login

Author Topic: What was the last movie you watched?  (Read 1452378 times)

stansimpson and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27319
  • Liked: 5397
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17490 on: October 01, 2017, 03:07:09 PM »
Ghostbusters (2016) - I thought I would give this another chance. Unfortunately I still only laughed at about 1/4 of the jokes.

It's frustrating, because this has a lot of potential. I liked the actresses, and I thought they had good chemistry together. I liked the characters, especially Holtzmann. I liked the intro scene in particular. I liked that the women invented the tech, so it's not just being handed to them had this been a sequel to the originals. I liked that the tech had more variety, they just didn't explain it well enough to make us understand the limits of what it could do as apposed to the original movies.

But the writing was just not there. Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) is the worst. Which is a shame, because Chris Hemsworth normally has so much charm, and can be very funny. But every single joke with him is like nails on a chalkboard. The villain is also one of the film's biggest flaws. I feel like it was written for someone like Patton Oswalt, and in his hands it would have at least been tolerable, albeit still cliche as hell.

Again, I liked these characters. And I would be up for a sequel to this movie if they just had better writing. But apparently that's not going to happen.



Offline stethacantus

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Liked: 46
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17491 on: October 01, 2017, 10:39:02 PM »
Marvel's Inhumans ( 2017 )
While this is a television pilot ( to be fair, the pilot and second episode back to back, ) it was given a theatrical release a couple of weeks ago, so I am going to count this as a movie. For those of you who actually paid to see this in theaters, you got screwed.  It's not bad, but much like all the other made for ABC programs,  it is nowhere as good as the MCU films. At least this is the first time a network MCU series has been based around characters with super powers. There has been some sort of pecking order with how the Marvel characters are used in the MCU. Those with powers that need expensive special effects are exclusively in the movies, either in their own franchise, or playing a supporting character in someone else's film. Those with powers that do not need special effects get their own Netflix series. And ABC only gets the spy characters. Basically a money saving move since they can make episodes with little or no effects. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has gradually evolved into a superhero show, giving some of the agents simple powers, and bringing in Ghost Rider last season for a few episodes. But Inhumans is the first full superhero series...... sort of. This first episode has many of the characters powers taken away from them. Black Bolt still has his power, but as any Marvel fan can tell you, he almost never uses it. While I am sure that back when Marvel initially wanted to make an Inhumans movie that they would have given them a different story, the one used for the pilot movie is basically chapter one of a miniseries. So those seeing it in a theater got a story that was unresolved and with ( what I assume is ) a key character undeveloped. Also, while the plot of this miniseries is true to a major story arc from the comics, it comes off as a poor man's remake of the plot from the first Thor movie, including the part with the heroes exiled on Earth without their powers. The biggest flaw here is that the Fantastic Four are still not in the MCU, and probably will never be. The FF were an important part of the Inhuman's history and were key characters in some of the best FF stories. On the other hand, placing the Inhumans in the MCU takes those characters out of play for FOX, and any chance of them being part of the yet to be realized counter Marvel cinematic universe. Marvel's Inhumans does not work as a MCU film. And since it is really two separate episodes edited together with no resolution, it does not work as a T.V. movie. As a miniseries, we will have to wait and see where the story is leading before anyone can say if it is any good. But I can say that I fully enjoyed the first episode of Netflix Daredevil and did not need to watch a bunch of episodes before the series kicked in. So basically it is decent enough to watch. But much like the other Marvel series on ABC, I am only going to continue to watch this series because it is part of the MCU. There is so much better to watch on television these days, with the high bar on superhero series being set by Gotham.


War Horse ( 2011 )
Steven Spielberg bough the rights to the novel and play War Horse for his company Amblin' intending to do no further than produce it. The reason he decided to direct it himself was when he discovered it would take months before the computer animation on The Adventures of Tintin would be completed. Spielberg filmed War Horse in betwen the day he completed shooting actors in motion capture suits for Tintin and the day when the computer animators completed building the animated scenes so Spielberg could view them, pick out the angles and decide how the scenes would be edited. Basically, Spielberg was editing both films at the same time, which is why they were both released within days of each other.

War Horse tells the story of a horse that ends up being sold to the British army to be used in their cavalry during the first World War, and how that horse managed to survive the war. The first quarter of the film takes place in a small village in Devon where a drunk farmer buys the young horse at an auction, giving it to his son to train to be a farm horse. The son and the horse form a bond, and is devastated when the farmer is forced to sell the horse.  When the son learns the cavalry it was sold to was decimated in a battle with the Germans, he decides to join the Army himself so he can try to find his horse. I don't want to spoil the film by giving away if the son finds the horse, or if War Horse even survives the war. But this is a Spielberg film, so the outcome is not much of a surprise. One curious thing about this film is Spielberg's decision not to show the deaths of major characters. Their deaths either take place off screen, or are obscured. For example, the execution of two characters for desertion is blocked by the spinning blade of a windmill. You see them standing in front of a firing squad, then one of the turning blade blocks the camera when you hear the gun shots, after which you see both characters lying on the ground. During the disastrous cavalry charge against German machine guns, the death of the English officer riding War Horse is never shown. Instead the  film cuts to the barrel flashes of the machine guns, after which the riderless horses ( including War Horse ) run past the machine guns. There is even a rapid fade out as one character is about to be engulfed by a cloud of mustard gas.While Spielberg refused to show the moment of death of any of the human characters, he has no problem showing the slaughter of extras, who are shot, blown up or stabbed at every opportunity.

While another one of Spielberg's long films ( clocking in at just short of two and a half hours )  it never feels too long. In fact, much of the film seems compacted with a lot of shortcuts. There seems like enough material here for three films, or perhaps a television miniseries. The first quarter of the film could have easily been stretched out into an entire movie. Still, it is a very effective anti war film. Maybe no as good as Saving Private Ryan, but close to it. And a good accomplishment for a film that was quickly shot during the production gap in another film.


Mortal Kombat: Annihilation ( 1997 )
The first Mortal Kombat movie got favorable reviews. This sequel got a lot of bad reviews. Having watched both, I can tell you that they are both equally bad. How audiences can find one good and the other bad is as baffling as when they found Batman Forever good and [/i]Batman & Robin[/i] bad when both of those movies were about the same. Coincidentally, both Mortal Kombat and Batman Forever were released in 1995 while Mortal Kombat: Annihilation and Batman & Robin were released in 1997. So either audiences were more easily entertained by bad films in 1995, or were less forgiving to dumb films in 1997, or maybe both. There is little improvement with the martial arts. While the Mortal Kombat films were groundbreaking for American martial arts films, we would all have to wait until 1999's The Matrix had the first proper martial arts choreography in an American film.

Spring Breakers ( 2012 )
I finally ran through all of my unwatched movies, excluding the four Spielberg films I have left, which I am only watching Saturday afternoons. Next week some more movies are due to be delivered. This week, I had a free night. Thatmeans I can finally re-watch one of my other movies. I have a lot I really enjoyed watching the first time around, but never had the time to re-watch them. With Selena Gomez in the news recently, I have been remembering how much I had enjoyed the movie Spring Breakers, and ultimately chose it for this free week. I bought it about five years ago. It was during an order for Amazon on a Cyber Monday. It popped up as one of their $1 sales, and I had about 60 seconds to decide to add it to my cart before the sale expired. I recalled how this was the R rated film that was cast with former Disney stars Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens, and while it looked as if they only got as nude as being in bikinis, the fact that these barely legal Disney teen queens were in this adult sex movie was a very attractive concept. And it was only $1, with the clock counting down before Amazon closed the sale. So I pulled the trigger and added the film to my shopping cart. It turned out not to be the boner film I was hoping for ( bummer ) but did turn out to be an unexpected jewel of an entertaining movie. I loved it. To this day when I here Ellie Goulding's Lights on the radio ( the song played over the closing credits ) it immediately brings me back to the ending of the film and puts an uncontrollable smile on my face.  The question is, would I enjoy that same film as much a second time around? The answer is yes.


Last year I included it on my recommended viewing thread even though it is shot in a style that some may find too confusing.
http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32200.msg953646#msg953646
It is the story of four spoiled white girls who want to go to Florida for spring break, and end up in a drug gang war. It starts out dark when the girls realize they don't have enough money for a spring break trip, and decide to put on masks and pull an armed robbery of a local fast food restaurant. It goes deeper into darkness when the girls are at a party that gets busted by the police for narcotics, and end up in jail. They are bailed out by a white rapper named Alien ( played by James Franco complete with a metal teeth grill ) who turns out to be running his own drug gang. The story takes an even darker turn when Alien ends up in a turf war with his former best friend Big Arch ( Gucci Mane ) who is running a drug gang of his own. As dark as this film gets ( eventually leading to an ending where a lot of people are killed in a gun battle ) it is somehow at the same time fun. Think of the fun you got from the first season episodes of Miami Vice and times that by ten. And it has that ending that should be too dumb for any film, but somehow works. I'd like to say more, but it would only be spoilers. But just like the last time I saw this movie, I was smiling when the end credits rolled. Spring break forever bitches!


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 25327
  • Liked: 4540
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17492 on: October 02, 2017, 04:53:02 AM »
10 Cloverfield Lane

I liked it, but not quite as much as the hype would have me believe I would.  The actors are all really good, especially John Goodman's unsettling and sometimes very funny performance.  The ending... its an interesting choice and I actually do think that it works thematically, but it feels very much like a break in tone from the film that had been building for the last hour and a half and feels like a very different (and slightly more pedestrian, despite being crazy) film tacked onto another one.


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27319
  • Liked: 5397
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17493 on: October 02, 2017, 07:12:50 AM »
10 Cloverfield Lane

I liked it, but not quite as much as the hype would have me believe I would.  The actors are all really good, especially John Goodman's unsettling and sometimes very funny performance.  The ending... its an interesting choice and I actually do think that it works thematically, but it feels very much like a break in tone from the film that had been building for the last hour and a half and feels like a very different (and slightly more pedestrian, despite being crazy) film tacked onto another one.
I do agree the ending feels like a different movie. I think if she had simply gotten out and seen the aliens off in the distance that would have been a satisfying ending.



Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 25327
  • Liked: 4540
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17494 on: October 02, 2017, 07:58:25 AM »
10 Cloverfield Lane

I liked it, but not quite as much as the hype would have me believe I would.  The actors are all really good, especially John Goodman's unsettling and sometimes very funny performance.  The ending... its an interesting choice and I actually do think that it works thematically, but it feels very much like a break in tone from the film that had been building for the last hour and a half and feels like a very different (and slightly more pedestrian, despite being crazy) film tacked onto another one.
I do agree the ending feels like a different movie. I think if she had simply gotten out and seen the aliens off in the distance that would have been a satisfying ending.

True (and uh, you know, spoilers) but I feel the ending made sense that it is about her decision to help people, as opposed to John Goodman's greedy and selfish worldview where he tries to close everyone else off save for one person and to the hell with the world.


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 65
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17495 on: October 02, 2017, 10:31:33 AM »
Dracula’s Daughter (1936)



The pacing in this is an improvement over the original and it picks up right after the deaths of Count Dracula and Renfield with Edward Van Sloan reprising his role as Van Helsing.   Gloria Holden  gives an eerie but also at times sympathetic performance as a vampiress who falls in love with a man that's already engaged.  After being rejected she kidnaps his fiancee and escapes back to Transylvania.  The build up towards the climax is exciting and I can see why some fans prefer this to the original.
"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: 448
  • Liked: 65
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17496 on: October 02, 2017, 10:37:01 AM »
Son of Dracula (1943)



Not nearly good as its predecessors and lacks the same chilling atmosphere but still a bit of cheesy fun.  Chaney's performance isn't as creepy as others but he's certainly a formidable villain.  There's an unexpected double-cross, the climax is suspenseful and I felt the ending was satisfying.
"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

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 25327
  • Liked: 4540
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17497 on: October 02, 2017, 10:43:23 AM »
You think Dracula's a good dad?  I see him as a weekend dad who tries REALLY hard to impress his kids. "Blah!  Who wants ice cream for breakfast."


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15780
  • Liked: 2456
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17498 on: October 02, 2017, 05:01:53 PM »
10 Cloverfield Lane

I liked it, but not quite as much as the hype would have me believe I would.  The actors are all really good, especially John Goodman's unsettling and sometimes very funny performance.  The ending... its an interesting choice and I actually do think that it works thematically, but it feels very much like a break in tone from the film that had been building for the last hour and a half and feels like a very different (and slightly more pedestrian, despite being crazy) film tacked onto another one.

I also felt the ending was a weird shift, but I also wonder if on the second viewing it would work better? Like knowing it was there, would the movie hang together better? I really enjoyed it on the whole, and am looking forward to giving it another watch.
FINE


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27319
  • Liked: 5397
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17499 on: October 02, 2017, 06:30:16 PM »
10 Cloverfield Lane

I liked it, but not quite as much as the hype would have me believe I would.  The actors are all really good, especially John Goodman's unsettling and sometimes very funny performance.  The ending... its an interesting choice and I actually do think that it works thematically, but it feels very much like a break in tone from the film that had been building for the last hour and a half and feels like a very different (and slightly more pedestrian, despite being crazy) film tacked onto another one.

I also felt the ending was a weird shift, but I also wonder if on the second viewing it would work better? Like knowing it was there, would the movie hang together better? I really enjoyed it on the whole, and am looking forward to giving it another watch.
I've seen the movie twice, and I think knowing the ending doesn't help it. The best experience in watching it is the first time when you're not sure what exactly is really going on outside. Yes the title has Cloverfield in it, so you do expect there are something with a monster or aliens or whatever. But you don't know the extent to which Goodman's paranoid belief in the radiation and air pollution are true or not.



Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 65
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17500 on: October 03, 2017, 01:24:39 PM »
The Unsuspected (1947)



Interesting story that combines elements of mystery, horror and noir.  There are some pretty good performances throughout and the thrills are exciting and suspenseful.  Claude Rains plays the host of a murder mystery radio program and the film opens with his secretary being murdered then posed as a suicide.  When his rich niece who was thought dead in a shipwreck returns alive she doesn't remember the man who claims to be her husband.  After the suicide is exposed as murder the killer starts to eliminate anyone who might expose him, eventually planning to murder his own niece in order to solely inherit her fortune.
"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 NRRork

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1315
  • Liked: 81
    • Yep, I have a deviantART gallery. But it's pretty cheerful drawings-- no angsty poems or black-and-white photos of wooden chairs.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17501 on: October 03, 2017, 02:06:54 PM »
Cult of Chucky

Which, I've decided I'll watch anything that has Chucky, long as Brad Dourif keeps voicing him. If the producers do something stupid like try to replace him, or HE does something stupid like dies of natural causes, then the character is just over.

But until then it's awesome. And this movie was loads of fun to watch. I loved how wintry everything was, it was always snowing outside, the interior of the hospital, even the more nicely decorated ones, still had a lot of white and was still wintry. The only places that weren't were a cabin and an office that was warmly lit and with brown walls to make it cabin-LIKE. And the last third of the movie, I can't even say, it's too cool that it'd be too big a spoiler.
I used to have an image here, but Photobucket got cheap about remote linking. I guess I'll have to think of something witty instead. Which I will. Later. It caught me by surprise, in all honesty. It's hard to be clever on command, I mean, YOU try it. Be funny: NOW! See, tough. So, gimme a bit, 'kay?


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27319
  • Liked: 5397
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17502 on: October 03, 2017, 08:24:51 PM »
Cult Of Chucky - A big step down from the previous movie. It had some promise, but ultimately I was just frustrated by it.
  It was very slow, but not in a building tension way. We all know Chucky is real. And if you hadn't seen the rest of the series, you certainly know that from the first scene of this movie, with Andy torturing Chucky's head (easily the best scene in the movie). So why do we have to have scenes with therapists convincing people that he's not? That's a bad cliche in horror movies in general, and it's even an overused cliche in this movie series.
  The one interesting idea in this movie is
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But it's such a throwaway line about how that's possible. I also don't count that as a "cult". Considering that it's a different voodoo spell from the previous movies, they really rush over the ritual. Previously the soul transference was a big deal, with lots of repetition, emphasis, overhead shots, thunderclouds and lightning. But now it's just said offhand, barely once, and the spell is done.
  There isn't much humor in this movie, so when it does happen it seems out of place. Although there was one really good joke when they are arguing over who gets to kill Andy.
  The presence of Andy in this movie is ultimately not that important. He's barely in it, and it feels like it was written afterwards. It also feels like more a setup for the next movie. And considering that the actor doesn't look anything like himself as a kid, getting the same actor back wasn't really necessary.
  I don't know what was up with Jennifer Tilly, but her acting seemed really bad in this. She's normally better.
  Oh, and this is less a criticism on this movie as it happens in most horror movies, but the procedures in this asylum are ridiculous, and their security is shit.



Offline Pastor of Muppets

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1001
  • Liked: 333
  • Now available in minty fresh flavor.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17503 on: October 04, 2017, 08:23:15 AM »
I was trying to watch the 1993 David Warner fantasy film Quest of the Delta Knights, but there was this weird shadow effect on the bottom of the screen and a bunch of guys kept making annoying wisecracks.  I couldn't hear the dialogue over their talking so I changed the channel after a few minutes.
I'm not particularly religious, and I don't really like Muppets, but I do love word play.


Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 65
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17504 on: October 05, 2017, 10:11:36 AM »
Gargoyles (1972)

Underrated, low budget made for TV monster movie featuring early Stan Winston special effects and a type of monster that's virtually unused in the genre.  The opening features a documentary like prelude that explains the gargoyles connection to ancient demons.  It's well paced with some decent scares and despite the monsters being a little campy looking I think they were well designed.  It looks like quite a bit of effort went into creating several unique full body gargoyle suits although you don't actually see any of them until fly until the very end.
"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