Jump to content

The movie you just watched

F250

By F250
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

PittsburghTiger
PittsburghTiger

I am not sure how this film could have been improved. It is, considering the time when it was made, about perfect. Just an awesome film.

Cheeseweasel
Cheeseweasel
RPM
RPM

Posted Images

Go Pokes

Go Pokes 979

Posted
Posted

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.   This movie is a hoot.  Being Nic Cage, I thought I'd give it 15 minutes and see if it's worth it.  It had me in the first 5.  I was stoned and I'm a sucker for any movie/TV show where an actor is able to laugh at himself and his Hollywood image, but I think it was pretty damn entertaining.  

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11291274/  

 

Also watched Pacific Rim again.  I don't know why, but I did and I was mildly entertained.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
On 2/21/2023 at 6:39 AM, Mo Horn said:

Had the day off yesterday and watched Empire of Light, ...

How was this? We haven't seen it yet but I like Olivia Colman. Amazingly talented and a lot of range. Although I'm not a regular award show watcher, her speech at the Academy Awards (for The Favorite) was a hoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wutang75

wutang75 431

Posted
Posted
Possessor - inception with body horror. Not sure how I missed this a few years ago. Cronenberg’s son, who also just came out with infinity pool. Streaming on Hulu. 
rewatched Rec - Spanish found footage horror. Absolutely awesome. Streaming on Prime. Hard recommend. 

Speaking of Cronenberg’s kid - I watched Infinity Pool last night. I think I liked it better than Possessor. Mia Goth losing her shit is always worth the price of admission. Although it’s not near as over the top as a expected based on what I’d read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8341

Posted
Posted

My son enjoys laughing (MST3K style) at bad movies.  So when I saw the reviews for a low budget sci-fi film called Recon (something): Caprini Massacre, I acquired a copy to watch.  It was as bad as advertised.  Plot is loosely a rip off of Starship Troopers, but the "acting" is baffling, the sound mixing makes your ears bleed, the special effects are special in the worst sense of the word and absolutely nothing makes sense about shooting roaches with machine guns and having them explode with 3000 times their body size volumes of green goo or why the recon team fights a T-100, zombies or... from way out of left field... a werewolf... on an alien planet.  We laughed a good bit, but we could not finish this one.  Hats off to anyone that can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Llama

Bama Llama 1436

Posted
Posted

Cosi - 1996 Australia // Toni Collette jewel re an out of work guy taking a job as social counselor at a mental hospital, ends up directing Mozart opera Cosi fan Tutti. 

Rewatched on Amazon Prime after 27 years with Mama Llama and dottir Llama. All enjoyed much much. Waiting for Guffan meets One Flew Over Cuckoos Nest.

Toni is delightful, as are many of the loonies. Rachel Gfiffiths and Ben Mendelsohn also in it and other Oz actors you’ll recognize. 
 

Well dond feel good story without being sappy or formulaic. Nice change of pace from CGI overdosing. Downside - it’s rent or buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetohumping

closetohumping 17302

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Underdog said:

You Got Served - not sure wtf I watched but couldn't turn away. The dance sequences were pretty good and Li'l Kim in a bikini top was good but the acting was atrocious. 

This one.   Drum line.   Stomp the yard.  Same script.   Good guys and bad guys face off In competition and it always ends in a dance or drum off

 

 

also I cried when lil saint died.  Spoiler 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9628

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/22/2023 at 10:30 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

How was this? We haven't seen it yet but I like Olivia Colman. Amazingly talented and a lot of range. Although I'm not a regular award show watcher, her speech at the Academy Awards (for The Favorite) was a hoot.

I liked it, I didn’t love it. Agree that Colman is masterful, but the movie is a touch uneven.  It’s nothing like the trailer.

I tried The Fablemans the other night and turned it off after about 25 minutes.  It failed to hook me, and Michelle Williams is just creepy.  

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I liked it, I didn’t love it. Agree that Colman is masterful, but the movie is a touch uneven.  It’s nothing like the trailer.

I tried The Fablemans the other night and turned it off after about 25 minutes.  It failed to hook me, and Michelle Williams is just creepy.  

Colman will be appearing in Wonka with Timothee Chalamet due out at the end of this year, but no idea of her role as it is focusing on a young Wonka and the Oompa-Loompas. She has some television work coming out as well.

We still haven't seen several of the Oscar noms but the awards seem late this year so we may yet see a few more. I know it is part of the actors' job (promotion & awards) and has compensation and benefits but that part of the biz would just drain me. Anything social like that and I need time to regroup or the cortisol just goes haywire. Seems like they don't get to have much time to just do regular life with their family and friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Augustus

Augustus 3061

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Poolflood said:

The Godfather, II and will finish III tomorrow.   Still a fantastic trio.

