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

[QUOTE=Pops;41536600]i didn't say nobody can beat pixar [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pops;41534731]but you can't beat Pixar at their own game[/QUOTE]

Dancer In The Dark- 4/5 I only started watching Lars von Trier films a couple months ago but this is now the fifth film of his I've seen. I plan on watching Element of Crime, Europa and Manderlay soon. Don't know if I'll bother with his second feature since it's apparently by far his worst- although I'll probably watch it after I'm finished with the other 3. But yes, this was a very good film. I'm actually quite surprised at some of the absolute hate it got- lots of 1/10, no stars, etc. Peter Bradshaw, a critic I rank as one of the current best, gave the film 0 stars and said it was one of the worst films he had ever seen. I wouldn't rank it as von Trier's best but it was very good. It was better than Melancholia (not that I thought Melancholia was bad) I really loved Bjork in this. her performance was so raw. The film isn't as relentlessly brutal on the emotions as say Breaking The Waves or Dogville, but still very bleak. The end was devastating. I also didn't know this film was a musical so when the machines started going in tune and the place lit up and everyone started singing and dancing I was totally just like "what the fuck" The soundtrack to the film is great though- it's done by Bjork. I teared up a bit at the song on the traintracks tbh- it was beautiful and so powerful. Also, the more von Trier films I watch, the more I think he does not hate humanity like people suggest but honestly I feel like he cares about people. His films are cruel, and the torture women, and people say he's a misogynst (I think he's more of a feminist. His women are always so strong and will do whatever they need to do. They might be punished but not because he hates women.) but his Golden Heart films' protagonists are so pure and beautiful human beings I just cannot imagine that he hates us, or women specifically. This wasn't really a review but whatever. its words. Good film. Funny Games (original)- 5/5 Netflix summary- "An affluent German family is settling into their lakeside vacation home when a young man named Peter comes to the door asking to borrow eggs." :v: Fucking brilliant. I really really loved this. I vaguely knew what I was on for but man did this film fuck with me. This is probably the best horror film I have ever seen. I know it's technically not a horror but it plays on so many horror tropes I view it at least as a satire/parody. The film is, essentially, a home invasion film. Two upper class, polite (disturbingly so- the dialogue in this film is just perfect)men come round to borrow some eggs. Things escalate. But it's also so much more. First off, this is a Michael Haneke film so you can expect it to be harrowing- I was not expecting it to be so blackly comic. Paul, one of the invaders, is, to me, pretty much the protagonist. He is as charming as he is terrifying and sociopathic. Honestly his good looks, way with words and charm make him all the more horrible. His breaking the fourth wall is strange but it absolutely works, making the film that bit more meta and cementing what I think Haneke tried to do with this film. I'm gonna skip ahead from talking about performances and script (of which both are great) because you can just watch the film for those. I wanna talk about what it means. -potential spoilers even outside of spoiler marks- This film is genius to me. It's Michael Haneke just absolutely and truly saying "Fuck you!". The film plays on pretty much every horror convention and how the audience would react to certain events. [sp]Haneke knows that for some reason people cope with murder better than a dead dog. So what does he do right away? Beat the dog to death with a golf club[/sp] he knows the audience don't expect the kid to die [sp]so he blows the kid's head off[/sp] he knows how exposition in the first act will set up events for the third act where the heroes win [sp]so he shows the knife getting left in the boat deliberately, then at the end has the wife try to untie herself and be caught so it was meaningless[/sp] he knows he expects the man to be the hero [sp]so he cripples him and he does pretty much nothing the whole film[/sp] et cetera, et cetera. The film is basically calling out horror fans for being sick. He takes the sickness and makes it real and disturbing. He makes audiences angry because he deliberately messes with how the film plays out. There is no redeption, there is no final girl, there are no heroes. Hell, the very last scene is just another kick in the crotch because IT HAPPENS AGAIN! Right away! The film wants to make you feel bad. It doesn't want you to enjoy the horror. He embodies this in a scene that absolutely blew me away. Like, some people said it ruined the film for them but I think that just proves Haneke right. the scene where [sp]the wife shoots Peter. Paul is annoyed so he rewinds the film to bring him back to life.[/sp] it was utterly perfect. It's also the only violence we see on screen. The dog, husband's broken leg, the boy, the stabbing- we never see it. This is the only violence we see and it's incredibly bloody and gratuitous. Haneke wants you to be like "Haha! Hell yes! That's awesome!" only for him to call you out for being disgusting and laughing at a person's death and enjoying the gore by rewinding it and just making you feel terrible. It's the one time he properly follows through with a convention instead of going on a tangent- but, he actually changes it AFTER it's happened and I just love it. [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] The entire film is just one big prank.

