Films Recently Watched

[Npoess]

I'm starting to think Compson might actually be Karl Pilkington.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Npoess

[lumpenprol]

that's one handsome fishing cat, xxx

[Alcofribas]

the placement of "lush" on that meter seems quite right

[Guest Jimmy McMessageboard]

i rewatched tintin. i liked it still but the ending is still a massive anticlimax sequel setup. the motion capture/animation looks stunning too. alot of cgi films age pretty badly but this still holds up. yeah yeah you all hate it, i don't care.

 

i don't really understand the love for jackie brown or inglorious basterds. for me qt is pulp fiction and reservoir dogs. of course anything qt makes is better than most stuff out there.

 

anyone see the zero dark thirty yet? getting some serious critical love. i hated the hurt locker so not overly interested but will see at some point

Edited December 28, 2012 by Jimmy McMessageboard

[SR4]

Story of film sounds cool. thanks Atop

 

Not sure about QT being a hipster George Lucas / his films now not being about anything... Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction aren't specifically about anything deep, they are just highly entertaining, well written/acted, suspenseful films. His newer material is still very much in that same ball park but he hasn't progressed beyond his formula so its been cheapened over time. Django was still a lot of fun, it's just annoying because it has the ingredients for something amazing but falls short.

 

Focusing on critics/reviews before you even see a movie seems like a dumb idea IF you are gonna see the film anyway... You are just gonna spoil scenes for yourself and make yourself aware of flaws ahead of time. Sometimes I wonder if you cynics get more pleasure out of art or hate.

 

 

hmm...i hope you weren't implying me....

 

Django had some hilarious parts, some tension...but I tend to focus on all the bad simply because I want Tarantino to hit another one out of the park...but at some point i really have to sit back and be honest with myself that I overall didn't feel like it was worth a 10 dollar experience. I think (or at least I hope) this is why critics always sound bitchy, because it's much easier to remember what went wrong with a movie than what went right...especially if the wrongs outweigh the rights. I think Tarantino is capable of amazing filmmaking, but he needs to double down and "professionalize", so to speak....trust and rely more on the team working around him to help tighten up his mental imagery into something palatable to a viewing audience.

[TRiP]

right after i had seen the film i read this post on imdb that i sort of agree with to some extent

 

 

 

For starters this film moves at the pace of constipation. I can’t ever remember seeing a film that develops at such a horribly boring pace. To make matters worse, the repetition is painful. Harry Caul’s paranoid nature is repeatedly beaten into our heads like we viewer’s are far too stupid to ever recognize paranoia. Beyond the repeated establishment of his paranoia - the bulk of the film’s first 70 minutes is spent watching Harry Caul turn various knobs in effort to dial in clearer dialog on his surveillance tapes, rewinding the tapes over and over again, while listening to the same bits of the conversation over and over again. We get it Coppola,……we heard the conversation the first 400 times Hackman played it! If this movie was edited at a pace that didn’t put people to sleep, it would have been about 30-40 minutes long and had completely equal impact without losing any relevance.

 

Then there is the foolish contradiction within Hackman’s character. He was so paranoid that no one knew where he lived and he wouldn’t even give out his phone number. Even his girlfriend (that he supposedly loved) had no clue where he lived, what his phone number was or even what he did for a living. Yet Hackman had no problem letting his one night stand into his world,…..letting her sleep over in his surveillance lair, among his top secret homemade equipment and precious surveillance tapes?!?!?!? He won’t let anyone in his apartment with his jazz records and saxophone, but he’ll consent to a party in his top secret work space?!?!?! A party with guests that are made up of his snooping competition and various people he doesn’t even know?!?!?! He won’t tell the woman he loves where he lives, what his phone number is or what he does for a living – yet he will let a woman he just met alone with his precious surveillance tapes and homemade, top secret surveillance equipment while he sleeps?!?!?! Then in the end of the movie Hackman destroys his apartment while looking for a planted bug,…doing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage in a rented apartment. How about renting a new apartment (he had a landlord that violates his privacy anyway)?!?!?! Or better yet, how about NOT having any incriminating conversations in the apartment?!?!?! No one knows where he lived and no one had his phone number – how hard would of it been to save the incriminating conversations for when he was outside his apartment walls?!?!?!

 

I know this hurts many of you that had some egomaniacal film professor brainwash you into believing this is a “thinking man’s masterpiece”,…..but wake up and see this movie for what it is.

 

 

 

i don't agree with everything he says, the pace didn't bother me one bit, though the repetition and contradictions in hackmans character got sort of annoying. still, i'd probably score it a bit higher now that i've had some time to think about it. guess my expectations were just too high. was expecting something on the same level as network for some reason.

 

sorry for digging this up, only seeing your reply now

 

man, that's a pretty deplorable critique, all his points are easily reversed - especially the one about the one-night-stand job - It makes perfect sense that of all people he'd let a random woman, whom he was only going to have a 1 night encounter with, come to his house, if anything, meeting a woman like this is the only scenario he can exercise the need to show someone his home, showing it to someone who he'll never see again, and someone he'll never be close to again

 

 

Late Spring - hmmmmmmmm, i was pretty shocked to see it has a 100% rating on RT (not that one should ever listen to them) and having watched it and reflected, it was pretty damn neat, and well, pretty perfect. Having said that, it was a very restricted film, never over stretching itself, but i guess thats just Ozu, one shouldnt really be expecting more. What's funny is, its definitely a film that requires further reading about it in order to appreciate it more, which in the grand scale of things - i wonder if its a good thing or bad. However, if one was to see it randomly and not know anything about it, it's still a 'nice' enjoyable film.

[blackdust]

Indie games the movie

 

7/10

 

Nice insight into how these games are made with a 2 man crew, but of them seem a Tad insecure.

[Atop]

The Story of Film - 6 eps in and I will go ahead and give this 10/10 for being a free film history lesson of high calibre without having to pay for a film history class that might not be as detailed and entertaining. Yes, it is on Netflix.

 

I think I saw a couple of minutes of the first episode. The narrator has a really weird voice is sitting way too close to the mic, right?

 

He has an Irish accent, if that is considered weird? He is a bit extreme is his repetition of inflection but the information is so good that I get lost in the episodes after a few moments of his narrative.

[baph]

Charade:

 

I mean, it's a bit sexist with Hepburn being totally helpless and naive, but at the same time Cary Grant is so gay, and also there were a few genuine lols and I love that title sequence/score /10

 

 

Edited December 28, 2012 by baph

[data]

right after i had seen the film i read this post on imdb that i sort of agree with to some extent

 

 

 

For starters this film moves at the pace of constipation. I can’t ever remember seeing a film that develops at such a horribly boring pace. To make matters worse, the repetition is painful. Harry Caul’s paranoid nature is repeatedly beaten into our heads like we viewer’s are far too stupid to ever recognize paranoia. Beyond the repeated establishment of his paranoia - the bulk of the film’s first 70 minutes is spent watching Harry Caul turn various knobs in effort to dial in clearer dialog on his surveillance tapes, rewinding the tapes over and over again, while listening to the same bits of the conversation over and over again. We get it Coppola,……we heard the conversation the first 400 times Hackman played it! If this movie was edited at a pace that didn’t put people to sleep, it would have been about 30-40 minutes long and had completely equal impact without losing any relevance.

 

Then there is the foolish contradiction within Hackman’s character. He was so paranoid that no one knew where he lived and he wouldn’t even give out his phone number. Even his girlfriend (that he supposedly loved) had no clue where he lived, what his phone number was or even what he did for a living. Yet Hackman had no problem letting his one night stand into his world,…..letting her sleep over in his surveillance lair, among his top secret homemade equipment and precious surveillance tapes?!?!?!? He won’t let anyone in his apartment with his jazz records and saxophone, but he’ll consent to a party in his top secret work space?!?!?! A party with guests that are made up of his snooping competition and various people he doesn’t even know?!?!?! He won’t tell the woman he loves where he lives, what his phone number is or what he does for a living – yet he will let a woman he just met alone with his precious surveillance tapes and homemade, top secret surveillance equipment while he sleeps?!?!?! Then in the end of the movie Hackman destroys his apartment while looking for a planted bug,…doing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage in a rented apartment. How about renting a new apartment (he had a landlord that violates his privacy anyway)?!?!?! Or better yet, how about NOT having any incriminating conversations in the apartment?!?!?! No one knows where he lived and no one had his phone number – how hard would of it been to save the incriminating conversations for when he was outside his apartment walls?!?!?!