If you haven't seen "Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone," it's a director's cut of GFIII, and it's edited a little differently, and the sequence of events makes it a little easier to follow.  I recommend it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PittsburghTiger

PittsburghTiger 6095

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

This is an absolute trip. 

Holy Fuck, the late 60s into the early 70s was nuts.

spoiler alert: I just watched Zombie Richard Wagner-Adolf Hitler rampage through a town carrying a machine-gun electric guitar while killing all the Jews. then, Cosima Wagner, Franz Liszt’s daughter who was Wagner’s second wife, killed Liszt with a voodoo doll, all while the Ride of the Valkyries was being played on an electric guitar.

crazy fucking movie.

Edit:

Oh, and Roger Daltrey played Liszt.

Edited by PittsburghTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texzilla58

Texzilla58 4687

Posted
Posted
Holy Fuck, the late 60s into the early 70s was nuts.
spoiler alert: I just watched Zombie Richard Wagner-Adolf Hitler rampage through a town carrying a machine-gun electric guitar while killing all the Jews. then, Cosima Wagner, Franz Liszt’s daughter who was Wagner’s second wife, killed Liszt with a voodoo doll, all while the Ride of the Valkyries was being played on an electric guitar.
crazy fucking movie.
Edit:
Oh, and Roger Daltrey played Liszt.

You should watch Ilsa: SheWolf of the Nazis. Around 1970. A grindhouse classic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted

Update. Saw Empire of Light. Agree with those of you regarding pace but overall liked it and the cast. Which brings me to the other movie I happened to watch recently, also with Olivia Colman and a solid cast; *The Father. Wow. That was pretty heavy but quite good.

Spoiler

I know for many, myself included, movies are entertainment/escapism, but I appreciate when directors (and producers) are unafraid to give us art that invites contemplation and reflection. The ending that isn't quite an ending. Just really hits.

 

 

 

*I'm not sure how I missed it especially with the awards it garnered but what with Covid dominating our lives for the last few years, our attention has been elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Babylon

Biggest pile of shit I've had the displeasure of watching in a long time.  

If you have time, would you mind elaborating? Perhaps behind a spoiler for those who prefer not to see too much discussion, but I've been listening to comments about it good and bad and it being very polarizing (that was the term used in an article) with folks either loving it or hating it. I kinda remember some similar reactions when Chazelle's La La Land premiered so I'm curious about your take beyond the it is a pile of shit.

Spoilered here for some additional commentary:

Spoiler

 I'd been waiting for his latest work to come out since it was announced to begin production and especially with the various cast changes (Robie replacing Emma Stone for example).

I recently read a Screen Rant article--link here: https://screenrant.com/damien-chazelle-divisive-debated-movies-babylon-more/  that made some sense.

Just in case readers prefer not to click the link a spoiler within a spoiler of the article:

Spoiler

With the release of Damien Chazelle's raucous early-Hollywood epic Babylon, both the movie and its director undeniably put their money where their mouths are: asserting that big, polarizing movies still belong in theaters. In recent comments during an interview with Insider, Chazelle claimed, "It’s good to have something that stimulates conversation and debate and a lot of fierce opinions on either side. We all knew the movie was gonna ruffle some feathers and get some people mad, and I think that’s good. More movies should do that." Over the course of Babylon's press run, it would appear Chazelle is more concerned with his movie provoking a remarkable response at all, a result audiences would do well to value in turn.

Observable in Babylon's nearly evenly-split Rotten Tomatoes score, Chazelle's ambitious long-time passion project is certainly living up to his statements. Despite a disappointing box office run, it's nonetheless earned spots on multiple critics' year-end top ten lists, as well as a share of zero-star reviews simultaneously. However, as with a fair share of movies that grapple with tonally fraught subject matter, Babylon's difficulty to process is entirely by design.

There's good reason why Babylon is built to defy anything but a polarizing reaction, as it spends its whole three-hour runtime portraying extremes. Taking place in the largely unregulated "wild west" of early twentieth-century filmmaking (as silent films gradually became "talkies"), Babylon is unyieldingly explicit in its depictions of brutal on-set working conditions as well as the orgiastic partying that followed. Thus, the experience of viewing Babylon is one that inflicts constant whiplash between rapturous debauchery and grueling industry practices; the highs of bringing fantasies to life and the lows of stomach-churning systemic exploitation.

