2

Author Topic: What was the last movie you watched?  (Read 1537030 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Russoguru

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3565
  • Liked: 512
  • "The name's Apple, Tim Apple"
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16875 on: July 05, 2016, 01:02:28 AM »
Finding Dory. I know this is going to sound crazy, but I didn't like it. Something about the beginning of the film and the character just did not sit well with me at all. On the other hand I did love the cute little animated short at the beginning that I believe is called "Piper"?
Anyway, I walked out so maybe I was being too harsh.


Offline CJones

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4035
  • Liked: 713
  • 5000 deaths and counting
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16876 on: July 10, 2016, 01:08:56 PM »
Independence Day: Resurgence

I'm going to be honest: I actually quite liked this movie. I always thought the original movie was a lot better while the aliens were winning, because the only way the humans could win was by a completely absurd ex machina. Here, the playing field was a bit more even, and the humans had an actually feasible plan. And I had always wanted to see what happened after the events of the first movie, now that there's advanced alien technology strewn across the planet.

I will agree that most of the new characters were pretty bland. OTOH, I could have done without Judd Hirsch and Vivica Fox. They just seemed shoe-horned in. Especially Judd Hirsch. I was happy to see Brent Spiner back though. I always felt Dr Oaken should have gotten more screen time in the original.
   


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 26016
  • Liked: 5085
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16877 on: July 10, 2016, 06:17:05 PM »
The Wicker Man

Watched it again.  This never stops being good, especially Christopher Lee.


Offline stethacantus

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Liked: 63
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16878 on: July 11, 2016, 01:03:35 AM »
The Next Karate Kid ( 1994 )
So why the five year hiatus in the Karate Kid franchise? The movies were originally the brain child of screen writer Robert Mark Kamen. He was thrilled with how director John G. Avildsen had handled the first two movies. But was furious with how Avildsen strayed from the script in the third film, altering the portrayal of the kid from what Kamen had intended. Of course, the third movie did poorly at the box office, was panned by most critics, and was practically disowned by the studio when it came time to promote it. Kamen was the only name credited as the films writer, so the only one he could blame for it's failure would be the director. Whatever the reason, Kamen refused to write any more Karate Kid movies. And with the third films poor showing at the box office, the studio was not really looking for any more sequels.

But producer  Jerry Weintraub was not going to just back away from a successful film franchise. After years of trying to get Kamen to change his mind,  Weintraub hired a new writer and got the studio to agree to a fourth installment. Pat Morita was back on board as Mr Miyagi. But that was just about the only major player from the past films to agree to return. John G. Avildsen, who had previously agreed to direct the fourth film should it ever get greenlit, turned Weintraub down so that he could direct a film about the rodeo instead. So the director of Rocky ( 1976 ) was replaced with Christopher Cain, the director of Young Guns ( 1988 ). And Ralph Macchio was out. Depending on who you believe, Cain and Weintraub decided against using Macchio because he was now pushing 33 and too old to portray a kid. ( He was 23 in the first movie and 27 while filming the third installment )  If you believe Macchio, he was no longer interested in reprising the role of a kid. He had graduated to adult roles with the movie My Cousin Vinny and did not want to play a teenager again. So this time Miyagi would teach a new kid, portrayed by actress Hilary Swank.

At this point everyone abandoned the Karate Kid movie series. A sequel without Macchio about Miyagi teaching a new student seemed desperate. The Next Karate Kid was immediately dismissed as sequel garbage, panned by critics and fans, and doing worse business than the previous film and just barely breaking even at the box office. So naturally I, like anyone else seeing the fourth film for the first time, expected the worst. But it was not actually the worst. Quite frankly, I can not see why critics hated the third and fourth films as much as they did. Neither can really be called bad. Sure, whatever magic the first two films had is gone. But they are still entertaining. maybe not entertaining enough to justify paying for a movie ticket, but entertaining in a television movie quality sort of way. The problem really is that by the 90s the concept of the double feature was all but buried by the multiplexes. It use to be that you would watch the A feature first, followed by the lesser quality B feature. But in multiplexes, every movie was put in their own individual theater. And you paid as much for a B feature as you did for an A feature. A night out at the movies was like playing roulette. You may get an A feature, you may get a B feature, and you may end up watching garbage that in previous years the studio would have shelved or sold off to grindhouse distributors.

So yes, in that context The Next Karate Kid was bad. But thrown in free as part of a DVD box set where you pay for all four films at a one film price, then I can be much more forgiving. Anyway, a truly bad movie would be one of those Beach Party films I had watched last month. You can tell there was at least an attempt in this movie to produce something good. Weintraub wanted the franchise to continue, as did Cain who wanted the gig as the series director. What made the formula in the Karate Kid films work was the relationship between Macchio and Morita. That is something hard to recapture with a new cast. Perhaps Weintraub should have realized that he got lucky with the first movie, and that a series would not really hold up. But that goes against the movie business logic, that if something is a success, then it is sequel, sequel, sequel until it no longer makes money.   

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ( 2003 )
This one was another surprise. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has the reputation of being another CGI saturated film with no thought put into it other than setting things up for buildings being destroyed and giant beasties fighting. A really bad formula effects movie that ended the careers of Sean Connery and Peta Wilson. Basically this was The Avengers nine years before the Avengers film was released, and using literary superheroes from the late 1800s rather than modern superheroes. I was expecting a bad time. Instead I was entertained. No, it does not rise to the level of the MCU films, but it is not a bad movie. I guess it was the victim of being released at a time where too many similar CGI films were also being released.

You Can't Cheat an Honest Man ( 1939 )
The Wizard of Oz ( 1939 ) could have been a vastly different movie. M.G.M. tried to get Shirley Temple to play Dorothy, but failing that chose Judy Garland. Buddy Ebsen was originally cast as the Scarecrow, then swapped parts with Ray Bolger to play the Tin Man, and then just days before filming was to begin, nearly died from being poisoned by the metallic makeup, and while fighting for his life in the hospital, was replaced with Jack Haley. Perhaps the most amazing casting choice that never happened was Academy Award winner Gale Sondergaard for the Wicked Witch, because the studio wanted a beautiful witch. But when the studio decided to change the role of the witch to an ugly hag, Sondergaard dropped out of the picture and the part went to Margaret Hamilton. But perhaps the most frustrating casting that never happened was W.C. Fields as the Wizard and Professor Marvel. MGM specifically wrote both roles for Fields. But it never happened. Shortly before filming was to begin, Universal called Fields back to the set of You Can't Cheat and Honest Man to reshoot a number of scenes. Fields was devastated that he would not be able to work on The Wizard of Oz. Some even believe that Universal called Fields back to the set just to sabotage MGMs Wizard of Oz. Others suggested it was director George Marshall's doing. Fields and Marshall's working relationship turned to hate on the set, and a separate director Edward Cline needed to be brought in to shoot Field's scenes. After the movie wrapped, Fields continued to insult Marshall in the press. Whatever the reason for Universal asking Fields to reshoot his scenes, the historical significance of this movie will always be as the film that kept Fields from being in The Wizard of Oz.

You Can't Cheat an Honest Man was Fields return to film after alcoholism and a year of d.t.'s while attempting to break his addiction. While unfit for film work, the ailing Fields found work on the radio, most notably as a regular on The Chase and Sanborn Hour. Fields began work on that show just about the same time as ventriloquist Edgar Bergan and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Fields was paired up with Bergan in a weekly routine where he and the dummy would exchange insults. However, both Fields and Bergan would often stray from the script, and quite often Charlie would low blow Fields with jokes about his alcoholism. Eventually Fields left the show, notwanting to work with Bergan again. Once at Universal under a non exclusive contract, Fields wrote the script for his first film, once again under his alias Charles Bogle. The first draft was sent to other Universal screen writers where it was altered from what Fields had initially intended. Worst of all Universal came up with the big idea of casting Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy in the movie to capitalize on the radio feud. Fields was stuck working with a script he did not agree with, a comedian he did not get along with, and a director he grew to despise.

You Can't Cheat an Honest Man is a standard Fields film. Another rehashing of his stage musical Poppy where once again Fields plays a traveling showman and con artist. Although this time his character, Larsen E. Whipsnade, owned the circus. The film opens with Whipsnade thousands of dollars in debt and dodging a subpoena by his creditor to take his circus. His only hope is his grown children, especially his daughter who has won the effections of a rich boy. And despite not loving him, she is willing to marry him if the money can get her father out of debt. The problem is that she has just fallen in love with Edgar Bergan, the circus ventriloquist. Throughout the movie it is made clear that Whipsnade and the dummy Charlie McCarthy do not get along and are constantly exchanging insults. What screen time Fields is give is brilliant as usual, but despite having star billing, most of the screen time went to Bergan and his dummies. The scripts written by Charles Bogle were always thin, just basically putting Fields in a setting where for the next hour he could run through his routines and tell his jokes, and introducing just enough plot to satisfy the studio heads. But they always had some sort of conclusion. I do not know if it was Bogle or the Universal screen writers fault, but this movie has no real resolution. It ends before we find out if Whipsnades daughter ever does get back together with Edgar Bergan, or if Whipsnade ever makes it to the state line before the sheriff wit the subpoena can catch him.


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 26016
  • Liked: 5085
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16879 on: July 11, 2016, 01:09:27 AM »

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ( 2003 )
This one was another surprise. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has the reputation of being another CGI saturated film with no thought put into it other than setting things up for buildings being destroyed and giant beasties fighting. A really bad formula effects movie that ended the careers of Sean Connery and Peta Wilson. Basically this was The Avengners nine years before the Avengers film was released, and using literary superheroes from the late 1800s rather than modern superheroes. I was expecting a bad time. Instead I was entertained. No, it does not rise to the level of the MCU films, but it is not a bad movie. I guess it was the victim of being released at a time where too many similar CGI films were also being released.

That said, check out the source material. The first two volumes, though dark, are a lot of fun with some delightfully cheeky humour and touching moments.  Vol. 2 has two great death scenes (OK, one of them is less a death scene but rather a death revealed).


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27792
  • Liked: 5642
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16880 on: July 11, 2016, 05:49:52 PM »

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ( 2003 )
This one was another surprise. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has the reputation of being another CGI saturated film with no thought put into it other than setting things up for buildings being destroyed and giant beasties fighting. A really bad formula effects movie that ended the careers of Sean Connery and Peta Wilson. Basically this was The Avengers nine years before the Avengers film was released, and using literary superheroes from the late 1800s rather than modern superheroes. I was expecting a bad time. Instead I was entertained. No, it does not rise to the level of the MCU films, but it is not a bad movie. I guess it was the victim of being released at a time where too many similar CGI films were also being released.

Check out the Riffraff Theater iRiff of it, it's awesome.



Offline BathTub

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8382
  • Liked: 356
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16881 on: July 11, 2016, 05:50:11 PM »

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ( 2003 )
This one was another surprise. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has the reputation of being another CGI saturated film with no thought put into it other than setting things up for buildings being destroyed and giant beasties fighting. A really bad formula effects movie that ended the careers of Sean Connery and Peta Wilson. Basically this was The Avengners nine years before the Avengers film was released, and using literary superheroes from the late 1800s rather than modern superheroes. I was expecting a bad time. Instead I was entertained. No, it does not rise to the level of the MCU films, but it is not a bad movie. I guess it was the victim of being released at a time where too many similar CGI films were also being released.

That said, check out the source material. The first two volumes, though dark, are a lot of fun with some delightfully cheeky humour and touching moments.  Vol. 2 has two great death scenes (OK, one of them is less a death scene but rather a death revealed).

Yeah, I'm not sure that League is a terrible film, probably more a mediocre one. But it's made from an incredible book, so it's a pale imitation of the source material. It's a bit like The Watchmen where it would take a very special set of circumstances to get the books filmed respectfully.


Offline Charles Castle

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • Liked: 515
  • I crap bigger than this movie.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16882 on: July 14, 2016, 12:43:01 AM »
My mother wasn't a film buff in any sense of the word. She didn't like any particular directors as such. I doubt she could have named any, except for Hitchcock, who had been on television. In spite of this, she had exquisite taste in movies. One of her favorite movies that I remember watching with her was A Matter of Life and Death (1946) - which was titled Stairway to Heaven at the time) - one of the fancier flights of fantasy from Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It's from a mini-genre of film that had a brief period of popularity from the mid thirties to the mid forties: the near death fantasy. Other films that utilized similar plots include On Borrowed Time, Between Two Worlds, Heaven Can Wait, Here Comes Mr. Jordan, A Guy Named Joe, Death Takes a Holiday and (most famously) It's a Wonderful Life. The latter bears the stamp of Powell and Pressburger's films. A Matter of Life and Death starts with the stars and planets, drifting in the void. Capra does the same, but, ever the sentimentalist, anthropomorphizes the stars at the beginning of It's a Wonderful Life, turning them into angels. It's not an improvement, really, but my appetite for Capra is at a low ebb these days.

There's a bit of a difference between A Matter of Life and Death and the other films of its ilk, in so far as its a skeptic's version of this fantasy. I hadn't remembered that from my long-ago viewing of the film with my mom. The story has British pilot David Niven having to jump from his burning plane without a parachute. He's scheduled to die, but the "courier" charged with escorting him to the next world loses him in a fog bank and he survives to fall in love with Kim Hunter, the air controller who talked him through his final moments. In the afterlife, the balance must be reasserted and a trial is arranged in order to decide Niven's fate. In this world, a doctor examines him for neurological distress due to his visions of the other world. Is the whole thing an hallucination due to injury to the brain? The movie strongly suggests this, and it doesn't get cute with equivocation. On the whole, the plot of the film is kind of silly, but that's not what makes the film memorable.

Lest I've fallen down on the job, let me reiterate my complete devotion to The Archers. Michael Powell (with and without Emeric Pressburger) may very well be my favorite British director. His films have a kind of playfulness to them that eludes the more austere formalism of Hitchcock or David Lean. Plus, his films are ravishingly beautiful. The Archer's long collaboration with cinematographer Jack Cardiff occasionally resulted in images that burn themselves into your retinas. Cardiff was able to manipulate the ultra-saturated colors preferred by Technicolor busybody Natalie Kalmus like no other cinematographer.

