Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Farin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some chick flick I forget the name of - the one with Matthew McConnaughey where you can clearly see his pterodactyl arms when he's on a surfboard. So incredibly lame I couldn't stop watching. Also I was trying to work out why Zooey Deschanel was in it. Anyway it was predictably cringeworthy so 0.3224/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fourth Kind

Based on a true story of paranormal encounters with footage of the real occurrences. Creepy, disturbing, and very intriguing.

8.5/10

I wanted to see Pirate Radio though, but it was a 90 minute wait. If anybody has seen Pirate Radio please say if it's worth going to or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fourth Kind

Based on a true story of paranormal encounters with footage of the real occurrences. Creepy, disturbing, and very intriguing.

8.5/10

I wanted to see Pirate Radio though, but it was a 90 minute wait. If anybody has seen Pirate Radio please say if it's worth going to or not.

Fourth Kind scared the hell out of me. . .

And I, too, want to see Pirate Radio! It has everything. . . pirates. . . rock 'n' roll. . . what more do you need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love "Vertigo," it is for sure my favorite Hitchcock film. I agree, it's hard to believe that it was made in 1957.

Just saw "Inglourious Basterds," and throughout the whole movie I was really into it and probably would have given it an A...but the climax really ruined the movie for me, so much so that I ended up giving it an F. My transistion from "A" to "F" isn't just there for dramatic hyperbole, it really just is how I felt while watching the movie. I can't really explain it without giving away spoilers though, so if anyone's interested I can write it in white text or something, but if nobody's interested I suppose there's no use writing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I didn't mind that it altered history, in fact that was the only thing I liked about the climax. You know, I actually had an argument on someone's facebook note about this so I'll just copy and paste it here, with this warning...

SPOILER ALERT! do not read ahead if you have not seen "Inglourious Basterds."

So throughout the whole movie I was really looking forward to the massacre in the theater. I was sitting straight up in my seat with my feet tapping as Marcel threw the cigarette into the pile of film. But when it actually happened, I just felt kind of weird that the "happy ending" was watching a bunch of people get killed a movie theater. It was especially weird since the German audience members in the movie were all watching a movie about a bunch of people getting killed. I felt like I didn't really understand what made us any different than the film's audience. All these Nazis are laughing at all these people getting killed, and we're supposed to think "oh ha ha what a bunch of dumbasses for being entertained by this *******," and then the exact same thing happens and we're supposed to think "oh ha ha I'm entertained by this *******." And I'm sure that this whole parallel between the Nazis's experience our experience as an audience is the whole point of the scene, and I admit it's a cleverly made point, but the cleverly made point didn't make me like the movie, it just made me pissed off at it. And I realize that Nazis are just the scum of the earth and I've got some Jewish heritage so I should love seeing the Bear Jew club a Nazi with a baseball bat. But it's only the anticipation of it that I loved. When the violence actually happened I was pretty disgusted.

And I should also say that I am biased, since I am instinctively unnattracted to gore in movies. But on the other hand, I feel that a lot of America is also biased by being instinctively attracted to gore in movies. I feel like violence in movies can either be crucial to the art of the film ("No Country For Old Men" is a good example imo) or it can be the main attraction of the film, which was the case for "Inglourious Basterds" in my opinion. It's like the difference between watching a love scene and porn (except violence is gross and boobies are neat).

I guess that last line really sums up my argument. Violence is gross and boobies are neat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think of Quentin Tarantino as the Immortal Technique of directors. While both are pretty good, they get way too much credit in my opinion, and often get labeled as "geniuses" because they use shock value so well (I don't even want to use the word "well" there but I have too because I suck at words).

Don't get me wrong, Pulp Fiction is a fun movie, and I like Death Proof a lot too, but I just think Quentin uses violence as pornography more than he uses it as art. And in my opinion "Inglourious Basterds" highlighted everything there is to dislike about Quentin Tarantino and didn't highlight any of the things to like about Quentin Tarantino (and there are things to like)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going for the hat trick here with my third post:

I'd also like to restate how weird I think the parallel between the Nazi audience and the real audience is. It's like Quentin was trying to make a statement about how depraved humans are for enjoying action movies and watching people suffer. But then if you agree with his point you are sort of obligated to dislike the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like Quentin was trying to make a statement about how depraved humans are for enjoying action movies and watching people suffer. But then if you agree with his point you are sort of obligated to dislike the movie.

very profound. I hated that movie. But then I don't know that I've ever seen a Tarantino movie I have enjoyed much. I like your analysis here... it didn't even occur to me, but it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like Quentin was trying to make a statement about how depraved humans are for enjoying action movies and watching people suffer. But then if you agree with his point you are sort of obligated to dislike the movie.

Perhaps he was making a statement about how humans enjoy watching their enemies suffer in which case if you agree then you'll probably like the movie (unless you like Nazis). :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah but he actually humanizes the enemy by giving them the exact same experience as us. We (the real audience) are in a theater watching our enemies suffer. The Nazis (the film audience) are also in a theater watching their enemies suffer. And we react basically the same way. Both us and the Nazis giggle and laugh when the enemy is killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah but he actually humanizes the enemy by giving them the exact same experience as us. We (the real audience) are in a theater watching our enemies suffer. The Nazis (the film audience) are also in a theater watching their enemies suffer. And we react basically the same way. Both us and the Nazis giggle and laugh when the enemy is killed.

but does that humanize them or doesn't it actually say more about us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. I'm not really sure if it humanizes them when you put it that way. But even if it does say something about us, it's saying something that I don't want to hear. It's saying that we have something really disturbing in common with Nazis.

And it's not like I will automatically dislike any movie with a difficult or confrontational message, I just felt like Quentin made the movie not so much in hope of people asking themselves that question, but in hope that people would be like "Oh hell yeah I love watching people's scalps get cut off with knives."

Interesting statement Farin, and you're totally right...but it doesn't change my opinion on the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...