Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Shop Now FFII_gno
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Rate 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 1076-1100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Nov 9, 2012, 9:30:09 PM PST
J.B. Taylor says:
I watched this movie a while back, but I want to rate it anyway's.

Hatchet 2


This was a fun flick to watch. You shouldn't go in expecting a masterpiece, because you won't get it, but you will have a good time because the film is fun.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012, 1:40:47 AM PST
Hikari says:
An interesting article detailing the rocky road to "Skyfall". In contrast to his rather dour persona and lone wolf ways as Bond, Daniel Craig seems to have a personal charisma and talent for coalition-building in real life. He appears to be the one responsible for wooing both director Sam Mendes and chief villain Javier Bardem to the project. Dan Craig seems to be friendly with a lot of people (or just bold enough to ask for favors after a few drinks).

Posted on Nov 10, 2012, 1:48:31 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 10, 2012, 6:36:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012, 6:44:50 AM PST
H: I am pleased to hear about Mr. Craig's off-screen persona. There are doubtless countless appropriate roles for him.

Please, just no more Bonds.

Although in all fairness I must say that this article makes me feel somewhat more positive about Skyfall than I had felt previously.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012, 8:31:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012, 8:39:46 AM PST
Hikari says:
It sounds as though Dan heeded his detractors' complaints and begged them to put in more humor, in the old-school style. Let's see if he can channel Sir Roger just a tiny bit. Mr. Craig is a subtle actor, and perhaps Bond is not best-served by too much subtlety. I found many small bits of humor in Casino Royale myself, but the viewer had to dig for them a little bit; Dan did not telegraph them with a big set-up. For a covert operative facing down death daily, I feel that a very broad sense of humor is probably not realistic. "Quantum"'s toxicity cannot be laid at his door alone. In fact it was in development during the writer's strike, and at one point, Dan was actually writing part of the script. "And I'm no writer," he said in his characteristic modest way. That movie was misbegotten from conception. The first 20 minutes were so good! Then, pffffft.

I have seen Dan on the Colbert Report and my impression was of a modest guy, a bit shy, even, who is a bit uncomfortable with the whole sex symbol/stardom thing. He played along with the host and made for a pretty charming interview subject, discomfiture and all. Dan Craig is not as arrogant as Bond sometimes can look. In fact, I don't believe he's stuck on himself in the least. I can believe that he'd be the kind of guy who could make people want to work with him.

So, Wm., gonna see Skyfall this weekend? :)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012, 8:48:08 AM PST
H: No. Nothing on the docket this weekend except some work.

Craig subtle? Perhaps in the same sense that Spenser Tracy was subtle. As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There's no there there." Rather the polar opposite to the scenery-chewing likes of DDL and Sean Penn.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012, 8:50:44 AM PST
Nova137 says:
The Wrestler with Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood. Moving, sad, depressing, brilliant. 9.75/10.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012, 9:43:56 AM PST
Hikari says:
>>>Rather the polar opposite to the scenery-chewing likes of DDL and Sean Penn.

If you're comparing DC to Spencer Tracy as the polar opposite of the above-mentioned gents whom we know you find detestably hammy, then I'm going to take that as a compliment to Mr. Craig in spite of yourself. :)

I would like Mr. Craig to tackle something in a lighter vein one of these days so we can see his more impish side. I know it's in there. He saves it up for Rachel.

Sometimes inhabiting a 'no there there' character is the pinnacle of thespian art. I submit Sir Alec Guiness as George Smiley in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy for the proof. Gary Oldman's performance was actually 2 hours of him channelling Guiness.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012, 5:06:34 PM PST
H: There is an important middle ground. An actor has to do something. Alec Guiness and John Gielgud--both subtle actors--did something with their parts instead of just being. Or, on this side of the Atlantic--William Powell.

Except in a few cases, Tracy was a remarkably dull performer. And dull may be preferable to vulgar and showy--but not by much.

Sorry, my dear, we will differ on this matter, but I don't see much there there with Craig. And frankly I cannot imagine him in comedy--at least the sort of comedy I would enjoy.

Another actor with absolutely no there there--Christopher Eccleston. I just saw him in what is admittedly a not very good film (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra), for which you will find a review on "Your review". I haven't seen a performance worthy of the name from him. And he's not--to put it charitably--in the least attractive.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012, 5:27:44 PM PST
Hikari says:
Well, promise me to watch 'Skyfall' with an open mind, will you? I hope to go on Monday.

Mr. Craig came to Bond from indie British cinema. He may not be your conception of James Bond but have you seen any of his other work? I fear you are so biased against him that you may avoid him on principle. He was an unexpected Bond, to be sure. Have you seen him in:

Love and Rage
Road to Perdition
Dream House
Elizabeth (also featuring Christopher Eccleston . . tour de force from CE, I'd say)
and I'd especially like to draw your attention to Enduring Love with Rhys Ifans

With the possible exception to Defiance and Elizabeth, I'd call him the anti-Bond in all of these.

Re. Eccleston
I wouldn't judge him on 'Rise of Cobra'. Even our best classically-trained Shakespearans can be tempted by obscene amounts of American dollars for not working terribly hard. Look at Michael Caine. Laurence Olivier, too.

I recently saw two very early projects from Mr. Eccleston: a Morse episode, "Second Time Around", circa 1990 . . .this may not have been his debut, but very close to it as he was very young. Somewhat channelling a red-haired Ralph Fiennes here a bit, and "Shallow Grave" by Danny Boyle (1994). He doesn't have the immediate winning face of say, a McGregor, but he was fairly appealing when young. Big eyes.

Only 4 years after Shallow Grave, he came roaring out with a very mature performance in Elizabeth (admittedly in non-attractive mode.) In 2001, a personal favorite, his Iago in the BBC modern-dress "Othello". Most effective; he made my skin crawl. Then, of course, a long run as the 8th Doctor, but I don't watch that show. I must disagree most vehemently that there's no 'there' there with Chris--'Cobra' is hardly the most apt proving ground for that. I'm sure none of the American actors were particularly 'there' either. That wouldn't have been a real job requirement in the venue, I should't suppose.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012, 5:55:41 PM PST
H: Please note that I am not judging Mr. Eccleston solely on The Rise of Cobra. I've seen a number of the other items you mention--and the same observation holds. I'm not impressed.

His turn in Revenger's Tragedy is one of many bad things in a very bad film--and certainly as indie as you get. He was less than convincing as Norfolk in Elizabeth; and as for that tarted up modern version of Othello, well, that's the sort of thing I give a miss to on general principles. Andrew Davies (the adapter) has a tin ear in other projects, notably his substandard TV version of Emma.

No, I will not be searching out Mr. Eccleston's performances.

As for Mr. Craig--he also failed to stand out in Elizabeth, a film that, like the curate's egg, was excellent in parts but a bit of a muddle from the historical point of view.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012, 9:42:08 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Nova137- The Wrestler

Yes to all you say about it. A great return for Mickey Rourke & a wonderful night at the movies.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012, 11:57:27 PM PST
J.B. Taylor says:
The Decent 2


A nearly perfect scare fest.

Posted on Nov 11, 2012, 12:42:33 PM PST
The Gold Rush

Near perfect, if not, perfect silent comedy. Thank you Mr. Chaplin.


Posted on Nov 12, 2012, 3:53:20 PM PST
Blade Runner

Strangely enough, I watched about half of it last year and thought it really dragged on. I just sat through it all, and though the pacing is slow at times, it really does pay off


Posted on Nov 12, 2012, 4:35:07 PM PST
J.B. Taylor says:
James Bond Skyfall

Great movie from beginning to end. This film had plenty of surprises and new faces. I enjoyed it quite a bit.


Posted on Nov 12, 2012, 10:40:31 PM PST
J.B. Taylor says:
Dial M For Murder,


A perfect, and I mean perfect, mystery/crime movie.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 7:29:29 AM PST
"I Think We're Alone Now" (2010)

Short documentary about two individuals, Jeff and Kelly, who claim to be in love with the 80's pop singer Tiffany. Jeff has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome... Kelley is a transsexual marathon runner... THE END... absolutely pointless documentary. 3/10.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 8:44:00 AM PST
Hikari says:
Based on your description however, I'm going to have to Queue that one up now. One does not run into documentaries about obsessive transsexual marathon runners every day. Aspies are a bit more common, but not ones who are in love with Tiffany. What is unclear from your synopsis is whether Jeff and Kelly are friends and stalk Tiffany together, or do they love her completely independently?

A question probably not addressed by this film: Does Kelley start with the men or the women?

In other Tiffany news, she now poses for porn in order to stay (?) relevant. She's come a long way from the mall.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 9:06:22 AM PST
Actually, I think Emma got it in one. A more extended synopsis from IMDB:

Every celebrity deals with his or her share of obsessed fans. "I Think We're Alone Now" is a documentary that focuses on two individuals, Jeff and Kelly, who claim to be in love with the 80's pop singer Tiffany. Jeff Turner, a 50-year-old man from Santa Cruz, California has attended Tiffany concerts since 1988. Diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, he never had a girlfriend. Jeff spends his days hanging out on the streets of Santa Cruz, striking up conversations with anyone who has a moment to spare. Kelly McCormick is a 38-year-old hermaphrodite from Denver, Colorado, who claims to have been friends with Tiffany as a teenager. She credits Tiffany as the shining star who has motivated her to do everything in her life. Both Jeff and Kelly have been labeled stalkers by the media and other Tiffany fans. This film takes you inside the lonely lives these two characters, revealing the source of their clinging obsessions. This age-old story of unrequited love takes a comedic and emotional trip through themes of desperation, isolation, and hope, in the end showing that having something, or someone, to believe in can be more powerful than anything reality has to offer.

At least one viewer commented on it as an example of schadenfreude, of the "hey look at the freaks, we are so much better than that" variety.

At a deeper level: since Tiffany is of no interest whatsoever except as an ephemeral pop phenomenon (I'm not sure that "relevant" is the mot juste here--perhaps "visible" fits the situation more effectively), why should a Tiffany epiphenomenon be of any interest whatsoever?

In fact: what purpose does this film serve?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 9:08:10 AM PST
WAS: Maybe to give the middle finger to the audience.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 9:16:03 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 9:19:35 AM PST
PoM: And why, pray, would one wish to do that?

Brechtian distance is one thing; certainly not my favorite theatrical ploy, but one at least understands the rationale.

But art created for the purpose of showing the artist's contempt for the audience is simply pathological.

No, more likely it's a case of two opposing forces at work--on the one hand, an entirely synthetic compassion, on the other a morbid schadenfreude. Mixing together to produce a kind of snarky, morbid sentimentality--designed to offer the target viewer the simultaneous rewards of compassion and superiority.

Actually, pretty much a description of a great many documentaries.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 9:21:52 AM PST
Larry Kelley says:
Mr. Smith: I think the "hey look at the freaks" is part of the attraction, Tod Browning's film has been around it seems forever and people still take a peak at it. Taking that idea to another level, or perhaps a lower one, I could ask if the same urge, regardless of what part of the human psyche it comes from, causes individuals to watch zombie films, horror films, that are filled with blood, gore, disfigured semi-humans, and in many films of this nature, increasingly more disgusting-looking alien creatures. The more horrible they look, and especially if they are given some human emotional characteristic, the more fascinated some viewers seem to be. It is an attraction to the grotesque. I haven't read any such study but would not be at all surprised to find that someone qualified has written extensively on the attraction of the grotesque.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 9:24:32 AM PST

"One does not run into documentaries about obsessive transsexual marathon runners every day."

Exactly the reason I picked it up. Also I think a better description would be "obsessive, transsexual, alcoholic, marathon runner".

"What is unclear from your synopsis is whether Jeff and Kelly are friends and stalk Tiffany together, or do they love her completely independently?"

The obsessions are independent. However, the two will eventually meet and attend a Tiffany concert together. Sort of interesting conflict occurs between the stalkers after the concert. But really there is absolutely no substance.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012, 9:32:25 AM PST
Hikari says:
I think the main themes of the film (unrequited love; desperation; hope; varying degrees of mental illness/failure to fit into the larger society) hold true regardless of 'who' the crush object is. Would Jeff and Kelley's stories be fundamentally different if the celebrity they were in love with was Madonna or Justin Bieber? Maybe those two are a bit more current as far as the audience is concerned--give the Beebs a few more years and he will be the Tiffany of this decade. (Still don't know what to call it--are we in the '10s?)

I guess what is intriguing about these two is how the force of their adoration has remained undiminished, even though the focus of it hasn't been popular for almost 25 years now--ie, provided them with much to feed their obsession in terms of being in the public eye. And in Jeff's case, it's interesting that his obessessive tendencies that go hand-in-hand with his disorder would fixate on a person instead of a subject--a person who isn't a relevant historical figure.

Tiffany still has 'fans' that don't buy Playboy magazine--who knew?
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  201
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 15, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 3, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 12 customers