Surprisingly the Last Movie You Saw Didn't Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='crushtopher']Did you ever read the book? They did a horrible job with casting and the overall script was garbage. Typical Hollywood thrashing of a good book...[/quote]


Nope, not one of the books I have read. I didn't say it was a good movie, just better than I thought. ;)
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Freaked

Sometimes, it's nice when a comedy throws subtlety out the door in favor of blatant retarded humor.[/QUOTE]

man is that such an awesome fucking film. Alex Winter and Randy Quaid fucking rocked in that. And to top it off, Winter's next movie, Fever, though odd to see come from, is an amazing neo-noir film. Wish he didn't disappear after that film

oh yeah, tonight I watched the Terry Jones' live version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Its been a long time since I've watched it and though its probably the weakest film from him, its essential if you dig Monty Python
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']man is that such an awesome fucking film. Alex Winter and Randy Quaid fucking rocked in that. And to top it off, Winter's next movie, Fever, though odd to see come from, is an amazing neo-noir film. Wish he didn't disappear after that film

oh yeah, tonight I watched the Terry Jones' live version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Its been a long time since I've watched it and though its probably the weakest film from him, its essential if you dig Monty Python[/quote]

Added both of those to my Netflix, as they sound interesting.

Just finished up Battleship Potemkin, and I forgot that I watched The Omega Man earlier today.
 
Do you mean at home, outside or both? My standards for watching at home is a lot lower than when I'm actually putting down cash. I just finished watching The Aviator at home and enjoyed it. Hell, I recently downloaded a lot of movies and they were all worth at least one go through. If we're talking about at the movie theaters, I don't do that a lot, maybe twice or thrice a year, but I still love 300. I have no idea how a movie like No Country for Old Men got Academy Awards when 300 was a better action flick.
 
[quote name='Hostile']I have no idea how a movie like No Country for Old Men got Academy Awards when 300 was a better action flick.[/quote]
Because No Country For Old Men isn't an action flick.
 
The only reason to watch that movie was for the action. It wasn't thought provoking for shit. I liked the guy's Silencer Shotgun blowing people's body parts off and that's it.
 
[quote name='Hostile']The only reason to watch that movie was for the action. It wasn't thought provoking for shit. I liked the guy's Silencer Shotgun blowing people's body parts off and that's it.[/quote]

How does it feel to be a dog of Hollywood.
 
I watched American Gangster last night. It was good, but felt like a poor man's Scorsese film.

I also watched Next. I was expecting absolutely nothing from it as I got it on HD-DVD for $6 and just bought it because it was cheap, but it actually wasn't terrible if you're not expecting much from it. Some of the CG stuff looked absolutely terrible and was really distracting though.
 
[quote name='Hostile']The only reason to watch that movie was for the action. It wasn't thought provoking for shit. I liked the guy's Silencer Shotgun blowing people's body parts off and that's it.[/quote]
You're the reason why we get so many shallow movies that have nothing more to them than action.
 
Tell me how No Country for Old Men was thought provoking or better than 300. I implore you. I have also already stated I watch a movie at a theater twice or thrice a year and do not buy DVDs but download them so you can't blame me for shit. If anything, you're the reason why shitty movies like No Country for Old Men are rated so highly when they don't deserve it.

Note: I really don't think No Country for Old Men is shitty but just wanted to exacerbate the situation because as a movie, I really did have more fun with 300 and didn't think No Country for Old Men was Oscar-worthy.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Are you seriously saying that you found 300 to be more thought-provoking than NCFOM?

You're beyond all help.[/quote]

Well, 300 may be the right amount for their comprehension skills. Think of his ability to process thought as an empty glass, and thoughts take the form of liquid. Now, if you take a drop of thought-liquid (300), it falls just fine and rests in the glass. Then you get a bathtub full of thought (NCFOM), dump that in the glass, well, it will probably just overflow and knock the glass over, and completely fuck their mind. Or they're just stupid, and this analogy was worthless.

Last movie I saw was Right At Your Door. Saw the twist a mile away, but meh, I enjoyed it.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Well, 300 may be the right amount for their comprehension skills. Think of his ability to process thought as an empty glass, and thoughts take the form of liquid. Now, if you take a drop of thought-liquid (300), it falls just fine and rests in the glass. Then you get a bathtub full of thought (NCFOM), dump that in the glass, well, it will probably just overflow and knock the glass over, and completely fuck their mind. Or they're just stupid, and this analogy was worthless.

Last movie I saw was Right At Your Door. Saw the twist a mile away, but meh, I enjoyed it.[/quote]

You're all fucking retarded (and this goes towards SneakyPenguin for the most part). I said I enjoyed 300 more than No Country for Old Men. I never said 300 was thought provoking. I said either prove to me how No Country for Old Men was thought provoking or tell me why it was better than 300. I might not have the "right amount" of comprehension skills but you clearly have none.

Everyone wants to argue the greatness of that movie but I still haven't gotten my answer.
 
[quote name='Hostile']You're all fucking retarded (and this goes towards SneakyPenguin for the most part). I said I enjoyed 300 more than No Country for Old Men. I never said 300 was thought provoking. I said either prove to me how No Country for Old Men was thought provoking or tell me why it was better than 300. I might not have the "right amount" of comprehension skills but you clearly have none.

Everyone wants to argue the greatness of that movie but I still haven't gotten my answer.[/quote]

Oh I'm sorry, did I touch a nerve? Good. Your ilk (the ones that actually pay for their entertainment) are the reason most American cinema is in the shitter. Go watch a Michael Bay film.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Oh I'm sorry, did I touch a nerve? Good. Your ilk (the ones that actually pay for their entertainment) are the reason most American cinema is in the shitter. Go watch a Michael Bay film.[/quote]

You might have touched a nerve before but now I just really think you're actually retarded. I pay for two or three tickets for a few movies a year and they're all of a sudden my ilk.

I'm looking up IMDB and I have actually watched two Michael Bay movies, Pearl Harbor and Armageddon.
 
[quote name='Hostile']You might have touched a nerve before but now I just really think you're actually retarded. I pay for two or three tickets for a few movies a year and they're all of a sudden my ilk.

I'm looking up IMDB and I have actually watched two Michael Bay movies, Pearl Harbor and Armageddon.[/quote]

You said I have a lack of comprehension, yet you seem to be greatly lacking in that category yourself. Either you're ignorant, or you're purposely looking for the incorrect message in my posts. I specified those that buy entertainment to differentiate them from you, who pirates. They are your ilk because they like their movies packaged in stupidity and explosions, just like a special little somebody. Need it explained further, or do you just want to misinterpret with post like so many others and make an ass of yourself?
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']You said I have a lack of comprehension, yet you seem to be greatly lacking in that category yourself. Either you're ignorant, or you're purposely looking for the incorrect message in my posts. I specified those that buy entertainment to differentiate them from you, who pirates. They are your ilk because they like their movies packaged in stupidity and explosions, just like a special little somebody. Need it explained further, or do you just want to misinterpret with post like so many others and make an ass of yourself?[/quote]

You need to take your English classes again because when you say "Your ilk (the ones that actually pay for their entertainment)," that means my kind are the ones that actually pay for their entertainment and the reason why most American cinema is in the shitter. Notice how that doesn't make sense? Good.

I find it funny how I talk about the last movie I really enjoyed but all of a sudden I'm all about movies packed with stupidity and explosions when you have no idea about the other movies I liked.
 
[quote name='Hostile']You need to take your English classes again because when you say "Your ilk (the ones that actually pay for their entertainment)," that means my kind are the ones that actually pay for their entertainment and the reason why most American cinema is in the shitter. Notice how that doesn't make sense? Good[/quote]

Oh thank you mister English god, for telling me what MY sentence means. Actually, you're wrong. If I was saying what you say I said, it would have been:

Your ilk, the ones who actually pay, etc

My statement is correct, as much as it pains you to admit it.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Oh thank you mister English god, for telling me what MY sentence means. Actually, you're wrong. If I was saying what you say I said, it would have been:

Your ilk, the ones who actually pay, etc

My statement is correct, as much as it pains you to admit it.[/quote]

That's basically the exact same thing I said so it's right and you still don't make any sense.
 
[quote name='Hostile']That's basically the exact same thing I said so it's right and you still don't make any sense.[/quote]

Christ man, you say I need to retake English, did you ever even take it at all? Of course it says the same god damn thing you said, I modified the sentence to match your statement, which is a different gorram sentence than the one that I wrote. You ilk, the ones that like their movies full of explosions and light on thought (except the ones that actually buy movies, unlike you) are the ones responsible for the decline in quality in cinemas. There, now that I completely fucking spelled it out for you, maybe you can finally grasp this simple concept.
 
Escape from New York - I wanted to see why it's famous. I still don't really know. On the other hand, I now know where David Hayter got Snake's voice.
 
[quote name='bmachine']Across the Universe.

It was a giant fucking trainwreck.[/quote]

Seconded, with the exception of Joe cocker, the quintuplet of sexy nurses played by selma hayek for some bizarre reason and the Army recruiting scene it was an absolute turd sandwhich. its like they dont know how to take a subtle approach to expressing a metaphor.
 
Manufacturing Dissent
7/10
A solid, if lightweight deconstruction of Michael Moore and his wrong-doings


The Hammer
7/10
Eh, good stuff, entertaining, but probably more of a rental than a theatrical
 
The Right Stuff (6/10)

Been years since I'd seen it, and somehow I remembered it being better. Not bad, though. Wife had never seen it and enjoyed it, but was dismayed at the length.
 
Catch Me If You Can

I've been watching too many Leonardo DiCaprio movies lately... I should get started on Flags of our Father and Letters from Iwo Jima but they seem like heavy movies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top