• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film What's the Last Film You Saw? v. Tell Us What You Thought!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Am I the only person in the world who thought Cabin In The Woods was actually a bit underrated?

Nothing special, but I'm known for my love of meaningless horror flicks, and I gotta say it seemed like a fresh take on an old theme. I don't always have the urge to watch deep, thought provoking fils. Sometimes the I enjoy to watch with my brain off and eyes on. Not sure if anyone here would feel me on that, but so be it.

Also enjoyed that it had the morbid thrills but also an unexpected intrigue near the end...

I ask because you never hear about it. Never. Way more pointless slash flicks gain hype for seemingly no good reason !
 
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

the only other one i've seen is the first lord of the rings. that one had a better cast. this elf girl was just fine, but liv tyler was a feature. not my kind of movie. watching it wasn't too painful. i hear that this one is not part of the books, and the story does feel kinda unimportant for lord of the rings. there's treasure, but that's not the fate of existence or anything. a few small armies battling to pass the time.
 
Inherent Vice

I didn't like The Master or There Will Be Blood as much as Anderson's other films, so I have been hesitant to check this out. My expectations were not high... IV is extremely stylized. It is also hyper-aware of just how stylish it is. Despite looking beautiful, it feels unnatural. It is a case of style over substance.

Beneath the cinematography and the art direction, lies a private investigator film. And, try as I might, I've never been a fan of the genre. I've seen enough of them to know that there will - inevitably - be: enormous amounts of exposition, with characters either revealing what the audience needs to know rhetorically in conversation or voice-over narration flat out telling us; a series of hoops we need to jump through, twisting the narrative to it's final conclusion; and, at least, a few dead-end cliffhanger-type scenarios where the protagonist suddenly faces death only to inexplicably avoid it. IV has all of this. It conforms to all of the PI tropes, one after another. The only differences, between this and The Long Goodbye are: the overwhelming amount of style; and, the hippy/drug theme.

At one point in my life - when I gobbled up all drug-related films on face value - I'm sure I would've bought into the critical hype and embraced this film as a masterpiece. It reminds me of a mix between Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (which, once, I thought was a masterpiece) and The Big Lebowski (which is a masterpiece), but - no matter how hard it tries to compensate with visual splendor - it doesn't manage to even approach the uniqueness and originality of either.

I don't like it, in films, when have drug-induced hallucination disorders that involve the convenient manifestation and disappearance of characters who propel the plot forward. It bothers me, more, when they do it to people without psychotic illnesses or drug-induced hallucination disorders. When a dead character appears to propel the plot forward, because some lazy screenwriter couldn't be fucked working out a way to otherwise incorporate grief into his or her screenplay. When Harry appeared in Dexter I'm sure they justified it because Dexter was a serial killer, but it's the same old shortcut bullshit they've been using for hundreds of years. Replace grief with psychedelia, and you have the lazy screenwriter's solution to making a "trippy" film. The Big Lebowski and Fear and Loathing managed to capture the tone of psychs, without resorting to misrepresentation. People who haven't tried psychedelics are taught, by lazy writers, that psychedelic hallucinations look and behave like people and that you can carry out coherent conversations with.

I'm aware this film was adapted from a novel and maybe it's a relatively good book. I don't know. I've never read it and I probably won't because of the genre. I'm not saying it's a bad adaptation or a bad film. Lots of people liked the ultra-stylish ultra-70s American Hustle... and they're not wrong. It's just not for me. I don't like being hanging around with dull women who wear a lot of make-up and think the sun shines out of their ass, regardless of whether or not they: embody a particular period of history; or appear to be under the influence of psychedelics... and, I don't like Inherent Vice. I don't know how many stars to give it, because - although I don't like it, at all - I recognized when watching it that it was "better" than many films I do like. But then I'd think, how does that work? Is it better? How can it be? And, I'd keep watching. But, it would never become clear.

Robin Williams was the king of this kind of deception: utterly brilliant and making horrible material appear hilarious. Was Robin Williams a terrible comedian; is there any value in dressing up a bad joke? I'm rapidly becoming disinterested in the astounding production values and the hypnotic showmanship of show business. I am wary of any artist that feels the need to constantly distract me. I have no interest in going to concerts with explosions and laser shows. I'd rather just listen to the music.

Lord of the Rings was the beginning of the end, for me. I watched the first film, awe struck by the attention to detail. The world they created was amazing. I thought the first film was a masterpiece, because I was so blown away by the experience. By the end of the trilogy, I realized that I didn't even follow the story. Few people who've seen those films do. The source material, in this case, is no different. The author created entire languages. He, too, got lost in the details. I've asked entire classrooms of tertiary literature students to explain to me the plot of the Lord of the Rings, and I've never got an answer that makes any sense... certainly not one that justifies over ten hours / a thousand pages.

Inherent Vice is two and a half hours long. It is a much longer, duller, less funny version of Lebowski without the satirical elements. A muttering J.Phoenix with mutton chops, whose acting is superb, wandering between encounters with a never-ending series of strange, sometimes cliched, over-defined characters. The editing is slow-paced (lost of dolly shots, following people walking through immaculate colorful sets, to a hip soundtrack).

I couldn't be fucked with it. Maybe, I would have sat there and drooled for 150 minutes if it was ten years ago and I was on hallucinogenic psychedelics. When I was a kid, I thought Robin Williams was funny. He moved his arms around a lot and he used silly voices. Now, when I look at footage of him, I see a man who knows that he isn't funny trying desperately to compensate for the poor quality of his material.

Anderson has lost track of what made him great back when he made Boogie Nights, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love... Inherent Vice is only a tiny step in the right direction, after the Oscar-hungry There Will Be Blood and the critic-pandering The Master. I'm pretty convinced, now, that Anderson is dead (to me). I'm not sure if I'll bother watching his next film. One too many lungfuls of smoke have been blown up his ass, like so many of my once-favorite directors before him: another one bites the dust.

?/5 stars
 
^No room for redemption, eh? I wasn't particularly thrilled with Inherent Vice or The Master either, but thought There Will Be Blood was up there with Anderson's earlier work to some degree. We can't expect every good director to be exactly on the mark every single time, can we? I can't really think of a great filmmaker that hasn't put out a few films that were sub-par or just plain boring.

I recently watched The Liberator. I enjoyed it, I've been pinning for a decent film portraying Simon Bolivar.
 
I had a choice between Explorers (an 80s sci-fi starring Ethan Hawke and River Phoenix, as children) and Jupiter Ascending (by the Wachowski siblings)... I watched ten, maybe fifteen, minutes of the latter. I didn't like Cloud Atlas, the Matrix sequels or V for Vendetta. But, unlike most people, I didn't hate Speed Racer. And I'm a sucker for science-fiction films. So, I thought I'd ignore the negative reviews and give it a go. Unfortunately, Jupiter is indeed awful. Aliens are wooden actors, apparently, with bad haircuts and silly costumes...? So, I flicked over to Explorers... It's like a mix between The Goonies and Flight of the Navigator for most of it's running time. Phoenix, surprisingly, was cast as the super-smart kid (with over-sized glasses) while Ethan Hawke plays the lead. The concept was interesting and magical enough to sustain my interest until the turning point, when the entire film did an unexpected U-turn and became quite, quite insane. I can't say I liked the conclusion, particularly. But, I didn't have high expectations (given the budget) and at least I got a laugh out of the last act. I don't feel like I'm doing it justice: it's one of those moments that stand out, for me, across all film, where you find yourself asking "how in the living fuck did that happen?" long after the credits role. Very fucking weird.

I'd give the first hour of the film 3, and the last half-hour 0.5.
Overall, it doesn't deserve much more a 1.5 or - maybe - a 2.

Directly after watching that, I revisited My Neighbor Totoro, which is - perhaps - my favorite Miyasaki film... Absolutely stunning artwork and animation. Great characters, that you get to know and love over the course of the film. And, most importantly for me, when it comes to anime, a good balance of imagination and the real world. There are weird and wonderful things in Totoro, but it isn't a showcase for all things weird and wonderful. Underneath the insanity, is a very human story... Totoro is not a flimsy vehicle for strange ideas, like a lesser Philip K Dick novel. It is a beautiful film about a Japanese family that also happens to have the some of the cutest and most bizarre scenes of all animated cinema.

5/5

No room for redemption, eh?
Click to expand...

For me, or Anderson?

