Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2017, 04:41:26 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 661 662 [663] 664 665 ... 1162 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1765876 times)
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9930 on: December 30, 2011, 10:38:00 AM »

A Raisin in the Sun (1961) 8/10

 Generally, I am not much for plays at all -- and it is very obvious that this is adapted from a play, as almost all the scenes take place in one dingy apartment, with lots of dialogue.

But I watched this imagining I was on Broadway watching a play, not a movie, and therefore really enjoyed it.

In plays, there ain't gonna be any big action sequences or plot twists; it is the acting that totally makes or breaks it.And the acting here is just superb: by Poitier as the lead, and the women who play his mom, wife, and sister. Occasionally, the long-winded speeches get tiresome, but this is a good watch. Catch it next time it's on TCM (which may be a while, cuz it was just on now  Afro)

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9931 on: December 30, 2011, 10:39:51 AM »

The Great Train Robbery (1903)

Finally saw this for the first time, on TCM this morning.

Were the colorized dresses and smoke from the guns and dynamite in the original movie, or was that added later on?

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12607


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #9932 on: December 30, 2011, 12:46:53 PM »

The Great Train Robbery (1903)

Finally saw this for the first time, on TCM this morning.

Were the colorized dresses and smoke from the guns and dynamite in the original movie, or was that added later on?

Added later on I'm sure

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9933 on: December 30, 2011, 01:18:29 PM »

Added later on I'm sure

have you seen what I am talking about?

It's all in black and white, of course, except that in a few scenes, some women are wearing color dresses. And in a few scenes, the blasts from gunshots and a dynamite explosion are in red.

Even those scenes are black and white, it's just that those specific things -- the dresses, the gunshots, and the explosions -- are in color, within the black and white scene.

Also, in the final, famous shot of the gunfighter firing at the camera, his shirt is green and his bandana is red (while the rest of the shot is in b/w).


« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 01:23:12 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12607


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #9934 on: December 30, 2011, 01:57:18 PM »

A good funny post on TGWTDT for those interested from IMDb <spoilers>:

I've never read the books or seen the original movies, this is my first experience with this series and naturally my review is just a p*ss take and not to be taken too seriously.

So the movie opens with a S&M Bond opening sequence, series really are taking this dark, gritty reboot thing seriously then? Check out girls dripping in oil (?), some obscure references to the movie and oh look James Bond! Also, special note to a terrific soundtrack, sadly not singing the film's title though but who cares, The Immigrant Song can lure me to movies better than a sexy wolf can lure Red off the path.

So we open with a magazine writer who's screwed because of slander he wrote, nothing new there then, except wait, has he been set up? Well that really would be a turn of events then, a writer who's telling the truth! This guy is called Mikael yet he speaks with an extremely English accent, in fact until several other Swedish named characters popped up I thought it was England or America, because that blonde boss of his doesn't sound too Swedish either.

Oh here's a punk girl on a motorcycle who's done some hacking and checking up on this Mikael guy because despite his huge scandal that has ruined his reputation, made him poor and also one of the most infamous people in Sweden apparently he would be super to subtly solve a forty-year-old disappearance case. Yep the guy who just publicly screwed up is apparently 'clean' and good for this job that no one else has been able to solve for forty freaking years! Oh but sure he's nothing to lose so of course he'll do it.

So Mikael finds himself summoned to the Vanger estate to write Henrik Vanger's memoir, oh no actually to solve the murder of Henrik's niece Harriet who disappeared forty years ago. Henrik thinks a family member killed her but he doesn't know who or why. No wonder really because this family has not one but two Nazis in it, lucky them, and if trotting out the good old Nazi connection isn't enough they're all freaking insane and hate each other, probably because they all live in isolation on the same island. Seriously, just move. I mean with all that snow, no neighbours except family members who may or may not be murderers who you don't talk to, forests and general total isolation you would go mad.

Mikael, charmed by these family members whose names no one will ever remember, agrees to the case. The only basis that Harriet was even killed is that she used to send her uncle pressed flowers for his birthday (what a cheapskate) but despite her disappearance these flowers somehow keep appearing with no clue of their origin (yeah the postal service in Sweden is as bad as everywhere else), damnit yet another clever foe who doesn't fill out the Sender box, what a mastermind! Unless of course someone has just been dropping them at the door unnoticed because when you live in a mansion that big on an island surrounded by only your psychotic family members it just wouldn't do to have cameras.

