What Movie Did You Just Watch - The Silly Subtitle Edition
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
she just covered her eyes in that one scene.
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
<i>Novocaine</i> (2001) - I enjoyed the first thirty minutes, but it pretty much went downhill from there. It had a creative concept, but I thought that David Atkins could have definitely done more with the film as a whole. And I was not a fan of that terrible (no over exaggeration there) ending! Nonetheless, I still enjoyed Steve Martin and Helena Bonham Carter. They worked well together, that's for sure.
Overall, I was a disappointed, but I didn't <i>completely</i> hate it.
C-
Overall, I was a disappointed, but I didn't <i>completely</i> hate it.
C-
<img src="http://i53.tinypic.com/314xj87.jpg">
-
Lazario
finally gave Disney's Cars a viewing:
What can I say? It's more cliched, boring, new millennium pop-crap. One-liners, hip "I'm so cool" grand-standing by famous celebrities hired to be themselves (hard to credit animation for creating characters if the casting people just give them to people better seen in their pure live-action forms), and only the requisite amount of character drama and actual screenwriting.
Nothing special about this one. I literally felt my brain being sucked out of my head the whole time... D-
What can I say? It's more cliched, boring, new millennium pop-crap. One-liners, hip "I'm so cool" grand-standing by famous celebrities hired to be themselves (hard to credit animation for creating characters if the casting people just give them to people better seen in their pure live-action forms), and only the requisite amount of character drama and actual screenwriting.
Nothing special about this one. I literally felt my brain being sucked out of my head the whole time... D--
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
-
Jack Skellington
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:07 am
- Location: Dubai
I know this is late, but I finally watched The Departed with my mother over Christmas.
What a complicated film. It was over-complicated in fact. Stupidly complicated. In fact, it was stupidly over-complicated. I really didn't like it - but its not a subject that I enjoy that much.
Leo gave a career best performance (perhaps) but really, I don't think this film deserved a directing Oscar® for Scorsese - he's definitely done better. However I can agree on the editing award. Looking at the awards for the film now on IMDB I'm very surprised Leo didn't get nominated.
What a complicated film. It was over-complicated in fact. Stupidly complicated. In fact, it was stupidly over-complicated. I really didn't like it - but its not a subject that I enjoy that much.
Leo gave a career best performance (perhaps) but really, I don't think this film deserved a directing Oscar® for Scorsese - he's definitely done better. However I can agree on the editing award. Looking at the awards for the film now on IMDB I'm very surprised Leo didn't get nominated.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
PeterPanfan
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:43 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
PeterPanfan
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:43 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
Mason_Ireton
The Jazz Singer: Very interesting, creative and quite orignal. This film is truely special for it's creativness and such. I can see why the film that gave hollywood a voice became a classic.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: All in good fun, hardly any really cruel jokes (hope you're happy Amy *winks*) I grew up on the 80s show, so it was interesting and a bit of relief of not seeing any inside jokes bout the shows and such. The teaser made it seem a "Big comeback" plot. Defintly worth seeing
Oswald the lucky rabbit: Truely amazing and smart move for Disney to give Walt's 1st star a proper welcome to the public, the shorts are a bit primitive yet enjoyable. I think Disney will place Oswald in the public lil by lil.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: All in good fun, hardly any really cruel jokes (hope you're happy Amy *winks*) I grew up on the 80s show, so it was interesting and a bit of relief of not seeing any inside jokes bout the shows and such. The teaser made it seem a "Big comeback" plot. Defintly worth seeing
Oswald the lucky rabbit: Truely amazing and smart move for Disney to give Walt's 1st star a proper welcome to the public, the shorts are a bit primitive yet enjoyable. I think Disney will place Oswald in the public lil by lil.
-
Lazario
All I Want for Christmas (1991)
Wow... What a nice Christmas movie... A nice, brainless, predictable, cliched, and boring piece of drek. It wasn't painfully bad, until the ending (which truly hurts- a lot). I tried to like it... There were cute, little mice. The father (Jamey Sheridan) is a wicked hunk. And, Thora Birch, Lauren Bacall, and Leslie Nielson were in it. It should have been a lot better! But it wasn't funny or endearing at all.
Wow... What a nice Christmas movie... A nice, brainless, predictable, cliched, and boring piece of drek. It wasn't painfully bad, until the ending (which truly hurts- a lot). I tried to like it... There were cute, little mice. The father (Jamey Sheridan) is a wicked hunk. And, Thora Birch, Lauren Bacall, and Leslie Nielson were in it. It should have been a lot better! But it wasn't funny or endearing at all.
-
Lazario
Happy Birthday to Me (1981)
What a pleasent surprise this one was. It was not particularly clever at all, but it's several steps above the typical early 1980's slasher film. In terms of style, overall acting quality, technical camerawork and such, and the death scenes were also notches above what you'd see in these movies. No gore, but the blood looked great. The only thing that really hurt the movie...well, 2 things actually: 1) all the ridiculous scenes taking place in either the beginning or middle of the movie where it looks like either the main character is going to die, or they're going to reveal the killer's identity. It's kind of obvious we're not going to find out who the killer is until the darn end, so there's a high percentage of "False Alarm" scenes in this movie, which for a slasher film are always frustrating. 2) the perposterousness of the ending. SPOILER! AHEAD - A tear-away face mask? You've got to be joking! And the chloroform montage? I had to fight the urge to laugh out loud. And then, the killer is the killer but later isn't the killer but later is the killer again? That bit was again, funny, instead of whatever the filmmakers were trying to do. Anyway, I gave it extra points for insanity. The reason it's not a good slasher film is because the dialogue scenes are pointless and in terms of character, it's a boring movie.
What a pleasent surprise this one was. It was not particularly clever at all, but it's several steps above the typical early 1980's slasher film. In terms of style, overall acting quality, technical camerawork and such, and the death scenes were also notches above what you'd see in these movies. No gore, but the blood looked great. The only thing that really hurt the movie...well, 2 things actually: 1) all the ridiculous scenes taking place in either the beginning or middle of the movie where it looks like either the main character is going to die, or they're going to reveal the killer's identity. It's kind of obvious we're not going to find out who the killer is until the darn end, so there's a high percentage of "False Alarm" scenes in this movie, which for a slasher film are always frustrating. 2) the perposterousness of the ending. SPOILER! AHEAD - A tear-away face mask? You've got to be joking! And the chloroform montage? I had to fight the urge to laugh out loud. And then, the killer is the killer but later isn't the killer but later is the killer again? That bit was again, funny, instead of whatever the filmmakers were trying to do. Anyway, I gave it extra points for insanity. The reason it's not a good slasher film is because the dialogue scenes are pointless and in terms of character, it's a boring movie.
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
Transformers
So Transformers was one of "the" films of 2007, was it?
This film fails on so many fronts, it's incredible. How can so much money be poured into something which has so little merit? Nothing, and I mean nothing at all in this film could be considered as good as mediocre, let alone above average. I just cannot understand how this car crash of a movie became so popular.
Even the effects (which technically were good) weren't great, because the jarring handheld-style camera movement, the constant quick-fire editing and the fact that parts of one Transformer looked pretty much like another meant that many of the battle scenes were confusing. The action was just a giant mess.
Still I suppose "giant mess" pretty much sums up the script too. Did it really need a scene where masturbation is discussed? Or a Bumblebee "urinates" on a character? Yes, that's right; Bumblebee – one of the most likable, friendly and heroic characters in the original cartoons – pisses on somebody. Presumably Michael Bay must have thought this was hilarious. But, its not just Bumblebee who had their personality totally screwed over by Bay – we also got nonsense like Jazz break dancing and introducing himself with the words "What's crackin' little bitches?".
I look forward to a scatological scene in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, or a sequence where Batman checks out the local whores in The Dark Knight... because apparently that's the future of non-R rated action movies.
