Films that you wish you had seen on the big screen

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Previous
  • sheepfish 26 Apr 2004 20:19:10 1,168 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    I always thought Top Gun would be great at the cinema. Not my favourite fil but visually it's pretty spectacular. I only mention it because it's on tonight at the UGC. I saw 'The Lost Boys' last Monday night and it was a different film because of the cinema screen. It's 2 entry so it can't be bad.
  • yegon 26 Apr 2004 20:23:15 5,264 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The Rock. Pure cheese, but an awesome action/audio experience. Inexplicably passed me by at the piccies, ended up watching via the original R2 dvd release - it was a flipper dvd too :(

    Terminator 1 - I was 7 at the time of initial release, hard to fake 18 with cherubic cheeks and 4ft 8 in height.



    Edited by yegon at 22:30:09 26-04-2004
  • Fozzie_bear 26 Apr 2004 20:24:03 15,530 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Perhaps the reason i never got swept along with the lord of the rings thing was that i watched the first one on telly. Didn't think much of the film to be honest but will accept that on a big screen it must've looked absolutely stunning.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • pylon 26 Apr 2004 20:25:04 179 posts
    Registered 11 years ago
    Lost Highway..
  • MikeD 26 Apr 2004 20:25:45 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    A clockwork Orange


    Seeing 2001: a space oddysey in the cinema was a great experience that convinced me that I'd like to see other Kubrick films in the cinema, and this is my favourite.

    Good second: Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lecter in top form on the big screen. I loved 'Hannibal' and think this one would have extra tension and atmosphere in the cinema.
  • sheepfish 26 Apr 2004 20:26:02 1,168 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    FeZZ wrote:
    Without a doubt, Aliens.
    I was too young at the time, and I missed a special 70mm version 4 years ago :(

    It was doing the rounds in the cinema a few months ago to coincide with a new dvd release. But you probably didn't want to know that.

    Edited by sheepfish at 19:26:31 26-04-2004
  • Whizzo 26 Apr 2004 20:27:06 43,124 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'll agree with FeZZ, I could probably have got in, I was 16 at the time but didn't even try! It's my favourite film and I've only seen it on the small screen.

    Never got around to seeing all three first films in one sitting when Alien3 came out.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • Fozzie_bear 26 Apr 2004 20:28:22 15,530 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MikeD wrote:
    Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lecter in top form on the big screen. I loved 'Hannibal' and think this one would have extra tension and atmosphere in the cinema.

    Don't think it really gained that much from the big screen, to be honest (yes, i'm old enough to have seen it..). That sort of slow-paced thriller works just as well on tv, i reckon. But Hannibal was a lot more concerned with the whole look of the thing - much better served by big screen.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • MikeD 26 Apr 2004 20:28:27 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh, I'd like to add to that a film I am glad I saw in the cinema. It probably was showing to celebrate the remastering or so but I saw:

    Pasolini's 'Salo'.

    One fucked up film, which worked to full effect in the cinema. (also probably not a good idea to bring a date there, though I did warn her beforehand. Got slapped, heh. Strangely appropriate)
  • Whizzo 26 Apr 2004 20:29:55 43,124 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Can I say I wish I hadn't seen "Hannibal" on the big screen as I thought it was bloody (!) awful.

    "Silence Of The Lambs" was good a collective cinema experience, a fair amount of gasps and such. :-)

    Edited by Whizzo at 19:30:12 26-04-2004

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • silentbob 26 Apr 2004 20:37:26 28,970 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    FeZZ wrote:
    Without a doubt, Aliens.
    I was too young at the time, and I missed a special 70mm version 4 years ago :(
    Odd, it wasn't made in 70mm.

    Star Wars - the original - when it first appeared. What a buzz the must have been.

    I managed to catch Bladerunner at our local City Screen recently, theres a flick video does no justice to whatsoever.



    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Mike_Hunt 26 Apr 2004 20:38:40 23,513 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Ooo a film I wish I hadn't seen: Eyes Wide Shut.

    Seriously, how DULL was that film. 2 hours of boring drivel, 5 minutes of a lady with her baps out, and then another hour of boring drivel. It started no-where, and ended up even more lost by the end of it.

    I distinctly remember praying at one point, for the film to end. I had my hands clasped together and was rocking back and forth mumbling "please God, Puh-leeeasse stop polluting my brain with this shite". It didn't work. In fact I think God was a little pissed off as I'm sure he altered the film making it go off at another pointless tangent about masks for half an hour.

    /shudders

    [MH]
  • Whizzo 26 Apr 2004 20:39:33 43,124 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    silentbob wrote:Star Wars - the original - when it first appeared. What a buzz the must have been.
    It was and as one of generation X-wing there's a reason why some people in their thirties perhaps are still a bit obsessed with it.
    I managed to catch Bladerunner at our local City Screen recently, theres a flick video does no justice to whatsoever.
    Didn't see it on its original release but saw it when the director's cut was released some years ago. It works soooooo much better on the big screen.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • Dropkick 26 Apr 2004 20:40:21 34 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I always wanted to see Jaws or close encounters on the big screen.
  • MikeD 26 Apr 2004 20:40:38 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think all ridley scott films do, actually. he is a very visual director, and it shows.
  • sheepfish 26 Apr 2004 20:41:06 1,168 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    Mike you philistine.

