Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 2050

  • Page

    of 2871 First / Last

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 09:54:43
    Kings of South Beach (2007) 3/10

    To be honest I never expected much from this, and don’t normally watch such films. It is by the author of Casino, and is based on ‘the shocking true-life story’ as the gumph on the boxed puts it. It’s all about nightclub owner Chris Troiano and his attempts to be no.1 of Miami South Beach. Naturally he runs into all sorts of issues, drugs, money, the mob, undercover police.. There are a lot of girls in the film, the plastic American types, desperate to be in a film, being an extra being about all their qualified to do, just. Beyond the shallow plastic-ness of it all, the film manages one or two tense moments, and there’s a scene involving a Ferrari Testarossa. These cars never fail to impress, even to this day. That was worth the 75p I paid for the DVD alone.

    After watching the film, IMDb revealed it is a made for TV film. That explains a lot.

    Edited by blacksea at 09:59:19 31-12-2012
  • Murbs 31 Dec 2012 10:20:13 22,591 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Mirror Mirror

    One of those utterly charming films you know you'll find the time to watch if it's on in the future. Loved it.

    Stardust

    One of my favourites. Turned up at Christmas on BD \o/

    Mission Impossible 3

    Excellent film - spotted it was following showings of 1 and 2. Sat up and watched it with the wife last night and we were both surprised by how good it was.
  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 10:23:49 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    How to Train Your Dragon. 9/10, best new film I've watched over Christmas. The Dragon is utterly charming and believable, the story is wonderful, the characters are oddly Scottish and nicely streamlined, only as fleshed out as they need to be. And the action, particularly at the end, is staggering. Wonderful, wonderful film.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MrTomFTW Moderator 31 Dec 2012 10:27:12 39,806 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I saw Horrible Bosses over the weekend and it wasn't terrible like I expected. Mind you Charlie Day's voice is enough to make me laugh.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 10:28:33 6,470 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Murbal wrote:
    Mission Impossible 3

    Excellent film - spotted it was following showings of 1 and 2. Sat up and watched it with the wife last night and we were both surprised by how good it was.
    It's generally just set piece after set piece. But they are fucking good set pieces so who cares? The rocket on the bridge scene always gets a smile from me.

    Get bent.

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar 31 Dec 2012 10:31:40 2,461 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @LeoliansBro The Lord of the Rings wasn't 3 books to begin with. Tolkien never wrote it with three books in mind. The publisher split it. But all three have (mostly by accident) a rough beginning, middle and end. With Return of the King being the biggest payoff. They changed the order of events told to suit this.

    All of the films you mentioned were meant as a trilogy from the start.
    The Hobbit is one book; albeit a long one. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. It should never have been made into three 3 hour long films. Two at best. He should have made the two he planned on, then put all the extra stuff into the extended editions. So although you're wrong on the trilogy theory, you're right on the filler point.
    Even Tolkien put all his filler in at the end as appendices. Which was very, very welcome, but putting it in throughout the books would have dragged the whole thing out.

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 10:33:32 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    All of the films you mentioned were meant as a trilogy from the start.
    They really weren't. The Matrix? Godfather?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 10:34:52 6,470 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    The Hobbit is one book; albeit a long one.
    Wasn't it 250 pages or something? I think that's what is getting most peoples backs up, the fact it IS a short book.

    Get bent.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 10:34:52 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    Even Tolkien put all his filler in at the end as appendices. Which was very, very welcome, but putting it in throughout the books would have dragged the whole thing out.
    This is spot on though, and I agree. Just a shame that Peter Jackson didn't realise this as well.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar 31 Dec 2012 10:36:02 2,461 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Back on track...

    Blade Runner 10/10
    One of the best films ever made, IMHO. The book was great, but they changed enough to make this stand out on it's own. The effects stand up today as better than most CGI films out. It all just looks so real. And that small speech by Roy Batty is just an awesome payoff for a great build up. For me, it's the perfect film.

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 10:36:06 6,470 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    All of the films you mentioned were meant as a trilogy from the start.
    They really weren't. The Matrix? Godfather?
    I agree there, hence why the ones that DEFINITELY weren't meant as trilogies got a nice wrap up at the end of the first films.

    Get bent.

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar 31 Dec 2012 10:37:26 2,461 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @LeoliansBro I agree, my point wasn't that well made. I should have said they were meant as separate films, but are in a trilogy.

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 10:37:44 6,470 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Oh and, Tangled/Ratatouille (no idea if I've spelt that right).

    Ratatouille is thematically superior, but Repunzel is hot.

    Collectively, 7/10.

    Get bent.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 10:38:05 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    All of the films you mentioned were meant as a trilogy from the start.
    They really weren't. The Matrix? Godfather?
    I agree there, hence why the ones that DEFINITELY weren't meant as trilogies got a nice wrap up at the end of the first films.
    This I do agree with. The question remains though - if you have enough narrative material for a single film, no natural break that would suggest the need for three films, why (artistically) would you inject a load of B-side material and force the original story into three films?

    But we all know the answer.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 10:38:53 6,470 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    ...for funsies?

    Get bent.

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 10:41:11 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yep, for funsies.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 10:41:45
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    The Hobbit is one book; albeit a long one.
    Wasn't it 250 pages or something? I think that's what is getting most peoples backs up, the fact it IS a short book.
    In that there isn't enough material or a narrative structure that supports 3 3 hour films, yes.
  • GuiltySpark 31 Dec 2012 10:43:06 6,470 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    Daddy-Doom-Bar wrote:
    The Hobbit is one book; albeit a long one.
    Wasn't it 250 pages or something? I think that's what is getting most peoples backs up, the fact it IS a short book.
    In that there isn't enough material or a narrative structure that supports 3 3 hour films, yes.
    I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, to be honest.

    Get bent.

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 10:43:35
    $$$$
  • Daddy-Doom-Bar 31 Dec 2012 10:44:24 2,461 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I always remember it being quite long, but then the last time I read it I was about 8.

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 10:46:14 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    We're all looking forward to Peter Jackson's epic 9 film, 30 hour 'Velveteen Rabbit' cycle.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 31 Dec 2012 10:51:44 39,570 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Watched this last night in HFR 3D.

    7/10

    The first hour was extreme padding. Everything up to the title screen, but I suppose he needed that to add on to the LoTR trilogyOnce it got going it was good. Just didn't have the same sense of epicness as LoTR but I suppose it's not meant to.

    HFR made it look extremely smooth but the first 5 minutes I thought everything was going in fast forward. I obviously adjusted to it as I didn't notice after awhile.
    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 10:51:59 31-12-2012

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 11:38:02
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    We're all looking forward to Peter Jackson's epic 9 film, 30 hour 'Velveteen Rabbit' cycle.
    Which should be one 30 hour film.
  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 11:49:59 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    We're all looking forward to Peter Jackson's epic 9 film, 30 hour 'Velveteen Rabbit' cycle.
    Which should be one 30 hour film.
    It should be one 10 minute film with 29 hours and 40 mins of turgid boring bullshit stuck in the DVD extras for those who are 'really into the lore' and 'love the vivid world as much as the story' and 'will never have sex with a woman, ever'.

    This was something he managed with Fellowship (and then fucked up by putting all the bollocks deleted scenes back in), kinda managed with Two Towers, totally forgot about with ROTK and is now laughing incredulously about given our apparent ability to Hoover up any old crap with The Hobbit.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar 31 Dec 2012 11:53:46 2,461 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    ...bit harsh...

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi

  • LeoliansBro 31 Dec 2012 11:54:30 44,966 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Haven't seen it. I'm just trolling.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 31 Dec 2012 11:54:49 5,626 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, to be honest.
    /raises hand
  • Lukus 31 Dec 2012 12:33:13 19,492 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Is The Hobbit the new Prometheus?

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Deleted user 31 December 2012 12:34:55
    Phantom Menace more like.
  • Page

    of 2871 First / Last

Log in or register to reply