Last Film Watched Thread.

*Gremlins - 8/10. Phoebe Cates is hot and those crazyass monsters were awesome. Everything else kinda sucked. I wanted to see more of monsters killing people, more of monsters drinking and more of Phoebe Cates supplying the monsters with alcohol (preferably in a red bikini whereas she unhooks her top from time to time).

Well, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and a three-hour film about one of the most famous just doesn't peak my interest. Maybe someday, I will see it.

Meh, I'm not in the mood for write-ups. Maybe, later I will write some if I feel like it.

Re-watch: The Lion King - 9/10



Princess Mononoke - 7/10

I haven't seen Mononoke in years, how was it?

I liked it, but certainly not as much as Miyasaki's other films. The animation was great and the voice work and action scenes were well done. But the dialogue driven scenes seemed to drag and the whole affair was rather soul-less with none of the heart that Miyasaki's films typically. Yet, I enjoyed it thanks to a creative storyline and the things I enjoyed above. I don't understand the immense acclaim it receives, though.

Mononoke is Miyazaki's most intense, violent and epic film. All his other films are relatively lighthearted (although Howl and Nausicaä have their serious moments).

I find Mononoke to be Miyazaki's best and by far deepest film. The creative visuals make the film's implicit metaphors concerning nature more powerful.

Hunter wrote:

due to the outstanding editing and presentation, its one of the most involving films ever made. Possibly the most involving. You will love it.

Its not just discussion, by the way. A lot more investigation.

Wrong.

Shadow wrote:

JFK is easily one of the best films of its decade, and, like Jack said, it's also gripping. It puts The Silence of the Lambs to shame.

No x2.

In case you guys didn't know, half of the 'involving investigation' was made up of completely fictionalized facts and most of the actual facts were greatly exaggerated.

Flas of our Fathers - 6/10. Mixing the war scenes with the city scenes didn't work too well for me. I thought the visuals were really neat, it being Iceland and all...

I am well aware that the "facts" presented are dated... but I don't care and it doesn't effect my viewing pleasure of the film.

Hunter wrote:

I am well aware that the "facts" presented are dated... but I don't care and it doesn't effect my viewing pleasure of the film.

Dated? I said fictionalized, meaning untrue.

Yeah Sverrir, Flags of Our Fathers really threw me off by jumping around all over the place. It was insane.

I meant outdated... I wondered whether they were actual theories or not.

Hunter wrote:

I meant outdated... I wondered whether they were actual theories or not.

I'm pretty confident that those theories have always been considered conspiracy theories and as such should never be taken seriously.

Quote :

In case you guys didn't know, half of the 'involving investigation' was made up of completely fictionalized facts and most of the actual facts were greatly exaggerated.

In case you didn't know, it's a movie, not a History Channel special. I don't think Stone crafting a film based on his ideas would have any effect on how involving the film would be.

Shadow wrote:

In case you didn't know, it's a movie, not a History Channel special. I don't think Stone crafting a film based on his ideas would have any effect on how involving the film would be.

Correctamundo.

Yeah, Joey got it right on the money.

Haha sweet job tacking a 'ditto' onto Joey's opinion after you made a mess of your own. That was beautiful. In my opinion, if you're going to try and make a hard-hitting investigation drama on a very controversial topic you'd better keep the facts on the forefront. Adding all of the stuff he did makes it seem amatureish and disrespectful to the actual matter. If you don't think the facts are that entertaining, then you shouldn't make a movie about it.

Too late now...

Easy Rider - 5/10. Really, really slow film. It was mainly just filming a bunch of sand and bikes and shit with some random rock songs pumping in the background. Dennis Hopper clearly can't direct. Jack Nicholson pretty much saved the entire film when he entered the plot halfway through and exited 20 minutes later. A killer-performance that raised the film from 2/10 to 5/10.

Totally agree, Sverrir. Hugh disappointment of a film.

Quote :

Haha sweet job tacking a 'ditto' onto Joey's opinion after you made a mess of your own. That was beautiful. In my opinion, if you're going to try and make a hard-hitting investigation drama on a very controversial topic you'd better keep the facts on the forefront. Adding all of the stuff he did makes it seem amatureish and disrespectful to the actual matter. If you don't think the facts are that entertaining, then you shouldn't make a movie about it.

While you have a strong point, and it may be valid in many cases, I don't think it applies here. The JFK assasination is something filled with speculation. They couldn't really make a movie about the facts because the facts aren't enough. Even a full blown documentary on JFK would probably be boring because it would be a bunch of people finding bullets on the ground, bringing up old witness testemonies, and admitting they have no idea what the hell happened to JFK. I think Stone made a wise choice. He didn't really try to convince anyone that his theories were correct, but he got everyone thinking about it. The actual facts prove that 90% of the facts are bullshit. There was obviously a conspirisy, and Stone just presented his two cents. The result; a visually stunning, involving and captivating drama.

'Obviously' is quite a stretch for me, but a conspiracy does seem pretty valid. Or, you know, they just got the wrong guy and there was no government involvement whatsoever. Either way, I'd much more appreciate a film that presented the facts and let you make your own interpretation than exaggerating and completely fictionalizing evidence that makes it seem like everyone is absolutely idiotic if they don't believe in a conspiracy. It's just a film of making up evidence to shove Stone's agenda down the audiences throat and mock everyone who doesn't believe what he believes, since he clearly presents everything as if it's the truth. The result (in my eyes); a mockery of a very serious topic, more liberal bullshit from Stone, a film that becomes so extravagent in it's lies and fiction that it seems as if Stone makes it a point to be completely false while pointing out how false the government is. He becomes the exact thing that he tries to make people notice in the film. An egotistical maniac who says whatever he needs to, be it true or not, to shove his ideals down your throat and completely ignore everything else in the equation.

So, when are you seeing Across the Universe, Mitch?

The day it gets released near me:

http://imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/84999680

Now, I haven't seen JFK in a very, very long time but I'm quite sure that it's a drama; a work of fiction, not a documentary.

That doesn't discredit anything I said. Stone still makes a clear point of shoving his liberal agenda down the audiences throat by acting as if everything in the film is fact.

Speaking of Oliver Stone...

NATURAL BORN KILLERS (Oliver Stone, 1994) 8/10



This movie is basically Tarantino on David Lynch acid. I've never seen so many different styles crammed into a single film, which sometimes hurts it by making it a little too trippy for what seems like almost no reason, but there's no denying that it's ballsy as fuck. Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis turn in some decent performances, but it's Robert Downey, Jr., who steals the show.

It also has a pretty sweet soundtrack.