As if to prepare viewers for the messy ride to come, Babylon all but broadcasts in its very first scenes that parts will prove difficult to watch, requiring a strong stomach. Within the film's first five minutes, low-rung laborers struggle to deliver an elephant to a wealthy producer's party and are excreted upon by the heavy animal in the process as, meanwhile, a rich attendee of said party enjoys a very similar debasement from a sex worker. The film immediately presents such sights not only to warn the squeamish of what's to come, but because Babylon (true to its title) means to unflinchingly depict such contrasting conditions as inextricable from both each other and the "myth" of old Hollywood itself.

The wildly mixed response Babylon is currently receiving is all the more indicative of the long and tragically difficult road that inherently polarizing movies often must take to be greenlit, produced, and released in the first place. Like many similarly ambitious projects, Babylon is an idea that Damien Chazelle needed to harbor for well over a decade, gradually releasing bigger and more acclaimed projects over all those years until he finally secured the influence and expertise to bring it to life. Unfortunately, it's only the exceedingly rare sort of filmmaker with as consistent and accomplished a filmography as Chazelle's who is usually ever allowed the means and leeway to helm such a divisive movie on a large scale even once.

In the end, there's clear intent as to why so many fortunate, accomplished directors put such prolonged work toward eventually taking such a chance: the belief that there should always be space for polarizing art in today's movie landscape. With theaters so consistently filled with franchise content and frequently similar awards contenders, art that tries to provoke feelings outside that comfortable spectrum should remain accessible. Original movies that explore dicier territory and intend to spark debate can make for shakier investments, but the neglect they often face upon release becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when they are already made such outliers from the start.

Anyway, I read it some time ago and was intrigued enough to keep that in mind as more people viewed the film and gave their comments. One could argue that is Chazelle's natural and self-protective response to having some negative reviews, but I actually agree with him in terms of juxtaposing the working conditions behind the scenes and the 'face' of Hollywood back in the day. It happened in all industries, not just Hollywood, and it obviously still occurs today from coast to coast and beyond... but social media serves as some much needed sunshine into the darker corners of corporate excess, greed, etc vs the 'face' that is all philanthropy, blue skies, and environmentally conscious. The method (discussed in the article with a very apt description (viewer 'whiplash') of going back and forth between those extremes) Chazelle uses to do that is exhausting (by design) and I agree with the article's author--Chazelle could not have made that film earlier in his career and the industry as a whole suffers from a lack of oxygen because of that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15184

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If you have time, would you mind elaborating? Perhaps behind a spoiler for those who prefer not to see too much discussion, but I've been listening to comments about it good and bad and it being very polarizing (that was the term used in an article) with folks either loving it or hating it. I kinda remember some similar reactions when Chazelle's La La Land premiered so I'm curious about your take beyond the it is a pile of shit.

Spoilered here for some additional commentary:

  Hide contents

 I'd been waiting for his latest work to come out since it was announced to begin production and especially with the various cast changes (Robie replacing Emma Stone for example).

I recently read a Screen Rant article--link here: https://screenrant.com/damien-chazelle-divisive-debated-movies-babylon-more/  that made some sense.

Just in case readers prefer not to click the link a spoiler within a spoiler of the article:

  Reveal hidden contents

With the release of Damien Chazelle's raucous early-Hollywood epic Babylon, both the movie and its director undeniably put their money where their mouths are: asserting that big, polarizing movies still belong in theaters. In recent comments during an interview with Insider, Chazelle claimed, "It’s good to have something that stimulates conversation and debate and a lot of fierce opinions on either side. We all knew the movie was gonna ruffle some feathers and get some people mad, and I think that’s good. More movies should do that." Over the course of Babylon's press run, it would appear Chazelle is more concerned with his movie provoking a remarkable response at all, a result audiences would do well to value in turn.

Observable in Babylon's nearly evenly-split Rotten Tomatoes score, Chazelle's ambitious long-time passion project is certainly living up to his statements. Despite a disappointing box office run, it's nonetheless earned spots on multiple critics' year-end top ten lists, as well as a share of zero-star reviews simultaneously. However, as with a fair share of movies that grapple with tonally fraught subject matter, Babylon's difficulty to process is entirely by design.

There's good reason why Babylon is built to defy anything but a polarizing reaction, as it spends its whole three-hour runtime portraying extremes. Taking place in the largely unregulated "wild west" of early twentieth-century filmmaking (as silent films gradually became "talkies"), Babylon is unyieldingly explicit in its depictions of brutal on-set working conditions as well as the orgiastic partying that followed. Thus, the experience of viewing Babylon is one that inflicts constant whiplash between rapturous debauchery and grueling industry practices; the highs of bringing fantasies to life and the lows of stomach-churning systemic exploitation.