 

I know this hurts many of you that had some egomaniacal film professor brainwash you into believing this is a “thinking man’s masterpiece”,…..but wake up and see this movie for what it is.

 

 

 

i don't agree with everything he says, the pace didn't bother me one bit, though the repetition and contradictions in hackmans character got sort of annoying. still, i'd probably score it a bit higher now that i've had some time to think about it. guess my expectations were just too high. was expecting something on the same level as network for some reason.

 

sorry for digging this up, only seeing your reply now

 

man, that's a pretty deplorable critique, all his points are easily reversed - especially the one about the one-night-stand job - It makes perfect sense that of all people he'd let a random woman, whom he was only going to have a 1 night encounter with, come to his house, if anything, meeting a woman like this is the only scenario he can exercise the need to show someone his home, showing it to someone who he'll never see again, and someone he'll never be close to again

 

 

he didn't show her his apartment though, he showed her his super secret studio with all his eqipment and tapes etc. he never brought anyone to his apartment. still though, im not sure i agree with that point either, or think it's a viable argument. anyway whatever.

[Squee]

The Story of Film - 6 eps in and I will go ahead and give this 10/10 for being a free film history lesson of high calibre without having to pay for a film history class that might not be as detailed and entertaining. Yes, it is on Netflix.

 

I think I saw a couple of minutes of the first episode. The narrator has a really weird voice is sitting way too close to the mic, right?

 

He has an Irish accent, if that is considered weird? He is a bit extreme is his repetition of inflection but the information is so good that I get lost in the episodes after a few moments of his narrative.

 

Haha, yep - that's the one. Ok, his voice is not weird, but it's way different than what you're used to when it comes to narrators.

[J3FF3R00]

I watched Bull Durham the other night at my wife's uncle's place.

 

7/10

 

Tim Robbins is young, goofy and fun too watch.

Susan Sarandon is great.

Kevin Costner is basically trying to act "hot" the whole movie.

[Schlitze]

The ABC's Of Death - 6/10

[J3FF3R00]

Silver Linings Playbook

 

p.o.s./10

[blackdust]

The divide.

 

Started out good. Then it Decembe descended into madness. Then questions went unanswered then it ended.

 

5/10

[Nebraska]

 

a multi-layered art-haus film that uses of dialectical conflict to tell his story of unbridled capitalism. polarities such as streetwise beach girl - naive farm boy, brash new marketing ideas - conservative ideas, hard work - play at work, bikini on - bikini off are presented.

 

a cinema classic that won 6 awards for bodacious bodies, hot boobies and best dramatic actor (kristi ducati)

Edited December 29, 2012 by Nebraska

[Danny O Flannagin]

 

a multi-layered art-haus film that uses of dialectical conflict to tell his story of unbridled capitalism. polarities such as streetwise beach girl - naive farm boy, brash new marketing ideas - conservative ideas, hard work - play at work, bikini on - bikini off are presented.

 

a cinema classic that won 6 awards for bodacious bodies, hot boobies and best dramatic actor (kristi ducati)

Looks deep

[Ego]

Jagten - Not bad. A bit predictable if you read the synopsis or once you realise what the setup is. Great performances though. 4/5

[Guest disparaissant]

heathers - "i love my dead, gay son"/10

i done forgot how incredibly dark this film is

[YO303]

The Sound Of My Voice - LOL this movie was fucking weird man, it was interesting for a while but then realized it was just a waste of time. And that ending what the am i soppose to take from it, lol. kind of a wate of time/10

Edited December 30, 2012 by YO303

[gmanyo]

Just watched the first episode of Sherlock, and at an hour and a half it's basically a movie. Good one too. Is there a reason to keep making movies and TV separate, at least as far as story-oriented things are concerned (game shows are a different thing though)? Can we just combine the two and get rid of ads in the middle?

[Guest Mirezzi]

Stick with it, that's all I'll say. The second episode of the first season is actually pretty horrible, but the rest of the series is sublime. I can't wait until season three!

[Alcofribas]

omg that show is facepalmingly bad. i can't believe i even watched past the "mind palace" scene in the hound of the baskerville episode.

 

jeremy brett ftw!

[Guest Mirezzi]

Spoilsport.

Edited December 30, 2012 by The Overlook

[Alcofribas]

sorry man, my bad. i fucking LOVE that show.