What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 195
Online now: Google [Bot]
Post Reply
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
What's the big surprise? They ALWAYS have the atheist finding jeebus at the end. They don't think American audiences would tolerate it otherwise.
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
that's certainly not how Religulous ended :p
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
FutureDreamz wrote:
Slow.


No stick fiddling way.

I've watched that movie dozens of times. It's probably my favorite film.

Kids these days! No attention span.
no really I watched that movie at 1.5x speed and I still thought it was boring. I read the books and liked them, the movie was not meant for today.
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
Many people tend to find older films (even the great ones) "slow" or "boring." Which goes back to my point about attention span.
No; you're just grasping at straws to make your point. I enjoy many old movies. 2001 was just slow. I'm sure it's style choices were bold and original then, I just think it's boring.

Go find someone who think Blade Runner is lame, then you can make your point but you're not using me to make it.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Blade Runner IS stick fiddling lame.
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
bratboy wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote:
Slow.


No stick fiddling way.

I've watched that movie dozens of times. It's probably my favorite film.

Kids these days! No attention span.


It is slow. It was meant to be slow. It was not meant to be an action/adventure film. It's a cerebral, philosophical science fiction film.
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
2001 has a 96% at Rotten Tomatoes--Blade Runner a 91%. I'm thinking I could probably find someone who doesn't like Blade Runner.

Here's a thread: blade runner is the most boring piece of human waste ever put to film
:)
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
Geesie wrote:

It is slow. It was meant to be slow. It was not meant to be an action/adventure film. It's a cerebral, philosophical science fiction film.


Well yeah, of course "it was not meant to be an action/adventure film"!

I was objecting to the suggestion that it's boring. (Unless you're under the impression that FD was admiring the film's pace?)
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
Oh, it seemed that you were objecting to the assessment that it was 'slow'.
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
No, it's definitely a slow-paced film. I'd say most of Kubrick's films are.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
2001. Good lord, that was slow. I took me two tries to get through, I fell asleep during the first. I still thought it was pretty decent/good though.
FutureDreamz Matthew 5:5
Banned User(s)
User avatar
Geesie wrote:
bratboy wrote:
FutureDreamz wrote:
Slow.


No stick fiddling way.

I've watched that movie dozens of times. It's probably my favorite film.

Kids these days! No attention span.


It is slow. It was meant to be slow. It was not meant to be an action/adventure film. It's a cerebral, philosophical science fiction film.

Huh. I thought it was to emphasize the normality of the future.
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
Did you just google that?
FutureDreamz Matthew 5:5
Banned User(s)
User avatar
Geesie wrote:
Did you just google that?

No, I was thinking about it for the last while.
FutureDreamz Matthew 5:5
Banned User(s)
User avatar
Watched The Upside Of Anger. Stupid but funny.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?.
SpacemanSpiff Resident Gimp
User avatar
Serenity (again).

I've also got Firefly in the old Queue.
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?.


I'll give you that the CGI was interesting and well done for the most part (the animals aside), and I guess the movie was reasonably tense most of the way through. But good lord did the acting fall apart (the scene on the pay phones with the yelling!) towards the end. And the twist seemed like a M. Knight throwaway idea, which is not a compliment.
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
Wall-E. I thought it was OK.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?.


I'll give you that the CGI was interesting and well done for the most part (the animals aside), and I guess the movie was reasonably tense most of the way through. But good lord did the acting fall apart (the scene on the pay phones with the yelling!) towards the end. And the twist seemed like a M. Knight throwaway idea, which is not a compliment.

Yeah, I do have to agree that it had more plot/genre changes than Hancock (another movie that had a lot more possibility than it showed; :( ). And for the record, creating composite animals are very hard to make realistic.
SpacemanSpiff Resident Gimp
User avatar
If by some freak of nature you are a freak of nature that has never see this movie then:

OMG There be spoilers afoot!


Okay a Serenity thought.

I think that the final dialogue between Mal and Zoe (before take off) has nothing to do with the ship:

Mal You think she'll hold together?
Zoe She's torn up plenty but she'll fly true.


I could go on and talk about their relationship from Firefly vis-a-vis the Battle of Serenity but I don't think it is important.

Mal is clearly asking about (and is genuinely concerned about) Zoe's emotional state towards the loss of her husband.



Best exchange in the movie (not really a spoiler) but pretty funny in my book:

Kaylee Goin' on a year now I ain't had nothin' twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!
Malcolm Oh, God! I can't know that!
Jayne I could stand to hear a little more.

:lol:
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
and I might add I'm a nic cage fan.

Yeah, so am I. I gave it a 7 or 8 because it was one of the better movies that I've seen this year. Black Hawk Down got a 10 in my book ( :cry: ). And it did have some really authentic special effects... plane crash fire victims with water splashing off the CGI aircraft maybe? Or the blood and gore and effects with the Subway crash?.


I'll give you that the CGI was interesting and well done for the most part (the animals aside), and I guess the movie was reasonably tense most of the way through. But good lord did the acting fall apart (the scene on the pay phones with the yelling!) towards the end. And the twist seemed like a M. Knight throwaway idea, which is not a compliment.

Yeah, I do have to agree that it had more plot/genre changes than Hancock (another movie that had a lot more possibility than it showed; :( ). And for the record, creating composite animals are very hard to make realistic.


I bow to your obviously vast compositing knowledge.
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.

Really though, we're making a mountain out of a movie I can't believe got made.
SpacemanSpiff Resident Gimp
User avatar
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.

Really though, we're making a mountain out of a movie I can't believe got made.


Or the cow that got ran over in Oh Brother Where Art Thou?
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
I bow to your obviously vast compositing knowledge.

I don't claim to know very much about digital compositing. I just know that, from reading interviews in Wired and other tech/video magazines of directors/producers/digital artists, creating a lot of composite animals - especially when combined with other special effects - is challenging.
Alexander Supertramp:
Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.

Well, I haven't seen the latest HP movies, but somehow I don't think that they involved several hundred forest animals who were all on fire, rather agitated, and running (word choice?) through a flaming fire. But I do have to say that the fire was very well done!

Last edited by safari on Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:59 am.

FutureDreamz Matthew 5:5
Banned User(s)
User avatar
Sex and the City.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
I watched Beer For My Horses. It was stupidly funny.
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
safari wrote:
Alexander Supertramp wrote:
I bow to your obviously vast compositing knowledge.

I don't claim to know very much about digital compositing. I just know that, from reading interviews in Wired and other tech/video magazines of directors/producers/digital artists, creating a lot of composite animals - especially when combined with other special effects - is challenging.
Alexander Supertramp:
Seriously though, CGI animals can be done just fine, watch some of the later Harry Potter movies.quote]
Well, I haven't seen the latest HP movies, but somehow I don't think that they involved several hundred forest animals who were all on fire, rather agitated, and running (word choice?) through a flaming fire. But I do have to say that the fire was very well done!


What's to argue here? The animals were poorly done, could have been, and can be, done better.
Currenty watching "Pirates!" which is an obscure 1986 production by Roman Polanski, starring Walter Matthau. Fun little flick.
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo wrote:
Currenty watching "Pirates!" which is an obscure 1986 production by Roman Polanski, starring Walter Matthau. Fun little flick.


I like the video game version.
By the way, on the subject of 2001 ... an old friend of my family had a small speaking role in that flick. He was one of the administrators of the moonbase (his big scene is when they're eating sandwiches in the shuttle).

He talked about attending the premiere, and no one understood it so he asked Kubrick what the hell it was all about. "You tell me," was his reply.

Though of course if you read the book it's all crystal clear.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately portray the book on film.
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
The book and film were made concurrently.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
That's right, they were. Kubrick kind of went to town on what's his name's journey inside the monolith. The aliens aged his body rapidly so he could transition into pure energy, but Kubrick was rather confusing about that ... we see him looking at older and older versions of himself, before turning into the "space baby," which is a metaphor for his pure energy form and the next stage in human evolution.

Though I think Clarke always said their intention was to make things unclear ...
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
I had a chance to see a 70mm print of the film before. It was amazing.
bratboy so sorry I schooled you
User avatar
I had a chance to see a 70mm print of the film before. It was amazing.
The only way to really appreciate it.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 195