logo Sign In

Last movie seen — Page 501

Author
Time

Sicario (2015)

Denis Villenueve and Roger Deakins could beat the shit out of me and I’d probably thank them.

.

Author
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

Sicario (2015)

Denis Villenueve and Roger Deakins could beat the shit out of me and I’d probably thank them.

You pretty much just described Prisoners.

Author
Time

Dark City (director’s cut) (2008)

I’ve very little in the way of criticism to give this film. Jennifer Connelly is breathtaking as always (as is her singing voice); Richard O’Brien verges on charismatic with how gleefully sinister he is; Kiefer Sutherland – in a quite atypical role for him – is quite enjoyable; the set design is nothing sort of marvellous; and Rufus Sewell and William Hurt’s performances, though nothing spectacular, are competent.

There’s one nit I found to pick, though: the final showdown towards the end. It’s so overblown, it was almost enough to take me out of the movie.

9/10


The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

Love the sets, and Conrad Veidt, Sabu, and Rex Ingram are great all around. Shame that John Justin and June Duprez aren’t nearly so captivating, nor is the love story between their two characters. The plot’s a bit unfocused also. Still, it’s fairly enjoyable. Had I kids, I’d certainly put this on for them.

6/10


Careful (1992)

This would’ve made a fine 15-to-20 minute short film. Unfortunately, it’s 80-to-85 minutes too long. Sure, it’s got the wonderful retro visuals, quirky characters, and offbeat humour I love of Guy Maddin’s work, but they’re sandwiched in between several thick layers of BORING.

This is certainly one of my least favourite Madden films, if not my least favourite.

6/10


Body Bags (1993)

It’s an enjoyable little flick. It certainly isn’t great – it wouldn’t make it into any “Top 10 Anthology Horror Films” list of mine – but it’s watchable.

There’s three stories in this one. The first, “The Gas Station”, is the best of the three stories, with some good tension present. The second, “Hair”, is alright; I’d probably like it less if I didn’t like Stacy Keach. The third, “Eye”…

… speaks for itself.

7/10


The Man Who Laughs (1928)

I’ve had this on my watchlist for some years now, but only got my ass around to finally seeing it recently. My thoughts? It’s good, but not as great as all the hype would indicate. Veidt’s portrayal of Gwynplaine is nothing short of amazing; he does an excellent job conveying a wide range of emotions while still having to sport a rictus grin throughout the run of the picture. Mary Philbin’s positively ethereal. The photography’s also lovely. On the other hand, the direction’s a bit off at times. For example, Gwynplaine doesn’t come across as a particularly amusing clown, so I don’t see why audiences in-universe find him so damn funny, grin notwithstanding. And the pacing’s a bit long-winded; I’m sure the chase at the end, for one instance, could’ve been trimmed down some.

Overall, I’d still recommend this movie to individuals interested in checking it out.

8/10

Author
Time

Duracell, have you ever seen Nothing But Trouble (1991)?

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Duracell sees nothing but trouble every year.

Author
Time

War for the Planet of the Apes

Absolutely fantastic ending to a trilogy that was better than it ever had any business being (and one of the rare trilogies that gets better with each film).

Much less action-oriented than I expected - it was advertised as Saving Private Ryan with apes, but it’s really more of a Schindler’s List/Apocalypse Now/Bridge on the River Kwai mashup with apes, and I loved every second of it. Woody Harrelson did a great job as the Kurtz figure, and of course Serkis was brilliant as Caesar.

The effects were even more stunning than the first two films - at many points I forgot I was watching mocap CGI apes, which I don’t think ever really happened with Rise and Dawn.

Highly recommended. Here’s hoping if they continue the series they don’t fuck it up, but even if they do I’m very happy pretending anything past this trilogy doesn’t exist (like I do with the Bourne series).

9 CGI gorillas out of 10.

Author
Time

I’m just really mad that they didn’t use practical effects and have actors dressed in gorilla costumes. I had to boycott those films for their senseless use of CGI.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

It’s not senseless at all. The costumes made sense in the originals because they were already intelligent apes. These movies are about normal apes slowly becoming intelligent over the course of 3 movies (and though they’re basically intelligent by movie 2, many apes carry over across all 3 films, so suddenly turning Caesar, Maurice, and Rocket from CGI into men in costumes would be jarring) - a person in a costume would look too human to properly sell it. And the motion capture is so well done - I can’t see anyone turning in a performance like Serkis did as Caesar under a costume and heavy makeup.

Give the movies a shot. They’re better than you think, especially the second and third.

Author
Time

CGI is just a tool. In the new Apes trilogy, it’s a tool used well.

Author
Time

I was making fun of people that hate CGI no matter what even if it looks a lot better than what a practical effect would look like. A couple years ago someone made a post nearly identical to mine except they were serious.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I’m still not sure I care to see the last one because I was so bored by the second one.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

I was making fun of people that hate CGI no matter what even if it looks a lot better than what a practical effect would look like. A couple years ago someone made a post nearly identical to mine except they were serious.

Yeah that’s the problem, that kind of statement is regularly made in all seriousness by people round here.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I’m still not sure I care to see the last one because I was so bored by the second one.

Well you’re wrong about the second one but if it was the humans that bored you then you don’t have to worry about that in War.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I was making fun of people that hate CGI no matter what even if it looks a lot better than what a practical effect would look like. A couple years ago someone made a post nearly identical to mine except they were serious.

Yeah that’s the problem, that kind of statement is regularly made in all seriousness by people round here.

I’ve noticed that dying down quite a bit. A lot of uninformed and stubborn people got it in their heads a number of years ago that they’re film experts and that CGI is inherently lazy and terrible, but I haven’t heard from many of these motherfuckers in a while.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Now they’re probably busy trying to wrap their heads around the fact that the original Star Wars trilogy was, in fact, shot at a much higher resolution than 480p.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Tobar said:

Duracell, have you ever seen Nothing But Trouble (1991)?

Three times. First time was in high school; loved it then. Watched it a second time around 2012/13; found it mediocre. Then I watched it again for a third time a couple months ago; enjoyed it again, though it’s obviously no masterpiece.

Possessed said:

Duracell sees nothing but trouble every year.

I found God again this year, so that’s not wholly accurate.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

It was.

Yeah, the apes are 100% the focus of War. Woody Harrelson is pretty much the only human character of any consequence in the film (well, him and the little mute girl).

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I was making fun of people that hate CGI no matter what even if it looks a lot better than what a practical effect would look like. A couple years ago someone made a post nearly identical to mine except they were serious.

Ah, my bad. Yeah, there’s so much of that mentality around for reals that it’s hard to tell if someone’s being serious or not when they say things like that.

Author
Time

I don’t hate CGI but there’s been two decades of crappy stuff that doens’t fool the eye for very long. I don’t think CGI spaceships impressed me until the 2009 Star Trek film. And bad CGI still happens. Justice League allegedly being the latest example of when a human in a suit might have been better.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I’m still not sure I care to see the last one because I was so bored by the second one.

eh, you will be bored for like 72% of this movie then. I am pretty sure if you look back a few pages you will find my review

oh look, somehow i did magic and found it.

dahmage said:

War for the Planet of the Apes

Oh my God why is it so long? Needed a different cut. Good, but not what I expected, and way too full of no talking, and more plot conveniences.

I rate it as good as ice in my orange juice. (That isn’t something I love)

Author
Time

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’m still not sure I care to see the last one because I was so bored by the second one.

eh, you will be bored for like 72% of this movie then. I am pretty sure if you look back a few pages you will find my review

oh look, somehow i did magic and found it.

dahmage said:

War for the Planet of the Apes

Oh my God why is it so long? Needed a different cut. Good, but not what I expected, and way too full of no talking, and more plot conveniences.

I rate it as good as ice in my orange juice. (That isn’t something I love)

I’ll probably end up wasting two hours (at least?) of my life watching it someday but I won’t be able to say you didn’t warn me.