What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 ... 195
Online now: Google [Bot]
Post Reply
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
TOS posted:
john wayne was always monstrously overrated

Someone ought to belt you for the trouble you cause, but I won't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3343LUHNb4

The Hell I won't!
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
I think John Wayne was totally a product of his time. Kind of like Tiny Tim, I can't see what people saw in him.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Always thought he'd play a great McCarthy.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Lucy (2014).

Y'know, I watched the interview Scarlett Johansson had with Stephen Colbert on his new show on his second night. There she--at least as much of her public persona that she revealed--was utterly charming and very sophisticated.

In comparison this was what was SO disappointing in "Lucy". While Johansson played the clueless ingénue very well--after all: she IS a good actress--that she was for the first 20 minutes or so in the movie, while such a persona could have some charm to it in itself, in this role Johansson was distinctly unattractive (though still in a physically pretty way).

And for the "I wanna see Scarlett being sexy in states of undress" crowd this movie is VERY disappointing. Quite frankly the viewer saw--for a longer time--more of Johansson through the opening credits of "Lost in Translation", and through most of THIS movie she is rather unsexily in a physical state of confusion trying to cope with her situation.

The basic premise of the movie is that Lucy gets caught up in a rather confusing attempt to smuggle a new drug being cooked in Taiwan for distribution into the US and Europe. In the seemingly unnecessary demonstration of this drug the Taiwanese drug lord shows Lucy a guy who sniffs up a couple of crystals of it and goes from a VERY stereotypical movie-version of being completely drugged out to grinning beatifically before the drug lord again unnecessarily shoots him in the head (the drug lord is NOT going to push the addict back onto the streets as advertisement for his new drug? Stupid drug lord).

The drug is a synthetic version of a hormone that women naturally produce in tiny amounts during pregnancy that specifically stimulates the development of the brain in the fetus (as far as I know none of this bit of fiction is true). For the purposes of smuggling this drug Lucy and 3 seeming drifters found in Taiwan (though with passports to 3 different European nations) had their intestinal regions cut open into which they have gotten inserted a bag containing about a kilogram of this drug. At this point another McGuffin is inserted into the movie where for no explicable reason Lucy is moved to a locked chamber where she is chained to wall in order to...what? Make sure that she complies with delivering the drug to the drug lord's connection in the US by physically beating her up INCLUDING kicking her in the stomach where the bag of drugs is--shouldn't that drug lord have simply killed his assistants for abusing their drug mule in this particular way? "Naturally" this results in rupturing that bag inside Lucy and then the "fun" begin.

Though the rest of the movie is distinctly not at all fun. Morgan Freedman is NOT wasted as the senior brain researcher because he delivers a more sophisticated version of the movie's tag line--"The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. Imagine what she could do with 100%"--that had me at least nodding along while he was delivering this mostly pure nonsense. The remainder of the movie consists of Lucy telling Interpol to apprehend the other drug mules at their respective landing airports so that Lucy could get the rest of the drugs they were carrying in order for her to reach that 100% mental capacity (why exactly would Interpol cooperate this way?). There are many more such inadequately answered questions throughout.

So overall this movie was not worth the time I wasted on it.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
I liked Lucy. There, I said it.

Now, if you want to watch Scarlett Johansson naked, the movie you want is called 'Under the skin". I also liked that one.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
I liked Lucy. There, I said it.

Now, if you want to watch Scarlett Johansson naked, the movie you want is called 'Under the skin". I also liked that one.


Thank you.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Pee Wee's Big Adventure
1985
Damn the Netflix rating on this is 1.5 starts, What's up with THAT?
This is a solid 8.5/10

It's totally ridiculous in all the right ways. It's definitley a Pee Wee that is somewhere between his HBO specials and the Saturday Morning show as far as the innuendo goes--but Pee Wee is always pretty constant in being kind of likable, but also a self centered little jerk.

A Nightmare on Elm Street
1984
I saw this with my friends as seniors in High School--I think it was the weekend it came out. We had no real clue what we were in for. I think we quoted this movie for the next six months. I think it really hit marks that were way beyond why any other horror movie was doing as far as concept and the mix of creepiness, horror and humor goes.

Shane
1953

This is an excellent western, even though the kid is pretty hard to take.
Alan Ladd and Jack Palance both do a great job with their non verbal acting. Palance's menace is particularly strong and pretty frightening. Seems like a cool sociopath.
It took my a bit to get why they show so much adoration towards Shane from the child and mother, but on reflection it is shown to really highlight temptation. He could have easily let Joe head off and get killed and easily take his place. But he was seeking redemption.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
^^ But was he shot at the end or not?
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
The Time Travellers (1964)

Fun little B movie. Pretty standard cheesy fare, with a surprisingly interesting ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UucKYi4Cz64
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Metacell posted:
^^ But was he shot at the end or not?



I don't think there is a doubt about that, just as to whether it was fatal.
I presume it was. For me it is more fitting.
Transcendence (2014).

Johnny Depp and Rebecca Hall play the husband-and-wife team of top level artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, Will and Evelyn Caster. They introduce their some of their ideas on AI at a TED Talks-like conference at UC Berkeley when a worldwide tragedy strikes: Will is shot by an attempted assassin while around the world a number of AI research facilities are simultaneously struck by various means (mostly via inside jobs) by a group known as Revolutionary Independence From Technology (RIFT) that had been actively attacking all AI research as dangerous (more akin to the Animal Liberation Front as opposed to PETA but towards AI instead of animal research). Although the wound that Will received in itself was not fatal, the bullet had been formed with radioactive polonium-210 which partially dissolved into Will's bloodstream, giving him mere weeks to live.

The Casters' current project involves a sophisticated AI system that is substantially more powerful than what we currently have. Since Will was the chief designer this project is all but shut down, but Evelyn and Will and their best friend and fellow AI researcher, Max Waters (played by Paul Bettany) have an idea: would it be possible to "upload" Will into their current systems? Due to fear of being attacked again they set up a hidden facility elsewhere to keep Will in relative comfort while both Evelyn and Max attack the problem of transferring Will's consciousness to the machine via electrodes placed around his brain. In the midst of their efforts Will dies, but upon restarting their computer a last time in order to wipe the drives a miracle happens: a window opens on one of the screens and a typed question appears: "Is anyone there?"

Evelyn and Max are divided. Max contends that the transference process was absolutely incomplete so they do not know what they actually have inside the computer, but Evelyn watches as various images are conjured upon the screen and she knows that they are from her and Will's shared past. Max insists that they wipe the drives as planned and shut it all down, but Evelyn insists that it must be Will and tells Max to leave.

At this point the story starts to become really interesting.

Now this movie begins with a scene with Max wandering down the unpowered streets of Berkeley some seven years after the assassination attempt talking to the audience saying that there are rumors of SOME electrical power being available elsewhere in the world, so in a way the viewer already knows what is going to happen although, of course, not the details.

Are those details worth the time-investment? Yeah, I guess (though I have to admit being a little bored during some of those scenes described above). The movie didn't get anything significantly wrong about computer technology (at least from this knowledgable computer user's POV) that couldn't be explained as being somewhat (or a lot) better than what we currently have. In contrast to "Lucy" (which I reviewed previously) most of computerized Will's "powers" were merely sophisticated (nano)technology--again, leaps and bounds ahead--as opposed to the pure magic that Lucy had while building to her 100%.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Fooey. I was watching that movie on HBO and stopped when Will left. Now my subscription is gone. Meant to get back to it, I did.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014).

Y'know, I like this movie A LOT. Even given the usual leeway that SF is always given, the story within this movie hangs together quite well.

The premise is that a bit--20-30 years?--in the future humanity is in a fight for Earth with an alien presence--called by humans the Mimics--that landed in Germany on (inside?) a sizable meteor. The aliens have taken over much of continental Europe not yet having expanded into the southern parts of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece and spreading eastward as far as Russia. The US is again using the UK as a staging ground to prepare to attack the Mimics in a D-Day-like invasion across the English Channel.

In the lead-up to this invasion, we are treated to various news program appearances where Major Cage (Tom Cruise) could be seen leading the rah-rah in the US to get people to sign up to join the invasion. For reasons not entirely clear to me (at least), on D-1 Major Cage is flown into London where he meets with the European Commander-in-Chief, General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson), who tells Major Cage that he will be leading some of the troops on the beach the day after. Cage protests saying that while he is a good PR guy he is no soldier. General Brigham tells Cage that despite his protests that the general IS his commanding officer. Cage runs out of the general's office and is taken down by some Taser-like device.

A few hours later Private Cage is awoken by a soldier kicking him on some forward base along the English coast opposite France. Then he is introduced to the other people in his squad who naturally are unhappy at the prospect of having to babysit a virtual inexperienced trainee. Cage is fitted out with the partial exo-skeleton suits that is standard issue for this multinational force and the next morning he goes to war, being loaded into frameworks inside large helicopters with 4 sets of blades.

The invasion is a debacle. Cage's helo is hit and part of his squad never make it to the beach. Cage is having problems just trying to disenage the safety for most of the weapons of his suit. Most of the human soldiers are easily cut down. Cage spots an odd, large Mimic and decides that he CAN take one of them out with an anti-personnel mine that he thrusts in front of himself as that Mimic attacks him. Cage burns from the aftereffects of the mine when suddenly....

Private Cage is awoken by a soldier kicking him on some forward base. Confused, Cage largely repeats his actions although getting killed in another way, whereupon...

Cage is awoken by a soldier kicking him.

Eventually Cage notices that there is one other person who is acting differently during these replays like himself: Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), a decorated war hero who had earned the nickname the "Angel of Verdun" for her actions during the evacuation of that town the earlier in the war and is also known as "Full Metal uncouth individual" by her fellow soldiers. During one of his replays Cage manages to get next to Rita and after trying to sketch out what had been happening to him, she manages to get out: "When we're back at the base, look for me" before they are both killed again.

The thumbnail description of "Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers" is apt. I do like how the script handles some of the alternate scenarios (such as when Cage successfully runs from the base only to find himself in London being killed when the counter-attack happens). I'll leave the movie to explain why Cage is stuck in his time-loop (it is a good SF explanation) and how he very painfully advances his story.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Refreshing to see Cruise playing a kitty.
sturner Ancient Soldier
User avatar
TOS posted:
john wayne was always monstrously overrated

Of course he was, but in the John Ford Cavalry Triology, it's such great fun! Ford actually used the traditions and customs of the service. You get a feeling for Cavalry in post Civil War service.
sturner Ancient Soldier
User avatar
The title is a not so subtle reference to the first progenitor of human kind in the Leaky discoveries of hominin remains. Lucy meets the first Lucy in the last portion of the movie.

DEyncourt posted:
Lucy (2014).

Y'know, I watched the interview Scarlett Johansson had with Stephen Colbert on his new show on his second night. There she--at least as much of her public persona that she revealed--was utterly charming and very sophisticated.

In comparison this was what was SO disappointing in "Lucy". While Johansson played the clueless ingénue very well--after all: she IS a good actress--that she was for the first 20 minutes or so in the movie, while such a persona could have some charm to it in itself, in this role Johansson was distinctly unattractive (though still in a physically pretty way).

And for the "I wanna see Scarlett being sexy in states of undress" crowd this movie is VERY disappointing. Quite frankly the viewer saw--for a longer time--more of Johansson through the opening credits of "Lost in Translation", and through most of THIS movie she is rather unsexily in a physical state of confusion trying to cope with her situation.

The basic premise of the movie is that Lucy gets caught up in a rather confusing attempt to smuggle a new drug being cooked in Taiwan for distribution into the US and Europe. In the seemingly unnecessary demonstration of this drug the Taiwanese drug lord shows Lucy a guy who sniffs up a couple of crystals of it and goes from a VERY stereotypical movie-version of being completely drugged out to grinning beatifically before the drug lord again unnecessarily shoots him in the head (the drug lord is NOT going to push the addict back onto the streets as advertisement for his new drug? Stupid drug lord).

The drug is a synthetic version of a hormone that women naturally produce in tiny amounts during pregnancy that specifically stimulates the development of the brain in the fetus (as far as I know none of this bit of fiction is true). For the purposes of smuggling this drug Lucy and 3 seeming drifters found in Taiwan (though with passports to 3 different European nations) had their intestinal regions cut open into which they have gotten inserted a bag containing about a kilogram of this drug. At this point another McGuffin is inserted into the movie where for no explicable reason Lucy is moved to a locked chamber where she is chained to wall in order to...what? Make sure that she complies with delivering the drug to the drug lord's connection in the US by physically beating her up INCLUDING kicking her in the stomach where the bag of drugs is--shouldn't that drug lord have simply killed his assistants for abusing their drug mule in this particular way? "Naturally" this results in rupturing that bag inside Lucy and then the "fun" begin.

Though the rest of the movie is distinctly not at all fun. Morgan Freedman is NOT wasted as the senior brain researcher because he delivers a more sophisticated version of the movie's tag line--"The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. Imagine what she could do with 100%"--that had me at least nodding along while he was delivering this mostly pure nonsense. The remainder of the movie consists of Lucy telling Interpol to apprehend the other drug mules at their respective landing airports so that Lucy could get the rest of the drugs they were carrying in order for her to reach that 100% mental capacity (why exactly would Interpol cooperate this way?). There are many more such inadequately answered questions throughout.

So overall this movie was not worth the time I wasted on it.

sturner Ancient Soldier
User avatar
user posted:
Refreshing to see Cruise playing a kitty.

What is totally refreshing is that Hollywood, and Cruise finally represent a hero in the true light of what a hero is.

Not a naturally brave, immune to fear, courageous icon, but as an individual beset with failings, and fear who decides to stop running, and fight despite his fears.

In the end, he become a truly admirable human, whom one can identify with, and who finally realizes that it isn't self-sacrifice he is facing but the job that has to be done.

And the journey of the hero ends.
sturner posted:
The title is a not so subtle reference to the first progenitor of human kind in the Leaky discoveries of hominin remains. Lucy meets the first Lucy in the last portion of the movie.

DEyncourt posted:
Lucy (2014).

Y'know, I watched the interview Scarlett Johansson had with Stephen Colbert on his new show on his second night. There she--at least as much of her public persona that she revealed--was utterly charming and very sophisticated.

In comparison this was what was SO disappointing in "Lucy". While Johansson played the clueless ingénue very well--after all: she IS a good actress--that she was for the first 20 minutes or so in the movie, while such a persona could have some charm to it in itself, in this role Johansson was distinctly unattractive (though still in a physically pretty way).

And for the "I wanna see Scarlett being sexy in states of undress" crowd this movie is VERY disappointing. Quite frankly the viewer saw--for a longer time--more of Johansson through the opening credits of "Lost in Translation", and through most of THIS movie she is rather unsexily in a physical state of confusion trying to cope with her situation.

The basic premise of the movie is that Lucy gets caught up in a rather confusing attempt to smuggle a new drug being cooked in Taiwan for distribution into the US and Europe. In the seemingly unnecessary demonstration of this drug the Taiwanese drug lord shows Lucy a guy who sniffs up a couple of crystals of it and goes from a VERY stereotypical movie-version of being completely drugged out to grinning beatifically before the drug lord again unnecessarily shoots him in the head (the drug lord is NOT going to push the addict back onto the streets as advertisement for his new drug? Stupid drug lord).

The drug is a synthetic version of a hormone that women naturally produce in tiny amounts during pregnancy that specifically stimulates the development of the brain in the fetus (as far as I know none of this bit of fiction is true). For the purposes of smuggling this drug Lucy and 3 seeming drifters found in Taiwan (though with passports to 3 different European nations) had their intestinal regions cut open into which they have gotten inserted a bag containing about a kilogram of this drug. At this point another McGuffin is inserted into the movie where for no explicable reason Lucy is moved to a locked chamber where she is chained to wall in order to...what? Make sure that she complies with delivering the drug to the drug lord's connection in the US by physically beating her up INCLUDING kicking her in the stomach where the bag of drugs is--shouldn't that drug lord have simply killed his assistants for abusing their drug mule in this particular way? "Naturally" this results in rupturing that bag inside Lucy and then the "fun" begin.

Though the rest of the movie is distinctly not at all fun. Morgan Freedman is NOT wasted as the senior brain researcher because he delivers a more sophisticated version of the movie's tag line--"The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity. Imagine what she could do with 100%"--that had me at least nodding along while he was delivering this mostly pure nonsense. The remainder of the movie consists of Lucy telling Interpol to apprehend the other drug mules at their respective landing airports so that Lucy could get the rest of the drugs they were carrying in order for her to reach that 100% mental capacity (why exactly would Interpol cooperate this way?). There are many more such inadequately answered questions throughout.

So overall this movie was not worth the time I wasted on it.

In the conversation/argument Lucy has with her drug-running boyfriend before her interaction with the drug lord, the boyfriend rather hamhandedly drops in that tidbit--something like: "You know, they named that fossil "Lucy"--for no particular reason except to further that link.

Others have pointed out that the ancient Lucy appears to be about the same size as Johannsson when we know that the older version was about 3 feet tall even though she was an adult--after all, we DO have most of her fossilized skeleton. The movie might have bothered to get that detail right since that scene was largely CGI.

Huh, maybe the scene was the reason why the ancient Lucy died: she and the modern Lucy touch hands a la the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Dramatically done but ACK! How many easily communicable diseases does the average modern human carry that would make ill then kill any (and perhaps EVERY) ancient hominid? Meh, maybe by that point the modern Lucy was "smart" enough to have used her magical brain powers to prevent such an infection.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Attack on Titan [Part 1]

Some fans seems to hate it, for some reason, as usual. But for a live action movie based on an anime with a low budget, it's not bad at all, IMHO.
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
Me, Earl and the Dying Girl.

I really enjoyed the movie.
TOS
User avatar
idaho transfer

peter fonda directed this early 70s time-travel-post-apocalyptic movie

very odd, bit confusing, dark flick ... used mostly nonprofessional actors and became a bit of a cult classic after peter fonda allowed the copyright to lapse because he wanted people to see it (which is why it can be on youtube without any problems)

i quite liked it, especially considering it was made on next to no money
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Donkey Butter posted:
Me, Earl and the Dying Girl.

I really enjoyed the movie.
Been advertising that a lot on Hulu. Looks depressing.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS posted:
idaho transfer

peter fonda directed this early 70s time-travel-post-apocalyptic movie

very odd, bit confusing, dark flick ... used mostly nonprofessional actors and became a bit of a cult classic after peter fonda allowed the copyright to lapse because he wanted people to see it (which is why it can be on youtube without any problems)

i quite liked it, especially considering it was made on next to no money


WTF did I just watch?
No Way Out (1987) Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman, Sean Young, Will Patton. Such a good movie. Everything works. One of my go-to movies on VHS when I want something familiar.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Sean shouldn't have even gotten a billing in that flick.
She was prominent until she was killed. I think she deserved major billing.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
She was prominent until she was killed.

Like in the first 20 minutes.
TOS
User avatar
radarman posted:
TOS posted:
idaho transfer

peter fonda directed this early 70s time-travel-post-apocalyptic movie

very odd, bit confusing, dark flick ... used mostly nonprofessional actors and became a bit of a cult classic after peter fonda allowed the copyright to lapse because he wanted people to see it (which is why it can be on youtube without any problems)

i quite liked it, especially considering it was made on next to no money


WTF did I just watch?


lol

i know right
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
user posted:
Donkey Butter posted:
Me, Earl and the Dying Girl.

I really enjoyed the movie.
Been advertising that a lot on Hulu. Looks depressing.


for a movie about a dying girl it was actually pretty funny. (although, yes sad at times) I just felt it was really well done.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
No Way Out (1987) Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman, Sean Young, Will Patton. Such a good movie. Everything works. One of my go-to movies on VHS when I want something familiar.


Pretty good movie.
PBS actually showed it a couple years back. It's a remake of the Big Clock (based on the Kenneth Fearing book).
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Moonrise Kingdom.

Meh, I liked this better when it was called "Rushmore".

It's cute and all, but man it seems like he uses the same sequences and same blocked shots in every single movie. I think Wes Anderson, like Tarrantino seems content in sniffing his own tail for inspiration.


Sherlock Jr

I didn't care much for the soundtrack used--The credits say it is based on the score from when it was first distributed, but there are parts that are clearly based on later styles of blues and even Phillip Glass. (The A Trip to the Moon on Netflix also has a very "now" soundtrack --which I find jarring as well--more suited to a druggy dance club)

Anyway, there are some sequences in this that are just mind boggling. I cannot imagine how Keaton managed to pull off some of this stuff with the technology available to him. I've heard it stated numerous times that he often did some of these stunts and trick photography with little or no planning, notes or sketches.
TOS
User avatar
yeah i think wes anderson is running out of steam
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
What's strange to me is that it got such rave reviews--to me it was about the same as the previous couple.
I really liked his first movie, Bottle Rocket --mostly because the story was the primary focus and it was well told, The Wes-Anersonness of it was like it was in Rushmore--just there for the icing. His recent movies are ALL icing with no cake.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Gods and Kings
In the end, I really felt bad for Ramses ...
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses.

Basically a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (but less gory as most things should be). If you know what I mean you know what I mean. If you're looking for a mostly plot-less party movie loaded with full-on disturbing Halloween imagery, look no further. Entertaining, but makes me wish I was on a lot more hallucinogens. For those who are not perturbed by the omnipresent life-facet of death and dissolution, mostly ignorant tedium, but with some funny moments. Also, includes some early Ramones tunes.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
A Clockwork Orange

I must have seen this at least a half dozen times, but probably haven't seen it in something like 20 years.
Seeing again now had a different impression on me. I think now I was a bit more disturbed by the almost seductive quality of the highly stylized violence --where when I was younger it just seemed cool in a way. I can see why people accused it of glorifying violence--especially the sexual assaults and sexual fantasies --all pretty much idealized.

I read the book way back when, and haven't decided on which message I really prefer.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Séamas posted:
A Clockwork Orange

I must have seen this at least a half dozen times, but probably haven't seen it in something like 20 years.
Seeing again now had a different impression on me. I think now I was a bit more disturbed by the almost seductive quality of the highly stylized violence --where when I was younger it just seemed cool in a way. I can see why people accused it of glorifying violence--especially the sexual assaults and sexual fantasies --all pretty much idealized.

I read the book way back when, and haven't decided on which message I really prefer.

I prefer the book because of the ending (of the complete, unedited version) which makes more of a point of the story and how we view justice, but it's still one of my favorite movies (like 2001, not one I can watch often though).
Dallas Buyer's Club. As it was on SBS last night they've now released it on their catch-up service. Since Voltage started suing people I've always been curious as to whether it was actually any good. Its...alright I guess. Not bad but not good either. I can see why it was an epic fail at the box office.
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Saw Sicario last night. It was pretty badass. Except the opening scene location that was supposed to be Chandler, Ariz. most definitely was not Chandler.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 ... 195