But there's more that wrong with this movie. Much more. So much more:
Starscream – one of the most complex and devious (as well as popular) of all the original Transformers is… well, actually he's nothing. A big fat nothing, a blank canvas with nothing written or painted upon it. If it wasn't for hearing the name Starscream in the movie, I wouldn't have even noticed he was in it.
And in a painfully unfunny and protracted sequence, all of the Autobots are changed into Keystone Kops, "hiding" from Sam Witwicky's parents in his garden. During which they manage to destroy most of it, with Optimus Prime saying words like "Oops, my bad." Like some rejected character from an poor 1970's sit-com.
All of this quite frankly insulting, not only to the carefully created, developed and rounded characterisations of the original cartoons, but to the film's actual audience. Regardless of if they are familiar with the originals or not, its pretty clear to the audience that the title characters of the movie – the Transformers themselves – are not worthy of any form of character development. They're just here to slam into each other/smash into buildings/explode or (preferably in Bay's eyes) all three.
But then again, the human characters don't fare much better. I have an almost unlimited admiration for Shia LaBeouf – at least his character was likeable, despite the lacklustre scripting. Other characters were just… there. Mikaela (Megan Fox) was just there for eye candy. Captain Lennox (Josh Duhamel) served little or no purpose after the initial opening sequence. Maggie the hacker likewise failed to live up to any potential. And John Turturro as the Sector 7 Agent… All I can say is "John, I hope you got paid enough money for selling your soul by accepting the role".
How everybody could have a personality so ill-defined and empty as they did in this movie – be they human or organic is perhaps the biggest mystery of all. The freaking film was 2 hours 20 minutes long. Like most films these days, it appears quantity is more important than quality. Because a <strike>talented</strike> competent writer could do ten times as much with the characters in 20 minutes as this movie script managed in 7 times the run-time. (And who knows, perhaps a competent writer could come up with an actual plot too, rather than a sequence of unrelated events which sometimes contradict each other!)
But then again, when you have so many action sequences in a movie, you don't have time for actually telling a story – even if your film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long. Not when you can show giant robots fighting. Or buildings crashing down. Or explosions. Lots and lots of explosions. But, when there's nothing linking the scenes together, and you don't care for the characters, or the robots, because they're non-entities – just ciphers to explain the so-called "plot" or get objects from A-B as functionally as possible, all that action is just empty and – shock horror – boring. I'm getting old now, I've seen thousands and thousands of explosions on film. Trust me, these explosions had less impact on me than any others.
But Bay does know his explosions. Once more, in a Michael Bay film, it appears the only thing he is interested in is Military hardware and protocols. It was almost sickening to see how much time, care and attention was spent on these scenes rather than the much more needed scenes that explained the plot or developed the characters. At times it was almost like Military porn!
All in all, I feel this was not only a bad movie, but an offensively bad movie. If this is the future of movies, I'll be happy to live in the past.
P.S. I checked out some of Michael Bay's commentary, and it seemed to validate every opinon on him I had formed myself or heard from others. I mean, how many times can he say his name "Michael Bay" in his own commentary?
So Transformers was one of "the" films of 2007, was it?
This film fails on so many fronts, it's incredible. How can so much money be poured into something which has so little merit? Nothing, and I mean nothing at all in this film could be considered as good as mediocre, let alone above average. I just cannot understand how this car crash of a movie became so popular.
Even the effects (which technically were good) weren't great, because the jarring handheld-style camera movement, the constant quick-fire editing and the fact that parts of one Transformer looked pretty much like another meant that many of the battle scenes were confusing. The action was just a giant mess.
Still I suppose "giant mess" pretty much sums up the script too. Did it really need a scene where masturbation is discussed? Or a Bumblebee "urinates" on a character? Yes, that's right; Bumblebee – one of the most likable, friendly and heroic characters in the original cartoons – pisses on somebody. Presumably Michael Bay must have thought this was hilarious. But, its not just Bumblebee who had their personality totally screwed over by Bay – we also got nonsense like Jazz break dancing and introducing himself with the words "What's crackin' little bitches?".
I look forward to a scatological scene in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, or a sequence where Batman checks out the local whores in The Dark Knight... because apparently that's the future of non-R rated action movies.
But there's more that wrong with this movie. Much more. So much more:
Starscream – one of the most complex and devious (as well as popular) of all the original Transformers is… well, actually he's nothing. A big fat nothing, a blank canvas with nothing written or painted upon it. If it wasn't for hearing the name Starscream in the movie, I wouldn't have even noticed he was in it.
And in a painfully unfunny and protracted sequence, all of the Autobots are changed into Keystone Kops, "hiding" from Sam Witwicky's parents in his garden. During which they manage to destroy most of it, with Optimus Prime saying words like "Oops, my bad." Like some rejected character from an poor 1970's sit-com.
All of this quite frankly insulting, not only to the carefully created, developed and rounded characterisations of the original cartoons, but to the film's actual audience. Regardless of if they are familiar with the originals or not, its pretty clear to the audience that the title characters of the movie – the Transformers themselves – are not worthy of any form of character development. They're just here to slam into each other/smash into buildings/explode or (preferably in Bay's eyes) all three.
But then again, the human characters don't fare much better. I have an almost unlimited admiration for Shia LaBeouf – at least his character was likeable, despite the lacklustre scripting. Other characters were just… there. Mikaela (Megan Fox) was just there for eye candy. Captain Lennox (Josh Duhamel) served little or no purpose after the initial opening sequence. Maggie the hacker likewise failed to live up to any potential. And John Turturro as the Sector 7 Agent… All I can say is "John, I hope you got paid enough money for selling your soul by accepting the role".
How everybody could have a personality so ill-defined and empty as they did in this movie – be they human or organic is perhaps the biggest mystery of all. The freaking film was 2 hours 20 minutes long. Like most films these days, it appears quantity is more important than quality. Because a <strike>talented</strike> competent writer could do ten times as much with the characters in 20 minutes as this movie script managed in 7 times the run-time. (And who knows, perhaps a competent writer could come up with an actual plot too, rather than a sequence of unrelated events which sometimes contradict each other!)
But then again, when you have so many action sequences in a movie, you don't have time for actually telling a story – even if your film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long. Not when you can show giant robots fighting. Or buildings crashing down. Or explosions. Lots and lots of explosions. But, when there's nothing linking the scenes together, and you don't care for the characters, or the robots, because they're non-entities – just ciphers to explain the so-called "plot" or get objects from A-B as functionally as possible, all that action is just empty and – shock horror – boring. I'm getting old now, I've seen thousands and thousands of explosions on film. Trust me, these explosions had less impact on me than any others.
But Bay does know his explosions. Once more, in a Michael Bay film, it appears the only thing he is interested in is Military hardware and protocols. It was almost sickening to see how much time, care and attention was spent on these scenes rather than the much more needed scenes that explained the plot or developed the characters. At times it was almost like Military porn!
All in all, I feel this was not only a bad movie, but an offensively bad movie. If this is the future of movies, I'll be happy to live in the past.
P.S. I checked out some of Michael Bay's commentary, and it seemed to validate every opinon on him I had formed myself or heard from others. I mean, how many times can he say his name "Michael Bay" in his own commentary?
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16690
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
D3: The Mighty Ducks
I missed the beginning of it (I watched it on TBS). I had watched it a few months ago on my DVD, but the "Mighty Ducks" trilogy films are some of my favorite live-action Disney films. This is probably my least favorite film in the trilogy (D2 is my first), but it's still enjoyable!
I missed the beginning of it (I watched it on TBS). I had watched it a few months ago on my DVD, but the "Mighty Ducks" trilogy films are some of my favorite live-action Disney films. This is probably my least favorite film in the trilogy (D2 is my first), but it's still enjoyable!
That's good to know, but I still didn't think that it looked that good (even though the trailer made me laugh a little- I tried to hold in my laughter, but a little laugh came out...lol).Mason wrote:Alvin and the Chipmunks: All in good fun, hardly any really cruel jokes (hope you're happy Amy *winks*)