[QUOTE=Scot;41536935][/QUOTE] well shit i've been had. it's about time to hit the ol' dusty trail then..

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;41536510]I have seen it as an adult. Holy Grail, Flying Circus, Life Of Brian, Meaning Of Life, all of it. In fact, I didn't even start seeing their stuff until I was older. I have (and still do) find it funny. The only problem is that so many other shows or people tried to copy it's style/success or quote it on the internet that it can taint your perception to the point where it's hard to appreciate the fact that back when this show originally aired it was considered witty and original.[/QUOTE] except it was never witty. 'cut this tree down with a herring' so witty so much wit literally can't believe how much intelligence is in the humor shrubbery. lol. so random.

[QUOTE=Pops;41537260]well shit i've been had. it's about time to hit the ol' dusty trail then..[/QUOTE] it's ok you can pursue a fruitful career in politics now

Jack and the Giant Slayer 6/10 I enjoyed it. Too short. He didn't slay many giants though.

Finally saw Oblivion, and if you saw Moon then its pretty much that but with a higher budget. Seriously. If you haven't seen Moon, I probably ruined that movie for you.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;41537674]except it was never witty. 'cut this tree down with a herring' so witty so much wit literally can't believe how much intelligence is in the humor shrubbery. lol. so random.[/QUOTE] that was the joy of it at the time though its aged poorly though, no doubt

[QUOTE=Rusty100;41535499]why would i be? are your childhood memories of it that precious that you can't even bare to hear it criticized? have you even watched any of it as an adult? like, objectively? give it a go. [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] the holy grail used to be my favourite movie of all time. watching it again was so painful and insufferable. it's the anti-funny [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] just like what happened with kung pow. try watching that shit again without tearing your eyes out[/QUOTE] I partially agree. I couldn't watch "Meaning of Life" recently because it was awful. But Flying Circus is the shit and it's still hilariously funny.

discussing comedy again... "it's not funny" "it is" it doesn't go anywhere beyond this discussion.

that's fine, but it doesn't stop me from being right. it's matter of factually 'random' humour. sans some poignant social commentary in the meaning of life, monty python's humour stems from trying to be as wacky and random as possible for what was back then sort of a shock value. you can't deny their stuff, especially flying circus, is mostly random humour. and anyone who protests that is in denial, and anyone who still likes it is admitting to enjoying family guy tier bottom of the barrel comedy that's enjoyed most fruitfully by children. just because it's older than family guy, doesn't make it better

family guy ruined a lot of films for me, especially Good Will Hunting. :(

family guy parodies plenty of things leaps and bounds better than family guy itself, i dont see why that should be taken as a blight on them retrospectively rather than solidifying family guy's claim to effortless and thoughtless comedy

[QUOTE=Rusty100;41539359]that's fine, but it doesn't stop me from being right.[/QUOTE] It kinda does.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;41539359]that's fine, but it doesn't stop me from being right. it's matter of factually 'random' humour. sans some poignant social commentary in the meaning of life, monty python's humour stems from trying to be as wacky and random as possible for what was back then sort of a shock value. you can't deny their stuff, especially flying circus, is mostly random humour. and anyone who protests that is in denial, and anyone who still likes it is admitting to enjoying family guy tier bottom of the barrel comedy that's enjoyed most fruitfully by children. just because it's older than family guy, doesn't make it better[/QUOTE] But since when random humour is never funny? It works great in Monty Python - hell, movies like Airplane! or Naked Gun trilogy are based solely on this. I prefer wacky random Leslie Nielsen than majority of modern comedies any day.

TheFilmSlacker, what's your favorite Chaplin film?

Personally I would go with The Circus, The Goldrush, City Lights and The Kid. Honestly though, it's hard for me to choose.

You definitely should man. I do believe that Chaplin said that he wanted to be most remembered for The Gold Rush.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;41539359]that's fine, but it doesn't stop me from being right. it's matter of factually 'random' humour. sans some poignant social commentary in the meaning of life, monty python's humour stems from trying to be as wacky and random as possible for what was back then sort of a shock value. you can't deny their stuff, especially flying circus, is mostly random humour. and anyone who protests that is in denial, and anyone who still likes it is admitting to enjoying family guy tier bottom of the barrel comedy that's enjoyed most fruitfully by children. just because it's older than family guy, doesn't make it better[/QUOTE] I've not seen any monty python in years so I dunno if I'd still find it funny or not but yes Rusty is right. Like inarguably. It is literally how they make their films and how they do comedy.The humour is definitely based off of being wacky and zany and random. "you must bring us........ A SHRUBBERY!" like that's not really smart it's just random. Whats smart about asking for a shrubbery. Its just off the wall comedy. All their jokes are like that. "To get in you must know... The air speed velocity of a swallow!!" "the grail is guarded by the deadliest of creatures.... A LITTLE RABBIT!!"

I have no problem with "random" humour if it's done right, and monty python does it very right.

Monty python annoying shit imo

[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;41537903]it's ok you can pursue a fruitful career in politics now[/QUOTE] oh hell naw i hate politics

compliance - really well made. i liked it a lot although the plot is rather disturbing

Up - 9/10 Very enjoyable and great animation as usual. That first damn 10 mins or so :'( Computer animation is so damn good. You just couldn't make something like Up as a normal film.

Pacific rim - 10000000000/10 like i dont even care about its flaws

[QUOTE=Xephio;41542956]Pacific rim - 10000000000/10 like i dont even care about its flaws[/QUOTE] It was easily my favorite movie of the 'summer' blockbuster season.

Not seen it yet but this year hasn't exactly been a good one for blockbusters. Looking forward to The Wolverine though, hopefully it doesn't suck

[QUOTE=Joz;41539668]But since when random humour is never funny? It works great in Monty Python - hell, movies like Airplane! or Naked Gun trilogy are based solely on this. I prefer wacky random Leslie Nielsen than majority of modern comedies any day.[/QUOTE] naked gun and airplane arent random though, they are satirical puns and wordplays acted out. things actually have connections. they have some smarts about them. i'm not a very big fan of them but i can recognise their much higher quality [editline]22nd July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Scot;41541175]I have no problem with "random" humour if it's done right, and monty python does it very right.[/QUOTE] you can be seeminly random, but have logical and smart connections between things. or you can have literally no connection between anything which takes absolutely zero effort and should not be admired or strived toward. like any talantless idiot on the internet could write wAcky and random humpr, and they do. it's not smart and not funny. when there's no thought and no connection, it's just bad, effortless comedy

[QUOTE=Rusty100;41543034] you can be seeminly random, but have logical and smart connections between things. or you can have literally no connection between anything which takes absolutely zero effort and should not be admired or strived toward. like any talantless idiot on the internet could write wAcky and random humpr, and they do. it's not smart and not funny. when there's no thought and no connection, it's just bad, effortless comedy[/QUOTE] i see what you're saying, but monty python were literally the first people to do that sort of stuff on a mainstream level, so it was fresh and new at the time i agree with you that is hasnt aged well at all though

the conjuring predictable/10