Rate The Last Movie You Saw

when you asked for my top 10 from 1900 to 1901... they didnt make many horror back then as cinema was still new... if you want.. Im sure I could go 1900 to 1930 or so

and why dont i like the 50's... because 1950s was the time of American Film Noir and Low budget cheese sci films...

I would say there are a few from the 1950s that I dont mind..... like Ben Hur, All about Eve, the original The Fly, House of Wax.... some more...

yes.. Discuting what everyone else is saying!!

sorry, I meant discussing! the word in Portuguese is discutir, hence my mistake!

My apologies MG, honestly . Can i ask your favourite Horror of 1949 though?

I wont put them in a specific order... but Vampyr (1932)

Dragonwyck (1946)

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945),

The Uninvited (1944).. just to name a few....

1949 - BOOM!

No good Horrors apparently.

hmmm I like Horror from 1949 and up... most are more current stuff

I do enjoy films with Vincent Price but I dislike Hammer Horror.... Have you seen "Bloody Pit of Horror" with Micky Hargitay?

Let's start by the beginning:


Ant-Man





Overall, ridiculously entertaining.


Come on guys, don't tell me you weren't laughing at the scene where Paul Rudd's in a pipe riding an ant-boat and grabs an ant-rope. Right? Anyway, I did quite enjoy the movie, even though I felt sometimes that the scenes weren't large enough. I love Paul Rudd from both Anchormans and also love Edgar Wright from...everything he did. I'm sad that Edgar left the project since he had worked intensely on it apparently.


Anyhow, the other guy did a good enough job. There were a few things in the film that surprised me, like the visuals. I was amazed by the suitcase scene. I mean they totally nailed it, all the elements in the suitcase just flying around, I mean...perfect! Ant-man's shrinking scenes also were quite impressive. The bathtub scene also offered some interesting visuals.


Still, it's a very silly story...since the character's concept is still very silly in itself. There were a few things I thought were less worked-on, like the villain's character. I didn't really think he was a very good villain, and the acting wasn't so good from Corey Stoll. Some other characters weren't so deep either.


In brief, I give Ant-man a for being so damn entertaining.

__________________
Overall...[Rocket_Sam]

I got this movie for my wife because she likes all those crazy Lifetime movies, and I figured this would be something similar. Well, she thought it sucked and I enjoyed it. It is dumb as hell, but I thought it was funny and easy to watch. It reminded me a lot of The Guest, and I would say they're fairly comparable in terms of quality. J Lo looked good in this too.

I didn't see that lol. I've yet to watch a film by a Polish Master that wasn't at least pretty good. I have to disagree with you there.

Rashomon (1950)


Kurosawa's fable is a milestone in nonlinear story telling that explores the fragility of truth. The assist from Miyagawa on the camera and Hayasaka laying the score make it a technical masterpiece, elevating a rather simple story into a spectacle. While this is my favorite Kurosawa picture yet, I can't help but to feel that the universality of his stories prevent me from connecting with them on a personal level.

http://boxd.it/87AxB

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

Possession is pretty good. It's just MovieGal prefers gore horror.

The Voice Of His Master (1978), Nicolas Phillibert & Gérard Mordillat


The Voice Of His Master is a series of interviews - sometimes boring - of French CEO (L'Oréal, Waterman...). The film is not very interesting for its esthetic form but for the sociological dimension. The speeches and other things (clothes, desk...) of the CEO reveals the habitus of the high social class. The film is a bit dated but shows the transition to neoliberalism at the end of the seventies. The Voice Of His Master is still censored on the TV.

__________________

'71 (2014) - Being from fairly close to Belfast and growing up there, I was rather sceptical about this going in but it was better than expected and a decent offering of 'the troubles'.
Heli (2013) -
The Fury (1978) -
Exam (2009) -
Winchester 73 (1950) - +

__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

Alien





Overall, even though I'm not a horror guy, I have to admit it was pretty intense.


I had heard of this movie and its sequel. I knew it was a horror film but also thought it was going to have some action. Well, if I was disappointed on that point, I wasn't on the gorgeous cinematography point. Ridley Scott did a good job on that point.


The acting was good and convincing especially Sigourney Weaver's. The tense moments were well directed and always escalated to the culminating point that was 99% of the time a jump scare. Still, it was made back when jump scares were still good. The special effects, I mean make-up and animatronics and suits, were amazingly made. It was hard at time for me to guess what was a small-scale model and what was a real-size thing. The inside-spaceship setting was amazingly done.


I can't think of any mistakes/flaws either that the one where Ridley placed us in a world that already existed without explanation, That was one plot-twist I didn't see coming since...I didn't know robots existed in that universe.


To settle this, I have to say it is a very well-crafted movie with superb acting and terrifying creatures. I give Alien a well-deserved since it's only Ridley Scott's second major picture.

Aliens



'
Overall, one of the few sequels better than the original.


I had seen cuts and parts of the movie and thought people exaggerated it saying it was an amazing movie. I decided to give it a shot yesterday after seeing Alien. It kinda takes the same shots, pacing and acting as the first one, but still improves. I was pleased since this one is a horror/action movie. Still, after seeing this movie, I think that a lot of Avatar props and guns are very VERY similar to those used in this movie.


I really liked the suspense in this movie since there is a lot of things we don't know since we weren't introduced to the colony in the first Alien. Many of the Xenomorphs' characteristics were used well and more profoundly. The action sequences are masterfully crafted, even though I didn't like the big guns' sound effect. As always, Bill Paxton did an amazing job in this movie, switching from harsh, funny and confident in the beginning to scared and paranoid at the end.


Like the first one, there isn't really a lot of flaws in this movie. Everything is handled with an expert hand.


To wrap this up, this movie was excellent and I highly recommend it to sci-fi fans. I give it a

Edge of tomorrow





Overall, a very surprising, well-crafted movie.


When the first trailer came out, I was like: "Well this looks boring and stupid. I mean a guy who lives, dies, lives, dies and so on, and so on". I watched it yesterday with a friend since he told me it was "too complicated for him". By that time, my opinion had diverged a little, since the movie had had very good ratings and opinions.


The CGI is very good and realistic in this movie, the acting is fabulous and the plot is, even though confusing, well thought. I heard it was kinda "Groundhog Day" mixed with "Source Code" with aliens in the middle. Anyway. Once again, Bill Paxton did a very good job in this movie. I found the CGI-ed aliens very cool and realistic. The war sequences, which are almost ¾ of the movie, were very intense and surprisingly realistic for a "future war" scenario.


So,...damn, it's been the 3rd movie without obvious flaws that I watched in a row. The only thing I can say is that Emily Blunt's character sometimes kinda knows what happened...in the other...day...whatever.


The ending, I have to admit it, kinda confused me at first and is not quite clear in my mind still. There were also surprisingly funny moments & editing throughout the movie.


Overall, this was a real surprise for me and that's why I give it a

Big Game





Overall, I didn't even finish it.
I watched maybe the first 20 mins and then quit because this movie is so AWEFULLY BAD!!


The main thing in the movie is Samuel L. Jackson, who doesn't even do a good job. Poor you SLJ! This movie is just filled with cheap action clichés. They didn't even bother to hide the fact that the bad guy was the helper (...oops, spoiler!). No, from the moment we see him, we can guess he is in fact the bad guy because...THE FRICKIN' TRAILER SHOWED IT! Talking 'bout the trailer, it spoiled everything, that's why I didn't really care to see the rest of this movie.


Let's talk about flaws...wow...everything. No kidding. Everything SUCKED in this movie.


To wrap this up quickly, this is one of the WORST movies of 2014. I give it a

Le plaisir (Max Ophüls, 1952) - +

A boring movie with amazing cinematography.

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

No, it's awful.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.