What was the last movie you saw at the theaters?

Tools    





Originally Posted by planet news
I saw it the second time with my friend and he was like "ohhhhh so they were in another dream ohhhhhh shiiiiit".

Always watch films alone, folks. It's like reading a book.
Or get some better, more respectful friends.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I ******* hate films that come out wide-release in theaters and I ******* hate even more watching films with other people. Inception was bad in that aspect. I saw it the second time with my friend and he was like "ohhhhh so they were in another dream ohhhhhh shiiiiit".

Always watch films alone, folks. It's like reading a book.
Yeah, I'd say at least get more mature friends.

But I disagree with the idea that watching a film is like reading a book. Maybe the films you like to watch, but then maybe they should be books instead. I've nothing against "literary movies", but even they should be enjoyed as a group experience. We do have a thread around here where people vent about the annoyances of modern multiplexes but I tend not to run into these types of problems.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
I saw Inception last week. I don't think any shot was held more than five seconds in the entire film. I don't think the musical score wasn't blaring for at least one second. The film was loud, erratic, in your face, and obnoxious.

The film ideas are stuff that intelligent viewers might appreciate, but it was directed and paced with the subtlety of a Michael Bay when with about as much character interaction to boot.

Clearly Chris Nolan is making big budget studio films now, and for me his films have lost the charm, and quiet moments that Memento and Insomnia had. Even Batman Begins isn't as compromised as his most recent Batman film or this turd.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
As for the emotional payoff the film builds to, as DiCaprio's character must confront versions of his wife (Marion Cotillard) in his subconscious, it works intellectually, I suppose, but has no real feeling with it.
What's the line from In a Lonely Place. About a love scene being great because the characters aren't telling each other how much in love they are. It should be about something else, while it is clear to see they are in love. I didn't think Inception had any moments like that between DiCaprio and his wife, so their relationship was void for me and unsubstantial. It was more plot driven than emotion driven. It was plot driven because DiCaprio's character needed something in the past to haunt him and to drive him. The same thing with his kids. No connection there either.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
I saw Inception last week. I don't think any shot was held more than five seconds in the entire film. I don't think the musical score wasn't blaring for at least one second. The film was loud, erratic, in your face, and obnoxious.
[... and further lulz]
The music was ridiculous and very unimpressive aesthetically. I liked it in the trailers but it was really overblown in the film. Trying to recapture the "CUZ he kan taek it" overblown omg epicness of TDK.

The editing was nothing special unless you want to count the difficult arrangement of the different dream layers. I think the placement of the segments was handled pretty well there, but, you know, nothing Bay couldn't pull off necessarily. There're plenty of films with multiple action lines going on simultaneously. Look at the tarded SW: Phantom Menace. Sort of the same thing. Anakin blew up the space station for the kick, correct?

BB was the turd, though IMO. I thought TDK had some pretty good qualities that made it stand out, besides its length and OMG Ledger. Memento is still his best film, but even this is nothing special, especially due to its one-trick-pony appreciation factor.

I'm in love with films about reality and the nature of the mind, even if they are shiity like The Matrix because they create a common discourse for discussing those kind of things. In this sense, I feel like the ideas were even more advanced than The Matrix's simple "this is real, this is fantasy lolz" attitude. Life is much more like the "ambiguous" ending.

And let's be real, it wouldn't have kept spinning like that if it wobbled that much. That's consumer oriented ambiguity for you.

meh



Any comparison to Bay is just way, way out there, and I have little use for phrases like "big budget studio films," as if that encompasses the production or really tells us anything terribly important about it. I found the score imposing, and almost certainly deliberately so, so the best word for it is probably "effective."

Really, the fact that it's quickly paced or involves a lot of quick cuts is a stylistic choice, not some kind of appeal to Ritalin users. The fact that quick cuts are favored by big, dumb blockbusters doesn't mean that any film which uses them is one of them. These are very superficial similarities; the ways in which it is different, the ways in which it is far more thoughtful than the kind of films you're comparing it to, Viddy, are dramatically more important.

Clearly, you didn't like it, and that's that, but I think trying to draw shallow parallels with the Transformers of the world is a tremendous stretch. Either way, sorry you didn't get as much enjoyment out of it as I did (which is a considerable amount).



Any comparison to Bay is just way, way out there, and I have little use for phrases like "big budget studio films," as if that encompasses the production or really tells us anything terribly important about it.
You may have little use for it but 'big-budget studio films' plants an image in my head that looks very much like Inception, irrespective of any ticktock logistics that may seperate it from identikit blockbusters.

Really, the fact that it's quickly paced or involves a lot of quick cuts is a stylistic choice, not some kind of appeal to Ritalin users. The fact that quick cuts are favored by big, dumb blockbusters doesn't mean that any film which uses them is one of them. These are very superficial similarities; the ways in which it is different, the ways in which it is far more thoughtful than the kind of films you're comparing it to, Viddy, are dramatically more important.
Inception is a big blockbuster, granted not dumb, but something so utterly dominated by histrionics brings it closer to Bay than it does to say Tarkovsky (like I said in my review). Something like Stalker, as Jungian as Nolan's film, has a thought process that does not pander to the all-inclusive hermeneutics of Inception. Nolan's 'stylistic choice(s)' dumb it down for me, and while I like and respect Inception for promoting the dissemination of many aspects of film and film criticism, I do feel it pulls the rug from underneath it. It tugs so violently in opposite directions that what remains for me is the sine qua non of the summer blockbuster - the action, the high-wire stunts, the visual gadgetry.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
"big budget studio films" simply means that a collective of people have control over all aspects of the film. A populist kind of "vote" is taken, and many of these verdicts are governed by trying to predict the populist reaction to a given aspect of a film. I'm a communist, so I believe in collectivization on a societal level, but popular opinion governing art is the beginning of the end IMO. Like Huxley said in Brave New World, the stablest, least controversial, most accessible form of art cannot be "high art".



SALT....Angelina jolie...the unbeatable female



Predators. It'd stopped showing at my local cinema so had to go on a day trip to a cinema where it was still on.



Registered User
the last movie i saw in the theaters is the day and knight



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Or get some better, more respectful friends.
Someone like you, I'd suppose you'd suggest. Fat chance.




The last film i went to watch was Avatar with my partner, in my opnion was well worth the money and had amazing graphics, shows you how far movies have come in such a short time, now we can enjoy films in 3D in the comfort of our own home



In the last week I've seen two of the higher-profile Studio comedies of the Summer season. Both were disappointing, one much more than the other.


Dinner for Schmucks
Jay Roach

Loosely adapted from a funny French farce and boasting an all-star comedic cast, Dinner for Schmucks is incredibly and mysteriously quite dull. Simple plot: Rudd plays a mid-level executive who must partake in a cruel game if he wants to advance at the company. Once a month, the senior execs have a dinner at the boss' stately home, the clandestine purpose being for each to invite the biggest misfit or freak they can find. The player who brings the most laughable moron is the "winner" and curries favor with the boss. Rudd's character is reluctant to play, but literally bumps into the perfect pawn in Steve Carell's socially awkward and unintentionally destructive loser.

Other than being annoying with a mushy center, the talented Carell never finds any kind of character to really play, bouncing all over the place, often in the same scene. Rudd is his usual likable on-screen self, but despite the odd goings on never really gets anything to sink his chops into either. There is a fantastic supporting cast including Kristen Schaal, Ron Livingston, Larry Wilmore and the now seemingly ever-present Zach Galifianakis. Zach gets to have some fun and wrings some laughs out of the tired and clunky script, but the real shining star is Flight of the Conchorder Jemaine Clement, who's vain and flighty artist is like something out of a different film but he's so committed to it that he brings much-needed life everytime he's on screen. Otherwise there are very, very few laughs, and mild ones at that, which given the cast you'd expect some honest guffaws if only by accidental osmosis. But the story and direction manage to keep them all down. It also takes WAY too long to get to the dinner, and frankly if that part had been masterful and hilarious I could almost forgive the mostly humorless first hour or so. But the title feast of freaks is just as much of a let-down as the rest, a slow, plodding build to a routine and anti-climactic would-be setpiece. The clichéd yet tacked-on sentimentality of the finale makes it all somehow worse.

I was so ready to have a good, fun, dumb time at the movies and forgive it a lot. Instead Dinner for Schmucks was more like punishment, just sitting there in the dark in disbelief, not laughing hardly at all and wondering how it could have gone this horribly wrong.

GRADE: D



The Other Guys
Adam McKay

This one isn't as much of a laughless misfire as Schmucks, but that's a very low bar to clear, and The Other Guys is still damn far from being as funny as it should be, either. Ferrell and his longtime buddy and collaborator McKay team up for a fourth time in feature film form (following Anchorman, Talladega Nights and Step Brothers), and while there are definitely some laughs along the way it isn't anywhere near as successful as their other projects. Seemed like almost can't-miss material, a spoof of the Buddy Cop genre pairing banished burnout Mark Wahlberg with wimpy desk jockey Ferrell. But other than their natural timing and personality, the script curiously gives them little to work against. It either should have committed to the idea of a wild, silly, over-the-top spoof (as in The Naked Gun) or placed these characters into a relatively straight genre piece and watched them play against the conventions (as in Hot Fuzz). Instead you get a little of both and enough of neither. Another great supporting cast including Michael Keaton, Rob Riggle, Steve Coogan, Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson, and while all get a few laughs (especially Keaton, who it's great to see with a nice supporting part again) it never, ever clicks over into that next level and beyond. Not unwatchable, certainly, but going back to look at the demented and inspired brilliance of Anchorman and Step Brothers, this one simply isn't in their class. It's better than an embarrassment like Ferrell's dud from last summer, Land of the Lost, but again, not a difficult level to surpass. I'd say wait until this one is on DVD in a few months.

GRADE: C+



The last movie I saw in the theatres was Inception. To be honest I only saw it because of all the hype surrounding it, and because I loved the Dark Knight. I wasnt a big fan of this movie. It went out of its way to confuse you, the plot takes alot of thinking and usually dosnt give you enough time. I think this would have been a much better book.



In the last week I've seen two of the higher-profile Studio comedies of the Summer season. Both were disappointing, one much more than the other.
Of course they were unfunny! Look at the horrible casts. Well, that and the fact that they're Hollywood comedies.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
There've been very few truly EL OH EL comedies from Hollywood in the past twenty or thirty years, I'd say. Maybe 3 or 4 tops. I wouldn't expect a marginal cast to pull off anything.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."