Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

I liked the first one a lot and I liked the second one a lot. The first one had music with comedy, this one had more slapstick comedy with music thrown in. But they were both very good. Most of the previous cast was back, including Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, Anna Camp, and Brittany Snow. The newcomer was Hailee Steinfeld and she was great, and even got third billing over some of the returning actresses. Elizabeth Banks directed this sequel and did a great job. Watch it just for some light-hearted fun, nothing deep.





A Man Called Sledge (1970)

Spaghetti Western actually filmed in Italy instead of Spain! James Garner stars as the man in the title and he's an outlaw for a change. He and his gang plot on stealing a cache of gold from inside a desert prison. The rest of gang is made up of Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, and the great John Marley, who is the old man who tells them about the gold in the first place. Italian actress Laura Antonelli plays Garner's woman, who is only in a few scenes in the movie but becomes vital towards the end. It's not a great Spaghetti Western but it is very interesting to watch for Garner being in it, plus the fact that he's playing a non-too-pleasant guy in the movie. Standard gunplay and action make it worth one watch.





Keeping the Faith (2000)

Edward Norton directed and stars in this romantic/comedy with Ben Stiller and Jenna Elfman as his co-stars. This starts with some slapstick but ends up being more about the friendship between the three stars and the difficulty of the romance that comes out of it: Difficult on one hand because Norton is a priest and Stiller is a rabbi and they both fall in love when they reunite with their childhood friend, Elfman. Difficult on the other hand because Elfman only loves one of them and stills sees the other as a friend. This is probably the best I've seen Elfman in anything as she does a really convincing job of being conflicted about her love for one of the guys. Norton and Stiller are fine as the friends who vie for the affections of their friend, both of them knowing it clashes with their religious standings. There is a great backup cast including Anne Bancroft, Eli Wallach, Ron Rifkin, Milos Foreman (yes, the director), Holland Taylor, Lisa Edelstein, Rena Sofer (who is a knockout!), Ken Leung (Miles from "Lost"), and Brian George (the restaurant owner that Jerry tried to help out on "Seinfeld"). All familiar faces that only add to the goodness of the movie. It's not fall-down funny but it is good-hearted and makes you feel fine for having watched it.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

you convince me to finally watch that movie. It's one of the final movie in Norton filmography that I've not seen.

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

I'd heard of this when it first came out, then promptly forgot about it till the other night when it appeared on cable. I wasn't sure how I'd like it but knowing Norton's rep for being a bit of a hard case if he disagrees with a director on set made me want to see a movie he'd directed, plus a comedy movie at that. I wasn't disappointed with it. There's a bit of slapstick at the first showing the two guys growing up and not exactly being choice for their profession, but it wasn't that obtrusive. Then, when they're grown things just seem to click in the movie and I felt that I was in good hands watching Norton's movie. It's good enough that I'm willing to see it again. Plus, I've always had a love/hate relationship with Jenna Elfman for some reason. But in this movie, she is totally believable, hot, and convincing as a goofball-by-choice. I hope you like it. Let me know.

The Reader (2008) - 8.0
I havent watched any movie for some days now and i saw this on tv and gave it a try. I ussually dont watch these kind of movies even tho its a drama and i was really suprised on the good way with it. The acting was good on the main charathers. I feel like this movie could be way better if some parts of the movie would be more worked on. I reccomend this movie to watch even if you dont like these types of movies or genre.

Falling Down -



I honestly have no idea how to rate this so take that rating with a grain of salt, i did really enjoy it though. My mum really likes this and has been trying to get me to watch it for ages but weirdly i actually watched it after reading a review of The Simpsons episode Homer's Enemy and finding out that Frank Grimes design and breakdown scene were based on DFens. Glad i gave it a chance as it was a lot of fun. Douglas was excellent easily the best of his i've seen, DFens is such a great character. I also feel this may be a kind of forgotten Duvall performance since i thought he was very good, but i guess it has more to do with Duvalls fantastic career making this not as impressive. His character was completely necessary to this films success i felt, without him we'd have to deal with DFens grim, blood quest even though it was pretty hilarious at times. Surprisingly i did really sympathize with DFens even though i didn't want to, it really made the "So i'm the bad guy?" line feel like it was directed at me.

Red River - + (could go up on a rewatch)



I'll just link to the post in the Westerns HOF because there are some untagged minor spoilers, so don't read it if you haven't watched it - http://www.movieforums.com/community...80#post1483680

A 140ish minute long film shot all in one take. It was all right except for a rather annoying title character.

Sicario (2015) -

I was expecting allot more from this movie and i was quite dissapointed with it. The rating i gave it was generous to it there were movies i saw that were better than this, but some parts of it were very good so thats why i kept it at a 3. Benicio Del Toro (Alejandro) did a great job and helped me kept watching this movie, others were ok but didnt gave me a good impression. I dont know if i reccomend this or not so you can decide by yourself you might like it or not.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2015) -

This movie was very good and at first i got the feeling that it will be bad, but when the movie unfolds it got better and better. The acting was very good and nobody dissapointed me with their acting. I want to give it a better rating, but it just wasnt perfect like some other movies were. I reccomend this to everyone you wont be disspointed, dont let the begging to fool you.

The Artist

I tend not to use the word whimsical, but nothing describes this film better. Worth best picture and best actor, it's a masterpiece.

I have already seen 10 Cloverfield Lane twice in the theater, and I want to see it again. This is a nigh excellent paranoiac thriller that is more than loosely related to the also very good film from 2008, "Cloverfield".

The film is perfectly cast, with John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr. Bradley Cooper makes a voice cameo as Michelle's (our heroine) boyfriend.

Our perspective throughout the film, is that of our leading character, Michelle. The film starts with her leaving her boyfriend's apartment while at the same time we get a shot of the Mississippi river, similar to that of the final moments of the first film. Visual cues from the first scene that will later impact the plot of the film are also given from the very first scene.

As disaster strikes our quite sympathetic heroine in the form of a nasty car accident, we then find ourselves with her (like I said, at no stage in the film do we see anything other than what Michelle sees or experiences) locked in a basement in an unknown location. At all times we are engaged with her panic, doubts, fears and perspectives. This makes this a very effective, first person cinematic experience.

The film is also remarkably contained, as the vast majority of it unfolds in the claustrophobic confinements of an underground bunker. It's a testament of the director's and the creative team's talents that despite the limited settings, the film never becomes monotonous and moves along at a breezy pace. The John Goodman character (Howard) walks a very fine line between being tin-foil lunatic, an extremely useful and forward-oriented planner, a menace as well as a savior. The interpenetration of opposites is always a very fascinating topic. Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Michelle) is our heroine as well as eyes and ears from beginning to end. This would not have worked without her being able to draw our unreserved empathy. What I especially applaud with her character and how it was portrayed by the director and acted out by the actress, is that she is engaging to the audience at all times. She is a perfect mix of feminine fragility, everyday-good-looks, intelligence and ultimately courage. A perfect female character, without the patronizing bombast of other recent "strong female characters" that have become bread-and-butter for Hollywood in recent years.

I also found the lens filter for this film to be very appropriate, with its greenish shades providing some kind of related perspective in relation to the first "Cloverfield" film. While many have dismissed the titling of "Cloverfield" claiming that the link between "Lane" and the "original" are minimal at best, the cues are all there for anyone willing to look. The opening shot, the attack element, the "look" of the film as well as one more subtle element. The Michelle character is quite similar to the Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) character from the original. Similar looks, almost the exact same hairdo, similar independent "spirit" as well as ultimately performing an unlikely heroic act. The only striking difference being that Michelle is more instantly likable than the somewhat "bitchy" Marlena (is that also the reason why Marlena suffers a horrible death, while Michelle survives the end of the film?) I always thought the main reason why the first "Cloverfield" film worked (besides the clever use of "found-footage") was the character of Marlena, which gave the film a human as well as heroic element in the end. Hud (the young man who "films" the events in the original) is surprised that Marlena risked her life to save him from the Cloverfield "parasites" to which Marlena replies: "You thought I was the person that wouldn't do that?" Another common element between the two films and their respective heroines, is that the camera discreetly and respectfully "lusts" after them. In the first film, Hudson is clearly infatuated with Marlena, following her around and giving her more attention than anyone or anything else. Likewise, in "Lane" the camera does not merely "follow" Michelle, but seeks and brings out her attractiveness.

I have already mentioned the "feminist" element in the movie, but the ideological/contemporary elements do not stop there. The inevitable reference to the "Russian threat" is there (it seems you can't be a Hollywood production these days without that) but more interestingly, the representation of everyday white Americans from the South is on the balance negative. To be fair, this film is more nuanced than most, but as a non-American I find it quite interesting to witness this constant pattern over and over in Hollywood films.

Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a remarkable specimen of contemporary cinema with all the right ingredients. Perfect casting, a tight and efficient plot, economizing of action and a few but very powerful scenes that carry its narrative forward. I would desperately like to see more films in this potential "Cloverfield Cinematic Universe" I would not mind a direct sequel to this film either.

From the top 100 British film's list, a brash young man takes a job in a better town to make something of himself. He soon finds himself caught between two women, a sweet girl from a rich family, and an older married woman. Complications arise, and this is not an upbeat movie. Oscar winner Simone Signoret and Oscar nominee Laurence Harvey give fantastic performances.

Really looking forward to that myself ,Cricket. I asked Mark F which British Films from the 50s i should watch (i actually just asked which ones i should watch but i knew Mark F and probably Christine would be my best bet for recs) and that looked the most interesting to me. From your description i instantly thought of The Graduate.

Trees and beautiful scenery abound, but no scares in sight. And to be entirely honest, I thought it was all a little dumb, and so I searched the web to maybe get a little more insight on it. And it turns out the writer heard of the forest (Aokigahara) recently through Wikipedia and wrote a script, which got green lighted and subsequently blew chunks. The film is basically about as "by the numbers" as your gonna get, and you can see everything from a mile away, even through thick underbrush and hanging corpses. I gave it 2 stars because the sets were beautiful, even though they shot the movie in Serbia, not Japan. Won't even detail any further because I don't really remember anything particularly gripping, plot or acting wise.

__________________

Totally believe what's highlighted bold isn't said enough. Whatever third adaption of the "Cloverfield" lore will be completely bonkers, hopefully even reeling in the first Kaiju, among even crazier shit that will all tie itself together. That's what an anthology is, right?

The Visit


I was not expecting the twist at all. Kept me entertained throughout the movie and it had some jump scares.. I liked it.

Noah (2014) -

Noah came up on tv yesterday and wasnt my plan to watch it beacuse i had in mind something else but i give it a try. At some parts it was very good, but at others it got me really annoyed. It was ok for me but i expectet more. The story lacks depth and emotion and not just annoying crying all the time. Russel Crowe (Noah) was ok but really annoyed me at some scenes, others were mediocre or really bad. Either you like this or you hate, i got myself mixed emotions and cant really decide.

Lola rennt Run Lola Run (Tom Tykwer, 1998) -

In my opinion, highly overrated. I didn't like Tykwers direction at all. Way too much playing around with the camera and in the editing room. The actors aren't that good and the ending is ridiculously unbelievable and lazyly written (the scene in the casino).


Troja Director's Cut (Wolfgang Petersen, 2004) - +

There are a lot of people who don't like this movie. I do. Of course, the movie has its problems concerning the script and some of the actors (Diane Krüger, Orlando Bloom), but i really like it. I think, it looks really great and the direction is pretty solid. I'm a huge fan of Brendan Gleeson and Eric Bana, Brian Cox and Peter O'Toole are very good either. For a Hollywood blockbuster it's perfectly fine.


Chicken Little (Mark Dindal, 2005) - +

This movie, i almost outright hated it. The humor didn't work for me at all and the story was way too over the top and annoying. The only other Disney movie i hated more, so far, is Dindals other movie: The Emperor's New Groove.

__________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."

The Quick and the Dead -

Not as much fun as the idea of Sam Raimi directing a Western should be in theory.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Funny Ha Ha - 5/10

I didn't like any of the characters, they didn't really have any depth. Imagine videotaping insecure young adults for an hour or so. I'm sure critics wanted to show how cool they were by calling it "natural".

I feel like people praise low-budget just because. "This only made $85,000 because it's so original" - I didn't see it as original. It's not bad, but to read that this movie started some phony genre, gimme a break.

I get annoyed when certain types of people are against a movie because it made money. So what. I don't care if it's blockbuster, commercial, low-budget, indie -- IS IT ANY GOOD?

I like when low-budget movies actually say something, and don't feel obligated to do something anarchic to tap into that manufactured market.... When Marlon Brando was the highest paid actor in the 50's, I saw that as a triumph for good taste, though I heard a typical right-wing social democrat sanitized liberal to think that acting ability or directing ability goes down because it made money. Fickle.

A 5.9 rating on IMDb is pretty good for a sick and disturbing movie, so this was a big disappointment. It looks good for the budget, but that's not saying much when it's only $8,000. It is sick, but too amateurish to be effective in any way.