What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174
Online now: Google [Bot], juice, Pariah
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
The Mummy (2017/ Tom Cruse)
Jesus, what a mess.
They even manage to throw Russell Crow in there as Dr. Jekyll; and then try to position it as a superhero type origin story.
The Brandon Frasier version is much better.


they were really hoping to launch a "dark universe" movie franchise using all of warner brothers' old movie monsters, like the mummy, dr. jekyll, frankenstein's monster, all that stuff

it was a blatant attempt at making a buck with zero creative effort

i can't believe that mummy movie even got made, it's just so damn awful
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
The Vampire Lovers (1970)

Ingrid Pitt, Peter Cushing, Hammer horror movie. While I am a fan of the genre and think Hammer actually has a number of movies with great scripts, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest this is one is mostly a blatant play at lesbian erotica exploitation.

Required viewing.
Solo A Star Wars Story (2018) Seemed fine to me. I like any thing with Phoebe Waller-Bridge in it. I liked how Donald Glover channeled Billy Dee Williams.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
A Touch of Evil
Man, there are amazing sequences of light and shadow all through this. Charlton Heston as a Mexican was a drawback, as is never really knowing what Welles' real vision was for this. Music, story and acting are great. Janet Leigh! Yowza.
Orson Welles is corpulent and hideous.
This could be remade--taking place today--but you'd need a a really good director / producer. I think the Coen Bros could pull it off.

The Truman Show It's entertaining and disturbing. In some ways I thought it so novel when it first came out, but at the same time am surprised something like this wasn't made in the 1970s. Definitely a good critique on media, audience devotion to media and what we consider god to be. Ed Harris character is cruel, but no more cruel than what people see as their god.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
TOS posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
The Mummy (2017/ Tom Cruse)
Jesus, what a mess.
They even manage to throw Russell Crow in there as Dr. Jekyll; and then try to position it as a superhero type origin story.
The Brandon Frasier version is much better.


they were really hoping to launch a "dark universe" movie franchise using all of warner brothers' old movie monsters, like the mummy, dr. jekyll, frankenstein's monster, all that stuff

it was a blatant attempt at making a buck with zero creative effort

i can't believe that mummy movie even got made, it's just so damn awful

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually; in a "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" kind of way.
National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 (1993) Emilio Estevez, Samuel Jackson, William Shatner, Kathy Ireland, Tim Curry, Jon Lovitz.

Don't ever watch this.
dv
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 (1993) Emilio Estevez, Samuel Jackson, William Shatner, Kathy Ireland, Tim Curry, Jon Lovitz.

Don't ever watch this.


Too late. I already have.

When I was a kid I thought it was kinda funny. But National Lampoon definitely lost their magic by 1993.

If you want a really bad time, watch "The Legend of Awesomus Maximus."
ukimalefu Wasn't me
User avatar
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
In case your wondering why I'm watching all these sexy vampire flicks, it's for a video project.

Lust for a Vampire (1971) - Hammer sequel to The Vampire Lovers. Another movie based on Carmilla (1871) by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu which predates Bram Stoker's Dracula by 26 years. Maybe not as good as the first movie, but it delivers on most of the Hammer fronts (sans any big names like Peter Cushing), and Yutte Stensgaard is every bit the femme fatale as Ingrid Pitt.

Daughter of Dracula (1936) - The only actual Universal sequel to the original Dracula movie. Cheesy, but stylish fun. I was amazed at the prominent role of telephones in this movie...like it came out right after dial telephones had reached market and social saturation. Also...I'm starting to think every old B+W studio movie was filmed on the same double level flat set that you would expect to see in The Maltese Falcon or any urban Three Stooges short. All have the same layout and decor in the exact same place.

Blood and Roses ("Et Mourir de Plaisir" - "And Die of Pleasure" 1972) - A modern French take on Carmilla. This one, like Pan's Labrynth, leaves you hanging as to what really happened...you have to decide for yourself which is less depressing. Also....surrealist monochrome + color dream sequences. It's a slow boil and artistic, but ultimately creepy and deep. Probably the only vampire movie to make me cry. Brilliant.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Twilight makes me cry and I haven't even watched it.
Is 1983s "The Hunger" with Catherine Deneuve, Susan Sarandon and David Bowie on the list?
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
Is 1983s "The Hunger" with Catherine Deneuve, Susan Sarandon and David Bowie on the list?

