PDA

View Full Version : What movie did you last watch?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

tde3000
07-17-2008, 08:29 AM
Sweeney Todd, about 30 times....

JayRedd
07-17-2008, 09:50 AM
Eastern Promises

To paraphrase Chris Farley...that was awesome. Truly brutal flick and Viggo was indeed superb. There's also one scene that heywoode is gonna love. I've always really like Naomi Watts and she was great as usual. The only issue I had was with with Viggo's boss/friend...that character was pretty flat and annoying, and really stuck out as a guy acting poorly in a film where everything else was shrouded in such a harsh and compelling realism.

Juno

The fake hipster dialogue was a little overdone, but it seemed to be only really painted on overly thick for the first half-hour...or maybe I just got used to it. My only other problem was that there wasn't enough Michael Cera. But a great random Arrested Development nod sort of helped make up for it. Jason Bateman was good too. Either way, good movie. Ellen Page deserved the Oscar nomination. Let's just hope this role isn't so iconic that it ruins her career like Macauley Culkin or something. She reminds me of a young Christina Ricci a little bit.

Twes
07-20-2008, 12:03 PM
National Treasure 2

Dead Mans Bounty....brutal.

Taterhead
07-21-2008, 01:29 AM
Eastern Promises

To paraphrase Chris Farley...that was awesome. Truly brutal flick and Viggo was indeed superb. There's also one scene that heywoode is gonna love. I've always really like Naomi Watts and she was great as usual. The only issue I had was with with Viggo's boss/friend...that character was pretty flat and annoying, and really stuck out as a guy acting poorly in a film where everything else was shrouded in such a harsh and compelling realism.

Every time I get out of the shower, I throw at least one nekkid sidekick!

Descent movie.

Last movie I saw in the theater was The Happening, it is absolutely horrible, IMO.

I am going to see The Dark Knight tomorrow, very excited.

duke dynamite
07-21-2008, 02:14 AM
TDK X2

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 08:39 AM
There Will Be Blood.

What a freaking amazing performance by Daniel Day Lewis. I love that dude. Wish they would have casted someone other than Paul Dano as the Preacher. Although, it was a great, great movie. Cinematography was beyond top notch.

"I'm finished!"

Twes
07-21-2008, 08:57 AM
There Will Be Blood.

What a freaking amazing performance by Daniel Day Lewis. I love that dude. Wish they would have casted someone other than Paul Dano as the Preacher. Although, it was a great, great movie. Cinematography was beyond top notch.

"I'm finished!"

I thought he was pretty impressive in Gangs of New York too.

Unclebuck
07-21-2008, 09:00 AM
Fools Gold now that was a depressing and insulting movie. Depressed me that I spent 2 hours watching it and insulted me that they think I'm that dumb

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 09:03 AM
I thought he was pretty impressive in Gangs of New York too.

Bill the Butcher and Daniel Plainview are two of my all-time favorite characters. Come to think of it, DiCaprio would have been perfect to play the preacher in TWBB; although I'm sure that would have slaughtered the budget or whatever.

Love both those movies.

Twes
07-21-2008, 09:08 AM
Bill the Butcher and Daniel Plainview are two of my all-time favorite characters. Come to think of it, DiCaprio would have been perfect to play the preacher in TWBB; although I'm sure that would have slaughtered the budget or whatever.

Love both those movies.

Next weekend I think I'm going to give No Country For Old Men a second viewing.

spazzxb
07-21-2008, 09:15 AM
Dark knight was great

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 09:31 AM
Next weekend I think I'm going to give No Country For Old Men a second viewing.

I need to watch that again. I love Coen brother movies, and NCFOM was fantastic, one of their best. I really, really liked There Will be Blood. In fact between those two movies, I'm not sure which one I liked better. Although you have to be in a certain mood to sit down and devote the 2 hours and 40 minutes or however long to get through TWBB.

Los Angeles
07-21-2008, 09:39 AM
My surfing buddy's wife is the costume designer on all the Coen brothers' movies. (That's actually a big deal - her name appears at the beginning of the movie, not at the end).

Thing is, I hang out with her all the time and she never tells me any spoilers. :sad:

*****. (just kidding, Mary!)

Twes
07-21-2008, 09:50 AM
I need to watch that again. I love Coen brother movies, and NCFOM was fantastic, one of their best. I really, really liked There Will be Blood. In fact between those two movies, I'm not sure which one I liked better. Although you have to be in a certain mood to sit down and devote the 2 hours and 40 minutes or however long to get through TWBB.

The ending for TWBB was almost like STanley Kubrick or something.

DD Lewis MADE that movie. In my opinion it wasn't a great movie but was another great acting performance by him.

Twes
07-21-2008, 09:52 AM
My surfing buddy's wife is the costume designer on all the Coen brothers' movies. (That's actually a big deal - her name appears at the beginning of the movie, not at the end).

Thing is, I hang out with her all the time and she never tells me any spoilers. :sad:

*****. (just kidding, Mary!)

When I was a kid back in the 70's there was a kid that lived on our block who's uncle did the maeup/masks/special effects for the planet of the apes movies.

He had a bunch of them in his room from the movies.

That was pretty cool at the time (still is).

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 09:58 AM
The ending for TWBB was almost like STanley Kubrick or something.

DD Lewis MADE that movie. In my opinion it wasn't a great movie but was another great acting performance by him.

Lewis was that movie. He was on screen 95% of the time or more, and I never wanted him off screen. The ending was very Kubrick-like. The score was perfect for it.

Twes
07-21-2008, 10:04 AM
Lewis was that movie. He was on screen 95% of the time or more, and I never wanted him off screen. The ending was very Kubrick-like. The score was perfect for it.

It was a great ending. It made the movie really. It sealed the deal in an unsuspecting way.

Kind of the opposite of NCFOM.

:D

Bball
07-21-2008, 02:34 PM
WARNING- Long post-

...Finally some talk about TWBB. I came away from TWBB disappointed. After watching the movie and being less than bowled over to the degree I expected, I went to do further research to see what I missed. What I found out was that I hadn't missed much unless others missed it too. There were MANY who agreed with me. The viewer reviews at Netflix are less than stunning for this movie. Most said exactly what I was thinking:

Excellent performance by DDL. Slow, prodding pace with little plot and an ending from left field.

The movie (IMHO) had all the ingredients to have been a masterpiece except it totally lacked a cohesive plot and flow.... which is a monumental stumbling block!

Characters in the movie were rarely all good or all bad so nothing is handed to the viewer.

I'm not sure what to think of the Paul Dana performance because I found him less than believable as the preacher... but then maybe that was intentional on his part and the director.

The confusing 'is he or is he not' the same person that first visited Plainview and told him of the oil, just left me flat. According to an interview, Dana was hired to play the role of the brother and someone else was cast as the preacher. Supposedly, the script even had them different ages. Then it was decided that Dana would play both roles and the other guy let go.

The character of the 'brother' never appears again. He's a lot like Ritchie Cunningham's brother Chuck in Happy Days.... Gone. He does get a token mention at the end.

But why have the same guy playing him? If the role is that small what purpose does it serve to be so confusing? If the idea is to veer from the book (as I understand it... I haven't read it) and make the character the same person (maybe making the preacher character simply a 'persona' of a man with more than one persona) then what of DDL's mentioning of him during the ending?

Is he just rubbing it in Paul Dana's face that if he'd chosen the persona that he used when he first met with Plainview and been honest from the start then the life that Plainview is telling him about is the life HE (Dana) could've had? ...Or is he simply telling Dana what has become of his (Dana's) brother (as it appears on the surface)?

I left the movie with the thought that this is the area where I just came up short and missed the thread that tied it all together. Unfortunately, the info I sought out only confused things more (finding out that the script (and apparently the book as well) did indeed call for two different characters to play the brothers).

Other spoiler area-
I didn't like the jumps in time the movie took. Especially towards the end. DDL did a great job of portraying his character aging as he added the limp, etc as things went along. But what of Paul Dana's character? I mean he looked EXACTLY the same 20 years later for the climax of the movie.

Once again... in a movie that had paid such attention to the details that went on the film, this had me wondering if I was missing something. Like maybe the preacher had been a figment of DDL's imagination all along and his descent into madness finally ended with some delusional killing of a man of God... Thus freeing him from his last clutches to sanity and anything other than deceit and greed.

Or maybe at least that last scene only existed in DDL's mind and that is why Dana's character didn't appear to age.

I dunno... I give this movie high marks for making me think but the answers I found just didn't make the cut. So many aspects of this were exceptional that the movie does stick with me.

In the end this was a movie that wanted to be special, and had the feel of a special movie, but only DDL's acting (and the cinematography) actually got to the areas the director was seeking is what I keep coming back to.

Feel free to tell me where I missed a key piece of the puzzle and have this wrong. I'd love to find the thread that binds it all together and see this for a masterpiece movie worthy of the performance DDL gave.

Twes
07-21-2008, 02:44 PM
WARNING- Long post-

...Finally some talk about TWBB. I came away from TWBB disappointed. After watching the movie and being less than bowled over to the degree I expected, I went to do further research to see what I missed. What I found out was that I hadn't missed much unless others missed it too. There were MANY who agreed with me. The viewer reviews at Netflix are less than stunning for this movie. Most said exactly what I was thinking:

Excellent performance by DDL. Slow, prodding pace with little plot and an ending from left field.

The movie (IMHO) had all the ingredients to have been a masterpiece except it totally lacked a cohesive plot and flow.... which is a monumental stumbling block!

Characters in the movie were rarely all good or all bad so nothing is handed to the viewer.

I'm not sure what to think of the Paul Dana performance because I found him less than believable as the preacher... but then maybe that was intentional on his part and the director.

The confusing 'is he or is he not' the same person that first visited Plainview and told him of the oil, just left me flat. According to an interview, Dana was hired to play the role of the brother and someone else was cast as the preacher. Supposedly, the script even had them different ages. Then it was decided that Dana would play both roles and the other guy let go.

The character of the 'brother' never appears again. He's a lot like Ritchie Cunningham's brother Chuck in Happy Days.... Gone. He does get a token mention at the end.

But why have the same guy playing him? If the role is that small what purpose does it serve to be so confusing? If the idea is to veer from the book (as I understand it... I haven't read it) and make the character the same person (maybe making the preacher character simply a 'persona' of a man with more than one persona) then what of DDL's mentioning of him during the ending?

Is he just rubbing it in Paul Dana's face that if he'd chosen the persona that he used when he first met with Plainview and been honest from the start then the life that Plainview is telling him about is the life HE (Dana) could've had? ...Or is he simply telling Dana what has become of his (Dana's) brother (as it appears on the surface)?

I left the movie with the thought that this is the area where I just came up short and missed the thread that tied it all together. Unfortunately, the info I sought out only confused things more (finding out that the script (and apparently the book as well) did indeed call for two different characters to play the brothers).

Other spoiler area-
I didn't like the jumps in time the movie took. Especially towards the end. DDL did a great job of portraying his character aging as he added the limp, etc as things went along. But what of Paul Dana's character? I mean he looked EXACTLY the same 20 years later for the climax of the movie.

Once again... in a movie that had paid such attention to the details that went on the film, this had me wondering if I was missing something. Like maybe the preacher had been a figment of DDL's imagination all along and his descent into madness finally ended with some delusional killing of a man of God... Thus freeing him from his last clutches to sanity and anything other than deceit and greed.

Or maybe that last scene only existed in DDL's mind

I dunno... I give this movie high marks for making me think but the answers I found just didn't make the cut. So many aspects of this were exceptional that the movie does stick with me.

In the end this was a movie that wanted to be special, and had the feel of a special movie, but only DDL's acting (and the cinematography) actually got to the areas the director was seeking is what I keep coming back to.

Feel free to tell me where I missed a key piece of the puzzle and have this wrong. I'd love to find the thread that binds it all together and see this for a masterpiece movie worthy of the performance DDL gave.




I really didn't understand what kind of a journey we were on until late in the movie when it became clear that he didn't either.

I assumed there really weren't two brothers and that the hypocrisy of pretending there were to get what you want was the whole basis for the conflict between them.

In other words the whole idea of religion and superior value is b.s. when secretly they all clamor for the wealth the oil brought them and he had no patience for the hypocrisy.

I liked the movie when it became clear he was lost in his own life as much as we were lost trying to find the epic meaning of the story.

The ending kind of made it all work for me.

Wait, Richie Cunningham had a brother? :D

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 03:14 PM
WARNING- Long post-

...Finally some talk about TWBB. I came away from TWBB disappointed. After watching the movie and being less than bowled over to the degree I expected, I went to do further research to see what I missed. What I found out was that I hadn't missed much unless others missed it too. There were MANY who agreed with me. The viewer reviews at Netflix are less than stunning for this movie. Most said exactly what I was thinking:

Excellent performance by DDL. Slow, prodding pace with little plot and an ending from left field.

The movie (IMHO) had all the ingredients to have been a masterpiece except it totally lacked a cohesive plot and flow.... which is a monumental stumbling block!

Characters in the movie were rarely all good or all bad so nothing is handed to the viewer.

I'm not sure what to think of the Paul Dana performance because I found him less than believable as the preacher... but then maybe that was intentional on his part and the director.

The confusing 'is he or is he not' the same person that first visited Plainview and told him of the oil, just left me flat. According to an interview, Dana was hired to play the role of the brother and someone else was cast as the preacher. Supposedly, the script even had them different ages. Then it was decided that Dana would play both roles and the other guy let go.

The character of the 'brother' never appears again. He's a lot like Ritchie Cunningham's brother Chuck in Happy Days.... Gone. He does get a token mention at the end.

But why have the same guy playing him? If the role is that small what purpose does it serve to be so confusing? If the idea is to veer from the book (as I understand it... I haven't read it) and make the character the same person (maybe making the preacher character simply a 'persona' of a man with more than one persona) then what of DDL's mentioning of him during the ending?

Is he just rubbing it in Paul Dana's face that if he'd chosen the persona that he used when he first met with Plainview and been honest from the start then the life that Plainview is telling him about is the life HE (Dana) could've had? ...Or is he simply telling Dana what has become of his (Dana's) brother (as it appears on the surface)?

I left the movie with the thought that this is the area where I just came up short and missed the thread that tied it all together. Unfortunately, the info I sought out only confused things more (finding out that the script (and apparently the book as well) did indeed call for two different characters to play the brothers).

Other spoiler area-
I didn't like the jumps in time the movie took. Especially towards the end. DDL did a great job of portraying his character aging as he added the limp, etc as things went along. But what of Paul Dana's character? I mean he looked EXACTLY the same 20 years later for the climax of the movie.

Once again... in a movie that had paid such attention to the details that went on the film, this had me wondering if I was missing something. Like maybe the preacher had been a figment of DDL's imagination all along and his descent into madness finally ended with some delusional killing of a man of God... Thus freeing him from his last clutches to sanity and anything other than deceit and greed.

Or maybe that last scene only existed in DDL's mind

I dunno... I give this movie high marks for making me think but the answers I found just didn't make the cut. So many aspects of this were exceptional that the movie does stick with me.

In the end this was a movie that wanted to be special, and had the feel of a special movie, but only DDL's acting (and the cinematography) actually got to the areas the director was seeking is what I keep coming back to.

Feel free to tell me where I missed a key piece of the puzzle and have this wrong. I'd love to find the thread that binds it all together and see this for a masterpiece movie worthy of the performance DDL gave.


I agree with a lot of what you said, but I happened to enjoy the movie quite a bit. This may be because I had no expectations going into the movie since I heard very little about it before watching it on blu-ray. I don't even remember seeing any trailers or anything for it because I generally skip through commercials when I watch TV (DVR), and I maybe only go to the theatre to watch a movie 2 or 3 times a year. But I watch tons of movies on DVD and blu-ray. I never realized this movie had so much hype surrounding it until after I watched it and read some reviews.

Ok, regarding the movie itself: I'm not sure there was an "all good" main character in the entire film aside from HW - and it's not like he played a huge part. Before he was shipped off he was basically Plainview's pawn for a sales pitch, and Plainview would do anything to further his cause for more and more power. The faith healing preacher was certainly not good; he was just as greedy as anyone (i.e. begging for money at the end). The townspeople I guess were generally well-meaning . . . they were just stupid and insignificant, aside from the guy that didn't sell his land.

I read something similar as you as to why Paul Dano played the roles of both Sunday brothers. From what I read, another actor had already filmed a significant amount of Eli's (the preacher) role for the film and Dano was just playing the insignificant part of Paul (the greedy brother). The rumor was that Eli's actor (forgot his name) quit the movie because he felt he was too upstaged by an intense DDL (who didn't break character during shooting). Doubt that is entirely true, but it would make sense. Then, for whatever reason, the director decided to cast Dano as both Paul and Eli and have them be twins. I have no idea why they couldn't just have re-shot the Paul role with somebody else to avoid the confusion of Paul/Eli being the same person (which they clearly are NOT). I didn't care for Dano in his role either, like you I felt he was compeletely not believable. The fact he didn't age during the final scene bothered me too.

I absolutely loved the ending. When the old man (Lundy?) basically blackmailed Plainview(via knowledge of the killing of the guy that claimed to be Daniel's brother) into repenting and being baptized into Eli's church, with Plainview being completely and totally embarrassed by Eli, it was something that ate at Plainview the rest of his life. Then at the end, he got his "revenge" by making Eli denounce god and his church over and over, before finally completely going crazy and beating him to death with a bowling pin. I thought that was fantastic, and it eerily reminded me of a Kubrick film - from the atmosphere to the weirdness to the score (which was awesome).

I just wish they would have casted Eli differently. I agree completely that having Dano do both brother roles just added unnecessary confusion to the movie. There was no point in having that being confusing. I think the plot itself was very simple; the relationship between greed, power, good, bad, & religion. I didn't have any problems with the flow of the story, in fact I thought it was quite good. The exception is the massive jump in years at the end.

That all being said, DDL's performance more than made up for the shortcomings of the movie. I'd give it about 8 or 8.5 out of 10. I've seen where the movie has been given some crazy all-time rankings by critics. Some had it #2 all time. It certainly doesn't belong in any discussion in the Top 50 or maybe even 100 of all time IMO. Great, great acting by DDL and superb cinematography, good story, some questionable casting does not warrant that type of silly ranking IMO. Still a great movie though, and I'll watch it more than a couple of times...

Edit: I think the best part of the Plainview character was when he talks about how he doesn't want to just succeed, he wants to make sure that others DON'T succeed. That was his character in a nutshell.

travmil
07-21-2008, 03:15 PM
The Dark Knight - Saw it Friday morning. Very good. I can't add anything that others haven't already said. Every movie buff should see this movie.

recent re-viewings:

Collateral - I love this movie. My favorite part is when Tom Cruise makes him tell his boss off over the CB. Everyone talks about Cruise and Jamie Foxx's performances in this movie, but I felt then and still do feel that Mark Ruffalo practically stole this movie from both of them. Of course he practically steals every movie he's in so that's nothing new...

The Departed - I liked this show a lot and I know it's been talked about in this thread before. I still find it hard to believe that THIS is the movie that finally got Scorsese his Best Director Oscar when it could be argued that it's only about his 5th or 6th best film.

Twes
07-21-2008, 03:39 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I happened to enjoy the movie quite a bit. This may be because I had no expectations going into the movie since I heard very little about it before watching it on blu-ray. I don't even remember seeing any trailers or anything for it because I generally skip through commercials when I watch TV (DVR), and I maybe only go to the theatre to watch a movie 2 or 3 times a year. But I watch tons of movies on DVD and blu-ray. I never realized this movie had so much hype surrounding it until after I watched it and read some reviews.

Ok, regarding the movie itself: I'm not sure there was an "all good" main character in the entire film aside from HW - and it's not like he played a huge part. Before he was shipped off he was basically Plainview's pawn for a sales pitch, and Plainview would do anything to further his cause for more and more power. The faith healing preacher was certainly not good; he was just as greedy as anyone (i.e. begging for money at the end). The townspeople I guess were generally well-meaning . . . they were just stupid and insignificant, aside from the guy that didn't sell his land.

I read something similar as you as to why Paul Dano played the roles of both Sunday brothers. From what I read, another actor had already filmed a significant amount of Eli's (the preacher) role for the film and Dano was just playing the insignificant part of Paul (the greedy brother). The rumor was that Eli's actor (forgot his name) quit the movie because he felt he was too upstaged by an intense DDL (who didn't break character during shooting). Doubt that is entirely true, but it would make sense. Then, for whatever reason, the director decided to cast Dano as both Paul and Eli and have them be twins. I have no idea why they couldn't just have re-shot the Paul role with somebody else to avoid the confusion of Paul/Eli being the same person (which they clearly are NOT). I didn't care for Dano in his role either, like you I felt he was compeletely not believable. The fact he didn't age during the final scene bothered me too.

I absolutely loved the ending. When the old man (Lundy?) basically blackmailed Plainview(via knowledge of the killing of the guy that claimed to be Daniel's brother) into repenting and being baptized into Eli's church, with Plainview being completely and totally embarrassed by Eli, it was something that ate at Plainview the rest of his life. Then at the end, he got his "revenge" by making Eli denounce god and his church over and over, before finally completely going crazy and beating him to death with a bowling pin. I thought that was fantastic, and it eerily reminded me of a Kubrick film - from the atmosphere to the weirdness to the score (which was awesome).

I just wish they would have casted Eli differently. I agree completely that having Dano do both brother roles just added unnecessary confusion to the movie. There was no point in having that being confusing. I think the plot itself was very simple; the relationship between greed, power, good, bad, & religion. I didn't have any problems with the flow of the story, in fact I thought it was quite good. The exception is the massive jump in years at the end.

That all being said, DDL's performance more than made up for the shortcomings of the movie. I'd give it about 8 or 8.5 out of 10. I've seen where the movie has been given some crazy all-time rankings by critics. Some had it #2 all time. It certainly doesn't belong in any discussion in the Top 50 or maybe even 100 of all time IMO. Great, great acting by DDL and superb cinematography, good story, some questionable casting does not warrant that type of silly ranking IMO. Still a great movie though, and I'll watch it more than a couple of times...

Edit: I think the best part of the Plainview character was when he talks about how he doesn't want to just succeed, he wants to make sure that others DON'T succeed. That was his character in a nutshell.



He needed somebody worthy of sticking it to.

He was energized when he thought he had a brother. SOmeone at his level he could stick others with. And he was energized by sticking it to preacher boy.

At the end it was all he had.

He really wasn't in it for the money or he would have cashed out. He wasn't really in to the family thing even though he knew he should be.

I really bonded with him by the end.

:D

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 03:42 PM
He needed somebody worthy of sticking it to.

He was energized when he thought he had a brother. SOmeone at his level he could stick others with. And he was energized by sticking it to preacher boy.

At the end it was all he had.

He really wasn't in it for the money or he would have cashed out. He wasn't really in to the family thing even though he knew he should be.

I really bonded with him by the end.

:D



Me too.

But please don't take it personally if you ever ask me to go bowling and I politely decline.

Taterhead
07-21-2008, 04:04 PM
I really didn't understand what kind of a journey we were on until late in the movie when it became clear that he didn't either.

I assumed there really weren't two brothers and that the hypocrisy of pretending there were to get what you want was the whole basis for the conflict between them.

In other words the whole idea of religion and superior value is b.s. when secretly they all clamor for the wealth the oil brought them and he had no patience for the hypocrisy.

I liked the movie when it became clear he was lost in his own life as much as we were lost trying to find the epic meaning of the story.

The ending kind of made it all work for me.

Wait, Richie Cunningham had a brother? :D

This was probably the most interesting movie I've seen in a long time. It shows the hypocrisy of everything in our society.

Everybody in the movie is sacrificing something in hopes of a better monetary life. But in the end they all wind up with nothing. I think the unusual ending makes people think it's more complicated than it actually was.

As usual, an unbelievable performance by Daniel Day Lewis. He is a very powerful presence in any movie he does. It was very well done, I enjoyed it. The first time I watched it I was a little confused because it felt like there was more to the movie than I had understood due to the bizarre ending. But the second time I watched it I felt like I understood it more.

Bball
07-21-2008, 04:08 PM
It sounds like Paul Sunday was the winner...

...as long as you subscribe to the belief Paul Sunday was a real person and a twin to Eli Sunday. ...But then Twes has already said his interpretation was that they were the same person.

...And so it goes...

Twes
07-21-2008, 04:24 PM
It sounds like Paul Sunday was the winner...

...as long as you subscribe to the belief Paul Sunday was a real person and a twin to Eli Sunday. ...But then Twes has already said his interpretation was that they were the same person.

...And so it goes...


The thing is I have no problem if there are two brothers. But I'm with you guys if that's the case I don't understand why they would make it confusing like that.

It doesn't really change anything whether there are 2 or 1.

Twes
07-21-2008, 04:25 PM
Where the hell were you guys 30 years ago when I was scratching my head over the Deer Hunter.

btowncolt
07-21-2008, 04:27 PM
I agree on most of the above TWBB discussion.

My interpretation was that they were two people, but the film did a crap-*** (official term) job making that clear - or deciding if they were trying to be ambiguous about it

I hate NCFOM like few movies I've ever seen

Spicoli
07-21-2008, 04:27 PM
When Eli was chastising his dad for being stupid and lazy, didn't he specifically mention his brother??

That's why I thought it was clear they were twins...

And like Twes said, it doesn't make a difference either way, just adds unnecesarry confusion IMO

Edit: what btown said, although I didn't hate NCFOM

SycamoreKen
07-22-2008, 05:50 PM
Saw hancock over the weekend. Much different than I thought it would be. Much better than I thought it would be as well. Will Smith played the character very well in my opinion.

avoidingtheclowns
07-22-2008, 07:30 PM
saw The Dark Knight Sunday -- posted my thoughts in the other thread

saw a Pineapple Express screener Monday -- just because of the comedic/thriller aspect of it, feels like it wants to be a red-headed stepchild of Lebowski. it had plenty of laughs but wasn't great. i usually hate james franco but was pleasantly surprised. danny mcbride is basically the similar character as in Foot Fist Way (did anyone else see that? http://youtube.com/watch?v=6hO9lP4lVvY). i would recommend JayRedd see it if only for Craig Robinson being in it.

Bball
07-23-2008, 03:01 AM
"Vantage Point"

Good popcorn movie. I will say the 'vantage points' got a little annoying by about the 3rd one. I was literally saying "Oh c'mon" by what turned out to be the last 'rewind' and new vantage point.

I think that aspect of the movie could've been handled better. Maybe if it would've just jumped in and out of the vantage points and kept going forward instead of giving you several minutes and then a rewind to a new vantage point. I dunno... I get the concept and the material was fine for what the movie is. ...There was just probably a better way to present it and keep the basic concept alive IMHO.

-Bball

Twes
07-23-2008, 07:58 AM
"Vantage Point"

Good popcorn movie. I will say the 'vantage points' got a little annoying by about the 3rd one. I was literally saying "Oh c'mon" by what turned out to be the last 'rewind' and new vantage point.

I think that aspect of the movie could've been handled better. Maybe if it would've just jumped in and out of the vantage points and kept going forward instead of giving you several minutes and then a rewind to a new vantage point. I dunno... I get the concept and the material was fine for what the movie is. ...There was just probably a better way to present it and keep the basic concept alive IMHO.

-Bball

I didn't like that movie. I wasn't pulled in enough by the different vantage points. There wasn't enough to them I guess. And the movie completely lost me when they Forrest Gumped their way into crashing in to the van and the President was dumped back in their laps.

I thought the idea of it sounded interesting but the movie didn't live up to the idea.

MagicRat
07-23-2008, 11:28 PM
The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

Enjoyed it.

Peck
07-24-2008, 12:01 AM
Please be kind rewind.

Ugh.....

Not much to say other than I felt like I wasted my time.

Twes
07-24-2008, 02:51 PM
I've felt for some time that there just aren't as many "good movies" as there used to be.

I was just paging through the largest grossing movies from 1991 forward and it occurred to me that around 2001 I disconnected.

A big reason why. I've never had any interest in seeing and haven't seen any of the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Pirates of the Carribean movies.

There you have it.

Just a movie thought.

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 03:08 PM
Disagree. Between indies and the foreign films that are so readily available through Netflix and such, I think there are exponentially more good movies. Or at least...I have exponentially better access to more good movies. I think our standards have gotten a lot higher since the VHS and then DVD revolution.

Twes
07-24-2008, 03:15 PM
Disagree. Between indies and the foreign films that are so readily available through Netflix and such, I think there are exponentially more good movies. Or at least...I have exponentially better access to more good movies. I think our standards have gotten a lot higher since the VHS and then DVD revolution.

Access isn't the problem.

There just aren't as many that I consider great movies.

Don't get me wrong. There have been some good movies since 2001. I just think there are fewer of them.

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 03:26 PM
You may be right. The 1990s are pretty tough to compare anything to though.

Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, Matrix, Fight Club, Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Casino, Se7en, Braveheart, T2, Unforgiven, Fargo, Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Lebowski, the Insider, Good Will Hunting.

Those are basically all borderline perfect films and they are all mainstream for the most part. I'd agree that the great films of the 00s tend to be a little more off the radar.

avoidingtheclowns
07-24-2008, 03:26 PM
Access isn't the problem.

There just aren't as many that I consider great movies.

Don't get me wrong. There have been some good movies since 2001. I just think there are fewer of them.

i assume the definition of "great" is where our worldviews fail to overlap. what movies do you consider "great"?

Twes
07-24-2008, 03:51 PM
i assume the definition of "great" is where our worldviews fail to overlap. what movies do you consider "great"?

Our world views don't overlap? What? This is the first I've heard of this. :D

The classification of "great" is individual to all of us of course. But I'd say a great movie is one you'd buy because you would watch it again and again. Of course there's more to it than that. You might buy a Winnie the Pooh for your kid and watch it over again but it probably isn't a great movie.

I'm usually looking for something different. NOT predictable. Rich characters. Interesting story etc. but well acted. Well made.

One of my all time classics is Unforgiven because I loved that they let the movie play out how it did in the end. I didn't expect they would as I watched it at the time.

To make a general statement it seems to me they are cranking out more and more mindless movies.
You don't agree?

Twes
07-24-2008, 03:59 PM
You may be right. The 1990s are pretty tough to compare anything to though.

Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, Matrix, Fight Club, Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Casino, Se7en, Braveheart, T2, Unforgiven, Fargo, Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Lebowski, the Insider, Good Will Hunting.

Those are basically all borderline perfect films and they are all mainstream for the most part. I'd agree that the great films of the 00s tend to be a little more off the radar.

I think we all have to admit the sequal machine is out of control. The Matrix was a decent movie but I didn't need to see the sequals.

The Rocky Rambo Die Hard and on and on is out of hand.

I enjoyed most everything on your list. Some others I really liked were Man On Fire, The Edge and more recently The Departed.

Gyron
07-24-2008, 04:06 PM
Do you mean Hannah Montana's First movie wasn't on your short list?????

What about the Princess Diaries 2?????

OMG!!!

SycamoreKen
07-24-2008, 04:06 PM
There are very few new ideas, just old ones repackaged. Of the list above how many were adapted from something else or were based on a true story?

Of course how the idea is packaged is as important as the idea itself. As for the group you have not seen, I would rank them Potter, rings, and Pirates for origionality and story lines.

avoidingtheclowns
07-24-2008, 04:09 PM
Our world views don't overlap? What? This is the first I've heard of this. :D

The classification of "great" is individual to all of us of course. But I'd say a great movie is one you'd buy because you would watch it again and again. Of course there's more to it than that. You might buy a Winnie the Pooh foir your kid and watch it over again but it probably isn't a great movie.

I'm usually looking for something differant. NOT predictable. Rich characters. Interesting story etc. but well acted. Well made.

To make a general statment it seems to me they are cranking out more and more mindless movies.
You don't agree?

i would say it is much easier to make films now than even ten years ago. i would also say that studios release more films into theaters than they once did. given the quantity over quality mantra, you're going to have more crap. but it also means there are more really good to great films being made as well. ultimately the marketplace is flooded with both so the impact or perceived greatness of each film is watered down simply by volume. a film like the departed, had it been released in 1995, may have made JayRedd's list for epic 90s films. but 10 years from now, when trying to list the greatest films from this decade who even knows if would make an epic films list.

so while i'll agree that there aren't the same type of milemarker films as say the list JayRedd provided for the last decade, i think there just happen to be simply more product out there to search in.

Twes
07-24-2008, 04:17 PM
i would say it is much easier to make films now than even ten years ago. i would also say that studios release more films into theaters than they once did. given the quantity over quality mantra, you're going to have more crap. but it also means there are more really good to great films being made as well. ultimately the marketplace is flooded with both so the impact or perceived greatness of each film is watered down simply by volume. a film like the departed, had it been released in 1995, may have made JayRedd's list for epic 90s films.

so while i'll agree that there aren't the same type of milemarker films as say the list JayRedd provided for the last decade, i think there just happen to be simply more product out there to search in.

I hear you. But I'm not sure I completely agree. I agree the quantity is higher but I still say the number of quality movies is lower.

Usually DVD releases are on Tuesdays right? I remember in the past most every Tuesday there would be big name movies, or movies I otherwise really want to see constantly being released. Now I may go months in between the next movie I give a damn about.

There is another factor I recognize. I've seen a lot of movies. And I may no longer be connecting with current movies that in years past I might have just because you kind of get to where you've been there done that type thing. They all start to kind of look and feel the same.

Twes
07-24-2008, 04:20 PM
There are very few new ideas, just old ones repackaged. Of the list above how many were adapted from something else or were based on a true story?

Of course how the idea is packaged is as important as the idea itself. As for the group you have not seen, I would rank them Potter, rings, and Pirates for origionality and story lines.

I agree. And I'm not dogging the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. For whatever reason it just never appealed to me from the outside looking in.

SO many thing have to come together for a movie to click.

Look at Good Will Hunting. You put the wrong actors in that movie and it bombs. As it is it was a great movie.

SycamoreKen
07-24-2008, 04:43 PM
I agree that the parts have to be just right to make a movie great. I have seen many movies where it would have been so much better had the main or even a supporting character had been played by someone else. Even a movie that is going very well can be ruined by a "why did they do that" moment.

Peck
07-25-2008, 03:47 AM
Infamous.

Very entertaining actually, superb acting job by Toby Jones. Also a stunning performance by Sandra Bullock. Absolutely nothing like any other acting she has ever done.

rexnom
07-25-2008, 08:05 AM
i would say it is much easier to make films now than even ten years ago. i would also say that studios release more films into theaters than they once did. given the quantity over quality mantra, you're going to have more crap. but it also means there are more really good to great films being made as well. ultimately the marketplace is flooded with both so the impact or perceived greatness of each film is watered down simply by volume. a film like the departed, had it been released in 1995, may have made JayRedd's list for epic 90s films. but 10 years from now, when trying to list the greatest films from this decade who even knows if would make an epic films list.

so while i'll agree that there aren't the same type of milemarker films as say the list JayRedd provided for the last decade, i think there just happen to be simply more product out there to search in.
Definitely. It's interesting to note that the Matrix opened up to about $28 million in 1999 (a big deal back then). Now, for comparison's sake, Mamma Mia opened up to about the same - while competing against the greatest grossing movie of all time (TDK), which raked in more than five times the Matrix and Mamma Mia.

Twes
07-25-2008, 08:55 AM
Infamous.

Very entertaining actually, superb acting job by Toby Jones. Also a stunning performance by Sandra Bullock. Absolutely nothing like any other acting she has ever done.

I've never heard of it.

Looks like a lot of big names in that movie.

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2008, 09:34 AM
i would say it is much easier to make films now than even ten years ago. i would also say that studios release more films into theaters than they once did. given the quantity over quality mantra, you're going to have more crap. but it also means there are more really good to great films being made as well. ultimately the marketplace is flooded with both so the impact or perceived greatness of each film is watered down simply by volume. a film like the departed, had it been released in 1995, may have made JayRedd's list for epic 90s films. but 10 years from now, when trying to list the greatest films from this decade who even knows if would make an epic films list.

so while i'll agree that there aren't the same type of milemarker films as say the list JayRedd provided for the last decade, i think there just happen to be simply more product out there to search in.

Depends what you're looking for too. The visual effects evolution has allowed films that are visually stunning but with mediocre acting. Go back even 25 years and the great films generally had great acting. Today you can have films like Titanic or LOTR where the visual effects and cinematography are great but the acting is pretty mediocre (I never realized just how bad the acting was in Titanic until I watched it a second time with a GF).

If you value acting performances over visuals I think the cupboard is pretty bare.

Shade
07-25-2008, 10:46 AM
Clerks 2. It never gets old.

JayRedd
07-25-2008, 11:18 AM
If you value acting performances over visuals I think the cupboard is pretty bare.

C'mon...That's nuts.

Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.

Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond), Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.

Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I say that not only is there plenty of good acting out there...there is by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.

Twes
07-25-2008, 11:39 AM
C'mon...That's nuts.

Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.

Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond), Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.

Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I say that not only is there plenty of good acting out there...there is by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.

The reality for me... while some of those are in my "good movie worth seeing" category.

I don't see them as great. Several of them I don't recognize. Exceptions Collateral and The Departed which I loved.

avoidingtheclowns
07-25-2008, 11:41 AM
Depends what you're looking for too. The visual effects evolution has allowed films that are visually stunning but with mediocre acting. Go back even 25 years and the great films generally had great acting. Today you can have films like Titanic or LOTR where the visual effects and cinematography are great but the acting is pretty mediocre (I never realized just how bad the acting was in Titanic until I watched it a second time with a GF).

i will admit that films 25 years ago as there was no michael bay were 90% less awesome.


If you value acting performances over visuals I think the cupboard is pretty bare.

that is 17 different types of ridiculous


C'mon...That's nuts.

Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.

Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond), Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.

Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I still say there are by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.

i completely agree.

philip seymour hoffman in capote, the savages, owning mahoney?
laura linney in the savages, the squid and the whale, kinsey?
don cheadle in hotel rwanda, talk to me, crash?
johnny depp in pirates, sweeney todd, finding neverland?
kate winslet in little children, eternal sunshine, finding neverland?

and we're just scratching the surface. we haven't even touched on people like chiwetel ejiofor, djimon honsu, maggie gyllenhaal, peter sarsgaard, joseph gordon levitt, catherine keener, maria bello...

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2008, 11:43 AM
C'mon...That's nuts.

Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.

I haven't seen all of those but of those I have seen only Last King of Scotland had truly great acting. Memento didn't - they utilized the scrambled narrative thread/POV to build tension, The male lead in Constant Gardener was good (not great), Weis (sp) was mediocre, and I forgot Eternal Sunshine within days after seeing it. 21 Grams wasn't bad acting but great?


]Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond),

Man - I wouldn't call any of those great acting. DDL was the far superior actor in Gangs as was the black male lead in Blood Diamond. In fact, IMO DiCaprio's one of the most overrated actors around - he's perfected the art of overplaying a role to where they should rename that "Pulling a Dicaprio".


Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.

Crowe was great in Cinderella Man and had great moments in Perfect Mind (definitely NOT Gladiator) but Clooney? Viggo was spectacular in Eastern Promises - maybe the best performance of the year for me. History of Violence gave hints of what he could do. LOTR didn't though that's a poster child for cinematography over acting (other than Ian McClellan).


Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I say that not only is there plenty of good acting out there...there is by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.

JayRedd
07-25-2008, 12:50 PM
I thought Benicio Del Toro was spectacular in 21 Grams. Sean Penn was pretty good himself and Naomi Watts on a bad day is pretty far above the bar.

I thought what Guy Pearce did in Memento was fantastic (and Pantoliano was good.)..but okay, yeah, I shouldn't have included that one.

Ralph Fiennes was great in Constant Gardener. Not his fault the film fell apart.

Jim Carrey and especially Kate Winslet are pretty much universally lauded for Eternal Sunset.

I just say I disagree about Leo. He's great, IMO. You gotta at least give him The Aviator.

Clooney is Clooney. Not amazing, but has a Cary Grant charm and glib demeanor that makes his roles generally memorable. But, okay, Paul Newman/Marlon Brando he is not. The fact that he can play the Dapper Dan guy in O' Brother, Danny Ocean and the guy in Syrianna with equal ease and enjoyability, however, does show that he's got some real chops.

And, yes, Cinderella Man (and The Insider, which I guess was actually 90s) was what I was talking about with Crowe.

Doug
07-25-2008, 01:14 PM
I forgot Eternal Sunshine within days after seeing it.

That was funny.

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2008, 01:30 PM
philip seymour hoffman in capote, the savages, owning mahoney?
laura linney in the savages, the squid and the whale, kinsey?
don cheadle in hotel rwanda, talk to me, crash?
johnny depp in pirates, sweeney todd, finding neverland?
kate winslet in little children, eternal sunshine, finding neverland?

and we're just scratching the surface. we haven't even touched on people like chiwetel ejiofor, djimon honsu, maggie gyllenhaal, peter sarsgaard, joseph gordon levitt, catherine keener, maria bello...

Dear Lord.

With the exception of PSH, none of those performances can come even close to what folks like Dustin Hoffman & Meryl Streep used to throw out 25 years ago, every time they performed. And anyone who put any performance from Crash out there . . . :eek:

Want a great performance? Hoffman in Kramer vs Kramer or Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon or Streep in Sophie's Choice. Throw in DeNiro for The Deer Hunter or Dafoe & Berengar in Platoon. Or look at Richard Gere - his best performance is "Officer and a Gentleman" nothing he's done since comes close and it isn't because he can't act, it's because much of the emphasis on making motion pictures today isn't on acting.

There have been a few recent ones - Charlize Theron in Monster, Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs, Morgan Freeman in a variety of roles, Denzel Washington. But even those aren't great on the level of some of the truly monumental performances.

I attribute it to two things, mainly (these two may be related), though a third is contributing

Mainly, we no longer have a generation of actors who were stage trained. They can't carry a presence for a long scene. They're used to scenes where at most they have to carry 2-3 lines of dialogue before the director breaks down the scene, resets the camera and shoots from another angle.

The art of the long, single-take scene where two actors are captured in a panoramic view and feed off each other through multiple pages of dialogue is gone. Look at the great, memorable scenes (acting scenes) and those are what grab you. That's when two actors can build and feed off emotion. Today acting consists of reciting your lines while the other actor (or a staff member) reads the other part off-camera.

And of course the other issue is films where, as I've said before, visual effects and cinematography take precedence over acting. LOTR and Titanic are the two Blockbuster examples - watching each of those the second time the poor quality of acting, poor timing, etc just stuck out.

The good side of things is that there's less truly horrible acting going on today too (Nick Cage's recent performances notwithstanding). B movies and creature features used to be truly awful acting - generally we don't see as much of that. Even creature features have people who generally can at least give you something.

And that's it from me on this - I don't want to hijack this thread any more.

Edit: I will give The Aviator as Leo's best recent performance. I think the Howard Hughes role fit his strengths much better because that character's emotions were largely directed inward. My monster gripe with him is he has no subtlety - when he wants to show emotion he way overemotes vocally and gives expressions that almost look like he's doing a stand-up caricature by trying to twist his face into some new form. The next time he emotes by adding a subtle tone to his voice or just by softening his eyes will be his first - especially intensity which he does with a squeek/screech he should patent.

Trader Joe
07-25-2008, 01:35 PM
Leo's best role IMO was Catch Me if you Can.

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2008, 08:57 PM
Watched Eastern Promises again. Mainly inspired by the previous discussion. Still love the performance by Viggo and the raw brutality of the fight is impressive - so many movie fights aren't real at all - obviously written by someone who's never been in a fight.

Peck
07-25-2008, 09:08 PM
Guys this arguing over now vs. 25 years ago is nonsense.

It is just purely generational. Back in the 80's someone who was in thier 40's would have been talking about how crappy films are now compared to the 60's and back in the 60's people would have talked about the 40's etc., etc.

Each generation has thier own flavor and often times it does not translate into people from the previous generation.

As an example this brand new type of movie that has no ending and is almost cartoon type violence is just beyond alien to me. NCFOM, TWBB, etc., etc.

However I understand how this is appealing for many of you.

I just understand that it just isn't meant for me.

One thing though that I just do not understand is this whole "independant film" thing.

Frankly I think it is just a buzz word people like to use. For God's sake Lionsgate film releases more films a year than all other studios combined.

Mirimax and others also produce a high volume of films.

I guess just as long as it doesn't say Warner Bros. or New Line Cinema it makes it Independant.

Peck
07-25-2008, 09:09 PM
Leo's best role IMO was Catch Me if you Can.

For me it was "the man in the Iron Mask".

travmil
07-25-2008, 09:20 PM
For me it was "the man in the Iron Mask".

Is that because you don't like to see his face and it's your favorite in the same way that Meet Joe Black is my fave Brad Pitt movie because he gets hit by a car? Or did you seriously dig his performance?

Peck
07-25-2008, 09:32 PM
No, believe it or not I actually liked him in that role.

Peck
07-26-2008, 01:06 AM
Just watched Jumpers.

Far better than I thought it would be. I had almost zero expectations going into this film so I guess anything would have been acceptable.

travmil
07-26-2008, 06:11 AM
My wife and I watched Invasion of the Body Snatchers last night.

:point:

Peck
07-26-2008, 10:08 PM
Just got back from watching X-Files: I want to believe.

To me this was like visiting an old friend I haven't seen in years. It was not outstanding and in fact would really have been better as a TV episode, however it did rekindle a little of that old magic that was once part of one the best tv shows of the early and mid 90's.

I don't want to give away any spoilers, not that I think many of you will see it, but I will say a couple of things.

1. If you know anything about the show you will know that there were always two differant X-file episodes.

a. The mythology episodes that dealt with the Government cover up and aliens.

b. Paranormal episodes that dealt with the occult, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, the devil, etc.

This particular movie dealt with neither and I know that a lot of people are going to be dissapointed in that.

I think it was a very smart move to get away from the mythology. They pretty much killed any relevance in season 6 for me with that and frankly I thought the last x-files movie was lousy.

However this was a nice plot, well written, well acted and wonderfully shot.

BTW, do stay past the end credits for a special treat at the end.

I will admit I am a fanboy when it comes to the first 7 seasons of x-files, only DS9 and American Gothic surpass it IMO. But frankly the the last two seasons of the show sucked and the last movie was bad.

So to me it was nice to just get back to the very basic story of faith.

I will say though that whoever was the genius who decided to release this the week after Batman should be shot.

Tonight for a primetime showing at 7:30 on a Saturday night there was my group I went with and 3 other people.

yinets1860
07-27-2008, 12:20 AM
Suprt man

tora tora
07-27-2008, 02:25 AM
Superman III

Taterhead
07-27-2008, 03:19 AM
Dear Lord.

With the exception of PSH, none of those performances can come even close to what folks like Dustin Hoffman & Meryl Streep used to throw out 25 years ago, every time they performed. And anyone who put any performance from Crash out there . . . :eek:

Want a great performance? Hoffman in Kramer vs Kramer or Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon or Streep in Sophie's Choice. Throw in DeNiro for The Deer Hunter or Dafoe & Berengar in Platoon. Or look at Richard Gere - his best performance is "Officer and a Gentleman" nothing he's done since comes close and it isn't because he can't act, it's because much of the emphasis on making motion pictures today isn't on acting.

There have been a few recent ones - Charlize Theron in Monster, Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs, Morgan Freeman in a variety of roles, Denzel Washington. But even those aren't great on the level of some of the truly monumental performances.

I attribute it to two things, mainly (these two may be related), though a third is contributing

Mainly, we no longer have a generation of actors who were stage trained. They can't carry a presence for a long scene. They're used to scenes where at most they have to carry 2-3 lines of dialogue before the director breaks down the scene, resets the camera and shoots from another angle.

The art of the long, single-take scene where two actors are captured in a panoramic view and feed off each other through multiple pages of dialogue is gone. Look at the great, memorable scenes (acting scenes) and those are what grab you. That's when two actors can build and feed off emotion. Today acting consists of reciting your lines while the other actor (or a staff member) reads the other part off-camera.

And of course the other issue is films where, as I've said before, visual effects and cinematography take precedence over acting. LOTR and Titanic are the two Blockbuster examples - watching each of those the second time the poor quality of acting, poor timing, etc just stuck out.

The good side of things is that there's less truly horrible acting going on today too (Nick Cage's recent performances notwithstanding). B movies and creature features used to be truly awful acting - generally we don't see as much of that. Even creature features have people who generally can at least give you something.

And that's it from me on this - I don't want to hijack this thread any more.

Edit: I will give The Aviator as Leo's best recent performance. I think the Howard Hughes role fit his strengths much better because that character's emotions were largely directed inward. My monster gripe with him is he has no subtlety - when he wants to show emotion he way overemotes vocally and gives expressions that almost look like he's doing a stand-up caricature by trying to twist his face into some new form. The next time he emotes by adding a subtle tone to his voice or just by softening his eyes will be his first - especially intensity which he does with a squeek/screech he should patent.

Are you sure this isn't just a case of personal preference? I mean, you criticize Dicaprio for his overstating of emotion, then credit Pacino for his role in Dog Day Afternoon (which I agree was great). No one overstates emotion quite like Pacino, except maybe Tom Cruise.

I thought Leo was brilliant in Catch Me if You Can, and The Aviator. And pretty great in Departed, and Gangs of New York as well. And I used to hate Dicaprio before Gangs of New York. I could list loads of great performances over the last 10-15 years that would rival anything before that, IMO. I'm not saying any better, but atleast just as good.

Taterhead
07-27-2008, 03:33 AM
C'mon...That's nuts.

Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.

Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond), Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.

Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I say that not only is there plenty of good acting out there...there is by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.

I am so glad you mentioned City of God. That is a perfect example of a movie saturated with truly brilliant acting. And it's all done by young children and teenagers. I can't think of a movie I've watched that was done any better. And the job that Meirelles did directing was masterful. The fact the Academy Awards failed to even nominate it for best foreign film proves the academy is an absolute joke and doesn't pay any attention to foreign films.

For people that haven't seen that movie, get it asap. Even if you can't stand subtitles. But watch the documentary on the disc first to give you a true perspective on the living conditions these people endure, and it will help you understand the story even better. There is some amazing footage on there. I've seen that movie probably 10 times, and will watch it many more.

BTW, I would like to add Lock, Stock, Snatch and Amores Perros to your foreign films list.

GO!!!!!
07-27-2008, 04:50 AM
Batman Again......

DisplacedKnick
07-27-2008, 08:46 AM
Are you sure this isn't just a case of personal preference? I mean, you criticize Dicaprio for his overstating of emotion, then credit Pacino for his role in Dog Day Afternoon (which I agree was great). No one overstates emotion quite like Pacino, except maybe Tom Cruise.


I said I wasn't going to talk about this anymore but some posts just make you go, "Huh?"

In movies, their are things called characters.

When an actor plays a character who is obviously a nervous, overly emotional individual who finds himself trapped by law enforcement in a situation he can't escape from and becomes even more nervous and emotional, that's called an actor playing his character.

When an actor plays a character who's supposed to be a calm, collected undercover police officer infiltrating organized crime, or a jaded criminal only out for himself who's seen it all, and the only way he can show emotion is by squeeling or showing facial expressions that make you wonder if he's having some sort of seizure, then that's a moment which completely takes me out of the film.

Dicaprio has done that for me more than just about any actor who's currently a big star - at least that I've seen. That said, I don't recall a bunch of those moments from The Departed or Aviator, not like in Blood Diamond or Titanic (though in Titanic everyone's performance was substandard - I blame that on the priorities of the Director). I also don't recall anything he did in The Departed that made me blink and say, "Wow - that was REALLY good."

Part of it's just mis-casting. Dicaprio shouldn't be cast in those roles any more than Cruise should ever have been taken away from driving racecars, flying airplanes, shooting pool or mixing drinks. But the studios want a big star to bring in bucks and from the sales, they're evidently right. Of course Cruise could mix in a great performance someday and I'd miss it - I just don't watch his movies any more. I haven't reached that point with Dicaprio.

And yeah, part of it's personal preference but when a character who's supposed to be worldly and stoic throws in a squeeling/drama queen response to a stressful situation, I consider that to be overplaying a role.

Mourning
07-27-2008, 11:33 AM
peter sarsgaard

One of my favorite actors together with Edward Norton (he needs to put up something really good soon though).

JayRedd
07-27-2008, 11:47 AM
The Kingdom

Really good. Wasn't expecting much even though I pretty much really like the whole cast. Chris Cooper was really good as was the main Saudi lead. It was a little overly "shaky cam" in the beginning reminiscent of the Bourne flicks, but either I got used to it or it was a device used more for the brutal early action only. Like most movies, there is a pointless, tie-everything-up-in-a-neat-cheesy-bow scene that was wholly unnecessary, but I was actually really impressed otherwise. Peter Berg should make more movies. Might hafta check out Hancock now.

I also enjoy Sarsgaard. He was good in another Middle East-based movie that I expected little from but really enjoyed, Jarhead, as well as in Garden State.

Robertmto
07-27-2008, 04:45 PM
Step Brothers

not sure if I ever wanna see Will Ferrell's balls again

Mourning
07-27-2008, 04:55 PM
I thought he was excellent in "Shattered Glass"... carried that movie to a degree for me.

I have to agree on "The Kingdom". Better then I expected. I love the intro, very nicely done.



I also enjoy Sarsgaard. He was good in another Middle East-based movie that I expected little from but really enjoyed, Jarhead, as well as in Garden State.

avoidingtheclowns
07-27-2008, 08:09 PM
yeah he had a nice little streak with shattered glass, garden state, kinsey and jarhead.



last movie i watched was vantage point - a film so pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating and overall terrible.

Twes
07-28-2008, 08:39 AM
I gave No Country For Old Men a second chance.

My reaction was the same as the first time I saw it. Loved the first 2/3 - hated the ending.

I don't mind the fact that they killed off who they did. I just didn't understand or care for how they did it. Off camera.

Kind of a classics Marathon this past weekend.

I also watched Jaws, Road to Perdition, Unforgiven, 10, and The Edge

Hicks
07-28-2008, 09:18 AM
Yeah, I hated that too (off camera).

DisplacedKnick
07-28-2008, 11:08 AM
Thought I was going to see TDK Sunday so I watched Batman Begins again Saturday night. Then I didn't go Sun.

I'm "prepped" anyway.

Shade
07-28-2008, 12:16 PM
Thought I was going to see TDK Sunday so I watched Batman Begins again Saturday night. Then I didn't go Sun.

I'm "prepped" anyway.

Get 'er done.

Suaveness
07-30-2008, 08:47 PM
Has anyone seen Phantom of the Opera, the movie released in 2004? I just saw the theatre version in Vegas, and I absolutely loved it. I doubt the movie would be as good, but I want to get at a feel for how good it is.

Arcadian
07-30-2008, 09:31 PM
I know we are not talking about this but on two points

1) Having some knowledge of Hollywood, actors do preform on stage and in acting classes do go for longer that 1 or 2 min. scenes. It is a misconception to think that an actor does not put in lots of time in training and dedication.

2) Cecil DeMille was awesome before Michael Bay was a CGI gleam in his mother's eye.

What has changed is pacing, editing and dialogue. And that is mostly a MTV public's taste rather than the artist who make the films.

N8R
07-31-2008, 05:31 AM
Son of Rambow

Good movie. Better than I had thought it might be but it was also about a lot more than the previews had shown. Worth the watch.

Raskolnikov
07-31-2008, 08:26 AM
The Dark Knight - Very good. Probably the best superhero movie of all time.

travmil
07-31-2008, 08:44 AM
The Dark Knight - Very good. Probably the best superhero movie of all time.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but while I did enjoy The Dark Knight, I liked Ironman even more. Just my taste I guess. It took me a while to come to that conclusion though.

JayRedd
07-31-2008, 11:52 AM
I know I'll get flamed for this, but while I did enjoy The Dark Knight, I liked Ironman even more.

Same here.

Hicks
07-31-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm the opposite. Liked Iron Man, but TDK is my personal King of this genre right now. Shout out for X2, which was awesome.

DisplacedKnick
07-31-2008, 04:37 PM
Liked TDK - didn't REALLY like it. Great Villain but I thought they overdid the whole White Knight/man with a mask image thing - it would have played just as well for me if they'd saved that for the end instead of bringing it up every 5 minutes.

But a fantastic villain and a lot of action though a little more background on The Joker might have been nice.

Natston
07-31-2008, 08:48 PM
Iron Man = Good *** 'superhero' movie

The Dark Knight = Good *** movie outright

Spicoli
07-31-2008, 10:26 PM
The Matrix - hadn't seen it in years; still holds up pretty well. Lots of loud noises.

Peck
07-31-2008, 10:35 PM
Harold & Kumar escape from G-Bay.

About what you wold expect, had some funny moments and some not so funny. But for what it was, overall pretty good.

Twes
08-01-2008, 08:19 AM
Freedom Writers

bellisimo
08-01-2008, 08:28 AM
Taken, The Eye, The Ruins

they were all so...meh

AesopRockOn
08-01-2008, 08:38 PM
Throne of Blood - Yea.

Mo' Better Blues - Flawed, especially if Spike wants to get specific messages across but still one of his better early efforts. Put it behind DTRT and Clockers.

kester99
08-01-2008, 09:20 PM
This is not the movie I last watched, but, it has come to my attention that many of you younger folks have not watched 'The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming.!" This is a 60s comedic masterpiece. Jonathan Winter's haymaker during the riot is worth the time, if nothing else.

Emergency. Emergency. Everybody to get from streets.

DisplacedKnick
08-01-2008, 10:22 PM
The Ruins - Well, a girl did have her shirt off within 11 minutes so it wasn't a total loss. As slasher films go, I've seen worse. I've also seen a lot better.

Heartbreak Kid - Maybe it would've been better in a theatre but as Farrely Bros w/ Ben Stiller movies go, it's pretty far down the list.

bellisimo
08-04-2008, 04:26 AM
Pathology

I'm glad to have not followed up on my mom's dreams to become a doctor...

Hancock

First half of the movie was really nice...then came this other half of the movie...which was...well...it was ok but would've liked it if they had continued on the first half of the movie instead of mixing up 2 movies in one...

DisplacedKnick
08-04-2008, 06:36 AM
Southland Tales - OK, I really need to not read reviews from Cannes. Terrible. At least the first 35 minutes was, which is all I could bring myself to watch. On the plus side, the actor who played Vizzini in TPB was there and we got to hear SMG drop multiple strings of F-Bombs. Ugh.

ajbry
08-04-2008, 07:10 PM
http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/images/cinema/city-of-god.jpg

What more needs to be said?

JayRedd
08-04-2008, 10:07 PM
^^

Hands down the best movie of the 00s, IMO.

I accidently watched The Hitcher yesterday while procrastinating. It actually wasn't half as bad as I thought. I gave it a 6/10 on IMDB. Borimir actually was above decent as the villian and the overall thriller plot was better than the typical I Know What You Did Last Summer type fodder. The very ending was pretty poor, but it sorta fit with the rest and there were actually two or three really good parts.

Oh, and Amores Perros the other day. Probably my second favorite non-American-made film after City of God. Also better than Inarritu's 21 Grams, which I really like too, and Babel, which certainly had it's moments but was hurt overall by one pretty poor story line. Has anyone seen Toro Negro or Nine Lives?

Bball
08-05-2008, 12:14 AM
"1408"
Another in a long line of movies where there was probably a good movie in there but the producer/director just couldn't keep for going for the cliches.

When will they learn to be subtle? ...Or when will moviemakers remember to be subtle? Sometimes the scariest things are what you don't see...

This movie started out like it 'got' that point, but it was soon forgotten.

-BBall

SycamoreKen
08-05-2008, 12:29 AM
The art of subtle has been lost in the horror/thriller/action if not all movie scenes these days.

N8R
08-05-2008, 03:06 AM
Wanted

It is a sweet movie. Seemed kind of short and they could have explored it a little more but the action was great and the story line was cool. Well worth the download and watch time.

DisplacedKnick
08-05-2008, 10:07 AM
^^

I accidently watched The Hitcher yesterday while procrastinating. It actually wasn't half as bad as I thought. I gave it a 6/10 on IMDB. Borimir actually was above decent as the villian and the overall thriller plot was better than the typical I Know What You Did Last Summer type fodder. The very ending was pretty poor, but it sorta fit with the rest and there were actually two or three really good parts.


Have you seen the original with Rutger Hauer? That movie terrified me at the time. I haven't watched the recent version partly because the 80's movie gave me everything I'd ever want in a thriller and I see no reason to contaminate it by watching a remake where I have a hard time believing it will match the original.

Spicoli
08-05-2008, 10:46 AM
Live Free or Die Hard - It was fun and lots of stuff went boom. Not a gigantic fan of the Die Hard series, but I can watch each of them more than once.

12 Monkeys - I think I saw this in the theatre way back when it first came out and walked out going WTF just happened? Wasn't sure that I liked it. Watched it again over the weekend and it was much, much better than I remembered. Kind of fun figuring out all the time traveling and plot twists, etc. I had even forgotten the ending and was surprised again.

3:10 to Yuma - I am a Western junkie, not sure what took me so long to watch this. Good movie and I did not see the ending coming quite like that.

O' Brother Where Art Thou - It was on one of the movie channels in HD, and this is one of my all-time favorite movies. It was cool just to see the movie in HD as the cinematography is so good. I've probably seen this movie a dozen times and it doesn't get old. Same territory as The Shawshank Redemption for me.

Underworld - I don't care about the movie but damn I don't get tired of looking at Kate Beckinsale.

Twes
08-05-2008, 11:02 AM
Have you seen the original with Rutger Hauer? That movie terrified me at the time. I haven't watched the recent version partly because the 80's movie gave me everything I'd ever want in a thriller and I see no reason to contaminate it by watching a remake where I have a hard time believing it will match the original.

Yes. The finger.

DisplacedKnick
08-05-2008, 11:08 AM
Yes. The finger.

Yeah, I was off fries for a few days after that.

Twes
08-05-2008, 11:14 AM
Yeah, I was off fries for a few days after that.

I feel old the way they are remaking movies made within my lifetime.

The InLaws is another one.

When they try to do Rocky or Jaws it will be time to pack it in.

N8R
08-07-2008, 10:28 PM
Batman Begins

I hadn't watched this movie in a long time so I had forgotten pretty much everything about it. It would have helped to have watched this before The Dark Knight as I had forgotten about Scarecrow and didn't even realize he was in The Dark Knight. Great movie.

MrSparko
08-08-2008, 12:28 PM
Pulp Fiction, still amazing.

JayRedd
08-08-2008, 01:06 PM
Have you seen the original with Rutger Hauer? That movie terrified me at the time. I haven't watched the recent version partly because the 80's movie gave me everything I'd ever want in a thriller and I see no reason to contaminate it by watching a remake where I have a hard time believing it will match the original.

I have not. Might try to track it down now though.

Mourning
08-08-2008, 01:12 PM
"Bloody Sunday" from Paul Greengrass. Saw it a few years ago and thought it good back then. Watched it just last night and still really like the style and feel of the movie. Then again I think Greengrass is one of the better directors around.

JayRedd
08-10-2008, 01:38 AM
Pineapple Express.

Definitely the best comedy I've seen in several years. Very impressed and it's good to see Apatow not rely on the "Know how I know you're gay?" or "was it weird when you changed you name from Cat Stevens to Yusef Islam?" type revolving gimmicks for laughs. I feel like this one was so subtley dialogue based (in addition to the obvious over-the-top ridiculousness) that it's just gonna age beautifully and all the background, under-the-breath lines are gonna continue to surface for like ten viewings. Really, really good stuff all around. James Franco was legen...dary. And if Craig Robinson keeps up this level of genius, he may supplant Paul Rudd and/or Boggan as my idol.


EDIT: Agree with atc on the "red-headed stepchild of Lebowski" comment. Clearly, no where near that level of quality...but I see that as a compliment.

bellisimo
08-11-2008, 07:52 AM
Wall-E

went to see it on a date...would definitely recommend as its full of "aww" moments...didn't hurt the fact that her name was also Eva :D

The Dark Knight
sure the script had some holes...but it was a great adaptation...definitely preferred this style over the "B&R and Batman Forever"

Drillbit Taylor
didn't know much going into it...a surprise comedy :)

Never Back Down
Karate Kid of 2008?

Step Up 2 - Take it to the Streets
these movies are just wayyyy too similar...

Shutter
meh...another boring "horror flick"

Get Smart's Bruce and Llyod out of Control
it was pretty funny

Trader Joe
08-11-2008, 09:10 AM
Let's see over vacation I watched Hot Fuzz. Which I was kind of lost for the first 70 or so minutes, but then towards the end the humor really started to show through. Nothing special here IMO, but a solid comedy that has some rewatch value.

Then I was subjected to quite possibly the two worst movies I have ever seen.
Thirteen Ghosts and I Know Who Killed Me.
Let the record show that neither of these movies were my decision.

Thirteen Ghosts was supposed to a horror movie that wasn't at all scary. Everything was so out in the open and you saw pretty much everything coming. I found myself laughing more than being scared. The ending? Well let's just say it didn't make much sense.

I know who killed me was even worse. Worst ending of any movie ever? Maybe. I would have killed my agent if they got me a role in this. I think it was supposed to be a horror/thriller adaptation and it came off as a mockery of the genre. I was excited however that my prediction of her using her robot hand (:lol:) to fend someone off came true. That was the highlight of the movie for me.

Unclebuck
08-11-2008, 01:24 PM
"Funny Games"
The person I watched the movie with hated it, really hated it. I sort of enjoyed it in some regards - or enjoyed the idea, the execution was a little strange

Spicoli
08-11-2008, 01:43 PM
Let's see, this weekend I watched Almost Famous, I Am Legend, Lucky Number Slevin, and Zodiac.

I've seen Almost Famous 3 or 4 times, it seems to be worth watching once every couple of years. Some pretty funny parts and just overall a good movie.

I Am Legend - I'm probably like the last person on Earth to watch this, and I already knew what happened in the end. Overall I guess I was entertained although I had some big problems with the story and it was slightly cheesy.

Lucky Number Slevin was ok. There's some good, smart, witty dialogue that I like. Unfortunately I had the whole movie figured out in the first 25 or 30 minutes (and I'm usually not good at figuring stuff out early). It still wasn't bad though and worth a watch.

When I saw that Zodiac was over 2.5 hours, I thought that might be a little much. And at times I did get a little bored. But I guess when it was over it didn't feel like a 2.5 hour movie, which is a compliment of sorts. Not great but not bad either. Don't have any desire to see it again.

Twes
08-11-2008, 02:26 PM
I Am Legend - I'm probably like the last person on Earth to watch this, and I already knew what happened in the end.

That would be me. Haven't seen it.

Wait?

:disturbed

Spicoli
08-11-2008, 02:40 PM
I think you have seen it. :puke:

Peck
08-13-2008, 02:48 AM
Flawless with Demi Moore and Michael Cain.

Very entertaining film. I really truely hope that they used makeup to make Demi look that old. Cause if not, God she has rapidly aged.

Twes
08-13-2008, 01:57 PM
I think you have seen it. :puke:



I think I've similarly suppressed his last several movies.

:alcohol:

MyFavMartin
08-13-2008, 03:16 PM
Pulp Fiction, still amazing.

yeah i caught a snippet of it the other day on vh1 and saw kathy griffin cameo as a witness to the car wreck. i think i noticed her though the first time i saw the movie.

kester99
08-13-2008, 06:04 PM
Saw Hancock. Agree with Bellisimo. I was actually...impressed ...with Will Smith in the first half of the movie. That's never really happened before. I haven't seen all his stuff, though.

The second half was a slight letdown. Still good, but more...cartoonish? Comic book-like.

MrSparko
08-15-2008, 01:13 AM
Micheal Clayton, eh I was unimpressed.

Peck
08-17-2008, 12:10 AM
I just saw Pineapple Express.

In a word, horrible. I am open to the fact that now I am officially so old that it is a generational thing, but frankly I don't think so.

Obviously the crowd in the theatre was the late teen to late 20's crowd and frankly there was not a whole lot of laughing going on.

I just don't think at the end of the day they knew what they wanted the film to be so they threw stuff against the wall to see what would stick. I felt like I was seeing a film put together by the same committe that made Smoochie the dog.

Pig Nash
08-17-2008, 12:27 AM
I liked it?

Doug
08-17-2008, 12:58 AM
The Bourne Supremacy

Good movie, with a great car chase. But that hand-held camera work has made me nauseous.

I still can't believe they killed off Marie.

Roaming Gnome
08-17-2008, 01:16 AM
Dropped $9.50 on Star Wars, Clone Wars on opening night and I still don't know what to think.

Being a Star Wars fan from 1980 (debut on HBO) for me, going to see this movie was going to happen, but when I left the theatre I was feeling like I wanted to like it, but knowing deep down that this adventure in the Star Wars universe was not very good.
Going in, I had a feeling the target audience was probably 20 years younger due to seeing the movie advertised on some programming my 6 year old was watching. But, I figured...What the heck, it's Star Wars. Well, the only thing I could say was...It fits inside the Star Wars story line and timeline, but other then that, it was lacking.

I'll probably see it again, because I admit that I was very tired when I seen it considering it was at the end of a very long day (10:45pm showing) and there was a chance that I might not have been there mentally, but usually a good movie wakes my senses, and this one just didn't.

Peck
08-17-2008, 02:50 AM
I just sat down and re-watched the Manchurian Candidate. The real one from 1962.

Again this film just blows me away every single time I see it. I always feel that this movie was ahead of it's time and is just unbelievably complex and deep.

Seeing Mrs. Potts as a villain is always a kick.

If you have never seen this film, do so. If you've only seen the remake from a couple of years ago then you haven't seen the real film.

N8R
08-17-2008, 07:37 AM
Step Brothers

Very funny. Very typical Will Ferrel movie and if you like his other movies you should like this one too.

N8R
08-17-2008, 05:32 PM
Drillbit Taylor

I remember seeing trailers for this movie a long time ago and then I didnt hear anything about it for a while until I remembered to download it. Very worth the watch. Pretty much a Seth Rogan movie with similar humour as in his other movies. The younger kid actors were very good and Owen Wilson was his usual self.

N8R
08-18-2008, 01:57 AM
Street Kings

Reminded me very much of Training Day. It was an alright movie. I dont think i would watch it again. Once was enough.

Mourning
08-18-2008, 03:08 AM
The Bourne Supremacy

Good movie, with a great car chase. But that hand-held camera work has made me nauseous.

I still can't believe they killed off Marie.


Lol! I couldn't believe it at first either, but how could she have kept up with him in all of the following sequences? Also something more then just the past had to drive him to do what he did later in the movie on his "quest" so to say.

Too bad, because I liked her a lot. Totally my type.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Unclebuck
08-18-2008, 08:18 AM
Dropped $9.50 on Star Wars, Clone Wars on opening night and I still don't know what to think.

Being a Star Wars fan from 1980 (debut on HBO) for me, going to see this movie was going to happen, but when I left the theatre I was feeling like I wanted to like it, but knowing deep down that this adventure in the Star Wars universe was not very good.
Going in, I had a feeling the target audience was probably 20 years younger due to seeing the movie advertised on some programming my 6 year old was watching. But, I figured...What the heck, it's Star Wars. Well, the only thing I could say was...It fits inside the Star Wars story line and timeline, but other then that, it was lacking.

I'll probably see it again, because I admit that I was very tired when I seen it considering it was at the end of a very long day (10:45pm showing) and there was a chance that I might not have been there mentally, but usually a good movie wakes my senses, and this one just didn't.



I thought it was the most god awful movie I have ever seen. It would have been a bad Saturday morning cartoon for the kids -

OK, maybe it isn't the worst movie I've ever seen - but it certainly wasn't a good movie.

Gnome - It wasn't because you were really tired - it was just very juvenile - Saturday morning cartoon like. Can't remember the last movie where I was sitting there and thinking about everything except the movie.

D-BONE
08-18-2008, 09:21 AM
^^

Hands down the best movie of the 00s, IMO.

I accidently watched The Hitcher yesterday while procrastinating. It actually wasn't half as bad as I thought. I gave it a 6/10 on IMDB. Borimir actually was above decent as the villian and the overall thriller plot was better than the typical I Know What You Did Last Summer type fodder. The very ending was pretty poor, but it sorta fit with the rest and there were actually two or three really good parts.

Oh, and Amores Perros the other day. Probably my second favorite non-American-made film after City of God. Also better than Inarritu's 21 Grams, which I really like too, and Babel, which certainly had it's moments but was hurt overall by one pretty poor story line. Has anyone seen Toro Negro or Nine Lives?

AP and COG are both great. Personally I like Amores Perros more. In fact, it's probably in my top 5 all time period. A trio of international films I recently viewed: The Passenger (w/ J. Nicholson), and two French films-Venus in Furs and The Savage Planet (sci-fi animated). All from the 70s and all worth a look if you like art films.

Gyron
08-18-2008, 09:44 AM
Cars

And the 30 year anniversary of Animal House. I think they showed it on Fuse? It was essentially a making of Animal House, but with all of the people who are still alive being interviewed about the whole thing. Good watch.

DrBadd01
08-18-2008, 10:33 AM
Raging Bull

the second time I have seen it. One of Scorsesse's best. De Niro isn't to bad in it either.

N8R
08-19-2008, 12:45 AM
Chaos Theory

It was very different than what I expected but I guess I didn't expect too much. It had Ryan Reynolds as the main character and he was telling his future son in law about his marriage on his daughters wedding day. It had Sarah Chalke in it as well and I am a big fan of hers. I would recommend a once over of the movie but it wasn't anything too special.

I also started Hellboy 2 but I was so tired that I turned it off and went to bed. It seems interesting so far. I think I need to re-watch the first one so that I know what is going on again. There have been too many movies in between and I am lost in the other comic book movies.

sweabs
08-19-2008, 01:03 AM
Drillbit Taylor
I watched this one based on Newman's advice and enjoyed it.

You Don't Mess With The Zohan
It wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. I actually laughed in some areas...even though it was stupid things. I guess I was in that kind of mood today.

N8R
08-19-2008, 10:01 AM
Glad I could help there buddy.

I finished Hellboy 2

It was alright. I wasn't blown away from watching it. I guess I am just not as big a fan of Hellboy as I thought. It was ok but it just seemed a little too easy. Lately a lot of movies just seems to easy, with the outcomes, and they just let me down. I have seen a good ending in a while.

I need to dload the Zohan. I assume that is how/why you watched it there sweabs.

t1hs0n
08-19-2008, 06:48 PM
Just watched a movie called Big Dreams, Little Tokyo

I found it very funny. It was subtitled for all the non-English parts, though I would guess a basic knowledge of Japanese would help.

CableKC
08-19-2008, 07:27 PM
I thought it was the most god awful movie I have ever seen. It would have been a bad Saturday morning cartoon for the kids -

OK, maybe it isn't the worst movie I've ever seen - but it certainly wasn't a good movie.

Gnome - It wasn't because you were really tired - it was just very juvenile - Saturday morning cartoon like. Can't remember the last movie where I was sitting there and thinking about everything except the movie.
I don't know if it's been mentioned....but there is a reason why you had that impression. I think that George Lucas originally intended to have the movie shot as a TV Pilot movie so that they can introduce a Star Wars Cartoon series on the Cartoon Network TV channel.

Then, probably in an effort to get more Merchandising $$$ to line Lucas' gold-laddened coffin........he decided to upscale the movie that was intended to be on the "Small Screen" into a "Big Screen" movie. From my understanding, the jump from the "Small" to the "Big" screen didn't translate very well....hence the feeling that this was more of Cartoon Network movie that would be really cool on TV...but seems lacking on the Big screen.

DrBadd01
08-20-2008, 01:12 AM
Tropic Thunder

good movie overall. . . . . but will NEVER look at Tom Cruise the same way again.

Natston
08-20-2008, 01:16 AM
The Darjeeling Limited

It was decent but it doesn't really stand out in any way. I couldn't relate to movie since I don't have any brothers or a bunch of suitcases...

D-BONE
08-20-2008, 07:12 AM
Tropic Thunder

good movie overall. . . . . but will NEVER look at Tom Cruise the same way again.

Thought this movie was pretty funny. Probably four out of five stars IMO. Very good for a comedy. Some people MIGHT find the metafictional elements over the top at points, but I thought it was great (self) parody. For me, this was a great role for Cruise.

D-BONE
08-20-2008, 07:15 AM
The Darjeeling Limited

It was decent but it doesn't really stand out in any way. I couldn't relate to movie since I don't have any brothers or a bunch of suitcases...

I liked The Life Aquatic and Rushmore. However, I thought this was pretty interesting in its own right. Probably not as many "funny" moments as far as Wes Anderson style humor goes that is.

sweabs
08-20-2008, 01:44 PM
Midnight Run
This was one of the funniest movies I've seen. It had a little bit of everything in it - drama, action, comedy, etc. For the first time in a while, I had some real good laughs while watching a film.

sweabs
08-20-2008, 03:22 PM
Son of Rambow
A nice film. Some interesting messages underneath the main plot. I enjoyed it - very imaginative.

sweabs
08-21-2008, 01:03 AM
Rec

I'm an idiot for watching this film in my basement, no lights, at midnight. Definitely won't be sleeping tonight.

Trader Joe
08-21-2008, 01:19 AM
Shawshank Redemption

Still amazing after fourteen years.

bellisimo
08-21-2008, 05:17 AM
Smart People
wasn't boring - and that is all i can hope for a movie to be these days...

Hellboy 2
the first one was soo much better. Atleast that is how I remember it to be.

Raskolnikov
08-21-2008, 06:37 AM
Road to Perdition

Very good movie.

Unclebuck
08-21-2008, 08:41 AM
Two of my favorite alltime movies - Shawshank Redemption and Road to Perdition

sweabs
08-21-2008, 05:51 PM
We Own The Night

Awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome movie. So intense.

D-BONE
08-21-2008, 08:59 PM
We Own The Night

Awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome movie. So intense.

I thought this was good, too. Also, Midnight Run-very entertaining.

I really enjoyed Things We Lost in the Fire. You have to be in the mood for a more serious topic. Admittedly there are heavy and sad moments, but also some very poignant and funny ones, as well.

ilive4sports
08-21-2008, 09:47 PM
I watched the Angels and Airwaves Documentary called Start the Machine. Its just a documentary about the band and the making of their first cd. If your an Angels and Airwaves fan you will enjoy this.

Raskolnikov
08-22-2008, 05:10 AM
In Bruges

I enjoyed it a lot, and not only because I know the city. Very funny at times.

bellisimo
08-22-2008, 07:27 AM
In Bruges

I enjoyed it a lot, and not only because I know the city. Very funny at times.

If I grew up on a farm, and was retarded, Bruges might impress me but I didn't, so it doesn't. :D:D:D

great movie

N8R
08-22-2008, 09:53 AM
Don't Mess With The Zohan

I watched this from sweabs comments. It was much better than I thought it would be. There are some very funny parts in it and I would put it on par with most of his comedies that he does. If you like Adam Sandler movies than you will like this movie.

N8R
08-24-2008, 10:47 AM
Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanimo Bay

It had a few good moments and a few sets of boobs in it. Also there was a buttomless party scene with a lot of ladies, unfortunately you also see a penis in the scene too that is very hairy. They said it looked like Bin Laden's beard. If you liked the first one this was similar to it. Not very good overall. I would never watch it again.

N8R
08-24-2008, 10:49 AM
Felon

I really enjoyed this movie. It is about a man's journey into the penile system. He is in the wrong place at the wrong time and ends up in a max security facility and the officers are corrupt in there and some interesting stuff follows. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. A definite watch.

N8R
08-24-2008, 10:50 AM
What Happens In Vegas

As far as comedies go I didnt think it was too funny. There were parts of course but overall I enjoyed it. The acting was good and the chemistry Kutcher and Diaz has was evident onscreen.

N8R
08-24-2008, 10:52 AM
Leatherheads

Not good. Very bored in it and just not good. I downloaded it because of John Kryzinski of "The Office" (Jim Helpert) was in it and I have enjoyed his other acting showcases so I thought I would give this a try. It bored me and I wouldnt sit through it again.

N8R
08-24-2008, 10:55 AM
Sandlot 2

Now the original Sandlot is one of my favourite movies cause it just is. I figured what the hell might as well, I mean it is for free. This movie is the first redone in the 70's with much much worse acting. All of the child actors were terrible and it was very hard to watch. The story was literally the same down to the outrunning of a dog at the end, the playing the actually little league baseball team, the fat kid and head littler leaguer making fun of each other and one of the characters squirms his way into getting a make out with an older woman a la Squints at the pool in the original.

And I hear there is a third one... I hope that one isn't as painful.

N8R
08-24-2008, 10:59 AM
Rec

I hadn't heard of this movie until sweabs did his review of it up at the top of the page. I too watched it by myself in my basement when it was dark. It had it's scary moments and it took a little longer to sleep last night but it wasn't too scary. I would give it a 7 out of 10 on the scare scale. Now in order to be scared it depends on how you watch it and when. If you are with other people goofing around of course it isn't scary. You have to put yourself into the movie. It is shot like Cloverfield in the sense that it is a TV crew following a fire house out on a call and the camera is shaky at times and gives you the feeling like you are there. I believe it is all spanish as well so you have to read the subtitles throughout and I think that took me out of the movie a bit as well as it helped contribute to the headache of the shaky camera and trying to focus on reading.

It is worth a watch though if you enjoy the re-animation category of horror.

DisplacedKnick
08-24-2008, 01:03 PM
Felon

I really enjoyed this movie. It is about a man's journey into the penile system.

Uh - Freudian slip? Any thing you want to tell us? :D

sweabs
08-24-2008, 05:00 PM
Wristcutters: A Love Story

Borrrrinngggg. I thought it would be a dark comedy. Turned out to be garbage.

N8R
08-24-2008, 06:25 PM
It might just be DK. His journey through the prison system I should have said. I dont know how to spell.

Peck
08-24-2008, 11:27 PM
The Rocker

A decent film. Had some very funny parts.

This is really one of those films that you have to either be a little old or pretty young to like.

I could see people who are in their late 20's to early 30's sitting through the film with a glaze over thier eyes.

Old people like me who lived during the hair band years and those young enough to be their kids will probably find some humor and some bittersweet moments.

The music was a decent mix of some old hair band standards (Poison, Twisted Sister, Cinderella, etc.) and new music.

I would recommend the movie, but then again I am of that age group.

N8R
08-25-2008, 01:42 AM
21

A very very good film. Had action suspense and oh so much more. I would recommend this to everyone for a gander.

Raskolnikov
08-25-2008, 04:22 AM
If I grew up on a farm, and was retarded, Bruges might impress me but I didn't, so it doesn't. :D:D:D

great movie
Continually insulting the Venice from Belgium, that Raymond. Good thing the other killers were very fond of it...I guess that's why they were there in the first place.


Also there was a buttomless party scene with a lot of ladies, unfortunately you also see a penis in the scene too that is very hairy.
Lol - you're funny.

N8R
08-25-2008, 04:29 AM
Baby Mama

What you would expect. Not that great. Not that funny, Was pretty bored during it. On the plus side I recognized a signer from the soundtrack and I am torrenting his new CD so that is always good. An artist named Zach Gill from a band called A.L.O. (Animal Liberation Orchestra) and he also plays the keyboard and a few other instruments on Jack Johnson's last CD. Hoping it is good so that watching Baby Mama wasn't a complete waste.

N8R
08-25-2008, 06:48 AM
Taxi Driver

I didn't know what to expect going into this movie. I knew he was deranged but I didn't know it was going to be that crazy. This was the first time I have seen DeNiro in a movie from the 70's. He looks very young. I could only picture him in his more recent comedy films and that is a far cry from the character in this movie.

Spicoli
08-25-2008, 08:38 AM
I watched Shoot 'Em Up over the weekend.

I also lost 20, maybe 30 IQ points while watching said movie.

DisplacedKnick
08-25-2008, 08:44 AM
Watched Monster's Ball because, well, I was extremely bored and thought watching Halle Berry squirming around naked was as good of a way to pass the time as anything.

Surprisingly, I liked the overall film a lot better this time around - didn't remember caring for it all that much the first time, other than said Halle Berry moments.

avoidingtheclowns
08-25-2008, 06:50 PM
from the last couple weeks...



Hamlet 2 ... B
i went in with rock bottom expectations because i wasn't very amused by the trailer and i walked out pleasantly surprised. both catherine keener and amy poehler were under-utilized. as was elisabeth shue - all three were enjoyable though when on screen. david arquette -- why? i'm not entirely convinced steve coogan can carry a movie - i've gone back and forth. the songs are oddly unfunny. but i think the best part of the movie involved the drama critic from whom coogan desperately seeks both advice and approval.


Tropic Thunder ... B+
i'd rank this a little above Pineapple Express though i enjoyed danny mcbride more in PE. ben stiller (who has a habbit of really annoying me) wasn't as annoying as i expected. jack black on the other hand did really annoy me. the groups that are protesting this film are retarded (both literally and figuratively.) what they object to is clearly satire - not taking cheap shots at the mentally handicapped - but about Hollywood and actors and method, etc. RDJ was nothing short of amazing and tom cruise has a remarkably funny cameo.


Traitor ... B-
despite the protagonist being an american muslim, this is a fairly by the numbers action/thriller. it is solid for what it is (don cheadle, guy pearce and sad taghmaoui are good.) but even a semi-sentient being can unravel the plot within the first 10 minutes. it also doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be - some of this was explained during a Q&A that followed the screening with writer/director jeffrey nachmanoff and pearce but that still doesn't fix the actual movie.


Vicky Cristina Barcelona ... B
i haven't watched any of woody allen's recent offerings -- mainly because, starting in the 90s with stuff like deconstructing harry and small time crooks, woody started sucking. hardcore. and i have watched very little from him. i didn't have a lot of interest in seeing this one but went because it was free. the narrator was obscenely annoying - very intrusive. that being said, it was certainly the most enjoyable thing woody allen has done in the last 15 years (although friends insist i watch match point as well as sweet & lowdown.) scarlett johansson still can't act. javier bardem and penelope cruz definitely can. actually it is easy to see how terrible this movie could have been without those two (specifically javier) in their roles.


Transsiberian ... A-
this is a fairly limited release that caught my eye specifically because of director brad anderson. having enjoyed his film the machinist with christian bale i decided to check it out and wasn't disappointed. quite influenced by hitchcock. emily mortimer is great. kingsley is solid.




i think elegy might be up next.

also if i see either the lakeland terrace or what just happened trailers again i'll start punching puppies.

pwee31
08-25-2008, 07:03 PM
Things we lost in the Fire

Thought Del Toro was good.

Still not sure about the movie.

Thought it was ok

JayRedd
08-25-2008, 08:53 PM
This was the first time I have seen DeNiro in a movie from the 70's. He looks very young. I could only picture him in his more recent comedy films and that is a far cry from the character in this movie.

That's borderline felonious. And I really hope it doesn't include Godfather II. The other two must-sees are Raging Bull and Deer Hunter. People seem to dig Mean Streets, too, but I just saw it for the first time recently and was overwhelmingly underwhelmed. I guess Scorsese did some camera work and a few other revolutionary things that are worth noting...but since they aren't particularly unusual now, it really didn't impress me. The story is pretty dull, DeNiro is pretty annoying and the ending is pretty dumb. Harvey Keitel and some toplessness were really the only things I enjoyed.



Vicky Cristina Barcelona ... B
i haven't watched any of woody allen's recent offerings -- mainly because, starting in the 90s with stuff like deconstructing harry and small time crooks, woody started sucking. hardcore. and i have watched very little from him. i didn't have a lot of interest in seeing this one but went because it was free. the narrator was obscenely annoying - very intrusive. that being said, it was certainly the most enjoyable thing woody allen has done in the last 15 years (although friends insist i watch match point as well as sweet & lowdown.) scarlett johansson still can't act. javier bardem and penelope cruz definitely can. actually it is easy to see how terrible this movie could have been without those two (specifically javier) in their roles.

Match Point is very good. The first hour actually sorta sucks, but that's sort of necessary to the overall feel of the film so don't be put off. I also actually just saw Scoop a few weeks ago though and, yeah, feel free to skip that one. I like Woody in general (Crimes and Misdemeanors is his best, IMO) so I didn't hate it and it had it's clever moments, but it was definitely in the Small Time Crooks, Jade Scorpion and Hollywood Ending category of "meh."

JayRedd
08-25-2008, 09:17 PM
Watched a bunch of movies in the last couple of days.

Reds
I thought this was superb. I've never cared for Warren Beatty outside of Bonnie and Clyde, but I hafta say I was very impressed with his direction on this film. He does a lot of subtle things to show the failings of organized socialism. Diane Keaton is rather good and even though he has a small role for him, this might be one of Jack Nicholson's best performances.

Wall Street
Saw it like 10 years ago. Still good. And if nothing else, it gave us that great scene from Hot Shots Part Deux.

The Painted Veil
Not bad. Not great. Rather melodramatic and predictable, but anything with Ed Norton and Naomi Watts can't be that bad. I also enjoy Toby Jones.

Casablanca
Yup...still the best movie ever.

Notorious
Watching it now. Probably my third favorite Hitchcock after Vertigo and Strangers on a Train.

N8R
08-26-2008, 12:29 AM
When I get home I will get Raging Bull and Deer Hunter going on the computer.

avoidingtheclowns
08-26-2008, 10:25 AM
Wall Street
Saw it like 10 years ago. Still good. And if nothing else, it gave us that great scene from Hot Shots Part Deux.

fantastic


Notorious
Watching it now. Probably my third favorite Hitchcock after Vertigo and Strangers on a Train.

you'd probably enjoy transsiberian then. reminded me a bit of strangers and part of it kind of like a twisted lady vanishes.

DisplacedKnick
08-28-2008, 10:58 PM
Watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail - was in Borders and decided this was another VHS to replace.

DVD is actually a 2-disc set. It has a few extras but nothing too remarkable IMO. There are a few additional minutes in the film, some add to it, some don't.

The biggest advantage - it took seeing a DVD to realize that the residents of Castle Anthrax are wearing nearly transparent clothes - never knew that from the tape.

Still part of my trilogy of great movies with The Princess Bride & Labyrinth. And in its way, more factually correct than Braveheart.

Los Angeles
08-28-2008, 11:52 PM
Gone Baby Gone.

A reasonably capable crime drama that lost its power towards the end ...

Raskolnikov
08-29-2008, 04:52 AM
I watched Shoot 'Em Up over the weekend.

I also lost 20, maybe 30 IQ points while watching said movie.
But I'm sure you had fun ;) Should try Hot Fuzz too if you liked it.

N8R
08-29-2008, 05:43 AM
The Babe

been a while since I watched this movie. It was on TV while I was at work so I caught most of it. Still a great bio flick.

N8R
08-29-2008, 09:43 AM
Jackass 2

Still hilarious.

Gyron
08-29-2008, 10:18 AM
Angels in the outfield with Danny Glover in it.

bellisimo
08-29-2008, 10:54 AM
Shawshank Redemption

I probably watched it before...but could not remember it...so after hearing so many wonderful reviews...i went for it...wasn't disappointed indeed...

The Promotion

I felt bad for the main characters in the movie...for their lack of...characteristics...they all seemed like losers...

avoidingtheclowns
08-29-2008, 10:58 AM
Angels in the outfield with Danny Glover in it.

don't forget matthew mcconaughey

Bball
08-29-2008, 12:20 PM
"Monster"

I wasn't all that thrilled with Charlize's performance. I never really found it all that believable. Yeah, they made her look less than appealing. Yeah, she apparently put on a couple of pounds for the role. Yeah, she peppered her vocabulary with some F-bombs and several "C'mon man" and several derivatives all ending in "man". ...Probably some colored contacts too... and those teeth...
Still, I just didn't buy her character as 'real'.

I thought the pacing of the movie left something to be desired.
This felt like a TV movie of the week more than anything. It's another one of those movies where I feel a better movie was in there but they just didn't get it to the screen.

I don't mean to totally trash the movie, it's not terrible by any stretch.... I'd just heard several good things about it and my expectations were a little too high going in.

-Bball

rexnom
08-29-2008, 12:40 PM
Aliens SE...now I get the Hicks reference (I'd forgotten about Cpl Hicks).

Doddage
08-30-2008, 08:08 PM
Juno

Might be a little late in watching it, but it was a solid movie anyway.

JayRedd
08-30-2008, 10:27 PM
Rio Bravo
I had just seen El Dorado a few months ago. Yup, pretty much the same movie. And much like my theory on Snatch vs. Lock Stock, I saw El Dorado first so I think I like it better.

The Beach
I'd seen pieces before but actually sat down and watched the whole thing. Sorta wish I hadn't.

Lawrence of Arabia
This is just a superb film. It's funny thinking about the perception you have about a film that you've heard about/been meaning to watch your whole life versus the actuality of watching it. Without fail, for me, the movie is always completely different than what you expected -- not so much in quality or anything, but just in tone, feel and presentation. I can see a lot of people thinking Larry of Arabia is dull and slow (I mean, it is like 215 minutes), but I thought it was just beautifully done in every way: cinematography, score, pacing, characters, everything. And the acting performances are stellar across the board...O'Toole is great, Omar Sharif is perfect, and Alec Guiness and Claude Rains are both brilliant as always. I have to believe it's incredibly unrelated to reality, but that shouldn't take away from a great creative work. Absolute masterpiece.

The Philadephia Story
Rather good. I like just about anything Cary Grant does though. I think this is the only movie I've actually seen Katharine Hepburn in aside from the African Queen. Starting to see what the hype is all about. Even next to Cary and Jimmy Stewart, she is the clear star.

SycamoreKen
08-30-2008, 10:40 PM
Vantage Point

The movie was different than i thought it would be going in. I thought it was entertaining. Nothing ground breaking, but worth my time.

Reggie's One Career Dunk
08-30-2008, 10:57 PM
the fifth element, 'nuff said

Peck
08-30-2008, 11:13 PM
House Bunny.

Believe it or not, it was amusing.

N8R
08-31-2008, 12:15 PM
City Of Men

Done by the same people that brought us the amazing City Of God. It was not as good as City of God but it was still a solid movie.

The Promotion

Meh

Jackass 2

Watched it again cause it is so good.

Arcadian
08-31-2008, 04:01 PM
The Cleaner. An argument based on this film could be made that there isn't much difference between Sam L. Jackson and Danny Glover.

Also...
Ed Harris has been typed casted as the cop you trust but is really crooked. Any movie with Ed Harris as a cop you know he is the villain. It takes a lot of suspense out of it.

Doddage
08-31-2008, 07:02 PM
Hitch

Yep, just now

Doddage
09-01-2008, 06:07 PM
Wedding Crashers

Movie was decent (for what it was), it dragged at certain points though. The movie was really long at a little over 2 hours, and they definitely could have cut that down.

Bball
09-01-2008, 11:12 PM
"Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives" (this has been released as a 2 sided DVD with Eddie and the Cruisers I and Eddie and the Cruisers II on the same disc).

For those that don't remember, way back when there was a movie called "Eddie and the Cruisers". It was based on a fictional 60's rock band and their driven leader "Eddie Wilson". IIRC the original movie opened with Eddie's car wreck into a river and no body being found and then Eddie's life was pieced together cinematically from the band member's recollections. The original film was probably a bust at the box office (though I don't recall for sure) but it became a cult classic once it hit the cable movie channels. It made for a few hits for the band that actually provided the soundtrack for the movie.

It was one of those movies that from the outside looking in had nothing going for it (simple story, ample opportunities for cliches), but once you started watching it something about it pulled you in. Maybe it was "Eddie's" (Michael Pare's) passion for the music and the intensity he portrayed. Maybe it was the music itself. It was just one of those movies that's sum was greater than its parts. Easy to watch... easy to follow... didn't pretend to be something it wasn't... no never ending hype to leave you expecting too much. It just entertained.

Sooooooo apparently they made a sequel and quite frankly, I had no idea it existed.

FWIW, as much as the title of the movie "Eddie Lives" could be considered a spoiler it's not necessarily.... "Eddie Lives" is the name his former record label used to promote some previously unreleased music that they had recently acquired. ...There are flashbacks utilized as well as a few 'new' scenes filling in some holes from before.

I don't think the sequel was as good as the original... but again... there was a certain charm and appeal to the sequel and I can't put my finger on it. Michael Pare was back as "Eddie" and it turns out that Eddie did in fact survive the crash and had swam to shore and left his rock star life behind. Eddie was driven and passionate about his music, but he also was a perfectionist to a point as well as someone maybe not entirely comfortable or as assured as they seemed on the outside. After finding success with their first album his record label didn't like the second album he'd brought them (which was supposed to have been too experimental and progressive for a record label wanting 3 minute songs 'made for radio'). A feud over the 2nd album left Eddie disenchanted with the music business (and maybe his life as well). So after his 'accident' (could've actually been a failed suicide attempt I guess) he went to Canada, grew a mustache, and took up construction work. Everything was apparently OK for him until his record label re-released his first album and it became a hit again and so NOW they 'liked' the second album (as well as some other material attributed to Eddie) and so planned a large Eddie Lives promotion around the new albums. They (record company) wanted to create a buzz that maybe he wasn't really dead to really ramp up interest in the 'new' previously unreleased material.

The new band members couldn't have been more cliched and just a notch over the line... and yet still there was a certain charm with the movie.

As a stand alone... I don't know how it would play but for anyone that watched the first one and liked it, I think you'll like this one too... IF you don't expect -too- much. I think the strength of both of these movies is that they just kept them simple and Michael Pare found his perfect role.

Pop some corn, turn the lights off, and put the DVD in. You could do worse...

Music is John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band.

N8R
09-02-2008, 02:48 AM
The Green Mile

Great movie. It was on TV and I was watching it during commercials and I caught just about all the parts you think about when watching the movie. It is just a great film.

Peck
09-02-2008, 04:26 AM
"Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives" (this has been released as a 2 sided DVD with Eddie and the Cruisers I and Eddie and the Cruisers II on the same disc).

For those that don't remember, way back when there was a movie called "Eddie and the Cruisers". It was based on a fictional 60's rock band and their driven leader "Eddie Wilson". IIRC the original movie opened with Eddie's car wreck into a river and no body being found and then Eddie's life was pieced together cinematically from the band member's recollections. The original film was probably a bust at the box office (though I don't recall for sure) but it became a cult classic once it hit the cable movie channels. It made for a few hits for the band that actually provided the soundtrack for the movie.

It was one of those movies that from the outside looking in had nothing going for it (simple story, ample opportunities for cliches), but once you started watching it something about it pulled you in. Maybe it was "Eddie's" (Michael Pare's) passion for the music and the intensity he portrayed. Maybe it was the music itself. It was just one of those movies that's sum was greater than its parts. Easy to watch... easy to follow... didn't pretend to be something it wasn't... no never ending hype to leave you expecting too much. It just entertained.

Sooooooo apparently they made a sequel and quite frankly, I had no idea it existed.

FWIW, as much as the title of the movie "Eddie Lives" could be considered a spoiler it's not necessarily.... "Eddie Lives" is the name his former record label used to promote some previously unreleased music that they had recently acquired. ...There are flashbacks utilized as well as a few 'new' scenes filling in some holes from before.

I don't think the sequel was as good as the original... but again... there was a certain charm and appeal to the sequel and I can't put my finger on it. Michael Pare was back as "Eddie" and it turns out that Eddie did in fact survive the crash and had swam to shore and left his rock star life behind. Eddie was driven and passionate about his music, but he also was a perfectionist to a point as well as someone maybe not entirely comfortable or as assured as they seemed on the outside. After finding success with their first album his record label didn't like the second album he'd brought them (which was supposed to have been too experimental and progressive for a record label wanting 3 minute songs 'made for radio'). A feud over the 2nd album left Eddie disenchanted with the music business (and maybe his life as well). So after his 'accident' (could've actually been a failed suicide attempt I guess) he went to Canada, grew a mustache, and took up construction work. Everything was apparently OK for him until his record label re-released his first album and it became a hit again and so NOW they 'liked' the second album (as well as some other material attributed to Eddie) and so planned a large Eddie Lives promotion around the new albums. They (record company) wanted to create a buzz that maybe he wasn't really dead to really ramp up interest in the 'new' previously unreleased material.

The new band members couldn't have been more cliched and just a notch over the line... and yet still there was a certain charm with the movie.

As a stand alone... I don't know how it would play but for anyone that watched the first one and liked it, I think you'll like this one too... IF you don't expect -too- much. I think the strength of both of these movies is that they just kept them simple and Michael Pare found his perfect role.

Pop some corn, turn the lights off, and put the DVD in. You could do worse...

Music is John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band.


Ah yes Michael Pare.

I can't get past this classic.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9tKzPJZTPw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9tKzPJZTPw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Funny thing is there are a lot of actors in this movie who went on to big careers. William Dafoe, Diane Lane, Rick Moranis, Amy Madigan, Robert Townsend & Bill Paxton.

Although the movie was awful, the soundtrack really wasn't that bad. I liked the meatloaf version of nowhere fast much better though.

Bball
09-02-2008, 04:44 AM
I never even heard of Streets of Fire. Now I wonder if I need to watch it just to so I don't miss out on some pop trivia question down the road? I gotta say... when the trailer sucks that bad you KNOW the movie doesn't have much hope!

-Bball

Peck
09-02-2008, 05:12 AM
I never even heard of Streets of Fire. Now I wonder if I need to watch it just to so I don't miss out on some pop trivia question down the road? I gotta say... when the trailer sucks that bad you KNOW the movie doesn't have much hope!

-Bball

you should never deprive yourself of seeing a movie that sports both ducktails and mullets. :D

Gyron
09-02-2008, 08:58 AM
Cars

Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone.

Unclebuck
09-02-2008, 04:15 PM
Had to sit through the new Babylon movie over the weekend - truly a wretched movie. It was almost like they didn't try

count55
09-02-2008, 09:45 PM
Ah yes Michael Pare.

I can't get past this classic.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9tKzPJZTPw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9tKzPJZTPw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Funny thing is there are a lot of actors in this movie who went on to big careers. William Dafoe, Diane Lane, Rick Moranis, Amy Madigan, Robert Townsend & Bill Paxton.

Although the movie was awful, the soundtrack really wasn't that bad. I liked the meatloaf version of nowhere fast much better though.


I never even heard of Streets of Fire. Now I wonder if I need to watch it just to so I don't miss out on some pop trivia question down the road? I gotta say... when the trailer sucks that bad you KNOW the movie doesn't have much hope!

-Bball

When the movie was in production, they approached Bruce Springsteen to see if they could use his song of the same name (from the "Darkness on the Edge of Town" album).

He refused.

DisplacedKnick
09-05-2008, 11:27 PM
Vantage Point. Complete waste of my time. Had the bad guy figured out within 2 minutes. There was a decent car chase but that was pretty much it.

count55
09-06-2008, 01:35 AM
Vantage Point. Complete waste of my time. Had the bad guy figured out within 2 minutes. There was a decent car chase but that was pretty much it.

Yeah, that was pretty obvious, but I thought it passed the time.

However, it still doesn't match "General's Daughter" for most obvious bad guy. Timothy Hutton came on the screen, and I turned to my wife and said, "he did it".

GO!!!!!
09-06-2008, 04:24 AM
I'd like to add that the most obvious bad guy candidate would have to be Keifer Sutherland in Phone Booth, it was made during the height of 24 Mania and my flatmate ruined it after the first call, maybe we were supposed to know, I can't recall but it seemed bizarre at the time and still does.

Watched Felon last night, I enjoyed the movie, worth watching that’s for sure, it's about a successful self employed family man accidentally kills a home intruder and documents what happens after and his battles in the penitentiary system after he pleads guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Features Stephen Dorff and Val Kilmer in a supporting role

Watched Love Guru also last night, didn’t do anything for me, Mike Myers is losing his touch, not very funny but others may disagree

tora tora
09-06-2008, 05:25 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G0SBMH3ZL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Gyron
09-06-2008, 07:55 AM
Evan Almighty.

Meh.

avoidingtheclowns
09-06-2008, 01:32 PM
last movie i watched was vantage point - a film so pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating and overall terrible.

i said this a while ago but i do think that the movie is so pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating, and overall terrible that it deserves discussion.

the premise of the movie holds up for about the length of the trailer. when shifted to feature-length it completely falls apart quickly.

sigourney weaver starts the film off as the producer of a 24hr news network. the symbolism to the rest of the film (albeit fairly obvious) is effective - watching the president shot and the explosion from many feeds in the truck. weaver should be commended - she recites her lines, adds some inflection, but never misrepresents the script/dialogue as actually being good.

then rewind 20 minutes. literally. rewind noises and everything. classy.

we rewind 20 minutes to see dennis quaid - which most likely means kevin costner was busy. he's a secret service agent who is recovering from taking a bullet for the president -- which more than anything illustrates just how ****ty these people are at their jobs to have an attempt on the President's life then immediately let it happen again. quaid proceeds to pretend to act nervous, let the president get shot and then tackle the first foreign person he sees. the man claims to be a spanish police officer. the secret service believes him to be the assassin because they assume that after shooting the president with a high-powered sniper rifle, the killer would immediately jump out of a third-story window and sprint on stage to make sure he was dead.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWIND

we meet forrest whitaker who is playing an estranged father and creeps everyone out by knocking over the ice cream cone of a young girl and INSISTING on buying another. i imagine this is to illustrate his love for his own estranged children and how he misses them but it just comes off as somewhat pedophilic. mainly what this demonstrates is despite his oscar for idi amin, this is still the man that signed up for travolta's scientology propaganda film.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWIND

ahh hahaha -- now you see the president wasn't shot. it was a stunt-double. the president is safe in a hotel.

but wait -- ahh hahaha -- the terrorists KNOW this and PLANNED for this. they killed the stunt-double anyway. then set off the bomb under the stage.

quick question: just from a practical standpoint why shoot the president then like 5 minutes later set off a bomb? why create chaos sending the crowd off running THEN blow the place up? it's a little like unloading a 12 gauge into the air to corral everyone in for a group photo.

but back to the terrorists real goal: killing everyone and kidnapping the president. the terrorists force a special ops guy into helping them by kidnapping his brother. the special ops guy gets to the president and kills the secret service team with ease - because when hiring security the more inept the better. the ops guy demands that the terrorists release his brother. little does he know that they have already killed his brother, yet another example of the time-honored lesson: never trust a terrorist. besides they needed his special ops skills: wouldn't his time be better spent rescuing his brother from the terrorists' compound instead of killing somewhere near 7000 ridiculously terrible secret service agents, drugging and kidnapping the president? sometimes special ops dude, we bring these things on ourselves.

the finer, umm, nuances of the story aren't worth the time so basically what happens is the president is kidnapped and put into an ambulance. the little spanish girl whitaker obesses about looking for her mother after the explosion wanders around the city and decides to look in the middle of a busy street. whitaker himself decided to chase the spanish police officer who escaped that crack secret service team's clutches to chase after his ex-girlfriend (who he discovers is one of the terrorists) and witnesses the officer who is almost run over by cars no less than 50 times ultimately get shot under the bridge. whitaker then sees the little girl in the middle of the street and the speeding ambulance heading towards her. so he tries the rescue the girl. the ambulance tries to swerve to miss the girl in a bizarre attempt to keep these terrorists from being completely one-dimensional (?). the ambulance crashes, whitaker saves the girl and quaid who has been following rescues the president.

basically the screenwriter dug himself a hole and in order for an ending to make sense, makes a character act completely outside the realm of logic. in this case it is the spanish girl who decides to look for her mother MILES away from where she last saw her AND in the middle of a busy street. what other illogical and dangerous locations could her mother be hiding at? did she check broken glass avenue or look in used syringe park?

also why bother having the terrorists try to avoid hitting the girl? they already set a bomb off where she and her mother had been? they've shown no resistance to killing everyone else in sight. why not just go for gold here? what is stopping them at this point?

these characters and their various motivations are so illogical and ridiculous it actually hurts me. never see this movie. never. ever. no.

to sum up: vantage point is pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating and overall terrible.

rexnom
09-06-2008, 02:43 PM
That was editing-room-esque, atc. Nicely done.

JayRedd
09-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Good stuff. I find the following hard to believe, however.


we rewind 20 minutes to see dennis quaid - which most likely means kevin costner was busy.

MrSparko
09-06-2008, 03:43 PM
What that Kevin Quaid and Dennis Costner aren't the same actors or that Kevin Costner was busy?

DisplacedKnick
09-06-2008, 03:53 PM
What got me is that nothing was added by having 5 (or was it 6?) different "vantage points." I mean NOTHING. No hidden clues or mysteries - by the third viewing I was ready to FF through the rest of them and see if anything was going to happen - at all.

I felt like someone in a film class where someone had shot a 30-minute film from several different angles so it could be dissected in class.

Plus this film brought out at least two career-worst performances. Forrest Whitaker? Career worst. I think it MAY have been Dennis Quaid's too though I remember another film that he was in that was really bad (actually I don't remember it - I just remember that he was in a really bad film) but even then I remember thinking that Quaid's performace was OK.

And why was someone like Weaver in that role? Any schmuck could have done a static monotone line-recitation - heck, I could have done that. Only Matthew Fox's performance didn't suck among the name stars. Ayulet Zarir (sp?) didn't totally blow dead rodents but she wasn't good.

Dumb film which the concept made dumber. But I'll still defend the car chase. So about 7 minutes of it was OK.

rexnom
09-06-2008, 04:01 PM
It just seems like they gave up on the vantage point idea in the end. And like DK said, what's the point of different vantage points when all we needed was Dennis Quaid's? He figured it all out by himself. Yes, he needed Forest Whitaker's camera and the newsroom but otherwise he had it all figured out. What was the point?

After this travesty, no one should ever dare to call Memento gimicky again.

DisplacedKnick
09-06-2008, 04:11 PM
It just seems like they gave up on the vantage point idea in the end. And like DK said, what's the point of different vantage points when all we needed was Dennis Quaid's? He figured it all out by himself. Yes, he needed Forest Whitaker's camera and the newsroom but otherwise he had it all figured out. What was the point?

After this travesty, no one should ever dare to call Memento gimicky again.

Memento was a very good film because the way it was patched together actually meant something - there was a puzzle in there and each piece drew you deeper into it and drove it to a solution.

This? Like you said, WTF was the point?

avoidingtheclowns
09-06-2008, 05:11 PM
Good stuff. I find the following hard to believe, however.

how about " - which most likely means they couldn't afford kevin costner."


Plus this film brought out at least two career-worst performances. Forrest Whitaker?

street kings is right up there too -- 2008 was not kind to ker (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm642488576/tt0185183)


And why was someone like Weaver in that role? Any schmuck could have done a static monotone line-recitation - heck, I could have done that.

if you see Hamlet 2 you'll see a significantly worse example in david arquette

JayRedd
09-06-2008, 05:17 PM
What that Kevin Quaid and Dennis Costner aren't the same actors or that Kevin Costner was busy?

The latter.


how about " - which most likely means they couldn't afford kevin costner."

Fair enough.

And, more generally, the fact that all of yall saw the preview for this movie and then decided to watch it anyway means you deserved the fate of wasting two hours of your life.

DisplacedKnick
09-06-2008, 05:32 PM
And, more generally, the fact that all of yall saw the preview for this movie and then decided to watch it anyway means you deserved the fate of wasting two hours of your life.

Hey! It had a nice car chase. :blush:

count55
09-06-2008, 06:08 PM
And, more generally, the fact that all of yall saw the preview for this movie and then decided to watch it anyway means you deserved the fate of wasting two hours of your life.

I'm impressed that someone has the audacity to adopt an intellectually superior attitude while using the phrase "all of yall".

JayRedd
09-06-2008, 06:52 PM
It was the best vosotros equivalent available at the time.

Speaking of, feel free to use the tu form when addressing me from now on. You've passed the one-year mark at PD, so I think it's time.

Suaveness
09-06-2008, 10:28 PM
Catch Me If You Can

Bourne Ultimatum

Unclebuck
09-08-2008, 03:11 PM
Gone, Baby Gone That was good baby good. I really liked it.

Peck
09-10-2008, 04:56 AM
Tropic Thunder.

Better than the usual Stiller swill. Tom Cruise and Robert Downy Jr. make that film.

Shade
09-10-2008, 09:23 PM
"I got mind control over Deebo. He be like 'Shut the !@#$ up!' I be quiet. But when he leaves...I be talkin' again."

Suaveness
09-11-2008, 12:30 AM
Austin Powers Goldmember

I actually liked it....unlike most people

Bball
09-11-2008, 01:25 AM
"21"

OK movie. Popcorn flick.

You might not learn to count cards from this but at least you can learn to increase your odds of picking the right door on Let's Make a Deal (if it ever makes a comeback).

-Bball

ilive4sports
09-11-2008, 01:55 AM
"21"

OK movie. Popcorn flick.

You might not learn to count cards from this but at least you can learn to increase your odds of picking the right door on Let's Make a Deal (if it ever makes a comeback).

-Bball

Funny you say that because I was starting to pick up how to count cards throughout the movie.

I watched Ghostbusters 1 and 2 today as they where on tv while i was doing some homework and my roommate put it on. Classic movies right there.

N8R
09-13-2008, 12:17 AM
Iron Man

Watched the first hour then stopped to watch an episode and a half of The Wire

N8R
09-15-2008, 07:56 PM
Iron Man

Finished this up. Such a good movie.

Charlie Bartlett

My parents had rented it so I took a look at it. One of the somewhat main characters went to my public and high school so it was cool to see her in the movie. It was an alright movie but the main actor bothered me.

Shade
09-16-2008, 08:44 PM
I cannot wait for Iron Man to hit video in a couple weeks.

I picked up Transformers on Blu-Ray, but haven't watched it yet (the Blu-Ray, not the movie).

Hicks
09-16-2008, 10:17 PM
Just watched bits of Batman Begins on BD and the opening scene of The Dark Knight in BD as well. Beautiful.

Shade
09-16-2008, 10:22 PM
Yup, it sure is. Can't wait for TDK, either.

Hicks
09-16-2008, 10:25 PM
Yeah. I'm definitely buying that ASAP. I'm playing it conservative with most movies right now. Rather than spend $28 times however many movies on stuff I can own, I just put down $8 to increase my Netflix from 1 to 3 discs at a time for now through mid-October to get my BD fix now that I've taken the plunge.

I want to save purchases for stuff I know I REALLY want, such as, again, TDK.

Shade
09-16-2008, 10:28 PM
Yeah, for Blu-Rays especially, I have to be somewhat picky, unless I get them cheap (like Fantastic Four 1 & 2). I have 11 BR's right now. Will be at least 13 by the end of the year with the additions of IM and TDK.

Suaveness
09-16-2008, 10:35 PM
Saw Tropic Thunder this weekend. Pretty damn funny.

MrSparko
09-16-2008, 10:42 PM
Little Miss Sunshine

Good thing I've already seen it, as I missed most of it what with a latino fire next to me.

efx
09-17-2008, 08:12 AM
Wall-E which now is my favorite pixar movie.

bellisimo
09-17-2008, 08:51 AM
Wall-E which now is my favorite pixar movie.

it was definitely something alright - can't wait to watch it again. :)

N8R
09-18-2008, 10:51 AM
The Incredible Hulk

Now I do not know much about the Hulk character as I dont know much about most comic book characters so i would have liked more of the how he became hulk side of things. There was some of it but for me not enough. The movie also seemed very short. I hope this franchise with Edward Norton will continue. I didnt see the other version from a few years ago so i cant compare the two, but this one was worth the watch.

I liked the very last sequence before the credits the best. You have to watch it to know.

DisplacedKnick
09-19-2008, 07:35 PM
Gone Baby Gone - saw the first wolf in sheep's clothing early, not the second.

Though I kept waiting for Monaghan's character to do something. Lassie could have played that role for all the depth it had. What was she there for - to jump into a quarry? On second thought, Lassie could have done that - in fact, if Timmy had fallen in, I'm fairly certain she would have. Still a good show. Kept moving and lots of good twists.

Hoop
09-19-2008, 11:14 PM
IRON MAN

I liked it! I wasn't expecting it to be very good. I'm looking forward to the sequel now.