Mikael is abandoned to a cottage with no heat or food and only a nameless cat for company who has been living off who knows what until Mikael showed up and belongs to who the frig knows, matters which are never resolved because Mikael never feels the need to find out the cat's origins or even name it but he does feed it so he's not all bad really. Oh forgot to mention, he's been busy banging his boss who's married and whilst it ruined his marriage it didn't ruin hers presumably because her husband likes to watch, it's just one of the many messed up things in this movie.

The punk hacker, Lisabeth, turns out to be living off the state despite being an adult, because she's violent and can't be trusted to exist independently but she can be trusted to work for an important firm doing dodgy and expensive work, apparently the state doesn't question that and apparently this firm can't give her cash in hand or just don't give enough because she still needs money off the state to survive and fund her computers and OH NOKIA! COKE! APPLE! Geez there's so much product placement all of a sudden it's a wonder Lisabeth doesn't have Nike and Mars tattooed across herself, really I think they missed out there given the numerous times we got to see her naked tattooed body.

Lisabeth's guardian has suffered a stroke or feigned one to get this nut the hell away from him, I personally could buy either. Her new guardian, well aware of how violent and psychotic she is thinks she's the type of chick he should sexually assault. Yes, let's take control of an insane woman with a violent history's finances and force her to commit sexual acts to get some of her own money, because surely that won't have consequences.

Back to Mikael again, making this feel a lot like two movies, who's investigating Harriet in a none too subtle manner, sticking up pieces of evidence on the cottage wall for one and all to see. Along side a mysterious piece of Harriet's diary entry with names and numbers that the cops couldn't figure out. They assumed they were phone numbers. It takes Mikael's just discovered religion daughter to see them, assume her father is bashing Catholics (why did she make that leap, because she seemed to know these passages off by heart, yep all of them, or because Catholic bashers keep Bible verses on their wall) and point out that they are Bible verses. Something no one has ever thought of for FORTY YEARS because no one is even slightly religious on this case and apparently you have to be religious to assume that these are Bible verses. Never mind that said daughter, who really needs to stop speaking to such a neglectful father (he made her travel for hours to see him in what can only be described as a frozen Hell), feels no need to ask why her father has a bunch of photographs and other notes on his wall and is clearly not in any shape or form writing memoirs. Nope all she sees are the Bible verses.

Back to Lisabeth who's mugged by a stranger at the subway, tackles him on the escalator and slides back down the middle before catching her train, I'm surprised she didn't follow this up with a drink of Lucozade or we didn't get a closeup of her footwear. She rings her guardian for money and he asks her to come to his house, he's a pervert and it's obviously a bad idea but off she goes. Her guardian then rapes her and lets her go with a cheque, again with the whole she's violent and psychotic, this is going to have consequences. And boy does it, she gets her revenge by admitting she filmed the whole thing and will show it to everyone if he doesn't give her her money, then she gives him a taste of his own medicine with what appears to be a metal dildo and then tattoos 'I am a rapist pig' on his stomach. We all wonder if we actually are watching two movies here, if Mikael is ever coming back, htf this is all going to tie in and if the second movie is some sort of revenge flick the type of which Quentin Tarantino dreams off. When there are no fountains of blood or samurai swords we realise it's not a Tarantino flick after all, so what the hell is it?

Mikael returns and the two movies are finally linked, he wants an assistant. So Henrik and his lawyer Frode (presumably a disgraced lower down family member like the caretaker, since everyone on this island is family) recommend Lisabeth, yep the girl who illegally broke into Mikael's life and reported all of his personal life back to Frode and Henrik. Good idea. Impressed by her skills and also offended by the intrusion, Mikael goes to visit Lisabeth who's been having lesbian sex because this movie needed to check all the boxes. Lisabeth puts Mikael to shame with her detective skills matching names and bible verses to victims whose murders mirrored the passages.

