Recently watched

Andrei said:
. I feel like puking eachtime a Schwarzenegger movie is on.

I wouldn't go that far, but they are definitely in different leagues.

If I have a choice between a classic 5 star movie and a modern one, I would chose a classic.

Classic may mean different things to different people so allow me to clarify for myself. Pre-1970

they have made excellent movies since, and yes I think they are excellent, but given the chance, I would chose an older movie, preferably black and white.

All this talk of "classic" movies reminded me that I'm taking a film
history class right now, and it is far and away my favorite class.

Being the end of the term, we're watching more recent movies, and we
had a screening of Roman Polanski's "Chinatown." Which I thought
was an incredible movie. Pretty much a perfect film. It
really draws a lot on Classical Hollywood's hard boiled detective
genre, but turns it on its head.

Since taking this class, I've made it a goal to watch all of the
American Film Institute's top 100 films of all time. So far I've
only seen... 25 or so, and I've got a long long way to go.

The full list is here: http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx

How many have you guys seen? Any recommendations from that list?

Addicted to Morphine said:
How many have you guys seen? Any recommendations from that list?

all of them.. and most of them.

Addicted to Morphine said:
How many have you guys seen? Any recommendations from that list?

all of them.. and most of them.

That's really impressive. Do you consider yourself a big film buff?

Addicted to Morphine said:
That's really impressive. Do you consider yourself a big film buff?

i am not in crono's league if thats what you're asking.

i know what i like, but according to most of the membership here, i am... sub par. the ones i like, few others do, and the ones they like are for the most part crap IMO as well.

i used to consider it ageism, but now i think its just me. :heee:

Re-watched "Sum of all fears"

That just triggered a memory of something I read on The Best Page in the Universe.

{on the Sum of All Fears}During this movie the only thing on my mind was "holy s**t, that son of a bitch has a huge nose." Seriously, I've seen c**ks on horses smaller than the shoe horn on Morgan Freeman's face. It looks like someone slammed a potato in his face and he decided to keep it out of spite. I have no doubt he could smuggle four or five illegal immigrant families up his nostrils if he tried (assuming of course that the option to smother them wasn't available).

The plot of this movie is a classic Tom Clancy mind dump. His stories are so mundane and formulaic, you could teach them in algebra (the syllabus would read: Chapter 1 - how to FOIL binomials and terrorist plots, at which point you would drop trow and pinch off a loaf on the teacher's desk for being such a corny bitch). Anyone could string together a Tom Clancy plot.

That's Maddox's take on it.

French Toast said:
That's Maddox's take on it.

This guy doesn't particularly strike me as brilliant so.. shrugs

I liked the sum of all fears for one reason (highlight the post to read this spoiler) : They
actually detonated a nuke on US soil, which is something that never
happens in movies... unless its some sort of full scale disaster alien
invasion movie. they get points just for that. it was incredibly ballsy

French Toast said:
That's Maddox's take on it.

This guy doesn't particularly strike me as brilliant so.. shrugs

This guy is my idol, if you read his stuff, he truly is brilliant. He's like the non-stereotypical american. He's funny and speaks the truth.

To Morphine: Good for them. I'm glad they nuked the US. The US are the only people to ever drop nukes, and yet portray themselves as peacekeepers. Jackasses...

French Toast said:
To Morphine: Good for them. I'm glad they nuked the US. The US are the only people to ever drop nukes, and yet portray themselves as peacekeepers. Jackasses...

Dude, are you truly ready for the can of worms you just opened?

/me bows out but prepares for a good show.

Out of the movies I've had to watch for my class, I also want to recommend the following:

Casablanca (1942): Bogart is the prototypical badass.

The Bicycle Thief (1949): A seriously great italian neo-realist film. I loved the non-professional actors.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955): James Dean makes this movie worth seeing despite a crap plot.



Shoot the Piano Player (1960): A French new wave film that
introduces a lot of revolutionary film techniques and editing work.

A Hard Day's Night (1964): A lighthearted Beatles portrait that
surpassed the initial expectations that it would be disposable dross,
in the same way that the Beatles defied the expectations that they were
"one month wonders."

I had to watch Gun Crazy, The Seventh Seal, Rashomon, and
Gimme Shelter but I didn't like them nearly as much as the
aforementioned movies.

This guy is my idol, if you read his stuff, he truly is
brilliant. He's like the non-stereotypical american. He's funny and
speaks the truth.

To Morphine: Good for them. I'm glad they
nuked the US. The US are the only people to ever drop nukes, and yet
portray themselves as peacekeepers. Jackasses...

Haha, in true Maddox style you have no qualms about ruining a movie plot.

I've read a lot of Maddox's stuff and while I think some of his stuff
is downright hilarious (for example when he makes fun of kids' artwork,
or stupid people, or top gun), there are some things he says that are
just crap. I understand he's hyperbolic, and never entirely
serious... but his attempt to argue that Christopher Reeve was an
asshole is ridiculous. He's often funny (and to be fair often has great ideas and makes true statements), but he shouldn't be
idolized as an infallible prophet of truth. I think that it would piss him
off to have someone blindly worship him (despite his penchant for
self-aggrandizement).

And as for your comment about the US... I'm from the United States and
have fairly liberal views, but what you said was pure Maddox inspired
hyperbolic bulls**t. I don't care how hypocritical our government
may be, that doesn't mean the people in Dallas deserve to have a nuke
detonated on their doorstep. I disagree with a lot of things this
country, and other countries for that matter, do, but I would never
wish a nuke or any other form of death on someone else.

I know, I don't wish one on anybody else either. I think it's disgusting and am very disturbed by it. The point it that Americans who constantly portray themselves as peacekeepers are the only people to have ever detonated one.

France, UK, India, Pakistan, China, Israel.

I think he meant ever to have detonated an atomic bomb with the intent to kill, not just for testing purposes.

I know, I don't wish one on anybody else either. I think it's disgusting and am very disturbed by it. The point it that Americans who constantly portray themselves as peacekeepers are the only people to have ever detonated one.

... 60 years ago.

After that we signed a treaty saying we wouldn't use nuclear capabilities. I don't know why Bush removed the US from that agreement, but I'm fairly sure the US will be signed back on when we have new candidacy in '08.

However, you surely can't blame an entire nation for a group of individuals choices, which is what you're referring to.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I guess that didn't come across very well.

Watched 'Mean Creek' yesterday. Extremely good, and thought provoking - makes you wonder how you would have handled a similar situation if it were to happen.

Some beautiful scenery too - one day when i'm rolling in cash, i'd love to visit some of these places. :smile:

Adam Hawkins said:
Some beautiful scenery too - one day when i'm rolling in cash, i'd love to visit some of these places. :smile:

scrape up enough for a ticket here.. i will show you some of them via school bus.

i have a spare bedroom.. its actually my computer room with a bed, but.. tis all good :smile:

Just jumping back to The Sum of All Fears for a minute, the movie
version isn't actually at all like the original book (and I'm not
talking about the book released around the time of the movie, the
original is about 2-3 times thicker). The movie just took the action
scenes, cobbled together an extremely basic plot from the numerous
plots in the original book, then glued it together with star power and the
usual hollywood grade A bulls**t you see in most movies. If you liked
or hated the movie, I'd definately recommend you read the original book
as its guaranteed to be better.

On the subject of
Maddox, what a complete and utter in-bred f**ktard. If he actually did
any research into a subject or person before hurling s**t at them, he'd
realise that many of his supposed "valid" opinions are completely
baseless and subsequently worthless.

(Edited once anger had subsided and facts straightened. It's okay now Tom, its okay :kitty: )

I might well take you up on that offer some time Orph...once i've got this whole 'being a responsible adult with a mortgage' thing down pat :wink:

On the subject of
Maddox, what a complete and utter in-bred f**ktard. If he actually did
any research into a subject or person before hurling s**t at them, he'd
realise that many of his supposed "valid" opinions are completely
baseless and subsequently worthless.

You do realize that entire site is "BS", right? I know most things he says he says to be a dick. They are funny, take his "11 Worst Songs of 2004" post: hilarious. And that's a relatively good album.

I don't understand how people can take his rants seriously, to be honest.
I think people just like getting pissed off at someone, in general.

Yar. I think that if you did any "research" into him before hurling s**t at him, you'd realize that your opinions are dumb. Get over it buddy. I doubt you are really supposed to believe his stuff. I read his stuff for a good laugh, some of it I agree with and some of it I don't, but I don't spazz out because I don't agree.

[size=13]My bad. But in my defense I will say it was quite late and I was quite
tired when I wrote it, and it was in defense of one of my favorite
authors Tom Clancy, hence the reference below.

It's okay now Tom, its okay :kitty:

I only saw that review posted in the forums here, hence the reason I
did not realise he was being a complete jackass just for the sake of it.

