login

Author Topic: What was the last movie you watched?  (Read 1267301 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Russoguru

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1347
  • Liked: 67
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17460 on: September 10, 2017, 03:52:39 PM »
Went to see Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan on the big screen today. Holy shit it was magnificent. There's nothing like seeing something so intense and engaging on the big screen.


Offline stethacantus

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 17
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17461 on: September 10, 2017, 10:34:31 PM »
Eagle Eye ( 2008 )
The next movie Spielberg directed was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ( 2008 ). But as this marathon was just the films I have just added to my library, and I bought the DVD for this movie somewhere around 2010, it is another film I am skipping. Still, I still think this movie is worthy of discussion. I thought it was a solid action film, the only flaw being that some of the action was shot safely on a soundstage with CGI effects ( and possibly CGI stunt people with the faces of the characters ) which is not as thrilling as having an actor ( or stunt person ) pull off the stunts for real. When it comes to CGI there is a learning curve that is still curving. ( For example, the CGI Spiderman in the MCU films looks way more convincing than the CGI Spiderman in the Marc Webb films, which in turn looks way, way, way more convincing than the CGI Spiderman in the Sam Raimi films. ) In 2008 CGI had not advanced enough that when used in action sequences you felt like the character was in danger. Fortunately Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a lot of action scenes shot using old fashioned stuntwork. But even if I was not buying that CGI Shai LaBeouf was swinging through the trees like Tarzan, Or that Indiana was in threat of the CGI temple collapsing on him, I still found the movie thrilling. Which is why I am amazed when people describe this movie as terrible. I can understand them thinking it was not as strong as the other films, but calling it a bad film is taking things to extremes.

Here is some of the criticism from one of my close friends:
"It had aliens! Indiana Jones is not about aliens. It is about supernatural artifacts."
I didn't realize that was suppose to be a rule. Indiana Jones was based on the serials made between the 1920s and 1950s, some of which had supernatural artifacts as the MacGuffin, but most which were science fiction. The whole point of the MacGuffin in an Indana Jones movie is that it A] has some sort of power. B] is something the evil bad guys want. And C] could cause a lot of damage if it fell into the wrong hands. Basically, just creating a motive for Indiana to risk his life trying to keep the artifact from the bad guys. It should not matter if the artifact came from God or E.T.
"Giving Indiana a
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
was stupid"
But you do realize that the film had aliens. And every film Spielberg did about aliens involved broken families. Close Encounters.. was about a father abandoning his family. E.T. was about children learning to cope with their parents divorce. War of the Worlds was about a divorced father returning his children safely to their mother. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull closed the circle, with an absentee father reuniting with his estranged family. If there are aliens, then the movie is about Spielberg coping with his own parents divorce.
"Surviving a nuclear bomb by hiding in a fridge was stupid. No one could do that!"
Or as other disgruntled fans began calling it,  "Nuke the fridge", a sort of cinematic version of "Jump the shark". Except, this assumes that Indiana never did anything impossible in the past, like jumping out of a plane in an inflatable raft, or hanging on to the perescope of a moving U-Boat for hundreds of miles without freezing nor drowning. As it turns out, taking shelter in a 1950s refrigerator is one of the few things in the series that is possible. During the bomb tests in the 1950s it was discovered that the contents of a lead lined refrigerator not only survived the blast, but were shielded from most of the radiation.

Nit picking aside, I have seen many a franchise drop in quality with each new installment. I have seen terrible sequels. This is not the case with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If you want to see a film series go to hell, then try watching the Jaws films. Jaws 3D is what an awful film looks like. Jaws: The Revenge is ten times worse. Next time you feel like complaining about the Star Wars prequels or Indiana Jones sequels, just remember the last two Jaws films as an example of what a ruined franchise really looks like.

