Last Film Watched Thread.

Full Metal Jacket.

Hostage (2005) 8/10

What about that film is making it grow on you? It was a 1/10.

Well, first time I saw it, I was expecting a film like Die Hard. Didn't deliver. Then I read the book. Second time I saw it, I was expecting it to be true to the book. Disappointed. Third time I saw it, it grew on me. Bruce Willis is good in it and there are a lot of great action scenes. The atmosphere is dark and moody, which is a plus for a thriller. Fourth time I saw it, it grew on me more. Fifth time, more so. This time, it's worthy of an 8/10. Still, horrible ending and a few too many errors that I'll talk about next week (unless we aren't doing that weekly thing on this forum).

The "Film Viewing Log" forum took the place of the "Last Week, You Watched" forum. Same thing, different name.

Disturbia - 8.0/10

Superbad (Greg Mottola, 2007): 9/10



I went to the drive-in and it was terrible experience. I got bit like seven times and I couldn't focus on the film because I was too busy itching myself. Also, it was extremely humid. I still love it, though, I didn't laugh as much thanks to the above.

Reign of Fire (Rob Bowman, 2002): 4/10



A big and dumb blockbuster that completely puts Bale to waste.

Yeah, I despise Reign of Fire. I watched it for Bale and even he was put completely to waste. So horrible.

Jeebus wrote:

Yeah, I despise Reign of Fire. I watched it for Bale and even he was put completely to waste. So horrible.

I remember renting it a few years ago (that being at the age of 12/13) and shuting it off in the middle. McConaughey was a complete joke and I couldn't take him seriously. I can't forget how awful the writing was.

Die Hard with a Vengeance - 5/10



Despite some good performances and managing to retain much of the humour from the other Die Hard films, this entry suffers mainly due to the lack of much action scenes. This film just fails to be much exciting and essentially shares a similar flaw to Casino Royale: Much like the poker scenes in that film took away from the action, so do the riddle-solving ones. We don't want to see McClane solving riddles, we want to see him fighting terrorists.

In addition, the fact that McClane is called to the scene by the actual villain right at the beginning of the film, kind of loses the whole "wrong time at the wrong place" magic that the other ones have. However, as mentioned before, I did like the performances and those are what save this film from being a complete dud. Bruce Willis is his usual one liner delivering self and Sam Jackson provides a great performance as well. Jeremy Irons also does a good job and despite the averageness of the film I would probably rank him as my second favourite villain of the Die Hard franchise.

Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire (2004) 6.5/10



I'll give my thoughts tomorrow.

Hmm. Odd you didn't comment on my write-up on Die Hard with a Vengeance, David.

Re-watch: E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial - 10/10



An absolutely magical film, helped by a fantastic direction by Steven Spielberg, a charming script by Melissa Mathison and a brilliant score by John Williams. The young actors do a tremendous job as well, especially the 6-year-old Drew Barrymore whose future performances haven't even come close to her work in E.T. A souring achievement and even on the upteenth viewing, it stands up as a wonderful film.

Re-watch: Blazing Saddles - 10/10



An incredibly hilarious film, Mel Brooks manages to show not only the racism of 1874, but present day as well. Thanks to delightful performances, a terrific soundtrack and a very funny screenplay, Blazing Saddles succeeds immensely. This will be a favourite of mine for many, many years.

It was on TV and I thought I'd watched it.

X2: X-Men United (Brett Ratner, 2003): 8/10 (2nd Viewing)



Very enjoyable and quite an improvement upon the first. The best of the X-Men Trilogy. X-Men 3 on the other hand.

I saw about 3/4 of Rushmore on TV and I'd give it a 7.5/10

Pleasantville (Gary Ross, 1998): 9/10



For me, it's easily one of the most visually fantastic and original films of 1998. I had really forgotten how much I enjoyed it and its worthwhile content.

Haha, I spent all day writing this. Enjoy:

Boogie Nights (1997) by Paul Thomas Anderson.



Boogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's. I can actually understand why many would dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do, that it's topnotch film making.
The direction and acting in this film surpass good and reach the level of brilliance. There is not one scene in this movie that isn't amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is simply stunning.
Boogie Nights draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind of don't want it to....
This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through.
Boogie Nights tells the literal rise-and-fall tale of young Eddie Adams (Wahlberg). Eddie is just a dopey kid from Torrance, California who wants something more out of life. His room is soaked in muscle-bound, naive Americana. His dreams are far bigger than his potential, but not quite as large as his...special gift. His bald-headed southern gent quickly raises the attention and eyebrows of the booming, omni-present adult film industry. Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds as the film's twinkle-eyed Papa Bear) gets wind of Eddie's hidden talent and decides to put him in a movie.
Before you can say "deep-throat," Eddie has changed his name to Dirk Diggler and exposed his massive member to a wide-eyed public. Fame and fortune make Dirk's acquaintance, as do a bevy of local porn celebs. His friends and co-workers become his makeshift family, but it soon proves to be a Sunday picnic like no other. As the feel-good 70s give way to the coke-addled, video-friendly 80s, Dirk & Co. begin a dangerous backslide.
Anderson knows how to captivate his audience and take complete control of every scene. When Jack Horner first meets Eddie, Anderson slyly uses stars in the backdrop, a sign of things to come, and hidden symbolism as finely acute as it can be. The opening scene is three minutes, a long tracking shot that follows Jack and Amber into a night club, where most of the characters are first introduced.
Julianne Moore (excellent as usual) is the porn queen Amber Waves and she is sorta like the love interest. We soon discover that there is more to her than meets the eye and in a powerful scene we see how porn has affected her social life. Burt Reynolds pulled a John Travolta and revived his career for a very short time with his great job in this movie.
A very busty Heater Graham plays the hot Roller girl, who is absolutely fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in the Limo, towards the end.
Don Cheadle plays Buck who is having a bit of an identity crisis, he can't figure out what he wants to be and through out the movie we see him go through different phases till the end we see him as the way he wants others to view him. A very skin John C. Reilly plays Reed who becomes Dirk's best friend and sticks with him through all the drama that happens to him. William H. Macy, Nicole Parker, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Luis Guzman round up the cast as the family in this really harsh industry.
The script is perfect, so are the set locations and the score/soundtrack. This film is simply brilliant, flawless. Easily, modern perfection.

10/10.

The Big Lebowski (1998) by Joel Coen.



Definitely among my favourite comedies. It's delightfully written, directed with poise and acted with extravagance and excellence, especially Moore and Goodman (Bridges is also excellent). The Big Lebowski is not for all tastes, but, if you get it, is one of the most engaging and side-splitting films around, and one which is eminently quotable: "Walter, you're my friend and I love you, but sooner or later you're going to have to face the fact that you're a goddam moron." All the characters were perfectly written, and that's what makes this film so great. Every scene and every line of dialogue is memorable and hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. Jeff 'The Dude' Lebowski is a man living a minimalistic existence. He has no job, no ambitions and no worries. His days, be they weekdays or weekends, are spent bowling, driving around or having the occasional acid flashback. His pals are Walter Sobchak, a security expert and half-crazed Vietnam vet and Donny, a humble, mousy little man who is left out of almost every conversation. Julianne Moore's performance makes this film even better.

9/10

Live Free or Die Hard (2007) by Len Wiseman.



Well, the original is probably the greatest action film ever made. This film is more-than-a-decent sequel, it's simply awesome. John McClane's lines are hilarious and cool. Entertaining as hell, with some great characters, this film is fabolous, really enjoyable, and probably the best of the year so far (Note: Tons of '07 films hasn't been released here yet), and the cinema experience (three times ) was amazing. This is the example of what a good action film is.

8/10

The Game (1997) by David Fincher.



I have to rewatch Se7en, but right now this is my favourite Fincher. What makes this film standout, is the fact of its originality, which in this day and age, is very very rare. Also, there's always the ongoing question? When and has the game even started? Near the end you can see Douglas losing it... desperation sets in and you genuinely feel the mans pain and distress... your hoping his find out what's going on... This film is mysterious, like an episode of The Twilight Zone, it starts dark, and then near the end, it becomes surreal, like truly living a nightmare. It has a sinister atmosphere and tone, and every time you think you know what's going on, some new twist sends you back to the drawing board. But it's not just an excersise in "trying to figure out what's happening"...it really pulls you in. Its a psychological mind-screw but by the end you will be more satisfied than you could have imagined. ideally, you want to see this with the lights off and no distractions. make sure you have no distractions around and you are in the mood to dedicate two hours to getting thrilled and amazed by all the twists and turns of "The Game."
Michael Douglas is very appropriate for his role in this movie, he was incredible as was Sean Penn and Debora Kara Unger. He finds real levels of panic and desperation in his performance here that are fascinating coming from such a normally controlled actor. I could understand his fear. The last scene on top of the building is fantastic. The darkness and gothic styles are used to great effect. The way that CRS operated was chilling and disturbing, the twists were unpredictable and it left me in awe... And I think this is the key in the film, with Nicholas Van Orton who is unappreciative of what he has, what he lost and how he lived his life. But you can have all the money and security in the world and it wont always mean you'll ever be happy.. it is a shame it took something so sinister to make him change his beliefs and way of life, but he does change and I think you can take inspiration in your own life from the realisation that life is passing by and you do have to live each moment like it was your last, before it's too late. He is very much a Scrooge character at the beginning of the movie -- cold and isolated, mean and unhappy. One set piece after another humiliates, unnerves, and ultimately terrifies him, until he has no control left over what used to be his life, and finally he can take action with no thought for consequences. The music is outstanding, mysterious, captivating, like the film. I can't put a single bad word in here, I took the film as a journey.. I don't start questioning every plot hole like others have seemed to on here... Many viewers don't like the twist (as can be seen from some of the comments here), contending that it makes the whole film a waste of time, but I can't say I agree with them. "The Game," much like "Se7en," is both an extraordinarily well-crafted and extremely thought-provoking movie, and it actually made me want to go out and find similar style films. "Keeps you on the edge of your seat" is an oft-used cliche to describe thrillers, but it definitely applies here. I was blown away by it, and even though the ending solves all the mysteries, it is still a movie with replay value I think. Also, the ending scene show us that we live in a very strange world. It's perfect, and among my favourite thrillers.

10/10

Big (1988) by Penny Marshall.



This is one of the most innocent, heart-warming and relaxing films I've seen recently. This movie captures the innocence of youth perfectly, thanks to Hanks (giving his best performance, in my opinion.) This charming, sweet, hilarious gem of a film works because Tom makes you believe he actually is a small boy in the body of an adult. Manages to be lighthearted and profound at the same time. The individual scenes are funny and memorable. Big is the story of 13 year-old Josh Baskin who is tired of missing out on all the privileges of being an adult. He's tired of simply being a kid. One night, he makes a drastic wish at a carnival arcade machine, and in the next day, he wakes up 30 years-old (or so). So the kid gets his wish, and while trying to return to normal, is a 13 year-old kid faced with a 30-year old's responsibilities. And it's a lot of fun. He works at a toy manufacturer. He gets the most excellent loft. Eventually, the 13-year-old must balance with the responsibilities of being a 30 year-old when Josh falls seriously in love with Susan (Perkins). Big is a lot of fun, and the ending is bittersweet when Josh must say goodbye to Susan. That scene right at the end brought a smile to my face, and must certainly go down as one of the most magical scenes in recent cinema.

10/10

Rear Window (1954) by Alfred Hitchcock.



'Rear Window' is almost entirely from the point of view from one little apartment. In that apartment lives Jeff, a photographer who is temporarily in a cast and therefore has nothing else to do than watch his neighbors. From time to time his girlfriend Lisa comes over, as does Stella who takes care of him since he has broken his leg.
Hitchcock introduces all characters Jeff sees in a brilliant way. We know what Jeff knows and we get to know them as he does. We see a lonely woman who practices dates on her own, a girl who dances all day and has dates with multiple men on the same time, some newly-weds making love all day, a couple that sleeps on the balcony since it is so hot, and a couple where strange things seem to happen. So thinks Jeff and we agree with him. After a fight the woman has disappeared and the man acts strange; he must have murdered her. We see the man doing suspicious things, although none of them would be considered suspicious in other circumstances, but together with Jeff, we are suspicious as well.
What we almost forget here is that Jeff is not doing a very decent thing. It is voyeurism in its purest form and Hitchcock forces us to watch along. Maybe Jeff is solving a crime, but we can't be sure. Rear Window' is as effective as a thriller can be, working better than almost every thriller made today. Knowing as much as the leading character does often results in a film that cheats in one way or another, but Hitchcock plays it honest. Over fifty years after its original release 'Rear Window' is still the perfect example of how to tell a suspenseful film. The last twenty minutes ranks easily as one of the most thrilling scenes I've seen. 'Rear Window' focuses more on seduction of crime, not in committing it but in the act of discovering it. At one point in the story, Jeff's friend convinces him that there was no murder, and Jeff is disappointed, not because someone wasn't dead but because he could no longer indulge into his fantasy that someone was. Rear Window' is one of the most retrospective movies I've ever seen. In a span of two hours, it examines some of the most recurrent themes in film. When we watch 'Rear Window,' it is really us watching someone watch someone else. And all the while, Hitchcock is sitting on the balcony and seeing our reaction. It is an act of voyeurism layered on top of itself, and it allows us to examine our own behavior as we are spellbound in Hitchcock's world. Visually, it's beautiful, Hitchcock designs the film in such a way so that his view is our view... He manipulates our emotions because he knows perfectly his work... He has the film synchronized in his mind... Shooting and editing are, for him, a simple mechanical phase... The creativity has all taken place before... The first shot of "Rear Window" is a perfect example of this reality - as his many typical first shots - for the way it visually transmits the whole complex to the audience... However, the technical accomplishments would be nothing without the engaging characters. Hitchcock doesn't use any kind of music... We hear natural sounds, occasional live music played in the surrounding apartment... "Rear Window" hides its own complexity... Stewart, tied in too by pressure from his high society girl who loves him and wants to marry him... Everything he sees out is related to this problem... He avoids to discuss marriage with her, though he himself does not seem to realize it... Among my favourites of all time, easily.

10/10

Rebel Without a Cause (1955) by Nicholas Ray.



One of the best film dealing with teenagers of all time, "Rebel Without a Cause" breaks away from to usual family stereotype and shows real people with real emotions that shocked moviegoers back then and even now, over 50 years later. Watching it you realize how ahead of it's time it really was.
Being picked up for drunkenness, Jim at the police station meets Judy and Plato, who would become bonded with him later to the point where their a family. A family that they've never had. Jim's parents have recently moved to the area, and he is depressed because his parents move house frequently and he finds it difficult to make new friends. The school which he attends is dominated by a culture of swaggering masculine bravado and aggression. A premium is placed on displays of physical courage
and on proving one's worth by fighting; the worst insult in this society
is 'chicken'.
Although Jim longs for friendship and acceptance, he is also skeptical of this ethos, which makes him something of an outsider. He quarrels with Buzz, the leader of the 'in-crowd', who accuses him of being a 'chicken'.
Jim feels forced to prove his courage against Buzz in a 'Chickie Run',
a ritualised test of nerve which involves driving stolen cars as close as possible to the edge of a cliff before jumping out. During the latter Buzz is killed when he can't escape from his car in time; it is Jim's feelings of guilt arising from this incident, and the desire of Buzz's friends for revenge, which provoke the film's tragic climax.
The film seems divided between claustrophobic nightmares and utopian fantasies. The skewed camera angles of Jim's scenes with his parents contrast with the heavenly dream of teenage paradise in the abandoned house. The staircase motif, in particular, seems to mark several of these transitions. Although much of the comment about this film has concentrated on the charismatic figure of Dean, the film is not just about Jim. It has at its heart a triangular relationship between Jim and two other teenagers, Judy and Plato, all of whom can be seen as a rebels- 'without a cause' in the sense that they are not motivated by any political or social ideal, but also 'with a cause' in the sense that there is a reason why they act as they do. Nevertheless, in each case the cause of their revolt is subtly different. Each has been brought up in a different way. Jim's parents are kindly and liberal, but are too indulgent. His father, in particular, is well-meaning but weak, unable to provide his son with intelligent advice or with a role-model of manliness. Plato is a strange, lonely boy. Our first view of him is at the police station suggest that he is emotionally disturbed. Plato's parents are separated; he never sees his father and his mother is frequently absent, leaving him to be brought up by an elderly maidservant. The shy Plato makes no attempt to fit in with the other students, who look down on him, but he sees Jim as a fellow-outsider and befriends him. I felt that there were hints
that Plato is sexually attracted to Jim and jealous of his growing friendship with Judy, but in the moral climate of the fifties these hints could not be fully developed. Whereas Jim's parents are over-liberal and Plato's absent, Judy's are cold and authoritarian. Judy and her father are seperated
by his uncomfortable relation to her sexuality. Unlike the boys, she starts off as a member of the 'in-crowd', as she is Buzz's girlfriend, but after Buzz's death a romance develops between Jim and herself. All of them are driven by internal demons springing from these conflicts. The film's themes aren't 'dated'. They seem to be the constant themes of youth:
idealism vs. cynicism, the turmoil of sexual awakening, the desire to fit in,
and the internal violence that constantly threatens to become external.
The main theme of the film, though, is the choice between the desire to conform to accepted values and the desire to rebel by finding one's own individual ones, a choice that seems particularly acute in one's teenage years. The film suggests that this choice is more complex than might be thought. Although the students are rebellious in the sense that they scorn the more peaceful values of adult life, they are also deeply conformist in the sense that they will tolerate no deviation from their own values. Jim, Judy and Plato can be seen as rebels against not only the older generation but also against the values of their contemporaries. This is part of the large band of oldies that stand the test of time by a substantial margin, an effortless cap on how teenage rebellion was faced on back in '55. Easily, Rebel Without a Cause, is the definition of a flawless film.

10/10.

estefanbe wrote:

Hmm. Odd you didn't comment on my write-up on Die Hard with a Vengeance, David.

Oh, I forgot all about it. It was 4:00 in the morning when I saw it. Anyway, it is lacking in the actions scenes that Die Hard 1 and 2 had, but every scene with Willis and Jackson were just so fun to watch, they almost make up for the lack of action scenes. And the action scenes there were were spectacular. Anyway, I prefer it to the other two sequels because it's got the greatest characters and villain, and it isn't exactly a rehash of the first, which the second one is (as much as I enjoyed the second one).

Bart, those are some great writeups. Must have taken you a long time. I do agree with you on The Game, though. Well acted, but once you watch it a second time and are aware of the twist, the plotholes and flaws in the rest of the film are overwhelming.

Estefan - Sad to see that you didn't quite like Die Hard With a Vengeance. I enjoyed it thoroughly and loved the way that Willis and Jackson played off of each other. Jeremy Irons is definitely one of the greatest villains of all time and only falls short to Rickman in terms of the franchise. I actually thought that Willis' deliver of the infamous line felt extremely forced and is my least favorite use of it in the franchise.

David (Lime) - Glad you liked X2. It's one of my favorite superhero movies and is definitely the best of the franchise. I hated X-Men 3 with every part of me though. It's one of the worst films I've ever seen. I LOVE Pleasantville! Everything about it is so comfortable and fantastic.

Bart - Those are some great writeups, and I'm glad that you've seen some great films recently. Always a pleasure to see love for Boogie Nights and Rebel Without A Cause. The only one I've seen that I really disagree with you on is The Big Lebowski. I just find it to be juvenile and revoltingly immature.

I'm incredibly interested in Pleasantville now...

I'm somewhat close to finishing Wings of Desire. I like it so far.

Fracture (Gregory Hoblit, 2007) 6.5/10



Just a little disappointing. It was fun watching Ryan Gosling and Anthony Hopkins in the same scenes together, what with Gosling being a great subtle actor and Hopkins being a master of charisma, but they were rarely together in a scene.

Also, it seemed like the only trick keeping Hopkins out of prison was that he made the murder weapon go missing. I figured out how he did it fairly early on. Without anything really interesting going on...well, it's hard to stay interested.

Watchable, though. Gosling and Hopkins turn in some good performances, if not as good as some of their others.

Saw II (The II is supposed to look like a chick's ugly ass fingers) - 4/10. Just like Saw I (no ugly fingers here) the sequel is ridiculous. Every single decision taken by every single character in this movie is so irrational and ridiculous that I want to take a shit on the TV. It's as if every character suffers from some kinda dementia. I can't take that shit.

Jeebs, I agree with you on Willis's delivery of his infamous line in Die Hard with a Vengeance. I would have preferred that he delivered it before shooting.

Superbad - 7/10



Funny film, but mostly due to McLovin and the two policemen. However, Jonah Hill and Michael Cera do provide their moments. Cera was amazing on Arrested Development and he does a good job here as well and the fact that the three main characters are so likable also helps things. The film does run way too long and there are some scenes that aren't that funny. I did laugh plenty of times and enjoyed myself. I could name three films this year that were funnier than Superbad, though.