[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
The Equalizer is the craziest fucking movie I've seen in a long time. The leaps of scale and logic were mind boggling. It was one of the silliest messes I've ever watched and I enjoyed the whole God damn thing.
Also, the whole main climax of the movie is set to that one song from that Game of Thrones trailer.
And you know what, it had good use of R-rated violence. The violence in the film was VERY brutal but never...I dunno, overly so like the shit that was the second Expendables. It was very 80s in that way.
It starts out so small scale and jumps to I shit you not, Denzel single handedly killing the entire Russian mafia/the most powerful businessman on Earth effortlessly, all because a Russian pimp beat up a hooker he sort of cared about slightly.
Also, the whole main climax of the movie is set to that one song from that Game of Thrones trailer.
And you know what, it had good use of R-rated violence. The violence in the film was VERY brutal but never...I dunno, overly so like the shit that was the second Expendables. It was very 80s in that way.
Just saw this movie tonight. Agree completely. I loved every minute of it.
Saw Poltergeist for the October horror challenge. Longer review here: http://boxd.it/3Ylcz
But I really loved it. This was one of the few big name horror movies that I had never seen.
But I really loved it. This was one of the few big name horror movies that I had never seen.
That movie terrified me as a kid. The mirror scene and the bloody clown especially frightened me. As an adult, I like the build up better than last bit of terror with the tree and the rope and stuff. Craig T Nelson is great too. Also, my dad's mom looked just like the old lady at the end of the film. I mean exactly, quite uncanny. We used to go to her house and say, "This house is clean."
Godzilla (2014)
It wasn't the worst Godzilla movie I've seen. That's honestly the best thing I can say about it. It was pretty bland.[DOUBLEPOST=1412263976,1412263634][/DOUBLEPOST]Silver Linings Playbook
Not sure why I decided to watch this, but I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected to. It took me a while to buy into caring about the characters. Looking back I'd wager that's deliberate on the movies part, as I was invested by all the beats where the movie was indicating I should be. Which is really interesting because the structure is pretty paint by numbers and predictable.
It wasn't the worst Godzilla movie I've seen. That's honestly the best thing I can say about it. It was pretty bland.[DOUBLEPOST=1412263976,1412263634][/DOUBLEPOST]Silver Linings Playbook
Not sure why I decided to watch this, but I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected to. It took me a while to buy into caring about the characters. Looking back I'd wager that's deliberate on the movies part, as I was invested by all the beats where the movie was indicating I should be. Which is really interesting because the structure is pretty paint by numbers and predictable.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hmph. I was twelve.
GasBandit
Staff member
Here's my thing for From Dusk Till Dawn, my second scary October movie. http://letterboxd.com/neoraven/film/from-dusk-till-dawn/
That's the movie my wife wants to watch tonight. She hasn't seen it yet ... it'll be interesting.
I hope someday enough time has passed since that movie came out that you could put it on for someone and tell them it's some gangster movie, so that what happens come as a complete surprise, because right now it feels like even people who've never seen it, never seen the trailers, etc., already know what happens in the middle.
This movie and FMJ are both 2 sided movies where I prefer the first half. When I watched FDTD, I thought it was strictly a horror flick. It was my first Tarantino movie, and so I wasn't familiar with his style at all. So, I was knocked out by the first part, and really let down by the second. Realism, and then boom, craziness.
This is pretty much how I feel about FDTD as well. I was already familiar with Tarantino when I saw it, but it just didn't mesh well for me. It felt like two different movies smooshed together. I always feel like it takes too long to get to the monster-horror, and by the time you do, it's not the tone/pacing you're used to. It's not a bad movie, just not a solid one, in my opinion.
Last edited:
It's entertaining; a very good Rodriguez movie and an adequate Tarantino one. I have to wonder what it would've been like as a Tarantino solo project, or his half of some Grindhouse experiment. I know how it gets when you're working on something with friends; you get less critical of your stuff and more excited about theirs, so it gets a little sloppy and you just hope those experiencing it have as much fun as you had making it. There's still some great stuff in the second half; like the Vietnam speech, or near the end about "psychos". I also liked that they were hell-demons. It was different than the Anne Rice stuff going on at the time.
Killing Bryan Cranston was so stupid. If you're not going to let it be 2 straight hours of monsters fighting, you probably should keep the only remotely interesting character alive.
Frozen
Finally got the chance to see this one, after many, many weeks where all available copies were always checked out of the library and after ducking spoilers for an entire year (plenty about the film was still a surprise). We even missed our first chance and had to put it off a few days until we could all sit down and watch it. We pop in the DVD, settle onto the couch...and, a few minutes into the film, my brother-in-law stops by the house, comes in, sits across the room from my father-in-law, and the two of them start to noisily shoot the breeze about hunting and guns for about the next 10 minutes, making it very difficult to follow the movie. But really, it wasn't much of a tragedy where the movie was concerned. The movie actually takes that long to get started, needing almost 20min to find its voice/legs. The stuff that happens prior to coronation day could all have been told in a series of stained glass panels, and it wouldn't have ruined the movie at all (though it would have meant losing a couple of the songs).
The character performances are fantastic. I'm not sure that Elsa's song is as much of a culture-shifting anthem as people make it out to be, but it was obvious to me that the cast's singing performances were fantastic, and the dialogue really did a good job making the characters feel "human," via the scripted stuff as well as what was obviously nonscripted stuff. Also, the creative departments really went all out doing the countryside settings, the ice designs, and the effects, which were all spectacular. I can only imagine what it must've looked like in 3D. I'm a little confused how it caught on well enough to break the 1 billion dollar mark, but it's very pretty, and I enjoyed watching the story and characters unfold. I would have no problem watching it again...though I would very likely skip ahead through the first ten minutes.
--Patrick
Finally got the chance to see this one, after many, many weeks where all available copies were always checked out of the library and after ducking spoilers for an entire year (plenty about the film was still a surprise). We even missed our first chance and had to put it off a few days until we could all sit down and watch it. We pop in the DVD, settle onto the couch...and, a few minutes into the film, my brother-in-law stops by the house, comes in, sits across the room from my father-in-law, and the two of them start to noisily shoot the breeze about hunting and guns for about the next 10 minutes, making it very difficult to follow the movie. But really, it wasn't much of a tragedy where the movie was concerned. The movie actually takes that long to get started, needing almost 20min to find its voice/legs. The stuff that happens prior to coronation day could all have been told in a series of stained glass panels, and it wouldn't have ruined the movie at all (though it would have meant losing a couple of the songs).
The character performances are fantastic. I'm not sure that Elsa's song is as much of a culture-shifting anthem as people make it out to be, but it was obvious to me that the cast's singing performances were fantastic, and the dialogue really did a good job making the characters feel "human," via the scripted stuff as well as what was obviously nonscripted stuff. Also, the creative departments really went all out doing the countryside settings, the ice designs, and the effects, which were all spectacular. I can only imagine what it must've looked like in 3D. I'm a little confused how it caught on well enough to break the 1 billion dollar mark, but it's very pretty, and I enjoyed watching the story and characters unfold. I would have no problem watching it again...though I would very likely skip ahead through the first ten minutes.
--Patrick
If Bryan Cranston had played the son's character, it would've still been more interesting. He has the acting power to bring life to even a dull, under-written character just from the way he performs.
We did watch From Dusk Till Dawn as planned. I probably haven't seen it in seven or eight years and overall I have to concur with others. It's not as good as I remember and the first half is certainly the stronger half. That said, the second half has solid effects and stuff to laugh about--my wife and I even picked out a few things in unison. So while not great, we still had a good time.
Slither (2006)
Started Nicktoberfest a bit late, sadly, as this was my first horror flick to watch so far due to life circumstances - three days into October. Ah well. Anyway.
It's a shame this movie turned out to be a box office flop. I think it's received a solid cult following, though. It should. It's a lot of fun in that monster drive-in kind of flick. Blatantly ridiculous at times, but with some fantastic special effects, I forgot how much I enjoyed this movie.
I wonder if there's a remote chance we could get a sequel, now that writer/director James Gunn hit the big time with Guardians of the Galaxy. Probably just wishful thinking.
Started Nicktoberfest a bit late, sadly, as this was my first horror flick to watch so far due to life circumstances - three days into October. Ah well. Anyway.
It's a shame this movie turned out to be a box office flop. I think it's received a solid cult following, though. It should. It's a lot of fun in that monster drive-in kind of flick. Blatantly ridiculous at times, but with some fantastic special effects, I forgot how much I enjoyed this movie.
I wonder if there's a remote chance we could get a sequel, now that writer/director James Gunn hit the big time with Guardians of the Galaxy. Probably just wishful thinking.
By the time Marvel Studios gets done with him, it'll almost be time for a remake
Hell, by the way Hollywood works these days, it's already time for a remake.
Every x-man has the secondary power of 'plot mechanic'.
Ronin (1998)
A very lean and taut thriller, a good warm-up to the gritty action of the Bourne movies (there's even a throw-away reference to a character from the Bourne novels). Some of the best car chases in recent years. This time I noticed something - DeNiro basically sizes up everyone else on the team very quickly, and presents them with some kind of challenge or question to get to who they really are and what their motives might be. Some of it seems like just making conversation, others not so much. The only character he really doesn't "test" is Larry, the wheelman (Skipp Sudduth). Why? Because Larry kept quiet and didn't ask any probing questions, and when told to tell Vincent what he needed, he showed expertise in the subject of cars and performance modifications - brands, what could be off the shelf, what required custom work, etc. In short, he didn't need to be tested because he was exactly what he seemed to be.
Once I had this theory that Spence was MI-6 or the like - him asking Sam "Don't I know you?" and Sam responding, "I don't think so, I'd have remembered," was basically like Felix Leiter and James Bond - Spence was acting if they were working together, and Sam telling him no, and to let him handle it. That's why Spence then starts talking a big game that he couldn't back up, and got fired.
However, that doesn't really add up. It's much more likely that he was a unit armorer or other such rear-echelon soldier pretending to be former SAS in order to hire himself out as a mercenary.
A very lean and taut thriller, a good warm-up to the gritty action of the Bourne movies (there's even a throw-away reference to a character from the Bourne novels). Some of the best car chases in recent years. This time I noticed something - DeNiro basically sizes up everyone else on the team very quickly, and presents them with some kind of challenge or question to get to who they really are and what their motives might be. Some of it seems like just making conversation, others not so much. The only character he really doesn't "test" is Larry, the wheelman (Skipp Sudduth). Why? Because Larry kept quiet and didn't ask any probing questions, and when told to tell Vincent what he needed, he showed expertise in the subject of cars and performance modifications - brands, what could be off the shelf, what required custom work, etc. In short, he didn't need to be tested because he was exactly what he seemed to be.
Once I had this theory that Spence was MI-6 or the like - him asking Sam "Don't I know you?" and Sam responding, "I don't think so, I'd have remembered," was basically like Felix Leiter and James Bond - Spence was acting if they were working together, and Sam telling him no, and to let him handle it. That's why Spence then starts talking a big game that he couldn't back up, and got fired.
However, that doesn't really add up. It's much more likely that he was a unit armorer or other such rear-echelon soldier pretending to be former SAS in order to hire himself out as a mercenary.
I would like to amend this slightly. I would not skip through the opening ice-cutting scene. That one was good enough to keep.
Bonus: you can now use Roger Murtaugh's signature line in your everyday life without irony.
--Patrick
Best bet: they wanted to keep Kitty Pryde relevant to the story (because she was the one sent back in time in the original comic), so they decided to make her the one to send Wolverine back in time.