What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153 ... 195
Online now: Google [Bot], ukimalefu
Post Reply
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Babe. I hadn't seen it in years, so we sat down to watch it last night. Didn't realize that gool ol' Hugo Weaving was the voice of Rex the dog. Such a great movie!
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
Oh, please watch it! I'd love to hear someone else's opinion.

Also, take a drink every time Skarsgard uses his "soulful eyes" look.

:D
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Babe. I hadn't seen it in years, so we sat down to watch it last night. Didn't realize that gool ol' Hugo Weaving was the voice of Rex the dog. Such a great movie!

I was really surprised by the singing mice.
Pithecanthropus posted:
The Princess Bride. Such a great movie.

I found out my sister has never seen it. I may have to disown her.

Inconceivable!
TOS
User avatar
Warin posted:
Pithecanthropus posted:
The Princess Bride. Such a great movie.

I found out my sister has never seen it. I may have to disown her.

Inconceivable!


you keep saying that

i don't think it means what you think it means
American Pastoral (2016) Ewan McGregor, Jennifer Connelly, Dakota Fanning.

A sad story I think well told. Directed by McGregor. Critics didn't like it much but students of American 60s and 70s history will appreciate the story. Worth a look. Ms Fanning is particularly good.

The Boss (2016) Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage.

Not especially good. A nothing story with just enough plot to let Ms McCarthy do her comedic thing. She's an obnoxious business woman trying to redeem herself despite her own faults. Could have been for a younger audience but they threw in a lot of sexual jokes and swearing. Ms McCarthy is funny when she's delivering her lines but that's about it. Ten minutes of material dragged out to 94 minutes.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
In the sequel, she'll be the President.
Cell (2016) John Cusack, Samuel Jackson. Pretty grim shite. A Stephen King story. Give it a miss.

Café Society (2016) A Woody Allen Romantic comedy. Stars Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Steve Carell. A pleasant bit of fluff.
TOS
User avatar
the new kong

i really loved it

definitely blows peter jackson's joint right out of the water
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
TOS posted:
the new kong

i really loved it

definitely blows peter jackson's joint right out of the water

My friend's review of the new Kong was, "Avoid at all costs." Glad you liked it, though.
TOS posted:
the new kong

i really loved it

definitely blows peter jackson's joint right out of the water

I will probably wait for it on tv, but, while it definitely had its flaws, I did actually like the strange tales fantasy style presented in Jackson's version, with occultic tribals stuff and giant spiders and forgotten species/ lost world stuff. Did the new version have any of that?
TOS
User avatar
StaticAge posted:
TOS posted:
the new kong

i really loved it

definitely blows peter jackson's joint right out of the water

I will probably wait for it on tv, but, while it definitely had its flaws, I did actually like the strange tales fantasy style presented in Jackson's version, with occultic tribals stuff and giant spiders and forgotten species/ lost world stuff. Did the new version have any of that?


this one was set in the early 70s an had a vietnam-era vibe that i just loved, plus lots of terrifying shots of kong ... i have a bit of obsession with giant monsters so i might be an easy room
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Saw the Kong. Decent, but several "Why would they do that?" moments.

Make sure to stay all the way through the credits.
dv
User avatar
Robert B. posted:
Make sure to stay all the way through the credits.


Why... does Nick Fury recruit Kong? Because that would be stick fiddling awesome.

"Puny Hulk..."
TOS
User avatar
dv posted:
Robert B. posted:
Make sure to stay all the way through the credits.


Why... does Nick Fury recruit Kong? Because that would be stick fiddling awesome.

"Puny Hulk..."


the main plot hook of the movie is that terrifying monsters live deep beneath the earth but kong is actually a good guy, protecting the world against their emergence; the end-of-credits clip opens the door for other giant monsters performing the same mission, including gamara and godzilla -- meaning many potential movies to come
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Even Skarsgård's pecs couldn't save this dog.

The trailers give the impression that this is the tale in the second book, "The Return of Tarzan" where his adventures are set in the Lost City of Opar and he has to battle his nemesis, Nikolas Rokoff, who has kidnapped Jane and their infant son.

Well, there are hints that, that may have at one time been the plan.
... but that got stick fiddled up ...


I didn't get too far in before losing interest, but i think that's mostly because i never cared for Tarzan movies. I only wanted to watch it for Skarsgard. :D
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
He wears pants the whole time, too;
No loincloth!
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
dv
User avatar
I know my mom would be disappointed.

We had this human waste on VHS for a reason.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
dv posted:
I know my mom would be disappointed.

We had this human waste on VHS for a reason.

I like how Edgar Rice Burroughs is listed as a writer. :lol:
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Plenty of loin in the Miles O'Keefe/Bo Derek film.
Speaking of...
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Hell, even Ron Ely wore the loincloth.
Image
TOS
User avatar
jesus, ron, think of the white sox or something
dv
User avatar
Monuments Men.

Pretty good movie, although I'm suspicious it was originally written as a comedy. Fairly serious movie, serious topic, and just every now and again, I'm sitting there thinking, "Wait... was that supposed to be funny?"

Also, the quirky march that made up the majority of the soundtrack would have been more appropriate for an episode of Hogan's Heroes. Hated it.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
TOS posted:
jesus, ron, think of the white sox or something

... instead of that child you have your arm around?
TOS
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
TOS posted:
jesus, ron, think of the white sox or something

... instead of that child you have your arm around?


that was the joke, yes
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Yes, I found that image a bit disturbing.

of course, that's why I posted it ...
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Eyewitness (1981). The best part is seeing all these heavy-hitter actors when they were much younger. Sigourney Weaver (SO CUTE!), William Hurt, James Woods, Morgan Freeman, Christopher Plummer, Steven Hill... the story, on the other hand, is a melange of stalker movie, love triangle, Jewish resettlement, loan sharks, and murder. Probably would have been better had they picked one facet and stuck with it.
Jurassic World (2015).

Entertaining enough but at the end my question was: "Did we need a remake of the original movie?"

Sure, there were SOME minor differences like this one was an already running amusement park as opposed the original's not-yet-opened park so the overall human toll in the course of the newer flick is much higher.

I did like Owen's (Chris Pratt) humane explanation to management (as represented by Claire [Bryce Dallas Howard]) that an animal raised in total isolation like the Indominus rex is going to have problems, but that was totally cancelled by the "blending" of genes taken from here and there in order to create the many abilities controlled by the rex, ESPECIALLY the explanation that the semi-trained velociraptors had adapted the rex as their new alpha because the rex had SOME velociraptor genes in it. Imagine if a human were raised in such isolation as the rex was: how would that human react when confronted by a set of dwarves (those velociraptors)? Instantly being able to communicate with them because genes carry language, right?

At the climax it wasn't any human ingenuity that wins the day but the overwhelming strength of the saurian fish (wait: from which amber-embalmed mosquitoes did that creature's DNA come?) which leaps out of the water of its enclosure to grab the rex solely for the reason to save Owen, Claire and her two nephews.

Visually stimulating but completely lacking in its science (and) fiction.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Jurassic World (2015).

Entertaining enough but at the end my question was: "Did we need a remake of the original movie?"

Sure, there were SOME minor differences like this one was an already running amusement park as opposed the original's not-yet-opened park so the overall human toll in the course of the newer flick is much higher.

I did like Owen's (Chris Pratt) humane explanation to management (as represented by Claire [Bryce Dallas Howard]) that an animal raised in total isolation like the Indominus rex is going to have problems, but that was totally cancelled by the "blending" of genes taken from here and there in order to create the many abilities controlled by the rex, ESPECIALLY the explanation that the semi-trained velociraptors had adapted the rex as their new alpha because the rex had SOME velociraptor genes in it. Imagine if a human were raised in such isolation as the rex was: how would that human react when confronted by a set of dwarves (those velociraptors)? Instantly being able to communicate with them because genes carry language, right?

At the climax it wasn't any human ingenuity that wins the day but the overwhelming strength of the saurian fish (wait: from which amber-embalmed mosquitoes did that creature's DNA come?) which leaps out of the water of its enclosure to grab the rex solely for the reason to save Owen, Claire and her two nephews.

Visually stimulating but completely lacking in its science (and) fiction.


Spielberg’s Subtext

AKA Jurassic World vs Jurassic Park
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Beauty and the Beast.

Yup, I did that.

Not sure why the big deal is being made about the "gay" moments. Seems as if those moments had been animated instead of actors, they would only have been regarded as comic relief.
dv
User avatar
Robert B. posted:
Beauty and the Beast.

Yup, I did that.

Not sure why the big deal is being made about the "gay" moments. Seems as if those moments had been animated instead of actors, they would only have been regarded as comic relief.

20 years ago, people weren't looking for an excuse to be offended. Now, it's just Hollywood's Liberal Elite cramming things down our throats.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Dave Chappelle: The Age of Spin

From last year on Netflix. As good as ever, maybe better. A voice of happiness, never more relevant.

"Ever play 'Who's suffered more' with a Jewish person? It's a tough game!"

The Care Bears segment is brilliant.

Finishing now. Can't recommend enough.
Saw the Ghost in the Shell movie. They packed a ton of overwhelming visual details into gorgeous eye candy, that was pretty solid. But GITS also had the overwhelming complex intrigue and technical dialogue going on in the plot and they definitely didn't have that going on. The plot deviates in ways, not all bad, but the villain is too cookie cutter, imo. But solid entertainment.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Jurassic Park. The original is the best. Screw all the sequels and re-boots.
Don't Breathe (2015) Sam Raimi produced thriller about some small time crooks who break into the wrong house. Worth a look.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Jurassic World (2015).

Entertaining enough but at the end my question was: "Did we need a remake of the original movie?"

Sure, there were SOME minor differences like this one was an already running amusement park as opposed the original's not-yet-opened park so the overall human toll in the course of the newer flick is much higher.

I did like Owen's (Chris Pratt) humane explanation to management (as represented by Claire [Bryce Dallas Howard]) that an animal raised in total isolation like the Indominus rex is going to have problems, but that was totally cancelled by the "blending" of genes taken from here and there in order to create the many abilities controlled by the rex, ESPECIALLY the explanation that the semi-trained velociraptors had adapted the rex as their new alpha because the rex had SOME velociraptor genes in it. Imagine if a human were raised in such isolation as the rex was: how would that human react when confronted by a set of dwarves (those velociraptors)? Instantly being able to communicate with them because genes carry language, right?

At the climax it wasn't any human ingenuity that wins the day but the overwhelming strength of the saurian fish (wait: from which amber-embalmed mosquitoes did that creature's DNA come?) which leaps out of the water of its enclosure to grab the rex solely for the reason to save Owen, Claire and her two nephews.

Visually stimulating but completely lacking in its science (and) fiction.

Jurassic World was an amazing amalgam of practically every silly, warn out action/horror trope that has ever been over used in movies. A remarkable achievement really.
One of those movies where you know in advance that 20 paces outside the main compound there will be absolutely no cell signal, never mind that this is a multi-billion dollar facility on a very small island.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
my favorite part was when those boys got that 20 year old jeep started with a 20 year old battery.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153 ... 195