Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:20 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16010 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743 ... 801  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
That's fucking low, you sonofabitch!


:lol: :lol:

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:20 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 899
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I've been considering Freddy Got Fingered a bit more, and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that's it's unfunny DESPITE the material, not because of it. Shaking a horse's wang and shouting "I'm a farmer", or swinging a baby by its umbilical cord, or spraying semen from an elephant... in the right hands could actually be funny. Just read that last sentence again. Maybe I'm super twisted, but to me the outrageous premise of those acts alone elicits a smile, right? In fact the least funny SOUNDING sketch, with Green dressing up in a deer carcass was the only one I found even slightly amusing (although that might be mainly Green getting hit by a truck soon after). What I'm suggesting here is that Tom Green fucked up potentially solid material primarily due his manic ott delivery. Put this stuff in the hands of say Johnny Knoxville, and it all might actually have kinda worked.


Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:48 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
That doesn't do much to illuminate the issue. We all know that the only thing that is universally funny, regardless of who's responsible for delivering it, is a real, genuine, honest-to-goodness fart.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:06 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 648
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Foreign Correspondent - Alfred Hitchcock’s second Hollywood feature (following the Oscar-winning Rebecca) attempts a deceptively tricky combination with solid, but not quite perfect, success. While not quite old enough to be called the prototypical Hitchcockian thriller, this 1940 film contains many of the classic elements history has come to associate with the Master of Suspense. Joel McCrea, while not the biggest name, makes for a charismatic and charming lead protagonist. The action hops around to multiple countries and features several thrilling setpieces (sometimes strung close together, like in a long middle stretch beginning with a violent courthouse stairway encounter and ending with a tense infiltration of the villains’ secret windmill hideout). Dialogue is quick and snappy, loaded with the requisite amount of barbs and witticisms (having George Sanders present in a supporting role is an added bonus in this regard). If it weren’t for the looming and inevitable threat of war hanging over the production, Foreign Correspondent would have fit perfectly in line with Hitchcock’s other “Wrong Man” classics.

But it would be nonsensical to write about the film without bringing up just how intrinsically tied it is to World War II. Along with being a globe-trotting thriller, Foreign Correspondent is also something of a “message” picture, a desperate cry out for people to pay attention to the unstable state of the world around them. That subtext gives the film its own distinctive feel, but it also hobbles it somewhat, creating an unconventional last quarter that takes the narrative to different, and not entirely satisfying, places. It’s in this last quarter where the taut intrigue takes a permanent backseat and propaganda takes over the wheel. The intent is worthy but the execution is strange, with the film discarding its suspense almost entirely to relay its blunt message: “We don’t have time for these cheap thrills! Not when there’s a war a-coming right around the corner!” Arguing for the expected over the unexpected is not a position I’m all that accustomed to taking, but in the case of this film, I’m not sure Hitch had as sure a handle on the conclusion as he did with everything that came before. 7/10.

_________________
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
Letterboxd Profile


Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:22 pm
Profile WWW
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Blonde Almond wrote:
Foreign Correspondent - Alfred Hitchcock’s second Hollywood feature (following the Oscar-winning Rebecca) attempts a deceptively tricky combination with solid, but not quite perfect, success. While not quite old enough to be called the prototypical Hitchcockian thriller, this 1940 film contains many of the classic elements history has come to associate with the Master of Suspense. Joel McCrea, while not the biggest name, makes for a charismatic and charming lead protagonist. The action hops around to multiple countries and features several thrilling setpieces (sometimes strung close together, like in a long middle stretch beginning with a violent courthouse stairway encounter and ending with a tense infiltration of the villains’ secret windmill hideout). Dialogue is quick and snappy, loaded with the requisite amount of barbs and witticisms (having George Sanders present in a supporting role is an added bonus in this regard). If it weren’t for the looming and inevitable threat of war hanging over the production, Foreign Correspondent would have fit perfectly in line with Hitchcock’s other “Wrong Man” classics.

But it would be nonsensical to write about the film without bringing up just how intrinsically tied it is to World War II. Along with being a globe-trotting thriller, Foreign Correspondent is also something of a “message” picture, a desperate cry out for people to pay attention to the unstable state of the world around them. That subtext gives the film its own distinctive feel, but it also hobbles it somewhat, creating an unconventional last quarter that takes the narrative to different, and not entirely satisfying, places. It’s in this last quarter where the taut intrigue takes a permanent backseat and propaganda takes over the wheel. The intent is worthy but the execution is strange, with the film discarding its suspense almost entirely to relay its blunt message: “We don’t have time for these cheap thrills! Not when there’s a war a-coming right around the corner!” Arguing for the expected over the unexpected is not a position I’m all that accustomed to taking, but in the case of this film, I’m not sure Hitch had as sure a handle on the conclusion as he did with everything that came before. 7/10.


Rarely do I fundamentally disagree with you Blondey, but I have to say that I do here. Well, perhaps not fundamentally, since we both like the film, but significantly.

I don't know how you can say the film eschews suspense in the third act when its biggest setpiece -- and arguably most thrilling scene -- comes in the third act with the plane crash. Now maybe you prefer the icy suspense of the windmill scene (wouldn't blame you there) but it seems false to say that the film says "we don't have time for thrills" when, clearly, it does.

Furthermore, I think the propaganda element is essential. The final scene -- THE FINAL SCENE, FOR GOD'S SAKE -- is incredible. It's narrative film merged with history and propaganda in a way that might never happen again. Do you remember the final shot of The 39 Steps? I don't. It's a good movie, but it doesn't have nearly the resonance for me. Whereas this scene -- God it makes the hairs on my neck stand up every time.

Johnny Jones: Okay, we'll tell 'em, then. I can't read the rest of the speech I had, because the lights have gone out, so I'll just have to talk off the cuff. All that noise you hear isn't static - it's death, coming to London. Yes, they're coming here now. You can hear the bombs falling on the streets and the homes. Don't tune me out, hang on a while - this is a big story, and you're part of it. It's too late to do anything here now except stand in the dark and let them come... as if the lights were all out everywhere, except in America. Keep those lights burning, cover them with steel, ring them with guns, build a canopy of battleships and bombing planes around them. Hello, America, hang on to your lights: they're the only lights left in the world!

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:23 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1683
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The airplane finale is pretty silly, even by 1940 standards. I don't really understand why the final shot has such power for you. It's memorable for what it is, but I don't see it as exactly chilling. A serious speech from Joel McCrea will always be a little hokey.


Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:27 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
MGamesCook wrote:
The airplane finale is pretty silly, even by 1940 standards. I don't really understand why the final shot has such power for you. It's memorable for what it is, but I don't see it as exactly chilling. A serious speech from Joel McCrea will always be a little hokey.


Because the scene is fucking happening, man! It's not just a script anymore, it's real. The scene was filmed five days before the Battle of Britain started and by the time Americans were watching the movie a few months later, England was in the midst of the battle, fighting for her survival, entirely alone, with the lights out everywhere, as McCrea says. The final lines are a naked plea for America to enter the war and keep the light burning, protecting the world from what Churchill called the Nazi's "new dark age."

The film starts as an entertainment (and a corking good one at that) and ends with a character pleading for America to save England, released at a time when England desperately needed it. How does that NOT have power for you?

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:35 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1683
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Because the scene feels tacked on and not what the movie is about overall. Historical importance doesn't automatically trump cinematic cheesiness and a lack of strong focus. Borzages Mortal Storm holds more power for me because it's squarely about what it is. The power is in the movie overall rather than in just one scene.


Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:46 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1683
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
300: Rise of an Empire

Pretty good sequel and good pulp. It holds nothing back on action and gore, easily surpassing the first film in the latter. Also does a great job keeping continuity with the first film, with every minor character returning for an interesting function. But it also has a good story unto itself which the trailers did a fine job of not completely spoiling. Sullivan Stapleton is like a slightly more expressive Sam Worthington. He's not memorable, but as a B actor he's adequate enough. Eva Green is great as always. This film contains some strong Israel/Palestine subtext which I appreciated, as well as of course the gay subtext. Zack Snyder has done a great job with the continuity of the story. I hope to see a third movie to finish it up.


Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:02 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 773
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
It was between Carrie (2013) and a ton of beloved classics all available at the click of a button. I watched Carrie.

What can I say? If you want to see a semi-clone of the De Palma film but with less sexual over/undertones, less bubblegum music played during the gym sequences, more up-to-date clothing and hair and a few more levitating books then 2013's Carrie is the movie for you. It wasn't bad, really. I'm almost completely indifferent to it. I suppose if you find De Palma's directorial flourishes irritating, this version corrects for that by having nothing special about it. At all. It's an ordinary, meaningless product produced for today's ordinary indiscriminate consumer of whatever comes alone. In this case, me. Serves me right.

One humorous difference is Carrie's departure from the school after she levels the gym, her classmates. In 1976's version, she takes a shocked and sad walk away from the scene. In 2013 she flies from the school like a sorceress.

_________________
Which are you drinking? The water or the wave?


Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:41 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1683
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Mark III wrote:
One humorous difference is Carrie's departure from the school after she levels the gym, her classmates. In 1976's version, she takes a shocked and sad walk away from the scene. In 2013 she flies from the school like a sorceress.


Heh, that's funny. Not only do De Palmas camera flourishes make the movie for me, but I also couldn't do without all the bubblegum 70s music cues. Love those.


Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:32 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 235
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Watched Charlie Wilson's War finally. I don't know why I don't just watch every political thriller that comes out. Maybe I'll just feel I'll be let down by our system, I don't know, but I always seem to love them. CWW is no exception. This is political gamesmanship at its best.
I felt I somehow owed it to Phillip Symour Hoffman to see this and was not disappointed. Now I miss him that much more.

_________________
______________________________
Specializing in rodent behavior modification.
-Watch me pull a habit out of rat.


Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:30 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 648
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Blonde Almond wrote:
Foreign Correspondent


Rarely do I fundamentally disagree with you Blondey, but I have to say that I do here. Well, perhaps not fundamentally, since we both like the film, but significantly.

I don't know how you can say the film eschews suspense in the third act when its biggest setpiece -- and arguably most thrilling scene -- comes in the third act with the plane crash. Now maybe you prefer the icy suspense of the windmill scene (wouldn't blame you there) but it seems false to say that the film says "we don't have time for thrills" when, clearly, it does.

Furthermore, I think the propaganda element is essential. The final scene -- THE FINAL SCENE, FOR GOD'S SAKE -- is incredible. It's narrative film merged with history and propaganda in a way that might never happen again. Do you remember the final shot of The 39 Steps? I don't. It's a good movie, but it doesn't have nearly the resonance for me. Whereas this scene -- God it makes the hairs on my neck stand up every time.


I think the climactic plane crash sequence is executed well enough, but I wasn't thrilled by it. Likewise, that final speech, while chilling, didn't resonate with me as much as it does you. I'm still trying to pinpoint exactly why this is, but I think it's because that, by the time the film gets to that ending, the whole thing has lot most of its steam. The final third of the film is bizarre, with a lot of time given to the not-especially-memorable love story, and the good guys' plans to trick the villain never amount to anything. I do like the scene of George Sanders confidently springing his plan on the antagonist and then sheepishly retreating when he realizes everything has fallen through, but the story just seems to peter out. This is kind of what I meant in my original thoughts when I said the film discards its suspense for the bigger message.

I still think there's plenty of value to Foreign Correspondent. It's cool to see a Hitchcock film that focuses on external worries; most of his other classics are concerned with more internal matters (voyeurism, obsession, madness, etc.). But if I were given a choice between this film and something like The 39 Steps, I'd still choose the latter. Foreign Correspondent is probably the more culturally and historically important work, but The 39 Steps is a more consistent effort that showcases Hitchcock's greatest strengths as a director.

_________________
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
Letterboxd Profile


Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:15 pm
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 am
Posts: 303
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
thered47 wrote:
The Sixth Sense

I kind of actually miss movies like this, that actually bother to deliberately slow the pace down and allow the atmosphere and characters to breath. Sure there are a few moments that could have been trimmed and a few scenes that are a little awkward but there's also a lot here to admire. Maybe it's seeing it this in an era where movies are sped up to the point of exhaustion but it was nice to see something that was fairly appropriately paced for it's subject matter (essentially an old fashioned ghost story).
-Jeremy


I had the exact opposite reaction: I was bored out of my skull. I might have appreciated it more (might but I doubt it) if "I see dead people" hadn't been all over the marketing. As such the first hour or so involves a mystery as to what's wrong with the kid but we already knew so taking that long before he even says the "premise line" (IDK if there's a script term for that) made the proceedings so tedious. Then the whole sequence where he helps the girl reveal she'd been poisoned? What the fuck was that other than cheap emotional manipulation? I can't stand this film.


Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:52 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3518
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Gwaihir wrote:
thered47 wrote:
The Sixth Sense

I kind of actually miss movies like this, that actually bother to deliberately slow the pace down and allow the atmosphere and characters to breath. Sure there are a few moments that could have been trimmed and a few scenes that are a little awkward but there's also a lot here to admire. Maybe it's seeing it this in an era where movies are sped up to the point of exhaustion but it was nice to see something that was fairly appropriately paced for it's subject matter (essentially an old fashioned ghost story).
-Jeremy


I had the exact opposite reaction: I was bored out of my skull. I might have appreciated it more (might but I doubt it) if "I see dead people" hadn't been all over the marketing. As such the first hour or so involves a mystery as to what's wrong with the kid but we already knew so taking that long before he even says the "premise line" (IDK if there's a script term for that) made the proceedings so tedious. Then the whole sequence where he helps the girl reveal she'd been poisoned? What the fuck was that other than cheap emotional manipulation? I can't stand this film.

Me too, that film nearly put me into a coma with how dreadfully paced it was, I actually didn't know the ending ahead of time(or I had heard of it but forgotten by the time I saw the film) but I still saw it coming from light years away. Willis looked like he was really slumming in the film, it seemed like he was just doing the role for a paycheck.


Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:26 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 413
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
I don’t know whether Billy Wilder’s take on Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be an effort at deconstructing the character or whether it is meant to be a comedy, but it doesn’t work as either. The movie starts by letting us know that we are about to witness the real Sherlock Holmes behind the stories written by Dr. Watson, but then we get a sub-standard and utterly conventional mystery of an amnesiac woman. Yes, Holmes is injecting cocaine tincture and there’s even a suggestion that Holmes and Watson are homosexual, but the first is part of the literary character anyway and the latter is just a ruse so Holmes can reject a marriage proposal by a Russian ballerina. (Oh no, no, he couldn’t be gay, our Holmes, could he? This movie has a 1950ies attitude towards homosexuality and thinks it is an inherently funny condition.) The comdey comes in the shape of a bumbling, oafish Dr. Watson, which is neither original nor particularly funny. The acting is generally unremarkable with the exception of Christopher Lee, who plays Serlock’s brother Mycroft. Whenever he was on the screen, I wished that he would play the detective instead of his brother. And the set design, which has been praised by some critics, isn’t really that good. Particularly the indoor scenes look like soundstages made for TV productions. And why is Holmes’s face caked with make-up? I have since read that ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’ was originally three hours long and designed as a “roadshow” movie. The studio then decided to release the movie normally and cut about an hour of the film, against director Wilder’s wishes. Thank god they did, because three hours of this would have bored me to death and I’m easily pleased when it comes to Holmesian fiction: Just keep the character intact and give him a decent mystery to solve. Because ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’ fails to do that, it is simply a bad movie. 3/10

Thor: The Dark World (2013)
Thor is based on a problematic superhero concept: What could be sillier than a Norse god doing superheroics on today’s Earth? Just like the first Thor movie, ‘Thor: The Dark World’ only really works when it embraces this silliness and goes for fish-out-of-the-water type comedy. Regrettably, there is very little of that in this second film, which is mostly concerned with Thor fighting badly motivated generic supervillains (Dark Elves led by someone named Malekith trying to destroy the universe, because, er, ...) for a McGuffin called “the Aether”. The story and the plotting are really poor, derivative and often not making sense. The special effects look good, but it really isn’t exciting to watch one CGI thing destroy another CGI thing over and over again. At least, the final battle is original and fun, because the contestants keep getting sucked through wormholes of sorts from one world to the next. And Tom Hiddlestone is back as Thor’s brother Loki. He is quite watchable. Overall, if it wasn’t for the occasional moments of comedy, the final battle and Hiddlestone, ‘Thor: The Dark World’ would be a bad superhero movie, but these few positives make it just about watchable. 4/10


Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:41 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 413
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Mark III wrote:
Though not technically the last movie I watched, here's something on The Lost Honor of Katarina Blum.

In the midst of paranoia around the RAF, housekeeper Katharina Blum is in the unfortunate position of (very quickly) having fallen in love with Ludwig Götten, suspected bank robber and RAF activist. Radical, if you like. Terrorist, if you are a member of the police. After a one night stand, the police descend on Blum and under the presumption of her political associations with Götten attempt to disclose the whereabouts of the mysteriously missing activist. The tabloid media, here called The Paper, runs with the story and so begins the destruction of Blum's life with spurious claims of her political leanings, assassination of her character and those of her employer, and onward until she's left a shell of a person.

Told in bold strokes, the movie can't be accused of subtlety although it can't be accused of being a deeply political film so much as a very good media criticism; the tabloid journalist at the center may be a sniveling evil bastard, but the effects of his lies and distortions are such that I was immediately transported to 2014 where sniveling evil bastards are the mainstream, character assassination is not just for the supermarket tabloids, and being tried in the press is something that we've come to expect. Given that the 'comments' section of major news sites are overrun by uneducated and uninformed, though deeply opinionated, monsters it's almost the Good Ol' Days in 1975's West Germany.

