last movie you watched

[MusicHead]

Some old film noirs:

 

Crime of Passion

Raw Deal

[LyndseyG]

http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/lyndseyg2112/2015-09-12-18-59-24-2035187288.jpeghttp://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/lyndseyg2112/2015-08-30-22-11-17-2090512111.jpeghttp://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/lyndseyg2112/2015-09-13-17-29-41--250185297.jpeghttp://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/lyndseyg2112/2015-09-13-17-28-42-1119716053.jpeg

[invisible airwave]

http://i62.tinypic.com/vpiv79.jpg

[troutman]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

[invisible airwave]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

There's good and bad in any year old and new but, yeah, the majority of good is older. Ever other movie lately is either comic book, reboot, or remake. Fall releases will give us a nice, unique classic here and there like Birdman and Gravity that makes our jaws drop in awe but it's mostly meh now.

Edited September 14, 2015 by invisible airwave

[JohnnyBlaze]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

Ever other movie lately is either comic book, reboot, or remake.

Let's test this "every other movie" sentence. Check the listings of a popular/big cinema in your town. How many movies are showing? How many are reboots, remakes, or comic book films? How many are something else?

 

In my hometown, there are 20 movies showing at the cinema that I usually go. 1 is a remake of sorts (Man from Uncle), 1 is a superhero flick (Ant-Man), and the other 18 are something else. Hating reboots/remakes/comic book films is common but to say that "every other movie" is one of those just isn't true.

[treeduck]

http://i.imgur.com/NjFj6do.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/NJoB5z3.jpg

 

The last of my Christopher Lee fest!

[Segue Myles]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

[EagleMoon]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

 

There have been more crappy movies released every year than there have been hits. We mainly see the hits since the crappy ones just tend to disappear...or end up on really late late late tv.

[Segue Myles]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

 

There have been more crappy movies released every year than there have been hits. We mainly see the hits since the crappy ones just tend to disappear...or end up on really late late late tv.

 

Exactly!

[EagleMoon]

http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/946/p946_p_v7_aa.jpg

 

I first saw this on tv late one night about 20 years ago. It still gives me the creeps.

[EagleMoon]

Forgot about this one. Saw it again last night. Still creepy as heck. Especially when he has the visions of the multi-eyed goat and lizard.

 

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/altered-states-1980/large_9C1C6G506dqLTB7ibbIYcVf83ij.jpg

Edited September 14, 2015 by EagleMoon

[JohnnyBlaze]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

 

There have been more crappy movies released every year than there have been hits. We mainly see the hits since the crappy ones just tend to disappear...or end up on really late late late tv.

 

Exactly!

Yes! Shit abounds every decade!

[troutman]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

 

I didn't say every film,

 

I will take any of the older films and actors over today's stuff hands down. JMO. :D

[troutman]

The Source - New Zealand

 

I really need to get back there at some point. Heaven on earth!

[Segue Myles]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

 

I didn't say every film,

 

I will take any of the older films and actors over today's stuff hands down. JMO. :D

 

I don't entirely agree, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, (on form) Johnny Depp and Jack Black are treasures.

 

But I don't know if all of them measure up to the old greats, aside from Streep.

[troutman]

The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.

How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.

Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?

I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated.

 

What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is.

Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?

 

Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor!

 

Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much.

 

Are you insane?

 

Films that old or even older are classics. Not like the junk these days.

 

So every film released in the 1950's is a classic? Every film released in the 21st century is junk?

 

I didn't say every film,

 

I will take any of the older films and actors over today's stuff hands down. JMO. :D

 

I don't entirely agree, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, (on form) Johnny Depp and Jack Black are treasures.

 

But I don't know if all of them measure up to the old greats, aside from Streep.

 

She sucks,

 

Compared to the women that I enjoy in movies. :codger:

[Steevo]

http://i59.tinypic.com/21obk2q.jpg

[JohnnyBlaze]

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/pkirwan/2012/01/22/coriolanus_fiennes.jpg?maxWidth=500

 

Ralph Fiennes' directorial debut. Great cast. Slow in parts...but what can you expect? It's a Shakespeare adaptation. Still though, good drama and buildup.

 

Overall Rating: B

[goose]

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/pkirwan/2012/01/22/coriolanus_fiennes.jpg?maxWidth=500

 

Ralph Fiennes' directorial debut. Great cast. Slow in parts...but what can you expect? It's a Shakespeare adaptation. Still though, good drama and buildup.

 

Overall Rating: B

Coriolanus received positive reviews and currently holds an aggregate of 93% at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 134 reviews; the consensus states: "Visceral and visually striking, Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus proves Shakespeare can still be both electrifying and relevant in a modern context."^[12] Katherine Monk of The Vancouver Sun gave the film a rating of 3.5 out of 5, stating that "Coriolanus not only finds all the contemporary parallels, it reiterates the tragedy of the endlessly exploited patriot who hopes to earn love at the end of a barrel"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus_(film)

 

Sounds like a film I would love/

[JohnnyBlaze]

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/pkirwan/2012/01/22/coriolanus_fiennes.jpg?maxWidth=500

 

Ralph Fiennes' directorial debut. Great cast. Slow in parts...but what can you expect? It's a Shakespeare adaptation. Still though, good drama and buildup.

 

Overall Rating: B

Coriolanus received positive reviews and currently holds an aggregate of 93% at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 134 reviews; the consensus states: "Visceral and visually striking, Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus proves Shakespeare can still be both electrifying and relevant in a modern context."^[12] Katherine Monk of The Vancouver Sun gave the film a rating of 3.5 out of 5, stating that "Coriolanus not only finds all the contemporary parallels, it reiterates the tragedy of the endlessly exploited patriot who hopes to earn love at the end of a barrel"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus_(film)

 

Sounds like a film I would love/

The 90s DiCaprio/Danes Romeo+Juliet flick got 72% on RottenTomatoes but I thought it was a tiring piece of junk. Seemed like some MTV production with all the cutesy, hip actors of that decade.

 

The performances in Coriolanus are worth it alone. Fiennes is going all out looking vengeful and all that.

[Lucas]

Just watched the blu ray of the original ( 1968 ) Planet Of The Apes

 

The transfer was striking - it looked amazing, esp the scenes in the beginning, and the soundtrack was brilliant ....

 

Looking forward to Beneath The Planet Of The Apes, as I haven't seen it in probably 30 years, and recall liking it just as much, if not more than the original ..

 

Can't beat the ending of the original though

[JohnnyBlaze]

Just watched the blu ray of the original ( 1968 ) Planet Of The Apes

 

The transfer was striking - it looked amazing, esp the scenes in the beginning, and the soundtrack was brilliant ....

 

Looking forward to Beneath The Planet Of The Apes, as I haven't seen it in probably 30 years, and recall liking it just as much, if not more than the original ..

 

Can't beat the ending of the original though

I think those two are the only good ones. I loved the original and I really liked Beneath. Naturally, the Burton one was by far the worst and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath. And the modern Ape flicks this century are okay but they don't have the same special suspense/drama like the original and Beneath.

[goose]

Just watched the blu ray of the original ( 1968 ) Planet Of The Apes

 

The transfer was striking - it looked amazing, esp the scenes in the beginning, and the soundtrack was brilliant ....

 

Looking forward to Beneath The Planet Of The Apes, as I haven't seen it in probably 30 years, and recall liking it just as much, if not more than the original ..

 

Can't beat the ending of the original though

I think those two are the only good ones. I loved the original and I really liked Beneath. Naturally, the Burton one was by far the worst and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath. And the modern Ape flicks this century are okay but they don't have the same special suspense/drama like the original and Beneath.

I like the Burton flick. Good fun.

[goose]

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/pkirwan/2012/01/22/coriolanus_fiennes.jpg?maxWidth=500

 

Ralph Fiennes' directorial debut. Great cast. Slow in parts...but what can you expect? It's a Shakespeare adaptation. Still though, good drama and buildup.

 

Overall Rating: B

Coriolanus received positive reviews and currently holds an aggregate of 93% at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 134 reviews; the consensus states: "Visceral and visually striking, Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus proves Shakespeare can still be both electrifying and relevant in a modern context."^[12] Katherine Monk of The Vancouver Sun gave the film a rating of 3.5 out of 5, stating that "Coriolanus not only finds all the contemporary parallels, it reiterates the tragedy of the endlessly exploited patriot who hopes to earn love at the end of a barrel"

 

https://en.wikipedia...oriolanus_(film)

 

Sounds like a film I would love/

The 90s DiCaprio/Danes Romeo+Juliet flick got 72% on RottenTomatoes but I thought it was a tiring piece of junk. Seemed like some MTV production with all the cutesy, hip actors of that decade.

 

The performances in Coriolanus are worth it alone. Fiennes is going all out looking vengeful and all that.

Agreed that the DiCaprio flick is a drag. I've never made it through.