What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!

[Scarred4life]

Edward Scissorhands- FINALLY got around to buying this, and loved it! 8/10.

[PeterPanfan]

Me Without You - I really liked this. I normally hate "chick flicks", but this one was different. Although it was about two female best friends growing up from the 70's to the early 2000's, it was dark, provocative, and kind of gritty. It starred Michelle Williams as Holly, the intelligent, mousy, shy friend and Anna Friel as Marina, the outrageous, outgoing, sexualized friend. Michelle Williams put on a pretty decent British accent, considering she's American, and both Williams and Friel were fantastic in their parts. I highly recommend this film to anyone.

[Goliath]

It's been a very long time since I've watched a movie. There have been parliamentary elections in The Netherlands, and during the two week campaign (yes, America, it can be done!) all I watched every evening were all the political tv programs. But now it's time for film again...

Freaky Friday (2003)

Yeah, occasionally I like these light-hearted teen movies, even if they are supposedly aimed at girls. Maybe even more when they're aimed at girls... Often, they still have some sustance, unlike those aimed at guys...

I enjoyed this one very much. It's miles above the average teen-film. The basic-idea is not very original (switching bodies), but the way it's handled is fun enough. I had to laugh out a lot of times, and I think Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis played their parts very well: not too over-the-top, but also not too serious, giving the bizarre plot enough credibility, yet also not treating it too heavy. I also enjoyed the music. Granted, it's not Bob Dylan, but for teenage garage band rock it's good enough. The part during the end credits was .

I seem to have a good nose for finding the more enjoyable of these kind of movies. I had similar luck with Mean Girls, also with Lohan. Whatever did happen to her? It's so sad, she was so promising...

[Avaitor]

Keep on forgetting to mention this, but I saw The A-Team on Friday with a few friends.

If you're looking for a movie light on plot with awesome actions scenes, you got it here. It dragged in parts and the story isn't much to begin with, but at least the people behiind it knew that they had a dumb story and made the most enjoyable experience out of it. The effects are great and the four main actors did a great job.

Liam Neeson was a BAMF as Hannibal, Bradley Cooper was a cool douche as Face, Quinton Jackson made BA his own, and Sharlto Copley was hilarious as Murdock. I was thinking that this was Steve Carell playing him throughout the whole thing, but when I found out it wasn't, I realized that it made sense. Steve Carell couldn't make a character like him entertaining, just annoying. Even then, I wouldn't have expected the main guy from District 9 to be such a laugh riot.

If anything rubbed me the wrong way, though, I guess it would be Jennifer Biel. Don't get me wrong, she's hot as hell, but she's not a great actress, and they downplayed her sex appeal in the movie. Even then, she still has those great lips, and I can't fault anyone who has a Steely Dan ringtone.

It's no masterpiece, but I thoroughly enjoyed The A-Team for what it is, despite never seeing an episode of the original show. One of the people I saw it with is a fan of it, and says that despite how modernized it is, this was a perfect tribute to the original. I'll take his word for it.

[Margos]

Beauty and the Beast - One of my favorite Disney films. The score gives me goosebumps (No, it's not quite as good as the one for HoND, but it is really good). It's aesthetically beautiful (especially the backgrounds). Adam's castle is my favorite piece of architecture in any movie. Yes, there are some very unusual goofs, etc... (The moving bearskin rug, Belle's hair length, etc.) But considering they had about half the normal time to do this... It was quite a feat. Just a lovely film. And again, viewing the special editon, I like Human Again. It fits logically into the film, and is very pretty.

[ajmrowland]

Labyrinth-a fun movie, if nothing truly great. Good songs. David Bowie's makeup is fantastic, and all the puppetry is nice. a fair disappointment at about 3/5.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Doubt - I've wanted to see this for awhile and I finally got it at the library yesterday. It's really powerful and Meryl, Amy and Phillip are really great. Meryl is a hardcore nun (I was kinda scared of her!). Overall, it was a great movie and I'm glad that I finally saw it. 8.5/10

[PeterPanfan]

The Pink Conspiracy - I've realized I've been watching movies lately JUST because of the actors in them. Oh well. This one had Mercedes McNab, Harmony from Buffy/Angel, and Sarah Thompson, Eve from Angel. It was a comedy, and I did laugh at parts. The storyline was very out there, unbelievable, and kinda dumb, but I think it was supposed to be perceived that way. Recommended if you're a fan of the actors or are looking for some light-hearted fun.

[littlefuzzy]

I watched the M*A*S*H movie the other day, and I am going to start marathoning the series.

I am not that big a fan of the movie itself, although if I view it as a "unaired pilot" for the series it's ok

A. I'm used to the TV cast and humor

B. It really seemed slow, particularly in the beginning. Of course, it was more of a "slice of life" flim rather than something with a traditional plot that goes from the Start to A to B to C to the End.

C. The humor was different than I am used to (from other movies, and from the M*A*S*H TV show). For some reason, most 70s movies don't really work for me... From the beginning of film to the 60s are fine, I have a particular fondness for 80s movies since I grew up in that era, and 90s & 00s films are what's on now, obviously. There were several moments that I found to be pretty funny.

D. It's half comedy, half drama or however you want to describe it - The TV show was as well, but blended them better, IMHO. Personally, I don't really like that much drama, but that's just me.

E. I personally feel that much of it's "greatness" stemmed from the boundaries that it stretched at the time of it's release, and those aren't as noticable now. Also, I think that people liked it because they saw it as an anti-war/anti-establishment film during the Vietnam era.

[littlefuzzy]

I'm watching the old "To Be or Not to Be" with Jack Benny. I like the Mel Brooks version, as well.

[jpanimation]

Cat's Don't Dance (1997) 7/10 - as a HUGE fan of 'Old Hollywood,' I absolutely adore this extremely flawed movie. As a kid, this movie was just alright to me. It had some catchy songs and colorful characters but that was it. Now with the 1930's Hollywood setting, constant celebrity cameos, racial subtext in the story, and my recently acquired taste for MGM/Warner cartoon shorts (style which the characters are based), I find myself getting a lot more out of it then as a kid (like when Danny puts on the Zoot Suit, I was instantly reminded of the Tom & Jerry short The Zoot Cat). It just has everything you could ask for with great voice acting, animation, and music (I actually enjoy Randy Newman's music here WAY more then in The Princess and the Frog). Unfortunately, the story isn't very great and it's not told well at all. The movie is short, very short and the whole damn thing just rushes through without developing the plot and characters properly. It also can get obnoxiously loud and crazy at times (which may just be a tribute to the MGM/Warner cartoon shorts but still). Our protagonist, Danny, never really develops to anything outside the disillusioned talent.

The rest is nit picky crap that only someone like me would care about. Being a fan of Old Hollywood that I am, some of the historical inaccuracies can be annoying. The Hollywood sign should be a Hollywoodland sign, there are many references to Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz which would place the timeframe of this movie around 1939 (yet on numerous occasions King Kong, from 1933, is referenced as just released or in production), and besides Singin' in the Rain and Casablanca, the parody posters featured at the end are WAY out of the timeline in which this film take place, not to mention they're mostly forgettable products of their time (The Mask, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Witches of Eastwick, Grumpy Old Men, Superman, Beetlejuice, Twister, Batman & Robin, and Free Willy). I'd love to see them update the parody posters at the end to accurately portray the timeline of the film and showcase actual classics (besides the two). Still, I really enjoy this movie and wish Warner would get off their asses and properly release Cat's Don't Dance and The Iron Giant on Blu-ray (both have been pretty neglected with their past DVD releases).

Now I'll talk more on the racial subtext in this movie. As a kid, you just don't see it, but when an adult, you really pick up on it (same thing with Who Framed Roger Rabbit?). It starts when you notice the animals get all the small bits that are usually stereotypes (only "humans" get real parts); basically typecast. All the animals make their noises (like cats go "meow") that are demeaning to them, much as the African Americans were typecast as servants (with lines like "Yassa, Massa") or Native Americans were typecast as mindless killers for cowboys to shoot out. Not to mention Danny came across as a mixture of Gene Kelly (who choreographed it) and the Nicholas Brothers and Sawyer came across as the Lena Horne. I looked it up, to see if I was the only one picking up on this, and was surprised to see the amount of people denying the connection between this movie and the common discrimination that took place in the Hollywood of yesteryear. Too bad for them I found proof that this not only exists but was intentional:

"In the 1930s it was almost impossible for anyone who looked different from the mainstream or had an accent to succeed in Hollywood, and those who did found themselves largely typecast. We wanted to refer to that struggle for recognition in this story, using the animal characters as a metaphor."--David Kirschner, the Producer of Cats Don't Dance.

[Lazario]

Recommended if you're a fan of the actors or are looking for some light-hearted fun.

I've just about had-it with light-hearted fun. That's the attitude that has led to the pollution of mainstream cinema. That it doesn't matter what they do so long as the spirit with which they intend it is light-hearted fun. It's all harmless, right? Wrong...

Anyway, rant over and I don't mean any of that to sound like I blame you or anyone here personally. I just see way too many evils go unpunished because they slip under ther radar of mainstream audiences who consider them harmless just because they're not exactly shocking to them.

[blackcauldron85]

Dirty Dancing- I had only seen bits and pieces in the past. I liked it. It was fun. I now know the context of "Nobody puts Baby in a corner".

[littlefuzzy]

Recommended if you're a fan of the actors or are looking for some light-hearted fun.

I've just about had-it with light-hearted fun. That's the attitude that has led to the pollution of mainstream cinema. That it doesn't matter what they do so long as the spirit with which they intend it is light-hearted fun. It's all harmless, right? Wrong...

Anyway, rant over and I don't mean any of that to sound like I blame you or anyone here personally. I just see way too many evils go unpunished because they slip under ther radar of mainstream audiences who consider them harmless just because they're not exactly shocking to them.

Just because something like The Hottie and the Nottie (to randomly name some "fluff", that I haven't seen or plan to) exists, doesn't lessen something like Citizen Kane.

Sometimes people need light-hearted fun, like a Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler movie. No, they aren't ever going to win any awards, or be analyzed in a film class for existential symbolism, but they are entertaining, and if they distract someone from the pressures of their daily life for a couple of hours, what harm is done?

If somebody prefers to spend their time only with films from the Criterion Collection, are they any better (or worse) than a person who lives for WWE matches, or someone who likes soaps, or teen dramas, or stuff with lots of guns & explosions?

[zackisthewalrus]

Toy Story 3 - Read my thoughts in the appropriate thread.

[PeterPanfan]

Recommended if you're a fan of the actors or are looking for some light-hearted fun.

I've just about had-it with light-hearted fun. That's the attitude that has led to the pollution of mainstream cinema. That it doesn't matter what they do so long as the spirit with which they intend it is light-hearted fun. It's all harmless, right? Wrong...

Anyway, rant over and I don't mean any of that to sound like I blame you or anyone here personally. I just see way too many evils go unpunished because they slip under ther radar of mainstream audiences who consider them harmless just because they're not exactly shocking to them.

Not everything needs to be a cinematic masterpiece. <i>I Know What You Did Last Summer</i> is not held in the same regard as <i>The Exorcist</i>, but I enjoy the former more. Why? It's more fun! Films don't always need to have that serious, melancholy, solemn tone to it; rather, they should have a mixture of all genres, but focus on one main one. That's what makes a movie the most enjoyable to me.

[Lazario]

Just because something like The Hottie and the Nottie (to randomly name some "fluff", that I haven't seen or plan to) exists, doesn't lessen something like Citizen Kane.

It sounds like you're suggesting that there is only one film as odious and awful as The Hottie and the Nottie to come out every few years. Try at least once every 2 weeks. But usually 3 times every 10 days or less. Sometimes more.

And what does Citizen Kane have to do with this? You know that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how every single movie coming out now (and for several years, if not nearly the last entire decade) is exactly the same.

Sometimes people need light-hearted fun

You don't think I disagree with that, do you? That would make me either a complete idiot or insane.

And... sometimes? That is all mainstream audiences are being given. I'm mostly talking about stupid movies but even more than 99% of the serious movies are completely brainless too. However, the light-hearted movies are not only the ones that get the most press and advertising space, but are the vast majority of mainstream films that are released.

If somebody prefers to spend their time only with films from the Criterion Collection, are they any better (or worse) than a person who lives for WWE matches, or someone who likes soaps, or teen dramas, or stuff with lots of guns & explosions?

Don't try to make this out into me being a snob. I'm being realistic and you're asking ridiculous questions. We've both been on this board for years and you know me better than that. I never for one second suggested anything of the sort.

The reason I said our culture has had enough light-hearted entertainment is because it's not light-hearted anymore - it's light-headed. Or I should say: De-headed. NO-headed. We're not even talking about the empty shell where we can see there once was a head. All traces of it like a leftover stump have been hacked off. And dollar bills shoved into the hole where its' neck used to be. It's not too early to say intelligence is completely dead. It may not be, there may be the tiniest shred of it left but who can recognize it if absolutely nobody cares?

Nobody cares. And most people have just accepted it. This problem doesn't go away by ignoring it. The fact that people have ignored it is the reason things have gotten as bad as they are in the first place. So, you want to know what harm is being done? I think the answer is all around us. Horror fans know better than anyone- look at the remake trend. You know the vast majority of kids going to see those will call the originals "shit" or "gay" just because they're from the 70's and 80's. The directors that made the great horror classics of the 70's and 80's were children of the 60's and 50's and yet they loved the silent horror films, monster movies of the 30's, Val Lewton in the 40's, and sci-fi horror in the 50's. Children of the 90's like myself enjoyed many horror movies from the 70's and 80's. Now we get into the new-millennium and the kids think horror started with Saw, Wrong Turn, 28 Days Later. They hate almost all the genre movies from before maybe the 90's. I have personally sat through people only 3-4 years younger when I was in school in '02, the kids of The Sixth Sense / Stir of Echoes / The Others era who said anything low-budget sucked. And things have only gotten worse since with them calling everything "shit" and "gay" as I said before.

Do you know what I think is "gay"? That these remakes and the whole survival horror trend of '03 to today are more a result of pro-corporate consumer culture instead of anti. You'd better believe the characters in this new wave of movies are dressed more to sell people their looks, clothes, accessories instead of trying to say this is how people dress today or everyone has a cellphone. This new attitude in movies is brainwashing people. Kids are clearly more susceptible to it than adults but both are guilty of the apathy that we have too many movies we don't need and they all want to sell us something. We'll be damn lucky if the same thing isn't happening with Disney too. Kids raised on too much obnoxious "loud" and "goofy" talking celebrity-voiced features of the 90's to a new-millennium Cars or a Dreamworks movie like Shrek. Plenty of movies like these. If we're forcefed too much of something, that thing becomes a dominant in our culture. Enough years of this, the past will be erased (maybe by then, older consumers will realize they should have cared before, but it'll be too late). And variety will be eliminated. But the people who could see this will not be in the majority.

That's harmful in my book.

<i>I Know What You Did Last Summer</i> is not held in the same regard as <i>The Exorcist</i>, but I enjoy the former more. Why? It's more fun! Films don't always need to have that serious, melancholy, solemn tone to it; rather, they should have a mixture of all genres, but focus on one main one. That's what makes a movie the most enjoyable to me.

I already told you my problem wasn't personally directed at you.

[PeterPanfan]

^ I'm aware, I was just stating my opinion, like you did yours.

[Lazario]

^ I'm aware, I was just stating my opinion, like you did yours.

Gotcha.

[Goliath]

Sometimes people need light-hearted fun, like a Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler movie. No, they aren't ever going to win any awards, or be analyzed in a film class for existential symbolism, but they are entertaining, and if they distract someone from the pressures of their daily life for a couple of hours, what harm is done?

I know some marxist and structuralist film scholars who could give you complete lectures about that...

If somebody prefers to spend their time only with films from the Criterion Collection, are they any better (or worse) than a person who lives for WWE matches, or someone who likes soaps, or teen dramas, or stuff with lots of guns & explosions?

I want to answer the question, but do I dare opening that can of worms?

And... sometimes? That is all mainstream audiences are being given. I'm mostly talking about stupid movies but even more than 99% of the serious movies are completely brainless too. However, the light-hearted movies are not only the ones that get the most press and advertising space, but are the vast majority of mainstream films that are released.

I tend to agree, but you seem to forget that there's a whole world of cinema out there, besides Hollywood. You're too America-centred. Wonderful cinema art is being made on a daily basis in Europe, Asia, Latin-America and yes, Africa. There's more out there than the latest Hollywood assembly-line production. Maybe it's time for you to stop visiting the multiplex and starting to go to the 'filmhouse'?

Now we get into the new-millennium and the kids think horror started with Saw, Wrong Turn, 28 Days Later. They hate almost all the genre movies from before maybe the 90's. I have personally sat through people only 3-4 years younger when I was in school in '02, the kids of The Sixth Sense / Stir of Echoes / The Others era who said anything low-budget sucked.

Okay, I was totally on board with you throughout your entire posts, but you lost me here. You sound like the grumpy old neighbour who tells them whippersnappers from across the street to get the hell of your lawn. Kids have *always* been like this. Don't pretend this is simply something recent. I speak out of experience: kids have always rolled their eyes and yawned in boredom at movies that are older than they (the kids themselves) are. And I know many adults with the same attitude to 'old movies'. It's not a 'trend' you're noticing.

Do you know what I think is "gay"? That these remakes and the whole survival horror trend of '03 to today are more a result of pro-corporate consumer culture instead of anti. You'd better believe the characters in this new wave of movies are dressed more to sell people their looks, clothes, accessories instead of trying to say this is how people dress today or everyone has a cellphone. This new attitude in movies is brainwashing people. Kids are clearly more susceptible to it than adults but both are guilty of the apathy that we have too many movies we don't need and they all want to sell us something. [...] And variety will be eliminated.

On the one hand I agree with you. This has especially exploded since the 1980's, but let's not kid ourselves... This happened during the so-called 'Golden Age' of Hollywood all the time. It's just that we only tend to remember the few good films, the classics, the ones which were held in high regard, the ones that won awards or were directed by famous directors. But there were much, much, much more films. Where do you think the term 'B-movie' comes from? From that 'classic' Hollywood. Movies have *always* been assembly-line products and they have *always* been aimed at entertaining the masses. Hell, that's why it was called the 'Hollywood studio *system*'. Studios would use the same scripts with jus minor adjustments and other actors.

Brainwashing and telling us how to live was going on in the cinema even back then. Do you think Hollywood films from the 1930's, '40s or '50s represent America? Wake up and smell the coffee! It portrayed an almost exclusively white, male-dominated, sex-less suburban way of life. Hollywood never had anything to do with real life, and to think there once was a time when it did represent real life instead of selling us a way of life, is purely delusional.