Movie What's the last movie you saw? (6)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Continued in Part 7:

www.bigfooty.com

Movie - What's the last movie you saw? (7)

Continued from Part 6: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/whats-the-last-movie-you-saw-6.1287849/ I've retained Asgardian as the OP. Rest in peace, mate. ================ Starting this up for the mods. Watched Judgment in Berlin, a simple tale of a hijacking from Poland to West Berlin...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
Eg, Anthony Hopkins really comes across as a deranged killer, or a mentally struggling father, etc. It comes off natural and real, his words, mannerisms, little tics, but it's still a version of Anthony Hopkins. If it was say Tom Cruise playing the deranged killer or struggling father, it could still come off as natural and believable, but a Tom Cruise version of it.


I'm just struggling to explain it better. People will wholeheartedly disagree with me that's fine.
 
Last night Terminator: Dark Fate was on tv, thought I would give it a watch hoping it would be good. I probably watched well over an hour but I simply lost interest in last 30 minutes I did not even care enough to watch it to the end.
God it was ordinary.
Movie making in general really seems to have gone down hill in imagination in last 15 years that a good movie is few and far between as each year moves on.
All the creativity in the industry seems to be re-directed to tv series.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

footyfan1978 said:
Last night Terminator: Dark Fate was on tv, thought I would give it a watch hoping it would be good. I probably watched well over an hour but I simply lost interest in last 30 minutes I did not even care enough to watch it to the end.
God it was ordinary.
Movie making in general really seems to have gone down hill in imagination in last 15 years that a good movie is few and far between as each year moves on.
All the creativity in the industry seems to be re-directed to tv series.
Click to expand...

I watched parts of it last night. I don't mind it, don't get me wrong it has issues. It basically borrowed ideas from T3, Salvation and Genesys - that's one issue.

The other was the forced girl power element. Its been done before (hello T1), but it comes across as forced and fake in this me too era.

I saw The Punisher (04) was on after so I tuned in to that. One of my favourite Marvel movies (rate it higher than many of the MCU films that came out later) and Kevin Nash's best role since TMNT 2!!!

Captain America Civil War
Being proactive, saw its on tv tonight..... figured I'd watch the 4K version during the afternoon. Part of me really likes it, another part thinks its a bit mehhhhh. I need to do a MCU marathon soon its been awhile.
 
Xtreme said:
I watched parts of it last night. I don't mind it, don't get me wrong it has issues. It basically borrowed ideas from T3, Salvation and Genesys - that's one issue.
Click to expand...
It was not so terrible I turned off after five minutes. It is more after an hour it was a real struggle to maintain interest as nothing of real interest was being added to me for any characters in the story. I did not see any interesting twist, angle or anything to make me wonder what happened next. I simply did not go back to it after an add but I think it still had 30 minutes to go. Really did feel like just going through the motions as a movie and I just wanted something more to make me keep watching.
 
GG.exe said:
Tbh i cant see any actors who are different from role to role. The character might have nuances of behavior or speech or attitude/persona, sure, but it's still to me [actor name] playing a version of themselves.
Click to expand...
Gary Oldman is my personal favourite, one of the greatest and under rated.

Another I like is Stellan Skarsgard.

Bill Paxton was/is one of favorites, was actually sad when hearing his passing.
 
footyfan1978 said:
Last night Terminator: Dark Fate was on tv, thought I would give it a watch hoping it would be good. I probably watched well over an hour but I simply lost interest in last 30 minutes I did not even care enough to watch it to the end.
God it was ordinary.
Movie making in general really seems to have gone down hill in imagination in last 15 years that a good movie is few and far between as each year moves on.
All the creativity in the industry seems to be re-directed to tv series.
Click to expand...

All though the story complete bullshitting and ruins the first one. It was interesting ànd different while trying to be the same..
Armie become the family man and sarah the terminator. But it didn't work.

The ending just CGI crap. Unrealistic scenes.
 
GG.exe said:
Eg, Anthony Hopkins really comes across as a deranged killer, or a mentally struggling father, etc. It comes off natural and real, his words, mannerisms, little tics, but it's still a version of Anthony Hopkins. If it was say Tom Cruise playing the deranged killer or struggling father, it could still come off as natural and believable, but a Tom Cruise version of it.


I'm just struggling to explain it better. People will wholeheartedly disagree with me that's fine.
Click to expand...
Have you seen The World's Fastest Indian? He's great in that, great movie too. Plays a bit of a strange old man that's always working on his motorbike.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
GG.exe said:
Eg, Anthony Hopkins really comes across as a deranged killer, or a mentally struggling father, etc. It comes off natural and real, his words, mannerisms, little tics, but it's still a version of Anthony Hopkins. If it was say Tom Cruise playing the deranged killer or struggling father, it could still come off as natural and believable, but a Tom Cruise version of it.


I'm just struggling to explain it better. People will wholeheartedly disagree with me that's fine.
Click to expand...
Nah I get what you mean. Ultimately if they nail the look and accent and I don’t find myself thinking “they’re just Tom cruise etc in a bad wig” they’ve kind of nailed it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

footyfan1978 said:
It was not so terrible I turned off after five minutes. It is more after an hour it was a real struggle to maintain interest as nothing of real interest was being added to me for any characters in the story. I did not see any interesting twist, angle or anything to make me wonder what happened next. I simply did not go back to it after an add but I think it still had 30 minutes to go. Really did feel like just going through the motions as a movie and I just wanted something more to make me keep watching.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean; watched it about six months ago, didn’t hate it, but honestly couldn’t tell you now how it ended.
 
Last Night in Soho - delightful first hour of a movie that totally loses its way in the second half. Still, I loved the look and feel of this movie, and the soundtrack was a quite classic. It doesn't in any way nail the landing and loses its way way too early to truly recommend, but it was fun for a little while.

The Power of the Dog - really interesting film. Absolutely beautifully filmed, fantastic performances from the lead four, and Jane Campion is a masterful director. Benedict Cumberbatch engages in some full frontal nudity, which is a surprise but I guess shows how much he feels there's an Oscar on the line here. It doesn't quite meet classic masterpiece level that some of the rave reviews are suggesting (Jesse Plemons, in an engaging and likeable role, inexplicably slips into the background halfway through the movie and this narrative absence detracts a little from its core four great characters), but still a very good movie. The current favourite to win the Oscar for Best Picture, I doubt it will be my pick by the time all is said and done, but certainly worse movies have won the award.
 
GG.exe said:
Eg, Anthony Hopkins really comes across as a deranged killer, or a mentally struggling father, etc. It comes off natural and real, his words, mannerisms, little tics, but it's still a version of Anthony Hopkins. If it was say Tom Cruise playing the deranged killer or struggling father, it could still come off as natural and believable, but a Tom Cruise version of it.

I'm just struggling to explain it better. People will wholeheartedly disagree with me that's fine.
Click to expand...

I always imagined the quiet, reserved, slightly quirky characters he has played such as in Shadowlands, Spotswood and The World's Fastest Indian were like the real Anthony Hopkins. Then in The Father he played a confused, angry version of himself. He could phone it in for the Marvel and Transformers movies. Where we really saw his acting chops was as Hannibal Lecter and as Dr. Robert Ford in Westworld. It did not feel we were watching Anthony Hopkins.

I imagine his characters in Risky Business, Top Gun, Mission Impossible, Days of Thunder were the most similar to the real Tom Cruise. He's done quite a few varied roles but perhaps because of his physical appearance you are still thinking you are watching Tom Cruise. But it doesn't detract from the experience. He's very consistent in picking quality scripts and delivering a very good performance.

I might be wrong on both my assessments of the 'real' Anthony Hopkins and Tom Cruise.
 
Spectre.....done and dusted.

I actually really loved this movie. Unlike other Bond/Spy movies. Apart from the hectic, breath-taking opening scene, the film was a slow burner -- a lot of long or intricate scenes, lots of talking, engagement of various characters with each other back and forth, like a mental game of musical chairs. The movie had me gripped on that mental level, trying to understand and pick apart little details. Whereas usual Bond/Spy movies is a ballet of action scenes.

The only issues I had with this film that hurt it.....the CGI took a step back from Skyfall.....and the movie lost that sense of credibility and realism it built for 2 hrs once Bond found a way to escape from that torture chair. At the moment on, the movie opted to suddenly revert back to being a typical Bond movie, of easy escape at the point of certain death, of shooting and killing with a single bullet 3,479 enemies many of whom were half a mile away, then escaping yet another capture in the armored truck, and escaping yet another certain death with the demolishing building, but worse, miraculously Madeleine being right there in a room at the very last place he ended up....he was screaming your name for two minutes standing right there at the door so why did you wait so long before calling back? Not like there was some weird time delay going on, hes standing right there at the door FFS. But it gets worse.....they escape in a boat from under the exploding building when there was only 40 seconds left when he finished untying you.....******* hell, it would take 3 minutes to run from the middle of the building to the basement area, and another 5 minutes just to get a boat engine to start. Let alone an old decommissioned boat. Roaring out the basement area thru fire and falling building....even tho the explosive devices were all detonating at the basement. And how did the villain even get a whole building rigged with such explosives in the few hours it took him to escape his own miraculous survival in the desert when that whole facility blew up like an atomic bomb a mere minute after hed been blown to bits/unconsciousness from the exploding watch??? Anyway, while riding across the Thames Bond manages to shoot a military grade chopper down with a little pistol.....sheesh.

After 2 hrs of great slow burning drama, the whole thing is ruined over the final 10-20 minutes with a string of absurd overdone typical old Bond s**t.

Another thing i dobt buy is how quickly the uber cold and detached Madeleine falls in love with Bond, and Bond likewise. Already in this Craig era of Bond hes hopelessly fallen in love with three or four women hes only met and known for a day or two. Such a marshmallow. And if he spent more than five minutes with the other women he bedded hed probably have fallen in love with them too. How can you write such movies being prototypical old Connery/etc Bond whilst also making him such a pushover for love? Hes a cold-hearted ruthless assassin, uses and abuses.

I could probably find a lot more to complain about ...better end this rant, bored you all already.

Bottom line is....i loved Spectre despite all those complaints, but the complaints stopped me short of really loving it.

Oh, one last thing....really like how all these Craig Bond movies are connected, actual sequels to each other, the movie after picking the story up right from the end of the previous movie, same villains and other characters....like a Star Wars trilogy. Whereas old Bonds were random unconnected all-new events and villains.

So far i have it ...

Tier One.....Skyfall
Tier Two....Casino Royale, Spectre
Tier Forty-Eight.....Quantum of Solace
 
sorted said:
I always imagined the quiet, reserved, slightly quirky characters he has played such as in Shadowlands, Spotswood and The World's Fastest Indian were like the real Anthony Hopkins. Then in The Father he played a confused, angry version of himself. He could phone it in for the Marvel and Transformers movies. Where we really saw his acting chops was as Hannibal Lecter and as Dr. Robert Ford in Westworld. It did not feel we were watching Anthony Hopkins.

I imagine his characters in Risky Business, Top Gun, Mission Impossible, Days of Thunder were the most similar to the real Tom Cruise. He's done quite a few varied roles but perhaps because of his physical appearance you are still thinking you are watching Tom Cruise. But it doesn't detract from the experience. He's very consistent in picking quality scripts and delivering a very good performance.

I might be wrong on both my assessments of the 'real' Anthony Hopkins and Tom Cruise.
Click to expand...

I couldn't imagine Tom Cruise playing a role so far against type as the Hannibal Lecter role Anthony Hopkins played, Cruise rarely plays the bad guy roles let alone a psychotic serial killer like Lecter, he mostly plays the good guy action hero type roles.

Collateral is one of the only films I can remember Cruise playing a proper bad guy and he was pretty good at it, not surprising though as off set he seems a lot like that character, a ruthless control freak so that role was probably less against type than his usual good guy action hero type roles.
 
*** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! *** *** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! *** *** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! ***

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009)
iu

An explosive, searing documentary that eviscerates the World Trade Centre investigation presented by the NIST, establishing beyond doubt that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a false flag operation orchestrated by a fascist totalitarian regime... (or at least what the director Dylan Avery would have you believe).

In actual fact, An American Coup (the fourth of six revisions, released two years after the rather incompetently named The Final Cut), functions instead as a fascinating insight into how easily manipulated and weak-minded the average "free-thinking" Conspiracy Theorist really is.

The film begins with a 15 minute montage of unrelated and irrelevant historical facts, simplifying events such as the Reichstag Fire in 1933 Germany to establish that every single government now and forever in every territory in the world will of course kill their own citizens to further their own ends (whatever they are).

Once this is established, the case for the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation is constructed via a breathless, unremitting assault of rhetorical questions, dubious first-hand accounts, archival news footage, the occasional random (but completely uncontextualized) fact, and flat out lies, some of which the director claimed were intentionally included "so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves" (seriously). The sheer amount of information hurled at the viewer, and the pace with which the film burns through it's poorly-constructed case, ensures it is near impossible to think too deeply about any of the information presented, an astute decision considering how flimsy some of the contentions actually are ("Why did none of the hijacked planes target the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida?").

Perhaps fearing the possibility that the rumour, innuendo, superstition, and intellectual dishonesty presented thus far may have failed, Avery closes the film- unbelievably- by insulting the viewer, aggressively suggesting they are nothing more than an even-toed ungulate, and complicit in, and potentially even responsible for, the 9/11 attacks, if they have not at this point been entirely convinced by the arguments the film has presented. Viva la Revolution!

I am a little concerned that Stan have this on their streaming service, but also somewhat disappointed the extended, two hour Final Cut with Alex Jones serving as the Executive Producer is not..?

I give this film :sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep:.
 
Toump Ass said:
*** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! *** *** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! *** *** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! ***

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009)
iu

An explosive, searing documentary that eviscerates the World Trade Centre investigation presented by the NIST, establishing beyond doubt that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a false flag operation orchestrated by a fascist totalitarian regime... (or at least what the director Dylan Avery would have you believe).

In actual fact, An American Coup (the fourth of six revisions, released two years after the rather incompetently named The Final Cut), functions instead as a fascinating insight into how easily manipulated and weak-minded the average "free-thinking" Conspiracy Theorist really is.

The film begins with a 15 minute montage of unrelated and irrelevant historical facts, simplifying events such as the Reichstag Fire in 1933 Germany to establish that every single government now and forever in every territory in the world will of course kill their own citizens to further their own ends (whatever they are).

Once this is established, the case for the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation is constructed via a breathless, unremitting assault of rhetorical questions, dubious first-hand accounts, archival news footage, the occasional random (but completely uncontextualized) fact, and flat out lies, some of which the director claimed were intentionally included "so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves" (seriously). The sheer amount of information hurled at the viewer, and the pace with which the film burns through it's poorly-constructed case, ensures it is near impossible to think too deeply about any of the information presented, an astute decision considering how flimsy some of the contentions actually are ("Why did none of the hijacked planes target the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida?").

Perhaps fearing the possibility that the rumour, innuendo, superstition, and intellectual dishonesty presented thus far may have failed, Avery closes the film- unbelievably- by insulting the viewer, aggressively suggesting they are nothing more than an even-toed ungulate, and complicit in, and potentially even responsible for, the 9/11 attacks, if they have not at this point been entirely convinced by the arguments the film has presented. Viva la Revolution!

I am a little concerned that Stan have this on their streaming service, but also somewhat disappointed the extended, two hour Final Cut with Alex Jones serving as the Executive Producer is not..?

I give this film :sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep:.
Click to expand...

So in laymen's terms.it was more factual than flight 93?😜
 
Toump Ass said:
*** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! *** *** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! *** *** MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY ALERT!!!! ***

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009)
iu

An explosive, searing documentary that eviscerates the World Trade Centre investigation presented by the NIST, establishing beyond doubt that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a false flag operation orchestrated by a fascist totalitarian regime... (or at least what the director Dylan Avery would have you believe).

In actual fact, An American Coup (the fourth of six revisions, released two years after the rather incompetently named The Final Cut), functions instead as a fascinating insight into how easily manipulated and weak-minded the average "free-thinking" Conspiracy Theorist really is.

The film begins with a 15 minute montage of unrelated and irrelevant historical facts, simplifying events such as the Reichstag Fire in 1933 Germany to establish that every single government now and forever in every territory in the world will of course kill their own citizens to further their own ends (whatever they are).

Once this is established, the case for the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation is constructed via a breathless, unremitting assault of rhetorical questions, dubious first-hand accounts, archival news footage, the occasional random (but completely uncontextualized) fact, and flat out lies, some of which the director claimed were intentionally included "so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves" (seriously). The sheer amount of information hurled at the viewer, and the pace with which the film burns through it's poorly-constructed case, ensures it is near impossible to think too deeply about any of the information presented, an astute decision considering how flimsy some of the contentions actually are ("Why did none of the hijacked planes target the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida?").

Perhaps fearing the possibility that the rumour, innuendo, superstition, and intellectual dishonesty presented thus far may have failed, Avery closes the film- unbelievably- by insulting the viewer, aggressively suggesting they are nothing more than an even-toed ungulate, and complicit in, and potentially even responsible for, the 9/11 attacks, if they have not at this point been entirely convinced by the arguments the film has presented. Viva la Revolution!

