Industrial Deals Beauty Save up to 90% on textbooks STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheOnlyLivingBoy TheOnlyLivingBoy TheOnlyLivingBoy  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $79.99 Kindle Paperwhite GNO Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
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 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 4:11:31 PM PST
Zero of One says:

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 4:10:54 PM PST
Last post on this thread. Good night, sweet prince.

(scattering the ashes into the beautiful waters of the Pacific).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 4:06:32 PM PST
Magic door says:
I am afraid that I have no interest in films that depict mental illness, especially that of the bi-polar variety, so Sunset Blvd is not a film I entirely enjoy. As you like it, I am willing to try it again. I agree wholly that The Apartment is sour and misanthropic, and that the Academy made a mistake. Psycho should have recieved the best picture award (heck, Spartacus would have been a good winner too, even though Kubrick hated the end result of his film). As Psycho was not nominated, 1960 should have not given any award, as frankly, I find all the nominees below contempt.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:48:58 PM PST
Ladon: Interesting. I have found that over the year Kirk Douglas' works gets less and less attractive to me. Wilder, however, is a different matter. The Apartment is an astonishingly sour film, and I confess I find no pleasure in it. (One of Oscar's less agreeable choices.) However, in Wilder's body of work, the good (Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, Some Like It Hot, Fedora, Sabrina, One Two Three, Stalag 17, Witness For The Prosecution, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes) greatly outweighs the bad. Heck, Sunset Boulevard alone would justify an entire career by itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:43:17 PM PST
Magic door says:
Richard Gere is another overpraised actor who deserves only contempt.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:40:12 PM PST
Magic door says:
This Alex O'Brien character sounds interesting. I will keep my eye out for it. And if it is okay with you, I hope to be a major contributor to your new thread(heck, I hope to review over 100 movies before winter).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:39:42 PM PST
Re Michael Douglas-- I don't dislike him as such and don't have a strong opinion on that but I agree that his character in Fatal Attraction was unpleasant and he didn't deserve a lovely wife.

An actor that I do dislike alot is Richard Gere. He is under the delusion that he is one of cinema's greatest actors ever.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:36:58 PM PST
Magic door says:
3 films of which I only watch when forced to. And frankly, I would rather be molested than watch more Sean Penn (heck, I would rather have to watch Sandler films than Penn).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:33:43 PM PST
Magic door says:

Thankyou. I am honored to be likened to Gordo, who it seems to me, is one of the better posters to this forum. Frankly, I have no idea what a sock puppet is, and I have no desire to know either. They sound like the kind of juvenile contemptible trash that I despise.

I agree that Michael Douglas is one of the least engaging actors I know. I dislike him so much that I have come to not care about him at all. I would much rather watch his father in a film even if he too has been in some ho-hum films also (frankly, I found Ace in the Hole ho-hum; heck, I find most of Wilders work to be unfunny overpraised dreck, especially The Apartment, which frankly, makes me feel like a perverted cretin).

The moral vacuum in the center of Bridges of Madison County is why I find the film utterly contempible. I would usually praise Eastwood for his libertarian views (heck, even for his attempt to see Romney take the office held by that contemptable moron who now sits there), but not for this film which should truly be cast into the fires of Hell.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 3:20:01 PM PST
Magic door says:

It seems there may be hope for you afterall; a disliking of Douglas, who is as annoying as the repugnant Sandler, is a sign of the sort of sense demanded by those of higher intelligence. Frankly, I hope we can move on as I have no desire to keep repeating my self on this subject.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 3:07:03 PM PST
Caswell: Now you are offensive. Pvt. Manning has committed a very serious series of crimes--and Wikileaks is a plague.

Besides which--as a Canadian, you have no standing to criticize our internal affairs. Economic terrorists, forsooth.

Besides which--this is not a political forum.

Cram it. Please stick to film and other aspects of the arts, or move your whining to a political thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 2:59:25 PM PST
Caswell says:
God Bless America. A true hero Private Bradley Manning bravely stands before a tribunal of cowards and suffers unjust imprisonment for having the character to expose the truth about liars and murderers, while the multi-millionaire Wall Street economic terrorists and global war criminals who knowingly lied about "weapons of mass destruction" and burned hundreds of thousands of people are rewarded?

I'm so glad Disney makes Hobbit movies so we don't have to question such madness.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 2:38:08 PM PST
stevign says:

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 1:42:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013, 1:43:25 PM PST
Here's the new thread titled More Reviews of the Last Movie You Watched. You can follow the link here:

12 more comments to go, people! Ready to say your final goodbyes to this thread, and hello to the new thread!

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 1:04:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013, 1:37:06 PM PST
Here comes my final review here on this thread--which will double as the first review on the new thread once I activate it. The transition begins on a high note:

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!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 12:37:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013, 12:53:44 PM PST
[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, 9:56:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013, 10:23:44 AM PST
Okay, we're in full agreement on 'The Avengers'. Marvel knocked it out of the park. I'll probably watch it again just to do a real review for this thread, but two things I really like about it is,one; the movie makes being smart really cool, which is something most movies seem to have something against, and I believe it's a message well worth championing. The other thing is that the character of Captain America is not handled as a joke because of his old fashioned idealism. This would have been very easy to go Brady Bunch movie with since the character is literally a man from another era, but they also make him to be a very heroic and a fun figure, as well as a natural leader. So yeah I thought the Avengers deserved every bit of business that it got. Whedon hit just the right tone, and its good that at least with superhero films Hollywood didn't feel the need to get into the rut it got into after Star Wars where every SF film had to be a clone of that formula. I could see a studio trying to make the Avengers as dark as TDK since that picture made money hand over fist as well as get a lot of critical acclaim.

An all around fun film for everybody be they comic book fans or not, that managed to stick to it's comic roots and still be a crowd pleaser.

The Avengers 8 out of !0. If not the best adaptation of a super hero comic to the big screen then it's definitely in the top 5.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 9:48:14 AM PST
stevign says:
I liked that one too, I thought he was pretty funny. There are others but my list was just my favs.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 9:47:13 AM PST
stevign says:
I found Bridges of Madison County very boring, it should have been released on TV's Lifetime Channel where it belongs.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 9:39:18 AM PST
Zolar Waka says:
I suppose. Super 8 was Hollywood/Abrams/Spielberg....Attack the Block was England. It's really about where it comes from and the target audience. As father to 3 kids just coming into teens, I can say that the reality in terms of exposure is really somewhere in between the two! So true.

That being said, I enjoyed both, and, in terms of "blockbuster/Hollywood" type films, over the last couple of years, I liked only Avengers better than Super 8.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 9:33:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013, 9:38:07 AM PST
"Super 8" was a great movie for what it tried to do! "Attack the Block" was pretty much the same movie as "Super 8" but with some more R-rated ideas like drug use and a whole lot more cussin'!"

That's the key point, "tried to do". What Super 8 tried to do, Attack the Block did with a much lower budget, and a much tighter screenplay. Not to mention it answers a question that has always been on my mind which is, "How is it with all the aliens that have invaded Earth in films, none have ever seen fit to land in urban areas?" There are plenty of films with teenagers smoking pot which is the extent of drug use in this film, and most every teen film today has profanity of some extent, which is pretty accurate because that's the way kids do talk (nowadays at least). Nothing against Super 8, and Elle Fanning blew me away with her talent, but Super 8 was so underwhelming it was palpable. You could see every plot point a mile away because there was nothing new in entire endeavor other than some good SFX and CGI, and today you can find it in the $1 bin in Walmart. Another summer movie to tide you over until the next big blockbuster; only Super 8 though it did okay wasn't nearly the blockbuster they tried to make it. My bet is that over time, Attack the Block will only gain more fans as most good films eventually do regardless of how they performed at the box office.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 9:17:19 AM PST
I even liked him in Romancing the Stone, the movie that kind of resurrected his career.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 9:17:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013, 9:17:58 AM PST
Zolar Waka says:
You guys are nuts. "Bridges of Madison County" was a pretty/very good movie and "Super 8" was a great movie for what it tried to do! "Attack the Block" was pretty much the same movie as "Super 8" but with some more R-rated ideas like more drug use and a whole lot more cussin'!

...and Michael Douglas is cool too, almost as cool as Kirk.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013, 9:07:51 AM PST
stevign says:
re: "(I absolutely can't stand Michael Douglas at any price)"

Why, he's done some excellent work? I especially liked The Game, Traffic and Falling Down.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013, 8:32:15 AM PST
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.

A few observations in re: Bridges and Fatal Attraction:

1. Michael Douglas, in my view, is one of the least engaging actors I know. He reminds me of Mr Hyde as described in the original story--even if you can't quite put your finger on it, there is something repellant about him. Good for villains, but not even an interesting performer as a villain.

2. The really disturbing thing about Bridges is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. Streep's character gets all the pleasures of an adulterous affair with Clint, the apparently moral satisfaction of ending it--and no real consequences except the bittersweet memories. It's a perfect fantasy, and pretty vile. And all of Clint's skill as a director cannot disguise the moral vacuum in the center. I cannot blame him for making the film for the money--but I really wish he hadn't.
‹ 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:  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