Author Topic: What was the last movie you watched?  (Read 1556839 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jesse412

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • Liked: 68
  • Old Curmudgeon
    • My deviantART Gallery
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17535 on: October 15, 2017, 09:36:08 AM »
Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)



I didn't know there was a Doc Savage movie so this was a treat.  One of George Pal's lesser works it definitely feels dated and some of the acting is bad but visually I think it fits the source material well enough plus some of it was actually kind of fun.
"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 stethacantus

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 78
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17536 on: October 15, 2017, 10:22:27 PM »
Jurassic World ( 2016 )
We are now in the home stretch of the Spielberg marathon. This is the last of the films Spielberg produced without directing, after which there are only two more films which he directed. The criteria for the films he produced to be included was that they had to be something he sat in on the creative process, often to the point where he was on the set as an uncredited co-director. The best I can tell, this is probably not one of them. For a while Spielberg was slated to direct a fourth Jurassic Park movie from a story idea of his that he boasted would be the best film in the series. It was also to be the final film. But that film never got off the ground. And as best as I can tell, Jurassic World came from an entirely new story and script, while whatever was to be Jurassic Park IV ended up abandoned. While it is most likely Spielberg only rubber stamped this film, I decided I wanted it in the marathon. I already had owned the DVDs for the first three Jurassic Park films since they came out, and was looking for an excuse to add this installment to my collection. So screw it, it is part of the marathon.

The only problem with Jurassic Park as a movie franchise is that there is very little you can do with the series. Every story ends up the same. Humans go to an island with dinosaurs, at first believing their technology will keep them safe. But then the technology fails them, and the humans end up being hunted by the dinosaurs. That is pretty much the only story you can do with a Jurassic Park film. Each sequel wondering how stupid the scientists could be for continuing to return to the same island. Actually, two islands. The first movie took place on the fictional island of Isla Nublar where a rich industrialist named John Hammon and his company InGen have successfully brought dinosaurs back from extinction. They did this by retrieving dinosaur DNA from the mosquito's that had sucked their blood and were soon after trapped in amber, preserving them and the dinosaur blood they drank for millions of years. The DNA was then used to clone new dinosaurs, and to put them on an island Hammon hoped to turn into a safari park called Jurassic Park. Before Hammon can open the park, he must bring in a group of scientist to certify the park is safe. But an industrial spy attempting to steal cloning secrets from the lab on the island ends up turning off the electric fences that keep the dinosaurs at bay, and they attack the scientists and eventually the compound with the lab itself. Hammon and the survivors flee the island, where it is understood some sort of gas would be deployed to kill the dinosaur population off. The sequel, The Lost World: Jurassic Park has scientists visiting a second island called Isla Sorna which was the island used to breed the dinosaurs for Isla Nublar, and still has a wild dinosaur population. With the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar all dead, the scientists are sent to Isla Sorna by Hammon to see if the dinosaurs there are still alive. Once again they find themselves being hunted by the dinosaur population. Although this film added a twist at the end where a T Rex is captured and brought to San Diego to be put on display, but ends up escaping and rampaging through the city. Having brought a dinosaur back to a modern city and having it go on a rampage, you would think every possible idea for a Jurassic Park film was used up. But a third film was made anyway. in Jurassic Park III one of the scientists from the first movie is tricked into visiting Isla Sorna by the parents of a kid that went missing there so he can help them search for their son. Of course they and their search party end up being hunted by the dinosaurs, and after a few of them are eaten, the remainder just barely escape with their lives.

So, what could be dumber than scientists returning to Isla Sorna again? How about if the scientists cloned a bunch of new and more dangerous dinosaurs so they could repopulate Isla Nublar, then actually open Jurassic Park and invite thousands of tourists to visit each day. Which is what they do in Jurassic World. This time around the scientists are convinced the latest technology will keep the carnivorous dinosaurs in their proper enclosures, and keep the visitors safe. That is until they decide to breed a new species of dinosaur twice the size of normal dinosaurs, with DNA from all the most dangerous predators, some extra DNA from cuttle fish so they can camouflage themselves, and an intelligent brain so they can figure out how to escape their enclosure. Fortunately only one of these new and more dangerous dinosaurs were cloned. But one is all it takes. As it rampages across the island killing any human or other dinosaur that crosses it's path, it knocks down the defenses that kept the visitors safe, this time sending flocks of pterosaurs into the theme park where they immediately begin attacking and devouring the crowd of tourists. So with hundreds of tourists injured or eaten, and the dinosaurs proving once again that there is no technology that can keep them at bay for long, you would think scientists could not be stupid enough to put people and dinosaurs on the same island again. Wrong. Universal announced there would be at least two more Jurassic World films, one of which is currently filming.

While there is very little variation you could give to the plot of a Jurassic Park sequel, that isn't much of a problem. Jurassic Park was only meant to be a thrill ride. It is the equivalent of a 70s disaster movie, where a group of characters are trapped in a burning building, sinking ship or some other disaster area, and are killed off one by one until they finally reach safety. In this case the disaster is a dinosaur infested island which becomes dangerous once whatever technology kept the wildlife in check fails and everyone becomes food. It is all about dinosaurs chasing, eating or almost eating the cast. Nothing deeper than that. Critics often pointed out how shallow the original Jurassic Park was compaired to Jaws. True enough, none of these films bother with any character development, so you care very little when one is about to become a meal and instead enjoy the thrill of the scene. Jaws was meant to frighten. Jurassic Park was meant to pump adrenalin. It is as an adventure-action film that Jurassic Park and all it's sequels exceed. Which is why this sequel was so enjoyable, even though Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard and even the kids in this film were generic stereotypical characters that you cared little about other than seeing them chased by a hungry dinosaur for dinner. But it is an enjoyable thrill ride, which is why this film and all the others worked so well.

The Kick ( 2011 )
A while back I was blown away by Yanin Vismitananda in her screen debut Chocolate and decided to see if I could get the rest of her films. It turns out her career was brief, having semi retiered after making The Protector 2 in 2013 to raise her newborn son. She had said she was only going to take a two year break. But since then has only appeared in minor roles. The Kick which was made before her hiatus is a film she only has a small part in. But it is also OOP, so I got a copy before the price skyrocketed. And it was directed by Prachya Pinkaew who directed the Ong-Bak and Protector films, as well as Chocolate.

The plot is basically something you would expect from a Jackie Chan film. An action-comedy about a family of taekwondo experts who disrupt a robbery of a priceless antique knife, and end up on the run from the gang of robbers who want revenge. The parents send their children to stay with their uncle ( comic actor Petchtai Wongkamlao who has appeared as a comedic sidekick in many of Tony Jaa's films ) and his daughter Wawa ( Yanin Vismitananda who is in very few fight scenes ). The robber gang finds them and after beating everyone up, kidnaps the youngest child and threatens to kill him unless the family retrieves the antique knife for them. Much like a Jackie Chan film, the characters here are just marginally better skilled fighters than most of the bad guys, and are nowhere as skilled as the head bad guy, just barely beating him at the end thanks to a few tricks. The action is top notch, and unlike the Hong Kong action comedies, the comedy here is not grating and overly broad. It is not funny, but at least it is not annoying and can be ignored while one waits for the action to resume. The Kick is not a great film, but an acceptable action film. However,  Prachya Pinkaew has done a lot better than this.


Push ( 2009 )
This is another one of the movies Wikipedia list as an American superhero film. It is connected to a comic book, but only from a miniseries published by D.C.'s imprint Wildstorm just prior to the film's release which acted as it's prequel. Another connection, it's star is Chris Evans, just two years before being cast as Captain America in the MCU. It also has another MCU star, Ming-Na Wen from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in a small role. As with Chronicle, no one wears a costume, takes a secret identity, or uses their abilities to save lives or fight crime. The plot is about people born with psychic abilities who are hunted by a government agency, which is very similar to the current Marvel series The Gifted which is connected to FOX's The X-Men franchise with a group of mutants who are hiding from Sentinel, the government agency tasked with rounding up mutants deemed dangerous. So I guess if The Gifted can be called a superhero series, then this can be called a superhero film? In the case of Push, there are several different types of psychics. Pushers have the ability to push thoughts and even false memories into the brains of others. Movers have the ability to move objects with their minds. Watchers have the ability to see the future. Stitches the ability to heal, and sometimes harm. Wipers the ability to remove memories. Shifters the ability to change the appearance of objects. And so on. A government agency has been rounding up anyone with psychic abilities and experimenting on them with a drug which is suppose to enhance their abilities. The problem is that so far every psychic given the drug has died. That is until a Pusher survives the drug, and then uses her newly enhanced ability to escape the hospital she is being held in, stealing a syringe of the drug on her way out. What follows is an overly complicated story about the search both for the Pusher and the syringe she stole, which involves both psychics hiding from the government who want to use the syringe as the evidence they need to bring down the governmet agency, and the government agency itself which employs their own army of psychics. The final third of the film plays out like The Sting but with psychics trying to outsmart other psychics. While this is once again not a great film, much like last week's Chronicle, it is a passably good film. I also liked the arthouse style of the film which kept it moody throughout. Of course, anyone who does not like having to keep track of a complicated plot would definitely hate this film. But it entertained me for it's entire run time and did not have me looking at the clock to see how much longer it had to go, which is the least anyone wants from a film.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2017, 10:25:14 PM by stethacantus »


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 26072
  • Liked: 5122
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17537 on: October 16, 2017, 05:59:05 AM »
Zodiac is a truly unnerving crime procedural epic about obsession, as well as the extremely profound frustration of not knowing. The end scene really puts the perfect button on it, as the characters are sure so many times about the answer, up until the moment they aren't. I mean, that one guy almost certainly seems to be the killer... right? The murder scenes are completely unsettling and are styled in truly disturbing horror thriller style, particularly the "tire-changing" scene, which is one of the tensest I've been in a long time while watching a movie. Most of the movie is a great procedural drama where you kind of relate to everyone else being pestered by "our hero" who means well but also might need to get some perspective. But when it goes for the throat, it never lets up until the scene is over.

Oh, and John Caroll Lynch is in it. When he is in a movie that means he's playing one of two things: the nicest guy in the world or the creepiest guy in the world. Guess what he is in this one.


Offline Russoguru

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Liked: 546
  • "The name's Apple, Tim Apple"
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17538 on: October 18, 2017, 06:50:27 PM »
I watched Spiderman: Homecoming last night. I'll give it this. Michael Keaton's Vulture is definitely the best Spiderman villain in any of the movies made thus far. I also really dig Tom Holland as Spider-man. He's pretty... amazing... for lack of a better word. 


Offline Lesbunny

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
  • Liked: 510
  • Bowsette is bae
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17539 on: October 18, 2017, 09:30:16 PM »
I watched Spiderman: Homecoming last night. I'll give it this. Michael Keaton's Vulture is definitely the best Spiderman villain in any of the movies made thus far. I also really dig Tom Holland as Spider-man. He's pretty... amazing... for lack of a better word.

Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina would like a word with you, my dude.


Offline Russoguru

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Liked: 546
  • "The name's Apple, Tim Apple"
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17540 on: October 18, 2017, 10:12:03 PM »
I watched Spiderman: Homecoming last night. I'll give it this. Michael Keaton's Vulture is definitely the best Spiderman villain in any of the movies made thus far. I also really dig Tom Holland as Spider-man. He's pretty... amazing... for lack of a better word.
Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina would like a word with you, my dude.
I dunno LB, Keaton came off as really believable and truly dangerous. Now, don't get me wrong, a guy with four gigantic robotic arms is pretty dangerous, but when he uses his newfound abilities to rob banks as opposed to becoming an arms dealer.... the Vulture just comes off as a much more credible villain. This is a villain who managed to make a living salvaging alien technology and really dialed up the intimidation factor with Peter. What can I say? He just has a certain something that Molina and Dafoe didn't. 


Offline Lesbunny

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
  • Liked: 510
  • Bowsette is bae
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17541 on: October 18, 2017, 11:32:22 PM »
Well, you just followed the advice from the Green Goblin... "THE HEART, FIRST WE ATTACK HER HEART"


Offline Russoguru

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3684
  • Liked: 546
  • "The name's Apple, Tim Apple"
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17542 on: October 19, 2017, 12:06:43 AM »
I'm... sorry, I just thought he was really damn great.


Online Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16173
  • Liked: 2622
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17543 on: October 19, 2017, 02:17:28 AM »
I'm... sorry, I just thought he was really damn great.

I agree
FINE


Offline Pastor of Muppets

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1047
  • Liked: 372
  • Now available in minty fresh flavor.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17544 on: October 19, 2017, 06:17:28 AM »
I watched part of "Life Happens".  Got kind of tired of it halfway through and shut it off.  It's a very boilerplate romantic comedy, and the characters are all annoying and unlikable. 
I'm not particularly religious, and I don't really like Muppets, but I do love word play.


Offline Lesbunny

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
  • Liked: 510
  • Bowsette is bae
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17545 on: October 19, 2017, 06:31:07 AM »
I'm... sorry, I just thought he was really damn great.

No, Keaton was absolutely awesome in the role. I don't think he was better than those two, but he is one of the best villains in a while.


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 26072
  • Liked: 5122
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17546 on: October 19, 2017, 07:44:54 AM »
Jennifer's Body

Hey, it turns out every criticism people have had about Diablo Cody's writing is true. I remember liking Juno way-back when (though I dread ever watching it again), this movie is sort of a mish-mash of potentially good ideas that result in a mediocre movie if it wasn't for the fact that Cody's attempt at clever dialogue, which never ends because most of the characters in this world are drowning in sarcasm and irony. That makes things SO much worse.

It's clear the goal is to make a sort of "Heathers"-type movie (I really should see Heathers some time, so many people want to be it) and I feel Diablo is sometimes going for the same kind of weird dialogue choices I'm used to in 80's movies. I notice this in comedies and dumb action movies of the era where there's occasionally a line a dialogue where either someone was trying to make a line that people would remember and make a phrase everyone uses or the writer thought he was being clever but was instead just confounding. Anyway, it doesn't work.

But throughout I felt like there was the potential for the movie to be better than it was with some tweaking of the script. It's sort of like when you hear about first drafts of movies that have bad ideas. I don't know if there's anything particularly bad (again, apart from some painful dialogue and Katy Perry "I Kissed a Girl"-type "sexiness" that feels more pandering than genuine), but a lot of it could have actually worked if the script was altered in certain places.

I mean, it would have been more interesting if there was a more noticeable change in the title character after becoming evil. Then again, maybe I just want this movie to be Ginger Snaps.

I will say, Karyn Kusama, the director, would go onto better things, because I really liked The Invitation. And the direction isn't bad here, either, it's just hamstrung by the script and its characters.


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27890
  • Liked: 5685
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17547 on: October 19, 2017, 10:02:40 AM »
I'm... sorry, I just thought he was really damn great.

No, Keaton was absolutely awesome in the role. I don't think he was better than those two, but he is one of the best villains in a while.
Keaton was great in the role. The scene in the car was well done, and he is acting very intimidating. But I still just wanted Peter Parker to say "Bitch, I'm an Avenger! I stole Captain America's shield. I already fought a guy with mechanical wings and won, and that guy was an ex-Marine. I have super strength and reflexes. I could kill you right now before you even start to draw your gun, and then get to second base with your daughter after your funeral. But I'm not going to do that, because I'm a hero. So I'm going to go in there and have a nice dance, and later we'll fight."
I know it's out of character for Peter Parker to say that. But it just doesn't seem like a non super powered guy, with just a gun, in close quarters, should be a real threat to Spider-Man.



Offline Lesbunny

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
  • Liked: 510
  • Bowsette is bae
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17548 on: October 19, 2017, 12:39:57 PM »
I'm... sorry, I just thought he was really damn great.

No, Keaton was absolutely awesome in the role. I don't think he was better than those two, but he is one of the best villains in a while.
Keaton was great in the role. The scene in the car was well done, and he is acting very intimidating. But I still just wanted Peter Parker to say "Bitch, I'm an Avenger! I stole Captain America's shield. I already fought a guy with mechanical wings and won, and that guy was an ex-Marine. I have super strength and reflexes. I could kill you right now before you even start to draw your gun, and then get to second base with your daughter after your funeral. But I'm not going to do that, because I'm a hero. So I'm going to go in there and have a nice dance, and later we'll fight."
I know it's out of character for Peter Parker to say that. But it just doesn't seem like a non super powered guy, with just a gun, in close quarters, should be a real threat to Spider-Man.

That's the thing about Spider-Man, though. He's not really the vulnerable one. It's why most of Spider-Man's stories include somewhere in them "And bad shit happened to Peter Parker, because he's Spider-Man and everything that can happen to him does."


Offline CJones

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4071
  • Liked: 727
  • 5000 deaths and counting
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #17549 on: October 22, 2017, 09:48:16 AM »
The Babysitter on Netflix.

Surprisingly good, both as a horror movie and as a comedy.

Also watched Little Evil. It was less good, but still kinda funny.