What Movie Did You Just Watch? (Now Enhanced with FastPlay!)

[Lazario]

Borrowed some DVDs from my jailbird brother (he should be out in 3 months, max.), decided to give some modern horror a spin (what was I thinking?):

Boogeyman (2005) : D-
Darkness Falls (2003) : D-

Wow! They were awful!


Then I watched all 4 of my new DVDs, all movies I'd never seen before. Some very interesting stuff!

Vibrations (1995) : D

Unfortunately, this one really wastes Christina Applegate, turning her into an almost equally airheaded character as the infamous Kelly Bundy. Here she plays a formerly sexually-active (her last boyfriend/partner gave her bad vibes, so she split) nerdette who believes in that new-agey aura / spirit energy nonsense, and sells T-shirts for a living at raves. She helps to rehabilitate a former alcoholic bum after he gets his hands cut off in a malicious auto accident. The movie's supposed to be about him, but she has more to say and more going on in her universe (or her sphere, as she might put it). He's just a boring guy who had an awful "rock" band (their music is so bad, it's disgusting - the teens on Saved by the Bell made better original music, I'm not kidding!), lost his hands, moved to the big city to become a professional failure... Then she turns him into what he always was but never noticed (even when he had hands), utilizing his true potential to be... a nerd. Just like her and the friends in her apartment building, with horrible taste in music! So, he gets revenge on fate by becoming a musical genius of the clean-rave scene (we all know there is a dirty-rave scene as well, but we never see it here), though he never gets any talent!


Cat O'Nine Tails (1970) : C

Dario Argento's most James Bond-like film. This one is all procedure and no intrigue. A group of scientists are preyed upon by a killer for a reason that is to this date still unknown by Argentophiles. At least, if it is... I don't remember what it is. More than any of his films, this one is strictly a style exercise. And stylish it is indeed. There are a few entertaining scenes (and surprisingly, a few really funny ones), like when the rich guy's "daughter" takes the reporter for a speed-ride in one of their cars and seems to cover over half of the entire city in under 2.5 minutes. Not one memorable death scene, which is a loss considering this source. The characters are unfulfilling. The killer is more of a force of nature this time. Because every single person in the movie is as likely to be the killer as any other. Heads up though, this time I was actually able to really predict the killer. First time I've ever correctly predicted the killer, in every single whodunit I've ever seen, I was wrong about the killer. This time, and this time only, I was right. If you see this : watch the boardroom scene very closely! You can't miss it! Anyway, the best thing about the movie was probably (other than the opening scene) the killer kidnapping the little girl. Very strange set of circumstances there.


Trauma (1993) : B-

Now this one's a shocker, Dario Argento actually made a completely American horror film! Suffice it to say, watching this is a radically different experience from watching any of his other films. Only the main character is European, though her family are portrayed as foreigners by American actors. Even the way the dialog was recorded differs from all Argento's other films - none of the English lines were dubbed. So now everything everyone says matches their lips perfectly. What this does though, is it makes half the American people sound more obnoxious, while in some scenes you can't even distinguish what actress Asia Argento is saying. It sounds like she's mumbling to herself. Anyway, the film is completely captivating. As most Argento films are to some degree. Argentophiles hate it for a multitude of reasons. My biggest complaint is Christopher Rydell can't act this character very well and the score is inappropriate for too many scenes. But, it's still a brilliant film. Who else could center a psychological-slasher film around an anorexic girl's stay at a mental hospital?


The Stendhal Syndrome (1996) : B+

Said to be Argento's most disturbing film, it is without a doubt his most psychological film. This one goes the full distance with it's conviction to accurately depicting a person suffering from an identity-altering syndrome. It was of course, naturally panned for making the main character a police detective. Why would a woman police detective invesigating a serial rapist follow a mysterious lead all by herself, considering the victims were all female, and a couple were murdered? It's not rocket science to guess where this leads... But the movie flips the beginning on it's ear and the woman begins to become her rapist in subtle ways, before completely changing personalities. I, naturally, love the scene where she's finally alone with her boyfriend after being raped- that's alternative acting at it's best, something very close to actual realism, and very anti-cinematic. Fine human expressionism. Infamously, the director filmed all the scenes of his own daughter being raped, and still stands by claims that they got through it like professionals, though some have said that Argento was in a depressed state at some point during the shoot.

[memnv]

Watched Hide and Seek, I figured it out way to early in the movie. Another good preformance by Dakota

[Loomis]

Watched Hide and Seek, I figured it out way to early in the movie. Another good preformance by Dakota

The world's gone Dakota crazy! Just waiting for her to grow older and become the next McCauley Culkin. Speaking of Culkin, is there a small bredding ground somewhere that just creates a new child Culkin actor every few years? I digress...

Just watched François Truffaut's Jules and Jim (Jules et Jim) (1961). One of those films that doesn't so much create a world as 'record' one, it is a very naturalistic and real piece. Beautifully shot, it is one of those films where you genuinely care about the characters although can't bear to choose between them. Rating: A

[Karushifa]

What a beautiful and heart-wrenching film! If there is ever a need for the defence to produce evidence in either the case against 'animation being for kids only' then this is the one to play. Indeed, it is also a great anti-war argument. Although not mentioned often, remember that those planes flying overhead were part of the US/Allied forces.

Now just try and picture a cute young Iraqi girl and slightly older Iraqi boy in the same position.

So relevant. So brilliant.

Indeed, a great case against war, especially when people claim that targeting ciivilians is a necessary evil. Millennium Actress (by a Japanese director I've grown fond of in the last few years, Satoshi Kon) also has some scenes in the first half that deal with both the malevolent folly of extreme nationalism in Japan during the Sino-Japanese and Second World Wars, and the effects of allied raids on Japanese cities near the end of the conflict. It's nowhere near as somber as Grave of the Fireflies, but depicts pretty clearly that war takes a toll in more than just lives. Even the living are fundamentally changed by it.

[Zoltack]

I watched Thank You For Smoking, it's a comedy that's actually smart and funny. I really enjoyed it a lot even though I didn't laugh as hard as I thought I would.

[Lazario]

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

[Isidour]

V for Vendetta and Love movie in a row

That darn cat was hillarious!

[The Little Merman]

Yesterday I watched "Downfall" ("Der Untergang").

How on Earth this amazing movie lost Best Foreign Language Film in 2004, is beyond me. How Jamie Foxx took home Best Actor, and Bruno Ganz was not even nominated? Please, don't even ask - it's too painful to think of.

Review is up on the site.

*tlm

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The Virgin Spring (Ingmar Bergman, Criterion Collection)

Tarzan Finds A Son

[Loomis]

Ok, Aaron - brace yourself for this one...

I just watched The Passion of the Christ for the first time.

Now, my initial objections to this film - which are well documented in this very forum, so I won't go into too much detail here - basically concentrated on the need for it to be made in such explicit detail. Most people know the story of Jesus, and showing his death in graphic detail is simply being sadistic, rather than adding anything truly new to the story. Having now seen the film, I've changed my tune a little - but only slightly.

There are some truly beautiful moments in the film, and it is rather well shot. The use of Roman and Aramaic does add an air of authenticity to the film. However, I still question the need to focus on the bloody beating of Jesus. Anybody who has read the gospels - and has half an imagination in their head - knows that the ordeal was a bloody and sadistic one. However unlike other tellings of the Jesus story - including my personal favourite, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ - the viewer does not have Jesus's life to examine, but merely his death. Can a death truly be meaningful without celebrating life? Sure, we get flashes of his life and some of them are quite poignant (Mary remembers Jesus falling, but cannot help him up this time).

In the end, this is Mel Gibson's vision of his own faith. He focuses his belief on the violent death of his "saviour". I guess the reason the film resonated so well with Christians is that they know the life story, so they have meaning behind every blow dealt to Jesus. For people who are not believers - and people like me, who are 'of little faith' - we really are simply watching a man being beaten for two hours. This seems like a shaky foundation for a faith, but once again, this is Gibson's personal affirmation and I believe if you accept it as that, you simply have the film to critique on its own merits.

Now that I've finally seen the film, I don't hate it. Bits of it were well made, and I appreciate some of the craft. However, it is still a very heavy-handed narrative that leaves little to the viewer's imagination. It may have struck a chord with Christians, but I suspect it will leave many others cold. Accepting this as Gibson's personal letter of faith, I can only examine how he has gone about expressing it so as not to denegrate his - or anyone else's - faith. The film is needlessly violent, and yes it does border on racism in its depictions of various groups. Not all of this can be forgiven as the ramblings of Gibson, as it obviously connected with people enough to make it a box office success. However, as well made as bits were, it is difficult to watch - and come back to - a film where the central premise is that a man suffered (a GREAT DEAL) and died without any context for his suffering.

[AwallaceUNC]

I'm happy to see that you've watched it, Loomis (and apparently, I must note, on Easter). I think you've made a fair and reasonable analysis of the movie, even if I don't agree entirely. The violence is certainly abundant, but for Christians, I think justified. Christians I know often talk about their difficulty grasping the events of the Bible. It's not that they doubt that they really happened, but rather that they have difficulty comprehending it as real life rather than a story, because that's how it's been presented to many for their whole lives. So when a movie like <i>The Passion</i> comes along, it aids in making that connection. That said, if it were anyone but Jesus, I would agree that it's entirely too violent (but also wonder if it would have been criticized as much for its violence by the media). I, too, find it very difficult to return to and have actually never watched it a second time, precisely because of how simultaneously moving and draining the experience was. So I can see where it would certainly seem that way to non-believers or someone less familiar with Jesus' life. That's where the context of His life comes, which as you point out, is represented in a few poignant scenes but isn't a focus of the narrative by any means. I agree that more context would of course be helpful, but given that I've already said that the violence has its place, the movie was already long enough as it is. I've heard that Gibson plans on making movies with similar artisic sensibilities about Jesus' birth, life, teachings, etc., and perhaps even His return. (Anyone have any more info on those plans or if they are true?). If so, maybe we'll one day have Mel Gibson's <i>Passion</i>s: The Holy Trilogy and the film will be largely viewed inside a more balanced and perhaps even epic narrative. In the meantime, there's always the Bible, as Hollywood unfortunately hasn't produced a large number of movies that are both (a)well-made and (b)accepted by most Christians as representative of what they actually believe (most seem to fall into only one of these categories, a key reason to <i>The Passion</i>'s success, I think), making that context for His death that we both agree is very important to understanding and valuing the events depicted in <i>The Passion</i> less accessible.

And now I've written far more on this than I had planned to today (or any day ). Hopefully I didn't just repeat whatever I wrote in the <i>Passion</i> thread, which actually wasn't that much, if I recall. Let us also hope that World War (what number are we at now around here anyways, 15?) doesn't break out again over this.

-Aaron

[Joshrzmeup]

Simply watching the trailer for Stick It!
I'll see the real thing the day it opens. It looks so great, and a totally true gymnatics movie that shows what gymnasts are like when they aren't in the spotlight on national television.

[The Little Merman]

Ok, Aaron - brace yourself for this one...

I just watched The Passion of the Christ for the first time.

Now, my initial objections to this film - which are well documented in this very forum, so I won't go into too much detail here - basically concentrated on the need for it to be made in such explicit detail. Most people know the story of Jesus, and showing his death in graphic detail is simply being sadistic, rather than adding anything truly new to the story. Having now seen the film, I've changed my tune a little - but only slightly.

There are some truly beautiful moments in the film, and it is rather well shot. The use of Roman and Aramaic does add an air of authenticity to the film. However, I still question the need to focus on the bloody beating of Jesus. Anybody who has read the gospels - and has half an imagination in their head - knows that the ordeal was a bloody and sadistic one. However unlike other tellings of the Jesus story - including my personal favourite, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ - the viewer does not have Jesus's life to examine, but merely his death. Can a death truly be meaningful without celebrating life? Sure, we get flashes of his life and some of them are quite poignant (Mary remembers Jesus falling, but cannot help him up this time).

In the end, this is Mel Gibson's vision of his own faith. He focuses his belief on the violent death of his "saviour". I guess the reason the film resonated so well with Christians is that they know the life story, so they have meaning behind every blow dealt to Jesus. For people who are not believers - and people like me, who are 'of little faith' - we really are simply watching a man being beaten for two hours. This seems like a shaky foundation for a faith, but once again, this is Gibson's personal affirmation and I believe if you accept it as that, you simply have the film to critique on its own merits.

Now that I've finally seen the film, I don't hate it. Bits of it were well made, and I appreciate some of the craft. However, it is still a very heavy-handed narrative that leaves little to the viewer's imagination. It may have struck a chord with Christians, but I suspect it will leave many others cold. Accepting this as Gibson's personal letter of faith, I can only examine how he has gone about expressing it so as not to denegrate his - or anyone else's - faith. The film is needlessly violent, and yes it does border on racism in its depictions of various groups. Not all of this can be forgiven as the ramblings of Gibson, as it obviously connected with people enough to make it a box office success. However, as well made as bits were, it is difficult to watch - and come back to - a film where the central premise is that a man suffered (a GREAT DEAL) and died without any context for his suffering.

Watchin' it tonight, for Easter.

*tlm

[TheSequelOfDisney]

I just got Monster's, INC. DVD and just finished watching it. I forgot how good it was!

[Disney-Fan]

Batman Begins - It never fails to amaze me how good this film actually is. Acting, direction, score... All top notch. For me Cillian Murphy steals the show with his chilling portryal of The Scarecrow. Great stuff. I also LOVE Chrisitian Bale's portryal of The Dark Knight. In his costume he's almost animal-like, whereas by day he's your everyday playboy billionaire. Two thumbs WAY UP for my favourite live action film. 10/10 And yes, I liked Katey Holmes' acting and character!

[Zoltack]

I just watch Multiplicity

A hilarious and smart movie with Michael Keaton and Andie MacDowell. Doesnt surprise me that Harold Ramis directed it because it has his style.

[Wonderlicious]

Let us also hope that World War (what number are we at now around here anyways, 15?) doesn't break out again over this.

-Aaron

Erm, I think we're actually on around World War 2000 by now.

And for the record, the last film I watched was Cinderella, which on watching for the umpteenth time (overall, not on DVD), deserves its position as an animated classic.

[magicalwands]

Scary Movie 4 - My friends pulled me out of my daily sit down to reply to UltimateDisney.com threads to watch it. It really was funny though, but seeing Saw and the asian kid from the Grudge gave me the creeps. Though I only liked the movie because I ended up sitting next to this girl (who just happens to be in my spanish class at school) and she is just real funny so I easily laughed everytime she laughed during the movie. Plus, I actually saw Saw so when they made fun of it, it had me cracking up because that movie scared the hell out of me. Also to note I never saw Scary Movie 1-3 so I had no expectations and wasn't hoping for anything. If it wasn't for those points I think I wouldn't have liked it as much because it did seem a bit choppy. Also, the serious acting to mimic the acting in scary movies did seem a bit too fake because it was in a comedy environment.

But all in all, I liked it, especially when they got revenge on the Saw doll. But I really am glad for the Scary Movie series, it makes the real horror movies less scary!

[Loomis]

Phew! Glad it didn't turn into another world war. I was a little worried it was going to...

I've heard that Gibson plans on making movies with similar artisic sensibilities about Jesus' birth, life, teachings, etc., and perhaps even His return. (Anyone have any more info on those plans or if they are true?).

Oh, see this would hurt my argument if he did. If he made it as part of a trilogy, especially if he focused on the resurrection, then some of the suffering in the film is justified. I found it hard to see the point of all the suffering without the redemptive aspects of the resurrection (although there is a BRIEF scene at the end of The Passion that could be seen as such). To me - and this is perhaps because I am now influenced in my thinking by some Eastern philosophy - the resurrection was always the more important part. It was his 'reincarnation', so to speak. He went through the suffering and became 'enlightened' as a result. When he is on the cross just before he dies and he says "It is done" (or "It is accomplished" depending on the translation you are reading) that is the moment of self-realisation that he has gone through all of that suffering for a reason. He has expanded his mind and become something more than just a man. Eastern philosophy (and the 'apocryphal' Gospel of Thomas) would say that we all have that ability within us. This, I think, is far more important than seeing the suffering.

Anyways, I've gone far enough off topic now. As much as I enjoyed our last debate, don't want to reopen it here!

[RyougaLolakie]

Currently watching: Disney's "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe". My sister rented it at Blockbuster, so my family and I watched it. Right now, we're going to eat dinner so my sister paused it and we'll watched it afterwards. So far, I liked this one more than the animated movie (directed by Bill Melendez). I'm so delighted! As of now, I'm planning to get this movie really soon!