I saw Radio, the movie that inspired half of the satire in Tropic Thunder. Wow. It was that bad and deserving of every second of ridicule. I felt sorry for everyone involved.
[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
Saw Something Wicked This Way Comes. Lovely little horror/50s-fantasy film (made in '83) based on the Bradbury story of the same name. A little bit uneven in pacing in tone (Bradbury and the first director seriously disagreed about how the film's atmosphere should be done), but overall really, really enjoyed it.
Even Cuba Gooding Jr.?
Yes, Inglorious Basters sucked.
---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------
Galaxy Quest is awesome, and sadly underrated.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I thought the cast had great chemistry and it was a very affectionate send-up of Star Trek and Trekkers in general.
Even Cuba Gooding Jr.?[/QUOTE]
ESPECIALLY Cuba Gooding Jr.
Scott Pilgrim Vs the World:
If you haven't seen it. See it. I'm not even a Cera fan and I loved every split second of it. I bought the Soundtrack the day I saw it, and went to the theatre again the following weekend to see it again.
Expendables:
Film of Action-gasms. Every big action star from the 80s-Now (with exception of JVD and Segall). Must watch for any action fan.
If you haven't seen it. See it. I'm not even a Cera fan and I loved every split second of it. I bought the Soundtrack the day I saw it, and went to the theatre again the following weekend to see it again.
Expendables:
Film of Action-gasms. Every big action star from the 80s-Now (with exception of JVD and Segall). Must watch for any action fan.
The Transporter
I had never seen this before and picked it up at HMV for like 5 bucks. I'm glad that's all I paid for it. That movie is ridiculous and if I never watch it again I won't notice.
Granted, I had just seen Inception earlier that day, so maybe this isn't fair.
(500) Days of Summer
I don't know what to make of this movie. I picked it up at that same HMV for 10 bucks because I'd heard great things from some people and horrible things from other people, just like I had heard about Juno. And much like that, I fall somewhere in the middle. I honestly don't know whether I liked the movie or not, although I'm always a big fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I'd seriously like to look up a review or two for a little more insight before I can articulate how I felt about this movie.
Sorry Charlie, but your favourite movie of the past 5 years? I just don't see it.
I had never seen this before and picked it up at HMV for like 5 bucks. I'm glad that's all I paid for it. That movie is ridiculous and if I never watch it again I won't notice.
Granted, I had just seen Inception earlier that day, so maybe this isn't fair.
(500) Days of Summer
I don't know what to make of this movie. I picked it up at that same HMV for 10 bucks because I'd heard great things from some people and horrible things from other people, just like I had heard about Juno. And much like that, I fall somewhere in the middle. I honestly don't know whether I liked the movie or not, although I'm always a big fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I'd seriously like to look up a review or two for a little more insight before I can articulate how I felt about this movie.
Sorry Charlie, but your favourite movie of the past 5 years? I just don't see it.
I admit I like (500) more than normal for probably very personal reasons.
I saw Funny People again recently, and really found that I liked the good parts more and disliked the bad parts less. Eric Bana saves the last 1/3 with his performance.
I saw Funny People again recently, and really found that I liked the good parts more and disliked the bad parts less. Eric Bana saves the last 1/3 with his performance.
P
Philosopher B.
Steer clear of the sequels then, lol. They only get more ridiculous.
I too recently saw 500 Days of Summer, and I came away with a great feeling. The only thing that I was iffy about were the scenes with his sister giving advice. I dunno, I felt like they were supposed to be more amusing than I found them. Very minor nitpick, if it can be called a nitpick at all. Joseph G. Levitt was superb, of course.
I'm now excited to follow Marc Webb in the future, even though I'm not exactly dying to see a Spiderman reboot.
Favorite parts: the Ford reflection and use of The Graduate.
I finally saw metropolis for the first time last night. I'd avoided watching it on dvd or video, hoping to catch a special showing in the cinema, and the BFI finally had a special showing of the newly restored print, with 90% of the movie intact. and hot damn it was fantastic, especially on the big screen. so glad i waited 
i'm thinking of seeing it again in a few months, with a live orchestra. goddamn that score is fantastic.
i'm thinking of seeing it again in a few months, with a live orchestra. goddamn that score is fantastic.
Steer clear of the sequels then, lol. They only get more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I liked the Transporter. I am a fan of what Hong Kong Kung Fu movies I can get my hands on. As a Martial Arts movie I thought it was fresh and inventive. Jason just comes across as a guy that "could" do most of the fight maneuvers. There are just too many European fight movies where the star does not look like a guy that could whip anyone.
It is not an acting tour de force, but competent. I really enjoyed the inspector and Statham's chemistry.
Yes the action gets even more over the top in the sequels. It is more the stunt work that is too far outside the realm of even Hollywood Physics.
There's very little stunt work in Transporter 2/3, it's all very shitty cheap CGI
P
Philosopher B.
A Clockwork Orange
I just read the book two days before watching the movie, so the sequences and narration/dialogue from the book were still burned into my brain. That having been the case, I can state with confidence that I thought the movie was a great realization of the book, and for the most part a faithful adaptation. Obviously one of the more interesting aspects of the book, at least on a surface level and not relating to the themes explored, was the nadsat speak. While it didn't bowl one over in the movie to quite the same extent, a good deal of the slang was preserved, and a lot of the dialogue was either ripped straight from the book or slightly paraphrased. I did have a few problems with the movie, however, and because I am a big picky bastard, I am going to list them.
1) General nastiness. In the book, while there is nastiness inherent both in the Government and the law as well as the lawless young hoodlums of the streets, certain characters still have some redeeming characteristics. P. R. Deltoid, for instance, didn't strike me in the book as a particularly horrible dude, even if he was clearly inefectual at controlling those to whom he was assigned (but then that was the point of the Ludovico Technique in the first place, to 'cure' those uncontrollable).
In the movie, P. R. Deltoid is one kinda creeptastic son of a bitch. This is clearly outlined not only in the sleezy manner in which he delivers his lines, but by the fact that he punches a three-quarters-naked young man in the junk. Inappropriate touching, much?!
The old woman Alex fucks up with a bouncing penis is shown to be a weird growly crone surrounded by pornographic material. While a hilarious sequence (in the way it was shot), it seemed to downplay the true horror of what was transpiring.
The writer, previously a young man, is now an old, crazy dude who looks like he'd poison your milk as soon as look at you. In the book, you get a real sense of tragedy when he and his wife are defiled; in the movie, while what happened to him is still horrible, he comes across as yet another grotesque figure in a grotesque world.
I kind of feel that in the book ordinary people, like the writer and the old man with the books and the countless women, were the only true innocents, caught between the violent lawless and the manipulative law. Though I suppose the writer did intend to use Alex to help kick the Government out of power, that didn't seem like such a bad goal.
Kubrick, it seemed to me, simply wanted to portray a uniformly ugly world.
2) The acting. Malcolm McDowell was superb, and indeed, I can't imagine another actor whose appearance and manner at that time suited Alex better. He made the character come alive, which could've been difficult, especially when it came to speaking the nadsat convincingly. I thought the actor who played Dim was well cast, as well.
One thing that bothers me about Kubrick, though, is that some of the performances in his films can be a tad overwrought. I thought the acting in The Shining, for instance, was so over-the-top as to be practically cartoonish. Quite a bit of that seeps into P. R. Deltoid and the writer, I feel, giving them an eerie, overblown intensity that didn't seem to be quite as present in their characters in the book.
3) Things omitted. In the book, the phrase 'A Clockwork Orange' is used multiple times. In the movie, what the writer is actually writing is not really mentioned.
4) The age. This may sound a bit snobbish, but I felt that some parts of this movie didn't age well. Maybe it wasn't the age, though, as much as the budget. Some parts of this movie looked bleeding fantastic (Alex and his Droogs strutting along in slow motion, for example), and some shots put me in mind of late 60s TV shows (the set of the writer's house looked especially cheesy).
5) The record shop scene. While I did NOT want to see what actually happened in the book portrayed before my eyes, the point of it was kind of taken away. In the book, the girls were much younger and the sex was not consensual; the incident was just one of a long list of horrible, horrible things that showed just what a fucked up, reprehensible individual Alex was. All the scene accomplished in the movie was giving Kubrick the chance to have stop-motion animated sex comically contrasted with classical music. Plus the manner in which McDowell yelled his lines in that scene was just weird.
There was a lot to like, however. The main character came alive well (complete with nadsat), the movie hewed pretty closely to the book in most major details, getting the main themes across, the shots and camera work were frequently inventive, and the soundtrack was equal parts uplifting and eerie (I'm a big sucker for 70's and 80's synth scores).
To be quite honest, I preferred the book, though I doubt few (if any) besides Kubrick could have brought the movie to life as well in 1971.
Oh, and incidentally, I read the pre-1986 U.S. edition of the book, so I cannot take into account the supposed happier ending in comparison with the film, simply because I haven't read it.
Also? This is one of the greatest expressions ever caught on film:
I just read the book two days before watching the movie, so the sequences and narration/dialogue from the book were still burned into my brain. That having been the case, I can state with confidence that I thought the movie was a great realization of the book, and for the most part a faithful adaptation. Obviously one of the more interesting aspects of the book, at least on a surface level and not relating to the themes explored, was the nadsat speak. While it didn't bowl one over in the movie to quite the same extent, a good deal of the slang was preserved, and a lot of the dialogue was either ripped straight from the book or slightly paraphrased. I did have a few problems with the movie, however, and because I am a big picky bastard, I am going to list them.
1) General nastiness. In the book, while there is nastiness inherent both in the Government and the law as well as the lawless young hoodlums of the streets, certain characters still have some redeeming characteristics. P. R. Deltoid, for instance, didn't strike me in the book as a particularly horrible dude, even if he was clearly inefectual at controlling those to whom he was assigned (but then that was the point of the Ludovico Technique in the first place, to 'cure' those uncontrollable).
In the movie, P. R. Deltoid is one kinda creeptastic son of a bitch. This is clearly outlined not only in the sleezy manner in which he delivers his lines, but by the fact that he punches a three-quarters-naked young man in the junk. Inappropriate touching, much?!
The old woman Alex fucks up with a bouncing penis is shown to be a weird growly crone surrounded by pornographic material. While a hilarious sequence (in the way it was shot), it seemed to downplay the true horror of what was transpiring.
The writer, previously a young man, is now an old, crazy dude who looks like he'd poison your milk as soon as look at you. In the book, you get a real sense of tragedy when he and his wife are defiled; in the movie, while what happened to him is still horrible, he comes across as yet another grotesque figure in a grotesque world.
I kind of feel that in the book ordinary people, like the writer and the old man with the books and the countless women, were the only true innocents, caught between the violent lawless and the manipulative law. Though I suppose the writer did intend to use Alex to help kick the Government out of power, that didn't seem like such a bad goal.
Kubrick, it seemed to me, simply wanted to portray a uniformly ugly world.
2) The acting. Malcolm McDowell was superb, and indeed, I can't imagine another actor whose appearance and manner at that time suited Alex better. He made the character come alive, which could've been difficult, especially when it came to speaking the nadsat convincingly. I thought the actor who played Dim was well cast, as well.
One thing that bothers me about Kubrick, though, is that some of the performances in his films can be a tad overwrought. I thought the acting in The Shining, for instance, was so over-the-top as to be practically cartoonish. Quite a bit of that seeps into P. R. Deltoid and the writer, I feel, giving them an eerie, overblown intensity that didn't seem to be quite as present in their characters in the book.
3) Things omitted. In the book, the phrase 'A Clockwork Orange' is used multiple times. In the movie, what the writer is actually writing is not really mentioned.
4) The age. This may sound a bit snobbish, but I felt that some parts of this movie didn't age well. Maybe it wasn't the age, though, as much as the budget. Some parts of this movie looked bleeding fantastic (Alex and his Droogs strutting along in slow motion, for example), and some shots put me in mind of late 60s TV shows (the set of the writer's house looked especially cheesy).
5) The record shop scene. While I did NOT want to see what actually happened in the book portrayed before my eyes, the point of it was kind of taken away. In the book, the girls were much younger and the sex was not consensual; the incident was just one of a long list of horrible, horrible things that showed just what a fucked up, reprehensible individual Alex was. All the scene accomplished in the movie was giving Kubrick the chance to have stop-motion animated sex comically contrasted with classical music. Plus the manner in which McDowell yelled his lines in that scene was just weird.
There was a lot to like, however. The main character came alive well (complete with nadsat), the movie hewed pretty closely to the book in most major details, getting the main themes across, the shots and camera work were frequently inventive, and the soundtrack was equal parts uplifting and eerie (I'm a big sucker for 70's and 80's synth scores).
To be quite honest, I preferred the book, though I doubt few (if any) besides Kubrick could have brought the movie to life as well in 1971.
Oh, and incidentally, I read the pre-1986 U.S. edition of the book, so I cannot take into account the supposed happier ending in comparison with the film, simply because I haven't read it.
Also? This is one of the greatest expressions ever caught on film:
The Late Shift
Not bad for a made-for-TV movie. It certainly got me interested in reading the book anyway (And apparently the author is writing a sequel about this past year's Team Coco debacle).
I thought that it portrayed Leno in a much nicer light than I thought, and also made Letterman seem far more humble than I'd imagined he was. I'm sure Leno's agent was probably evil, but I think this was likely an incredible exaggeration. Though, it should be said that Kathy Bates owned it. Also, whatshisname as Leno sounded more like Adam Sandler than Leno, but John Michael Higgins' Letterman was pretty good. Naturally, Rich Little's Johnny Carson was the best impression in the whole thing though.
---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------
Not bad for a made-for-TV movie. It certainly got me interested in reading the book anyway (And apparently the author is writing a sequel about this past year's Team Coco debacle).
I thought that it portrayed Leno in a much nicer light than I thought, and also made Letterman seem far more humble than I'd imagined he was. I'm sure Leno's agent was probably evil, but I think this was likely an incredible exaggeration. Though, it should be said that Kathy Bates owned it. Also, whatshisname as Leno sounded more like Adam Sandler than Leno, but John Michael Higgins' Letterman was pretty good. Naturally, Rich Little's Johnny Carson was the best impression in the whole thing though.
---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------
I actually still really like Basterds, but I think the biggest issue with it is how it was advertised vs what it actually was. I mean, the Basterds are really only a (fairly small) part of the plot. I expected like, 60% more nazi smashin' than was actually in there.
I completely don't understand people that say they don't like a movie because of the advertising. The advertising/trailers is NOT THE MOVIE. It's like saying you didn't like the movie since you had a cold or it was raining outside when you saw it.
Well, the advertising does set up expectations about the movie. So in that respect I could see how the advertising could ruin a movie. I always hate when they basically give you the whole story in the trailer, for example. I'd rather have a sense of, "I wonder what that is about?" when I go into a movie.
Actually it is nothing like that at all.
Maybe I didn't convey my point clearly, but what I meant is that because of the advertising, one would expect a wholly different type of movie, which can result in disappointment. I'm not saying the movie is bad, or good, because of the advertising, but that the campaign likely skewed the expectations of it. Surely, you can't say that preconceived notions or expectations don't ever play into one's impression of a film.
There are some films I've watched twice just to give myself the ability to judge it on its own merits, rather than what I expected, or had to reflect on after a few days for the same reason.
P
Philosopher B.
Machete
What Rodriguez lacks in subtlety, he makes up in AWESOME. This movie is brutal and fucking hilarious, featuring an eclectic cast that works very well. The sheer amount of villains was a bit excessive, though. I would have liked to have seen more of Tom Savini!
Overall, it's made of radsauce. See it if you like rad things!
What Rodriguez lacks in subtlety, he makes up in AWESOME. This movie is brutal and fucking hilarious, featuring an eclectic cast that works very well. The sheer amount of villains was a bit excessive, though. I would have liked to have seen more of Tom Savini!
Overall, it's made of radsauce. See it if you like rad things!
Machete was really dumb and boring and I really wanted it to end probably for the last 40 minutes.
Whatever. Pirahna 3D was a million times better
MacGruber
It started out so well, with a funny montage/opening number like a credits sequence and an almost shot-for-shot parody of the Rambo movies. Then we had the WWE superstar cameos, which were hilairous and I really wish they'd been in the movie more.
And then it just went downhill the moment he started offering to suck people's dicks.
Why do almost all comedies these days feel that crude = funny? If it's not crude, swearing or gross-out, then it's just not comedy? Bullshit. The movie took a big nosedive from the above mentioned moment and never recovered.
I want the hour and a half of my life back.
It started out so well, with a funny montage/opening number like a credits sequence and an almost shot-for-shot parody of the Rambo movies. Then we had the WWE superstar cameos, which were hilairous and I really wish they'd been in the movie more.
And then it just went downhill the moment he started offering to suck people's dicks.
Why do almost all comedies these days feel that crude = funny? If it's not crude, swearing or gross-out, then it's just not comedy? Bullshit. The movie took a big nosedive from the above mentioned moment and never recovered.
I want the hour and a half of my life back.
You know, I watched that movie tonight as well from a friend who claimed it was awesome (facepalm). I stood there, in disbelief when he started offering to cock other men's cocks... repeatedly... for the entire duration of the movie. Why is Ryan Philippe in this thing? He is far too good to be in here.
Then the sex scenes... and celery... oh god... I'll never look at celery the same way again.
I don't mind crude jokes but there's that Americana comedy where they try to push the envelope, jackass style, with jokes like so. The Hangover did it properly, this? What the fuck. I miss great comedies from SNL, The Blues Brothers, Wayne's World, A Night at The Roxbury (sorry, I grew up the 90ies, that music rocks)... Office Space... to a degree.
I'm surprised Charlie hasn't started stroking Clooney's dick yet... didn't The American come out this week?
Cajungal
Staff member
Hilarious Mexploitation flick. I am entertained.Machete
What Rodriguez lacks in subtlety, he makes up in AWESOME. This movie is brutal and fucking hilarious, featuring an eclectic cast that works very well. The sheer amount of villains was a bit excessive, though. I would have liked to have seen more of Tom Savini!
Overall, it's made of radsauce. See it if you like rad things!
I don't mean to start a fight or anything, but whenever this movie is mentioned anywhere, I feel a need to state my opinion.
It is my opinion that the Hangover is probably the most overrated comedy of the past two decades. I could not, and still can't, believe how much of a fanbase that movie has. I have not found a comedy to be that unfunny since the time I tried to watch Be Kind, Rewind.
Sorry, I just REALLY hate that movie.
I agree with you on damn near everything else though. Wayne's World and Blues Brothers are fantastic SNL movies, and I feel like neither get the love they so richly deserve.
I don't mean to start a fight or anything, but whenever this movie is mentioned anywhere, I feel a need to state my opinion.
It is my opinion that the Hangover is probably the most overrated comedy of the past two decades. I could not, and still can't, believe how much of a fanbase that movie has. I have not found a comedy to be that unfunny since the time I tried to watch Be Kind, Rewind.
Sorry, I just REALLY hate that movie.
I agree with you on damn near everything else though. Wayne's World and Blues Brothers are fantastic SNL movies, and I feel like neither get the love they so richly deserve.[/QUOTE]
The majority of people will beg to differ but that wasn't the point of my post, just an example how some crudeness can bring out great laughs and entertainment for a lot of people (though you cannot make everyone happy no matter how hard you can try).
If Macgruber would have begged to suck his dick once, it would have been fine. As the first time I laughed. Then he asked again, then again, and again... it wasn't funny at all. All it did was make me miss the good ol' SNL days where their movies didn't suck a dick (no pun intended).
I thought The Hangover was a good comedy, but it's definitely overrated. I enjoyed it just as much as Hot Tub Time Machine or She's Out of Your League.
What I'm more surprised by is Napoleon Dynamite. I turned that bitch off after half an hour. Had a friend that sat me down to watch it, saying it was the funniest movie EVER. I looked at them at the half hour mark and asked, "So...when does this get funny?" and turned it off.
What I'm more surprised by is Napoleon Dynamite. I turned that bitch off after half an hour. Had a friend that sat me down to watch it, saying it was the funniest movie EVER. I looked at them at the half hour mark and asked, "So...when does this get funny?" and turned it off.
Oh, I know the majority of people would disagre with me, that's why I consider it overrated, and I wanted to make clear that I just hate that movie with a passion and that that's just me.
To be fair, I will say that I absolutely LOVE Hot Rod, and lots of people hate that one too.
I just really, really hate the Hangover.
I haven't seen MacGruber and I have absolutely no interest in seeing it. SNL just hasn't been that uny since, oh, I'd say since Norm MacDonald got the boot.