What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 195
Online now: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]
Post Reply
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Vox populi isn't a good argument for anything.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
justine posted:
I saw Despicable Me 2 tonight. It's the best 3D flick i've seen. :)

:D
The Minions were soooo funny! When they started singing YMCA, I was LMFAO with tears! but by that point in the movie, It was almost a Pavlovian response to start laughing whenever they were on screen.

Oh i forgot to show the original video of itto my granddaughter! The whole movie was funny, but i especially liked the 3D effects at the end. The bubbles were awesome!


BTW guys, 2 is MUCH better than 1.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.


Also, looks like John Ratzenberger's not in it.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Planes looks terribly unimaginative. After Toy Story, Cars looked a little tires, this is just one more step down.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Séamas posted:
Planes looks terribly unimaginative. After Toy Story, Cars looked a little tires, this is just one more step down.


Awesome typo, man :D
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.

That's because it was developed by Disney's direct to DVD unit, not Pixar. Apparently it turned out better than they expected, so they opted for a theatrical release.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
chikie posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.

That's because it was developed by Disney's direct to DVD unit, not Pixar. Apparently it turned out better than they expected, so they opted for a theatrical release.

Yes, they are appropriating Pixar's innovations for themselves.

With much shorter development times and Disney's typical wimpy script.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.


Also, looks like John Ratzenberger's not in it.

Fine by me. Dude's a right wing prick.
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
user posted:
chikie posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.

That's because it was developed by Disney's direct to DVD unit, not Pixar. Apparently it turned out better than they expected, so they opted for a theatrical release.

Yes, they are appropriating Pixar's innovations for themselves.

With much shorter development times and Disney's typical wimpy script.


My anticipation for this movie has taken a nosedive.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.


Also, looks like John Ratzenberger's not in it.

Fine by me. Dude's a right wing prick.


Evil Dr.Porkchop!
dv
User avatar
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
user posted:
chikie posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.

That's because it was developed by Disney's direct to DVD unit, not Pixar. Apparently it turned out better than they expected, so they opted for a theatrical release.

Yes, they are appropriating Pixar's innovations for themselves.

With much shorter development times and Disney's typical wimpy script.


My anticipation for this movie has taken a nosedive.

Maybe it'll be better, but I would not be at all surprised to find recycle "Cars" jokes.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
user posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
user posted:
chikie posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.

That's because it was developed by Disney's direct to DVD unit, not Pixar. Apparently it turned out better than they expected, so they opted for a theatrical release.

Yes, they are appropriating Pixar's innovations for themselves.

With much shorter development times and Disney's typical wimpy script.


My anticipation for this movie has taken a nosedive.

Maybe it'll be better, but I would not be at all surprised to find recycle "Cars" jokes.


My big problem with this movie is, I've already bought a bunch of the toys! If it's a bomb, and the boys don't like it, I take a serious hit to my GrandPa cred; and Santa has to re-stratigize !
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
user posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
user posted:
chikie posted:
user posted:
Haven't seen it, but I noticed that the new Disney movie featuring planes with eyes is labeled only as "Disney" instead of "Disney/Pixar". The absorption is running right along.

That's because it was developed by Disney's direct to DVD unit, not Pixar. Apparently it turned out better than they expected, so they opted for a theatrical release.

Yes, they are appropriating Pixar's innovations for themselves.

With much shorter development times and Disney's typical wimpy script.


My anticipation for this movie has taken a nosedive.

Maybe it'll be better, but I would not be at all surprised to find recycle "Cars" jokes.


My big problem with this movie is, I've already bought a bunch of the toys! If it's a bomb, and the boys don't like it, I take a serious hit to my GrandPa cred; and Santa has to re-stratigize !


The next Pixar movie is about dinosaurs. Start saving to buy those toys.

http://www.pixar.com/about/Upcoming
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
The Sandlot. I still love this flick.
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
Oh, and i think i turned my oldest granddaughter into a fan of The Sandlot, too. :)
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Five Easy Pieces

Karen Black, natch.

:: holds it between the knees ::
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
A History Of Violence (this is such a good movie)

Pillow Talk

The Wedding Planner
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Diamonds Are Forever (continuing our sojourn through the James Bond movies that are available on Netflix streaming).

Not the best Bond movie, but certainly not the worst.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Diamonds Are Forever (continuing our sojourn through the James Bond movies that are available on Netflix streaming).

Not the best Bond movie, but certainly not the worst.


I thought the best thing about that movie was the Mustang.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Diamonds Are Forever (continuing our sojourn through the James Bond movies that are available on Netflix streaming).

Not the best Bond movie, but certainly not the worst.

It's kind of bad, but it's funny.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
I don't much for any of the Bond movies after I started reading the books.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Smurfs 2

Unless your ankle-biters are actually biting your ankles, don't go.
It wasn't that bad, at least we did not have to listen to them singing constantly this time.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
What sound do they make when they smurf?
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
Smurfs 2

Unless your ankle-biters are actually biting your ankles, don't go.

This should make you feel better:
The Smurfs
TOS
User avatar
year of the dragon

80s chinatown crime flick with mickey rourke

very 80s but surprisingly enjoyable
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Metacell posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Smurfs 2

Unless your ankle-biters are actually biting your ankles, don't go.

This should make you feel better:
The Smurfs


*chuckles*
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
Pithecanthropus posted:
Diamonds Are Forever (continuing our sojourn through the James Bond movies that are available on Netflix streaming).

