Jump to content


Photo

Last movie you watched?


  • Please log in to reply
3471 replies to this topic

#3461 Hundley

Hundley

    Try not to defecate while being waterboarded.

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12430 posts
  • LocationThe Zone

Posted 31 March 2014 - 01:18 AM

Watched this movie The Reader. It is another stupid nazi story.

 

It is a great movie if you want/need to see 30 minutes of nazi child rape. If you are not in need of therapy, however, and this doesn't do it for you, then this is a movie to avoid.

 

I'm going to salvage this post though and just say that if you can track down the QB VII miniseries, you should do it. Saw it a couple months ago, and I'm not really aware of a better piece of television drama from the past 40 years. It's insanely good. Sometimes corny, sometimes slow, occasionally frivolous, but on the whole genuinely good stuff. Great fucking ending, makes you just hurt. The goals of the story are very similar to that of The Reader, with the big difference that QB VII does not burn a solid third of its total running time trying to glamorize child rape.

 

So I mention it because it's another stupid nazi story, much like how The Reader is another stupid nazi story, except with QB VII you can pretty much just watch that and never need to watch another stupid fucking nazi movie again. I highly suggest everyone do this if they can track down this impossible-to-find miniseries. These cocksucker filmmakers do not seem anywhere close to giving up raping the holocaust for more cheap oscars, but after watching QB VII you can really safely ignore these stupid nazi stories and never need to worry about burning a good saturday evening on another stupid fucking nazi movie that you don't need in your life.


reality69.gif

#3462 Massy2k6

Massy2k6

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1255 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 10 April 2014 - 10:16 AM

Watched Highlander, saw it as a child and never picked up how cheesy it was until now. But a good type of cheesy, plus the soundtrack with Queen made it just so enjoyable.


76561198001038774.png


#3463 bonzi_buddy

bonzi_buddy

    Kaiser

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2933 posts
  • Locationswimming, with my obv. blue towel on my neck

Posted 11 April 2014 - 05:36 AM

the good bit in hilandr is the climax when the stupid mainhero is supposed to quip (is this movie influenced or has influenced videogames?? beat em ups...) THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE after downin the main bad guy but it comes out off-sync and his voice is kinda weird and RIGHT AFTER KABOOM CRASH dramatic glass shattering etc. but yeah just pointing out that scene, it's pr influental... fluental... fluent... flute. flu. fl. f. . .. ...

 

also 

 

So I mention it because it's another stupid nazi story, much like how The Reader is another stupid nazi story, except with QB VII you can pretty much just watch that and never need to watch another stupid fucking nazi movie again. I highly suggest everyone do this if they can track down this impossible-to-find miniseries. These cocksucker filmmakers do not seem anywhere close to giving up raping the holocaust for more cheap oscars, but after watching QB VII you can really safely ignore these stupid nazi stories and never need to worry about burning a good saturday evening on another stupid fucking nazi movie that you don't need in your life.

have you considered a career in marketing hundley?? what a fucking selling line/u could sell a purulent kidnapped kid to a honest-to-god american AND HE'LL THANK Y O U WITH TEARS.



#3464 Hundley

Hundley

    Try not to defecate while being waterboarded.

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12430 posts
  • LocationThe Zone

Posted 18 November 2014 - 02:23 AM

biump

 

Watched this Interstellar movie that we are supposed to care about. It is 2001: A Space Odyssey as told by an idiot.

 

One cool thing about it, though: The sound mixing is designed in a way where you can't make out what anybody is saying for large chunks of time. The director has stated that this is intentional, as he desired the focus to be more on the visual elements. This would have been a cool idea if the performances were visually interesting(they aren't), or if anything about the special effects or Nolan's filmmaking were interesting or expressive or the slightest bit informative of anything beyond Nolan's admiration of better films than ones he's capable of making. So what's left is a movie with an ambitious(and, allegedly, academically accurate) scientific basis that is deliberately obscured in favor of the director's fondness for the uninteresting performances of his actors, his dull action sequences, and shots he stole from Stanley Kubrick.

 

Normally, this is an unforgivable aesthetic element, as it has absolutely no stylistic function within the movie beyond adding a purely sensory level of ambiguity to the experience, in the form of not being able to tell what anybody is saying half the time. The perk of this is that you are not going to hear what people are saying half the time. This is a major plus to the experience, as the writing in this film is an embarrassing collection of plot holes, nauseating cliches, and unconvincingly idiotic and impulsive characters.

 

They have claimed that the science in this film is accurate, but by the time you reach that point in the film, you are already fully prepared to see mankind get wiped out and the universe be relieved of one of its great sources of arrogance and stupidity. I do not care that the screenwriter spent some time at a university somewhere studying with some bald fuck who has his own wikipedia article. At my university's library they had a collection of screenplays. Good ones, in fact, all collected in a dusty old book that nobody had picked up for a decade. And I went to some out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere university that nobody gives a fuck about. I'm sure they had screenplays at whatever the fuck important university that guy went to. It is my opinion as an educated person that the film's screenwriter was studying the wrong thing at that university.

 

So this is a movie I highly recommend if you want to see a really stupid, unpleasantly emotional version of 2001, or have found that you have an unrealistic level of respect for Christopher Nolan and want to see proof that he isn't very good at what he does.


reality69.gif

#3465 jamie

jamie

    ruined former youth seeking atonement

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8244 posts

Posted 18 November 2014 - 06:57 AM

biump

 

Watched this Interstellar movie that we are supposed to care about. It is 2001: A Space Odyssey as told by an idiot.

 

One cool thing about it, though: The sound mixing is designed in a way where you can't make out what anybody is saying for large chunks of time. The director has stated that this is intentional, as he desired the focus to be more on the visual elements. This would have been a cool idea if the performances were visually interesting(they aren't), or if anything about the special effects or Nolan's filmmaking were interesting or expressive or the slightest bit informative of anything beyond Nolan's admiration of better films than ones he's capable of making. So what's left is a movie with an ambitious(and, allegedly, academically accurate) scientific basis that is deliberately obscured in favor of the director's fondness for the uninteresting performances of his actors, his dull action sequences, and shots he stole from Stanley Kubrick.

 

Normally, this is an unforgivable aesthetic element, as it has absolutely no stylistic function within the movie beyond adding a purely sensory level of ambiguity to the experience, in the form of not being able to tell what anybody is saying half the time. The perk of this is that you are not going to hear what people are saying half the time. This is a major plus to the experience, as the writing in this film is an embarrassing collection of plot holes, nauseating cliches, and unconvincingly idiotic and impulsive characters.

 

They have claimed that the science in this film is accurate, but by the time you reach that point in the film, you are already fully prepared to see mankind get wiped out and the universe be relieved of one of its great sources of arrogance and stupidity. I do not care that the screenwriter spent some time at a university somewhere studying with some bald fuck who has his own wikipedia article. At my university's library they had a collection of screenplays. Good ones, in fact, all collected in a dusty old book that nobody had picked up for a decade. And I went to some out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere university that nobody gives a fuck about. I'm sure they had screenplays at whatever the fuck important university that guy went to. It is my opinion as an educated person that the film's screenwriter was studying the wrong thing at that university.

 

So this is a movie I highly recommend if you want to see a really stupid, unpleasantly emotional version of 2001, or have found that you have an unrealistic level of respect for Christopher Nolan and want to see proof that he isn't very good at what he does.

 

I also saw Interstellar last week.

 

The main thing I enjoyed in the film was the music and sound design. Since 12 Years A Slave I decided Hans Zimmer was a hack who just pastes the same themes and motifs into completely different movies, but obviously he's done a lot more than that in his career and I'm just being a motherfucker. In this film I liked his music, it's good Hollywood adventure stuff. So I was totally into getting taken away by the music during the sequences of intensity and wonder.

 

There are some things people say about Christopher Nolan that I don't agree with. One is that he's a 'cerebral' filmmaker, which is probably meant in repsonse to the criticism that his movies are more about plot than character. I don't think he is cerebral - his movies are all pretty nonsensical high concept stuff, and I would be up for that if I thought he handled his concepts well, but he treats them with such a lack of imagination. Conceptually and visually. Inception was about fucking dreams, the possibilities are endless! What could be explored when it comes to real people probing into the subconscious of others? Well, in this dream level there is a James Bond action scene. In this level there is a boring skyscraper lobby. The only thing Inception does visually which is interesting is the dimension warping effect, which he reuses in Interstellar. In Interstellar humanity is going to the far reaches of the universe, the possibilities are similarly limitless. So on this planet there is a big wave. On this other planet there is a lot of ice. And then there's one which just looks like a Californian desert. That's what deep space planets are like. Visually the guy has nothing going on. He doesn't direct in an interesting way, I can barely pick out a single shot which I'd say was well composed. He directs in a very flat and perfunctory way.

 

The stuff about how his films don't focus on character. Well, more than any other, Interstellar does, and it really shows that The Nolan Bros don't really know how to write interesting characters or even good dialogue beyond a couple of trailer phrases like 'humanity was born on this planet, it was never meant to die here' (which you know, is good trailer jank but it's still not great writing). In Interstellar you've got a bunch of characters with the most rote inner conflicts a writer could muster. 'Coop' the swashbuckling American space pilot misses his daughter. Brand the aloof but brilliant scientist is going into space in search of her love. Then you've got bullshit like Matt Damon has gone nuts and wants to kill everyone so he can escape so the film can spend some time on an astronaut fistfight scene, you've got Michael Caine reciting do not go gentle into that good night like 5 fucking times (this is how the Nolan bros establish theme - take a piece of something else which is very loosely relevant to their film (dying is bad) and hammer at it endlessly), you've got Casey Affleck who won't leave his poison farm because he grew up there or something. It's an emotional film written by a couple of robots who just imitate stock characters and emotions they must have seen in other movies or something because none of it feels remotely genuine.

 

I have more to say but I've run myself down at the moment, just woke up. I find Nolan's positioning as the top director to be really weird. I don't think he's very good.



#3466 pineappo

pineappo

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationDendy dungeon

Posted 31 January 2017 - 09:02 AM

Word of advice: Don't watch Raggedy Ann: A Musical Adventure (1977). Its overbearing air of serenity and its frightening lead character's disturbing cloy made me cry and I had to turn it off less than ten minutes in. This was about ten minutes ago. Even when I was a child I feared Raggedy Ann. As for the film, I understand that when it is not horrifying, it is tedious.

 

Thus goes the 70s OST-driven children's film. The Point and Hugo the Hippo swim irresistibly to mind. Also beautiful but uncomfortable. What the hell was up with the 70s? I suppose at the turn of the 80s when Ashes to Ashes came out it cast a beam that made everyone realize what kids like is dinobots, mutants, and slime. And Judas Priest



#3467 hukt own fonikz

hukt own fonikz

    Stay Awake. Stay Alive. Read.

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 08:00 PM

Well, I had written out a good little paragraph defending why I like Christopher Nolan, but I hit F12 in Chrome and for some reason that made the entire website go away (and I can't recreate the problem now either.) Mainly, I just enjoy the visual effects and the distinct lack of CGI. Also I thought he did a phenomenal job with the Batman series, especially with the intensity of the second one. His latest movies have been interesting enough. Then again I very rarely watch movies if the MST3K/Rifftrax guys aren't talking over them, so I don't really have the experience to know a good movie when I see one.


cACqhOA.gif


#3468 Unguided

Unguided

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:28 AM

Watched Starship Troopers again. People contrast it with Star Trek all the time because it's intentionally full of parallels, but when you think about it there's actually zero difference between the utopian Federation and the fascist society of Troopers. People who are bored, want to feel important or are curious about the universe are encouraged to join Starfleet where they're either killed off by unknown lifeforms or destroyed by outdated equipment (exploding consoles and Miranda class starships for example, also holodeck failures). People who are unruly, consider the post-scarcity economy decadent or want to have undeserved power tend to leave the borders of Federation space and establish colonies and if they aren't killed by unlivable conditions on the settled planet or attacked by another spacefaring race (remember the Gorn episode or how the Maquis were technically in Cardassian space?) the rest of the Federation decides it's safe and the old way of life the settlers were trying to escape moves in, it's basically a form of gentrification.

The only thing that makes Starship Troopers any different is it's unabashedly honest about being a fascist state, the Federation lies to itself, claiming to be above that sort of thing, yet they have secret police in Section 31 and even their best captains violate the prime directive and treaties as it suits them. Kirk, Picard and Janeway have put the needs of their crew before their duty to uphold the Federation's ideals time and again. Especially Janeway, the whole Voyager series finale was a massive breach of the temporal prime directive. That's kind of why Starship Troopers works so well as a parody of sci-fi shows, it's not afraid to admit its heroes are brainwashed drones complacent in war crimes.

#3469 Swordfish

Swordfish

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2896 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 01:13 PM

Sorry but personally 'The martian' > Interstellar.

 

It genuinely had me rooting for the main character the whole way through and I just felt like it was a better film, obviously this is subjective.

 

I don't actually remember what was the last film I saw... might have been 'sing'?

I enjoyed it, but then i'm easily amused.

 

Oh and whenever I watch 'Starship Troopers' I always enjoy it but only the first one, the other two are just kinda... blech by comparison.



#3470 Apocryphal Chips

Apocryphal Chips

    I don't really like lots of stuff

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6637 posts
  • Locationcrab nebula

Posted 09 May 2017 - 12:14 AM

Thanks for the bump Brown! Now I'm prompted to write about the stupid movie I watched last night and that my brain made me ruminate against my will all day today

 

I watched Small Crimes, the recent(?) big netflix movie. I don't know why the person I was watching it with wanted to see it besides a general interest in crime murder stuff, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

I think the cool thing the movie tries to do is start off as a badazz getting outta prison and getting back in the new world for one last job kind of thing, but SPOILERS everything turns south and it's slowly and ham-fistedly revealed that the supposed badazz main character is actually a narcissist who has habitually been ruining his family and friends' lives. Unfortunately the badazz part was actually kind of better (for what little worth a whole movie of that would be), and it just gets tedious when things start to spiral downhill in a very standard way, dashed with the vogue shock-horror used more effectively by the coens and even tarantino. Then the movie gets the bad end where I guess you were supposed to be expecting the hero good end, with the lesson being, I guess, that the stock narcissistic badazz hero character who lies and manipulates, doesn't end up getting his way this time, and tons of people suffer from his actions. I mean, I think. It's all kind of muddy and not very well articulated.

 

But, like, that's already a ton of movies, particularly by those directors. Fargo and No Country For Old Men at the very least a little interesting. This is just an unnecessary movie that left me feeling like I just read way too much into a nasty local news article. But it has perfectly fine acting and whatever, so I guess it's useful to people who constantly need to pump their head with media, or maybe even appealing to people who never heard of those other films or have encountered anything with that pretty well-tread subject. Kind of the same situation as stranger things. Super-accessible repackaged media for the streaming generation. Actually, that's a lot of popular streaming music I hear these days too.

 

Apparently the book it was adapted from taps into more of a small town/city claustrophobic horror, which in hindsight and only after reading about this, I suppose the movie half-heartedly portrays. Maybe the setting didn't particularly stand out to me because I grew up outside similar small towns. Still felt like it could have been LA or anywhere else to me, though.



#3471 Ragnar

Ragnar

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10689 posts
  • Location[color=red][size=25pt][B]??????[/B][/size][/color]

Posted 09 May 2017 - 06:46 PM

haha re: christopher nolan movies i recently was in a situation where i had no option but to watch tv and jupiter ascending was on. The movie was probably horrible but the wachowskis at least enjoy color and like visuals and stuff (hi i'm christopher nolan i decided to direct movies even though nothing interests me visually) I know nolan is partially colorblind or something but that just seems like an excuse maybe for dull color schemes. sure everything in the wachowskis' movies ends up looking like psytrance album art but at least it concedes to/exudes some kind of style, you know what i mean

 

saikro-human-transmutation.jpg

 

most inspiring image that inspired wachowskis to direct stuff

 

Edit: not saying the wacowskis are even good directors, just at least they seem to enjoy what they do and it sort of captures what it's like to be a stupid teenager or SOMETHING. like the x-files captures the 90s so well for what it's worth even though chris carter is probably some alex jones-watching douchebag in real life. I think it at least says something when you understand worthless dumb style of certain time period??? Like again about psytrance album covers, at least they're sort of endearing to some extent while inception style is just weird and colorless and worthless?



#3472 Frasher

Frasher

    Newbie

  • Salty Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:48 PM

The last movie I watched was What Happened to Monday. A nice little sci-fi movie focused on a cool story.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users