Which brings us to Eagle Eye. It was suppose to be Spielberg's next film after Munich, based on an idea he had which screen writer Dan McDdermott turned into a script. After a few more rewrites it went into pre-production with Spielberg attached as director. But then the pre-production of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull got a bit more complicated. Realizing he could not direct both films, Spielberg gave Eagle Eye to another director. ( Like he was going to give away the Indiana Jones film. ) This is the only film I have watched in the Spielberg marathon that I know nothing about. Every other film I either have seen before, or have seen and remembered the promotional blitz, so at least I had some sort of idea what the film would be about. I decided to purposely not read anything about the movie before seeing it, not even reading the back of the box the DVD came in. Fortunately the box cover showed nothing but close ups of the two lead characters giving no clue to what sort of film was inside other than it was not a comedy. After watching the film, I did a little research. There was a trailer, which I just barely remembered. It looked identical to so many other action films from the same decade, no wonder I could not remember it. Apparently it opened up at #1 at the box office. This probably had more to do with Shia Labeouf being the star than any promotion. At the time Shia was Spielbergs golden boy, not just starring in this film and the Indiana Jones film, but as the lead human in the Transformer series. ( The Transformer films, not in my marathon because as far as I can tell, they were among the films Spielberg rubber stamped but never actually participated in. ) And then he f*&ked it all up by bad mouthing Spielberg in the press. Now he is no longer in the Transformer movies, and I hear the next Indiana Jones film will open at his character's funeral. ( The character that was suppose to take over the franchise once they decided Harrison Ford was too old to make any more. ) Eagle Eye stayed in the top ten for seven weeks, Being pulled from theaters 15 weeks later.  A respectable run. But as I said, not well promoted, and the trailer is a bit generic, so for me flashed under the radar.

There is something refreshing about watching a film I know nothing about. Hollywood is kookoo. They will go out of their way to keep a film a secret, threatening to end the careers of actors who let any details slip in interviews, only handing out the pages of the script to an actor that has his lines, keeping the soundstage on high security lockdown, etc.  And then two weeks before the film is released, they will saturate the media with trailers that give everything away. Before you have a chance to see the film you will have seen every funny joke, every spectacular stunt, and know the basic plot from beginning to end. They may keep a couple of details secret, like the death of a major character, or which good guy turns traitor, but by the time you are watching the film you feel like you have already seen it, except for the boring talky scenes. Because I did not remember the trailer for Eagle Eye I got to watch the film without any of the regular deja vu I get with other films. So I will not spoil anything here except for the set up. Shia LaBeouf is a regular guy who one day finds himself framed as a terrorist, on the run from the law, and being forced to go on a mission for the people who set him up. And I do not want to say anything more than that. I do want to say that the villain of this film seems to have been the inspiration for a favorite television series of mine that was recently cancelled. LaBeouf's character's last name is even the same as the last name of a character from the television series, who was the last character on screen when the last episode ended. ( Too cryptic? If you watched that series and have seen this film then you will know what I am talking about. And you will know that if I say any more, I will spoil both the movie and the series. ) Eagle Eye works like a good thriller. The action scenes could have been better, but were acceptable. Some plot points are easy to figure out early on in the movie, but others remain a mystery until the final act when the villain's plot is fully revealed. At that point it becomes a race the clock thriller which is reminiscent of Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much. It's an entertaining film, but there isn't really worth recommending, unless you have nothing else to watch. Could Spielberg have been able to turn this into a better film had he directed? Who's to say. It was Spielberg's pre-production,  approved script and selected cast that director D. J. Caruso inherited. So how much different would it have been?