Mikael meanwhile has noticed Harriet was frightened by something in a photograph. We soon discover how fantastically easy it is to find photographs of something that happened forty years ago and to track down old women who were there at the time with disposable photographs but were convienently on their honeymoon (and hopefully got divorced soonafter) so kept the photographs.

Mikael also managed to quickly track down Anita, a member of the family who went to London ten years ago (?) and was never heard from again. The family obviously didn't care about her and took no time tracking her down but clearly it wasn't hard because Mikael has no trouble in finding her.

Part one to be continued......

« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 02:16:33 PM by cigar joe » Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12607


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #9935 on: December 30, 2011, 01:58:19 PM »

part two.....

MCDONALDS! Yes Lisabeth eats the Kid's Meal presumably because there will be some TGWTDT merchandise soon so all the kiddies can play sodomy and murder.

Against all the odds Lisabeth and Mikael have permission to hoke through the Vanger family's business, they have access to everything here. What they manage to gather from these super private and incriminating files and these photographs that everyone has just lying about from FORTY YEARS ago (seriously, I can't find stuff from yesterday) they deduce that Harriet was frightened by a man wearing a blazer with a badge on it and that the murdered women had Jewish names from the Bible and had links to the company and family. Oh Jews you say? And there are two Nazis in this family! Could there be a link?

Lisabeth and Mikael also get to having sex because this movie needs some heterosexual consentual sex in it too and hey why not jump into bed with your work colleague, well we already know that's Mikael's thing anyway. Oh no the nameless cat has been hacked up as a warning! Guess their lovemaking was too loud to hear the animal's screams or notice the stranger outside. Bizzarely said stranger never really feels the need to break in and look at all that evidence Mikael has left just lying about EVERYWHERE.

Omg what's this? A family member other than Henrik and Martin getting on screen time? Martin btw is a son of one of the Nazis who lives in total isolation on top of the hill in a huge house and is known to be a keen hunter, he is also the only member of the family who gets any kind of onscreen time apart from Henrik. Cue Harald, a Nazi and damn proud of it, he's very fond of the landscapes in his photos and saying tea in a hilarious manner. Despite being old and decrepid he also has the amazing skill of idenitifying blurred people in photographs. Oh there's Martin in a photograph wearing a familiar looking blazer.

Lisabeth in the family's business archives figures out that Martin's Nazi father always seemed to be around when the women were murdered (really the Nazi was there when Jews were killed, htf would anyone have guessed that?!). She leaves incriminating evidence lying all over the place to get a coffee downstairs, not giving a damn that there was clearly someone else in the room, don't worry it's not important because whoever it was doesn't take the chance to read all this information just lying around.

Oh looks like a murder took place after Martin's Nazi father was dead oh but look who was around the area at the time- Martin! How shocking that the only prominent family member on screen apart from Henrik, whose father was a Nazi and who has a gun would turn out to be a murderer, he's also Harriet's brother btw. Though with that family it's a little hard to tell who the hell is who.

Mikael realising that Martin is the one who frightened Harriet on the day she disappeared and is probably a serial killer decides that breaking into his house is a great idea. Martin returns, Mikael escapes and then blows his cover by tripping and yelling in a hilarious manner. He then accepts Martin's invitation to return to his house instead of doing the smart thing and running like hell because heaven forbid the Nazi's murderous son should take offence.

Mikael gets tortured to the cheery music of Sail Away and Martin gives a James Bond styled confession, this is definitely a disguised James Bond movie. Bond is then suffocated but not before the villain admits angrily that he didn't kill Harriet. Also, the whole women being Jews and killed liked Bible quotes, he didn't go for that either, nah he just killed women in his basement and dumped them in the ocean. So that whole Bible quotes thing, meaningless really because that murderer is dead and Mikael, who just wanted to clear his name, get some money, have some sex and solve a disappearance, is now screwed because he couldn't give offence to a psycho.

It's alright though because Martin apparently takes long enough for Lisabeth to travel from the business archives to the cottage, see Martin on camera and get to his house and into the basement he never bothered to lock, damn that is one fast motorcycle! A security guard was meant to alert Martin to her departure but he conveniently wandered off from his post because guarding the entrance to an important business isn't a big deal.

Oh hand sanitizer, for those of us who couldn't think what to use before we tortured someone. Hmm apparently Martin's been taking his time because Mikael is his first male victim and males need killed different naturally.

Lisabeth decides a golf club is the best weapon of choice (maybe some golfers in the audience needed promoted to) and bashes Martin's head in. He's not dead alas and is able to bolt for it despite his concussion and drive off. After freeing Mikael, Lisabeth goes after Martin, causing him to crash and die in a car explosion.

Really this whole case could have been solved by Lisabeth so why did Henrik not just hire her in the first place? Why he did he bother with the incompotent who disgraced himself?

Mikael figures out Harriet must be alive and Anita knows. Back to her, some hacking into her system assuming she will contact Harriet but she doesn't. Why? Oh right she's Harriet, that girl who's been missing for forty years that no could track down and assumed was dead. Anita helped her escape by sending her off with her husband using her married passport while she joined them with her original passport, lax policies back then naturally. Funny how no one thought it was weird that Anita bolted right after her cousin vanished. Also Harriet did send those flowers and apparently the stamps weren't a giveaway of her location and postal services were just no good at tracking the sender, now that I do believe.

Movie wrapped up and over then? No here's a third plot, that guy who Mikael slabbered about needs to be brought down and Mikael's name needs to be cleared. Lisabeth, now fond of Mikael, disguises herself as a hot blonde and clears that guy's accounts with ease transferring all his money into her own accounts. Because boys and girls theft is just that easy. That guy is then killed and the authorities assume the blonde was just his accomplice because her fake ID and fake cards were totally real.

She goes to offer Mikael a leather jacket as a gift and presumably to tell him what she did for him but he's back with his married girlfriend and probably having kinky three way sex with her husband. What a b*st*rd, never mind that Lisabeth totally saved his behind, solved his case and slept with him and then cleared his name, nope forget her because his workmate is a slutty blonde, heaps better.

The jacket is wasted and Lisabeth departs presumably vowing to stick with hot goth chicks and to never get involved with a family that are obviously insane ever again.

Oh and Harriet and Henrik have their reunion because a niece back from the dead after forty years won't give a man who's already had a stroke a fatal heart attack/stroke and it's totally a good idea to let your insane family know you're actually alive. Sure Martin's dead but that other Nazi is still going but we can forgive him because he was so merry about tea and photography.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9936 on: December 30, 2011, 07:46:46 PM »

War Horse - 7/10 - You should know what you're getting into; Spielberg adapting a children's book is going to be maudlin and sappy. The pre-war scenes are treacly melodrama with a loser farmer, precocious boy, long-suffering wife, mustache-twirling landowner demanding rent, underdog horse and an impossible goal. John Ford would have found this stuff overwrought. It definitely picks up once the war part starts: the episodic narrative works pretty well, with good battle scenes and an interesting array of characters. Very old-fashioned but not necessarily in a bad way.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #9937 on: December 30, 2011, 08:45:15 PM »

War Horse - 7/10 - You should know what you're getting into; Spielberg adapting a children's book is going to be maudlin and sappy. The pre-war scenes are treacly melodrama with a loser farmer, precocious boy, long-suffering wife, mustache-twirling landowner demanding rent, underdog horse and an impossible goal. John Ford would have found this stuff overwrought. It definitely picks up once the war part starts: the episodic narrative works pretty well, with good battle scenes and an interesting array of characters. Very old-fashioned but not necessarily in a bad way.
When I heard Spielberg was going to use a real horse I lost all interest in this.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9938 on: December 31, 2011, 10:54:28 AM »

part two.....

MCDONALDS! Yes Lisabeth eats the Kid's Meal presumably because there will be some TGWTDT merchandise soon so all the kiddies can play sodomy and murder.

I'd rather have that than an Alvin and the Chipmunks toy. Shocked

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9939 on: December 31, 2011, 12:13:06 PM »

When I heard Spielberg was going to use a real horse I lost all interest in this.

I assume then you're familiar with the stage play.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9940 on: December 31, 2011, 06:07:55 PM »

Se7en - 7/10 - This early Fincher effort definitely has elements of his style and thematic preoccupations, with a rather disturbing twist ending to boot. But ultimately it's a fairly routine thriller with an interesting conceit. Morgan Freeman is in fine form, but Brad Pitt's one of those movie cops who's not believable as a cop for one second.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9941 on: December 31, 2011, 06:45:57 PM »

Se7en - 7/10 - This early Fincher effort definitely has elements of his style and thematic preoccupations, with a rather disturbing twist ending to boot. But ultimately it's a fairly routine thriller with an interesting conceit. Morgan Freeman is in fine form, but Brad Pitt's one of those movie cops who's not believable as a cop for one second.

why is it that everyone here can mentions things in movies that they feel are eg. "not believable," or "contrived" or "ridiculous," etc., but whenever I do so, I always get accused of "being too concerned with realism" and crap like that? Movies should indeed be believable, as far as the language of cinema goes. And if eg. someone is not believable as a cop, that is indeed an appropriate criticism to make  Wink

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9942 on: December 31, 2011, 08:52:27 PM »

Because a) the specifics of your criticisms rarely make sense, b) Pitt's character is not the entire crux of my critique.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9943 on: December 31, 2011, 09:25:38 PM »

Because a) the specifics of your criticisms rarely make sense, b) Pitt's character is not the entire crux of my critique.

 Grin Grin Grin I really a kick out of this shit, how people constantly make the same arguments about movies that they criticize me for making. I really don't mean to pick on you, Groggy. I must have seen about 20 criticisms on some part or another of a particular movie's believability in the past month that made me laugh, cuz those were the exact sorts of criticisms that made some peeps whine whenever I made 'em. For a while, I considered pointing it out wnvr someone said it, but decided to spare y'all; and I was too lazy too and really didn't give a fuck anyway. But finally, by the 21st, I just decided to share my amusement; no particular reason why it was you. Anyway, re: your responses in the previous message:


a) is ridiculous. You may disagree with the substance of a particular argument that i make what that doesn't mean that a criticism of my general desire that a movie be believable makes sense. In other words: if someone disagrees with me that a particular point in a movie is not believable, of course that is ok. But that doesn't necessarily mean that having an interest in movies being believable is wrong. If someone disagreed with me on a particular point's believability, (which is fine), is totally different than saying "you shouldn't be so concerned with realism (which only makes sense if you never worry about movies being believable, which is clearly not the case). So you basically said that my general interest in movies being believable is silly, because you disagree with what I find to be not-believable.

As an abstract matter, that makes absolutely no sense.


b) is irrelevant. Whether or not the believability of Pitt'c character is the crux of your critique, the point is that you are criticizing something for not being believable. Which, of course, is a perfectly valid criticism to make. IMO that's an essential element for any movie (that's not sci-fi or surreal etc.) Not necessarily that they be just like a reality show, but that they are believable ina cinematic sense. That they don't stretch the grounds of suspension of disbelief too far.
Sometimes a movie has a minor problem with believability; sometimes it is a major problem. Depends on the person and on the movie. But whether a particular criticism is the "crux of the critique" has zero bearing on whether or not the criticism makes sense.

Of course, I don't mean any of this in any way personal; I'm just focusing on the method of argument, amigo  Wink IMO, with respect,  that reply of your is fails formal logic terribly

« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 09:41:11 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9944 on: December 31, 2011, 09:56:46 PM »

And once we're doing formal logic, we'll also briefly do analogies.

Here are analogies to your two arguments:

Situation: I am eating a sandwich:

Conversation:

Me: "I have a problem with this sandwich: the bread doesn't taste that fresh to me."
Groggy: "It's silly to concern yourself with whether or not the bread is fresh."
Me: "I have a Question: how can you say it's silly for me to concern myself over whetehr or not bread is fresh, when you yourself often complain when you think the bread isn't fresh?"

In response to that Question, Groggy gives the following two ANSWERS:

a) Groggy: "Yes, but every time you complain that the bread is not fresh; you are always wrong;

and

b) when I complain about bread not being fresh, that is not the crux of my critique of the sandwich.

Even if both a) and b) are 100% correct, I assume you'll see how neither is a proper answer to my Question  Smiley

--------------------------------------------

This concludes the d&d SAT & LSAT lessons  Smiley

« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 09:58:05 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Pages: 1 ... 661 662 [663] 664 665 ... 1162 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 20 queries.