Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





I believe the series should have stayed on the path they intended to go on with the third one. Have it become an anthology series with different stories set around Halloween.



For sure. I love Mike, but I don't want to see him butchered (), which I feel the later entries did (I'm looking at you, especially, #6 ).



His corpse was completely burning when the credits were rolling, from what I remember. Halloween 3 was great, I liked though it's been such a long time -
.



Black Sabbath (1963)


Pretty good 3 part horror anthology movie. It's too bad I didn't see it when I was younger; I would've liked it a lot more.




I refuse to believe Laurie is Michael's sister. To me, the first film is the only canon film in the series. The rest are just fun to watch but are not canon at all. That's how I choose to look at it.

I like the idea that Michael chose Laurie because the first time he saw her, she was with Tommy, and thus he was reminded of himself as a child and his older sister. Him going after her because she's his sister just takes away from what is so great in it's simplicity and what ultimately feels right to me.
Hmm. I've never thought of it like that.

Daniel Farrands, who wrote Halloween 6, says Michael Myers is some kind of peeping tom, sexually sadistic killer. Thus he kills his naked older sister and stalks girls and watches them. Frankly I don't see how Michael can even look at Laurie Strode with Tommy and be reminded of his sister because of that -- Laurie Strode looks like a man.

I like to think Michael Myers is more unexplainable and hard to figure out. A freak of nature. Dr. Loomis called him "evil." If he's stalking his family members, it only makes him harder to figure out -- why is he trying to kill his family? Why did Jamie turn evil briefly at the end of part 4? In part 6, which was horribly made and basically has two different versions of it available, there was a cult that claimed Michael killed when the stars aligned a certain way in certain years. Things with Michael Myers might get stupid, but I prefer to see the mystery in what he does and why he exists. To me, he kind of represents life itself -- mysterious, existing for unknown reasons, and very, very brutal. He is, I think, a manifestation of the kind of weird, supernatural evil that John Carpenter seems to like. Even in the first movie, it appears a little clear that Michael Myers is not a normal, deranged guy -- he is shot repeatedly by Dr. Loomis at the end, yet he walks away and lives. I don't believe he's truly subject to normal psychological theories -- "he picked Laurie because he saw her with Tommy and thus she reminds him of his sister." The idea that she's his sister and he's determined to kill family members is part of what makes Michael more of a supernatural evil and strange. He is a superhuman compelled by darker, mysterious forces.



Hmm. I've never thought of it like that.

Daniel Farrands, who wrote Halloween 6, says Michael Myers is some kind of peeping tom, sexually sadistic killer. Thus he kills his naked older sister and stalks girls and watches them. Frankly I don't see how Michael can even look at Laurie Strode with Tommy and be reminded of his sister because of that -- Laurie Strode looks like a man.

I like to think Michael Myers is more unexplainable and hard to figure out. A freak of nature. Dr. Loomis called him "evil." If he's stalking his family members, it only makes him harder to figure out -- why is he trying to kill his family? Why did Jamie turn evil briefly at the end of part 4? In part 6, which was horribly made and basically has two different versions of it available, there was a cult that claimed Michael killed when the stars aligned a certain way in certain years. Things with Michael Myers might get stupid, but I prefer to see the mystery in what he does and why he exists. To me, he kind of represents life itself -- mysterious, existing for unknown reasons, and very, very brutal. He is, I think, a manifestation of the kind of weird, supernatural evil that John Carpenter seems to like. Even in the first movie, it appears a little clear that Michael Myers is not a normal, deranged guy -- he is shot repeatedly by Dr. Loomis at the end, yet he walks away and lives. I don't believe he's truly subject to normal psychological theories -- "he picked Laurie because he saw her with Tommy and thus she reminds him of his sister." The idea that she's his sister and he's determined to kill family members is part of what makes Michael more of a supernatural evil and strange. He is a superhuman compelled by darker, mysterious forces.
I prefer to have a simple Halloween. It's personal preference, I guess. But that's what I love about the first film on it's own. It's simple and effective, and powerful. The sequels just complicate sh*t unnecessarily. Michael is the embodiment of evil - that's it. He is evil incarnate. To me, it's better to just leave it at that.The simplicity in it is what makes it work in my opinion.

As for being reminded of his childhood by Laurie and Tommy...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/..._faq_sm#.2.1.8

"In the context of the movie, Michael is seemingly human but there are all of these indications that maybe, just maybe, he IS pure evil and inhuman...the boogeyman. Director John Carpenter's answer to this is simple. He chose to make Michael a human being in the beginning of the film, and then we slowly start to realize that he's a force of nature that won't stop."

If Carpenter really said that, it makes sense to try to give him a psychological reason for targeting Laurie in the beginning of the film - when he is still meant to have a veil of humanity for the audience.

The babysister/older sister and youngin' is a recurring thing anyway. We're meant to remember that dynamic. It's like, a motif bro.



wanabe movie critique
Interstellar: 11.5 / 10



Lord High Filmquisitor
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) - 8.5/10

This film's extended blending of fantasy and reality, to the extent that the transitions between the two became increasingly frequent and indistinguishable, was exactly what I was expecting from The Wind Rises. Brilliantly acted, directed, written and shot, it is a definite high point of what's turning out to be a fantastic year in film. Birdman seems to exist as an eerily close and unsettlingly dark parallel to Keaton's own career, so much so that literally no other actor could have suitably headlined this film. Like Rope, creates the illusion of the entire film being done in one exceedingly long take; in fact, I would argue that the transitions between cleverly hidden cuts and edits is more deftly handled here than in Hitchcock's film (even if it pales to its predecessor in most other ways). The only thing that really bugged me is that it ended about 30 seconds later than it should have (I would have preferred the ambiguity of Keaton's character opening the window and looking at the birds to the certainty of his suicide) and that the camera often closed in on characters in tight, uncomfortably close close-up shots.
__________________
Filmquisition: Raking Modern Entertainment Over the Coals Daily
Unrealitymag.com: New Articles Contributed Every Friday
Arcanis' 100 Favorite Films: 2015 Edition



Mulholland Drive



I have said it before... this movie is BRILLIANT! This is my fifth time watching the film. And to be honest this is another movie that grows on me the more I watch it. It really sums up what watching a David Lynch film is about. The first time I watched this movie I had NO idea what happened. But I knew I had to watch it again someday. And the more I watched it, the more the movie fell into place. Half the fun of a David Lynch film is putting the film together. It is alike a mystery or a puzzle the viewer has to solve. And the director has all the answers, but won't reveal the meaning. Instead he will give you clues on how to interpret the film.

This film is made for repeat viewings. Not repeat viewings in terms of entertainment, but in that you always seem to find something new in the film. A new piece of the puzzle falls into place, or you see a different angle. And as I finish watching this again I am getting a tighter grasp of the themes and the subtext. But there is still mystery to the film still. And that will continue to have me return to this film again and again. And I feel it will only get better. So much so that... I have started to like it more then Blue Velvet.

Now as many here know Blue Velvet was the film that made me a fan of David Lynch, and was the catalyst to me watching his entire feature filmography. This was because of an intense initial reaction that lead to a passionate need to see his work. Much in the same way that after viewing Rashoman (my 4th Kurosawa film) I NEEDED to see the rest of Kurosawa's movies. But it was not Rashomon, but Seven Samurai that has continued to grow for me the more I watch it. So much so Seven Samurai overcame Rashomon as my favorite Kurosawa movie. Mulholland Drive has now done the same thing with Blue Velvet. One film ignites the passion, but another film sustains the love for the director.

Now I still love Blue Velvet, but Mulholland Drive now is my favorite film by David Lynch.




And when I'm all alone I feel I don't wanna hide
Life During Wartime (2009, Todd Solondz)





Flawed, but overall, a wonderfully offbeat, perverse, typically cynical, and idiosyncratic slice of weirdness. As a thematically loose sequel to Happiness, it explores many of the same taboo subjects and in the same uncompromisingly audacious fashion. The reason as to why I love films like this because Solondz never appears to condemn or judge the unlawful and illicit actions of his characters. It all feels very observant and heedful, despite being a little more politically heavy-handed and motivated than his previous works. Solondz is of Jewish descent but he appears to be satirising (and perhaps even slightly denouncing) the actions of the Israeli government and the Jewish state in general. He also clearly has a lot to say about the post-9/11 world and all of the overblown hysteria regarding terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism in the Arab world. But what interested me most is his lampoonist and darkly comical censure of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Ultimately, a great film - uncomfortably hilarious, cringeworthly awkward and even slightly discomfiting to watch at times. I generally love the visual fluency of Solondz's films and this is no exception. It spawns some appreciable long takes that didn't seem to sporadically cut every third or fourth second and adopted a very careful and subtle 'approach' to framing and composition. I would recommend it unreservedly if you're into works that tackles confronting, sensitive and taboo subject matters with a dosage of astute wit and satire.



the samoan lawyer's Avatar
Unregistered User

The Professionals (1966)

Up there with my favourite westerns. Worth watching for Claudia Cardinale alone. She is seriously stunning in this.

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



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
Guardians of the Galaxy... again! Love it, its definitely one of the best marvel films
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~



California Split (1974)


The Wild Child (1970)


A Touch of Class (1973)


California Suite (1978)


The Last of Sheila (1973)
__________________
A normal man? For me, a normal man is one who turns his head to see a beautiful woman's bottom. The point is not just to turn your head. There are five or six reasons. And he is glad to find people who are like him, his equals. That's why he likes crowded beaches, football, the bar downtown...



The Maze Runner (2014)




Here we go with the YA stuff again. Everybody wants to cash in on the success of The Hunger Games. To be honest, I don't mind it.

As with most films of this genre, there's little originality to be expected from the basic structure: you've got your guy and your girl, there's a society of teenagers divided into task-specific groups, and our characters fight against an oppressive system.

Still, the some of the ideas are quite interesting. In The Hunger Games it was a real-life deathmatch, in Divergent it was a (genetic?) predisposition to being a versatile misfit which somehow turns out to be a good thing. This time, it's a mysterious monster-infested maze the teenagers need to get through to be free. All of that stuff has been done before, but it doesn't hurt to see something intriguing one more time.

And while some would say that these are just shallow movies for naive teenagers who will easily fall for the "it's good to fight the system" trap, I say let them watch this rather than movies like LOL or Never Say Never.

Giving away any details about the plot whatsoever would be a spoiler in this case, so let me just compare The Maze Runner to its obvious competitors. As far as cinematography is concerned, it's not bad, but The Hunger Games and Divergent are definitely the winners in this area. The plot is actually more suspenseful than in the other two movies because while you know more or less what to expect in them, here, you are just as confused as the main characters and that's nice because you get to discover the maze along with them. The music? Divergent will probably stay on top for a long time.

So all around, I wouldn't say that this is necessarily superior or inferior to the other films, it's just more or less the same, and whether or not you will enjoy it depends on your general opinion on the YA movies.


__________________
Check out my blog: Yasashii's Retro Game Playground



Die Hard II: Die Harder (1990)

Not as good as the first one, still very entertaining and really well paced!

7/10
Have you never seen any of the Die Hards before this binge-watching? If so you can look forward to the 3rd one, and 4th one is awesome too, but for the love of God just skip 5...