Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Your Review of the Last Movie You Watched

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 1:58:21 PM PST
bella7 says:
Oh my! : 0

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 1:59:40 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:45 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 2:02:59 PM PST
bella7 says:
You didn't shock me. I just hope you were wearing loose fitting pants!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 2:03:45 PM PST
D. Duarte says:
I was captain of the math team in high school, tarek, so don't worry, your bad math is safe with me as most just don't get it :-) be one of the "most" why doncha.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 2:04:08 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:45 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 2:05:33 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:45 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 2:06:56 PM PST
bella7 says:
I see. Otherwise you make a "tent". lol

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 2:27:08 PM PST
Hikari says:
@tarek
You mean Casey Affleck, right, the little bro?

When we first saw Casey, as a young punk being driven around by his brother & Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting", I didn't see much family resemblance between Casey & Ben. Little brother is somewhat diminuative, with lighter hair & very interesting blue-green eyes, whereas Big Ben is strapping 6'3", dark hair/brown eyes. But as Casey gets older, I begin to see echoes of Ben in his face . .particularly the jawline & the set of his smile. Whereas I find Ben pretty inexpressive as an actor, Casey can have that same masklike stillness . . .and then expressions flit across his face that are quite subtle, but there is a world of difference in how the two Afflecks inhabit themselves. Casey can somehow bring his subtleties to life, where on big brother they most often translate as 'woodenness'. Ben's got the leading man physical package, but little brother has the chops to be quite an interesting character actor. He's proving it handily, even though his resume is not yet very long.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 3:55:27 PM PST
D. Duarte says:
I thought that was just your lucky lisp.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 5:14:15 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:46 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 5:14:46 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:46 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 5:18:19 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:46 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 5:32:43 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:46 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 6:10:31 PM PST
bella7 says:
Encore, je dis, "Oh my!" : 0

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2010 6:30:56 PM PST
Hikari says:
@tarek
Is 'pulpy' a complimentary adjective in French Canada? Pulpy sounds kind of . . .lumpy. Orange juice is pulpy; if an ingenue has a pulpy butt, I think you are saying she's got cellulite. Or tumors. :))

"Juicy" is I think the word you want here. Yes, I know I just said orange juice is pulpy . .I don't claim that English is entirely sensible in its metaphors. Or 'plump'. A plump rump can be a good thing.

I didn't mention Ms. Alba in my review; I thought she did fine, and was attractive, but on the whole her character had little to do except lounge around in her underwear (or less) and be a punching bag for Casey Affleck's character. Kate Hudson's role was smaller, but it had more meat on it, seemed to me.

A bit of light spanking is welcome, but the kind they were engaged in could hardly be called 'light'. Not if it leaves welts & strips of skin hanging. I'm afraid I must conclude that people who require sadistic beatings as a prelude to getting off have a screw loose, never mind what it says about those who require GIVING sadisitic beatings to get off. "Never leave a mark." That's my motto and that's the advice I instill in all my trainee Mistresses. And don't stand for having a mark made on you. Except for hickeys. Enthusiastic hickeys are all right. :))

Posted on Dec 30, 2010 8:56:56 PM PST
travman365 says:
The last movie I saw was Jason X. I have seen it b4. A friend asked me to watch it again. Jason X is the tenth installment (thats right they made 10 of these) (not including the two after this one, the remake and Freddy vs. Jason) in the Friday the 13th franchise. What can I say, bad acting, bad effects, and worst of all they cut out that GR* music, there was hardly any at all. Worst of all (get ready for this) it takes place in the future. Just a bad movie did not like it will not see it again. Look at it this way half way through it I paused it and started watching another movie online. A cute little kids movie called Wee Sing in Sillyville, now THAt was a good movie!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2010 1:25:39 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:47 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2010 1:26:45 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:45:47 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2010 3:51:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2010 3:52:14 PM PST
D. Duarte says:
tarek says: If Gwineth showed us her butt and her t!ts, why not Alba ?

I agree with you, why not Alba? She has a great body, why not show it off?

Anne Hathaway showed off "boobs-a-plenty" in "Love and Other Drugs," but some actresses, like I've said before, think somehow they're losing something by showing flesh. It's silly I agree.

Sort of like how some primitive cultures are afraid of having their pictures taken because the camera will capture their souls...leaving them mere zombies! Yikes!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2010 5:24:40 PM PST
Hikari says:
@tarek
You 'deserve' way more than 10 whip lashes, mon frere. But you won't get the lash from me--I don't leave marks, remember? If you want that kind of a beating, you'll have to find a Mistress that specializes in that kind of thing.