Yet for all its visual grandiosity, it winks at the audience. There's a shot of an eyeball's view of a surgical procedure, when the eyelids close on the camera. There's a Coke machine in the arrival lobby in heaven. Ever interested in metacinema, the filmmakers include an in-movie metaphor for the movies in the form of Roger Livesey's camera obscura, which also doubles as a God's eye view of the town where the movie is set and mirrors the great holes in the heavens where the afterlife gazes down.

This is a secular movie, another aspect that appeals to me. Certainly the brain surgery plot device is evidence of that, but there's an even more subtle element that reinforces this. The Archer's film the afterlife in black and white, and this life in a blazing Technicolor (one character notes that there's not enough Technicolor in the afterlife, another meta wink at the audience). This suggests a deeply existential worldview, where this world is experience, while the next is colorless. Live for today, this color scheme intimates, because living for afterward isn't worth it.

There's a broader political dimension to the film, too, in which there's a jockeying for post-War relevance between Britain and the US, in which both sides tweak the other on the nose. The movie openly admires the American melting pot, and the trial sequence when the American jurors are chosen is something I wish I could show every nativist know-nothing in America these days. The movie is fairly critical of the British Empire, too, which raised some hackles when it was released. Of course, the movie pokes fun at Yankee exceptionalism, too, in the person of Raymond Massey's blowhard colonial lawyer.

Of course, it's the delirious romanticism of the movie that has kept it in the minds of film audiences, not all of the meta elements and political subtexts. Certainly, this is the element that most appealed to my mother all those years ago. Everything else is icing on the cake. This is a movie in which the world and the afterlife come to a halt over a single tear shed in the name of love, in which love will not be denied even by death. Everything in the movie is focused on this one idea.

Omnia vincit amor.

You know, if the space man puma thing turns out to be the correct religion, I for one will be very surprised.


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16150
  • Liked: 2611
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16883 on: July 14, 2016, 05:00:39 PM »
Got to see that in a theatre late last year - wonderful!
FINE


Offline Russoguru

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3565
  • Liked: 512
  • "The name's Apple, Tim Apple"
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16884 on: July 14, 2016, 09:49:41 PM »
Just went to see Ghostbusters! It was pretty awesome!


Quantum Vagina

  • Guest
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16885 on: July 15, 2016, 11:16:58 PM »
The man child I'm with refuses to see it because "THE ORIGINAL IS PERFECT AND THERE ARE JUST THINGS YOU SHOULD REMAKE". I could understand that if it had been getting consistent negative reviews, but I've heard nothing but positive things about it.


Offline ScottotD

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11158
  • Liked: 1269
  • E Pluribum Anus forever
    • Facebook
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16886 on: July 16, 2016, 02:11:20 AM »
The man child I'm with refuses to see it because "THE ORIGINAL IS PERFECT AND THERE ARE JUST THINGS YOU SHOULD REMAKE". I could understand that if it had been getting consistent negative reviews, but I've heard nothing but positive things about it.

The Ghost blowjob is "perfect"?
Scottotd on Instagram

"A thing I like that there was no chance would ever continue until recently is now continuing but it doesn't meet my exact personal specifications so fuck this"

- how I read any complaint about MST3k (or Star Wars or Ghostbusters)


Offline MartyS (Gromit)

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11646
  • Liked: 2592
  • Weirdies!
    • My homepage
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16887 on: July 16, 2016, 08:14:12 AM »
The man child I'm with refuses to see it because "THE ORIGINAL IS PERFECT AND THERE ARE JUST THINGS YOU SHOULD REMAKE". I could understand that if it had been getting consistent negative reviews, but I've heard nothing but positive things about it.

It's been decades but when I used to get dragged to movies I wasn't interested in, it wasn't fun...

Just let people not watch it if they think the original is the best thing ever.   It doesn't matter if the new one is good or bad, however odd it might seem for someone to have an emotional attachment to an above average 80s comedy, if they do then just let them pretend any new versions don't exist.


Quantum Vagina

  • Guest
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16888 on: July 16, 2016, 05:46:55 PM »
Well, I wouldn't be able to see it without him, since I'm lacking in apparent transportation.


Offline MartyS (Gromit)

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11646
  • Liked: 2592
  • Weirdies!
    • My homepage
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #16889 on: July 16, 2016, 07:30:43 PM »
Well, I wouldn't be able to see it without him, since I'm lacking in apparent transportation.

Are you so far from a theater a cab, Uber or public transportation is not an option?

Would he go for the idea of going to separate movies once at the multiplex?