Author Topic: The last movie I saw was... (Read 1381155 times)

Rama · « **Reply #2430 on:** Dec 31, 2011, 01:39:16 AM »

Dracula (1992)

This is the best of the batch of Universal Monster redos of the 90s and 00s, and this one isn't even a Universal movie. I wish that 1994's Frankenstein, 1999's The Mummy and 2010's The Wolfman had been done as well as this movie.

Rama · « **Reply #2431 on:** Dec 31, 2011, 06:21:44 PM »

Duck Soup

Rama · « **Reply #2432 on:** Jan 02, 2012, 02:35:09 AM »

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

I've owned this movie for awhile now, but never watched it cause it was silent. Silent movies are hard for me to watch cause I tend to do other things while watching a movie and sometimes just listen to it. However, since I am on a Universal Monster kick at the moment I decided to watch one of the oldest of them all. The strange thing about this movie is that about half way through it goes color for the Masque. I'm sure this was to show off the Phantom in his "Red Death" costume, but was too expensive to do the whole movie in. So building an exact scale replica of the Paris Opera house wasn't too expensive, but using color film was. Just goes to show you how rare a thing it was...and considering 40 years later they were STILL using B&W for some movies and TV shows it stayed expensive too.

Chopper Face 69 · « **Reply #2433 on:** Jan 03, 2012, 08:26:06 AM »

Quote from: B E C K on Dec 29, 2011, 12:53:40 PM

Is it like MI3: good enough to sit down and see once and never watch again?

It's a lot like MI3, which I apparently liked a bit more than you...

Oh I watched Cherry 2000 the other day and it was super cool. The start of the movie is this really awesome movie about robot sex and the future and stuff. Then for about an hour and 20 minutes it's people driving around the desert shooting things and doing stunts, then there's a brief conclusion to the robot movie...

B E C K · « **Reply #2434 on:** Jan 03, 2012, 09:43:17 PM »

I rank them this way: MI, MI3, MI2. I remember hating MI2 but I forget why other than the lousy slow-mo fight scene at the end.

I'm rewatching the Matrix. What is the conclusion for the whole "the idea for the Matrix was stolen" thing? Like as in all of your opinions on this?

IDE · « **Reply #2435 on:** Jan 04, 2012, 05:21:17 AM »

City of Ember was good.

Chopper Face 69 · « **Reply #2436 on:** Jan 04, 2012, 11:10:35 AM »

Quote from: B E C K on Jan 03, 2012, 09:43:17 PM

I'm rewatching the Matrix. What is the conclusion for the whole "the idea for the Matrix was stolen" thing? Like as in all of your opinions on this?

I think it was all bull shit. It looked similar to Dark City. Yeah, because they reused some sets from Dark City. The idea of a world in a computer was not new, but they didn't claim it was. I don't see people complaining that every movie with a relationship is a rip off of the last...

Rama · « **Reply #2437 on:** Jan 08, 2012, 01:34:30 AM »

The Mummy (1999)
The Planet of the Apes (1968)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)

B E C K · « **Reply #2438 on:** Jan 09, 2012, 12:44:29 AM »

Let's Make Love with Marilyn Monroe and Yves Montand. Decent, I guess.

Mujhse Dosti Karoge! Bollywood movie that, like most of those movies, was too damn long. Stars Hrithik Roshan a.k.a. "that Bollywood star with the two thumbs". Started out good but got retarded. Two people end up jilted by the lead characters and they're all "we haven't lost a potential spouse, we've gained new friends!" Bleh.

Rama · « **Reply #2439 on:** Jan 09, 2012, 12:57:20 AM »

The Wolf Man (2010)

This movie was better then I remember from the first time I've saw it...mainly cause I've now seen the original 1945 version and now know how faithful this one was to it. There are a few scenes of extreme gore which seems out of place in a movie like this that doesn't really depend on gore to sell the scare. I wish they could have pulled back on that and done more with letting things go unseen. (I agree with the thought something you don't see is scarier then something you do.) Plus I liked what Rick Baker did with the makeup and updating the look of the Wolf Man, which looks a lot better then the over the top CGI Werewolves like you find in the Underworld movies.

B E C K · « **Reply #2440 on:** Jan 09, 2012, 09:05:54 PM »

Quote from: Rama on Jan 09, 2012, 12:57:20 AM

(I agree with the thought something you don't see is scarier then something you do.)

So do I. Usually, what I imagined is scarier than what a movie actually shows me (assuming it's a "showing" movie).

Rama · « **Reply #2441 on:** Jan 10, 2012, 12:09:03 AM »

You are always let down by what they show you, because you've already come up with something worse in your own mind.

B E C K · « **Reply #2442 on:** Jan 12, 2012, 11:30:30 PM »

I watched Boomerang, that '92 flick with Eddie Murphy. It was decent but it almost felt like the ending was tacked on last minute. I wonder if they originally hooked up Murphy's character with the Robin Givens character but then changed their minds.

Rama · « **Reply #2443 on:** Jan 15, 2012, 03:03:50 AM »

Cowboys and Aliens:

This one was just O.K. Daniel Craig was really good in this, and so was Clancy Brown and Keith Carradine. Sadly the latter two were not in the movie much. Harrison Ford seemed to just be phoning it. The concept was pretty good, but the execution could have been better.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes:

Pretty much a remake of Conquest of the Planet of Apes...only on the surface in that is about how the Planet of the Apes became The Planet of the Apes. There are a few things that annoyed me. Like how a chimp handler didn't that one of the animals under his care was preggers. There was a storyline about the same virus that made the apes smart deadly to humans. I'm guessing this was a way of explaining how a group of like 50-70 Apes was able to survive long enough to take over the world. Problem is this storyline seems really tacked on.

And can Draco EVER be a good guy in a movie? Well at least he got to say the famous "Get your hands off me you damn dirty ape!" line. And there was other cool stuff that was only mentioned in passing like a lost manned mission to Mars which might be commanded by one Charlton Heston.

Fiero · « **Reply #2444 on:** Jan 15, 2012, 11:19:04 AM »

The Secret World of Arrietty last night with the GF and a friend of hers.

Not bad, but I was tired and it was a very peaceful film and I fell asleep right before the credits.

B E C K · « **Reply #2445 on:** Jan 15, 2012, 11:00:18 PM »

Ghibli stuff has that effect on me in general.

Rama · « **Reply #2446 on:** Jan 16, 2012, 01:59:03 AM »

Horrible Bosses...which was actually a lot better then I expected.

IDE · « **Reply #2447 on:** Jan 16, 2012, 04:53:27 PM »

Beauty and The Beast 3D. The best part about the 3D was the settings which actually produced some awe inspiring moments. I found myself wishing they'd just hang on the shots and let us look at them more.

IDE · « **Reply #2448 on:** Jan 16, 2012, 04:54:24 PM »

Also, afterwards I kept the 3D glasses and popped the plastic lenses out. Now they're faux hipster/LMFAO party glasses.

Rama · « **Reply #2449 on:** Jan 16, 2012, 08:31:59 PM »

I always keep the glasses. If I have to pay that much more for the 3D movie then I'm keeping the glasses.

blanktoe · « **Reply #2450 on:** Jan 18, 2012, 07:19:33 AM »

You can keep the glasses? didn't know that.

Watched Ides of March-typical political boring shit. and Time Crimes-a cool ass Twilight Zone-ish time travel flick.

Chopper Face 69 · « **Reply #2451 on:** Jan 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM »

Fuck 3D versions of 2D movies. I make myself some 3D to 2D glasses with 2 pairs I had and will use those to see Beauty and the Beast. I'll wear proper 3D glasses only for the Tangled short.

joe · « **Reply #2452 on:** Jan 18, 2012, 12:11:34 PM »

Technically, all movies are 2D...

But you know that, Adam!

IDE · « **Reply #2453 on:** Jan 19, 2012, 03:17:48 PM »

How can you hate them? Some of the shots are really beautiful in 3D. If anything 3D versions of 2D movies are the best because they can't do any "poke you in da face" moments because there were none there to begin with.

Chopper Face 69 · « **Reply #2454 on:** Jan 20, 2012, 07:35:50 AM »

Quote from: IDE on Jan 19, 2012, 03:17:48 PM

How can you hate them? Some of the shots are really beautiful in 3D. If anything 3D versions of 2D movies are the best because they can't do any "poke you in da face" moments because there were none there to begin with.

Uh... where do I start? It's a 2D movie, they made all this 3D after the fact, it's George Lucasey history of film raping at it's finest. It's completely unnecessary, a gimmicky cash grab, it's a total insult to the film and history of movies on a fundamental level.

Quote

If anything 3D versions of 2D movies are the best because they can't do any "poke you in da face" moments because there were none there to begin with.

Nonsense. Just because they don't have another problem other bad movies have doesn't make them good. Any good 3D movie should just be a 2D movie shot in 3D, but that's not what people do, because they're idiots.

IDE · « **Reply #2455 on:** Jan 22, 2012, 11:09:17 PM »

So what if it was put in after the fact? There is no film raping going on here. It looks really cool, breathtaking in some parts. There is no way you could look at it side by side and say the 2D looks better.

IDE · « **Reply #2456 on:** Jan 22, 2012, 11:12:14 PM »

If adding the 3D makes it that much more visually stimulating as it does in the case of BnB then it is not unnecessary. Now for a film like UP I don't see why that needed to be in 3D it doesn't have the settings that could use 3D treatment like BnB did.

Rama · « **Reply #2457 on:** Jan 23, 2012, 12:25:15 AM »

Ginger Snaps.

Nothing worse then seeing a hot girl slowly turn into an ugly monster...and without the aid of booze even.

Chopper Face 69 · « **Reply #2458 on:** Jan 23, 2012, 01:03:02 PM »

Quote from: IDE on Jan 22, 2012, 11:09:17 PM

So what if it was put in after the fact? There is no film raping going on here. It looks really cool, breathtaking in some parts. There is no way you could look at it side by side and say the 2D looks better.

Better? It's a change to the movie. It's unecessary. If they want to make a "better" looking movie, make a new one, don't fuck with a classic.

IDE · « **Reply #2459 on:** Jan 23, 2012, 06:27:57 PM »

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Not everything should be ported to 3D but it's not completely wrong to evaluate whether it would be a good idea to add the effect on a case by case basis. It's not like the classic version is being taken away like star wars. That would be fucked up, but adding and improving upon an existing work isn't sacrilege or an affront to that piece of work. And besides, this change wasn't ham fisted lucas butchery. It was just one effect that allowed you to see a classic in a new and interesting way.