Last Movie you Watched?

1519520522524525966

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Haha, you re not serious I hope?

    Nope, totally serious. Every time I listen to Stand Out and Eye To Eye I'm taken back to much happier and simpler times in my life.
  • Posts: 372
    The Mummy 2017. A film that is by turns quite thrilling and yet really quite awful. Some of the action is well staged and its suitable yucky, no toning everything down to get a family friendly rating(15 cert in the UK). But some of the dialogue is truly awful as are the performances. Annabelle Wallis is as wooden as a plank and Russell Crowe, oh my god. A cockney Mr Hyde! really. There were times when the whole thing reminded me of Tobe Hooper's cult classic Lifeforce. Not a terrible movie just utterly uninspired. But the biggest problem for me is Tom Cruise. What on earth made him sign up to this crap. He really does need to get some better advisers and start making some better career choices. He is far to good an actor to be wasting his talent on rubbish like this. The days of Jerry Maguire and Collateral seem a long time ago. Heres hoping American Made lives up to expectations
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    I tried watching Edge of Tomorrow last night, but gave up on it. Pretty bad.

    I'm shocked! I thought it was a great movie and I'm looking forward to the announced sequel.

    Indeed, I thought it was fantastic. I like that they've established that the sequel will end the story.

  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,349
    Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl. A fun action adventure, really great film.
  • Posts: 12,276
    Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl. A fun action adventure, really great film.

    The one Pirates film I really care about it. I'll always enjoy it as a standalone classic.
  • FoxRox wrote: »
    Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl. A fun action adventure, really great film.

    The one Pirates film I really care about it. I'll always enjoy it as a standalone classic.

    Likewise. Fun adventure flick with great performances. Don't care for the others.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Basic Instinct (1992) - Director's Cut
    xvdQQ4W.jpg

    In honour of its 25th anniversary, I put in this classic thriller which made Sharon Stone into a major star. Michael Douglas is Nick Curran, an unhinged San Francisco cop who investigates the brutal murder of a rock star in his bed postcoitus. During his enquiries, he meets and falls for Catherine Tramell (Stone), the rock star's boyfriend, who is a writer whose book foretold the murder. Ms. Tramell is also a sharp psychologist who has an unconventional sex life which intrigues and seduces Curran. The protagonists in all of her books die, and her life seems to eerily mirror the books, so anyone who comes into contact with her is potentially at risk.

    Both Douglas and Stone are pitch perfect in this film & share a genuine palpable chemistry. Douglas beefed up for the role and projects a hard & convincing machismo edge. He really is damn good in this film - almost Eastwood like. Stone is mesmerizingly beautiful and wonderfully seductive - she truly lights up the screen whenever she's present and combines intelligence with allure. Jeanne Tripplehorn also is very impressive as a bookish SF PD psychologist who knew Tramell and has an on again off again sexual relationship with Curran.

    The script and dialogue by Joe Eszterhaz is crisp and memorable and veteran director (and master provocateur) Paul Verhoeven keeps it tense throughout the 2 hr run time. San Francisco is nicely captured in this film too, and the city and its beautiful ocean vistas feature regularly. The legendary Jerry Goldsmith (my 2nd favourite composer after John Barry) delivers a master class memorable suspense score for this film (as expected) which helps elevate it, just like Barry's work did for Bond.

    This really is a fine film. Very atmospheric and intense, with superb performances by all the actors, excellent direction by Verhoeven and wonderful cinematography by Jan de Bont (who also worked on that other classic, Die Hard). It's one of those groundbreaking films which started a whole trend of imitators (in this case sexual thrillers) which pale in comparison. Douglas was on top of his game during this period, and nearly everything he put out was impressive. A great actor. I'm glad I revisited this.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,501
    @bondjames, great stuff. I haven't seen it in many years, but I recall loving it when I last saw it. Have you ever seen Douglas in the somewhat similar 'Fatal Attraction'?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @Creasy47. Yes, I've seen Fatal Attraction and love it as well. That's the one that made Glenn Close a star (I never understood why he would cheat on Anne Archer's character for Close, but then love is blind).

    Douglas was on fire from the late 80's until the late 90's. I also recommend The Game, A Perfect Murder (this one is a particularly good quasi remake of Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder), The Ghost and The Darkness, Disclosure & Black Rain. All great films which I must get to again soon.
  • Posts: 3,333
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    The Mummy 2017. There were times when the whole thing reminded me of Tobe Hooper's cult classic Lifeforce.
    Spot on, @cooperman2. I knew this train-wreck of a movie reminded me of a much older and better one, now you've cleared the matter up for me. For the record, I already think Dark Universe is dead on arrival. Time for another reboot.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,501
    @bondjames, I'll have to check out the ones I've yet to see! 'The Game' is incredible, Fincher's directing is wonderful as always on that one, and I think I watched 'Black Rain' on your recommendation years back and ended up really enjoying that one, as well.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondsum wrote: »
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    The Mummy 2017. There were times when the whole thing reminded me of Tobe Hooper's cult classic Lifeforce.
    Spot on, @cooperman2. I knew this train-wreck of a movie reminded me of a much older and better one, now you've cleared the matter up for me. For the record, I already think Dark Universe is dead on arrival. Time for another reboot.

    I'm interested in checking out The Mummy once it's out of theaters and hit the disc market, but I have to say that part of me is happy to see financial and critical outcomes like this. So many studios want Marvel money without the work or skills put in to get there, and simply expect audiences to lick it all up like here. It's hilarious to me that Universal have all these projects being written and cast right now to follow this reboot film, with no assurance that they can now foot the bill for it or whether they'll have the audiences for the projects once they are shot and ready for distribution. I'm shock really, as Universal has been doing great recently. This idiocy feels more like a Sony move than anything, and it's weird to see another big studio pulling it instead.
  • Posts: 12,276
    The Breakfast Club (1985). I like this one a lot; lots of funny moments.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Haha, you re not serious I hope?

    Nope, totally serious. Every time I listen to Stand Out and Eye To Eye I'm taken back to much happier and simpler times in my life.

    Fond childhood memories? Then I completely understand.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    The Mummy 2017. There were times when the whole thing reminded me of Tobe Hooper's cult classic Lifeforce.
    Spot on, @cooperman2. I knew this train-wreck of a movie reminded me of a much older and better one, now you've cleared the matter up for me. For the record, I already think Dark Universe is dead on arrival. Time for another reboot.

    I'm interested in checking out The Mummy once it's out of theaters and hit the disc market, but I have to say that part of me is happy to see financial and critical outcomes like this. So many studios want Marvel money without the work or skills put in to get there, and simply expect audiences to lick it all up like here. It's hilarious to me that Universal have all these projects being written and cast right now to follow this reboot film, with no assurance that they can now foot the bill for it or whether they'll have the audiences for the projects once they are shot and ready for distribution. I'm shock really, as Universal has been doing great recently. This idiocy feels more like a Sony move than anything, and it's weird to see another big studio pulling it instead.
    I agree with your overall assessment of the studios battling for Marvel type figures. It's rumored that The Mummy‘s true budget was closer to $200 million than the reported $125M. And according to various websites this would mean that it needs to earn a worldwide gross (not net) of $750 million. The studio took a gamble thinking they could compete with Wonder Woman and that having Tom Cruise would ensure a big box office. The biggest mistake, however, was going up against Wonder Woman as The Mummy only pulled in a dismal $35M in the States. However, the international box office could save the Dark Universe though I think it's safe to rule out China with their strict censorship rules against occult themed movies. So far the film sits at an estimated $175M worldwide.

    I'd certainly watch it, only on someone's borrowed disc, especially as you're interested in movies, plus it'll be an abject lesson in not how to write a horror movie. It needs to be watched alongside Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce and Landis's Warewolf in London to see just what's been pilfered from these two movies. Maybe the writers were hoping younger audiences wouldn't notice the similarities?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,691
    'The Mummy' grossed $52 million for its Opening Weekend in China, which is more than 'Logan', 'Beauty of the Beast' and 'Guardians of the Galaxy 2', @bondsum
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    The Mummy (2017). Yes, it has its critics but I thought it was a lot of fun. Looking forward to this Dark Universe.
  • Posts: 1,162
    chrisisall wrote: »
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    I'm afraid any film that features the slaughter of animals for entertainment is beyond despicable and for that reason i will never watch Apocalypse Now again. Simply saying Coppola is some kind of film making genius is no excuse. A self indulgent movie made by a bunch of people high on drugs.

    The purpose of the scene wasn't for entertainment, but to prove a point of symbolic sacrifice. I hope you also promise never to eat burgers or any form of meat again, knowing that the animal that gave you the opportunity was killed and exploited for cash money by a company who served it up to be shoved down your throat.

    I read the animal was going to be slaughtered anyway by the locals- the company just set up to film it. Still, I can't watch it again because of the scene... or Southern Comfort because of the pig... reality takes me out of fictional cinematic narrative. Just like real graphic sex in a mainstream movie. It becomes about the documentation...

    I don't get the puritan-like outrage over stuff like this, to be frank. The film is depicting a reality, and not in a way that is for the sake of itself, and to shock audiences. Coppola was playing with theme and symbolism, and knew what he was doing; it's never in his nature to do something just to do it. It's not the job of the film to portray a fictional world, but instead a slightly surreal take on our own reality. It's supposed to make you uncomfortable, as it actually happens all the time in "our world."

    Slaughter is a cornerstone of industry, and every time you have pork or meat, you support the practice of just what you see in the movies that you can't stand to watch. Perhaps it's easy to block out how you got that burger in front of you as you eat it in a diner, but it doesn't change the fact that an animal in full health and peak of life was killed to feed your face. I just see some hypocrisy there from some, unless they're playing the vegetarian card to try and save face.

    The sex thing doesn't bother me either, for similar reasons. I can't stand the backlash to the expression of sexuality in film, when violence is given free reign. Any sexual acts depicted are acts that, like the slaughter of animals, are a reality and are heavily practiced by various cultures. If we can take in images of people being blown away in a hail of bullets or getting hacked to pieces (which audiences of the day seem to love), then I think it's fair game to show simulations of oral sex and other parts of the sexual experience along with it. Some many complain about film approaching porn too closely, but you could say the same for movies' depiction of violence approaching too closely to snuff films, or footage of war where people are being killed in front of us. There comes a point where the reality of something depicted feels too real, and that upsets some people. But you can't allow it one way and not the other, where violence is glorious and sex is too much.

    That's just about the way it is. Thumbs up!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    The Room (2003)

    Insufferable, and unintentionally hilarious.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,694
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    The Mummy 2017. There were times when the whole thing reminded me of Tobe Hooper's cult classic Lifeforce.
    Spot on, @cooperman2. I knew this train-wreck of a movie reminded me of a much older and better one, now you've cleared the matter up for me. For the record, I already think Dark Universe is dead on arrival. Time for another reboot.

    I'm interested in checking out The Mummy once it's out of theaters and hit the disc market, but I have to say that part of me is happy to see financial and critical outcomes like this. So many studios want Marvel money without the work or skills put in to get there, and simply expect audiences to lick it all up like here. It's hilarious to me that Universal have all these projects being written and cast right now to follow this reboot film, with no assurance that they can now foot the bill for it or whether they'll have the audiences for the projects once they are shot and ready for distribution. I'm shock really, as Universal has been doing great recently. This idiocy feels more like a Sony move than anything, and it's weird to see another big studio pulling it instead.
    I agree with your overall assessment of the studios battling for Marvel type figures. It's rumored that The Mummy‘s true budget was closer to $200 million than the reported $125M. And according to various websites this would mean that it needs to earn a worldwide gross (not net) of $750 million. The studio took a gamble thinking they could compete with Wonder Woman and that having Tom Cruise would ensure a big box office. The biggest mistake, however, was going up against Wonder Woman as The Mummy only pulled in a dismal $35M in the States. However, the international box office could save the Dark Universe though I think it's safe to rule out China with their strict censorship rules against occult themed movies. So far the film sits at an estimated $175M worldwide.

    I'd certainly watch it, only on someone's borrowed disc, especially as you're interested in movies, plus it'll be an abject lesson in not how to write a horror movie. It needs to be watched alongside Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce and Landis's Warewolf in London to see just what's been pilfered from these two movies. Maybe the writers were hoping younger audiences wouldn't notice the similarities?

    @bondsum, you're absolutely right to assume that this film may live or die internationally. In the states the word of mouth is impossible to dilute, so the money has to be made outside of the nation. I've watched and read a lot of reviews from people who commented on the heavy flashbacks in the film to explain what happened in the past with the evil lady mummy, and they argued that those scenes were there to explain things to those who didn't understand the language once it hit in foreign markets. It seems apparent then that the studio knew the international audience would play a big part in their profits, and that they needed their money to stay afloat, given that they were stupid enough to have a domestic release the same time as Wonder Woman. The flashback moments in the film with less dialogue would also save the studios the trouble of having to translate a lot of dialogue for other nations, as the scenes can be sold just on what characters are doing, and not saying.

    I'm sure that in China and other countries the content of the film will be changed from Egyptian focused occult to Chinese focused to fit the audiences, despite the heavy use of Egyptian iconography in it. ;)
    chrisisall wrote: »
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    I'm afraid any film that features the slaughter of animals for entertainment is beyond despicable and for that reason i will never watch Apocalypse Now again. Simply saying Coppola is some kind of film making genius is no excuse. A self indulgent movie made by a bunch of people high on drugs.

    The purpose of the scene wasn't for entertainment, but to prove a point of symbolic sacrifice. I hope you also promise never to eat burgers or any form of meat again, knowing that the animal that gave you the opportunity was killed and exploited for cash money by a company who served it up to be shoved down your throat.

    I read the animal was going to be slaughtered anyway by the locals- the company just set up to film it. Still, I can't watch it again because of the scene... or Southern Comfort because of the pig... reality takes me out of fictional cinematic narrative. Just like real graphic sex in a mainstream movie. It becomes about the documentation...

    I don't get the puritan-like outrage over stuff like this, to be frank. The film is depicting a reality, and not in a way that is for the sake of itself, and to shock audiences. Coppola was playing with theme and symbolism, and knew what he was doing; it's never in his nature to do something just to do it. It's not the job of the film to portray a fictional world, but instead a slightly surreal take on our own reality. It's supposed to make you uncomfortable, as it actually happens all the time in "our world."

    Slaughter is a cornerstone of industry, and every time you have pork or meat, you support the practice of just what you see in the movies that you can't stand to watch. Perhaps it's easy to block out how you got that burger in front of you as you eat it in a diner, but it doesn't change the fact that an animal in full health and peak of life was killed to feed your face. I just see some hypocrisy there from some, unless they're playing the vegetarian card to try and save face.

    The sex thing doesn't bother me either, for similar reasons. I can't stand the backlash to the expression of sexuality in film, when violence is given free reign. Any sexual acts depicted are acts that, like the slaughter of animals, are a reality and are heavily practiced by various cultures. If we can take in images of people being blown away in a hail of bullets or getting hacked to pieces (which audiences of the day seem to love), then I think it's fair game to show simulations of oral sex and other parts of the sexual experience along with it. Some many complain about film approaching porn too closely, but you could say the same for movies' depiction of violence approaching too closely to snuff films, or footage of war where people are being killed in front of us. There comes a point where the reality of something depicted feels too real, and that upsets some people. But you can't allow it one way and not the other, where violence is glorious and sex is too much.

    That's just about the way it is. Thumbs up!

    @noSolaceleft, I like it when we can find times to agree. ;)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I must say I'm a bit cross with Warner.

    I wanted to see Wonder Woman and you know what? It doesn't even show in Switzerland for Batsy's sake!!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I must say I'm a bit cross with Warner.

    I wanted to see Wonder Woman and you know what? It doesn't even show in Switzerland for Batsy's sake!!!
    They're probably cross with you folks for showing so much affection for Bond films instead of DC's efforts.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    I must say I'm a bit cross with Warner.

    I wanted to see Wonder Woman and you know what? It doesn't even show in Switzerland for Batsy's sake!!!
    They're probably cross with you folks for showing so much affection for Bond films instead of DC's efforts.

    Who knows yes. BvS was such a flop of gigantic proportions in Switzerland it is not even listed in the yearly list!!! That means it may have sold around 100.000 or less tickets. Ouch...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I must say I'm a bit cross with Warner.

    I wanted to see Wonder Woman and you know what? It doesn't even show in Switzerland for Batsy's sake!!!
    They're probably cross with you folks for showing so much affection for Bond films instead of DC's efforts.

    Who knows yes. BvS was such a flop of gigantic proportions in Switzerland it is not even listed in the yearly list!!! That means it may have sold around 100.000 or less tickets. Ouch...
    Then this definitely has something to do with it. That is a pretty mediocre showing, especially for a tent pole effort with their biggest stars. They probably thought 'what's the point'.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I think BvS was dead in Germany/Switzerland/Austria before it even hit the screens. Because of the catastrophically negative media coverage.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    A Few Good Men (1992)
    2QeYaRH.jpg

    A stone cold classic. That’s the only way to describe this film. Expertly directed from start to finish by Rob Reiner based on an Aaron Sorkin script, this is one of the best legal dramas of all time imho. It’s got everything one could want. An ‘A’ class cast operating at peak levels, wonderful dialogue, danger and suspense from the opening scene, a superior score by Marc Shaiman and great cinematography from Academy award winning lenser Robert Richardson. Oh, and if that isn’t enough, it has Jack Nicholson in a legendary performance.

    Tom Cruise is Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, a brash cocky US Navy lawyer. He’s called into defend two marine corporals (Dawson and Downey) at Guantanamo Bay who are accused of killing Private Santiago, a disloyal underperformer who had been requesting off the base. His superiors, led by base commander Colonel Nathan Jessup (Nicholson), XO Markinson (J.T. Walsh) and Platoon commander Kendrick (Kiefer Sutherland) considered his request, but decided against granting his wishes. Instead, they decided to train him to become a better soldier. Honourable, frumpy and overzealous naval investigator and lawyer Joanne Galloway (Demi Moore) suspects that the Guantanamo leadership secretly ordered a ‘Code Red’ on Santiago, a form of disciplinary punishment, which resulted in his death. Jessup denies this, as does Kendrick. The question now is how to prove it. Galloway has a tense relationship with Kaffee, disliking his tendency to settle cases. It doesn’t help that she originally wanted to be the chief litigator, but was overruled by Division command, who didn’t think she had the street smarts. Kaffee is an exceptional and instinctive lawyer, but is unsure of his capabilities. He lives in the shadow of his late father, a decorated military lawyer. Galloway sees Kaffee’s potential & encourages him to stand his ground and take the case to trial, & he eventually concedes. Ultimately due to a lack of corroborating evidence, Kaffee’s only way to get an acquittal for his clients is to get Jessup to confess to the 'Code Red' in court, a strategy fraught with risk and danger. Failure could mean a court martial.

    The performances in this film are off the charts. Cruise is near perfect as the outwardly confident (but inwardly unsure and protected) Kaffee. Demi Moore is sympathetic as Galloway, who keeps everyone honest and brings out the best in Kaffee. Kevin Pollack adds a layer of warmth as Kaffee’s friend & fellow lawyer Lt. Sam Weinberg. Kevin Bacon is superb as Captain Jack Ross, the military prosecutor. Kiefer Sutherland is frightening as the religiously inclined Kendrick. J.T. Walsh is his usual noble self as Markinson. Finally, Jack Nicholson gives one of his best performances as Colonel Nathan Jessup, an arrogant, confident man who believes in honour and an unrelenting code. Cuba Gooding Jr., Wolfgang Bodison, James Marshall & J.A. Preston also star.

    The exchange between Cruise and Nicholson towards the end of the film is one for the ages.

    Watching it reminded me that Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), the oldest US foreign naval base, stood for something else for so long prior to the recent disgraces.
  • Posts: 1,009
    Aaaaand another Eurospy flick you guys recommended me: From The Orient With Fury (1965).

    Another above average adventure of Dick Malloy, this time in full comic book adventure mode, with lots of action, one expendable girl after another, nice stunts, four different locations (the whole plot feels like a video game with four distinct stages), lighthearted humour, gadgets and ray guns. That said, the main improvement of this film over its predecessor are the fights: they're much better choreographed.
    Ken Clark, again, is cocky and debonair as the musclebound agent 077, sorrounded by a competent lot of Itialian and Spanish character actors.
    Who cares if the plot is flimsy? This has lots of fun to offer!

    I liked the combination Grieco-Clark so much I've decided to add The Fuller Report to my watching list.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited June 2017 Posts: 4,424
    The Departed. One of my favorite films of all time. There's one aspect in which I'm still trying to figure out.
    Who is the father of the therapists child?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,501
    The Departed. One of my favorite films of all time. There's one aspect in which I'm still trying to figure out.
    Who is the father of the therapists child?
    It's strongly implied that Costigan is a father, a sort of posthumous one-up that he has over Sullivan.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    The Departed. One of my favorite films of all time. There's one aspect in which I'm still trying to figure out.
    Who is the father of the therapists child?

    The departed is so good. The performances and the story is legendary
Sign In or Register to comment.