.:Last Movie Watched:. (Page 10)

Watched Rouge One on Netflix last night. So good.

Kung Fu Soccer.

Naruto, The last movie ?

Equilibrium.

Valerian:

I really wanted to like this one, because the universe is rich, and there was a good anime/cartoon adaptation made for TV.

Unfortunately it was very disappointing. Everything in this movie is made in the most obnoxious and grating way possible. The plot, the situations, the characters, the dialogues, the actors, everything is completely stupid and childish.

The themes and designs are so naive and infantile that I almost wanted to leave.

The real life actors manage to look uglier than the CGI creatures. Everybody is miscast and the cameos are pointless.

etc, etc..

Only good if you are 8 years old or less.

Decided to revisit The Exorcist or rather give it another chance, saw it when I was like 13 and never understood why it's held in such high regard. But as of lately I've grown a fondness of William Friedkin so I included it in my little retrospective.



Still scratching my head about why it's considered such a classic. I think the problem I had - and have with it, is that it's two different movies that don't quite fit together. Like, who's the audience?

First, you got a subtle character study  about a priest losing his faith and a girl whose issues can't be explained by neither psychologists or doctors. That's how most part of the film plays out, like a chatty drama with scare elements. (Yawners for horror movie audiences, right?)

Which is why I can't wrap my head around the latter part of the film, where we have this literal depiction of a pea-soup spewing, head-twisting demon that to me at least totally undermines the initial tone of the film. It's like Ingmar Bergman meets Evil Dead.

Furthermore, how does the girl live in the end having had her neck broken while possessed? To me it is an inexcusable slip even for a horror movie let alone one that is naturalistic in its essence.

I saw the Director's Cut and to any 1st time watchers I'd skip it altogether and see the original version instead. This one had a few cheap "improvements" (with the exception of the spider-walk) that again, undermined the subtlety of the original version including superimposing the demon face onto Dick Smith's make-up (uncool) and even having it subliminally pop up on more than that one occassion. Let's face it, no classic has ever gotten better out of its director trying to improve it decades later. Certainly not through the use of CGI.



Demon face on kitchen appliances? More like Director's snuff

Verdict: I think I need to let this one simmer for a while bc clearly for a movie that (still) didn't have the desired impact on me, I've sure written a lot on it. Someone needs to tell me what to make of the exorcism itself bc I didn't care for it much. It's anti-climactic and it doesn't fit what I wish to make of the film. I need to find an alternative  perspective bc its built up like a drama... with a horror movie climax.

I always loved the disorienting feel of the opening montage though, it's got that Friedkian edge I can't quite put into words that is the directors trademark -- a way of putting a grotesque, almost demonic twist on the seemingly ordinary; giving the natural an unnatural feel. 





I don't know why but it's the image of the two dogs fighting that stuck with me when I was a kid and not the rest of the film... the way the camera zooms in on them and the whole sound design just seemed unsettling and 'demonic' somehow. That's like a 4 sec sequence lol, don't mess with Cancer moon feelz & memories!

What'd y'all think? Not about me needing a life, but about the movie.

Posted by enfant_terrible
Decided to revisit The Exorcist or rather give it another chance, saw it when I was like 13 and never understood why it's held in such high regard. But as of lately I've grown a fondness of William Friedkin so I included it in my little retrospective.



Still scratching my head about why it's considered such a classic. I think the problem I had - and have with it, is that it's two different movies that don't quite fit together. Like, who's the audience?

First, you got a subtle character study  about a priest losing his faith and a girl whose issues can't be explained by neither psychologists or doctors. That's how most part of the film plays out, like a chatty drama with scare elements. (Yawners for horror movie audiences, right?)

Which is why I can't wrap my head around the latter part of the film, where we have this literal depiction of a pea-soup spewing, head-twisting demon that to me at least totally undermines the initial tone of the film. It's like Ingmar Bergman meets Evil Dead.

Furthermore, how does the girl live in the end having had her neck broken while possessed? To me it is an inexcusable slip even for a horror movie yet alone one that is naturalistic in its essence.

I saw the Director's Cut and to any 1st time watchers I'd skip it altogether and see the original version instead. This one had a few cheap "improvements" (with the exception of the spider-walk) that again, undermined the subtlety of the original version including superimposing the demon face onto Dick Smith's make-up (uncool) and even having it subliminally pop up on more than that one occassion. Let's face it, no classic has ever gotten better out of its director trying to improve it decades later. Certainly not through the use of CGI.



Demon face on kitchen appliances? More like Director's snuff

Verdict: I think I need to let this one simmer for a while bc clearly for a movie that (still) didn't have the desired impact on me, I've sure written a lot on it. Someone needs to tell me what to make of the exorcism itself bc I didn't care for it much. It's anti-climactic and it doesn't fit what I wish to make of the film. I need to find an alternative  perspective bc its built up like a drama... with a horror movie climax.

I always loved the disorienting feel of the opening montage though, it's got that Friedkian edge I can't quite put into words that is the directors trademark -- a way of putting a grotesque, almost demonic twist on the seemingly ordinary; giving the natural an unnatural feel. 





I don't know why but it's the image of the two dogs fighting that stuck with me when I was a kid and not the rest of the film... the way the camera zooms in on them and the whole sound design just seemed unsettling and 'demonic' somehow. That's like a 4 sec sequence lol, don't mess with Cancer moon feelz & memories!

What'd y'all think? Not about me needing a life, but about the movie.

Can't remember it..other than twisting head..may or may not revisit it..interested in the opening sequence now tho..great review..—

Posted by lightseed

Can't remember it..other than twisting head..may or may not revisit it..interested in the opening sequence now tho..great review..—

I'm having a problem assembling the big picture in my head. Sometimes it only takes one scene or sequence to make that happen but with The Exorcist it's really like they tried to make two different movies and you have to disregard one of them in order to appreciate the other. At least I do.

I guess sometimes you can't force a vision to fit your own personal perspective, or narrative. Sometimes it just is what it is.

Posted by enfant_terrible
Decided to revisit The Exorcist or rather give it another chance, saw it when I was like 13 and never understood why it's held in such high regard. But as of lately I've grown a fondness of William Friedkin so I included it in my little retrospective.



Still scratching my head about why it's considered such a classic. I think the problem I had - and have with it, is that it's two different movies that don't quite fit together. Like, who's the audience?

First, you got a subtle character study  about a priest losing his faith and a girl whose issues can't be explained by neither psychologists or doctors. That's how most part of the film plays out, like a chatty drama with scare elements. (Yawners for horror movie audiences, right?)

Which is why I can't wrap my head around the latter part of the film, where we have this literal depiction of a pea-soup spewing, head-twisting demon that to me at least totally undermines the initial tone of the film. It's like Ingmar Bergman meets Evil Dead.

Furthermore, how does the girl live in the end having had her neck broken while possessed? To me it is an inexcusable slip even for a horror movie let alone one that is naturalistic in its essence.

I saw the Director's Cut and to any 1st time watchers I'd skip it altogether and see the original version instead. This one had a few cheap "improvements" (with the exception of the spider-walk) that again, undermined the subtlety of the original version including superimposing the demon face onto Dick Smith's make-up (uncool) and even having it subliminally pop up on more than that one occassion. Let's face it, no classic has ever gotten better out of its director trying to improve it decades later. Certainly not through the use of CGI.



Demon face on kitchen appliances? More like Director's snuff

Verdict: I think I need to let this one simmer for a while bc clearly for a movie that (still) didn't have the desired impact on me, I've sure written a lot on it. Someone needs to tell me what to make of the exorcism itself bc I didn't care for it much. It's anti-climactic and it doesn't fit what I wish to make of the film. I need to find an alternative  perspective bc its built up like a drama... with a horror movie climax.

I always loved the disorienting feel of the opening montage though, it's got that Friedkian edge I can't quite put into words that is the directors trademark -- a way of putting a grotesque, almost demonic twist on the seemingly ordinary; giving the natural an unnatural feel. 





I don't know why but it's the image of the two dogs fighting that stuck with me when I was a kid and not the rest of the film... the way the camera zooms in on them and the whole sound design just seemed unsettling and 'demonic' somehow. That's like a 4 sec sequence lol, don't mess with Cancer moon feelz & memories!

What'd y'all think? Not about me needing a life, but about the movie.

you're right, it's difficult to understand the appeal of this movie, even if you're old enough to manage to put yourself in the state of mind of the epoch.

I think I remember there was a controversy involving the pope and the vatican.

Also another sexual controversy involving the young actress I think, and it was the 70s so people were a lot more coarse than today and attracted to dirty scandals, believe me about this

Posted by hydorah

you're right, it's difficult to understand the appeal of this movie, even if you're old enough to manage to put yourself in the state of mind of the epoch.

I think I remember there was a controversy involving the pope and the vatican.

Also another sexual controversy involving the young actress I think, and it was the 70s so people were a lot more coarse than today and attracted to dirty scandals, believe me about this

In the director's cut there's a dialogue that plays out between Father Karras and Merrin

- Why this child? It makes no sense!

- It's about making us despair! He wants us to see ourselves in a different way! Animalistic, ugly! So that we don't even consider that God may love us!

I can definitely see this as the essence of the film - taking possession of an innocent child and making an object of obscenity out of her. It's not the Devil as in a sly trickster but a entity that completely embodies all things vulgar and animalistic. In theory it should be very effective, but despite all these things being depicted in a straight-forward fashion, that is still not the vision I walked away with after seeing the film. That simple task got lost somewhere. Which leads me to conclude the filmmakers have failed on some level.

Posted by hydorah
http://www.historytoday.com/nick-cull/exorcist

Cool reading. And this is a little what I've touched upon, and now got it confirmed: It's like the film was aimed at two opposite types of audiences and doesn't fully satisfy either one. The movie is a damn fence-sitter!

--

"Vincent Canby of the New York Times reported that large sections of the youth audience talked and smoked during the establishing sequences and only tuned in to the movie during the possession. Such audiences could hardly be identifying with the forces of order in the film. Despite Blatty’s intent, it would seem that for many who watched The Exorcist, this was horror functioning in the same way as it had in the era of Boris Karloff, recycling the fears of the age as escapist entertainment. . . "

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by lightseed

Can't remember it..other than twisting head..may or may not revisit it..interested in the opening sequence now tho..great review..—

I'm having a problem assembling the big picture in my head. Sometimes it only takes one scene or sequence to make that happen but with The Exorcist it's really like they tried to make two different movies and you have to disregard one of them in order to appreciate the other. At least I do.

I guess sometimes you can't force a vision to fit your own personal perspective, or narrative. Sometimes it just is what it is.

click to expand

Probably got sidetracked by all the revolutionary FX..? and forgot to develop the script..?Who knows..always interesting dissecting films tho..the good and bad..

The howling (1981):

Very nice old school horror movie, with great cinematography and old school special effects. The ambiance is reminiscent of cronenberg.

The movie is worth viewing just for the CGI-less werewolf transformations. Probably the best ever put on screen.

Thismovie was totally ripped off for michael Jackson's thriller.

The Doors 1991

Val Kilmer is quite good as Morrison.

hello Spiderman of 2017

Gotcha!

young Linda Fiorentino —?

The Tourist.

Depp and Jolie are so crap in that movie.

Get Hard(2015)

It was not as bad as I thought it would be. I mean it was terrible, but assumed and entertaining

C R U I S I N G (1980)

 





Second entry in my William Friedkin retrospective marks not only his finest work but also as of now, one of my favorite films.

Kicks off as a seemingly standard police thriller of the 80's with one major advantage - its uncompromising ambiguity.

A freshly started serial killer is preying on gay men in New York's S/M club scene.

Enter Pacino's cop on an interview for what's gonna become his first undercover assignment: - Have you ever sucked dick? asks the police chief between four eyes. Imagine that introductory line uttered by Paul Sorvino and you'll get the gist of just how unpredictible and bizarre this movie will allow itself to get.

After that brief introduction he's flushed down the rabbit hole as bait for the serial killer, cruising clubs, parks and dark alleys. Alice in Leatherland.







For some reason many people seem to find the movie confusing and something of a mess. One of them Roger Ebert who suggests  that it's "annoyingly unclear" and "lacks the courage to declare itself". Not only that but that we're left with a protagonist that remains un-introduced. Who is he? What's he like?

There are plenty of movies about cops eaten up by their experiences, but few this nightmarishly complex. It works on two levels: partially as a police thriller that will probably leave that group of the audience disappointed & scratching their heads somewhere before the third act; and then in part a character study of Pacino where we're nontheless kept in the dark about what's really going on behind his bewildered and frantic gaze. As Ebert remarked, who is he? What's his story? Well, we don't know as he is keeping things to himself. We're just the spectators, with him for the ride.  Again, the ambiguity.









When I saw it the first time I actually didn't know who the killer was in the end. Many feel this way on the initial viewing. But it's really spelled out and it's not like I was dumber ten years ago, but it just shows to tell the level of mindf#ck this movie operates on!

Upon reviewing it I know who the killer is, but. . . what about the rest? And then it strikes me that maybe 'who dun it' is not what the movies is about. But that there's something else going on and the main plot is just a front.

 

From Jack Nitzsche's dark, menacing score to the punky rock beats of John Hiatt and Willy DeVille, to its shamelessly exploative Tom of Finland aesthetics. . . it's one of the edgiest depictions of big city life and its dark allure since Taxi Driver .

Posted by enfant_terrible
C R U I S I N G (1980)

 





Second entry in my William Friedkin retrospective marks not only his finest work but also as of now, one of my favorite films.

Kicks off as a seemingly standard police thriller of the 80's with one major advantage - its uncompromising ambiguity.

A freshly started serial killer is preying on gay men in New York's S/M club scene.

Enter Pacino's cop on an interview for what's gonna become his first undercover assignment: - Have you ever sucked dick? asks the police chief between four eyes. Imagine that introductory line uttered by Paul Sorvino and you'll get the gist of just how unpredictible and bizarre this movie will allow itself to get.

After that brief introduction he's flushed down the rabbit hole as bait for the serial killer, cruising clubs, parks and dark alleys. Alice in Leatherland.







For some reason many people seem to find the movie confusing and something of a mess. One of them Roger Ebert who suggests  that it's "annoyingly unclear" and "lacks the courage to declare itself". Not only that but that we're left with a protagonist that remains un-introduced. Who is he? What's he like?

There are plenty of movies about cops eaten up by their experiences, but few this nightmarishly complex. It works on two levels: partially as a police thriller that will probably leave that group of the audience disappointed & scratching their heads somewhere before the third act; and then in part a character study of Pacino where we're nontheless kept in the dark about what's really going on behind his bewildered and frantic gaze. As Ebert remarked, who is he? What's his story? Well, we don't know as he is keeping things to himself. We're just the spectators, with him for the ride.  Again, the ambiguity.









When I saw it the first time I actually didn't know who the killer was in the end. Many feel this way on the initial viewing. But it's really spelled out and it's not like I was dumber ten years ago, but it just shows to tell the level of mindf#ck this movie operates on!

Upon reviewing it I know who the killer is, but. . . what about the rest? And then it strikes me that maybe 'who dun it' is not what the movies is about. But that there's something else going on and the main plot is just a front.

 

From Jack Nitzsche's dark, menacing score to the punky rock beats of John Hiatt and Willy DeVille, to its shamelessly exploative Tom of Finland aesthetics. . . it's one of the edgiest depictions of big city life and its dark allure since Taxi Driver .

saw it not so long ago, shock value is pretty high. But last part was a bit slow so I fell asleep

it's interesting for the historical aspect. It helps understand how AIDS made so many ravages so fast.

During that one interrogation scene, you understand the movie is just trolling viewers.

