The Last Movie You Watched? ver.2.0

(tomas) #724

Good point. I was always of that opinion. Although I wouldn’t try watch a movie on a mobile.


When it comes to ‘the big screen’, the first movies that come to mind that I’d like to see: Lawrence of Arabia & 2001.


I walked out on a screening of 2001, as the audience were chatting throughout - Fucking media students, who were attending as part of their course.

The 35mm print had been loaned by Kubrick’s wife … that was about 6 or 7 years ago, haven’t been to any cinema since. :weary:


Cinema seats really need built-in earphone jacks to drown out all the cunts, just like on a plane. If that was the case I’d go way more often.


Sitting with an audience who clearly don’t want to be there is such a drag - Their lecturer gave a lengthy introduction, and most of the bastards ignored him also.

I’d go one step further and have ejector seats in my cinema, if I were a megalomaniac Bond style villain. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

You don’t talk during a theatre performance or in church, so shut the fuck up while viewing a movie with other paying customers !!!

I actually turned down the opportunity to see ‘Giu la Testa’ at the same cinema, cause I just detest disrespectful punters who have no business being there.

(Mickey13) #729

It’s also distracting and irritating when someone rapaciously munches popcorn or chocolate bars in cinema and makes a lot of noise. I know it’s not a big deal, but any sound other than that emanating from the speakers is just a distraction IMHO.


Definitely ! … Kill them all and watch the movie alone :hear_no_evil: to coin a phrase


Have a Good Moviegoing Experience, My Friend… Those Noisy Cunts Should Pay.

(tomas) #732

Regarding obnoxious audience in cinemas, you should learn so called Arnold’s move, it’s very helpful.



A little excessive perhaps ? :rofl: … the problem for me is that even when you confront the noisy audience member, and ask them to be quiet … you’re so wound up that it’s not possible to relax and enjoy the film - usually you’ll hear some whispered muttering, cause they’re deeply offended by your interruption of their important conversation.

On 2nd thoughts the Arnie method is perfect ! LOL :grin:

(tomas) #734

Yes, perfect, but don’t forget to bring a hat with you.

(Mickey13) #735

Red Rock West (1993) - 8/10 - Another excellent neo-noir from John Dahl. This one feels a little less nihilistic on account of the protagonist portrayed by Nicolas Cage. The main hero strenuously strives to do the right thing, but he keeps getting into trouble in spite of his best intentions.

The Thirteenth Floor (1999) - 7/10 - If Contact (1997) is Interstellar of the nineties, then this film is Inception of the nineties. Nowhere nearly as bad as the critics make it out to be. I guess it’s not absolutely perspicacious everywhere and admittedly kinda cheesy, but it’s a fun little movie with plenty of cool visual effects.

The Right Stuff (1983) - 7/10 - It’s okay. I guess it’s one of more interesting epics of its kind, but the main issue I’ve got with it is that it excessively focuses on the accurate portrayal of early stages of the Project Mercury which is fine I guess, but by virtue of that, it kind of stays emotionally distant and not that riveting to my way of thinking. It strives to be this big, epic chronicle and it’s kind of not what I look for in movies in the first place.

The Package (1989) - 5/10 - A passable actioner featuring Gene Hackman as a military man who is onto something big, something that could potentially destabilize the US of effing A. It’s interesting, since it portrays the paradoxes involving the feasibility and maintenance of the nuclear program. The acting by John Heard is fantastic as usual, others also give reasonably good performances, nevertheless, the flick regrettably devolves into a brainless actioner with very little sense of pacing.

Computer Dreams (1988) - 7/10 - A nice, little documentary about the development of the CGI in its early stages in the 1980s.

The Mind’s Eye (1990) - 8/10 - My favorite out of all installments of the Mind’s Eye series. There is something uncannily beautiful and unreal about all the backward, antiquated low-res textures of these animations and the antediluvian physics thereof. It’s also ruggedly structured for a vid of this kind which makes things pretty neat to watch. Hopefully, once we achieve photorealistic CGI aesthetics at some point in the future, directors and animators will revert to old ways of computer animation and make good use of the primitive CGI techniques and glitch art for creative purposes.

Under Fire (1983) - 4/10 - Some of the political thrillers of the Hollywood sort tend to be insufferably cutesy in their simplistic approach to the topics at hand and this is one of them. Thematically, it’s remarkably similar to Oliver Stone’s Salvador (1986). Despite being heavily flawed, Salvador is hell of a political thriller that basically refrains from making conspicuously moralistic judgements and strives to chronicle the events in a relatively faithful manner. Under Fire, on the other hand, is one of those movies that feels just bogus. Well, maybe not as bogus and obnoxious as Costa Gavras’s Missing (1982), but it comes close. Most of the time, it shies away from inconvenient matters and pivots on the love triangle and once things become dicey, it just falls flat. The trashy electronic jingles that comprise the majority of the soundtrack aren’t of much help either.

Beyond the Mind’s Eye (1992) - 6/10

Blue Steel (1989) - 7/10 - Even if some of it is somewhat incoherent, Bigelow’s visual style is on full display here and along with Brad Fieder’s cracking soundtrack, the film boasts a truly amazing atmosphere. The antagonist here is probably one of the most terrifying psychopaths ever portrayed in the cinema history. Ron Silver’s performance in this one is jaw-droppingly good and it’s kind of his movie to be honest. Although the movie evidently has a fair share of flaws and towards the end it genuinely gets messy narrative-wise, I feel obliged to overrate it a little bit because of how evocative some parts of it are. Bigelow’s knack for visuals is genuinely striking, she’s hell of a director when it comes to pure photography and framing, things of that nature.

The Gate to the Mind’s Eye (1994) - 7/10

Dersu Uzala (1975) - 8/10 - An uneven, but very poignant offering from Kurosawa. It’s clearly overlong, sporadically self-indulgent and distinctively Kurosawesque in its schmaltziness, but I must say I have a soft spot for its visuals and the overall trapper milieu. I found storytelling to be out of whack on several occasions; the passage of time is sometimes handled rather poorly and it’s difficult to make it out narratively speaking. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the same dead-on chronological Kurosawa we all know and appreciate, it’s just that its linearity isn’t much of a help here in balancing the flow of the film.

(tomas) #736

Believe it or not yesterday I was trying to recall the title of this bloody movie without much success. I haven’t the slightest idea it’s Kurosawa actually. Well, thanks, @Mickey13 :wink:

(Mickey13) #737


(Asa) #738

Both of these have somehow managed to elude me all these years. Every time I see mention of either of them I think, I really must get around to watching that! Still haven’t, though.

(Stanton) #739

Kinda surprising.
I think this one does a lot of things right, and I always liked it. 7or maybe even 8/10

(Mickey13) #740

Blue Steel is a steamy 1980s neo-noir with lovely Bigelow visuals. If you’ve seen Near Dark (one of my big favorites), then Blue Steel also has that foggy, nocturnal quality to it that is just irresistibly beautiful and very distinctive. The script unfortunately kinda sucks and this is why the movie’s frequently referred to as a piece of trash. Not all of it is bad.

Technically, it’s definitely not a bad movie (4/10 is mediocre in my evaluation system, 3/10 is bad). I just found the general attitude to be merely irritating. It’s as though the movie lacked bones and guts, kinda gooey and doughy… I don’t know exactly what the hell I’m driving at, but you get the idea. Like the film professes to be valorous in its claims, but it doesn’t take much of a stance or doesn’t have all that much to say. It’s kind of very run-of-the-mill and tedious, the protagonists are basically your copy-and-paste journalists, all righteous people, all good people, blah blah.

All very cut-and-dried, very restrained, too restrained and one-dimensional. The film basically doesn’t take any chances IMHO. I found Salvador (6/10 for me) to be much more colorful and engrossing precisely by virtue of it taking more chances. Although Stone doesn’t pull off everything he aims for, he still attempts and isn’t vapid in his approach to the subject at hand. Additionally, Woods blows everybody else out of the water in terms of raw acting skills - Nolte, Hackman, Trintignant, you name it. Woods’s character is also way, way more interesting and multifaceted than anybody in Under Fire.

The only characters that are intriguing are the ones played by Trintignant and Harris, but they solely sporadically appear on the screen which is a bit of a shame. Other than that, there is hardly anything else left that is truly prepossessing in one way or another.

(Sebastian) #741

all who dont like Apocalypse Now will be banned from the forums :smiley:

(Asa) #742

I adore Near Dark, it’s one of my all-time favourites. It was the very first movie I ever bought, on VHS in… I want to say 1988 but it may have been 1989 or even 1990. A lifetime ago, anyway. All the more reason I should’ve caught Blue Steel by now.

YES! :grinning:

(Mickey13) #743

Same here, I adore this flick. I need to watch The Loveless, haven’t watched that one by Bigelow.