Last Movie you Watched?

Sharky wrote:

I hated it. As clinical and inhuman as a trip to the dentists.

It's new. People liked it. Therefore, Sharky hates it.

Anyways, I watched LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA

Haven't seen it in ages, sat down with some friends who hadn't seen it and had a blast. Haven't laughed so hard in ages.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I hated it. As clinical and inhuman as a trip to the dentists.

It's new. People liked it. Therefore, Sharky hates it.

Anyways, I watched LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA

Haven't seen it in ages, sat down with some friends who hadn't seen it and had a blast. Haven't laughed so hard in ages.

I tried watching it again, but I can't get past the fact that I'd rather laugh at the movies it's spoofing. Because that's genuine camp, schlock, and poor quality acting, not ironic stuff.

Gunga Din (1939)

AKA: INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM BLACK-FACED BLACKLISTED JAFFE

Meh, I wasn't really captivated by it. And while I'm not PC, it's not really aged all that greatly. As much as I'm annoyed by the "White man gets his comeuppance" formula I'm also usually annoyed by the "wide-eyed infantile pet native" thing.

I wasn't even that impressed by Cary Grant. I liked Victor McLaglen in it more.

Makes me wanna watch ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS again. That's a Grant 1939 adventure film that I love.

Sharky wrote:

I hated it. As clinical and inhuman as a trip to the dentists.

You've obviously never been to a dentist in Wales.

Inhuman? Yes, of course, (it's Wales), but clinical? No.

'This is for Owain Glyndŵr!'

*snap*

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

Out of the Past

Recorded this too from TV, and now I could finally watch the dubbed version. :D

Dubbed?

As opposed to original/American version.
I had only been able to watch it on a DVD import with subtitles, which made it harder to understand. On TV, naturally, they showed the dubbed version, which I could understand easily, which in turn made the experience much more rewarding.
When a film is new to me, I prefer watching it dubbed, so I can easily understand it, even if the actors' abilities to use their voice, and some of the potential play on words from the original may be lost. On later viewings, I may turn to the original (English - because I wouldn't get anything from a film in another language, even French, which I've learned, but fail to understand when spoken (fast)) version.
In other words: I'm not a native English speaker. :)

Re: Loomis's delusions about BLUE VALENTINE. The BEFORE/AFTER SUNSET flicks are exactly what this film reminded me of. No spirituality, no warmth, no soul, just carnal desires under cold blue lighting. A romantic drama for hipsters, except without the romance.

If this is supposed to be true love, then I'd rather have Santa bite my cock off.

the things expected of Santa. For England, Santa.

For money, Hilly. Santa is fully Baker St accredited.

Independence Day (for Judd Hirsch weirdly), Quantum and then Vanishing Point

been a fan of Newman's for a while mainly for Petrocelli and on that basis is good to see him starring in a film but Vanishing Point is much more than that of course. Strip away all the meanings and what have you it's a straight up car chase movie. Plain bitchin

Sharky wrote:

If this is supposed to be true love, then I'd rather have Santa bite my cock off.

Who says BLUE VALENTINE is giving us a picture of "true love"?

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

If this is supposed to be true love, then I'd rather have Santa bite my cock off.

Who says BLUE VALENTINE is giving us a picture of "true love"?

Loomis.

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Who says BLUE VALENTINE is giving us a picture of "true love"?

Loomis.

Um, he doesn't even use the word "love" once in his comments. He does say BLUE VALENTINE has truth and humanity, but that's not the same as saying it's a picture of "true love."

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Who says BLUE VALENTINE is giving us a picture of "true love"?

Loomis.

Um, he doesn't even use the word "love" once in his comments. He does say BLUE VALENTINE has truth and humanity, but that's not the same as saying it's a picture of "true love."

Yeah, I thought the point of BLUE VALENTINE was showing how what can seem to be a "loving" relationship can totally fall apart because people are awful. It's not so much romantic as it is supposed to be tragic. It's a bit depressing and cynical for my tastes, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "inhuman" for that.

Sharky wrote:

Re: Loomis's delusions about BLUE VALENTINE. The BEFORE/AFTER SUNSET flicks are exactly what this film reminded me of. No spirituality, no warmth, no soul, just carnal desires under cold blue lighting. A romantic drama for hipsters, except without the romance.

If this is supposed to be true love, then I'd rather have Santa bite my cock off.

It's also littered with bad cinematography.

Who has bigger tits? Gosling or Williams?

Nobody shoots well anymore. Good cinematography is so rare, most films are all monochromatic and dreary. If it's not all grey-toned than it's blue-toned. Or it's an Abrams movie and covered in shit and lensflare. I mean, I liked the cinematography in DRIVE but I know I'll get pelted by eggs for saying it here, since everyone here has adopted the "grumbling old man" persona of film critique.

Underworld Awakening.

6/10....needed another 20 minutes or so, this one was over like in 75 minutes....there is a bit on an interesting premise, a good car chase, but you're still left wondering about Michael. And oh yeah, Selene is now a mom too. The way it ended, another chapter is more or less ensured...

Harmsway wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I mean, I liked the cinematography in DRIVE but I know I'll get pelted by eggs for saying it here, since everyone here has adopted the "grumbling old man" persona of film critique.

It's Count Nimoycula.

Arise, Sir Christopher Lee.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It's a bit depressing and cynical for my tastes, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "inhuman" for that.

^

This.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Yeah, I thought the point of BLUE VALENTINE was showing how what can seem to be a "loving" relationship can totally fall apart because people are awful.

Uh, kinda, although I'd modify that to "what can seem to be a 'loving' relationship can totally fall apart because people are people" (to quote Depeche Mode) - I mean, I don't think we're supposed to consider Gosling and/or Williams as awful people. They may behave awfully from time to time, and make awful decisions, but, hey, they're human (not to mention a lot more believable and engaging as characters than the couples in, say, EYES WIDE SHUT or (500) DAYS OF SUMMER - haven't seen BEFORE SUNRISE or BEFORE SUNSET). Judging them seems to miss the point (not that I think you're judging them, Fairbairn-Sykes, but just sayin'). The point of BLUE VALENTINE, as I understood it, is to be a fly-on-the-wall, warts-and-all portrait of a relationship, and it's definitely a film to which the viewer brings his or her own baggage. There's no deeper meaning or significance to the film than that, really.

That's probably Sharky's problem, then. Films need to be contributing something meaningful to society, based on his definition of meaningful, in order to be worthwhile as a whole to him.

It's not about society, it's about art.

Well, at one point you declared art was only valuable if it contributed meaningfully to society. I think it was in an argument about violence in cinema.

SHOOTER. Dreadful. How do these things turn out quite so cookie-cutter? You'd have thought that the writers and directors would want to put in some original or eccentric elements out of sheer boredom if nothing else.

Loomis wrote:

SHOOTER. Dreadful. How do these things turn out quite so cookie-cutter? You'd have thought that the writers and directors would want to put in some original or eccentric elements out of sheer boredom if nothing else.

When I first read the plot synopsis to SHOOTER I thought: "Hmmm...that sounds very similar to the best selling book POINT OF IMPACT by Stephen Hunter." Then when I looked at the bottom of the one-sheet it said in small print "Based upon the novel POINT OF IMPACT by Stephen Hunter." I should have known from the fact that they were burying their link to the novel (and made no effort to reach out to fans of the book or even publicize the fact that the book was being adapted) that they weren't really going to attempt to be faithful to the book, and that's usually where a film project starts to go wrong.

In the book Swagger is the best marksman in The West, a record of kills only matched by his opposite from the Soviet Union who also happens to be caught up in this assassination plot (and is inferred in the book as the true killer of John F. Kennedy). All of that good stuff from the book got gutted for the movie.

SHOOTER was decent, but if you want a truly gripping story go read the book.