Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





The Collector (1965)


This is a solid, creepy movie with 2 very good lead performances. It just didn't get me involved enough to justify it's slow pace.




-KhaN-'s Avatar
I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.
The Usual Suspects:


I honestly lost count of how many times I saw it. What can I say? Well written movie, dialog is fantastic, you can pull so many epic quotes out of this one. Acting is good, even better for some actors (like Kevin Spacey). Story is simple but mysterious and throwing punches at you constantly( saying that like a positive thing). Legend of Keyser Soze is realistic in my opinion and because of that easier to understand and accepted, at same time being mysterious and having something supernatural attached to it. I had big luck of not knowing the ending when I watched it for the first time, it blew my mind, one of best endings I ever saw. I remember from back in the day when I wrote my first thoughts on The Usual Suspects, not everyone thought this movie is as good as I claim, I didn't get it there and I probably never will. So this movie gets ...

Verdict: 10/10

(1.000 posts )
__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”



The Bad Sleep Well (1960)



Kurosawa completely owned my heart and soul for two hours and thirty minutes. While admiring his masterful cinematic craft and visual storytelling, he also completely destroyed me emotionally. I love dark stories, but even for me this was almost too depressing.

One of the most effective films I've ever seen and pretty much a lock for my '60s list.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



The Bad Sleep Well (1960)



Kurosawa completely owned my heart and soul for two hours and thirty minutes. While admiring his masterful cinematic craft and visual storytelling, he also completely destroyed me emotionally. I love dark stories, but even for me this was almost too depressing.

One of the most effective films I've ever seen and pretty much a lock for my '60s list.

Kinda wish i hadn't looked at this now . The only 60s Kurosawa i've seen is Yojimbo, and since i hadn't heard much about this i was going to skip it, but yet another film added to the watchlist; i hope your proud of yourself Cob .





Not going out on a limb to call this my favorite Kubrick. Keep in mind I am iffy on his films and don't consider him the deity that many film fans do. I do think there were some lulls, but over all this is a very engaging but disturbing film. At time you have to jolt yourself into remembering we are talking about pedophilia here, Kubrick plays it straight more often than we should feel comfortable with. The movie also looks great, and I love the score.
__________________
Letterboxd



Haven't seen Kubricks version of Lolita in a few years and have never read the novel, but i must say it was very underhanded in dealing with the subject matter at least compared to a version i saw before this when i was about 15, that made me want to take a shower right after it . Thing is i know nothing of the making of Lolita, but wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick wanted it differently and the Studio interfered, considering the year it was made and how uneven it felt for me anyway.



Haven't seen Kubricks version of Lolita in a few years and have never read the novel, but i must say it was very underhanded in dealing with the subject matter at least compared to a version i saw before this when i was about 15, that made me want to take a shower right after it . Thing is i know nothing of the making of Lolita, but wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick wanted it differently and the Studio interfered, considering the year it was made and how uneven it felt for me anyway.
It didn't ever fell uneven to me but I can see a modern version being way more sexually explicit. I don't think it was needed to get the point, but I rarely ever do.



It didn't ever fell uneven to me but I can see a modern version being way more sexually explicit. I don't think it was needed to get the point, but I rarely ever do.
The modern version i watched, had more sexually explicit language but that was it. The main problem was how seedy it came across, it's obviously difficult not to fall into that with the Subject matter, but i feel Kubrick dealt with it alot better, possibly one of the few positive instances a Company interfering in the Directors process worked, unless i'm completely wrong and this was Kubricks vision of his adaptation played out.



The modern version i watched, had more sexually explicit language but that was it. The main problem was how seedy it came across, it's obviously difficult not to fall into that with the Subject matter, but i feel Kubrick dealt with it alot better, possibly one of the few positive instances a Company interfering in the Directors process worked, unless i'm completely wrong and this was Kubricks vision of his adaptation played out.
I was just reading about it on Wkipedia, so take it for what its worth. Apparently he said if he would have known all the interference, he wouldn't have made the film. I get it, a director doesn't want to feel handcuffed. The movie made me incredibly uncomfortable though. I think part of what I like is it is seemingly this normal guy besides this attraction to someone so young. I think that makes the film more creepy than if he had just been this monster of a man. I don't know. I haven't read the book or seen the other version, so I have no frame of reference, which makes my opinion obsolete.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Lolita was supposed to be 13 in the book, but was played by Sue Lyon who was 15 and looked closer to 17. Whatever that means to anyone.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Your opinion is much more relevant than mine, since i haven't seen either version in about 3 years . The normal guy part goes out the window a bit in the more modern version, at least more than the Kubrick version portrayed him which is why i felt more comfortable watching it. The other version doesn't show the guy as a monster either, i just feel the script, direction, and mostly the time it was made seperates the two.

I think one of us bums should read the book. I nominate you .



I think one of us bums should read the book. I nominate you .
I really should. I hardly read anymore, unless you count MoFo. That being said



Make a better place
Jacob's Ladder 1990





Elmer Gantry 1960





Fury 2014


I usually don't like war movies, somehow Fury turned out to be an exception



What Doesn't Kill You
2008


The reason I watched it is Ethan Hawke, he's one of my favorites, but honestly Mark Ruffalo made me love it, his acting is just so great.



Scoop 2006


Entertaining



Case 39 2009





American Sniper 2015


Usually when I have high expectations, when the movie ends I leave the cinema kind of disappointed, this time the movie even topped my expectations, it's a masterpiece



Wild Card 2015





The Innocents 1961





Cold in July 2014


This is exactly my type of movie



Angel Heart
1987





Exam 2009






Stay 2005


I'm not sure if I did understand it, although I have a theory like everybody and I like to believe it's true



Derailed 2005

__________________
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais



The Innocents is amazing, truly top notch Horror. Not sure if i'm more dissapointed that you rated Derailed and Case 39 above it; or the fact that i've actually watched both of them.