What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[MissNathalieVintage]

The Amazing Spiderman in 3d. I could've done without the 3d there really was not that many 3d shots in the film. Other then that its was worth watching.

 

[MissMittens]

The entire Thin Man series from start to finish. Great little movies, and TCM had some nice extras packaged on the DVDs

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Spiderman 3 was on public TV on Sunday so I watched it. Pleasantly surprised. I don't usually enjoy superhero films, and previous Spiderman efforts (before the current franchise) have been risible. But this one (and the previous one that was on TV last weekend) was good.

bk

 

[Olde English]

The 1947 version of Brighton Rock, a real classic, very dark and threatening from the outset. The crowd scenes in Brighton, full of animation and detail, are deeply evocative of the era in which it was made (although the story is actually set before the war), and the atmosphere at the racecourse is just as I remember from my youth, in the days before racegoers felt the need to dress up as Footballers' Wives and Hooray Henries. I always end up watching the people in the background - wonderfully natural in both appearance and action if they were extras.
My husband had never seen Brighton Rock before and he was blown away by the ending... I think it is the best performance Richard Attenborough ever gave as an actor.
It is such a perfect film that I cannot imagine why they felt the need to remake it a couple of years ago! Needless to say I have no desire to watch the 2010 version.

 

[fortworthgal]

Last night: Six Degrees of Helter Skelter on Netflix. Any of you death hags out there (you know who you are) should check it out, because Scott Michaels produced & hosts the documentary. Lots of extra tidbits, very interesting.

Watched several over the long weekend but the one I enjoyed the most was "The Aviator".
Great movie! DiCaprio was very good, Cate Blanchett absolutely channeled Hepburn and Kate Beckinsale was one of the most fantastic looking women I've ever seen on film.
I'll definitely get a copy for my own collection.

I agree, I love this movie. I have a woman-crush on Cate Blanchett.

The Thin Red Line is far and away my favorite war film. Terrence Malick is a fantastic director.

Just to play devil's advocate, that film gets my vote for one of the worst movies ever made. I felt actual relief when Witt was shot!

To me it was just okay. The sets were amazing, loved the cars & costumes, but I felt the plot was really predictable. Meh. lol

It was aesthetically amazing, but I also loved the soundtrack, and I found the acting to be so much "more" (for lack of a better way to say it) than in most films these days. The lack of dialogue and sound meant that everything had to be conveyed through the actor's expressions and mannerisms.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

I went to see the new Spiderman on Sunday afternoon. I liked the new guy better than the Tobey guy as Spiderman. The plot was more believable from an emotional standpoint. I understand that the term believable and super hero movie don't go well together, but there it is. The version I saw was in 3D, but it was wasted for most of the movie. Nothing came your way into the audience. Be sure and stay for the credits or you'll miss the end of the movie. The bad guy was pretty well done also.

Later

 

[DesertDan]

Oh, I also went to see "Brave". We took our 3 yr old grandson, it was his first time to the theater (he was riveted).
I liked it, as I have all of Pixar's movies, but I said to my wife afterwards "It's a Pixar chick flick." followed by "I wonder if she ever recieved all the stuff she bought?"

 

[Yeps]

Spiderman 3 was on public TV on Sunday so I watched it. Pleasantly surprised. I don't usually enjoy superhero films, and previous Spiderman efforts (before the current franchise) have been risible. But this one (and the previous one that was on TV last weekend) was good.

bk

That is interesting. Most people thought that Spiderman 3 was an extraordinarily bad effort, and that is what prompted the current reboot.

Hi

I went to see the new Spiderman on Sunday afternoon. I liked the new guy better than the Tobey guy as Spiderman. The plot was more believable from an emotional standpoint. I understand that the term believable and super hero movie don't go well together, but there it is. The version I saw was in 3D, but it was wasted for most of the movie. Nothing came your way into the audience. Be sure and stay for the credits or you'll miss the end of the movie. The bad guy was pretty well done also.

Later

Speaking of the current reboot. I saw it too. It wasn't bad, in my opinion, however, I thought that it could have used a good editor. The visual effects scenes were just too dragged out.

As to 3D, I think that the less that comes out of the screen the better. Every time something breaks the fourth wall, it reminds the audience that they are in the theater. If the 3D is used to provide depth, instead of gimmicks thrown at us, it is as though the back of the theater is not there, and you get to observe reality.

 

[1961MJS]

...As to 3D, I think that the less that comes out of the screen the better. Every time something breaks the fourth wall, it reminds the audience that they are in the theater. If the 3D is used to provide depth, instead of gimmicks thrown at us, it is as though the back of the theater is not there, and you get to observe reality.

Hi

I don't know if I noticed the depth or not. That is a good point though, don't remind the viewer that they're the viewer.

Later

 

[jamespowers]

Some crazy 70s vampire movie that I didn't even finish. The clothes were bad enough but the story also stunk.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Really? Any particular reason people thought it was bad? I thought Venom was cool, and I always liked Sandman.

Always with the proviso that I'm certainly no comic book or superhero movie fan. The one that was on before it (and preceded it in the franchise) was better, but really, are people honestly looking for a "good movie" when they go to watch superheros? Surely no-one could possibly be looking for anything deep in these movies? They're just a bit of light entertainment, right?

That is interesting. Most people thought that Spiderman 3 was an extraordinarily bad effort, and that is what prompted the current reboot.

 

[Chasseur]

The Confidential Agent with Charles Boyer, Lauren Bacall and Peter Lore. While I'm not a huge Lauren Bacall fan, I normally like her in films and particularly like her paired with Bogey. But her acting this film was not good, almost like she was intentionally giving the lines so they sounded like bad high school acting. It was painful to listen to on TCM tonight... Also some bad miscasting with "tough talking girl with street smarts" Bacall as an English society/upper class type and Boyer as a Spanish Republican fighter...

 

[Feraud]

As to 3D, I think that the less that comes out of the screen the better. Every time something breaks the fourth wall, it reminds the audience that they are in the theater. If the 3D is used to provide depth, instead of gimmicks thrown at us, it is as though the back of the theater is not there, and you get to observe reality.

I too think "less is more" with regards to 3D and think they utilized this quite effectively in The Amazing Spider-Man. From what I recall there was no "in your face" 3D moment, which is something I never require in a movie. The 3D brought depth to the cityscapes where spider-man was in his web slinging glory.

I thought this movie was the most effective telling of the story yet. The casting was spot on and the action sequences were immaculate. I grew up reading the various Spider-Man comic titles and felt this was the comic book come to the big screen. I never once thought about the costume variation, why Peter Parker was riding a skateboard, or the Lizard should have more of a snout. The film was pure entertainment.

 

[Edward]

Really? Any particular reason people thought it was bad? I thought Venom was cool, and I always liked Sandman.

Always with the proviso that I'm certainly no comic book or superhero movie fan. The one that was on before it (and preceded it in the franchise) was better, but really, are people honestly looking for a "good movie" when they go to watch superheros? Surely no-one could possibly be looking for anything deep in these movies? They're just a bit of light entertainment, right?

The key criticism people had of Spiderman III was that it simply had too much going on. This is the view I share. Sandman was the villain / story that Raimi had wanted to do all along. As the film was designed to be the closing instalment of a trilogy, it also had to tie up the loose ends of the Green Goblin / Harry / Peter thread. That was already a lot to fit in, given the sheer quantity of source material. Venom was added in relatively late in the day by studio demand. It had not been planned originally, but the studio responded to fan buzz. There were a handful of references to other villains in the first two films. I'm sure I remember the Doctor who later becomes the Lizard in there, and the astronaut guy, JJ's son who has a thing with MJ, is the one in the comic book who inadvertently brings back the Venom symbiont to Earth. I liked the film a lot too, but it could simply have been so much better spread over two films. Venom was well done, but really didn't see its full potential, which could have encompassed an entire film of its own. Still, Raimi will go down in history as the director who revolutionised the superhero film, IMO. Even moreso than the first X-Men film, which predates it by a year or two, if memory serves. It's hard to take in that his first Spiderman is now ten years old, but it was from the success of that that the whole run of recent superhero films sprung. I do think it's simply a genre whose time had come, though: finally, the technology was available to do superheroes the way they should be, rather than, eh.... this:

[video=youtube;ErhFqQOEUDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErhFqQOEUDE[/video]

 

[John in Covina]

Some crazy 70s vampire movie that I didn't even finish. The clothes were bad enough but the story also stunk.

What was it about the 70's that made for such poor cinema? The over use of the anti-hero was one but somehow the stories were really awful for many 70's flicks.

 

[Worf]

"Ted" - Before you call for my cinephile card let me expound. I went expecting the worst and laughed my head off. Family Guy without the restrictions that T.V. requires. Worth every penny.

Worf

 

[jamespowers]

What was it about the 70's that made for such poor cinema? The over use of the anti-hero was one but somehow the stories were really awful for many 70's flicks.

The 70s just plain stunk from their clothes to their movies---just a horrible period. Oh, I found the movie title:
It cost $50,000 to make but I have no idea where they spent the money. :rofl:

 

[jamespowers]

Oh and here you go if you want to see horrible cinema at its horriblist.

[video=youtube_share;vahXWflusCE]http://youtu.be/vahXWflusCE[/video]

 

[McMurdo]

I'm watching The Sting on TCM. One thing that really bothers me is the lack of attention paid to period hairstyles in this and other films of the 70's. Nonetheless I am enjoying the cars and such.

 

[Feraud]

The 70s had great cinema. The Godfather, The Conversation, The 7-Ups, The French Connection, The Driver, Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter, Chinatown, Jaws, Young Frankenstein, Alien, Dirty Harry, The Man Who Would Be King,..the list goes on and on.