Posted by hydorah
During that one interrogation scene, you understand the movie is just trolling viewers.

Friedkin worked closely with the cop on whom Pacino's character is based (and yes it's inspired by actual events) and even gave him a part in the film (the detective in the morgue in the beginning) but anyway...

It's not trolling but an actual technique of interrogation where the interrogators can have their way with the suspect and shoot his credibility to the ground should he take it to court. I mean how do you explain a naked black man in thongs and a leather hat worked you over during interrogation at the police station, in broad daylight?

This is of course never explained, so sure there's some troll factor there but it's an approach typical for Friedkin which is why many of his movies have that disorienting feel. He focuses a lot on fascinating details like this without necesserily explaining them.







As demonstrated on Pacino's undercover cop in front of the suspect #1, so that when the cowboy re-appears, the suspect is scared sh itless cuz he doesn't know what to expect anymore. It's 'signing confession' -time!

Les Miserables

I love it. Unique.

Not really a fan of Russell Crow and Hugh Jackman, but both of them are great here.

Ooooh forgot to add Anne Hathaway ?

Posted by enfant_terrible
Decided to revisit The Exorcist or rather give it another chance, saw it when I was like 13 and never understood why it's held in such high regard. But as of lately I've grown a fondness of William Friedkin so I included it in my little retrospective.



Still scratching my head about why it's considered such a classic. I think the problem I had - and have with it, is that it's two different movies that don't quite fit together. Like, who's the audience?

So, I started watching the Exorcist TV series(2016), so far watched 6 episodes out of ten and wow, I find it pretty good. Of course there is still a chance that the last episodes disappoint, but what I've seen so far make it worth it.

I am not a fan of religion or angels/demon stories so I had to accept all the crazy stuff that happens in this show and some of it is pretty crazy and not very subtle , but considering the original movie, I suppose this comes with the territory.

there is some great cinematography going on, the whole thing feels like an episodic feature movie and a rather good one. Some of the digital effects are very badly done, but it's not really a problem.

Every episode ends with some sort of outrageous twist, and it's pretty entertaining.

the plot and the characters are really solid.

I'd really recomend it, much better than the original material. Anyone wanting to watch it should just not spoil themselves before watching, don't read anything, etc...

I see they're doing a second season, and it's probably going to suck but whatever

Tron Legacy

Adding to my to-see list. The winter is long @hydorah

Gods Must Be Crazy 2

Only God knows how many times I've watched this.

American Made





2/5



Don't get me wrong, it was entertaining if you need to get away for 2 hrs and get your mind off things, but that is all. It's one of those biopics that mostly feels like one long montage with loud music overlapping one scene after the other. Tom Cruise has still got it though.

Midnight run(1988)

This movie's a total dud, everything in it was completely lame. Made me realize that de niro is actually an overestimated actor and can't stand on his own in a weak movie.

currently watching Fearless Hyena 2

currently watching U-571

Bad Santa 2

currently watching Death Race 2

much better than the first imo.

Fark..this thread is 11 years old lol

A history of violence(2005)

fairly realistic depiction I'd imagine of what it would be like to get your brains blown out lol

Gerald's Game (2017)



One of the hardest of King's novels to adapt and one that's probably his least known, was previousely deemed unfilmable but now makes one of the strongest adaptations of the writer's work imo.

A married couple that probably shouldn't engage in trust games of s/m nature do that very thing and the man falls dead of a cardiac arrest with his wife still cuffed to the bed post. Over the course of the following hours as they turn into days, she starts sinking deeper into her own subconscious that carries some deep secrets of it's own as the room around her starts coming alive.





Honestly this could have been a bishin' fourth installment to Polanski's 'chamber play' trilogy but now it's helmed by some dude called Mike Flanagan who's apperantly tried to get this off the ground for at least 15 years only to be shot down by every studio he's approached because the source material isn't "cinematic" enough. That is until Netflix - where the movie premiered -  expressed interest. It just shows to tell that the future of real cinema isn't in theater houses anymore but online.

With the always wolfish Bruce Greenwood in the supporting role, it's really Carla Gugino's one-man-show. Not only does she spend majority of the movie cuffed to the bed but she also plays the different personalities of her character as they emerge, and does so impeccably.



...and then there's 'the moonlight man'



It's one of the most suspenseful and innovative cinematic achievments this year - and y'all know how rare real suspense is seen as the masses are fine with paying to see the same recycled crap again and again.

It is unfortunately also one that's flown right beneath the radar,  now with the latest IT adaptation and all.

Sleepers (1996)

currently watching Lucy

Posted by blvckphase

Posted by Gob_Shite

Posted by blvckphase
I watched The Crow AGAIN last night..

I hope you put your vibrator away, afterwards... 😆

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! OMG! 😆

click to expand

*psychotic guilty laugh*

currently watching

The Gods Must Be Funny In China. 😆

The hateful eight (2015)

Think iv had enough of samuel.l.jackson for another ten years..jennifer jason leigh probably the highlight.

1922





After being pleasantly surprised by Gerald's Game I decided to give another Netflix/Stephen King adaptation a try. It's visually striking (like King himself said, There Will Be Blood comes to mind) but there is no real payoff. Much like many of the segments on say Creepshow -- someone murders someone, the murdered person comes back in one form or another to wreak revenge -- the story keeps running on empty after the initial 30 minutes or so. The turn of events is also rather unconvincing, we are supposed to believe it cuz the narrator tells us to. Still, a few nice scare moments. Like a modern, chewed up & recycled Edgar Allan Poe.

Cool world

It was really bad and hard to watch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_Keeper



Leo-Taurus-Aqua saves tripple Scorpio

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Spielrein,_Sabina

sgipt.org/th_schul/pa/misbr/jungcg.htm

The Guest (2014)

Another production out of the 80's retro boom that the indies were having a few years back with Drive and It Follows. So this one's an odd bird, sort of like "Universal Soldier" meets Michael Myers. Gotta love them synthesizers.

The Ghost Writer.

Posted by juliettee
the midnight meat train - 2008 based on clive barker novel and he produced it, japanese director which is pretty obvious, hilarious at times, not really predictable, and don't be fooled that the main character is that bradley cooper, but the second one is ex football star vinnie jones. recommend.

It was good, made no concession to hollywood tropes. Clive barker is always interesting.

Posted by DonumDei

Posted by AerialView
The Ghost Writer.

The ending totally took me by surprise....

click to expand

I thought there's still like ten to fifteen more minutes left after he left the ceremony.

Poof.. The end lol.

Posted by DonumDei
The Reader for me...



2008 movie set in post nazi Germany. Anyway...I’m still coming to terms with all the conflicting emotions it brought up! 0.o

I always like Nazi/ww2 movies and stories.

Posted by DonumDei

Posted by AerialView

Posted by DonumDei

Posted by AerialView
The Ghost Writer.

The ending totally took me by surprise....

I thought there's still like ten to fifteen more minutes left after he left the ceremony.

Poof.. The end lol.

Hahaha! 😆

Siked!!!

I, on the other hand thought “yeayah...dang right justice prevails...!” and as soon as I finish the thought...

Poof 💨

So I sat there for a second or two before realizing...omg nooo! This cannot be the end!

*cue jaw drop*

😂

Pretty decent movie all in all. 🙂

click to expand

Who is the name of the actor? I forgot lol

I noticed that I liked most of his movies.

Posted by DonumDei

Posted by AerialView

Posted by DonumDei
The Reader for me...



2008 movie set in post nazi Germany. Anyway...I’m still coming to terms with all the conflicting emotions it brought up! 0.o

I always like Nazi/ww2 movies and stories.

That one pushes boundaries of morals and ethics on more level than one! Not your typical war more however, but rather a physiological state of a woman (a symbol I find for so many who lived through the WWII). I shan’t go any further lest I reveal too much. Suffice it to say, I was pleasantly surprised! 🙂

click to expand

I kinda mixed the Reader wit the Others.

Is Nicole Kidman there?