;)

Sure, there's room for redemption (for Anderson). But, he has his work cut out for him. I'm going to be increasingly wary, when watching his latest films. And I'll give them increasingly less time, than I gave Inherent Vice. If most other people on the planet had directed IV I wouldn't have persisted for as long as I did. The same goes for the other Anderson (Wes). I didn't get through Moonrise on my first, or second, attempt. It had the style I'd come to expect of his work, but almost none of the heart. Eventually I forced myself through the entire film. I did the same thing with Grand Budapest. These days, I couldn't be fucked watching a film I don't enjoy. Doesn't matter who directed it. If Kubrick came back from the dead, just to make one last film, I'd turn it off if it bored me. I used to waste a lot of time watching shit I didn't enjoy. These days, I turn off a lot of films. I'm doing it more and more.

So, no. There is no room for redemption (for me). I'm not going to pull a U-turn, like the plot of Explorers. I will continue to write annoyingly long reviews of films for this forum, when I feel inclined to do so. I will continue to "be negative", relative to the fan boy masturbation and the obnoxious let's hold hands kindergarten hippy mentality that seem people - ironically - enforce by typing with an iron fist. And, I will continue to turn off shitty films... Like Johnny Depp's character in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, I'm just doing my part to restore balance... So many of the threads on this sub-forum consist of: I liked it; I liked it too; me too. Well, fuck that. Fuck it in it's stupid ass. If people don't stop doing this, I will set the internet on fire and all of your precious little avatars will be burnt to a crisp. All of those 100 page masturbatory "discussions" about how "Everything is Awesome" will be reduced to digital ash. And then I'll go to the local zoo and I'll rape a monkey in front of some little kids. Because, everybody likes monkeys... the hairy little bastards... shit-fucking, ass-cheese platters... god damned whores, eating your liquidy potatoes... Everything is Awesome? Everything is Awful, motherfuckers... Suck my balls! :)

Am I the only person in the world who thought Cabin In The Woods was actually a bit underrated?
Click to expand...

I thought it was over-rated. I liked it, but it wasn't - by any stretch of the imagination - a great film.
There were some good ideas, here and there, but the execution was poor.
 
Last edited:
The last two films I saw were SLC Punk & Drugstore Cowboys. The last two television series I have watched back to back were six seasons of Lost & five seasons of The Twilight Zone (1959).
 
Kingsman: The Secret Service. Throughout the entire movie, I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd seen it before. I'm not sure if it's a spoof of spy films or an actual spy film, and neither are the people who made the film. Samuel L. Jackson has one of the most pronounced lisps I've ever encountered on screen. The main character - Eggsy - is utterly forgettable. It works better when Colin Firth is the center of attention... I was expecting more, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Can't say I liked it very much.

1.5 / 5

Enemy Mine. Fantastic, bizarre sci-fi. The world that this film exists in reminds me of the planets in the original Star Wars trilogy. The creatures are well done, especially given the limitations of special effects at the time. There is some surprisingly graphic violence. And, most importantly, it's not like anything you're likely to have seen before. Unless, you're a Star Trek fanatic. There are more than a handful of downright embarrassing moments, of misguided direction. The racial themes, by today's standards, are absurd. A lot of the drama is downright ridiculous. But, despite all that, it had me hooked for the better part of it's running time. I really enjoyed it. It's like the sort of sci-fi oddity that you'd expect to find in the discount bin at a second hand book store, rather than your atypical Hollywood apocalyptic alien flick. Enemy Mine is full of ideas (whether or not they all work) and it's laced with a sense of wonder and adventure. It takes chances. Highly recommended if you like science fiction and you're disillusioned with all of the modern heartless soulless CGI vehicles passing themselves off as conceptual fiction. It's not for everyone, I guess. But it's definitely worth a go.

3.5 / 5
 
Belisarius said:
Ex Machina: Blew me away. A haunting, impeccably written and acted masterpiece. 5/5
Click to expand...

I also just saw that and plan to go see it again. They say that at any given time you can judge what we humans are most profoundly afraid of by the common fear themes of film. I guess right now it would be that technology--our own creation--has already gotten away from us and made us redundant. (I'm thinking of Her and Ex Machina). With both of these films I went in with a somewhat arrogant attitude, prepared to pick them apart. In both cases, I came out thinking more and more and in so many different overlapping directions. Everything comes into question from sexuality to intellect to emotion (what are they really?) to morality and certainly that old bugaboo, power.
 
spent this morning watching clouds of sils maria with kristen stewart and juliette binoche, and absolutely loved it.



...kytnism...:|
 
Belisarius said:
Ex Machina: Blew me away. A haunting, impeccably written and acted masterpiece. 5/5
Click to expand...

Watched this today due to the reviews in this thread. Sci-fi doesn't normally tickle my fancy but this is an exception. Beautiful film, although I wish it had went on for a few minutes longer to tie some loose ends.
 
Belisarius said:
Ex Machina: Blew me away. A haunting, impeccably written and acted masterpiece. 5/5
Click to expand...

I completely forgot about this film, i came across the title months ago and never wrote it down. Fantastic, looks like my Friday night is sorted.

I went to checkout the trailer (I usually never do this, because they always manage to ruin the film) and someone mentioned the trailer spoiled some aspect of the film, they didn't say which.. but im hoping now it hasn't ruined it for me.

----

Continuing on with Sci-Fi, one of the last films of note i watched was a low budget film: 'The Signal' - i had no expectations with this but i was really pleasantly surprised.. it had a district 12 style of realism to it and for almost the entire film i couldn't be certain about what was happening. This is a film you want to read and watch nothing about to get the best experience.
 
Last edited:
trunkofmycar said:
Am I the only person in the world who thought Cabin In The Woods was actually a bit underrated?

Nothing special, but I'm known for my love of meaningless horror flicks, and I gotta say it seemed like a fresh take on an old theme. I don't always have the urge to watch deep, thought provoking fils. Sometimes the I enjoy to watch with my brain off and eyes on. Not sure if anyone here would feel me on that, but so be it.

Also enjoyed that it had the morbid thrills but also an unexpected intrigue near the end...

I ask because you never hear about it. Never. Way more pointless slash flicks gain hype for seemingly no good reason !
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're getting movie news, but I heard a lot about Cabin in the Woods. Actually I heard so much good buzz prior to seeing it that I think it gave me too high of expectations. ForEverAfter's post summed it up pretty well:
ForEverAfter said:
I thought it was over-rated. I liked it, but it wasn't - by any stretch of the imagination - a great film.
There were some good ideas, here and there, but the execution was poor.
Click to expand...

The premise was good, but they could have done better with what they were going for. It's funny you mention the ending too. I actually thought the ending was kind of a lame cop-out. Like they couldn't figure out how to end it and were like 'fuck it' let's just go way out there. In that regard it seemed very similar to Midnight Meat Train (2008 ), which starred a pre-Hangover Bradley Cooper.

Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't heard so much about how "unique" and good it was for the horror genre.

Tosh.Suku said:
The last two films I saw were SLC Punk & Drugstore Cowboys. The last two television series I have watched back to back were six seasons of Lost & five seasons of The Twilight Zone (1959).
Click to expand...

What did you think of The Twilight Zone? I've thought about watching the series a few times, but never have. I remember seeing some episodes when I was little and they freaked me out a bit. It seems like it would be interesting since I'm sure that plenty of the ideas and storylines are featured in more recent movies/shows.

"You are about to enter another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination." Sounds dope.


ForEverAfter said:
Kingsman: The Secret Service. Throughout the entire movie, I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd seen it before. I'm not sure if it's a spoof of spy films or an actual spy film, and neither are the people who made the film. Samuel L. Jackson has one of the most pronounced lisps I've ever encountered on screen. The main character - Eggsy - is utterly forgettable. It works better when Colin Firth is the center of attention... I was expecting more, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Can't say I liked it very much.

1.5 / 5
Click to expand...

Two questions: did you see it in the movie theater and did you enjoy the movie Kick-Ass? I saw it in the theater and liked both Kick-Ass and it's sequel. I thought Kingsman was enjoyable for an action spy movie. Colin Firth was cool in his role and that church scene was off-the-hook. I thought blade-legs was cool too.
 
Last edited:
^Nah, I didn't see it in the theater.
I liked Kick-Ass (because it was different), but not the sequel so much.

The church scene, for me, was a waste of screen time.
The violence is effortless. There is no real threat to Colin Firth.
He kills a lot of people, one after another. Sort of like he's swatting flies.

I've seen it so many times over the past decade.
They keep upping the kill count and making it "more amazing".
I'd, honestly, prefer to watch an old-school fight where there's something at stake.
I guess I'm a little tired of super heroes and was expecting more of a spy flick.
Not that I like spy flicks very much, or fighting (for that matter)...
 
Bardeaux said:
Watched this today due to the reviews in this thread. Sci-fi doesn't normally tickle my fancy but this is an exception. Beautiful film, although I wish it had went on for a few minutes longer to tie some loose ends.
Click to expand...

Ok, so i had a chance to watch this.. some thoughts.

Possible Spoiler(s):

I could not relate at all to the moral compass character in the film, i found myself identifying a lot with Nathan's character. I was extremely fascinated with the way he thought and was able to rationalize a situation; i didn't find it lacking in morality or too methodical.. in fact i found his character to be very emotionally intelligent. And it urked me so much in the last twenty minutes that the movies direction shifted in the direction of Caleb's morality prevailing that i wanted to turn it off, i felt like it was so cleverly crafted and written to portray the ethical question of AI in an objective manner and then it changed into black and white thinking. - It just felt like a betrayal of the movies driving premise.

It was like watching someone spend hours ice sculpting a block of ice to perfection; and then watching someone smash it to pieces because they didn't like what they saw/couldn't understand the wider picture.

I did continue on in the hope of some kind of recovery, and perhaps my thinking was justified when it showed the fallacy of Caleb's morality when she escaped and left him behind, manipulating his emotions for her own agenda and no one understood this better then Nathan which was demonstrated perfectly in his character. It did occur to me that she may of been unaware that him remaining locked up would kill him, all she knew was that she had to charge her batteries to survive and had no concept of 'losing your mind/going mad' been locked up in isolation, but then she did have a desire to escape and her actions demonstrated a lack of empathy in leaving Caleb locked up.

Overall: I loved every bit of it right up until the last twenty minutes.
 
Last edited:
^
I don't have a lot of time, but I'll give my two bits.

Spoilers
I think one of the film's themes was the universality--and perhaps the very human-ness--of deception, in which case I saw no conflict. All three characters were playing the game, but only one did it best. Of course, my POV is influenced by the fact that I always thought Nathan was creepy, while was Caleb not some shining example of humanity either. Nathan's intuition (or appreciation) of what Ava was doing and capable of was greater than Caleb's, but in the end they both suffered for denying her agency and thinking she was something she was not: Nathan, for thinking of her as disposable means to an end, and Caleb, for naively treating her like a princess who needed to be rescued. In fact, Nathan is partly responsible for Ava's escape, since he chose Caleb specifically because he was weak and unattached, someone who would be easily beguiled.

What I brought away from the film, in sum, is that strong-AI will never be like us, and we deny its capabilities at our own risk. To lack empathy I think you have to be capable of it in the first place, and Ava's first priority--like that of any life-form--was always her own survival.
 
Belisarius said:
^
I don't have a lot of time, but I'll give my two bits.

Spoilers
I think one of the film's themes was the universality--and perhaps the very human-ness--of deception, in which case I saw no conflict. All three characters were playing the game, but only one did it best. Of course, my POV is influenced by the fact that I always thought Nathan was creepy, while was Caleb not some shining example of humanity either. Nathan's intuition (or appreciation) of what Ava was doing and capable of was greater than Caleb's, but in the end they both suffered for denying her agency and thinking she was something she was not: Nathan, for thinking of her as disposable means to an end, and Caleb, for naively treating her like a princess who needed to be rescued. In fact, Nathan is partly responsible for Ava's escape, since he chose Caleb specifically because he was weak and unattached, someone who would be easily beguiled.

What I brought away from the film, in sum, is that strong-AI will never be like us, and we deny its capabilities at our own risk. To lack empathy I think you have to be capable of it in the first place, and Ava's first priority--like that of any life-form--was always her own survival.
Click to expand...

That is a really insightful perspective actually, i didn't quite see it like that initially but i can see how it makes sense. I think i will have to re-watch this.. i think i saw everything to much from the perspective of Nathan, which i related to the most (take that for what you will) and failed to see the other aspects of what was going on.

Cheers for the response.
 
enjoyed reading yalls discussion about Ex Machina. looking forward to watching it for a second time later tonight.

i remember how much i was looking forward to like transcendence and interstellar, and was disappointed in both, then comes exmachina out of nowhere and was blown away by how good it is. awesome!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top