Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





I got absolutely pissed last night and decided to watch True Romance again.
It's probably the best movie ever.
Sizemore,Gandolfini,Pitt,Walken,Oldman and Hopper turn in fantastic parts to do justice to Tarantino's writing.
What's a Drexel?
It's also the best soundtrack ever .

Pure acting,so much better than the Hateful eight.

10.

I'm still pissed,time for another Black Label.'It's White Boy Day"



Welcome to the human race...
The Godfather Part II -


Still think I'll give it the edge over Part I, but the gap in quality between the two feels a lot smaller than I remember.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.





Good if perhaps a bit tad heavy handed. Loved the highly "physical" visuals: modern cinematography is on another league when contrasted to movies from 1950.



The Godfather Part II -


Still think I'll give it the edge over Part I, but the gap in quality between the two feels a lot smaller than I remember.
I always watch both together and 2 wins over 1 because of De Niro,can you imagine De Niro and Brando in Godfather 4.





Excellent. A classic for a reason and indeed deserves to be in the IMDB top 250.
Great movie.
I walked over the bridge last month.
It's been destroyed 3 times since the original was built.Only 5 metres of the first bridge remains but thank buddha it serves to the memory of the young men who built it.



Welcome to the human race...
I always watch both together and 2 wins over 1 because of De Niro,can you imagine De Niro and Brando in Godfather 4.
Considering the circumstances, no.



I think I'm in love.

The Thing (1982) directed by John Carpenter -
This has instantly become one of my favorite horror movies, and probably one of my favorites of all time. The Thing has the most perfect execution of terror and bone chilling ambiance, using Ennio Morricone's heartpouding rhythmic beats to drive this constant feeling of dread into you. And John Carpenter's directing certainly doesn't go unnoticed, he is brilliant in his construction of this tale and his willingness to go after something so bizarre and simple. I had to look up his name, but Rob Bottin, is the heart and soul of this film. His breathtakingly horrific practical effects are so disgusting and beautiful it honestly makes the movie as perfect as it is. There are small issues, the writing hands everything to the audience on a silver platter, not leaving to much to the imagination, but most other complaints about this are borderline nitpicky. I would watch this again in a heartbeat, no questions asked.
__________________
Best of 2016 - 10 Cloverfield Lane -- Worst of 2016 - God's Not Dead 2
Best of 2015 - Mad Max: Fury Road -- Worst of 2015 - Jupiter Ascending
Best of 2014 - Nightcrawler -- Worst of 2014 - God's Not Dead



True Grit (2010):

The lead performances from Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld are both insanely good (especially the 13 year old Steinfeld), and Deakins' cinematography is glorious as usual, but it didn't really come together for me as a film. I see what they were going for with Matt Damon's character, but 1) it was weird having him constantly leave and then come back quickly and 2) Damon isn't the best guy to pull off the side jokester role. I kind of wish that it was just about the relationship between Bridges and Steinfeld, because the villains were non-threatening, extraneous, and really only exist as a plot device to bring the heroes together (If the main villain first shows his face 75 minutes into a 110 minute movie, why have him at all?). It's well made and decent fun, but I'm surprised that this is the highest rated Coens movie on Rotten Tomatoes.



True Grit (2010):

The lead performances from Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld are both insanely good (especially the 13 year old Steinfeld), and Deakins' cinematography is glorious as usual, but it didn't really come together for me as a film. I see what they were going for with Matt Damon's character, but 1) it was weird having him constantly leave and then come back quickly and 2) Damon isn't the best guy to pull off the side jokester role. I kind of wish that it was just about the relationship between Bridges and Steinfeld, because the villains were non-threatening, extraneous, and really only exist as a plot device to bring the heroes together (If the main villain first shows his face 75 minutes into a 110 minute movie, why have him at all?). It's well made and decent fun, but I'm surprised that this is the highest rated Coens movie on Rotten Tomatoes.
Me too.



Considering the circumstances, no.
Use your imagination man.



Welcome to the human race...
Use your imagination man.
No, what I'm saying is that if this hypothetical Godfather IV came out then it'd be post-1990, by which point De Niro would be about the same age that Brando was when Brando appeared in the first film (and Brando would've been too old to play the character anyway because of reasons that should be obvious), so the idea of having both of them play the same character (because why else would you have both of them in a Godfather movie) is not worth using imagination on.

Also, I'm not surprised that True Grit would be the Coens' highest-rated film on Rotten Tomatoes. It's about as close as they've ever come to successfully delivering a straight-up crowd-pleaser.

Anyway...

The Godfather Part III -
, possibly


Has its moments, sure, but the shortest film in the series shouldn't feel like the longest.



Godfather 3 was worth the effort but not a patch on the first two. I sincerely hope they don't go for a fourth.



Care for some gopher?
The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel (Henry Hathaway, 1951) -


Based on the book Rommel by Desmond Young, a Brigadier of the Indian Army in Africa, the movie chronicles the life of German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel from the late years of WWII until his death.
While the pre-credit and the war scenes are amazingly done, the rest of the movie is not overly interesting. Mainly, because the movie doesn't manage to present Rommel as the interesting character (respected and feared by the enemies) as it tells us he is in the beginning of this film.
__________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."



Goosebumps (2015)



Not as bad as expected
but not nearly as good as I hoped for...


First off, this film should have been closer to PG-13 in atmosphere and approach. I understand that the books are mainly horror stories for a younger audience, but they were still kind of scary and I'm sure the biggest audience was with the classic series of books and therefore this audience has grown older. I say this because the jokes and atmosphere is a little too lighthearted and kiddy friendly to be a truly terrifyingly good time. It also balances on that awful edge of cringe-worthy jokes and personas.

Also, the movie should have been developed further and handled with more care and detail. It feels messy, rushed and thrown out there for the sake of a quick cash in. I see potential several places, but it ultimately falls flat. I mean, the overall story is a great way and inventive way to have fun with the material and at the same time get around all corners of the universe. I also like the self-awareness and light spoof on itself and other books and movies (The you-know-what movie reference towards the end was golden). The nostalgia factor could easily make you smile or chuckle, but the jokes that were standing on its own were not that solid, mostly aiming too low, but Jack Black's intrepretation of Stine was amusing enough and of course also as the voice of Slappy. That doll was seriously killing it! Slappy had great jokes (puns that suited his character), great appreance and general visualization of the book pages - and lastly - great choice to make him practical and not CG.... Especially because the CGI was so freaking bad in this movie. A shame.

So yeah, unfortunately the story was a bit too hectic and rushed, while the overall idea was interesting. The movie was saved by a few fun jokes, mainly from Stine and Slappy, while the movie had a high enough energy level mixed with book references to such an extend you were mostly well entertained. It could have been more clever and well-crafted entertainment, but it was entertainment nontheless. The 3D was unnecessssary and worked the best during the opening logos (Sony and Columbia), ironically enough, and also during the end credits which was actually one of the best elements about this film.

+



American Loser (2007)




Seann William Scott plays a born loser type with all kinds of issues. He goes to meetings, meets a girl, etc. This was not the screwball comedy I expected, but more of a comedy/drama. It doesn't go for cheap laughs at all really, and ends up being kind of a sweet movie. Not bad.



Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future
Good if perhaps a bit tad heavy handed. Loved the highly "physical" visuals: modern cinematography is on another league when contrasted to movies from 1950.
*Cringes*

[Sample from X Year] has better [element] than [Sample from Y Year] therefore [X Year] has better [element] than [Y Year]. This is not a coherent argument (even if you pluralize some things in it)!!
__________________
Mubi



*Cringes*

[Sample from X Year] has better [element] than [Sample from Y Year] therefore [X Year] has better [element] than [Y Year]. This is not a coherent argument (even if you pluralize some things in it)!!
It's called technology. It's obvious that there is an enormous difference in the film technology from 1950 to 2016. This makes a major difference in the way the movies are experienced.



Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
The Nun's Story - 6/10

I don't have much to say about this film. It was alright, it takes a while to get going, and even then, it was constantly redundant - breaking spiritual rules by being human, constantly facing the same dilemma even though the entire convent was hypocritical and coercive.