But just quickly about him not being a stereotypical American, while
his far out and rediculous opinions may not be stereotypical, his
personal characteristics, at least the ones he assumes when doing that
site, are completely stereotypical of Americans as far as a lot of
other cultures are concerned. He'd be doing more damage than good if
one of his goals was not to be that stereotype.[/size]

But just quickly about him not being a stereotypical American, while
his far out and rediculous opinions may not be stereotypical, his
personal characteristics, at least the ones he assumes when doing that
site, are completely stereotypical of Americans as far as a lot of
other cultures are concerned. He'd be doing more damage than good if
one of his goals was not to be that stereotype.

Stereotypical of Americans? What? No other citizenship on Earth contains a s-o-b or two? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure why "Americans" are seen as whatever general media impression given when most American's don't do that towards the rest of the world (the ones that count, anyway). Maybe, I'm misunderstanding your underlying thought process or opinion here, but that's how it's coming off.

A note for every douchebag who thinks I'm being ?too negative?: I'm conversing, not arguing.

I don't believe that stereotype either Crono, I'm just saying that many
other cultures see America and Americans as the type of characted
Maddox is. Its a common stereotype around the world, as I'm sure many
of our international members will tell you. Doesn't mean its right and
doesn't mean myself or anyone else here believes it.

Crono said:
I'm not sure why "Americans" are seen as whatever general media impression given when most American's don't do that towards the rest of the world (the ones that count, anyway). Maybe, I'm misunderstanding your underlying thought process or opinion here, but that's how it's coming off.

I can honestly say, I have never met, nor heard anyone my entire life that "blamed" another country for anything before.

I have never met anyone who said "Those Brits are so..."
I have never met anyone who said "If only Ireland had..." etc.etc.

never.

I am constantly at a loss when I read it here. Even when its NOT directed at the USA, and someone blatantly says another country instead I just stare..

Perhaps its because I only associate with "dumb" people.. non educated types but seriously, I have yet to meet my first American who used another countries name in a sentence derogatorily. :sad:

Are you serious Orph, I mean, maybe its a primarily Australian thing,
but we joke around all the time with stereotypes. Nothing serious of
course, at least no one I know, but there's all sorts of stereotypical
characteristics for various groups.

I suppose the good thing about the net is that because everyone is
dealing with everyone else from different countries, there seems to be
less of this kind of thing, besides joking around. Also I suppose in
countries that are making the decisions that effect the world, there's
less focus outside, more on the internal stuff. Where as countries
affected by those decisions tend to comment more and focus on the
outside. I dunno.

I'm surprised there hasn't been at least some anti-arab or anti-islamic
sentiment in the US, what with the war in Iraq and terrorism, that has
embodied itself in various deragatory terms. I mean, I know a few of
them myself. Thats really strange.

I wouldn't say you associate with dumb people Orph, thats being pretty
hard on yourself and not reflected in this kind of behaviour, as I find
its usually the dumb who use those terms/stereotypes. Rather it seems
you have a pretty good bunch of friends/family/associates who don't
harbour any racial prejudices, which is a pretty big achievement I'd
say.

Anyway, before it gets de-railed anymore, perhaps it might be good to get back on topic.

attempts to get things back on topic, though most likely in utter vain

While I haven't seen it yet, reviews of Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy have been appearing in various places, and it looks set to be a
decent film apparently. :smile:

I NEED to read the book before I see the movie. I made the
mistake of watching the Lord of the Rings before reading the books and
so I couldn't stop envisioning Elijah Wood as Frodo when reading.
That's enough to drive a man crazy. I can't stand Elijah Wood,
except in "Sin City" because he's mute.

I really like the guy who stars in the Hitchhiker movie. He's in
"The Office" and he makes me nearly piss myself. Even though I'm
across the pond in the US, I still managed to borrow a copies of The
Office, Seasons 1 and 2. I'd highly recommend it, but I'm sure
you guys have already seen it. They've made a US version but you
just can't translate the subtleties.

Speaking of BBC productions, I would highly HIGHLY recommend "The Blue
Planet" documentary series on marine life. It's narrated, of
course, by David Attenborough, and they did a great job. I'd
recommend all 4 DVDs. Its an awesome watch, stoned or dead sober.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/who/david_attenborough.shtml]<b>[/url]</b>

I've read Douglas Adams' trilogy in five parts, from HHG to Mostly Harmless. They are probably my favourite books. Because of that, I'm probably not going to enjoy the movie at all. However, the screenplay was written by Douglas Adams himself, so maybe it won't suck.

I guess I'll wait and see...

If you think you're not going to enjoy it because of their your favourite books then i'd recommend you treat the film like a separate entity in its own right. Sure, it's not going to be super-faithful to the book but who really cares? Enjoy the film for what it is, not what you think it should be.

Course, if the film sucks (as a film....and not a 'film of the book') then go ahead and nitpick :wink:

Heh, i've even confused myself there!

? quote:I NEED to read the book before I see the movie. I made the
mistake of watching the Lord of the Rings before reading the books and
so I couldn't stop envisioning Elijah Wood as Frodo when reading.
That's enough to drive a man crazy. I can't stand Elijah Wood,
except in "Sin City" because he's mute.

The first book should only take you about a night to read through. Unless you get headaches from innumerable paradoxes ...

The film, in general, from what I've seen in the trailers, looks spot on. Things that have me excited: Sam Rockwell as Zaphod, Alan Rickman as Marvin, and the vogons are puppets, not CG. Which, to me, is a Godsend. Puppets and miniatures aren't used like they used to be, which is a shame, because it's a very good method. It's "amazing" when CG, miniatures, and puppets are molded seamlessly in a film.

Oh and French Toast: Don't Panic, I'm sure it'll be good.

Heh, nice one Crono. I'm sure I'm just preparing myself for the worst, and expecting it, that way if it's good, I'll be really happy! It's brilliant...

Agent Smith said:
Are you serious Orph, I mean, maybe its a primarily Australian thing, but we joke around all the time with stereotypes. Nothing serious of course, at least no one I know, but there's all sorts of stereotypical characteristics for various groups.

Anyway, before it gets de-railed anymore, perhaps it might be good to get back on topic.

Well, of course we make jokes from time to time, basically in light of a particularly silly event. IE "Look at that silly Pollock" or some other nonsense.. around here, quite a few posts concerning "Americans" are far from jesting IMO.. but in all fairness, its not epidemic in any way so i am not overly concerned. i mostly say "where the heck did that come from?"

and yes PLEASE get my thread back on topic before someone screws up and gets it locks on me.

So I took out my 3 DVD set of StarWars Episodes 4,5,6. And started watching them. I then watched DVD 1 and 2. So I am now ready for Star Wars 3.. Just a few more days.. God I hope its worth it.

Haha I did the exact same thing!

It just reaffirmed my feelings that 1 and 2 are pretty bad. While 4, 5, and 6 are amazing.

I'm sorry, 4, 5, and 6 aren't "amazing", they're good, but not amazing. From an acting point alone, it is sub-par. I'm not saying I don't love Star Wars or anything, I just think it's about time people recognized that they aren't masterpieces.

I think a group of friends and I are watching Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Clone Wars I and II before seeing the midnight showing of Revenge of the Sith, then coming back and watching A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi.
Oh and by the way, Clone Wars is good. Kicks the ever loving crap out of Attack of the Clones (which would have been better simply called "Clone Wars" or something as such. Every other SW film has a title with "deep" meaning past a physical act)
I've only seen Attack of the Clones once though ... and that was three years ago in theaters. Maybe, I'll think higher of it, not sure though (doubt it).
Oh and if Grevious is anything like he is in Clone Wars: I'll crap my pants. Awesome. (The more mature rating for the film also has me "pumped" all SW films are PG except EPIII, which means: VIOLENCE AND KILLING! that means: less lines from Hayden Christensen :biggrin: )

I guess I associate the original trilogy with my childhood. I
remember watching it as a kid and being so enamored with the
plot. You don't care much for acting when you're little.
That's sort of carried over I guess. It doesn't matter to me that
there are awkward scenes between Han and Leia in the third movie that
make me cringe now. Objectively it's not amazing, you're right,
but it's definitely better than the dialogue and Hayden's acting in
episodes one and two.

Crono said:
I'm sorry, 4, 5, and 6 aren't "amazing", they're good, but not amazing. From an acting point alone, it is sub-par. I'm not saying I don't love Star Wars or anything, I just think it's about time people recognized that they aren't masterpieces.

WOA hold up a sec. When these were made, they were in fact masterpieces. Ok held to todays standards they would be sub-par.. but for the time period they were made.. Masterpieces.

4 5 and 6 are amazing. Although they might not have the greatest acting, each character has their little querks and you can relate to at least one of them in some way. The originals were brilliant, and I still love them. However, Lucas seems to be declining in his old age. 1 and 2 were some of the worst movies I've ever seen. The writing sucked, and Jar Jar Binks made me go on a killing spree. No doubt that the R rated episode 3 will suck. IMO, Lucas is finishing his double trilogy purely for self gratification, just to say he's done it. 1 2 and consequently 3 just aren't at the same level that 4 5 and 6 were. Of course, I and everyone else will see it anyways just because it's such a big deal that he's finally finishing it.

4,5 and 6 were great because they were set in the "Once upon a time" atmosphere. 1 and 2 sucked because they were a combination of sesame street and crouching tiger, hidden dragon.

I hate it when movie trends and popularity influence a theme that was set previously in another era.

hopefully, they will remove the sesame street parts with Ep3.

and i would classify 4,5 and 6 as "Classics" not "Amazing"

French Toast said:
The writing sucked, and Jar Jar Binks made me go on a killing spree.

How many bars of soap did you have to pick up in order to get internet privileges? :wink:

...I don't get it. Do you think Jar Jar is good? He completely shattered what was good was left in the movie.

Orpheus said:
4,5 and 6 were great because they were set in the "Once upon a time" atmosphere. 1 and 2 sucked because they were a combination of sesame street and crouching tiger, hidden dragon.

I hate it when movie trends and popularity influence a theme that was set previously in another era.

hopefully, they will remove the sesame street parts with Ep3.

and i would classify 4,5 and 6 as "Classics" not "Amazing"

I read that it got a NC17 or a PG13 rating.. the only film to ever get such a high rating.. even heard there is some minor sorta nudity, and lots and lots of violence. YAY!

MoneyShot said:
I read that it got a NC17 or a PG13 rating.. the only film to ever get such a high rating.. even heard there is some minor sorta nudity, and lots and lots of violence. YAY!

the article states:

Dooku gets decapitated
Padme' gets killed
Anakin gets maimed by Obi-wan

I knew from lore that Anakin gets hurt so bad that he was forced to wear the black suit, but I never knew it was Obi-wan who did it personally.

? quoting MoneyShot

I read that it got a NC17 or a PG13 rating.. the only film to ever get such a high rating.. even heard there is some minor sorta nudity, and lots and lots of violence. YAY!

the article states:
Dooku gets decapitated
Padme' gets killed
Anakin gets maimed by Obi-wan
I knew from lore that Anakin gets hurt so bad that he was forced to wear the black suit, but I never knew it was Obi-wan who did it personally.

Thanks, dick.

Just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you want to know how. :razz: If Padme' dies, then several years will pass within the movie its self. Since, Leia remembers her mother and such.

PG-13, money.

And by ANY ERAS STANDARDS the acting in the original trilogy is generally sub-par. There were many movies made before the 70s with better acting. I'm sorry, I consider acting as part of something that makes a movie good.

Why are you still bitching over Binks? Get over it. No one bitched about C3PO in the original movies, he's just as annoying. Pay attention to them sometime.

However, I read that for Revenge of the Sith Lucus got an acting director, since he "has no time to really converse with the actors" thus, the good actors are still good and the bad actors are terrible, BUT the acting in general should be leaps and bounds over Attack of the Clones.

OMFG. Put spoilers in black font you f**king retard. You don't have to ruin a movie for everyone else just because your pissed off. Your just as much of a retard as the people on planet Half Life that kept giving away HL2's ending.

Watched the Amityville Horror the other day, although I have heard from
some others (mainly people at my GF's school) saying it was carp, I
have to say I liked this film, the director certianly knows what he is
doing and definatly succeeds in building up suspense and drawing me
into it. There were part's of the movie which dragged on a bit in the
middle and spoiler <span style="color: black;">the ending seemed quite rushhed and could have been improved./spoiler but the rest of the movie made up a very good horror film.

</span>

Spartan said:
OMFG. Put spoilers in black font you f**king retard. You don't have to ruin a movie for everyone else just because your pissed off. Your just as much of a retard as the people on planet Half Life that kept giving away HL2's ending.

Are you forgetting exactly who you are talking to when you type? or is this just a brain fart?

sighs

I didn't type anything that was not publicly posted elsewhere. its not as if i saw the movie already and posted any secret parts. :rolleyes:

I'll let it slide this once, but only this once. :/