My punishment is a bit more subtle . . .I'd be more likely to tie you to a chair (gently, but so well you can't get out of it) and force you to watch Sarah Jessica Parker movies until you scream for mercy. Somehow I think that would hurt you more. And if you are a REALLY bad boy, I will force you to endure all six seasons of "Sex & the City". Just see if I won't!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2010 5:28:57 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:32:20 AM PST]

Posted on Jan 1, 2011 5:52:27 AM PST
C McGhee says:
well this isn't the last movie I watched but it's controversial.

By
C McGhee (Hutchinson, Ks.) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) (DVD)
This is a film about subjects most people would rather avoid.

Death & religion don't lend themselves to rational discussion.

Mel Gibson haters will see this as proof of his insanity & intolerance. Christians will see too much violence to be on a big screen. Humanists will see the shining truth that Christians are gullible fools willingly self decieved. But what about the movie making?

The events that are being depicted here are detailed fairly well in the bible. Does the movie stay close to it's literary source as far as events & beatings & death? I say yes it does.

Someone somewhere should get credit for putting that on the screen. Your sense of appropiate levels of violence may have really took a beating in this story as it's told in the Bible if so go complain there. The movie is a good pictorial representation of the subject matter it claims to cover which is, the suffering & death of a man known as Jesus Christ as revealed in a book about his life.

You can claim that Jesus never existed. You can claim that these events never happened. You can claim all kinds of personal preferences but you can't claim that this is a bad movie because it didn't stay close to it's literary source. You can't claim that it deliberately embellished that story. Mel Gibson certainly didn't create the story & since it wasn't intended to meet any other muster than it's relationship to it's source I feel it must be highly rated as a movie & movie making.

Are you offended by the show for some reason? The show doesn't care. It wasn't made to not offend. To belittle what was done on screen here is to belittle every movie that ever stayed close to it's literary source. I understand that people will have deep feelings because of their personal beliefs but it's really sad to see a movie bring out the sentiments of 'all opposition is based in stupidity or illogical beliefs' & no discussion of the movie or it's crafting.

The violence is deep, gritty & horrifying but the subject requires it from the source. This is 5 star cinema & it's not for everyone. Especially not young unformed personalities.

You know, you can discuss death, even murder, with a little child but it has to be within their speech & comprehension level. You can show them pictures of death & murder that far exceed their speech & comprehension levels & these images most assuredly exceed what children can comprehend.

I'd just like to see more individual evaluations. One's not based on the doctrines of a group be it religious groups or any others. I can encounter predjudice & hatred by trying to eat a grapefruit for breakfast.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2011 6:22:33 AM PST
D. Duarte says:
C McGhee,

Are you the same guy who was telling me how I was going to react emotionally to you liking Aronofsky as a filmmaker? And now your review seems to be centered on people's reaction to the film, and their reaction to your review...is there a pattern here?

You seem to be preoccupied with people's reactions to things...seems to me.

Why don't you just stick to reviewing the film and stating your opinion without worrying about how people might react or feel about them?

After all, just in the case of your assumption as to how I might feel about your film opinions, you could be wrong, you know.

Posted on Jan 1, 2011 6:39:53 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2011 7:34:26 AM PST
C McGhee says:
D Duarte-

I do believe you didn't read my response to your post. For the record I agreed with
calling me on your liking or disliking of Aronofsky but whatever.

I don't see the same problem with my above review unless your telling me that you've read lots of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST reviews & that most are centered on the film but rather a group belief. If that's true I'd like to know your source.

I realize my review is 9 month's old & I didn't check to see if recent one's had gotten onto story & crafting but frankly now that I think of it, it doesn't seem likely.

I reread my review & it still reads more story oriented, (I state what I like & what I saw as a problem), than most I've come across. However, if you still feel I'm obsessed with people's opinion of me (? we've been around these forums a while now) I guess I would point out that fear of being perceived as being wrong in an assumption has no weight in my evaluations. Fear is fear & substituting one for another seems kinda like busybody work.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2011 7:38:59 AM PST
C McGhee says:
D Duarte- is there a pattern here?

BTW- could we at least go as far as Auric Goldfinger in detecting patterns? Once is hapstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action (read as a pattern worth noting).

I think that's a good yardstick & you haven't reached twice yet.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  272
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Nov 17, 2010
Latest post:  Mar 1, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions