Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Stephen Marley Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

More Reviews 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 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 1, 2013 1:41:03 PM PST
Mike Gordan says:
Here's the rebooted thread of Your Reviews of the Last Movie You Watched as the previous thread is about to reach maximum capacity. The same rules apply here as they did last time: You review the last movie you watched. And like last time, there's still plenty of flexibility to get into discussion about movies.

So with that said, here's the first review I will post on this thread:

A Fish Called Wanda

A film that was deemed to have been so funny that a guy was said to have died from laughing so hard. Does this film live up to the potential? Yes it does, and in spades!

So where do I begin with this picture? Let's cover the acting because frankly, you couldn't have got a better casting if you tried. Well...except maybe Cary Grant instead of John Cleese because the latter was essentially playing Cary Grant (his character's name is Archie Leach; Grant's birth name was Archibold Leach). But given the fact that Grant retired in the mid 1960's AND had died two years prior, John Cleese did a wonderful job in the lead role (he also penned the Oscar-nominated script, making him the only former Python to recieve an Oscar nomination). Jamie Lee Curtis--who I really don't care much for--did a good job as one of the titular characters (there's also a fish named Wanda), who has a fetish for foreign languages (specifically Italian and--as demonstrated in a hilarious Cleese-stripping scene--Russian). And of course, who wouldn't love Michael Palin as the stammering hitman/animal lover whose frequent attempts to take care of an old woman results in the death of each one of her dogs.

But the best casting choice? Kevin Kline as Otto, a painstakingly stupid (oh, yeah! Don't call him stupid or he'll dangle you upside down out a window) hitman/former CIA agent in which his idiocy may very well have resulted in him being a psychopath. His expressions are beyond priceless, his actions throughout the film are mercilessly hysterical, and he loves it! He was so good in this film that he won his sole Oscar nomination to date in this picture. And who could forget his famous catchphrase? Everytime he starts the car, he gets another driver into an accident. He turns around, and shouts, ''@2$h000000111ee!''

The writing--surprisingly enough--is rather complicated, but harkens back to the classic Cary Grant comedies. Only with some language and sexuality thrown in to boot, and to good effect. Wanda, Otto, and Ken (Curtis, Kline and Palin respectively) are hired as jewel thieves by George Tomson (Tom Georgeson in a name-reversal role) to rob this bank of diamonds worth a fortune. George pulls a fast one on the rest of the group--anticipating that they'd backstab him--by hiding the diamonds in a different location (only Ken--who is loyal to George--is given the keys and the location to the diamonds) just before he is arrested. Once Wanda and Otto realize that George never truly trusted them in the first place (well, not Otto anyways; he may or may not believe Wanda truly loves him), the former hatches a plan to seduce George's lawyer, Archie Leach (John Cleese) into carressing George into pleaing guilty and revealing the location of the diamonds. But every time Wanda attempts to bring Archie to bed, something goes wrong, and it often culminates with Archie's embarrassment. All of this, to Otto's chagrin as he covets Wanda--who was about to backstab him anyways--furiously, and continues to make a fool out of himself trying to meddle in their affairs (before they even have an affair). And the stupid things Otto does are beyond stupid--yet you understand his line of thinking all throughout in spite of the foreknowledge that his stupidity may very well be what makes him a psychopath in the first place.

And frankly, I do not want to give any more of this picture away. The twists and turns in this film are just plain priceless. It is one of the smartest, funniest movies I have ever seen--at least of the comedies that came out in the 1980's. Not a frame hinges on sentimentality. Not a single joke falls flat. If there's a negative that might take away from this experience, it's the fact that Archie is frequently made to commit infidelity only to fail to go all the way every time (and to comedic effect). It just so happens that his wife is a spoiled, snobbish little b!+(h (how convenient) who clearly wears the pants in the relationship. The fact that she dumps him over Otto's stupidity--and Archie doesn't dwell on it in the least--could be deemed a major turnoff.

But overall, this film holds up very well. I like the fact that it's a homage to the Cary Grant comedies of old--yet still carries with it an 1980's feel. I love these characters. And I love these performances--especially from the great Kevin Kline who really deserves more roles that plays to his strengths as an actor. Especially more comedic roles with such sharp writing.

A 9 out of 10, and the highest recommendation to any fan of classic comedies!

So I welcome all--both former members of the last thread, and newcomers to this thread: Discuss and review movies for another 400 pages!

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 4:12:57 PM PST
Aw, fug it, guys. Let's go bowling.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 4:20:15 PM PST
And a big welcome to the continuation!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 4:31:27 PM PST
Magic door says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 4:34:27 PM PST
Magic door says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 4:37:37 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Mar 1, 2013 11:30:22 PM PST]

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 5:01:21 PM PST
Kill Bill (combined) and Pulp Fiction are more than cult films. They are great films, period.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 5:49:20 PM PST
stevign says:
Apparently you have a few takers Pastor.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 6:18:31 PM PST
Magic door says:

I agree. Pulp Fiction, if anything, is undervalued. The casting is brilliant, and it is a film that surely catapulted Tarentino into a honorable place among the best American directors. And I am quite simply nuts for the Kill Bill films; part 1 an homage to martial arts films; Kill Bill 2, to spaghetti westerns. And, of course, Uma is wonderful.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 8:02:48 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Thanks for the link. A great time saver.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 8:08:31 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Gordo, Slayer of Dragons- Fatal Attraction

You can skip that one & watch Fatal Instinct. It's a movie that fails to take itself or the movies it parodies seriously.

Fatal Instinct

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 9:54:15 PM PST
Magic door says:
I will now move on to a film that doesn't make me rage like an innocent flung into the flames of Hell. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. Firstly, this film should be judged on its own, and not judged as the book in film like all those crazy Tolkien fanatics who gnash their teeth at Jackson with such tiresome continuity as to frankly drive me a little nuts. This is Jackson's film, not Tolkiens film, so please, leave the whinging at the door. When looked at on its own, it is an incredibly adventurous and entertaining tale.

We all know the story, so if you really need a plot description, just look at it on wiki, or better yet, read some of the reviews on imdb (I have written my own, but for now I will be keeping my identity there a secret, as I'm sure you will want to know). Needless to say, it moves along at a rapid pace, and has the stamp of 3 men on it. Jackson, Tolkien and del Toro. Even though del Toro left the film early to make his own films and do his own thing, many of the creatures and settings look to have very much his stamp on them. Frankly, I am glad, because there is a more fairytale feel that works.

The music sent shivers down my spine, especially the use of Misty Mountains Cold. The dwarves, while frankly not given enough time to all establish themselves (heck, there are two more films to do that), are still entertaining, with maybe Kili and Fili standing out as early favorites, hoping for much more fleshed out participation in the coming films, which frankly, I am anticipating greatly (heck, I'm anticipating the trailers for the next films).

The acting is great throughout, and Martin Freeman is frankly the best Bilbo I have seen, clearly better than any animated version. His Bilbo has much more to him than others, and once he gets the ring he really begins to see his place in the pack; and becomes a hero by the end. Frankly, the casting of Freeman was a make or break for the film, and it turns out that Freeman was the royal flush, carrying home the takings. Gollum is again the tragic figure he portrayed in LOTR, but here we see his psychotic side straight away; the multiple personality green thing who talks to himself and actually earns our pity, which is important as frankly we need to side with Bilbo, don't we?

I have read the book, and yes Jackson changes many moments, and introduces deeper story to some characters (and yes, strips character from others, but heck, we don't want it to be 4, or 5 films do we?), but it is his right and the changes are welcomed if they make the film great. And do they make the films great? Heck yes. Azog is the best inclusion--at no time did his cgi bother me--and frankly, the Tolkien fanatics should relax and just enjoy the story arc created by giving Azog a bigger role to play. He is b@D@2$. He is an example of where Jackson's decision to expand the films to 3 is a good decision for this film as it offers another thing to anticipate--the other obviously being the dragon, who we get only glimpses of--and frankly, as a film on its own it is great for it. Parts 2 and 3 may be hurt by the extension, but the first film isn't hurt at all. It is benefited by it. So for now, it would be great not to have to listen to all the whinging about the story changes, which frankly, drives me crazy as the film is good and doesn't need the constant comparison to the original book, which was good, but maybe not good enough to be better than Jackson's creation. Time will tell, but for now, I am more than happy (heck, I'm now anticipating the next film more than I did the first) to say this film is as good as it could have been, and the changes and tone of Jackson and del Toro worked perfectly.

Rating it is hard as it needs to be taken into context with the next two films; the whole picture is needed to see what rating it truly deserves. I will rate it a 9 out of 10 for now, but this will likely change over time when looked at together with the other two films. Let's hopre the next two are as good--or even better-- and that Jackson is able to finally silence the Tolkien fanatics and their gnashing and wailing because frankly, it is getting old very fast (heck, it was already old after all the whinging from the mega-fanatics over LOTR).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2013 6:54:19 AM PST
Mike Gordan says:
Ladon: No, I am not a professional critic. Thanks for thinking that my reviews are of a good enough standard for me to become one though. I still need a bit of polishing, however (as I still find myself repeating my own points on occassion), but I must admit that I made some serious progress since starting out.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 8:31:44 AM PST
Hello? (echoes)

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 8:31:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 8:41:20 AM PST
Mike Gordan says:
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

A film so hilarious you'd be laughing your butt off before the opening credits even began rolling. First off is a false alarm in which we are made to believe that we're in the wrong theater and instead are watching Dentist on the Job. Then they change the reels, and the credits roll. And even the credits are rather hilarious, albeit mysteriously ominous.

And then we cut to the opening scene, in England 93 Squared A.D.. King Arthur and his trusty servant, Patsy ride their horses to this fort and--no, wait! They couldn't afford horses so they instead pretend to ride them while Patsy bangs two empty halves of coconuts together. Now how the hell they got their coconuts to pull this off in the dark ages is beyond me, but we are led to believe that King Arthur recieved them from some swallows on their return trip from their annual migration. European or African, I have no idea--YEALP! But on a related note, the lakes were rather pretty this time of year, aren't they?

The writing of this picture is top notch--some of the best of any British comedy. I can go on and on about the film's highlights, but unless you've been living under a rock and haven't seen a single frame of this picture, you already know them all. But WAS is completely right in singling out some of the historical references which I will indeed single out--the democratic peasants, the black plague, the witch trials and the thinking behind them, the French vs. British, and even all the cute little furry animals--you know, like the killer rabbit or the majestic moose. And let's not forget Prince Herbert wo is obviously a guy playing a lady being held captive against his will.

Of course, we can't talk about the writing without covering the acting which is rather top notch. We have the late Graham Chapman as King Arthur, God, and a few other minor characters, Terry Gilliam as Patsy and the film's animator who unfortunately suffered that fatal heartattack, Terry Jones as Sir Bedeviere the ''wise,'' John Cleese as Sir Lancelot the Brave (and the black knight), Michael Palin as Sir Galahad the Pure (AKA, Dennis the peasant in that dreadful Spamalot), and Eric Idle as Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir Lancelot complete with a chicken insignia on his shield and armor. All of them did first rate jobs on their work here, and both helped deliver one hilarious line after another. Oh, a did you know a moose once bit my sister? No, really? She was petting the cute little moose and then it turned around and beiuooooooeiuooooommmp....

We apologize for the inconvenience. The guy responsible for posting this review had been sacked. But yeah, moose bites pretty nastiiiiiiieeuuuooooommp.....

We apologize again for the inconvenience. The person responsible for sacking the poster of this review who had been sacked had been sacked.

Anyways, for the effects, surprisingly effective for being on the cheap. Again, they couldn't afford horses, so they used coconuts. The animated sequences are as they should be given it's a Monty Python movie, and the moose choreography was amazing. The blood splatter is cartoonishly over-the-top, and many of the props and set pieces are just plain priceless. And let's not forget the best-looking effects of the movie belonging to Tim the Enchanter and his fiery powers (again, played by John Cleese). The moose in this picture was well trained, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the moose that was on the left-hand corner of that one frame in the scene where theeeeiiiiiiooooooommmp!

We apologize for all the sacking that has been going on. We appear to have been having some major difficulties typing this review. So please accept the final thoughts as they were as they were rushed to the forums at the very last minute. Warning: Final thoughts may induce seizures. Those sensitive to flashing strobing lights must not read another paragraph further. You have been warned!

Overall, it is such a magnificent llamma! The llammas were lovable, the characters memorable, and let's not forget that wonderful llamma! Lllamma, llamma, llamma, llamma! I give this lllamma 10 llammas out of llamma! Yeehaw!

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 8:49:01 AM PST
Some other pleasures of Monty Python And the Holy Grail:

Castle Anthrax and bad, naughty Zut, who left on the Grail-shaped beacon--again! And we know that there is only one punishment for leaving on the Grail-shaped beacon....

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, and the reading from the First Book of Armaments--"And thus thy enemy, being naughty in thy sight, shall snuff it."

And of course The Knights Who Say "Ni!"

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 9:02:27 AM PST
Mike Gordan says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 10:06:52 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 11:35:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 11:35:48 AM PST
Fecher la vache!


Oui! Fecher la vache!

[cow comes over the castle wall]

I wahve ma prihvate pahts in your auntie's face!

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 11:39:17 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 5:54:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2013 6:04:44 PM PDT
On the previous thread, WAS said: "Ladon, you sound suspiciously like Gordo under another name, perhaps in order to advance stronger points of view. But we really don't need puppets."

Yes, it seems fairly obvious that Gordo is Ladon.

You are under no obligation to change your mind back to "Ladon is not Gordo" simply because I believe it.

"I don't even know what a sockpuppet is."

"It is to laugh." Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck or somebody.

Edit (5/15/2013): Okay, we've now determined Ladon was Zeph. For future reference, he's now using the name Magic door.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 6:16:23 PM PST
Larry Kelley says:
Cilantron: I was pretty sure before Mr. Smith's suggestion, that Ladon was Gordo in disguise. After reading a few of his ridiculous rants I put him on ignore. That is a first for me, but I find myself much less irritable. I am considering doing the same with several others who seem to delight in posting simply to annoy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 7:21:44 PM PST
Magic door says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 7:33:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 7:34:48 PM PST
Exhibit A your honor: the above post.

Judge: guilty. Duh. Sentence: 100 lashes with a wet noodle. Sentence to be carried out immediately.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 7:57:18 PM PST
stevign says:
re: "and only my regular church visit on Sunday can calm me down"

You should erect a little Christian shrine around your computer to help keep you calm. A photo of Jesus as your computer's desktop wallpaper might be a good idea as well. ;~)
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  95
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Mar 1, 2013
Latest post:  Jun 20, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions