What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193
Online now: Google [Bot], j_tso
Post Reply
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Star Wars

No need to specify. It's the Star Wars

https://i.imgur.com/VakyC4R.png
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
It was a Twilight weekend LOL
Iron Man 1 and 2 (2008 and 2010) Suitably entertaining. Downey is great but his Tony Stark character is insufferable.
Sam Rockwell was outrageous and I think he almost had Don Cheadle break out laughing at one point. Mickey Rourke was wasted (in more than one way).
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Rise of Skywalker.

I'm only 42 minutes in, and it just threw away it's chance to be great. Entertaining though, in a "watch in the background" sort of way.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Well, there was a lot of exciting scenes, but no story stringing them together that I noticed. 7/10 Watch it for the pewpewpew.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I liked it, it was lots of fun and had good messages. I loved the whole Threepio sequence. And it absolutely fulfilled the ring theory that The Last Jedi had continued by doing The Empire Strikes Back in reverse.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
It was definitely fun! Just a jumbled mess of fun. Like a ball pit full of streamers and confetti and for some reason, skittles.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Train to Busan: A tense, nightmarish zombie flick. A heavy downer of a movie, but a good horror flick to watch in the coronavirus season.

Killer Klowns From Outer Space: A Klassic!

(both on Netflix)
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Gretal and Hansel.

Bit of a low-budget retelling of the Grimm's tale, with a female empowerment angle. Had a feel and vibe similar to The Witch.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Topkapi (1964) Peter Ustinov got nominated for an Oscar for playing the part of a kind of down-on-his-luck everyman who suddenly finds himself in the middle of a jewel heist. There is sexual innuendo galore, bits of Ocean's 11, and Mission Impossible (Tom Cruise wasn't the first guy to pull an aerialist caper)... Apparently Christopher Nolan calls the film one of his favorites, and an inspiration.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Back to the Future
Fun, and pretty much just as fun now as when it came out.

Back to the Future part II
I don't get this one at all. A lot of people liked it, then and it is still held up by many a good sequel. A lot of it was painfully awful. The ending always bothered me. It's like a five minute commercial for the next movie.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Séamas posted:

Back to the Future part II
I don't get this one at all. A lot of people liked it, then and it is still held up by many a good sequel. A lot of it was painfully awful. The ending always bothered me. It's like a five minute commercial for the next movie.


The reason you didn't like it is because it's happening right now and you don't have a time machine to go back and fix things.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
Séamas posted:

Back to the Future part II
I don't get this one at all. A lot of people liked it, then and it is still held up by many a good sequel. A lot of it was painfully awful. The ending always bothered me. It's like a five minute commercial for the next movie.


The reason you didn't like it is because it's happening right now and you don't have a time machine to go back and fix things.



Happened 4+ years ago.
(Except the parts that happened 35 and 65 years ago)
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
Biff is still in charge
Kong: Skull Island

Samuel L Jackson has had enough of this motherfuckin' ape.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Back to the Future part III
Meh, not much better than part II, but a little better.

I think there is a time machine/Delorean unaccounted for, isn't there?

Both Doc Brown and Marty arrive in 1885 separately.
So shouldn't there be two time machines in 1885?
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Séamas posted:
Back to the Future part III
Meh, not much better than part II, but a little better.

I think there is a time machine/Delorean unaccounted for, isn't there?

Both Doc Brown and Marty arrive in 1885 separately.
So shouldn't there be two time machines in 1885?


It's the same one. Doc Brown hides it in the cave, and in the letter tells Marty where to find it, then 1955's Doc fixes it and sends it back... and time traveling in confusing, and in the end his parents were cool, not the original parents from the first movie, paradoxes and stuff...

...they're just movies, good movies, suspend your disbelief and enjoy them.
Yes there are 2. By the time Marty arrives Doc had established himself as a blacksmith and buried the DeLorean (which had blown time circuits) in the mine.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
2 instances of the same machine.
dv
User avatar
jkahless posted:
2 instances of the same machine.


Right.

The "first" time machine was the time machine as it sat in the mine from 1885 to 1955, which it had to do in order to be taken back to 1885 again, to be the "second" time machine in the same, umm, time, run out of gas, get turned into a train, and then get hit by a train.

Although Doc Brown hadn't been there that long - I bet they could have taken some (not all - you couldn't get unleaded gas in 1955) of the gas out of the "first" time machine to fuel the second one and saved a lot of plot angst.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
Séamas posted:
Back to the Future part III
Meh, not much better than part II, but a little better.

I think there is a time machine/Delorean unaccounted for, isn't there?

Both Doc Brown and Marty arrive in 1885 separately.
So shouldn't there be two time machines in 1885?


It's the same one. Doc Brown hides it in the cave, and in the letter tells Marty where to find it, then 1955's Doc fixes it and sends it back...


OK, Doc hides it in the cave in 1885, and it stays there until 1955, right?
Then why is it not there when Marty shows up?

ukimalefu posted:

...they're just movies, good movies, suspend your disbelief and enjoy them.


The first one was good.
I already suspended my belief with the while time travel thing.
They got that 'gimme' already, they don't get two.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Quote:
There exists enough clues in all three movies to reconstruct the travels of the DeLorean precisely (to within a few minutes at worst, except 2015 Biff's arrival in 1955 and Doc's personal travels). There are a few interesting things to note: Not counting the time Doc traveled by himself, the DeLorean spent nearly seventy-one years (on its own time scale) from its first time travel to its destruction. By the time Marty made his ultimate return to 1985, he was approximately fourteen days, three hours, and twenty-seven minutes older than he should have been; Jennifer, on the other hand, is seven hours and twenty-six minutes younger than she should have been. Another interesting conclusion is a point of contention. There are two theories, one of which drops the last item. On November 12, 1955, between the time Biff arrived (or 6 a.m., whichever came later) and 6:38 p.m. (the time he left), there were four DeLoreans present in Hill Valley (ordered from its point of view): (1) The instance when Marty was trapped in 1955 in the original movie. (2) The instance when Biff came to 1955 to give himself the almanac. (3) The instance when Marty and Doc came back to 1955 to take the almanac back. (4) The instance when it was waiting in the abandoned mine. Those who do not agree with (4) argue that according to the "ripple effect" timeline as presented in the films, there wouldn't be a DeLorean hidden by Doc in the mine until later that evening, when the lightning blast would accidentally send Doc back to 1885, thereby altering the timeline. It is *entirely true* that *we* do not ever witness a moment in the films where all four instances coexist, but the text "ordered from its point of view" above should hint at a solution. Once the DeLorean is in 1885, consider what it would detect (if it were in a position to witness the comings and goings of its former selves): over seventy years of peace, then (1) arrives, then (2) and (3) arrive in some order; (2) then leaves at 6:38 p.m., (3) leaves around 10 p.m., and (1) leaves at 10:04 p.m. (4) itself leaves soon after that. If we grant that all three of those instances (1-3) continue to exist in the "final" timeline, then there should be no problem accepting this theory. Still not convinced? Consider the one hundred-year gap near the end of this movie, when Marty takes the DeLorean on its final journey. Seventy years into it, for a few hours, there are four instances of the car.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099088/tr ... =ttgf_sa_1
Séamas posted:

OK, Doc hides it in the cave in 1885, and it stays there until 1955, right?
Then why is it not there when Marty shows up?


It is in the cave when Marty shows up in 1885. They don't go back to the cave in 1885. They use the one Marty came back with the big time circuit on the hood/trunk because the "Made in Japan" chip is busted.
Are you thinking of the cave when Marty is chased by a bear? that's a different cave.


dv posted:

Although Doc Brown hadn't been there that long - I bet they could have taken some (not all - you couldn't get unleaded gas in 1955) of the gas out of the "first" time machine to fuel the second one and saved a lot of plot angst.


Doc would know to drain the gas if he was going to store a car for 70 years. Leaded gas in an unleaded engine would ruin the emissions equipment but it could still get to 88mph. He probably used it to power his refrigerator.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
The Rise of Skywalker. Too much crammed into one movie. So much nostalgia for nostalgia's sake. I stopped giving a human waste in the last movies when they were dropping gravity bombs in space, saving horses, and stick fiddling running out of fuel, so I went into this film with the most, "well, I've seen the rest, I may as well see the conclusion" attitude I've ever had. I'm going to assume everyone's seen it by now, so I'm not going to bother with the spoiler blackout thing, besides, this isn't exactly a spoiler... but, how are they able to run around on the outside surface of a star destroyer in the airless vacuum of space (a reason may have been quickly glossed over in the movie, but I didn't catch it)? And why are they fighting gravity during the destruction of said star destroyer as it loses attitude control, but they're able to stand on top of the quickly maneuvering Millennium Falcon like it ain't nothing??

The stuff with Rey and Kylo/Ben was pretty cool, though.

All in all, I'm not sad I saw it, and would even like to watch it again sometime, despite its shortcomings.
They are not in space. If you had been paying attention, you would have known that ;)
It's sci-fi so it's in space. Plus it's in a far away galaxy and everyone knows galaxies are in space.

The Nutty Professor (1963) Has its moments. Lewis is great playing both parts.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Have A Good Trip (Netflix) - celebrities including Carrie Fisher, Anthony Bourdain, Sting, Sarah Silverman, and many others discuss their psychedelic drug experiences, accompanied by comedy "after-school special" re-enactments, history lessons, and trippy animation. Very amusing. The 70's film-stock "footage" scenes are particularly on-point.

Child's Play (Netflix) - Well...I've avoided this whole franchise my whole life because it always looked like the stupidest garbage ever produced in the name of schlock horror, but I see it called a "cult classic" (really?) and some bad franchises like Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser have a few decent early entries, so I thought I'd give it a try. I was right in my initial assessment.
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
Metacell posted:

Child's Play (Netflix) - Well...I've avoided this whole franchise my whole life because it always looked like the stupidest garbage ever produced in the name of schlock horror, but I see it called a "cult classic" (really?) and some bad franchises like Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser have a few decent early entries, so I thought I'd give it a try. I was right in my initial assessment.


My friends and I saw a Nightmare on Elm Street in the theater when it first came out.
We had no idea what to expect, I didn't know anything about it, didn't care. Just a typical Friday night at the movies during high school.

We were instant fans, quoting scenes from the movie for months. Freddy Krueger was part of all sorts of stupid conversations.
From our perspective, this movie was something of a game changer. There was a mix of real creepy horror, suspense and outright splatter-horror combined with a menacing humor.

We were eager for and ultimately disappointed by the sequel, which was awful. I've seen bits of subsequent installments but found them unwatchable.
C. Ives Lacks Critical stick fiddling Thinking
User avatar
The first Nightmare on Elm Street movie was excellent for the genre and the time. It very quickly became a parody of itself.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
North by Northwest (1959). Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Starring George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Guest starring a crop-duster biplane and a boy with his fingers in his ears.

Great movie. Five stars. Would recommend to a friend.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
That’s one of my favorites
The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order of their release.

I've gone from "meh, not really my thing but not bad at all" to "really really really really good!"

It helped to see them in quick succession so all the peripheral characters who can be very important stay fresh in my memory as they appear, re-appear or are referenced.

I won't even choose a most or least favourite. They all deliver.
Ribtor posted:
The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order of their release.

I've gone from "meh, not really my thing but not bad at all" to "really really really really good!"

It helped to see them in quick succession so all the peripheral characters who can be very important stay fresh in my memory as they appear, re-appear or are referenced.

I won't even choose a most or least favourite. They all deliver.


A lot of people wanted to murder Scorsese for his comments about the Marvel films, but he is by and large correct. They are not "cinema" or "art". What they are, though, is fun and clever popcorn films. And in that regard, i agree that they are very, very good.
They are light entertainment made by teams of very talented people at the top of their game. Taken individually each film may or may not stand up to various kinds of scrutiny, bias and criticism. That's fine. But taken as a whole they are excellent.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Warin posted:
Ribtor posted:
The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order of their release.

I've gone from "meh, not really my thing but not bad at all" to "really really really really good!"

It helped to see them in quick succession so all the peripheral characters who can be very important stay fresh in my memory as they appear, re-appear or are referenced.

I won't even choose a most or least favourite. They all deliver.


A lot of people wanted to murder Scorsese for his comments about the Marvel films, but he is by and large correct. They are not "cinema" or "art". What they are, though, is fun and clever popcorn films. And in that regard, i agree that they are very, very good.


They’re definitely art.

Actors are artists (almost), DPs are artists, texture painters are artists, musicians are artists. They all create art to spec, but hey, it’s a paycheque. Some of the most revered classical music of today was churned out by formula. ;)

And sometimes art is just fun.
TOS
User avatar
Warin posted:
Ribtor posted:
The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order of their release.

I've gone from "meh, not really my thing but not bad at all" to "really really really really good!"

It helped to see them in quick succession so all the peripheral characters who can be very important stay fresh in my memory as they appear, re-appear or are referenced.

I won't even choose a most or least favourite. They all deliver.


A lot of people wanted to murder Scorsese for his comments about the Marvel films, but he is by and large correct. They are not "cinema" or "art". What they are, though, is fun and clever popcorn films. And in that regard, i agree that they are very, very good.


scorsese is full of human waste, of course they're art, moving images in a screen made with the same techniques

the only difference between that art and scorsese's is that scorsese's appeals to a much smaller audience, that's it
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Wasn’t Scorsese’s last movie a CGI wankfest to his past commercial successes? ;)
dv
User avatar
jkahless posted:
Warin posted:
Ribtor posted:
The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order of their release.

I've gone from "meh, not really my thing but not bad at all" to "really really really really good!"

It helped to see them in quick succession so all the peripheral characters who can be very important stay fresh in my memory as they appear, re-appear or are referenced.

I won't even choose a most or least favourite. They all deliver.


A lot of people wanted to murder Scorsese for his comments about the Marvel films, but he is by and large correct. They are not "cinema" or "art". What they are, though, is fun and clever popcorn films. And in that regard, i agree that they are very, very good.


They’re definitely art.

Actors are artists (almost), DPs are artists, texture painters are artists, musicians are artists. They all create art to spec, but hey, it’s a paycheque. Some of the most revered classical music of today was churned out by formula. ;)

And sometimes art is just fun.


Piffle.

If musicians are artists, so are singers, and if singer are artists, so are actors. :p
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
dv posted:
jkahless posted:
Warin posted:
Ribtor posted:
The films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order of their release.

I've gone from "meh, not really my thing but not bad at all" to "really really really really good!"

It helped to see them in quick succession so all the peripheral characters who can be very important stay fresh in my memory as they appear, re-appear or are referenced.

I won't even choose a most or least favourite. They all deliver.


A lot of people wanted to murder Scorsese for his comments about the Marvel films, but he is by and large correct. They are not "cinema" or "art". What they are, though, is fun and clever popcorn films. And in that regard, i agree that they are very, very good.


They’re definitely art.

Actors are artists (almost), DPs are artists, texture painters are artists, musicians are artists. They all create art to spec, but hey, it’s a paycheque. Some of the most revered classical music of today was churned out by formula. ;)

And sometimes art is just fun.


Piffle.

If musicians are artists, so are singers, and if singer are artists, so are actors. :p


“Kill the actors. You can't kill the actors - they're not animals, they're human beings!”

“They are? Have you ever eaten with one?”

;)
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Dick Tracy - 1990

How have I not seen this?

Imagine the mask, but hard boiled.

Madonna, Danny Elfman, Stephen Fuckimg Sondheim?! With Al Pachino as a cartoon mobster? Yes please!

It’s shot against a backdrop of miniatures making up the city, absolutely gorgeous. I love the creativity and diversity of comic strip movies that aren’t modern.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193