Police Story 2013 ( a.k.a. Police Story: Lockdown )
What a shock it was when Jackie Chan released the original Police Story in 1985. A couple of years earlier he had made Project A ( 1983 ), which was not just considered his masterpiece, but was crowned by several critics as the greatest action film ever made. And this was after Raiders of the Lost Ark ( 1981 ). Even for those who disagreed that Project A was the greatest action film of all time, they did consider it Chan's best, and doubted he could ever top it. At the time Chan's studio, Golden Harvest, wanted desperately to turn him into an international star as they had done with Bruce Lee a decade earlier. They were trying to get a foothold in Hollywood, and had already made Cannonball Run ( 1981 ), Megaforce ( 1982 ) and High Road to China ( 1983 ) with American casts and directors. Aside from starring in the first two Cannonball Run films, Golden Harvest put Jackie Chan in two co-productions with Warner Bros., The Big Brawl ( 1980 ) and The Protector ( 1985 ). Jackie hated both films.  Jackie came up with ideas for stunts and intricate fight choreography, but the American directors on both films decided the stunts and fights would be too much trouble and would put Jackie in unnecessary danger. Despite Warner Bros. insisting that both films had the style of action that Americans preferred, Jackie felt he was letting down his Asian fans who were use to far more action in his films. He specifically hated The Protector due to director James Glickenhause insisting it should be an R rated film and filled it with a lot of unnecessary nudity and foul language. Jackie insisted on reediting the movie and adding a few extra fight scenes. Golden Harvest released Chan's edit in Asia, while Warner Bros. preferred releasing Glickenhause's final cut. Still feeling his edit of The Protector was a weak film, Jackie vowed to make a better police drama. In less than five months he made Police Story, releasing it the same year.

Police Story did what everyone though would be impossible. It topped Project A. In the years that followed Jackie would make a number of other great action films, including three sequels to Police Story which included Super Cop ( 1992 ) and First Strike ( 1996 ). None of them topped the first Police Story, but they came close. Jackie eventually stopped making Police Story films when he once again began making Hollywood films, including Shanghai Noon ( 2000 ) and the Rush Hour series. Also, he was convinced he was ready to retire from making action films as he was then in his late 40s. Nearly a decade later Jackie was still making action films, and decided to make another installment in the Police Story series. New Police Story ( 2004 ) was a departure as Jackie would not be playing the same character from the first four films. It was also more of a drama with much of the film being about Chan's character recovering from alcoholism. While New Police Story was suppose to be a reboot, it would be nearly another decade before Chan made another Police Story film.

Police Story 2013 has Chan playing yet another cop, this time a detective in mainland China. It opens with a shock. Chan is seen lifting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger, committing suicide. The film then cuts back to earlier that day. Chan goes to a nightclub to meet his estranged daughter. While arguing with her, he is surprised to see a lot of familiar faces. The club turns out to be a trap by the owner, and Chan and the rest of the patrons find themselves being held hostage, some of which were also lured there that night and turn out to be witnesses to a former case. Most of the film is a hostage drama that takes place either in the same club set, or in the outside streets. There are a couple of fights, both where the club owner invites Jackie to fight one of his henchmen. But it does not have any of the action from the previous Police Story films. Even New Police Story, while having far less action from the previous films, did have a good number of action scenes. Police Story 2013 is practically a play. A decent play, but not what one is hoping from a Police Story film. Of course it should be taken into consideration that Jackie Chan was nearly 60 years old when he made this film. While despite the threats, Chan is showing no sign of retiering yet ( He is currently about to film Shanghai Dawn ) he is probably no longer fit enough to film a lot of dangerous action scenes, or jump around the props during fights. We probably should be lucky Jackie did not retire back in 2000 as he said he would. But it is still a shame when we don't get the thrill ride we use to get from a Chan film.
 
Time Cop ( 1994 )
This was actually on the list of American Superhero Films found on Wikipedia. It is also among the films I was not so eager to add to my collection. The previous DVD release was just the pan-and-scan VHS master, so I avoided buying it. This new release is widescreen, on a two sided disc with Bloodsport for only $5. So basically, I got one superhero film and one martial arts film I will be watching next Saturday afternoon. Timecop, based on the Darkhorse comic book of the same name, was made the same year as The Crow, The Mask, The Shadow, Blankman and the unreleased Roger Corman's Fantastic Four, and is probably the least remembered of the bunch of them. It did spin off a television series on ABC that lasted 7 episodes, and a direct to video sequel, none of which had Jean-Claude Van Damme. The basic plot, in 1994 time travel has been invented. Realizing that time travelers can change the past which would change the present, the U.S. government creates a time police force that will go back in time whenever a historical anomaly is detected and prevent the rogue time traveler from changing anything. Meanwhile, police officer Van Damme is attacked by some mysterious men who shoot him ( but he is saved by his bullet proof vest ) and blow up his house, killing his wife. Ten years later, in the futuristic world of 2004 where everyone drives around in futuristic computerized cars, Van Damme is now a time cop. He discovers a plot by a powerful politician to turn himself rich by changing the past, and his attempts to expose him end up having that politician send a hit team to his past to kill him before he becomes a time cop. By the way, none of this can be considered spoilers because the movie telegraphs everything so that you figure out the entire story within the first fifteen minutes, and the rest of the movie is nothing more than confirmation. Okay, there is one plot twist I will not mention that is sort of a surprise, but it barely changes what you thought the movie would be about. It's a very thin plot for a very nothing film. While as usuall Van Damme does a few impressive things with his legs, including jumping into a mid air split and both legs landing on two counter tops, as usual the fight choreography is almost non existant, and the villains all seem to be better fighters than he is. Time Cop is not much of anything ( I don't even know why it counts as a Superhero film. ) but at an hour and a half is mercifully brief. I would say mildly entertaining ( for the sci-fi element ) and nothing more.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 10:24:44 AM by stethacantus »


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17462 on: September 12, 2017, 11:29:47 AM »
Stroszek (1977)



This was the third of Herzog's films I've watched in the last week.  The main character Bruno S is an alcoholic street musician who after getting out of prison in Berlin moves to Wisconsin with his two friends, one his elderly landlord and the other a neighborhood prostitute.  There they find things are much tougher than they were expecting as they struggle to live a better life.  This was a beautiful and interesting slice-of-life drama with a very tragic ending and features lots of non-actors.  I didn't enjoy this as much as the previous two Herzog films I watched recently but it was certainly an excellent story.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Kete

  • Dragon Ryder
  • ***
  • Posts: 6039
  • Liked: 3144
  • All joking a salad.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17463 on: September 15, 2017, 01:15:44 PM »
mother!

That escalated quickly


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17464 on: September 16, 2017, 09:28:40 AM »
Belladonna of Sadness (1973)



The beautiful artwork in this at times looks like it was painted with watercolors and there are some psychedelic sequences throughout.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17465 on: September 16, 2017, 09:35:25 AM »
Beware! The Blob (1972)



This low budget sequel is easily the worst of the blob films but also the most humorous some of which was probably unintentional. There's some bad acting but a couple fun cameos like Burgess Meredith and Dick Van Patten.  The special effects are laughable by today's standards but there are still some cool looking blob scenes.   If you've seen the  Steve McQueen original or the 80s remake then you probably don't need to watch this but it was still some fun schlock.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 26237
  • Liked: 4953
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17466 on: September 16, 2017, 09:26:57 PM »
Netflix's new movie LITTLE EVIL. About a guy who is the step father of the Anti-christ. It's from the same team that made Tucker and Dale vs Evil. While not as hilarious as that movie, but it does have a good amount of character based humor.



Offline stethacantus

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 17
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17467 on: September 17, 2017, 11:11:39 PM »
Super 8 ( 2011 )
Back in the 80s when Spielberg first began producing as well as directing, the films he produced were more than collaborations. The deal he usually had with the studios was that if the director of the film for whatever reason needed to be fired or was unable to complete the film, then Spielberg would step in and direct the rest of the movie. For that reason the projects he chose to produce were the movies he would have liked to direct. In one case, with the movie 1941, he liked the script so much that he ended up taking the film from it's director and directing it himself. Even when he allowed his directors to keep their films, he dominated the pre-production process, then would end up visiting the set whenever he could and unofficially directing. In some films, like Poltergeist and Gremlins,  Spielberg was on the set so often that some say he directed the entire film with the credited director acting as a bystander. Spielberg produced films were almost indistinguishable from his directed films. Those other directors, Robert Zemeckis, Joe Dante, Tobe Hooper, Richard Donner, Barry Levinson, et al, they were only there to sub for Spielberg who had too many films he wanted to direct, but was too busy or legally restricted fro directing the films himself. Things seemed to change in the 90s. Spielberg had less to do with the films he produced and was spending more time on the films he was actually directing. This possibly due to the disaster of Hook, the first film he directed he was truly disappointed in. During the time Hook was in pre-production, Spielberg was busy on the sets of Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Arachnophobia and Joe Versus the Volcano instead of arranging for more and better sets for his version of Neverland, which ended up being limited to the lost boy's treehouse and pirate cove. Not that there is any reason to believe that Hook would have been any different had Spielberg spent more time developing it. But from that point on he devoted more attention to the films he was directing, and less on the films he was producing. His  productions stopped looking like clones of the films he directed.

