absolute masterclass though.

I've only seen the redux and I enjoyed it.

[QUOTE=Scot;45583906]I've only seen the redux and I enjoyed it.[/QUOTE] I grew up with the original and it has a degree of aura and mystery about the characters. The Redux huminised them too much and the extra Brando scenes rationalised him too much. As for the plantation scenes, wtf? I remember seeing the Redux at the cinema and coming out sort of happy and sort of let down. You can see why Coppola cut them out.

The redux is a fuzzy, convoluted, overlong mess. It ruins the tone and focus of the original movie and makes it a film that doesn't know what it wants. The playboy scene is cringey the surfboard stealing scene is dumb, we learn too much of Brando, but the biggest flaw is that the plantation scene [I]destroys the film completely[/I]. We spend all this time descending into madness in the heart of the jungle, where nothing is how it should be and anything could happen, the world is not real any more.. Then we spend what, 20 minutes brought right back into reality where we meander around doing absolutely nothing to progress plot or character in any way, only to be thrust back into the madness where we left off as if nothing happened, once we've had to readjust our mentality towards the film totally to a normality, then we're meant to go back to the insanity? It is horrifically bad. It is actually TERRIBLE and amateur. It negates absolutely everything that happened before it and destroys the impact of all that follows. basically dont watch the redux it sucks but watch the original cut cos it's great. Coppola cut an hour out for very good reason. [editline]4th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=PollytheParrot;45581046]No offense but I can't really stomach "offensive", sexual-deviant LVT type stuff[/QUOTE] Good thing Haneke and LvT are not the same. I guess you've never watched any Haneke? Lars von Trier, as much as I enjoy his stuff, is a child. He's a baby who gets money to make movies he wants and he makes them for himself and to piss people off and to laugh at people who don't like them or get offended. He's one of the most indulgent directors working, for me it works but he's a filmmaker that I love who I could actually easily tear apart. I understand and honestly agree with the majority of criticism he gets. I've heard people say LvT is bad for being unrealistic though but I don't think that's fair. LvT has never made a realistic film and has never tried, because none of his films are based in the real world. They're all fantasy films! Haneke, on the other hand, is a far more mature director (compared to LvT who is terribly immature). I see how from an outside standpoint you can compare the two to an extent in subject matter, they are both depressing and relentless and often star women in bad situations (sidenote ill always defend there is a strong feminism in most Lars von Trier films despite there being people who call him a misogynist but that's a different matter). Haneke is, as I said, far more mature. I feel they tackle similarly bleak and oppressive worlds and people in completely opposite ways. Where LvT is exploitative and poking fun in bad taste (but not always! One of LvT's saving graces is his ability to craft great scenes. All his films have at least some scenes that are just insanely great and real and beautiful, where he appears to treat everything properly and the correct tone and just hits the nail perfectly and I think to myself "this is a piece of absolute, complete mastery". Sadly they're moments and rarely the full film. Breaking The Waves is probably the most consistent in this and it's my favourite of his, one of the greatest dramas ever made imo), Haneke is watching objectively (to an extent. cinema is not objective and it's impossible for it to be. Haneke has an agenda etc but his delivery feels neutral) and making you think, working as allegory as well as incredibly powerful, real dramas (not fantasies). Their main difference is that outside of Funny Games and [I]kiiiinda[/I] Cache he isn't poking fun. Funny Games is fucking amazing though, fuck your Cabin In The Woods/Tucker & Dale shit (as great as those are). This is the real horror satire/critique. The ultimate. Nothing will top it. But like if you watch Dogville or Melancholia and then watch The Piano Teacher or Amour and think they're even remotely similar you are clearly watching different movies than what I did lmao cos they are very very far apart. Don't ignore Haneke, one of the best contemporary directors, just because you don't like Lars von Trier who is nothing like Haneke at all. [editline]4th August 2014[/editline] also I had a pretty good discussion today about Under The Skin I continue to think it was a piece of shit lmao what did everyone else think? its well made in some aspects but it's so simple and there's really not much to it (and yeah. I get her journey. I promise I do. It's just badly handled and[I]BORING[/I]. The Kubrick comparisons are honestly a complete joke to me. He started off with a cool abstract visual thing and he used lots of blue and it's really cold but like there's not really much Kubrick in Under The Skin at all to me. Glazer is FAR from a master.

under the skin is bad enough that not even scarjo being nude could make up for it [editline]3rd August 2014[/editline] also thanks, I guess I'll give Haneke a try barf bag at the ready

I tried out 'Under the skin' last week and could hardly get through it. A painful watch of meaningless scenes and repeated senarios. The best part was the credits as it meant the pain was over. Haneke's Piano Teacher is amazing.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45582110]i'll have to disagree again. just because a character has time dedicated to his backstory it doesn't mean that it is a good or memorable one. are you telling me zod had a good motivation? "oh i am a power hungry warlord but even though this planet's atmosphere basically makes us gods i'm going to [sp]turn it into krypton, where we don't actually do anything special[/sp]. and what about sinestro? how was he given a proper backstory? he's honestly the definition of a plot device.[/QUOTE] Sinestro wasn't a full villain yet in Green Lantern, he became him in the last 30 seconds, and that was actually the only part of the film I remember - Mark Strong was great in his role. He had lots of potential and it was clear that his character would be expanded in next film, but we all know what happened. Zod? His motivation was actually explained and it was semi-believable. He was a believer, and he believed in the role he received as a Kryptonian - being a general, and protecting his people for no matter what cost. All of his decisions were made with this in mind. He didn't need the godmaking atmosphere, that wasn't necessary to further survival of his species. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45582110]i'll give you hulk and iron man 2, but loki was actually pretty memorable in thor, and they did tell his story relatively well. and what about the mandarin in im3, ben kingsley's portrayal was really memorable and guy pearce's character had a decent backstory, while dc villains like the scarecrow and lex in superman returns felt underwhelming. [/QUOTE]Kingsley's portrayal was great for the first part of the film, but then later he stops being a villain and it turns to Guy Pearce, who as you mentioned was fleshed out just enough, but wasn't memorable at all. He took his shirt off, started breathing fire, that was more comical if anything. But bringing back Kingsley and doing something for real with him - I'll gladly take it. Scarecrow, for a second secondary villain (with Sal Maroni being also secondary villain), did a good job. Excluding his cameos in TDK and TDKR, just in Begins he was threatening, fleshed just enough, with a mist of secrecy around him. Luthor in Returns was slightly above the level of the film itself, which doesn't say much. Spacey did a good job in attempting Hackman, but I'm not a big fan of either incarnations of Luthor. Some people like it, I didn't liked the goofy enterpreneur. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45582110] if we're going ~10 years back and using movies associated with the company regardless of whether or not they're related in any other way to the other movies, why not bring up the raimi trilogy? is there anyone who doesn't think dafoe's goblin and molina's dr octopus weren't memorable?[/QUOTE]Spider-Man is Columbia, just like X-Men and Fantastic Four is a Fox property and Marvel had essentially nothing with creating these films. I wouldn't dare to say that Magneto wasn't properly fleshed out or memorable, or even Goblin, that would be just wrong. I try group it not by continuity of this film, but by creative integrity. So for Marvel it's MCU, and for DC it's Nolan's Trilogy that definitely influenced Man of Steel and future DCCU. Besides, you don't want to mention Spider-Man in this discussion, because TASM2. Now, talking about villains and what was wrong with them in there could take us years.

[QUOTE=Joz;45584404]Sinestro wasn't a full villain yet in Green Lantern, he became him in the last 30 seconds, and that was actually the only part of the film I remember - Mark Strong was great in his role. He had lots of potential and it was clear that his character would be expanded in next film, but we all know what happened. Zod? His motivation was actually explained and it was semi-believable. He was a believer, and he believed in the role he received as a Kryptonian - being a general, and protecting his people for no matter what cost. All of his decisions were made with this in mind. He didn't need the godmaking atmosphere, that wasn't necessary to further survival of his species.[/quote] actually, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't sinestro the one who introduces hal to the green lantern corps, oversees his training and allows him to talk to the elders (or whatever they were called), also opposing hal's plans and thus making it so he had to save earth alone? and yeah, zod wanted another krypton, but why? the kryptonians survived just fine on earth, what motivation did he have to go through all that just so he could have a planet just like krypton? [quote]Scarecrow, for a second secondary villain (with Sal Maroni being also secondary villain), did a good job. Excluding his cameos in TDK and TDKR, just in Begins he was threatening, fleshed just enough, with a mist of secrecy around him. Luthor in Returns was slightly above the level of the film itself, which doesn't say much. Spacey did a good job in attempting Hackman, but I'm not a big fan of either incarnations of Luthor. Some people like it, I didn't liked the goofy enterpreneur.[/quote] "a mist of secrecy around him" is probably the worst excuse i've ever heard for a character i think lacked most things a character should have