Films Recently Watched

  On 12/24/2012 at 7:01 PM, The Overlook said:

  On 12/24/2012 at 6:55 PM, Jimmy McMessageboard said:

Elf

LOVE IT. watched it twice this weekend.

 

Bad Santa

love it

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

Downloading Gremlins now, because it's one of the all-time great fucked up Christmas movies.

Just downloaded Gremlins cuz my girlfriend has never seen it.

Turned out to be dubbed in spanish.

Now don't have enough internets allowance on my broadband dongle to download another whole film.

Don't know whether I should show her Gremlins 2 (which, inexplicably, I have on DVD but not Gremlins) or just put on another film she hasn't seen,

like Goodfellas.

Probably should've posted this in the FWP thread.

don't jump straight to gremlins 2.

Gremlins 2 is the Troll 2 of the Ghoulies series. Not to be outdone by Basketcase 2!

Django Unchained-7/10

I think Tarantino is losing it. Compared to Inglorious Bastards this reeks of overindulgence. Some great parts though (and Samuel Jackson was great....never would I have thought in my days that I would root for the horrible death of Samuel L. Jackson in a movie theater).

  On 12/27/2012 at 5:36 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Django Unchained-7/10

 

 

I think Tarantino is losing it. Compared to Inglorious Bastards this reeks of overindulgence. Some great parts though (and Samuel Jackson was great....never would I have thought in my days that I would root for the horrible death of Samuel L. Jackson in a movie theater).

Agreed, pacing was terrible especially the ending. Completely fell flat. Music was all over the place. Waltz was fantastic however and there was certainly some excellent parts. But ultimately too disjointed. Could have been 30 minutes shorter. Also his Cinematography has nose-dived. Kill Bill's had some real thought behind its sequences/composition/lighting, IB and this have a kind of cheesy/stagey feel to it, this more so than IB.

interesting, the critics are loving it. Does it really have a 2pac song in it?

I just watched Avatar for the first time.

lol/rofl

Yes it does. Sam Jackson is great, Leo as well (in fact just learned something about his performance that makes a certain scene really insane) ... Fox did a good job but Tarantino didn't give his character any interesting development or dialogue. Tarantino seems to have lost his ability to edit himself ever sense Sally Menke died. Its a very frustrating film more so than any of his others because the first hour is very entertaining and promising but by the time you get to the climax you just want it to be over, yet even then it isn't. The music is just plastered throughout over montages of horse back riding, kind of felt like mini music videos but eventually tiring. No "Stuck in the Middle With You" or "Girl You'll Be A Women Soon" classic QT memorable music/visual moments.... and the worst part is despite the long running time there are so few good long stretches of dialogue that show off his amazing ability of gradually building suspense/tension underneath the surface. I will probably enjoy this more on second viewing as my expectations were pretty high considering the reviews. I just became very confused by his choices about half way through that I couldn't help but become annoyed. He had something good going and fucked it up.

Looper

Great stuff. Nice bit of sci fi. On paper the dumbest plot ever, but such good execution. JGL does a fantastic Bruce Willis impression. The bit with the guy losing his body parts was nightmarish, loved that.

The TK stuff was not needed though, appreciated that stuff a little bit less.

Really starting to like JGL.

Dredd

Loved this film! Really expected it to be a pile of shit but was delighted by how bare bones the plot is. Really reminiscent of 80's style Verhoeven action films, just a couple of people in a tower block filled with bad guys. Great action set pieces, nice grim mood pervading everything, did everything it needed to do in a nice tight 90 minutes. This is how I like my action films (see also: Punisher War Zone)

Recommend both.

yes Dredd was really entertaining, completely agree with the above ^. wouldn't even have considered watching if it weren't for the recommendations in this thread. ( was facepalming the trailer and the fact they made this movie at all, funny how this can go both ways... )

Splice (2009)

basically The Fly in a more modern&hip setting/10

this would have been much better if it were more camp, less trying to be serious, imho.. because some elements/characters as well as the entire setting were completely hilarious anyway, why not go all the way and make it a really weird flesh fest...

still, it had quite good body horror, and then also some crappy vampire-like body horror.

Yeah Splice was a weird one. I wanted to like it but it was kinda shit.

true words

Agreed. It was awful.

Monsieur Lazhar: 8.5 / 10

Great but felt too short.

Fantastic Planet: 8 / 10

Brilliantly bizarre 70s French animation. Going to watch Time Masters next.

Blades of Glory: 8 / 10

Fourth time watching, still can't help laughing. A lot.

  On 12/27/2012 at 5:01 PM, Blue Peter Cheat said:

Monsieur Lazhar: 8.5 / 10

Great but felt too short.

