What was the last movie you watched?

[RoninFox]

Yeah, but for a movie (especially one going for a more "gritty realistic" feel), it felt out of place.

Which reminds me, I still need to the The Raid, as that is supposed to be even better.

I don't know, it just made me think of a Clint Eastwood performance, which is apparently one the inspirations for the character.  It was kind of futuristic Dirty Harry.

[RoninFox]

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I liked it

...very much.

[Darth Geek]

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I liked it

...very much.

More than bootblacking?

[lassieface]

We like it VERY MUCH!

[Tripe]

I wish The Worlds End had come out while I was doing A Levels; I could have written one hell of an essay for my Psychology or Sociology course work. The Psychology one would have likely been the stronger one though. Of course that was actually in the '90s so, you know.

[Johnny Unusual]

Needed a pick-me-up so I watched the Muppet Movie last night.  I will never stop loving this movie.  Also, no one ever needs to make an autobiography of Jim Henson, because this movie exists.

This is a long ass trailer:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/J5AiyZxKRJQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/J5AiyZxKRJQ</a>

Also, I forgot how great Steve Martin is as "Insolent Waiter".

"Would the gentleman care to smell the bottlecap?"

[Nunyerbiz]

Super 8

I liked it quite a bit... I thought things got a bit less interesting as the movie rolled along, with the 'save the girl from the monster' angle as the final act not quite pulling me in as the earlier material did... But it was well shot... Abrams lens flare aside... and well acted. The titular super 8 movie during the closing credits was great fun as well.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Super 8

I liked it quite a bit... I thought things got a bit less interesting as the movie rolled along, with the 'save the girl from the monster' angle as the final act not quite pulling me in as the earlier material did... But it was well shot... Abrams lens flare aside... and well acted. The titular super 8 movie during the closing credits was great fun as well.

The only Abrams movie I've liked.  And it also needed less lens flare.

The next one he did is the only Mission Impossible movie that isn't complete crap, so there are 2 from him I'll watch again.

If he would stick the stupid lens flare into transitional moments I wouldn't complain about it, but in Super8 he did it during the setup for the train wreck, at one point the flare completely obscures the girls face.  That particular one took me out of the movie for a second, since it is sudden moment of crappy cinematography, then you realize "oh, it's Abrams doing his stupid signature".

[Quantum Vagina]

I'm not a fan of Abrams. I don't think he's good at storytelling, and his "Mystery Box" garbage is annoying as hell. I quite honestly can't remember ANYTHING about ANY of his movies. They're inoffensive and they pass the time, and that's about as high praise as I can give to the man.

[RoninFox]

Super 8

I liked it quite a bit... I thought things got a bit less interesting as the movie rolled along, with the 'save the girl from the monster' angle as the final act not quite pulling me in as the earlier material did... But it was well shot... Abrams lens flare aside... and well acted. The titular super 8 movie during the closing credits was great fun as well.

The only Abrams movie I've liked.  And it also needed less lens flare.

The next one he did is the only Mission Impossible movie that isn't complete crap, so there are 2 from him I'll watch again.

If he would stick the stupid lens flare into transitional moments I wouldn't complain about it, but in Super8 he did it during the setup for the train wreck, at one point the flare completely obscures the girls face.  That particular one took me out of the movie for a second, since it is sudden moment of crappy cinematography, then you realize "oh, it's Abrams doing his stupid signature".

I think you're confusing Abrams with Brad Bird.  You're talking about Ghost Protocol right?  Or if you mean MI:III, that was a few years before Super 8.

[Sugar Ray Dodge]

I had to watch The Graduate for film class. I didn't think it was that great. But now that that class is over I can go back to watching nothing but RiffTrax and DC Animated Universe Movies...

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Super 8

I liked it quite a bit... I thought things got a bit less interesting as the movie rolled along, with the 'save the girl from the monster' angle as the final act not quite pulling me in as the earlier material did... But it was well shot... Abrams lens flare aside... and well acted. The titular super 8 movie during the closing credits was great fun as well.

The only Abrams movie I've liked.  And it also needed less lens flare.

The next one he did is the only Mission Impossible movie that isn't complete crap, so there are 2 from him I'll watch again.

If he would stick the stupid lens flare into transitional moments I wouldn't complain about it, but in Super8 he did it during the setup for the train wreck, at one point the flare completely obscures the girls face.  That particular one took me out of the movie for a second, since it is sudden moment of crappy cinematography, then you realize "oh, it's Abrams doing his stupid signature".

I think you're confusing Abrams with Brad Bird.  You're talking about Ghost Protocol right?  Or if you mean MI:III, that was a few years before Super 8.

It's listed as one of his movies, looking closer I see he was producer on Ghost Protocol, I guess that's why no lens flare...  So, movies he directed Super 8 would be the only one I've watched more than once.

[Edward J Grug III]

The lens flares just take you out of the movie, visually obscuring something that is by its very nature meant to be seen.   I see it as analogous to complaints about Bay's quick-cuts shaky-cam. If you can't show the audience what the fuck is going on, you're failing as a director.

It never does for me. I wonder if it would for you if you didn't go in thinking about them in the first place?

[Relaxing Dragon]

The lens flares just take you out of the movie, visually obscuring something that is by its very nature meant to be seen.   I see it as analogous to complaints about Bay's quick-cuts shaky-cam. If you can't show the audience what the fuck is going on, you're failing as a director.

It never does for me. I wonder if it would for you if you didn't go in thinking about them in the first place?

Yeah, I've honestly never had much of a problem with the whole lens flare thing in Abram's movies. I actually tend not to even notice them most of the time. This is one of those things people like to rag on him about, despite it not being that big a deal.

Abrams biggest problem is that he's a solid director who seems to insist on surrounding himself with some truly dreadful writers (or, in the case of Super 8, of wanting to make two different types of movies at once, and just ending up with a tone all over the map). And also his whole Mystery Box compulsion, but that's another matter.

[Pak-Man]

I only noticed the Abrams lens flare thing retroactively. I enjoyed his movies, someone pointed that out, I enjoyed them again, but sure enough, there it was. It's a very brief, momentary thing, but after you see it, you can't stop seeing it. I don't mind it too much, but I wish nobody had ever brought it up.