That's a good movie
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Metacell posted:
In case your wondering why I'm watching all these sexy vampire flicks, it's for a video project.

Lust for a Vampire (1971) - Hammer sequel to The Vampire Lovers. Another movie based on Carmilla (1871) by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu which predates Bram Stoker's Dracula by 26 years. Maybe not as good as the first movie, but it delivers on most of the Hammer fronts (sans any big names like Peter Cushing), and Yutte Stensgaard is every bit the femme fatale as Ingrid Pitt.

Daughter of Dracula (1936) - The only actual Universal sequel to the original Dracula movie. Cheesy, but stylish fun. I was amazed at the prominent role of telephones in this movie...like it came out right after dial telephones had reached market and social saturation. Also...I'm starting to think every old B+W studio movie was filmed on the same double level flat set that you would expect to see in The Maltese Falcon or any urban Three Stooges short. All have the same layout and decor in the exact same place.

Blood and Roses ("Et Mourir de Plaisir" - "And Die of Pleasure" 1972) - A modern French take on Carmilla. This one, like Pan's Labrynth, leaves you hanging as to what really happened...you have to decide for yourself which is less depressing. Also....surrealist monochrome + color dream sequences. It's a slow boil and artistic, but ultimately creepy and deep. Probably the only vampire movie to make me cry. Brilliant.




Have you seen Nadja?
I see now that it wasn't all too well received, but I recall seeing it in some Film/art theater back when it came out and enjoyed it a lot. It's a bit silly and very hip in an early 1990s kind of way.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110620/
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I've seen The Hunger, a long time ago. I'll probably watch it again. I'll watch any and all...and critical reception is not really a thing...some of my favorite to watch are the absolute worst stuff like Ed Wood's Orgy of the Dead. European stuff is great because it manages to balance grindhouse seedy with arthouse classical in a disturbing Old World way.

Oh damn...Nadja is a David Lynch presentation (which I assume means he liked it and funded its distribution, but that says something there). Will watch for sure.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Metacell posted:
I've seen The Hunger, a long time ago. I'll probably watch it again. I'll watch any and all...and critical reception is not really a thing...some of my favorite to watch are the absolute worst stuff like Ed Wood's Orgy of the Dead. European stuff is great because it manages to balance grindhouse seedy with arthouse classical in a disturbing Old World way.


LOL, when Borders Books was closing , I cleaned up on all sorts of DVDS, I ended up with the ED Wood boxed set and a whole bunch of cheapo collections of Horror Sci fi and Drive in Movie stuff. Most of it is unwatchable. The "good stuff" is from American International / Roger Corman.
In general I love the cheapo horror from the 50s-mid 60s. Once the late 60s -early 70s changes in codes and ratings came around things got a little sick. Lots of splatter, etc. I mean I will watch it now and again, but its a little creepy in an unintended way.

I have never really seen much from Hammer films. I want to, but just haven't had enough opportunity.


It's funny because back when I was a kid there were all sorts of movie programs like Chiller Theater, etc that would show all sorts of old horror and sci fi and my older brother would watch it, while I would protest because the stuff freaked me out.
I had a brief period in the 80s where I was into horror movies, but pretty much abandoned it until I had a spree of watching the really bad stuff about six years ago.
My wife cant stand horror. My kids have mixed feelings. They absolutely hated Plan 9 from Outer Space.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
But, I thought you were force-feeding your kids "The Classics".
How did you mess up "Plan 9"?
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
They might be too young to enjoy things ironically.
Tucker: A Man And His Dream (1988) Jeff Bridges, Martin Landau, Joan Allen, Lloyd Bridges. Fun fictionalised look at the origins of the Tucker automobile and its controversial creator.

The Mummy (2017) Got twenty minutes in and decided sleeping would be time better spent.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
That version of The Mummy was gawdawful.
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
juice posted:
every version of The Mummy was gawdawful.



FTFY
maurvir Outlier
User avatar
juice posted:
That version of The Mummy was gawdawful.


The first one was intentionally goofy and fun. I liked it. :shrug:
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Quote:
The Mummy (2017) Got twenty minutes in and decided sleeping would be time better spent.

You really should have watched it through; as you cannot know joy if you do not know pain.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
maurvir posted:
juice posted:
That version of The Mummy was gawdawful.


The first one was intentionally goofy and fun. I liked it. :shrug:

That.

And Rachel Weisz is cute as hell.
maurvir Outlier
User avatar
juice posted:
maurvir posted:
juice posted:
That version of The Mummy was gawdawful.


The first one was intentionally goofy and fun. I liked it. :shrug:

That.

And Rachel Weisz is cute as hell.


Image

Oh hell yes, she was. :up:
juice posted:
That version of The Mummy was gawdawful.


I hold these kinds of movies to a very low standard but even then it was unwatchable.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Donkey Butter posted:
juice posted:
every version of The Mummy was gawdawful.



FTFY

Not the Boris Karloff version!
Pulp Fiction (1994) Not bad. I liked the out of sequence style.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
One of my favorite movies, confused individual
obvs Eating chickens is for the bourgeoisie
User avatar
You hadn't seen Pulp Fiction and you just saw it?

Lucky you.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
A whole new world of memes has been opened up for ribby
The kavanaugh/Sam Jackson mash up inspired me to watch it.

I tried watching it when it came out on VHS but found it repellent. This time I gave it a chance and saw what people have been talking about for nearly a quarter century.
TOS
User avatar
operation finale on netflix

not bad, but i suspect they tinkered with history to fit the narrative

also they kind of blew an opportunity ... it would have been neat to see eichmann having a moral debate with someone smart
ukimalefu Wasn't me
User avatar
Ant-Man and The Wasp

:up:
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
But, I thought you were force-feeding your kids "The Classics".
How did you mess up "Plan 9"?


It's a good question.

My daughter also thought "Jaws" wasn't very scary. (the thought Jurassic Park is scarier).

Both thought 'Planet of the Apes' was stupid. I bought the whole collection and they have zero interest in seeing any of the sequels.

Stupid kids. :(
maurvir Outlier
User avatar
Jaws comes from a different time when suspense was important. How often do you actually see the sharks in Jaws? For the entire run-time of the film, I think Jaws is only on the silver screen for something like 15 or 20 minutes. (if that long) The rest is showing ordinary scenes from creepy angles with creepy music and knowing that something is about to go down. The horror was in knowing that people not that different than you could meet their end while ostensibly having a "nice day at the beach". It was a "modern" take on movies not that different from the Hitchcock classics - just with forces of nature instead of sneaky murderers. (Seriously, can you imagine how boring "Rear Window" must be for kids today?)

Those films were a product of the time - when special effects were finally becoming "special", but we hadn't reached the point where every scene could have monsters CGIed in like now. They depended on a different kind of story telling for their magic.

Kids raised on modern films, where the monsters can be on the screen the whole flipping time, have no appreciation for that.

As an aside, this is a lesson that M. Night Shyamalan forgot. His early films are a study in how to create the maximum effect by showing the least amount of "action". Had he made "Signs" without showing the creatures at the end, it would have been a vastly better film. (though there was still a debate over whether the creatures were demons or aliens - showing all of them was a huge mistake either way)
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Jaws gave me nightmares when I was 12. The part with Hooper and the fisherman's corpse made me scream.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
maurvir posted:
Jaws comes from a different time when suspense was important. How often do you actually see the sharks in Jaws? For the entire run-time of the film, I think Jaws is only on the silver screen for something like 15 or 20 minutes. (if that long) The rest is showing ordinary scenes from creepy angles with creepy music and knowing that something is about to go down.



I agree this is a large part of what made that movie so excellent (acting and writing helped too), but that was not what was originally intended. Had the mechanical shark not been so prone to malfunction, it would have had significantly more screen time.

Pithecanthropus posted:
Jaws gave me nightmares when I was 12. The part with Hooper and the fisherman's corpse made me scream.


Yeah. That scene was what freaked me out most as well, even the 3rd or 4th time I saw it.
And I think just about all the shark attacks--or near misses in that movie were done extremely well.

I know there are people about 10+ years younger than me that have the same opinion as my kids regarding Jurassic Park. I just don't get it. For me it has too many Spielberg blockbuster trappings, silly characters, sentimentalism and dopey scenes. Jaws had none of that. Jaws had actual plausibility through most of it.
They journeyed all the way to a mostly wet Earth and forgot to bring their anti water suits.
Was the ending of "Signs" written by Gary Larson?

Jaws is pretty much an example of a perfect movie.
TOS
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Jaws gave me nightmares when I was 12. The part with Hooper and the fisherman's corpse made me scream.


they added that part just before the film's release because they were worried it wasn't scary enough ... it was shot in 1 day in someone's swimming pool

true story!
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174