Last movie you've watched

kurt and courtney-A film about kurt cobain's life that goes inside the theory that courtney love killed kurt.10/10

Waynes World 2- 1/10:erk:
 
UltraViolet - Futuristic movie starring Mila Jovovich. I didn't like the plot and some of the action sequences were pretty laughable, including a scene where she jumps off a building on a motorcycle and shoots up some bad guys in a helicoptor before landing on another building :lol:

I liked the hot color-changing sci-fi suits that she wears in the movie, oh and the weapons she uses are hot :zombie:
 
Children of Men.

Fuck, I'm depressed. Its all fucked.
Great movie though, I must read the supposedly superior book.

:lol: That's nonsense. It's either a very stodgy person that told you this, or some mediocre wannabe intellectual wanting to cover their bases. The movie is far superior to the book. Infact Children of Men is quite simply one of the most perfectly executed chunks of cinema in the past decade.
 
'Cos I've bought 'Children...' - which I've still not seen - and a load o' other movies lately, an' have barely watched any so far. That shall be my quest. But for now...

Any o' you cunts seen the new 'Die Hard'?? There was some outcry regarding its rating, but most people have said it's actually quite shit hot. Some have even gone as far as to say it's on par wi' the first one, and that's a fucking bold statement as far as I'm concerned. That said, I shall probably see it this weekend.
 
Children of Men is quite simply one of the most perfectly executed chunks of cinema in the past decade.

Unfortunately I don't share your sentiments :cry: :cry:

I thought the movie was pretty shallow, and aside from a good plot, not very... interesting.

Also, it is pretty lame having a white-male character who saves the world by inadvertantly becoming the guardien of a black woman and her baby. Of course the woman in the movie is also a prostitute who doesn't know who the father is. L O L

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I gathered from watching the film. I could go on but I will just say I didn't enjoy the film as much as I expected. Also the ending was very dissapointing...
 
I would think more of it as a medeocre movie, not really something I would recommend

I thought it was an interesting movie, which had good screenwriting and cinematography. The action sequences were well done. Also the large scale of the film didn't affect the depth of the story and character development. Also it was a unique perspective on the business side of war and the people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes. :Smug:
 
Unfortunately I don't share your sentiments :cry: :cry:

I thought the movie was pretty shallow, and aside from a good plot, not very... interesting.

Also, it is pretty lame having a white-male character who saves the world by inadvertantly becoming the guardien of a black woman and her baby. Of course the woman in the movie is also a prostitute who doesn't know who the father is. L O L

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I gathered from watching the film. I could go on but I will just say I didn't enjoy the film as much as I expected. Also the ending was very dissapointing...

Shallow? You've got to be kidding? I'll be brutally fucking honest and tell you that you've completely missed the point of the movie and in the process allowed yourself to miss something very, very powerful.

The story oozes depth. It's so human, so poignant. Technically it's beyond accomplished, Cuaron practically gives a masterclass in direction. Imposing your backward race/gender understanding onto the movies hardly speaks about it's quality, rather your own idiocy.

As for the ending, it was perfect for the movie. It's supposed to be open, it's an alleory for mankind. Still, if you didn't appreciate the movie then that's just as well, because it clearly was not made for your type of cinema goer. I'll apologise if I've just made you angry but it's pretty absurd to dislike the movie for the stupid reasons you listed.

and, btw Lad, Die Hard 4.0 was absolutely fucking nails. I loved it.
 
I thought it was an interesting movie, which had good screenwriting and cinematography. The action sequences were well done. Also the large scale of the film didn't affect the depth of the story and character development. Also it was a unique perspective on the business side of war and the people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes. :Smug:


Exactly... couldn't of been said better... the way the U.S. and other countries sell arms to unpopular causes by letting others within their country do it who are independents without busting them for it so the U.S. gov't themselves aren't directly accused of it... is a great movie and i have it on DVD... i think people don't like it because they don't like Nicolas Cage but that should not affect someone's judgement about whether a movie is good or not simply because you do not like a actor...
 
Shallow? You've got to be kidding? I'll be brutally fucking honest and tell you that you've completely missed the point of the movie and in the process allowed yourself to miss something very, very powerful.

The story oozes depth. It's so human, so poignant. Technically it's beyond accomplished, Cuaron practically gives a masterclass in direction. Imposing your backward race/gender understanding onto the movies hardly speaks about it's quality, rather your own idiocy.