Not the best Bond movie, but certainly not the worst.


I thought the best thing about that movie was the Mustang.



Jill St. Johns' character was called "the Mustang"??

I thought it was Tiffany Case.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Next Bond installment: On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I thought I'd seen all the Bond movies at some point in my life, but this was one that slipped by. I liked the story well enough, but the editing is frenetic and the pacing is strange. Plus, they speed up the film during most of the fight scenes. But Diana Riggs was awesome!!

I'll give it a B-.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Psych-Out
(1968)
Pretty funny Hippie/exploitation flick from American International Pictures.
This one stars Jack Nicholson and Susan Strassberg.
Also featuring Bruce Dern, Dean Stockwell and a very brief appearance from Gary Marshall.
This was all shot in the midst of the Haight-Ashbury scene. Best parts are the wigs and fake pony-tails & muttonchops worn by some of the actors. Plus Jack Nicholson pretending to rock out on guitar. Plot is pretty damned unimportant, the main objective is to be completely far out.

The Rink
(1916)
A great early Charlie Chaplin short. This is the first one we've shown the kids. Once upon a time my wife and I had a pretty large collection of Chaplin films and features on VHS. I think they are in the attic now.
It took the kids a few moments to get used to the whole vibe of this--they had seen some old Our Gang stuff some time ago, so it didn't take too long.
This one has some excellent examples of Chaplin's genius--his ingenuity with props is damned impressive--as is his whole approach to the very new medium of film. Some sources claim this one is actually from 1914, but either way it is impressive. His skating (roller skates) is also impressive.
We have the rest of this collection, plus all the Buster Keaton flicks on Instant Queue on Netflix. We'll watch one before any movie on the family movie nights.

Transformers : Dark of the Moon

2011
So nearly a full century passes after Chaplin made the Rink, Michael bay spends $195 million to create this piece of human waste.
I never watched the two earlier installments, and was probably 4-5 years too old to have ever paid attention to the TV series, so I really had no clue what this was going to be about.
After watching it, I still don't.
The only reason we watched it was because of some show/competition at my kids' summer camp, different groups are named after things like "Transformers" "Xmen", "Avengers", etc.
My kids are 100% clueless about any of these, so we figured, what the hell, we'll see what is available and watch.
Damn, this is one stick fiddling stupid-ass movie. The plot and the acting are possibly the worst offenders, but the action sequences are and the effects are just unbelievably badly imagined. Too stupid for words. I suppose the viewer is supposed to be mesmerized by this big whirling tornado of mechanized crap, but it just lacks any composition. Plus I think the Transformer things are just overly detailed. More distracting than interesting. I thought the funniest bit was the lead actress goes through the last 30 minutes of this movie and her white blouse is perfectly unblemished and her hair looks beautiful--meanwhile Patrick Dempsey's black coat looks like it was riddled with bullets from a very brief sequence earlier on.
Virtually everything about this exemplifies why I am totally turned off by recent blockbuster-type action movies.
This thing has grossed over a billion dollars.
TOS
User avatar
Séamas posted:
So nearly a full century passes after Chaplin made the Rink, Michael bay spends $195 million to create this piece of human waste.


it's depressing, but if it makes you feel any better it's becoming increasingly clear that hollywood's blockbuster financing model is on the verge of collapse ... the number of flops this summer has been truly disastrous for the industry; a couple more summers like this and the two-hundred-million dollar spectacle will be reduced to a very small number indeed (and even the tried-and-true joss wheadon projects will be at risk if they flop)
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
I couldn't tell an Autobot from a Decepticon in the first movie and I left it feeling confused and befuddled. I didn't bother with the rest of the bunch. The only thing I took from that movie was an appreciation for Megan Fox's tits.
dv
User avatar
Séamas posted:
Transformers : Dark of the Moon


Dammit, just see the Transformers Animated Movie from 1984. It makes more sense and you'll thank yourself later.

Also, Orson Welles.
TOS
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
I couldn't tell an Autobot from a Decepticon in the first movie and I left it feeling confused and befuddled. I didn't bother with the rest of the bunch. The only thing I took from that movie was an appreciation for Megan Fox's tits.


then their work was done
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pithecanthropus posted:
I couldn't tell an Autobot from a Decepticon in the first movie and I left it feeling confused and befuddled. I didn't bother with the rest of the bunch. The only thing I took from that movie was an appreciation for Megan Fox's tits.


then their work was done


What if you already had an appreciation for her tits?
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
TOS posted:
Séamas posted:
So nearly a full century passes after Chaplin made the Rink, Michael bay spends $195 million to create this piece of human waste.


it's depressing, but if it makes you feel any better it's becoming increasingly clear that hollywood's blockbuster financing model is on the verge of collapse ... the number of flops this summer has been truly disastrous for the industry; a couple more summers like this and the two-hundred-million dollar spectacle will be reduced to a very small number indeed (and even the tried-and-true joss wheadon projects will be at risk if they flop)



How are they defining flop?
I'm only asking as this Transformers movie was probably not all that impressive (compared to earlier installments), yet it still took in close to a $$ billion more than they spent on it. I don't know if the producers will call that a success or not.
I'd say MOST of what has turned me off of the blockbuster movies is I can pretty much predict what scene chiché or piece of dialogue is coming next.
My wife laughed as I correctly predicted the "Go, Go! Go!, Go!" and "Look out!" right before the actors did.

I'm beginning to think the film composers are all using the same score now.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 195