Movies you've just watched

[Satan]

Satori tell us about having a shite again.

[Skykid]

Satori tell us about having a shite again

Yeah that sounds about right.

[EmperorIng]

I picked up a blu ray of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1956).

For being essentially the Ur-1950s-sci-fi flick, it's sort of fun and novel to see it actually try to have a message and an emotional core in contrast to the decade of silly monster/alien movies that capitalized on the craze for flying saucers, atomic mutation, and cardboard cities being destroyed*. There is something frustratingly tragic about how the US military and world leaders just cannot get their heads around the fact that an alien would come in peace, and go to extreme lengths to protect "national security" by being as violent and bellicose as possible. The ending where the alien makes an appeal and warning for peace, the end of aggression, and the abatement of nuclear arms sounds sincere, but comes off a bit hollow, I suppose, with 50 years of hindsight. His galactic utopia, where a race of monstrous robots "prevent any sort of aggression" and police the galaxy is the type of uncomfortable vagueness that just wouldn't fly today.

The bluray shows a lot of film grain (almost an excessive amount). I can't tell if this is the result of a bad print or this is what happens when you up the clarity on a 50-year-old movie and display it on a modern TV. It wasn't too distracting but I had to get used to it.

It gives me some laughs that the director's commentary has Robert Wise and the guy who directed The Wrath of Khan, and the guy seems a lot more game about talking Star Trek than the movie! Though of course, Robert Wise is pretty ancient by now so he doesn't have much energy to talk.

Anyone see the remake? I doubt it's as heartfelt but it might be entertaining.

*I like those movies after all. Them! is a fun movie, for example.

[Skykid]

^ A wonderful classic!

The remake is one of the most offensive things ever produced. It will actually make you retarded. Don't ever watch it.

[Khan]

Why don't you do something useful and actually contribute to the forum instead of following me around threads like a little puppy?

I think secretly hes a Skykid groupie! he just wants you to notice him

[boagman]

^ A wonderful classic!

The remake is one of the most offensive things ever produced. It will actually make you retarded. Don't ever watch it.

On this, we're in full agreement. Yikes, is that bad.

[soprano1]

^ A wonderful classic!

The remake is one of the most offensive things ever produced. It will actually make you retarded. Don't ever watch it.

On this, we're in full agreement. Yikes, is that bad.

Same here.

[Squire Grooktook]

Remake is pretty much universally reviled, yeah.

[neorichieb1971]

It follows - Blu ray UK

As per the trailer. A guy screws a girl, knocks her out unconscious afterwards. She wakes up tied up and gets instructions that something will follow her because he passed something to her sexually. He instructs her to screw some other guy and pass it onto him.. and so it continues.

Its alright. Its like "Final Destination" with a different set of circumstances and rules. Final Destination was more professionally made as this effort is done on the cheap. It does kind of have a charm about it but its certainly not worth the 5 star ratings plastered all over the cover. The ending is worth seeing and it does have a few tense moments. But overall there is a lot of filler in there. I did hesitate to look at my watch and I did press in the info button on my remote to see how long was left. But I got through it. I think the best element of the movie was the John Carpenter type music cues. They really help make the movie moody and tense, however for some the music almost always spoils the event since the "IT" thing that follows is never far behind the subwoofers first DUM DUM!

[EmperorIng]

It will actually make you retarded.

I have to be pretty close though, since scenes like this are part of my "Hey, pretty good movie!" list.

[boagman]

Cruise was never a good actor. He had a standard course in naturalism, but his earliest years were based around a repertoire of serviceable egoism (silver screen masturbation) which included looking good, looking good and looking good. Acting didn't really come into it.

In recent years? Well, he's a bit like Richard Dreyfuss, as an example. As much as I love Jaws and enjoyed his character, he was literally Spielberg's chum and his performance showed it. Same with Close Encounters. But by the time these guys have had enough roles, they start to improve, which is normal. Dreyfuss was a little more ingratiated by the time he did What About Bob or Holland's Opus (nothing special, but he had a better grasp).

Cruise is the same. He has more range, doesn't only rely on egoism, and can handle his role. Is he good? No. Still just serviceable. But better than Statham? By light years.

You see, to me though, Cruise and Statham sort of feature the same thing: they're basically the same character in every one of their movies (though to give Cruise a bit more credit than I'd probably like to, his turn in "Tropic Thunder" was lots and lots of fun). I don't think of either one of them as actors in the actually-able-to-make-me-believe-them roles, but both can be fun to watch anyway.

For years, Cruise was constantly riding his chiseled jaw to constantly make the same movie character over and over again, and *man* did he wear out his welcome with me. Horrifically bad scripts that changed the nature of some of what they were supposed to be (see the M:I series) into Ethan/Cruise fests. I'm *not* saying that he's the only one culpable of the crime(s), but he's certainly at the head of the pack.

I guess I don't see Statham as being any more guilty of the sin than Cruise was/is...he just hasn't been doing it as long.

Full disclosure about Dreyfuss: I find him quite funny, so it's hard for me to be as objective.

[Skykid]

I guess I don't see Statham as being any more guilty of the sin than Cruise was/is...he just hasn't been doing it as long.

But Statham is a much poorer actor. He doesn't even know how to stand or where to put his hands. He's always camera conscious, you can see him thinking his lines as he speaks them, and he can't even manage basic naturalism (which is elementary in Hollywood - it's the trick that dupes all audiences into thinking they're seeing a performance.)

Cruise was never anything special, still isn't, but he now has a basic grasp of being in the role, even if he is always Cruise. But that's the same for Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, DeNiro etc - many actors are guilty of basically just being themselves in different roles. It's just some now how to perform better than others (for example DeNiro far outclasses Pacino, by an enormous margin).

My biggest problem with these arguments is that most people can't actually see acting. They assume the character or the actor's personality is the performance, and the rest of the believability is filled in by gloss, camera cutting, special effects, music, and beautiful lenses. Unfortunately if someone stinks I see right through all the beautiful dressing, watch them deliver a line, and occasionally end up face palming that they actually receive a salary for their work.

My parents were stage actors, my father also a teacher and director. I got a crash course in Shakespeare and Wilde, watching them direct others or point out why someone was failing in the art. When I was young I couldn't see it in movies either. When I got older I started to develop an ability to block out the gloss, and that's the simultaneous blessing and curse. I'm totally convinced 95% of people have no genuine concept of acting, including directors - but Hollywood is a business, these things are not important. The fact is, Statham sells movies, and he's been marketed as a commercial object. If everyone was aware of how awful he actually is, no-one would be able to stand him. You know, between him and Schwarzenegger - a man who has absolutely no acting ability at all - I think Schwarzenegger is far more competent because he understands his limitations. He knows he's not an actor and doesn't try to go beyond his means, making the audience comfortable and entertained with his musclebound antics. But one thing he does achieve is a sense of super stardom. Statham completely fails at the latter. He's literally like a guy you just pulled off the sidewalk and said "Hey fishmonger, could you read these lines real quick?"

I feel a little bad for picking on the guy. In reality there are more useless actors in Hollywood than not, so he certainly isn't alone.

[Vurpa]

Just saw the new Mad Max (having not seen any of the movies prior so maybe I missed something?). I don't get it. This is considered a good movie...how and why? Half the movie the unlikable/no character protagonists spend driving in one direction, half the movie they spend driving back to where they came from. No real suspense because A most of them will live and B I really don't want them to. Oh and there's sand. They drive in sand...spoileralert.

Would be more detailed on why it sucked if I didn't forget most of it already.

[Ixmucane2]

You know, between him and Schwarzenegger - a man who has absolutely no acting ability at all - I think Schwarzenegger is far more competent because he understands his limitations. He knows he's not an actor and doesn't try to go beyond his means, making the audience comfortable and entertained with his musclebound antics. But one thing he does achieve is a sense of super stardom.

Then he goes beyond his means with Maggie. Nobody's perfect.

[Skykid]

^ Lol, he certainly goes beyond his means. He's terrible in Maggie. He should never have attempted it, really, it laid him way too bare.

Was an awful movie anyhow, just doubly so for embarrassing Schwarzenegger so badly.

[kitkit.com]

Just saw the new Mad Max (having not seen any of the movies prior so maybe I missed something?). I don't get it. This is considered a good movie...how and why? Half the movie the unlikable/no character protagonists spend driving in one direction, half the movie they spend driving back to where they came from. No real suspense because A most of them will live and B I really don't want them to. Oh and there's sand. They drive in sand...spoileralert.

Would be more detailed on why it sucked if I didn't forget most of it already.

Just saw Mad Max Fury Road as well. IMDB website rated it at 8.3?! Seriously? I lost interest midway through the movie and turned it off.

[null1024]

The remake is one of the most offensive things ever produced. It will actually make you retarded. Don't ever watch it.

This. To this day I want my time back.
At least it wasn't my idea to go see it, my family dragged me to the theater.

[Ixmucane2]

Southpaw
Boxer Billy Hope suddenly collapses from millionaire world champion to despised homeless, but he manages to become less stupid and win back the affection of his ten years old daughter (with the help of a nice social worker) and his former title (with the help of a mature trainer).

Writing is the weakest link. The basic plot is contrived and vague despite following very commonplace and realistic lines.

• How can a relatively frugal nice guy with a smart wife be deeply in debt? He presumably earns far more than he spends.
• Maybe someone is taking advantage of him, but neither the script nor Billy give much attention to the issue.
• How can Billy remain terribly alone? Let's make him an orphan, and his wife too.
• Will Billy retire before brain damage catches up with him? Who knows.
• Why doesn't Billy seek revenge? Apparently, he's too despondent to care, but actually it's a genre problem: he would simply visit a few people, shoot them or beat them up, and get caught, and then there would be no great title fight at the end.

The representation of boxing is also weak, I think mostly because of inadequate editing: the vague montages of training moments completely fail to show how, when and what Billy learns, while fights appear like a random alternation of moments in which one boxer hits the other, without a clear history or internal development (e.g. Billy says he's tired).

Actors are mostly good, particularly Amy Adams (Billy's wife). Jake Gyllenhaal is physically credible as a boxer, but not aggressive enough.

[lilmanjs]

Mystery Train
Three stories in this movie that all connect via a hotel and a gunshot. The Japanese couple was nice to see how they loved Memphis as a city, but couldn't agree on anything about the rock history they went to the city for. Then we get a Italian woman who is stuck for the day in Memphis because her plane had troubles, so she wonders around, eventually finding the same rundown crap hotel and sharing a room with a lady who only has enough for half a room. Last but not least we get Joe Strummer who plays a guy who's just been laid off at his job and happens to have connections to the lady we end up meeting in the second story and spends the night driving around and getting drunk. I enjoyed this movie, but my mother who tried watching earlier in the day found it to be stupid and didn't even make it past story one.

[chempop]

Ex machina
Her
Sleep Dealer

All outstanding, but I think I liked Sleep Dealer the most.

[kaicooper]

just watched

SLEEPY HOLLOW 1999
wow still Great

[Ed Oscuro]

In The Line of Fire
A film detailing how life is tough when you don't have a car. This one took me by surprise, there's some (some) legitimately great writing in it, and they even had me at a few moments in the romance.
Oh, and this. What's that face in the van windows doing around 2:40?

Speaking of Tom Cruise, probably The Firm next.

[EmperorIng]

Just saw the new Mad Max (having not seen any of the movies prior so maybe I missed something?). I don't get it. This is considered a good movie...how and why? Half the movie the unlikable/no character protagonists spend driving in one direction, half the movie they spend driving back to where they came from. No real suspense because A most of them will live and B I really don't want them to. Oh and there's sand. They drive in sand...spoileralert.

Would be more detailed on why it sucked if I didn't forget most of it already.

Just saw Mad Max Fury Road as well. IMDB website rated it at 8.3?! Seriously? I lost interest midway through the movie and turned it off.

That's a shame. I enjoyed its car chases (the entire movie ha), and while Tom Hardy didn't really outshine Mel Gibson (or anyone else in the movie, sadly), he was a suitable vehicle for watching a fun post-apocalyptic world.

Godzilla vs. Biollante

This movie wildly swings between great and awful; the end result is mediocre. The stupid bloodless ending is sooo lame, as was dropping the various non-zilla subplots for 10 to 15 minutes at a time.

Now I know why Godzilla fans generally don't care for the movie, despite having a great design and premise in Biollante. The first half of the movie is strangely better than the second when the fights get really under way. Maybe the silly terrorism/oil plot was more compelling.

I'm about to make my way this week through the Death Wish blu rays; I'm looking forward to it, at least until the Crackdown (never have seen the Crackdown).

[nekketsu]

The best thing about Godzy vs Biollante is that gorgeous poster:



One of the few times I'd hang a poster on my wall without being a huge fan of the movie itself.

[Some-Mist]

RSO [Registered Sex Offender]
Bob Byington movie - nabbed a screener copy since it never officially released on DVD. Starring Gabriel McIver and Kristen Tucker and minor roles with Kevin Corrigan, Nick Offerman, Richard Linklater, Damien Young, Andrew Bujalski. Dark comedy about a young guy being released from prison going through rehabilitation. Pretty funny movie with some really creepy parts as you'd assume. Seemingly very low budget film and one of the first Byington films released.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ahh, Death Wish, gotta look that one up. Here's a cool interview (by Ebert) with the actor from '74, back at the time the film was being shot.

Also happened upon this at Ebert's site:

Q. Kirk Douglas, what hasn't gone right in your recent career?

A. I let myself be pushed into "A Lovely Way to Die," and what a load of s**t that was. And "The War Wagon." Well, "The War Wagon" wasn't bad. It was entertainment. I rather enjoyed it. But that woman, Pauline Kael--did you see that piece she wrote about it? If Pauline Kael were sitting here right now, I'd tell her, you're a bright dame, but you're full of s**t. Don't crucify me because of what your idea of a movie star is. I didn't start out to be a movie star. I started out to be an actor. You people out in the East have no idea what goes on out here. No awareness or knowledge whatsoever. You lose track of the human being behind the image of the movie star.

[Vexorg]

Rewatched Furious 7 last night with my wife and her sister. I've come to the conclusion that you aren't supposed to watch these movies more than once, because the sheer amount of fridge logic here just completely shatters whatever strained believability the film might have had in the first place. In the theater you are too busy following the plot to pay too much attention, but watching again, you start to realize just how flimsy a lot of the plot is.

Spoiler

Not to mention the sheer number of people who would have to be utterly incompetent at their jobs to allow a well-known international terrorist / foreign invader to show up in downtown LA in a heavily armed attack chopper without anyone noticing a thing until he starts blowing stuff up.

As I've said before, the films after 4 make more sense if you think of them not as being street racing movies, but superhero movies where the heroes have the power of an infinite supply of fast cars.

[lilmanjs]

Mad Monkey Kung Fu
A good and funny revenge tale. A performer in a traveling group is asked out for drinks, and is asked to show the monkey style of Kung fu. He gets drunk and is set up so that his hands are crushed after being seen in bed with the vilian of the movie's wife. Fast forward 5 years and he becomes friends with a guy named monkey. He teaches him and it goes from there. Action is well done and funny. My mother actually ended up watching with me so it was with English dub.

[Vexorg]

Big Trouble in Little China: ***

Kung Fu, monsters and cheesy 80s special effects. Not bad for a mindless Friday night action movie, but my wife thought it was just plain stupid. I'd probably rewatch it if I was bored enough...

[neorichieb1971]

Rewatched Furious 7 last night with my wife and her sister. I've come to the conclusion that you aren't supposed to watch these movies more than once, because the sheer amount of fridge logic here just completely shatters whatever strained believability the film might have had in the first place. In the theater you are too busy following the plot to pay too much attention, but watching again, you start to realize just how flimsy a lot of the plot is.

Spoiler

Not to mention the sheer number of people who would have to be utterly incompetent at their jobs to allow a well-known international terrorist / foreign invader to show up in downtown LA in a heavily armed attack chopper without anyone noticing a thing until he starts blowing stuff up.

As I've said before, the films after 4 make more sense if you think of them not as being street racing movies, but superhero movies where the heroes have the power of an infinite supply of fast cars.

It also defies all physics. The fight scenes are also brilliant in that Vin Diesel can fight for 20 mins without getting a scratch and that people can roll out of 25mph cars without getting scratches either. Their clothes are 100% totally intact and there hair (if they have any) is in perfect shape for a photo shoot. Without grit none of the movies have any value imho. Suffers from Shia La Boeff's Transformers style of filming where lock on missiles have no impact on your hair style.