What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Greyryder]

Be careful. It's 2 hours of your life that you cannot retrieve.

So, I should just stick with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

 

[jamespowers]

So, I should just stick with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

And my new one out next year. George Washington Zombie Killer! Nothing kills like a Founding Father protecting his country.

 

[Touchofevil]

And my new one out next year. George Washington Zombie Killer! Nothing kills like a Founding Father protecting his country.

lol
I would definitely watch that.

 

[jamespowers]

lol
I would definitely watch that.

I am still writing it. Just relax. Screen plays are a pain in the.......
I still love the beginning scene and the opening splash screen.

 

[Gregg Axley]

So, I should just stick with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

It's slow in parts, but I liked it.
My wife and I saw it in 3D.

 

[Touchofevil]

Snatch

 

[jamespowers]

Snatch

Hey, hey!

 

[Touchofevil]

It's slow in parts, but I liked it.
My wife and I saw it in 3D.

I was so disappointed having read the book beforehand. I really wanted to like it but found it just okay.

 

[Touchofevil]

Hey, hey!

:rofl:

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The Artist

 

[Zombie_61]

So, I should just stick with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?

Only if you want to waste 105 minutes of your life.

 

[Greyryder]

Only if you want to waste 105 minutes of your life.

But, I like that movie! It's fun!

 

[celestial]

Lawless

Guy Pearce and Tom Hardy FTW.

 

[Gregg Axley]

Hey, hey!

He posted it after 10.

 

[Gregg Axley]

But, I like that movie! It's fun!

Greyryder, I like it too.
Don't let them shame you on your love of history, and one of the founding fathers.
BTW the mansion the vampires stay in, is a real one and not CGI.
Although a lot of the interior is a soundstage I'm sure.
I look that stuff up for some reason.

Plus 98,425 people give the movie a 6.0 which isn't too bad.
1.5-3.0? Well that's MST3K territory.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Artist

Saw it when it first came out on DVD and really appreciated it for what it was trying to do - make a new, nearly silent movie that modern audiences would find enjoyable to watch. I think it almost succeeded: the movie has some dialogue (so not completely a silent movie) and ,while overall good, is still more a curio than a really good movie. In the end, I respected it more than outright enjoyed it. What where your thoughts?

 

[Doctor Strange]

It's a very good replication of a late silent film, and it does a worthy job of reminding modern audiences that silent films had their own unique magic and they aren't somehow "less" than sound films. However, it was insanely overpraised, and as far as winning Best Picture, it's a classic case of Hollywood falling in lockstep behind any film that obviously loves the film biz. (Argo's win the next year was exactly the same thing: a good-but-hardly-great film adored because of its movie industry self-aggrandizement.)

My own personal disappointment with The Artist is that it doesn't really have anything to say beyond "Silent movies are cool!" There's no higher meaning about the value of storytelling, advances in technology vs. art, reality vs. fantasy, or any deeper thoughts beyond the surface. It's just a modern take on a silent movie, period. Lots of fun and done with tremendous style, but empty.

 

[Worf]

Hitchcock's "LifeBoat" - I DVR'd this from last saturday because I'd not seen it in years and I'm glad I did. In addition to fine acting from Hodiak, Bankhead and really all assembled I was also treated to some of the most deft subtextural messaging I've EVER seen. Besides the whole question of how much Nazi villainy does it take to make 5 otherwise sane people committ murder with their bare hands, there was a deeper story be told. The Story of Joe the Steward.

Joe's story can be almost completely told by how Ms. Bankhead addresses him throughout the film.

At the start of the film she refers to him as "something charcoal floating about".

Next she calls him Charcoal

She and the industrialist begin to call him "George". The shorthand of the time for Black stewards of rail and sea.

Finally he say's his name is Joe and this is what she calls him until from then on out.

The whole thing is Hitchcock's way of telling us that it's foolish to hold onto racist conventions while fighting the worst danger the world had seen to that date. Hitchcock also touches on some other points. When voting whether to kill the Nazi Captain they ask Joe to have a say, his response was "I get to vote now?" All the while Joe hangs back, realizing with body and voice that he's "in" their world but not of their world. When they attack the Nazi in the end he does not participate he hangs back knowing that in another time or place the mob could be venting it fury on his head just as easily as any Nazi. He only intercedes when the American nurse leaves the fray for a second. He begs her not to take part in any mob killing. He knows that if she participates in the killing, no matter how justified, she'll have crossed a rubicon from which she can never return.

Lastly Hitchcock is also savvy enough and smart enough to show us what will happen once the immediate crises of Nazi world domination is over. Bankhead goes back to her material desires, the industrialist begins calling Joe "George" again and in the end Joe's right back where he started..... almost. I don't know how much of this Hitch or John Steinbeck who wrote the story planned before hand but both men were too good to leave so big a storyline to chance. Next time you watch it... look for it.

Worf

 

[Formeruser012523]

The Student Prince In Old Heidelberg.

Stupid ending.

 

[Fading Fast]

Hitchcock's "LifeBoat" - I DVR'd this from last saturday because I'd not seen it in years and I'm glad I did. In addition to fine acting from Hodiak, Bankhead and really all assembled I was also treated to some of the most deft subtextural messaging I've EVER seen. Besides the whole question of how much Nazi villainy does it take to make 5 otherwise sane people committ murder with their bare hands, there was a deeper story be told. The Story of Joe the Steward.

Joe's story can be almost completely told by how Ms. Bankhead addresses him throughout the film.

At the start of the film she refers to him as "something charcoal floating about".

Next she calls him Charcoal

She and the industrialist begin to call him "George". The shorthand of the time for Black stewards of rail and sea.

Finally he say's his name is Joe and this is what she calls him until from then on out.

The whole thing is Hitchcock's way of telling us that it's foolish to hold onto racist conventions while fighting the worst danger the world had seen to that date. Hitchcock also touches on some other points. When voting whether to kill the Nazi Captain they ask Joe to have a say, his response was "I get to vote now?" All the while Joe hangs back, realizing with body and voice that he's "in" their world but not of their world. When they attack the Nazi in the end he does not participate he hangs back knowing that in another time or place the mob could be venting it fury on his head just as easily as any Nazi. He only intercedes when the American nurse leaves the fray for a second. He begs her not to take part in any mob killing. He knows that if she participates in the killing, no matter how justified, she'll have crossed a rubicon from which she can never return.

Lastly Hitchcock is also savvy enough and smart enough to show us what will happen once the immediate crises of Nazi world domination is over. Bankhead goes back to her material desires, the industrialist begins calling Joe "George" again and in the end Joe's right back where he started..... almost. I don't know how much of this Hitch or John Steinbeck who wrote the story planned before hand but both men were too good to leave so big a storyline to chance. Next time you watch it... look for it.

Worf

Worf, my girlfriend and I saw it about six months ago (for the third for fourth time each) and talked about the change of Joe's status, in the eyes of the others, throughout and what it said (it jumped out at both of us this time, where as we missed it in past viewing).

While we weren't as insightful as you are here, we did touch on some of the same points and thought it was awesome that Hitchcock / Steinbeck put it in.

And yes to your other comments - fantastic acting and philosophically challenging at how quickly they convert to a willingness to murder (not necessarily a wrong act here, but a disturbing echo in light of how many in Germany quickly converted / acquiesced to participating or, at minimum, ignoring the killing of the Jews).