  On 12/27/2012 at 9:52 AM, compson said:

Yes it does. Sam Jackson is great, Leo as well (in fact just learned something about his performance that makes a certain scene really insane) ... Fox did a good job but Tarantino didn't give his character any interesting development or dialogue. Tarantino seems to have lost his ability to edit himself ever sense Sally Menke died. Its a very frustrating film more so than any of his others because the first hour is very entertaining and promising but by the time you get to the climax you just want it to be over, yet even then it isn't. The music is just plastered throughout over montages of horse back riding, kind of felt like mini music videos but eventually tiring. No "Stuck in the Middle With You" or "Girl You'll Be A Women Soon" classic QT memorable music/visual moments.... and the worst part is despite the long running time there are so few good long stretches of dialogue that show off his amazing ability of gradually building suspense/tension underneath the surface. I will probably enjoy this more on second viewing as my expectations were pretty high considering the reviews. I just became very confused by his choices about half way through that I couldn't help but become annoyed. He had something good going and fucked it up.

What is it about Leo that made something crazy? Enlighten us!

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:00 PM, Mike_Haggar said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 9:52 AM, compson said:

Yes it does. Sam Jackson is great, Leo as well (in fact just learned something about his performance that makes a certain scene really insane) ... Fox did a good job but Tarantino didn't give his character any interesting development or dialogue. Tarantino seems to have lost his ability to edit himself ever sense Sally Menke died. Its a very frustrating film more so than any of his others because the first hour is very entertaining and promising but by the time you get to the climax you just want it to be over, yet even then it isn't. The music is just plastered throughout over montages of horse back riding, kind of felt like mini music videos but eventually tiring. No "Stuck in the Middle With You" or "Girl You'll Be A Women Soon" classic QT memorable music/visual moments.... and the worst part is despite the long running time there are so few good long stretches of dialogue that show off his amazing ability of gradually building suspense/tension underneath the surface. I will probably enjoy this more on second viewing as my expectations were pretty high considering the reviews. I just became very confused by his choices about half way through that I couldn't help but become annoyed. He had something good going and fucked it up.

What is it about Leo that made something crazy? Enlighten us!

Did you see the film?

SPOILERS

  Quote

It's an interesting story:

 

You know those tiny little glasses they're drinking out of at the table? Well, when he's going through his little tantrum, at some point, he smashes the table, and brings his hand down on one of those glasses.

 

Thats' not in the script: DiCaprio actually smashed his hand on one of the glasses during a take. And never broke character. In fact, the blood you see spreading over his hands comes from that take - and I'm pretty sure the blood he smears on Kerry Washington's face in that scene is his blood, because from what I understand, he went all the way to the end of that sequence in one take, and if his hand is bleeding onscreen, it's from that take.

 

He needed stitches, and his hand is scarred.

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:04 PM, compson said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:00 PM, Mike_Haggar said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 9:52 AM, compson said:

Yes it does. Sam Jackson is great, Leo as well (in fact just learned something about his performance that makes a certain scene really insane) ... Fox did a good job but Tarantino didn't give his character any interesting development or dialogue. Tarantino seems to have lost his ability to edit himself ever sense Sally Menke died. Its a very frustrating film more so than any of his others because the first hour is very entertaining and promising but by the time you get to the climax you just want it to be over, yet even then it isn't. The music is just plastered throughout over montages of horse back riding, kind of felt like mini music videos but eventually tiring. No "Stuck in the Middle With You" or "Girl You'll Be A Women Soon" classic QT memorable music/visual moments.... and the worst part is despite the long running time there are so few good long stretches of dialogue that show off his amazing ability of gradually building suspense/tension underneath the surface. I will probably enjoy this more on second viewing as my expectations were pretty high considering the reviews. I just became very confused by his choices about half way through that I couldn't help but become annoyed. He had something good going and fucked it up.

What is it about Leo that made something crazy? Enlighten us!

 

Did you see the film?

 

SPOILERS

 

 

  Quote

It's an interesting story:

 

You know those tiny little glasses they're drinking out of at the table? Well, when he's going through his little tantrum, at some point, he smashes the table, and brings his hand down on one of those glasses.

 

Thats' not in the script: DiCaprio actually smashed his hand on one of the glasses during a take. And never broke character. In fact, the blood you see spreading over his hands comes from that take - and I'm pretty sure the blood he smears on Kerry Washington's face in that scene is his blood, because from what I understand, he went all the way to the end of that sequence in one take, and if his hand is bleeding onscreen, it's from that take.

 

He needed stitches, and his hand is scarred.

 

yup...I was pretty damn impressed that he kept character through all that.....ive been a lukewarm fan of Dicaprio's, but after hearing that I'm straight up impressed. Shit is professional.......though I really doubt for legal reasons that they let Dicaprio smear his blood all over Washington...seems like a really shady way to go.

but yeah, the movie had some good parts, but overall it overindulged in the shit ive said in previous threads that really hurts Tarantino's movies....overly long "shock" scenes, ridiculous and weak editing...it lacked those incredibly intense dialogue scenes that made Inglorious Basterds my favorite QT film...there were some attempts to replicate that movie magic, but they failed....im convinced its far more due to the screenplay than the actors (all of whom were fantastic).

I really like Waltz as an actor, but I felt he came off waaaaaay too campy. He had a good character, but it was ruined/softened by cheap/corny dialogue....Its like QT just took Waltz's character from IB and put a cowboy hat on him, the same accent and the same ridiculous verbosity, etc. etc. Jamie Foxx hardly said a thing and just looked mean all the time, which I guess fit for the role, but it wasn't anything special. Dicaprio again did a phenomenal job, and he put in the best performance of the movie IMHO.

the thing I hate the most about QT that always makes me hesitant to say hes a great or even good director is his use of music montages. See my rant about Deathproof dialogue that explains it in more detail. Here he was even worse...constant unnecessary drawn out scenes to QT's favorite Morricone or obscure exploitation soundtrack he had on the victrola at the time. After watching this and his other films, Im willing to say that Pulp Fiction was lucky in that respect: every soundbite just happened to fall naturally into place. In this movie its often completely unnecessary, contributes absolutely nothing to the character's sensibilities or emphasizing tension/craziness on screen.

Worst example:

Why was it there? It contributed absolutely nothing in the way of storytelling, and if it was meant to get the viewer charged up emotionally the cue cut the song way too short to have any relevant emotional impact.

Fuck at this point Im willing to collaborate with Red Letter Media on a 60 minute special of how QT is a double-edged director.

I really wish he would tighten his shit up....because he really does have an eye for things, but at this point Im starting to think he's suffering from George Lucas syndrome: its increasingly obvious that his better movies were better because of the people involved on the periphery.

Nice review, the sound effects were pretty dope though, those goopy blood splattering sounds were very three dimensional.

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:04 PM, compson said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:00 PM, Mike_Haggar said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 9:52 AM, compson said:

Yes it does. Sam Jackson is great, Leo as well (in fact just learned something about his performance that makes a certain scene really insane) ... Fox did a good job but Tarantino didn't give his character any interesting development or dialogue. Tarantino seems to have lost his ability to edit himself ever sense Sally Menke died. Its a very frustrating film more so than any of his others because the first hour is very entertaining and promising but by the time you get to the climax you just want it to be over, yet even then it isn't. The music is just plastered throughout over montages of horse back riding, kind of felt like mini music videos but eventually tiring. No "Stuck in the Middle With You" or "Girl You'll Be A Women Soon" classic QT memorable music/visual moments.... and the worst part is despite the long running time there are so few good long stretches of dialogue that show off his amazing ability of gradually building suspense/tension underneath the surface. I will probably enjoy this more on second viewing as my expectations were pretty high considering the reviews. I just became very confused by his choices about half way through that I couldn't help but become annoyed. He had something good going and fucked it up.

What is it about Leo that made something crazy? Enlighten us!

 

Did you see the film?

 

SPOILERS

 

 

  Quote

It's an interesting story:

 

You know those tiny little glasses they're drinking out of at the table? Well, when he's going through his little tantrum, at some point, he smashes the table, and brings his hand down on one of those glasses.

 

Thats' not in the script: DiCaprio actually smashed his hand on one of the glasses during a take. And never broke character. In fact, the blood you see spreading over his hands comes from that take - and I'm pretty sure the blood he smears on Kerry Washington's face in that scene is his blood, because from what I understand, he went all the way to the end of that sequence in one take, and if his hand is bleeding onscreen, it's from that take.

 

He needed stitches, and his hand is scarred.

 

 

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:04 PM, compson said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 6:00 PM, Mike_Haggar said:

  On 12/27/2012 at 9:52 AM, compson said:

Yes it does. Sam Jackson is great, Leo as well (in fact just learned something about his performance that makes a certain scene really insane) ... Fox did a good job but Tarantino didn't give his character any interesting development or dialogue. Tarantino seems to have lost his ability to edit himself ever sense Sally Menke died. Its a very frustrating film more so than any of his others because the first hour is very entertaining and promising but by the time you get to the climax you just want it to be over, yet even then it isn't. The music is just plastered throughout over montages of horse back riding, kind of felt like mini music videos but eventually tiring. No "Stuck in the Middle With You" or "Girl You'll Be A Women Soon" classic QT memorable music/visual moments.... and the worst part is despite the long running time there are so few good long stretches of dialogue that show off his amazing ability of gradually building suspense/tension underneath the surface. I will probably enjoy this more on second viewing as my expectations were pretty high considering the reviews. I just became very confused by his choices about half way through that I couldn't help but become annoyed. He had something good going and fucked it up.

What is it about Leo that made something crazy? Enlighten us!

 

Did you see the film?

 

SPOILERS

 

 

  Quote

It's an interesting story:

 

You know those tiny little glasses they're drinking out of at the table? Well, when he's going through his little tantrum, at some point, he smashes the table, and brings his hand down on one of those glasses.

 

Thats' not in the script: DiCaprio actually smashed his hand on one of the glasses during a take. And never broke character. In fact, the blood you see spreading over his hands comes from that take - and I'm pretty sure the blood he smears on Kerry Washington's face in that scene is his blood, because from what I understand, he went all the way to the end of that sequence in one take, and if his hand is bleeding onscreen, it's from that take.

 

He needed stitches, and his hand is scarred.

 

Wow, that's insane! Yes, I saw the movie and absolutely loved it. Jackson and Waltz were superb (every time Jackson opened his mouth I laughed out loud...the way he was agreeing and chiming in while Candie was talking was priceless...I'd go see it again just to experience that), and DiCaprio was great. Jamie Foxx was good for the role, but I've never really thought he was a particularly good actor....this role was about being a mean bad ass, and he fit the part fine. I really did like everything about it. But then again, I like every Tarantino movie I've ever seen. Granted, I don't think it's quite up to par with the subtlety of Jackie Brown, or the dialogue of Pulp Fiction, or the action of Kill Bill, but I really really liked it. For me, a definite 9.5/10.

The Grey

finally caught this and wasn't as impressed as some of your muppets. it was alright but the ending was a bit obvious and

movies i recommend:

• frankenweenie (2012)
• mientras duermes (2011)
• 
• panique au village (2009)
• 
• de helaasheid der dingen (2009)
• 

classics that i've never seen before:

• time bandits (1981)
• die blechtrommel (1979) - damn son that was sick
• monthy python and the holy grail (1974) - i loled

good blockbuster movies:

• end of watch (2012) - well, there goes a tight hollywood action flick, full of adrenaline, some loose ends here and there but nothing enough to throw down the magnificent roles played by the main characters...
• eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (2004) - i felt a bit tricked when watching this again, it was not what i remembered, some of the stuff felt meaningless second time around, and the element of shock
    Reveal hidden contents

  the fact that most of them had already had their memories erased at least one time

  was a bit forced imo...

• last action hero (1993) - great, nothing to add, 10 popcorns out of 10

bad blockbuster movies that i enjoyed watching:

• cloud atlas (2012) - cheesy as hell, stop coloring your movies like it's a psy trance party godamnit geez lol
• dredd (2012) - same, awfull colors, looks like a 1990 videogame or something...
• looper (2012) - so much loose ends, bad premiss, tries and fails to be clever which is a big no no for me...

movies that don't care:

• premium rush (2012) - stop thinking you're a movie-maker just because you know how to make a video with your iPhone, fuck it, i know how to use a calculator and i'm not a fucking mathematician...
• hit and run (2012) - didn't felt like a comedy, i lolled a little bit nonetheless...
• deadfall (2012)
• sushi girl (2012)
• bachelorette (2012)
• the bourne legacy (2012)
• a dark truth (2012)
• liberal arts (2012)
• the baytown outlaws (2012)
• the man with the iron fists (2012)
• why stop now (2012)
• love (2011)

  On 12/27/2012 at 9:10 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

• the bourne legacy (2012)

I'm about 40% through this and yeah, it's astonishingly generic Bourne shit. It feels almost identical to the very first in the series!

Mega re-hash. Fuck it. Jeremy Renner kinda sucks, too. Boring dude.

The Story of Film - 6 eps in and I will go ahead and give this 10/10 for being a free film history lesson of high calibre without having to pay for a film history class that might not be as detailed and entertaining. Yes, it is on Netflix.

nice taste michael jackson!

2012 has been a huge movie dissapointment for me, everything was meh, anyone else feel robbed and spit on?

  On 12/27/2012 at 5:01 PM, Blue Peter Cheat said:

Fantastic Planet: 8 / 10

Brilliantly bizarre 70s French animation. Going to watch Time Masters next.

yum - thanks for the reminder, loved Fantastic Planet, can't wait to check this out

Once Upon a Time in the West - verry goood, but needs a future viewing in order to see it as the true classic it's made to be