I am a little concerned that Stan have this on their streaming service, but also somewhat disappointed the extended, two hour Final Cut with Alex Jones serving as the Executive Producer is not..?

I give this film :sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep:.
Click to expand...
So glad you're back reviewing B-grade horror movies! Although is doesn't sound quite as good as the last recommendation you gave me in Little Monsters (chef's kiss).
 
sorted said:
I always imagined the quiet, reserved, slightly quirky characters he has played such as in Shadowlands, Spotswood and The World's Fastest Indian were like the real Anthony Hopkins. Then in The Father he played a confused, angry version of himself. He could phone it in for the Marvel and Transformers movies. Where we really saw his acting chops was as Hannibal Lecter and as Dr. Robert Ford in Westworld. It did not feel we were watching Anthony Hopkins.

I imagine his characters in Risky Business, Top Gun, Mission Impossible, Days of Thunder were the most similar to the real Tom Cruise. He's done quite a few varied roles but perhaps because of his physical appearance you are still thinking you are watching Tom Cruise. But it doesn't detract from the experience. He's very consistent in picking quality scripts and delivering a very good performance.

I might be wrong on both my assessments of the 'real' Anthony Hopkins and Tom Cruise.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your perspective, but i still struggle to see it. I figured people wouldn't agree with me because i am sure it's probably the way my brain is wired.

I see Anthony Hopkins portraying a role, don't see it as some whole new human being. Like, he's utterly believable and natural in all his various roles, but the character itself still has Anthony Hopkins tells to it -- the mannerisms, the lean of his stance, the way he walks, the same dozen little facial gestures, eyebrow raises, corner of the mouth grins and beaming smiles, same measured manner of talking, etc. And all those things are there at the forefront in each of his roles.

Hannibal Lecter is Anthony Hopkins. Rather than Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter. Dr Ford is AH, not AH is Dr Ford. Etc. Such that if Tom Cruise had been cast in both those roles instead, Lecter and Ford would still be just as believable, because top actors are top actors and can make roles believable and natural. Lecter and Ford would end up just being Cruise in disguise same as Hopkins in disguise.

Hopkins tho, true, is far better than most because I've seen him be a fast-talking scatter-brained being, as well as a timid soft-spoken being, as well as a loud chest-thrusting being, as well as a menacing, slow, measured talker. As an example. Whereas most actors don't have that range, can't change their talking and such too much.

Kind of like how singers have octave ranges.... top singers just can't pull off notes and subtle fluctuations that others with greater range can. But like singers....they all still resemble the singer across every song they sing most of the time. They dont sound like someone else from song to song even tho theyre also acting out a different character in that song.

Hopkins is a beast, as is Daniel Day Lewis. Whereas guys like DiCaprio, Cruise, Pitt, and even Gary Oldman, Johnny Depp, etc ... They are top shelf, but they are mostly still doing versions of themselves. Hopkins and DDL also, they just have more range.

Imagine you tomorrow waking up and going about your day as a cocky chest thrusting guy with a high pitched voice that sounds nothing like you, who moves his arms about like a rapper when talking, who puts his foot on a chair and leans in with a devil face to chat people up. Who loses his temper quick and has a stressed out face. Then next day being a rigid soldier-postured guy who has blank face, no charm or charisma, no hand motions, and talks in a very deep monotone voice that sounds nothing like you.

I seldom see that kind of ability in any actor. Completely different voice, gait, general gestures and mannerisms, whole attitude/persona, inflections of voice and little facial habits....all completely different, like a professional impersonator. Actors can't do that for sone reason. De Niro is still always De Niro to the nth degree in talk, habits, fidgeting, etc etc, even tho hes got range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shell
What's the Last Movie you Didn't See?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
169
Views
7K
BomberManU
B
No Quarter
What movies do you think could go well with a remake?
Replies
24
Views
460
JackFlash
JackFlash
PowerfulPies2023
What do you like about Movie X?
Replies
3
Views
329
PowerfulPies2023
PowerfulPies2023
Tandy
Movie Peaky Blinders: The Movie
Replies
1
Views
201
Jatz
Jatz
Sketi
Top 10 movies of the 2010s
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
AFDogs
AFDogs
PowerfulPies2023
The Zodiac and other True Crime Movies
Replies
1
Views
320
PowerfulPies2023
PowerfulPies2023
TheGreatBarryB
Movie Worst decisions in movie history
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
do_i_look_worried_go_ahe
do_i_look_worried_go_ahe

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top