As if to prepare viewers for the messy ride to come, Babylon all but broadcasts in its very first scenes that parts will prove difficult to watch, requiring a strong stomach. Within the film's first five minutes, low-rung laborers struggle to deliver an elephant to a wealthy producer's party and are excreted upon by the heavy animal in the process as, meanwhile, a rich attendee of said party enjoys a very similar debasement from a sex worker. The film immediately presents such sights not only to warn the squeamish of what's to come, but because Babylon (true to its title) means to unflinchingly depict such contrasting conditions as inextricable from both each other and the "myth" of old Hollywood itself.

The wildly mixed response Babylon is currently receiving is all the more indicative of the long and tragically difficult road that inherently polarizing movies often must take to be greenlit, produced, and released in the first place. Like many similarly ambitious projects, Babylon is an idea that Damien Chazelle needed to harbor for well over a decade, gradually releasing bigger and more acclaimed projects over all those years until he finally secured the influence and expertise to bring it to life. Unfortunately, it's only the exceedingly rare sort of filmmaker with as consistent and accomplished a filmography as Chazelle's who is usually ever allowed the means and leeway to helm such a divisive movie on a large scale even once.

In the end, there's clear intent as to why so many fortunate, accomplished directors put such prolonged work toward eventually taking such a chance: the belief that there should always be space for polarizing art in today's movie landscape. With theaters so consistently filled with franchise content and frequently similar awards contenders, art that tries to provoke feelings outside that comfortable spectrum should remain accessible. Original movies that explore dicier territory and intend to spark debate can make for shakier investments, but the neglect they often face upon release becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when they are already made such outliers from the start.

Anyway, I read it some time ago and was intrigued enough to keep that in mind as more people viewed the film and gave their comments. One could argue that is Chazelle's natural and self-protective response to having some negative reviews, but I actually agree with him in terms of juxtaposing the working conditions behind the scenes and the 'face' of Hollywood back in the day. It happened in all industries, not just Hollywood, and it obviously still occurs today from coast to coast and beyond... but social media serves as some much needed sunshine into the darker corners of corporate excess, greed, etc vs the 'face' that is all philanthropy, blue skies, and environmentally conscious. The method (discussed in the article with a very apt description (viewer 'whiplash') of going back and forth between those extremes) Chazelle uses to do that is exhausting (by design) and I agree with the article's author--Chazelle could not have made that film earlier in his career and the industry as a whole suffers from a lack of oxygen because of that.

 

 

 

  • Utterly predictable
  • Hackneyed storyline
  • Actual bad acting trying to camouflage itself as being ironical to bad period acting
  • Tried too hard with a big budget to hide bad writing and bad execution
  • Overchoreographed nonsense - we get it.  The depravity of Hollywood.  The dynamic between the glamour of the movie and chaos of production.  It just fails to deliver on any real points and just bounces around and tries to make up for a lack of substance with a big budget and flashy sets.  It felt hollow and after the first hour or so, was just boring.   
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SamsCorner

SamsCorner 395

Posted
Posted
On 2/21/2023 at 7:40 PM, Gil Bang said:

Started watching an old Bronson movie, "The Valachi Papers".  Got bored about 45 minutes in, but I may pick it up again tonight. 

I downloaded one of those free movie channels on Sling the other day and found Bronson in "Hard Times".  With James Coburn, Jill Ireland and Strother Martin. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26099

Posted
Posted (edited)

While I was laid up last week I went through a bunch of movies I hadn't seen. Was really impressed by Mountain Men with Charlton Heston and Brian Keith. Worthy, very worthy.

Edited by RPM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 10863

Posted
Posted

The Lobster with Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz.

I'm really a fan of Colin Farrell's comedic style, so I really liked it.  

The basic premise is that singles are given 45 days at a hotel to find a partner.  If they fail they are turned into the animal of their choice.  The humor is very dry and absurdist, but I thought it was a lot of fun...aside from one disturbing scene.

It's not a Wes Andersen film, but if you like his work I think you'll enjoy The Lobster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

The Lobster with Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz.

I'm really a fan of Colin Farrell's comedic style, so I really liked it.  

The basic premise is that singles are given 45 days at a hotel to find a partner.  If they fail they are turned into the animal of their choice.  The humor is very dry and absurdist, but I thought it was a lot of fun...aside from one disturbing scene.

It's not a Wes Andersen film, but if you like his work I think you'll enjoy The Lobster.

That's a Yorgos Lanthimos' movie and absurdist seems very appropriate. But his POV is really quite, I'm not sure how to describe it exactly, but it holds my attention.

The Favorite is another of his. He's got Poor Things coming out later this year and I read recently it got tagged with an 'R' rating and the topic may have some folks grabbing their pearls but I'm curious to see how they adapted the novel.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...