As for the ending, it was perfect for the movie. It's supposed to be open, it's an alleory for mankind. Still, if you didn't appreciate the movie then that's just as well, because it clearly was not made for your type of cinema goer. I'll apologise if I've just made you angry but it's pretty absurd to dislike the movie for the stupid reasons you listed.

and, btw Lad, Die Hard 4.0 was absolutely fucking nails. I loved it.

The film is shallow.

There is too much focus on the unwilling Hero, played half-heartedly, wether intentionally or not, by Clive Owens. He is made to seem invincible, even while everyone around him is being blown to bits :rolleyes: I didn't like the casting, and the overall cinematography, the film comes off harsh visually in most cases. I have to say I have forgotten most of the film since watching it last week.

It clearly was not made for your type of cinema goer

lol

Imposing your backward race/gender understanding

Now you are just throwing insults. This comes off really immature and just retarded. Everything I said was true. I think you need to explain yourself, and what is meant by "backward race/gender understanding". I could easily just have said "Shut the fuck up, you fucking douchebag, etc etc etc...." however, I thought I was in an intellegent conversation.

cheers
 
I saw Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard wherever you are) last night. Well actually, I saw the last five minutes due to a screen mix up and then the whole thing later in the night.

It's an alright film, some nice action sequences and some funny lines, but not as good as any of the other Die Hard films.
 
The film is shallow.

There is too much focus on the unwilling Hero, played half-heartedly, wether intentionally or not, by Clive Owens. He is made to seem invincible, even while everyone around him is being blown to bits :rolleyes: I didn't like the casting, and the overall cinematography, the film comes off harsh visually in most cases. I have to say I have forgotten most of the film since watching it last week.



lol



Now you are just throwing insults. This comes off really immature and just retarded. Everything I said was true. I think you need to explain yourself, and what is meant by "backward race/gender understanding". I could easily just have said "Shut the fuck up, you fucking douchebag, etc etc etc...." however, I thought I was in an intellegent conversation.

cheers

The casting was pitch perfect. Clive Owen plays the unwilling hero perfectly, infact it's hard to think of someone else who could genuinely pull off the human side of the character. Owen played the character as it was supposed to be. The entire movie plays off on the fact that he's someone with alot of depth, but that the edge of it has been blunted by the world he lives in and the things it has done to him. The way his character evolves throughout the movie speaks volumes to me. From cynical he traverses the emotional spectrum until he manages to find some compassion for the world and the people in it. The baby and her mother just happen to symbolise that hope. As for the end, it's left open - it's an allegory for humanity - we never know quite what will happen to us, but hope, love and never giving up give us every chance.

As for the cinematography, it's supposed to be harsh. Most of it is a complete mind-fuck, it's a genuine roller coaster. I can't think of a film in the past 10years that had me gripped purely by the camera work. Some of the extended scenes were breathtaking. The one I am thinking personally about is

*SPOILER!!!!!!!*

when Moore's character gets shot in the neck. It left me fucking stunned.

*END SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!*

As for the race thing, it's almost a misnomer to talk about him being white and her being black. Race and everything associated with it has made everyone so anxious over the past 200yrs, but in essence it matters not. I think you're reading too much into it to consider the race element. Indeed I think one of the powerful messages of the movie is that we're all in this together. Age, creed, colour and sex hardly matter.

The combination of layered direction and deep storyline pretty much cemented it as one of my favourite movies ever. I apologise for the insults I made before, I suppose we just have very different understandings and appreciations of the movie. I think I'm right, as do you. Let's leave it there.

I can't make you like the movie, but I can hold out hope that you'll consider it less shallow after reading this.
 
Exactly... couldn't of been said better... the way the U.S. and other countries sell arms to unpopular causes by letting others within their country do it who are independents without busting them for it so the U.S. gov't themselves aren't directly accused of it... is a great movie and i have it on DVD... i think people don't like it because they don't like Nicolas Cage but that should not affect someone's judgement about whether a movie is good or not simply because you do not like a actor...

Me thinking the film is avarage has nothing to do with not liking Cage cuz I don't have anything against him actually. I just think Cage's way of acting doesn't really suit the character of an arms dealer altough the movie is actually quite credible.
 
:lol: That's nonsense. It's either a very stodgy person that told you this, or some mediocre wannabe intellectual wanting to cover their bases. The movie is far superior to the book. Infact Children of Men is quite simply one of the most perfectly executed chunks of cinema in the past decade.

I'll keep that in mind. Skepticism prevails... :err:

Just watched Little Miss Sunshine. I enjoyed it, but it not quite as much as all the hype around it would have preferred me to. A movie with an angry nihilist kid is one to remember. :loco: Steve Carrell is also a lot more tolerable here than his other films.