My reasoning for buying the films he produced was because of his creative input. They had so much of his DNA in them that they were just as much Spielberg films as Jaws and E.T..  But at some point films produced but not directed by Spielberg stopped being his films. They were projects he rubber stamped with little or no input. Those were the films I did not buy. So I did not add Twister (1996 ) or Deep Impact ( 1998 ) or the Transformer films, despite them being perfect films for Spielberg to direct, because his creative involvement was very minimal at best. It would have been a lot easier with a director like Stanley Kubrick, who directed every film he wrote or produced, the only exception being A.I. Artificial Intelligence which was taken over by Spielberg when Kubrick died. I was left with two choices; either pick out the films he actually worked on and developed as if he was that film's director, something that involved a lot of online research to figure out his exact contributions to each and then deciding if it was enough to call the film one of his own, or to simply go the completest route and collect every film he had his name on as producer or executive producer, all the films he acted as producer but did not attach his name, and all the films that came out of Amblin', even the ones he had nothing to do with. Perhaps some day when I have a lot of money, suddenly have expanded shelf space, and have the spare time to watch those films, and have completed collecting everything else I wanted to add to my library, including a lot of entire television series, then maybe I will go the completest route. Right now I simply wanted a collection of all of Steven Spielberg's films, and discovered it was not as simple as just buying the ones he had directed.

Making things a bit more difficult was that Spielberg himself began to reinvent himself as a director at the end of the 80s. His films, both directed and produced, as well as his Amazing Stories television series, had fallen into a formula. Spielberg was determined to break that formula, directing projects like The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun. Even his fantasy films, such as Minority Report, seemed to be in a deliberately different style than his early works. So even if Spielberg did get involved with a film he was producing, it would not be in a style that was identifyably Spielbergian. That was certainly the case with Eagle Eye, a film he intended to direct, and developed up to the point of principal photography when he gave it to another director. It is a Spielberg film, but does not feel like a Spielberg film. But neither did Munich which he did direct. Which makes Super 8 all the more intriguing. It is a Spielberg produced film,  released more than a decade after he gave up being the ghost director on every film he produced,  that not only had a lot of his involvement, but had all the formula of a classic 80's Spielberg film. This time around the film came from director JJ Abrams, and it appears to be a deliberate Spielberg tribute film. It is not just full of all the elements that made the 80s films formula, but a lot of elements from his later work, and the children who were the lead characters were doing something Spielberg loved, making their own movies. This film was JJ Abrams love letter to Spielberg, and he convinced Spielberg to become involved during the writing process so it would have even more of his DNA embedded in it's frames.

I don't want to spoil the film, even though it's trailer did spoil a chunk of the film. This after Abrams and Spielberg attempted to throw people off by leaking that it was a sequel to Cloverfield and was probably going to be another found footage film with the events filmed on a super 8 sound camera by some kids who were trying to make their own zombie film. Lets just say it is not a found footage film, and it has nothing to do with Cloverfield. Like a lot of the 80s Spielberg films, it centers around a group of kids who are filming their own movie for a class project. The kid director decides to film a scene at a train station while a train is passing for it's "production value". But while filming the scene, the train hits a truck on the tracks and derails, sending the kids scrambling as the train cars crash everywhere and destroy the station. Something that was being imprisoned in one of the cars escapes. The rest of the film is a monster movie, with whatever escaped from that train wreck attacking and dragging off the people of the small town where the kids are from. Meanwhile, the army has shown up to clean up the train wreck, and search through the town, all the while telling everyone that they have nothing to fear from the train wreck, but obviously covering something up. While being an obvious Spielberg tribute film to the point of being a parody, it is full of scenes that work. Especially a lot of action scenes which are very effective. It's only flaw is that the characters are nowhere as compelling as the characters in a Spielberg film. That is not exactly a bad thing, because the film is still very entertaining.




Bloodsport ( 1988 )
Jean-Claude Van Damme's first credited screen role was in the Hong Kong /  U.S.A. co production  No Retreat, No Surrender ( 1986 ) where he plays the bad guy in a kickboxing tournament. Bloodsport was his followup film, an the first where he is the star. It is also another tournament film. A lot of Van Damme's early films were tournament films. Bloodsport is all formula and nothing else. The fights, although better choreographed than the aveage Hollywood martial arts movie from the same decade, have the same problem of there being too many pauses. Fighters punch or kick at each other, then stand there posing in various stances for another 15 to 30 seconds before someone tries to punch or kick again. Starring as the bad guy ( who predictably Van Damme faces against in the championship round ) is Bolo Yeung. His actual name is Yang Sze, but changed his name to Bolo Yeung after he played a character of the same name in Enter the Dragon ( 1973 ). Although Yang never actually fought Bruce Lee in that movie, ( He fought John Saxon who beat him by kicking him in the nuts, ) he somehow managed to turn his connection with that film into a successful career as a villain in martial arts films. At one time he was the richest actor in Hong Kong history, having made more money than Bruce Lee, and more than Jackie Chan or Jet Li had to that point. His success was due to him always playing a villain, which meant he only had to be in the scenes where he faced off against the film's hero, which in turn allowed him to star in up to seven films a year while actors who played the hero in their movies were in about three films a year. Because Bloodsport is all formula and nothing else, it is not very entertaining. In fact, the most entertaining moment happens at the very end. A caption tells you the film is based on the real life events of martial arts champion Frank Dux.Amusing since the tournament in the film is the fictional underground Kumite tournament which has since been proven as bullshit.

Dirty Work ( 1998 )
I first saw Dirty Work some time in the early 00's on TBS or USA or one of the other basic cable channels. In 2010 I bought Beer League through Amazon.  One of the independent sellers was offering  Dirty Work as part of a package deal, buy both for one price, and that price happened to be cheaper than what Amazon was charging for Beer League on it's own. If I remember correctly, Amazon was asking $12 for just Beer League and the seller $5 for two movies, both factory sealed. Nice bargain. And then I ended up not opening or watching either DVDs till this weekend. I remembered sort of liking Dirty Work, as a censored movie on cable with ten minute long commercial breaks every five minutes. Now was my chance to see it uncut and in all it's R rated glory. First shock... Dirty Work is PG-13. It appears that M.G.M. decided they wanted it released as a PG-13 film and edited out all the raunchy humor. The version I saw on cable was the same version released to theaters. Doing a little research on the film today, I found out that indeed a longer R rated script for the film existed and was possibly filmed, and co-star Artie Lange even made an appeal to M.G.M. as a guest on the Howard Stern Show not to "cut all the funny jokes out of the movie". But the PG-13 version is what was released. Lange has since disowned the film, and during his stand up routine often asks the audience if they have seen Dirty Work and then hands out refunds to some of the audience members.

Knowing that M.G.M. had a raunchy R comedy reworked into a PG-13 film explains a lot. The movie stars Norm MacDonald ( who also co-wrote the script ) and Artie Lange as two childhood friends who would stage outlandish pranks to get back at those who wronged them. Still friends as adults and still pulling revenge pranks,  they decide to go into business together running a revenge for hire business. If there is anyone you want to get even with, just hire Norm and Artie and they will pull off a revenge prank for you. One of the pranks is pulled on a Donald Trump type developer who was trying to bulldoze an old lady's house so he could expand the parking lot on an opera house he owns. ( This was an obvious reference to an actual event where Donald Trump attempted to use eminent domain in Atlantic City to take property, including a home of an old woman, so he could expand the parking lot of one of his casinos. )  Norm and Artie are arrested for their prank, but the charges are dropped and the developer hires them to vandalize a building he owns which he claims has been taken over by drug dealers and prostitutes.  He says he wants the building condemned so he can vacate their leases, fix the building up, then lease it to law abiding citizens. Even though Norm suspects the developer is not being honest, he and Artie trash the building anyway, because they need $20,000 to pay for a heart operation for Artie's father. But once the building is trashed and condemned, they discover the developer never owned it, but instead wanted to take the property from it's real owner. And he refuses to pay Norm the agreed upon $20,000. So what is left to do? Pull the biggest revenge prank ever against the developer.

This premise had a lot of promise. Unfortunately, the film comes off as if the script writers were not even trying. Most of the pranks are pretty lame, as is the comedy throughout the film. But now knowing that the film was altered to PG-13, it is obvious it was striped of it's R rated material. Would that R rated material have been funnier than the PG-13 material? One can only guess. But what is certain is that once the film was toned down, it became pointless. It was also a misscalculation from M.G.M. A year later Universal released American Pie, allowing it to retain it's hard R humor, which in turn was the reason that movie was a huge box office hit. America was waiting for an R rated comedy. Had Dirty Work retained it's original humor, it could have easily been a huge hit as well. What is left over of this shell of a film is just barely entertaining. This is what I thought of it when I first saw it on television. It was good enough for one of those films you catch late at night on cable when nothing else is on. But the whole time you feel like it should have been a lot funnier. I only laughed a few times. The movie is watchable as it is. But it had the potential of being another Animal House.


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17468 on: September 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM »
Starring Adam West (2013)

It was kind of bittersweet watching this documentary posthumously but it's an interesting look at the highs and lows of his career as well as a wonderful love letter to his fans.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17469 on: September 18, 2017, 02:37:44 PM »
Invasion of the Saucer-Men (1957)



The best thing about this movie is the campy special effects including a flying UFO, a reanimated severed alien hand and of course menacing little green aliens with bulbous heads, bulging eyes and claws.  I really like the design of the aliens despite how ridiculous they look and most of their scenes are pretty fun.  I thought the humor throughout for the most part worked well.  There's also a notable appearance from actor Frank Gorshin.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • Tells No Tales
  • *
  • Posts: 23607
  • Liked: 3808
  • Now you're playing with power!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17470 on: September 18, 2017, 04:40:17 PM »
Rich and Strange

Went into this early Hitchcock film knowing nothing about it and found it to be a much different film than I expected.  I knew Hitchcock did some non-thrillers early on, so when this one began I was expecting a comedy.  However, it ends up becoming a melodrama of sorts as the two leads begin travelling the world for fun and are tempted by other people.  It's definitely an interesting movie and I mostly liked it, despite its somewhat racist last act.  It's also interesting to see a film that clearly straddles the line between silent film and talkie.  It's mostly a talkie but it has several establishing title cards.


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17471 on: September 20, 2017, 08:11:36 AM »
The Red House (1947)



A great use of suspense with an intriguing mystery and a climactic ending.   Edward G. Robinson gives a solid performance as his character gradually gets creepier throughout the film especially after the reveal.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17472 on: September 20, 2017, 08:13:51 AM »
Hidden Figures (2016)

"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17473 on: September 24, 2017, 09:31:15 AM »
 A Night at the Opera (1935)



Better story structure than some of their other films but their same chaotic brand of comedy that stands the test of time.  I love the sequence where Groucho checks into his cabin it leads up to one of the funniest scenes ever.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 0
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17474 on: September 24, 2017, 09:37:34 AM »
This Is Spinal Tap (1984)



Few comedies have casting as good as this the cameos alone are tremendous.  Brilliant that it was almost entirely improvised but is still so incredibly funny and very quotable.
"It is wrong to assume that art needs the spectator in order to be. The film runs on without any eyes. The spectator cannot exist without it. It ensures his existence." -- James Douglas Morrison