    EWS was a supreme piece of film making. It was visually perfect, absolutly flawless. A pinacle of pure 'directing'. Sure the plot was naff but it was art.
  • Whizzo 26 Apr 2004 20:42:53 43,124 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Dropkick wrote:close encounters on the big screen.
    Great Yarmouth on holiday, raining all day long, me and my brother in the cinema as there wasn't much else to do. FANTASTIC! Probably a lot of it just went over my head as I was 7 but it was great.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • Mike_Hunt 26 Apr 2004 20:47:03 23,513 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Art? I've produced better pieces of art out of my arse!

    It was soooo mind-numbingly boring I could actually feel my brain rotting whilst watching it.

    Don't give me that "It's good because it's shit" argument either, or I'll come after you with a rotten haddock.

    [MH]

  • MikeD 26 Apr 2004 20:47:49 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I liked it. :-)

  • silentbob 26 Apr 2004 20:49:53 28,970 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think most people acknowledge EWS as being one of Kubricks less accesible (read shite) works. Massively self-indulgent even for him.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Mike_Hunt 26 Apr 2004 20:50:45 23,513 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MikeD wrote:
    I liked it. :-)

    How can you even possibly begin to justify such a statement?

    Geez, there's enough porn on the 'net. A least there you don't have to pay 5.50 for the privalidge or have to sit through one hour and thirty minutes of Tom Cruise buying masks before it's Wha-Hey time.

    [MH]
  • MikeD 26 Apr 2004 20:50:58 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Without wanting to assume, does England's general loathing for Tom Cruise not have something to do with it? Or did I perceive the attitude towards that fine actor wrongly? :-)
  • Wretched-Chin 26 Apr 2004 20:51:23 742 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    Predictable but "Blade Runner".

    I agree on the whole EWS=ARSE debate. It was a turgid waste of time IMHO.
  • sheepfish 26 Apr 2004 20:52:02 1,168 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    Mike_Hunt wrote:
    Art? I've produced better pieces of art out of my arse!

    It was soooo mind-numbingly boring I could actually feel my brain rotting whilst watching it.

    Don't give me that "It's good because it's shit" argument either, or I'll come after you with a rotten haddock.

    [MH]


    No, it's good because it's good. It's pure cinema as an art form. Every picture and angle is intended. There are no compromises, it is a work of art in the way that most films are not. The needs and desires of the director proactivly create the style of the film rather than the usual way of a film ending up being reactive to what is possible and necessary. OK?

    And no Haddock threats, you obviously have no idea where my own 'fish' connection comes in. There are a few rugby front rows that will remember though. You have been warned.
  • silentbob 26 Apr 2004 20:53:31 28,970 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MikeD wrote:
    Without wanting to assume, does England's general loathing for Tom Cruise not have something to do with it? Or did I perceive the attitude towards that fine actor wrongly? :-)
    Oh yer - hated. Beyond belief - thats why London Grinds to a halt when he atkes a walkabout in Leicester Square. Loathed and despised he is o_O

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • sheepfish 26 Apr 2004 20:54:41 1,168 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    Loathed and despised he is o_O

    Jedi and Scientology in grammar linkage shocker!
  • silentbob 26 Apr 2004 20:56:39 28,970 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:
    silentbob wrote:
    Loathed and despised he is o_O

    Jedi and Scientology in grammar linkage shocker!
    /Points and laughs at the scatalogical pedant

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • MikeD 26 Apr 2004 20:58:58 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    Oh yer - hated. Beyond belief - thats why London Grinds to a halt when he atkes a walkabout in Leicester Square. Loathed and despised he is o_O

    You don't have to get your panties in a knot :-) I did ask if that attitude that was perceived was wrong? If you say that is true then fine.

    I just remember hearing about a poll of 10 worst movies and it had 2 tom cruise films in there.
  • sheepfish 26 Apr 2004 20:59:02 1,168 posts
    Registered 12 years ago
    / opens dictionary.com in a new window
    / is unhappy with silentbob
  • Pike 26 Apr 2004 21:00:39 13,446 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:

    No, it's good because it's good. It's pure cinema as an art form. Every picture and angle is intended. There are no compromises, it is a work of art in the way that most films are not. The needs and desires of the director proactivly create the style of the film rather than the usual way of a film ending up being reactive to what is possible and necessary. OK?


    That there is a lot of thought and care behind EWS doesn't prevent it from being boring and pretentious. IMO Kubrick was at timjes a to intellectual director and his movies often turned out to be somewhat sterile and lacking in emotion with EWS being worst example.

    Edited by Pike at 20:04:45 26-04-2004
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply