Movies you've just watched

[Some-Mist]

Rewatched Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
Still as great as when I watched it at the cinema .
The movie is about the making of Nosferatu (1922), with the premise that the actor Max Schreck was really a vampire. Great acting by the complete cast really, but William Defoe & John Malkovich are outstanding.(Still) One of the best movies of the 2000s (and there aren't really that many in that decade) for me - if you haven't watched it, give it a try.

actually rewatched this one last year and agreed that it's one of the best of 2000s (at least one of my favorites). however, the hardest part to get through is the intro because the credits are so long (lol)

[BrianC]

A massive improvement over a turd can still be a turd.

but only the lesser one can be the worst ever

[emphatic]

The Great Gatsby. 4/5

Leonardo De Caprio is such a great actor.

[boagman]

The Great Gatsby. 4/5

Leonardo De Caprio is such a great actor.

This has not always been the case. He's *far* better than he used to be, and I mainly attribute that to his work/time with Scorsese & Friends. I think he's pretty good, now...but that's not always been the case.

[Skykid]

The Great Gatsby. 4/5

Leonardo De Caprio is such a great actor.

This has not always been the case. He's *far* better than he used to be, and I mainly attribute that to his work/time with Scorsese & Friends. I think he's pretty good, now...but that's not always been the case.

Rubbish.

[xxx1993]

A massive improvement over a turd can still be a turd.

So? I saw the movie, and it's not really that bad.

[kaicooper]

sympathy of vengeance 2002 (Korean)
donno why i didnt watch this from Trilogy..but rest yea
great movie..first half Villian, 2nd half Hero ..the end

Park Chan-wook as usual amazing camera work

[Skykid]

House of 1000 Corpses

Completely amateurish. Awful dialogue and improvisation, terrible editing and zero sense of modulation or pace, behaviour completely inconsistent with the time period, loud, tiring, tedious and ugly.

Nice sets though.

[Mischief Maker]

House of 1000 Corpses

Completely amateurish. Awful dialogue and improvisation, terrible editing and zero sense of modulation or pace, behaviour completely inconsistent with the time period, loud, tiring, tedious and ugly.

Nice sets though.

I'm convinced the only reason Ebert gave The Devil's Rejects a thumbs up was that shoehorned scene where a Gene Shalit lookalike says Groucho Marx was cooler than Elvis.

[Xyga]

I can't make out what all the stuff Rob Zombie does is about, is it for the metal equivalent of juggalos ?

[boagman]

The Great Gatsby. 4/5

Leonardo De Caprio is such a great actor.

This has not always been the case. He's *far* better than he used to be, and I mainly attribute that to his work/time with Scorsese & Friends. I think he's pretty good, now...but that's not always been the case.

Rubbish.

You're free to disagree, but your statement is vague about what, exactly, is rubbish. There's too much already present for all parts to be rubbish.

[Vexorg]

I didn't care much for The Great Gatsby when I saw it. I thought it was mostly loud and obnoxious for no good reason (pretty standard for a Baz Luhrmann movie from what I hear,) and Leonardo DiCaprio's performance seemed really forced.

Edit: And apparently it won two Oscars for exactly the things (costume design and production design) that were most out of place for an adaptation of that particular story.

[Necronopticous]

I'm not a Rob Zombie fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I really liked the Devil's Rejects.

[rapoon]

I can't make out what all the stuff Rob Zombie does is about, is it for the metal equivalent of juggalos ?

I haven't heard his recent material, did it take a dramatic shift? White Zombie resembled late Ministry; it sure as shit was nothing like ICP.

I'm not a Rob Zombie fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I really liked the Devil's Rejects.

Deplored house of 1000 corpses, but also enjoyed Devil Rejects. Also thought his Halloween (the first) remake was decent.


Dagon (2001) - Not bad, all things considered. One of the better Lovecraft movies.

[Skykid]

You're free to disagree, but your statement is vague about what, exactly, is rubbish. There's too much already present for all parts to be rubbish.

If you need specificity, "He's *far* better than he used to be" - implying he was at one point during his Gilbert Grape, Basketball Diaries, Romeo & Juliet, and Titanic days - a shitty actor; now turned wonderful by the talents of Scorsese.

Which is horseshit. There hasn't been any dramatic advance in his acting or performances, you just find the movies and roles he's in in recent years more palatable than those of the past. But that's nothing to do with acting ability, of which I've reminded you plenty of times, you don't know anything about.

It's like a reverse Nicholas Cage. He had a fanbase (for some reason) until The Wicker Man, and now everyone thinks he's shit. In reality he was always shit, you just liked The Rock or whatever.

[rancor]

Maybe he means "Growing Pains"? lol..

https://youtu.be/lYN-L_qBOsY

[Skykid]

House of 1000 Corpses

Completely amateurish. Awful dialogue and improvisation, terrible editing and zero sense of modulation or pace, behaviour completely inconsistent with the time period, loud, tiring, tedious and ugly.

Nice sets though.

I'm convinced the only reason Ebert gave The Devil's Rejects a thumbs up was that shoehorned scene where a Gene Shalit lookalike says Groucho Marx was cooler than Elvis.

The entirety of Thousand Corpses was a shoehorned scene.

Ebert = hack. I'm looking for examples of when he actually called something right.

[GaijinPunch]

I liked him in Departed.

[wgogh]

You're free to disagree, but your statement is vague about what, exactly, is rubbish. There's too much already present for all parts to be rubbish.

If you need specificity, "He's *far* better than he used to be" - implying he was at one point during his Gilbert Grape, Basketball Diaries, Romeo & Juliet, and Titanic days - a shitty actor; now turned wonderful by the talents of Scorsese.

Which is horseshit. There hasn't been any dramatic advance in his acting or performances, you just find the movies and roles he's in in recent years more palatable than those of the past. But that's nothing to do with acting ability, of which I've reminded you plenty of times, you don't know anything about.

It's like a reverse Nicholas Cage. He had a fanbase (for some reason) until The Wicker Man, and now everyone thinks he's shit. In reality he was always shit, you just liked The Rock or whatever.

It's more like some roles fit better then others for them, in the sense that some roles are better to show some of their qualities. Which is not like simply the public liking the character or not. I don't know if I'm able to explain that in english and on a forum thread, but Nicholas Cage at Wild at Heart is a good example for what I'm saying.

[charlie chong]

cage was good in raising arizona.rather watch that than any de craprio film

[Zen]

You're free to disagree, but your statement is vague about what, exactly, is rubbish. There's too much already present for all parts to be rubbish.

If you need specificity, "He's *far* better than he used to be" - implying he was at one point during his Gilbert Grape, Basketball Diaries, Romeo & Juliet, and Titanic days - a shitty actor; now turned wonderful by the talents of Scorsese.

Which is horseshit. There hasn't been any dramatic advance in his acting or performances, you just find the movies and roles he's in in recent years more palatable than those of the past. But that's nothing to do with acting ability, of which I've reminded you plenty of times, you don't know anything about.

It's like a reverse Nicholas Cage. He had a fanbase (for some reason) until The Wicker Man, and now everyone thinks he's shit. In reality he was always shit, you just liked The Rock or whatever.

People are gonna like/dislike based on many things and hopefully appreciation of acting ability wont be a causality to simply not liking an actor.
There is no question that DiCaprio can act but you can see how his "instrument" can be very off putting to some?

Surely you go too far with your critique of Cage. While being stylized and picking shit films/parts are problematic, he can be very effective and engaging. You don't find him to have that elusive "star" quality?

[emphatic]

Zoolander 2. 4/5, will watch again.

[Vexorg]

Zoolander 2. 4/5, will watch again.

This just might be the absolute stupidest movie made in 2016, but sometimes a stupid movie is exactly what you're looking for.

[Skykid]

You're free to disagree, but your statement is vague about what, exactly, is rubbish. There's too much already present for all parts to be rubbish.

If you need specificity, "He's *far* better than he used to be" - implying he was at one point during his Gilbert Grape, Basketball Diaries, Romeo & Juliet, and Titanic days - a shitty actor; now turned wonderful by the talents of Scorsese.

Which is horseshit. There hasn't been any dramatic advance in his acting or performances, you just find the movies and roles he's in in recent years more palatable than those of the past. But that's nothing to do with acting ability, of which I've reminded you plenty of times, you don't know anything about.

It's like a reverse Nicholas Cage. He had a fanbase (for some reason) until The Wicker Man, and now everyone thinks he's shit. In reality he was always shit, you just liked The Rock or whatever.

There is no question that DiCaprio can act but you can see how his "instrument" can be very off putting to some?

Surely you go too far with your critique of Cage. While being stylized and picking shit films/parts are problematic, he can be very effective and engaging. You don't find him to have that elusive "star" quality?

Cage is a useless actor. His best film is Raising Arizona because the Cohen's utilised him via solid direction in-spite of his inability to act. This happens a lot when a great director meets a subpar actor: they squeeze a performance from them regardless.

I don't think Cage has an "elusive star quality", every time he opens his mouth I want to facepalm. I saw him in Knowing recently (highly not recommended) and he was as terrible as ever.

People are gonna like/dislike based on many things and hopefully appreciation of acting ability wont be a causality to simply not liking an actor.

This is a super interesting question, and after pondering it some time I'd say you're right, it is possible to like an actor based on personality rather than acting ability. Arnie and Stallone immediately come to mind.

The problem is this is 95% of what the cinema going public do anyway. They've got no clue what separates Day-Lewis from Nic Cage, they only identify with the personality. I can't do that unfortunately, so if it's a bad actor in a serious role, rather than a shitty actor in a stupid/fun role, personality simply isn't enough to get me through.

DiCaprio, regardless of whether or not you dislike his personality, can at least act, and has been able to turn in a genuine performance since he was a kid. That's the only point I was making really.

[wgogh]

Rewatched Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
Still as great as when I watched it at the cinema .
The movie is about the making of Nosferatu (1922), with the premise that the actor Max Schreck was really a vampire. Great acting by the complete cast really, but William Defoe & John Malkovich are outstanding.(Still) One of the best movies of the 2000s (and there aren't really that many in that decade) for me - if you haven't watched it, give it a try.

I will, as a fan of the original Nosferatu film (Herzog's Nosferatu was also good). I read that it was actually something that some people thought to be true, as Schreck was always seen with the make up.

That reminds me of Kenneth Anger's Lucifer Rising, as the director and crew believed that the actor with Lucifer's role was an actual demon (...or perhaps they only said that to make the movie seems more interesting)

[Ed Oscuro]

I gotta disagree with you there, Skykid. Somebody like Cage (or your favorite Expendables actor) isn't a "complete" actor, agreed, given he has no range and little ability to fit into a given role. But that doesn't mean that his own quirky persona isn't fitting for certain films. I think a few of the "classic" actors actually were somewhat like this; playing the same character almost all the time. I don't think that the fact they had the right script or the right director takes anything away from the actor's performance when the match is right.

I feel the problem really comes down to: Who decided he had "star power," and why does he get cast in so much stuff he's ill-suited for (i.e., so many films)?

Of course I'm not answering the question of "why doesn't some actor like (or any other highly deserving unknown)" get the part instead, but hey it's bidnezz. You gotta rope in that presumably large number of people who see Nick Cage and go "man, I gotta see this film." Just like the large number of people who go "oh look, this is a franchise from way back, I gotta go see it." Right? The focus groups are never wrong.

[Skykid]

I don't understand what we're talking about here, persona or acting ability? They're two completely different things.

Jackie Chan has a terrific persona - and I consider the guy a hero of cinema - but he can't act for toffee.

[rancor]

Just saw Thief (1981) tonight starring James Caan. First of all, the cinematography in this film is absolutely beautiful. Lots of night shots, neon, rain, and the downtown area of Chicago. It is a bit a slow burn, but the story and acting are solid. Tangerine Dream does the soundtrack. Caan was perfectly cast as a diamond thief / safe cracker doing one last heist, but gets tangled up with a mobster who tries to take advantage of him. Violence ensues. This was Michael Mann's first film, and I think anyone that saw this upon release knew that he would be destined for greatness. If you like a mixture of crime, noir, electronic music, and gunplay - I highly recommend this.

[soprano1]

Thief sounds like something i would enjoy. Thanks, rancor, i'll try to check it out.

[Skykid]

This was Michael Mann's first film, and I think anyone that saw this upon release knew that he would be destined for greatness.

Shame he never achieved it then.

That said this sounds right up my street in terms of 80sness.