I won't pretend expertise in the RAF outside what I've come across in articles and a surprising amount of contemporary fiction (American authors like to romanticize 1960s/70s European radicalism) but I don't have to pretend anything when it comes to American paranoia in the 21st century. With tabloid-quality reporters ruling the airwaves, so many so-called experts no more than a bitchier and far more serious Walter Winchell, and that horrible human being known as Nancy Grace (she sometimes calls herself Dr. Oz)... well, pardon the digression.

I like a movie that picks a side and doesn't back down from ruthlessly clawing at the eyes of a foul press. The press deserves it. It's hard no to be satisfied, really seriously happy, when Blum finally acts on her growing hatred. Even the epilogue, a fuck-up that shouldn't have been filmed (and with a fur coat from the costume department... oh lord), made me want to kick in doors and start punching reporters. The movie isn't all screed, no matter what this may read as. It's also the compelling story of housekeeper Katharina Blum, starry-eyed with love and powerless to change her course.

One last thing: the tabloid stooge, played by an actor that looked weirdly familiar, was the same guy that stitched three humans together in The Human Centipede. The characters weren't really all that different.


Hi Mark III, I forgot to thank you for posting your well-written review. I read the book and watched the movie in school (i.e. ages ago) as part of a German literature class and perhaps it is possible to analyse the book and movie even further, if you had additional information about the West German mileus of the mid 1970ies. That being said, you've pretty much nailed it: It is a fierce criticism of the media and one tabloid in particular. Nobel Laureate Heinrich Böll wrote the book as a reaction to a smear campaign by BILD newspaper, which originated from Böll publishing an article on the RAF/Baader-Meinhof-Gang leftwing terrorists, which was considered to be sympathetic towards them.


Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:56 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1404
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Veronica Mars (2014)

I was hoping the mystery would be more of the excellent season arcs' quality, less of middle-of-the-road transitional episode's. Makes the whole thing a little too fan service-y, what with Rob Thomas not opening up the world (both visually and story-wise) and raising the stake the way Whedon did with Serenity. That said, most of what attracts those fans in the first place are still intact: sharp characters, fun interactions, snappy dialogue. A cornerstone of the series, Veronica's relationship with her dad, is brief but shines through very strong. Kristen Bell herself still plays her signature role to perfection, easily the best thing about the film. Hopefully now that the thank-the-fan phase is over, Rob Thomas would be more confident with the future material, as already indicated by the ending. 7/10

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

Remarkable how one of the very first sound years already produced a near-masterpiece. There are a few growing pains: some talking and effect sounds are not smooth, and early on in the film the histrionics of the acting stand out. After a while though, you stop noticing them. It feels like every realistic war film today owes a debt to this one. The war scenes are realistic and violent, and the tone increasingly despairing. Lew Ayres's face is so suitably haunting; you can see the weight of what he's been through reflected in his eyes as the film goes on. Many scenes, from the first attack, to the soldiers' brief sojourn with the French girls, to the bleak ending, linger in the mind; it's a movie that stays with you. 9/10


Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:23 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:58 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The Hangover Part III (2013)

I laughed once. It was during one of the interactions between Alan and Cassie in the pawn shop. This was just last night. At this time I cannot remember what it was, exactly, that I laughed at. So, it must not have even been that funny. Nothing happens. This is supposed to be a crude comedy but it's a blase cash grab. I am not setting the bar too high. The first two provided laughs. I was expecting more of the same. The Hangover Part III was like sitting in an office cube for 100 minutes with nothing to do but stare at a stapler.

1/4


Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:10 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 705
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
peng wrote:
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

Remarkable how one of the very first sound years already produced a near-masterpiece. There are a few growing pains: some talking and effect sounds are not smooth, and early on in the film the histrionics of the acting stand out. After a while though, you stop noticing them. It feels like every realistic war film today owes a debt to this one. The war scenes are realistic and violent, and the tone increasingly despairing. Lew Ayres's face is so suitably haunting; you can see the weight of what he's been through reflected in his eyes as the film goes on. Many scenes, from the first attack, to the soldiers' brief sojourn with the French girls, to the bleak ending, linger in the mind; it's a movie that stays with you. 9/10


Loved this. Saw it for the first time a couple of years ago and absolutely loved it.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:40 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16010 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743 ... 801  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr