Last movie seen — Page 260

TV's Frink said:

I admit to browsing the internet on my phone during some of the more disturbing parts near the end, just to make it through.

It just seemed to me to be designed to appall. He had his retort to the BBFC prepared in advance. Okay he has the right to make these films but I can't help but worry about the sort of person who feels compelled to even try to watch them.

Salo (1975) to this day gives me the heebeegeebees just thinking about remembering it.

Psycho. 

This looks amazing on Bluray.

I watched it with my 14 year old sister who knew nothing about the movie and when we got to the shower scene she said out loud "Well she's the main character so she isn't going to die,I guess she is going to find someone he killed."  A few moments latter her jaw hit the floor:)

Good time!

10/10

ray_afraid said:

Bingowings said:

TV's Frink said:

I admit to browsing the internet on my phone during some of the more disturbing parts near the end, just to make it through.

It just seemed to me to be designed to appall. He had his retort to the BBFC prepared in advance. Okay he has the right to make these films but I can't help but worry about the sort of person who feels compelled to even try to watch them.

Why? I watched 'em both. Didn't "try to" either. Just did it.
The first one was lame, the second one was better.

 Really?  REALLY?

DuracellEnergizer said:

DominicCobb said:

Heavy Metal (1981) - Strange, I had heard that this is an animated film for adults, but it seems rather juvenile to me. Nonetheless, the film ranges from vaguely cool to very cool. While there are a lot of aspects that could have been done better, there are a lot of things that were done well. Overall, pretty enjoyable. B-

Frink's going to take issue with your rating. ;-) 

 Well, at least he's right about it being juvenile.

Mike O said:

"I can see by your eyes you must be lying, when you think I don't have a clue. Baby you're crazy if you think that you can fool me, because I've seen that movie too."
Elton John

"Maybe it's time we stop deconstructing things and start putting them back together."
Alan Moore

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
Plato

And the geek shall inherit the earth. A combination of a pair the massive nerd-TV lords who've rapidly been overtaking Hollywood,Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon and Cloverfieldscribe Drew Godard from J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot school, Cabin the Woods arrives after much publicity. A film that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years following the fallout of MGM, Hollywood's once mighty megabucks studio, Cabin the Woods was finally picked up by Lionsgate, and is at least in a multiplex near you for horror fans ready for a blast-of-fun bloodbath. Cabin in the Woods isn't a bad film, and for a certain fanboy, there's undeniable fun to be had. But I for one can't help but feel I'm outgrowing Joss Whedon. This might've seemed brilliant when I was 16, but these days, I just don't think "clever" is enough.

"You think you know the story?" So the poster proclaims, but of course, you at least partially do. A group of teens fitting into archetypes all head out for a secluded night where there's no cell phone reception, because apparently, even at this point in the 21st century, no one seems to grasp that getting off the grid to a place where you can't call for help is never a good idea. And the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the dumb blonde (ex-Power Ranger Anna Hutchison), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), and the bookish virgin (well, as virginal as anyone nowadays-more in a minute) (sexy former soap star Kristen Connolly). They go to the cabin, ignoring the warnings of the weird old guy at the gas station who hasn't changed since The Hills Have Eyes, but beneath it, there's a massive organization reminiscent of the one in Buffy's fourth season, led by geek goddess Amy Acker, obviously designed to represent filmmakers, who manipulate the characters to make things play out as they want. In the basement, they find a variety of things from numerous horror subgenres, read out a mystic incantation in Latin, and bo and lehold, evil comes to kill.

Presumably, the idea of seeing cliches slightly subverted while still giving the audience what they want is supposed to be clever, as things play out like Whedon's usual genre mishmashing with everyone dying until the survivors break into the compound and unleash hell in the most literal sense. The last half-hour is a gorehound's paradise, as Whedon and Godard unleash every horror fan's dream of bringing together all of the genre and monsters into an action-packed battle. It's fun, certainly. But is that enough? Film buffs and horror fans have see this all before under numerous titles: Evil Dead II, the woefully unappreciatedWes Craven's New Nightmare, Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Freddy vs. Jason, Shaun of the Dead, Kill Bill, Fright Night, Funny Games, Army of Darkness, Targets, Peeping Tom,Behind the Mask, Shadow of the Vampire, Grindhouse,Videodrome, Body Double, Piranha, and countless others.

Post-modernism has become films about films about films about films about films and culture is now eating itself. At its best, these films off some sort of commentary on the nature of storytelling or the importance of the tales (I'll plug Wes Craven's New Nightmareagain; seriously, see it, it's brilliant.), or find some sort of social commentary like Shaun of the Dead (When Dana sneered "Me? A virgin?" and the Director quipped "We work with what we have." I was hoping for some commentary on changing social mores, but alas, it's just another smart-ass remark.), or at least attempt to do something interesting. But the genre has now been played so thoroughly from every possible angle that Whedon is just adding a new coat of paint, and his brand of smart-ass glibness is less subversive than it is simply smug and annoying. Yes, Joss, I've heard that joke before. The wording is different, the coat of pain is different, but it's stil the same. Godard certainly has skill behind the camera, but he doesn't quite make it into anything more than a fanboy dream, and his hand isn't deft enough to balance his multiple tones and balls in the air and cohere completely. That's fine, certainly. Cabin in the Woods offers up plenty of fanboy fun to be had, but ultimately the film winds up a bit between the two stools, not quite smart enough to be subversive, and not straightforward enough to just be old-fashioned fun like Dog Soldiers. In the end, the movie's self-satisfied tone, affectionate and satirical, but never quite cutting, doesn't make the pieces into the whole I would have hoped for. Again, that's fine, fun is OK, butThe Cabin in the Woods isn't as clever as it thinks. To Whedon and Godard, even the end of the world is just a big cosmic joke.

 Couldn't you just post a link to someone else's review?

Also...really?  REALLY?

Watched The Grand Budapest Hotel a couple of weeks ago, thought it was very good,.....I like that style.....so I checked out The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), which I loved

Just saw Guardians of the Galaxy

.....wanna see it again

J

Watched a really good movie with Maggie Smith, some little pumpkin headed English kid, Petter Pettigrew, the chauffer and the dad from Downton Abbey and Mellisandre from GoT.  English people and ghosts. Really very good.

Some generic title.

Time and Time Again? Time After Time? Time Enough for Time? Somewhere in Time? No joke, can't recall. 

The Last Starfighter (1984) - Pretty fun Star Wars knock-off. Special effects aren't very good at all, but they're an interesting novelty. B

ray_afraid said:

TV's Frink said:

ray_afraid said:

Bingowings said:

TV's Frink said:

I admit to browsing the internet on my phone during some of the more disturbing parts near the end, just to make it through.

It just seemed to me to be designed to appall. He had his retort to the BBFC prepared in advance. Okay he has the right to make these films but I can't help but worry about the sort of person who feels compelled to even try to watch them.

Why? I watched 'em both. Didn't "try to" either. Just did it.
The first one was lame, the second one was better.

 Really?  REALLY?

Yep.
I'm not exactly sure what your questioning...
My post was mostly joking. I didn't think the second one was very good either, but it did hold my interest more than the first one..
I suppose the some of you may think I'm a violence loving psycho or something, but I assure you I'm not. I do watch horror films almost religiously though. Most of 'em suck, some I find offensive, but the good ones are worth wading through the cesspool. Watching the Human Centipede movies was just more wading.

I've watched some gruey stuff in my time but I've never been drawn to watch a film where some lardy old guy wraps barbed wire over his percy and rapes a smashed in woman. Maybe it's artistically justified but it's just not something I can see going down well at the Chateau. It goes without saying I'm getting a bit too old for that sort sensation seeking. I have dentures.

ATMachine said:

Black Angel (1980)

A bit of a stretch to call this a "movie," given its length, but still.

Fantastic visuals--the Black Angel and the fay-woman accompanying him are superb, with a strong Excalibur vibe. Also the protagonist's costume and his burned-out castle seem to have been a big influence on Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.

4 out of 5 plague-ridden peasants, with one deducted for the cliché ending taken straight from Ambrose Bierce.

 Where did you see that? Is it out now?!

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

The Last Starfighter (1984) - Pretty fun Star Wars knock-off. Special effects aren't very good at all, but they're an interesting novelty. B

 The special effects were revolutionary. It was the first time a film attempted realism with CG (TRON doesn't really count). Doesn't hold up in the least but its place in cinematic history should be acknowledged.

I'm still waiting for my own toy Gunstar.

 As a kid growing up in a trailer park in a jerkwater desert town, something about Last Starfighter really appealed to me.

Maybe it was because I loved The Music Man.

Mike O said:

TV's Frink said:

Mike O said:

"I can see by your eyes you must be lying, when you think I don't have a clue. Baby you're crazy if you think that you can fool me, because I've seen that movie too."
Elton John

"Maybe it's time we stop deconstructing things and start putting them back together."
Alan Moore

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
Plato

And the geek shall inherit the earth. A combination of a pair the massive nerd-TV lords who've rapidly been overtaking Hollywood,Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon and Cloverfieldscribe Drew Godard from J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot school, Cabin the Woods arrives after much publicity. A film that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years following the fallout of MGM, Hollywood's once mighty megabucks studio, Cabin the Woods was finally picked up by Lionsgate, and is at least in a multiplex near you for horror fans ready for a blast-of-fun bloodbath. Cabin in the Woods isn't a bad film, and for a certain fanboy, there's undeniable fun to be had. But I for one can't help but feel I'm outgrowing Joss Whedon. This might've seemed brilliant when I was 16, but these days, I just don't think "clever" is enough.

"You think you know the story?" So the poster proclaims, but of course, you at least partially do. A group of teens fitting into archetypes all head out for a secluded night where there's no cell phone reception, because apparently, even at this point in the 21st century, no one seems to grasp that getting off the grid to a place where you can't call for help is never a good idea. And the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the stoner (Fran Kranz), the dumb blonde (ex-Power Ranger Anna Hutchison), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), and the bookish virgin (well, as virginal as anyone nowadays-more in a minute) (sexy former soap star Kristen Connolly). They go to the cabin, ignoring the warnings of the weird old guy at the gas station who hasn't changed since The Hills Have Eyes, but beneath it, there's a massive organization reminiscent of the one in Buffy's fourth season, led by geek goddess Amy Acker, obviously designed to represent filmmakers, who manipulate the characters to make things play out as they want. In the basement, they find a variety of things from numerous horror subgenres, read out a mystic incantation in Latin, and bo and lehold, evil comes to kill.

Presumably, the idea of seeing cliches slightly subverted while still giving the audience what they want is supposed to be clever, as things play out like Whedon's usual genre mishmashing with everyone dying until the survivors break into the compound and unleash hell in the most literal sense. The last half-hour is a gorehound's paradise, as Whedon and Godard unleash every horror fan's dream of bringing together all of the genre and monsters into an action-packed battle. It's fun, certainly. But is that enough? Film buffs and horror fans have see this all before under numerous titles: Evil Dead II, the woefully unappreciatedWes Craven's New Nightmare, Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Freddy vs. Jason, Shaun of the Dead, Kill Bill, Fright Night, Funny Games, Army of Darkness, Targets, Peeping Tom,Behind the Mask, Shadow of the Vampire, Grindhouse,Videodrome, Body Double, Piranha, and countless others.

Post-modernism has become films about films about films about films about films and culture is now eating itself. At its best, these films off some sort of commentary on the nature of storytelling or the importance of the tales (I'll plug Wes Craven's New Nightmareagain; seriously, see it, it's brilliant.), or find some sort of social commentary like Shaun of the Dead (When Dana sneered "Me? A virgin?" and the Director quipped "We work with what we have." I was hoping for some commentary on changing social mores, but alas, it's just another smart-ass remark.), or at least attempt to do something interesting. But the genre has now been played so thoroughly from every possible angle that Whedon is just adding a new coat of paint, and his brand of smart-ass glibness is less subversive than it is simply smug and annoying. Yes, Joss, I've heard that joke before. The wording is different, the coat of pain is different, but it's stil the same. Godard certainly has skill behind the camera, but he doesn't quite make it into anything more than a fanboy dream, and his hand isn't deft enough to balance his multiple tones and balls in the air and cohere completely. That's fine, certainly. Cabin in the Woods offers up plenty of fanboy fun to be had, but ultimately the film winds up a bit between the two stools, not quite smart enough to be subversive, and not straightforward enough to just be old-fashioned fun like Dog Soldiers. In the end, the movie's self-satisfied tone, affectionate and satirical, but never quite cutting, doesn't make the pieces into the whole I would have hoped for. Again, that's fine, fun is OK, butThe Cabin in the Woods isn't as clever as it thinks. To Whedon and Godard, even the end of the world is just a big cosmic joke.

 Couldn't you just post a link to someone else's review?

Also...really?  REALLY?

 What? And that isn't somebody else's. It's mine. I wrote it. 

 Pics or it didn't happen.

DominicCobb said:

The Last Starfighter (1984) - Pretty fun Star Wars knock-off. Special effects aren't very good at all, but they're an interesting novelty. B

 I watched the hell out of this movie on HBO when I was a kid.

Anyone who likes HC 2 more than HC, even if the grade is D- vs. F, should probably get screened for all sorts of problems.

And what's wrong with Donahue?  Especially Phil Hartman's Donahue?

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

The Last Starfighter (1984) - Pretty fun Star Wars knock-off. Special effects aren't very good at all, but they're an interesting novelty. B

 The special effects were revolutionary. It was the first time a film attempted realism with CG (TRON doesn't really count). Doesn't hold up in the least but its place in cinematic history should be acknowledged.

Yeah, I understand that. By "novelty" I meant it's interesting to consider their place in film history. Still, I've seen shitty CGI before and, revolutionary or not, the CG in that movie was the shittiest. They could have used practical effects but they didn't because CG was, I guess, cheaper.