Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
Predator 2 was on, back-to-back with Predator recently and I was thinking to myself what a big mistake it was to have a Predator in the city. I haven't seen Predators all the way through but at least the makers realized that.
I can still understand why they felt the need to mix things up by seeing how it handled in different settings, even if the results were...not so good. The issue with putting it back in the jungle is that it runs the risk of repeating the original (which Predators, while still reasonably enjoyable, did a lot for better and for worse).
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



“I was cured, all right!”
Aliens vs Predator: Requiem -


Still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
I admire you, sir, for having the courage to watch this movie twice!




Aliens vs Predator: Requiem -


Still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Is that the avant-garde film where it's just a black screen the whole time?



Welcome to the human race...
I admire you, sir, for having the courage to watch this movie twice!
Just had to be sure.

Is that the avant-garde film where it's just a black screen the whole time?
I'm still amazed at how the DP also shot the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre (and the rest of his filmography is...fairly eclectic, to say the least.



I'm still amazed at how the DP also shot the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre (and the rest of his filmography is...fairly eclectic, to say the least.
Yeah. As far as the lighting goes, it could have been a directorial decision, like "let's make it darker so it's SCARIER!!!"



Welcome to the human race...
I think the problems with it go much deeper than the lighting to the point where I barely even notice the lighting (but I do notice it).





We gotta talk about the neon psychedelic, sync scored Mandy (2018). A total throwback to 80s horror/camp, the first hour of Mandy starts out a little slow. But just past the hour mark, Mandy releases the CAGE RAGE and then **** gets heavily real and turns into a beautifully shot gutter fest. Mandy got a theatrical release and a simultaneous VOD release, so if you can't/won't watch it theatrically, then it's for rent on both itunes and amazon.

Highly recommended, as well as Panos Cosmatos' earlier feature: Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010).

RAING:





Loved this though I am not a sci-fi fan. The 3 leads were brilliant. Might re-watch it.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



I am a big fan of comic books!!
Just not of the movies...

I enjoy comics too and know that they can and tend to make adjustments on the movies but I still enjoy. I love X-Men cartoons but I know they aren't like the comic books on their storylines. Same as their movies. I think Disney will do better with their movies.



“I was cured, all right!”
Just not of the movies...

I enjoy comics too and know that they can and tend to make adjustments on the movies but I still enjoy. I love X-Men cartoons but I know they aren't like the comic books on their storylines. Same as their movies. I think Disney will do better with their movies.
I don't care if the movies are like the comics, actually, I preffer they change everything. Infinity War is bad in my opinion, because it's incopetent as 'movie'!

I like the cartoon "X-Men Evolution", and there's nothing of the comics there. Also, I like superhero films, when they are good. I just don't think that seen a character that I love in a film (I love Spider-Man since I was a little kid), doesn't make the film good. X-Men 2 for example, is a very good superhero movie. Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi) it's also a good movie if I remember well (it's been ages since I last saw it).

The fact is: Avengers is pretty bad cinema, it's a CGI fest, nothing more.
Thanus was okay, but he wasn't "HUMAN" like much people say. Actually, he was pretty cliche. Different from the comics, yes, but that doesn't make him better!





Expected nothing from this Danish movie, but it was actually very good. Fictionalized rendering of a true story many consider to be a war crime.



The Hurricane (1937)




I was really looking forward to this John Ford movie because I liked the story. There's a good supporting cast, but I thought the lead couple was bland and lacked star power. It's pretty cool when the hurricane comes but it was disappointing overall. I thought it was ok.



I won't dance. Don't ask me...
I don't know how many times this same trite subject has been used in films, but this particular one was pretty good because of the acting-- especially from the principles. As great as Hackman is, he pretty much failed with his accent as a former Mississippi sheriff.. He and Willem Dafoe worked very well together. Hackman is very good at playing a mixed philosophical character. THAT part is pretty authentic..

~Doc
The accent of Hackman couldn't bother me as I was watching the movie with lector - it was on TV But I don't think I would hear the difference anyway. Remember it's a foreign language movie for me


Maybe the subjecy was used many times in movies, but I was surprised with brutality of showing scenes.
I agree that Hackaman and Dafoe created good duo



I won't dance. Don't ask me...
BandMasters 2016


Documentary movie about/with Polish folk bands. Few bands play their songs. It last about 40 minutes and it's like long music vide, but I like folk, so I enjoyed the movie.



Island of Death (1976)



I seem to have accrued alot of snash on the hard disc. Had a go at this as a cheer-me-up after work on a Monday. It's pretty nasty in that it seems like they turned up with actors, a basic narrative and a desire to "shock". I'm not a connoisseur of this type of film but it just seemed crud with not even camp bonus points. The laddie getting on with a goat actually did make me chuckle (in its desperate attempts to shock) 1/10.





Second viewing -

Snooze factor rating = Zzzz

Yet another film I loved when I first saw it and now think what a load of rubbish after a second watch...


[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it



I don't care if the movies are like the comics, actually, I preffer they change everything. Infinity War is bad in my opinion, because it's incopetent as 'movie'!

I like the cartoon "X-Men Evolution", and there's nothing of the comics there. Also, I like superhero films, when they are good. I just don't think that seen a character that I love in a film (I love Spider-Man since I was a little kid), doesn't make the film good. X-Men 2 for example, is a very good superhero movie. Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi) it's also a good movie if I remember well (it's been ages since I last saw it).

The fact is: Avengers is pretty bad cinema, it's a CGI fest, nothing more.
Thanus was okay, but he wasn't "HUMAN" like much people say. Actually, he was pretty cliche. Different from the comics, yes, but that doesn't make him better!
When I went to see Avengers: Infinity War... I knew right off there was a part 2... apparently, many of the patrons of the cinema didn't know that it comes out May 3, 2019.. They were all upset and whining like little babies because how it left off.. you know that the thing is... Marvel/Disney did it that way to bring people back to the cinema for part 2... why end it on a positive note when you want more money? I saw Infinity War three times in the cinema... and many times since then but it's not my favorite.. out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe... Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is my favorite. I enjoyed all the other films but yeah I was happy to see GOTGV2 twice at the cinema...



Somehow missed the continuation of Seagal debate.



I haven't watched the linked video but comparing Seagal's characters to the likes of Willis in Die Hard is in my opinion completely missing the point. Practically all of his characters are as far from "everyman" as possible, legends in the violence business closer John Wick than John McClane.



I've always been a fan of his cinematic Aikido. It's the locks and breaking of joints/bones that really set him apart. And while I don't focus that much on realism when it comes to movie fights I'd say Seagal's early films are at least little better on that regard than van Damme and other more acrobatic action stars (though even van Damme started to do some grappling later in his career).

I'm honestly not sure what to think of his striking ("flailing his hands around like a marionette"). It's kind of reminiscent of Wing Chun and obviously looks very different from the boxing based hand techniques most of the western actions stars use. It's never bothered me but I can understand why it seems weird to many.

I guess the only realism based annoyance in martial arts films for me is the use of knives. Like the Seagal vs Jones in Under Siege (which looks like some silly fencing) or practically any fight where only one of the guys has a knife (why is everyone always leading with the knife and if blocked just try overpower the defender). That sort of stuff really pisses me off.
Pretty much agree with what you've said about Seagal. And what you said about his methods looking like Wing Chun. I had a friend who studied Martial Arts and he said that what Seagal did mostly was Wing Chun style but he didn't say anything about Aikido. Seagal's method was particular in "joint-locking," that is, like it sounds, hitting people at their joints, say like wrists and elbows and turning them away from their natural angle. So I took him at his word. By the way, he loved Seagal. Every time I went to his house, I expected to see a candle-lit shrine to him.

This is pretty funny what John Leguizamo says about Seagal:

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



Pretty much agree with what you've said about Seagal. And what you said about his methods looking like Wing Chun. I had a friend who studied Martial Arts and he said that what Seagal did mostly was Wing Chun style but he didn't say anything about Aikido.
Weird he didn't mention anything about Aikido because that's where his background mostly is (or is supposed to be at least, I have the impression that large part of his claimed history is made up). Just rewatched Marked for Death and what he does there is definitely 90%+ Aikido. In that old films even his striking is mostly based on Aikido hand movements and looks little weird. I'd remember Wing Chun influences came little later (pretty sure The Glimmer Man has that stuff, don't remember if that's first).

Seagal's method was particular in "joint-locking," that is, like it sounds, hitting people at their joints, say like wrists and elbows and turning them away from their natural angle.
His joint attacks are basically Aikido (or Aiki-jujutsu) applied with lots of force by a big man. Especially in his early films many fights look like Aikido presentations without the victim "jumping" with his moves and getting his limbs destroyed instead. I really liked that style and it did set him apart from the usual Karate based martial arts stars.