Jump to content

last movie you watched


sonicjams
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (librarian @ Aug 23 2012, 01:13 PM)
I watched Tommy on VH1Classics last night. And I watched it up to the gang section - Hell's Angels I guess? I couldn't take anymore banghead.gif - god awful. maybe I just don't like musicals.

I did like watching Townsend, Clapton, and Entwistle in the Marilyn Monroe bit though..wub.gif wub.gif wub.gif

It was just as bad as Rocky Horror, and I haven't been able to sit through that in its entirety (and not planning on it, either) - although I still enjoy the soundtrack.

I love that movie, but there are parts of it, like the Hells angels sequence that bother me.

 

I'm Facebook friends with Barry Winch who played the young Tommy. Very nice guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (USB Connector @ Aug 24 2012, 02:20 AM)
My local theatre is still surprisingly playing the Avengers. I can't believe the movie almost sold out. Anyways, I still think it's the best superhero movie to date.

Hmm...yeah, it might be. Imho, the only thing that might beat it is Batman Begins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 23 2012, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 23 2012, 04:05 PM)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O2JvbQmhwd8/TgdR6fxKb8I/AAAAAAAABbE/BNCQL2288OY/s1600/Dracula+2000+Poster+01_595.jpg

This couldn't have been good. Or was it?

The tag line just screams "piece of shit."

It wasn't great but it wasn't a total disaster, in fact it was pretty much an ok vampire romp...

 

The big twist on the Drac legend in this was that Dracula was really Judas Iscariot all along, forced to walk the earth as a human demon for 2000 years. When he hanged himself he did it as the sun went down and was cursed by what he'd done to Jesus to become a kind of junior version of Lucifer; not a fallen angel but a fallen disciple and a perversion of Jesus and his teachings, ie drinking blood instead of letting people eat and drink of the body etc. And the symbols of the things he'd done would hurt him, ie crosses, for obvious reasons, silver, for the silver pieces, stakes for the spikes and nails used against Jesus and sunlight because of the hanging when the sun went down. Something like that anyway...

 

The cast is pretty good too, Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, Jeri Ryan and Jennifer Esposito as eye candy vampires and Gerard Butler shockingly effective as Dracula.

 

It also had the advantage of following the woeful Bloody Valentine. Anything is good after seeing that. Whatever you do don't watch that one.

 

All in all Drac 2000 wasn't bad, relatively entertaining, as long as you're not expecting a masterpiece.

No chance in f**k that I'd watch Bloody Valentine.

I'm not much of a vampire fan...all of that hissing and pasty white skin is a bit too pansy for me. The only vampire movie I like that I can think of right off is Lost Boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 23 2012, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 23 2012, 04:05 PM)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O2JvbQmhwd8/TgdR6fxKb8I/AAAAAAAABbE/BNCQL2288OY/s1600/Dracula+2000+Poster+01_595.jpg

This couldn't have been good. Or was it?

The tag line just screams "piece of shit."

It wasn't great but it wasn't a total disaster, in fact it was pretty much an ok vampire romp...

 

The big twist on the Drac legend in this was that Dracula was really Judas Iscariot all along, forced to walk the earth as a human demon for 2000 years. When he hanged himself he did it as the sun went down and was cursed by what he'd done to Jesus to become a kind of junior version of Lucifer; not a fallen angel but a fallen disciple and a perversion of Jesus and his teachings, ie drinking blood instead of letting people eat and drink of the body etc. And the symbols of the things he'd done would hurt him, ie crosses, for obvious reasons, silver, for the silver pieces, stakes for the spikes and nails used against Jesus and sunlight because of the hanging when the sun went down. Something like that anyway...

 

The cast is pretty good too, Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, Jeri Ryan and Jennifer Esposito as eye candy vampires and Gerard Butler shockingly effective as Dracula.

 

It also had the advantage of following the woeful Bloody Valentine. Anything is good after seeing that. Whatever you do don't watch that one.

 

All in all Drac 2000 wasn't bad, relatively entertaining, as long as you're not expecting a masterpiece.

No chance in f**k that I'd watch Bloody Valentine.

I'm not much of a vampire fan...all of that hissing and pasty white skin is a bit too pansy for me. The only vampire movie I like that I can think of right off is Lost Boys.

Salem's Lot (1979) is an excellent one too...

 

trink38.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 23 2012, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 23 2012, 04:05 PM)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O2JvbQmhwd8/TgdR6fxKb8I/AAAAAAAABbE/BNCQL2288OY/s1600/Dracula+2000+Poster+01_595.jpg

This couldn't have been good. Or was it?

The tag line just screams "piece of shit."

It wasn't great but it wasn't a total disaster, in fact it was pretty much an ok vampire romp...

 

The big twist on the Drac legend in this was that Dracula was really Judas Iscariot all along, forced to walk the earth as a human demon for 2000 years. When he hanged himself he did it as the sun went down and was cursed by what he'd done to Jesus to become a kind of junior version of Lucifer; not a fallen angel but a fallen disciple and a perversion of Jesus and his teachings, ie drinking blood instead of letting people eat and drink of the body etc. And the symbols of the things he'd done would hurt him, ie crosses, for obvious reasons, silver, for the silver pieces, stakes for the spikes and nails used against Jesus and sunlight because of the hanging when the sun went down. Something like that anyway...

 

The cast is pretty good too, Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, Jeri Ryan and Jennifer Esposito as eye candy vampires and Gerard Butler shockingly effective as Dracula.

 

It also had the advantage of following the woeful Bloody Valentine. Anything is good after seeing that. Whatever you do don't watch that one.

 

All in all Drac 2000 wasn't bad, relatively entertaining, as long as you're not expecting a masterpiece.

No chance in f**k that I'd watch Bloody Valentine.

I'm not much of a vampire fan...all of that hissing and pasty white skin is a bit too pansy for me. The only vampire movie I like that I can think of right off is Lost Boys.

Salem's Lot (1979) is an excellent one too...

 

trink38.gif

Forgot about that one. And that's kind of the point. Lost Boys was about 25 years ago and Salem's Lot was over 30. That's a long time to have to go back to find a good movie in a particular (sub) genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 02:19 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 23 2012, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 23 2012, 04:05 PM)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O2JvbQmhwd8/TgdR6fxKb8I/AAAAAAAABbE/BNCQL2288OY/s1600/Dracula+2000+Poster+01_595.jpg

This couldn't have been good. Or was it?

The tag line just screams "piece of shit."

It wasn't great but it wasn't a total disaster, in fact it was pretty much an ok vampire romp...

 

The big twist on the Drac legend in this was that Dracula was really Judas Iscariot all along, forced to walk the earth as a human demon for 2000 years. When he hanged himself he did it as the sun went down and was cursed by what he'd done to Jesus to become a kind of junior version of Lucifer; not a fallen angel but a fallen disciple and a perversion of Jesus and his teachings, ie drinking blood instead of letting people eat and drink of the body etc. And the symbols of the things he'd done would hurt him, ie crosses, for obvious reasons, silver, for the silver pieces, stakes for the spikes and nails used against Jesus and sunlight because of the hanging when the sun went down. Something like that anyway...

 

The cast is pretty good too, Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, Jeri Ryan and Jennifer Esposito as eye candy vampires and Gerard Butler shockingly effective as Dracula.

 

It also had the advantage of following the woeful Bloody Valentine. Anything is good after seeing that. Whatever you do don't watch that one.

 

All in all Drac 2000 wasn't bad, relatively entertaining, as long as you're not expecting a masterpiece.

No chance in f**k that I'd watch Bloody Valentine.

I'm not much of a vampire fan...all of that hissing and pasty white skin is a bit too pansy for me. The only vampire movie I like that I can think of right off is Lost Boys.

Salem's Lot (1979) is an excellent one too...

 

trink38.gif

Forgot about that one. And that's kind of the point. Lost Boys was about 25 years ago and Salem's Lot was over 30. That's a long time to have to go back to find a good movie in a particular (sub) genre.

The vampire genre has gone to hell, killed off by all these shit shows/films like Twilight, True Blood, Underworld, the Vampire Diaries, all pansy vamps who go to college and get in an emotional turmoil over some tart. Emo vamps who really do need to be staked through the heart along with the producers of the shows... cool10.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://theactionelite.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hijacked-2012-Movie-Poster-424x600.jpg

Maybe the worst film ever! It's like they typed up a script in 20 minutes and found an abandoned warehouse to film inside, rounded up some actors at short notice, told them they had an hour to learn their lines, only gave them 15 minutes instead and just turned on the cameras with the director holding a gun to their heads yelling "ACT, ACT, ACT!!"

 

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2011/01/The-Ward-Quad.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EuHEDwCmE1I/TB0zwEP3ORI/AAAAAAAACF0/S0D4HstWowE/s1600/jumper-2008-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 02:19 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 23 2012, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 23 2012, 04:05 PM)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O2JvbQmhwd8/TgdR6fxKb8I/AAAAAAAABbE/BNCQL2288OY/s1600/Dracula+2000+Poster+01_595.jpg

This couldn't have been good. Or was it?

The tag line just screams "piece of shit."

It wasn't great but it wasn't a total disaster, in fact it was pretty much an ok vampire romp...

 

The big twist on the Drac legend in this was that Dracula was really Judas Iscariot all along, forced to walk the earth as a human demon for 2000 years. When he hanged himself he did it as the sun went down and was cursed by what he'd done to Jesus to become a kind of junior version of Lucifer; not a fallen angel but a fallen disciple and a perversion of Jesus and his teachings, ie drinking blood instead of letting people eat and drink of the body etc. And the symbols of the things he'd done would hurt him, ie crosses, for obvious reasons, silver, for the silver pieces, stakes for the spikes and nails used against Jesus and sunlight because of the hanging when the sun went down. Something like that anyway...

 

The cast is pretty good too, Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, Jeri Ryan and Jennifer Esposito as eye candy vampires and Gerard Butler shockingly effective as Dracula.

 

It also had the advantage of following the woeful Bloody Valentine. Anything is good after seeing that. Whatever you do don't watch that one.

 

All in all Drac 2000 wasn't bad, relatively entertaining, as long as you're not expecting a masterpiece.

No chance in f**k that I'd watch Bloody Valentine.

I'm not much of a vampire fan...all of that hissing and pasty white skin is a bit too pansy for me. The only vampire movie I like that I can think of right off is Lost Boys.

Salem's Lot (1979) is an excellent one too...

 

trink38.gif

Forgot about that one. And that's kind of the point. Lost Boys was about 25 years ago and Salem's Lot was over 30. That's a long time to have to go back to find a good movie in a particular (sub) genre.

The vampire genre has gone to hell, killed off by all these shit shows/films like Twilight, True Blood, Underworld, the Vampire Diaries, all pansy vamps who go to college and get in an emotional turmoil over some tart. Emo vamps who really do need to be staked through the heart along with the producers of the shows... cool10.gif

laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE (presto123 @ Aug 24 2012, 02:26 AM)
30 Days Of Night is a pretty good vampire flick.

I've seen that but it kind of blurs the lines between vampire and zombie genres...

I don't mind about blurred lines as long as it's good. I thought 30 Days started out well (and the base concept of the film is good) but the end was a bit predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 02:56 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE (presto123 @ Aug 24 2012, 02:26 AM)
30 Days Of Night is a pretty good vampire flick.

I've seen that but it kind of blurs the lines between vampire and zombie genres...

I don't mind about blurred lines as long as it's good. I thought 30 Days started out well (and the base concept of the film is good) but the end was a bit predictable.

It was an ok flick, I can't remember the ending, maybe that says it all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 02:56 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE (presto123 @ Aug 24 2012, 02:26 AM)
30 Days Of Night is a pretty good vampire flick.

I've seen that but it kind of blurs the lines between vampire and zombie genres...

I don't mind about blurred lines as long as it's good. I thought 30 Days started out well (and the base concept of the film is good) but the end was a bit predictable.

It was an ok flick, I can't remember the ending, maybe that says it all...

Yeah, I'd say it was okay. It was much better than that Underworld crap at least...and Underworld even had the advantage of Kate Beckinsale's hotness parading all over the place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 03:15 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 24 2012, 02:56 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 24 2012, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE (presto123 @ Aug 24 2012, 02:26 AM)
30 Days Of Night is a pretty good vampire flick.

I've seen that but it kind of blurs the lines between vampire and zombie genres...

I don't mind about blurred lines as long as it's good. I thought 30 Days started out well (and the base concept of the film is good) but the end was a bit predictable.

It was an ok flick, I can't remember the ending, maybe that says it all...

Yeah, I'd say it was okay. It was much better than that Underworld crap at least...and Underworld even had the advantage of Kate Beckinsale's hotness parading all over the place!

I know! If you can't make a watchable horror flick with Kate Beckinsale wearing a skin-tight outfit in almost every scene you know you're in the wrong business.

 

Those Underworld films are like watching someone else play shoot em up video games...

 

waffen093.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (blackhawkrush @ Aug 25 2012, 12:52 AM)
Lockout  1022.gif  They should have included Guy Pearce in The Expedables 2  yes.gif

Yeah that wasn't bad...

 

trink38.gif

 

 

http://www.geekshow.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/charliechocolate001.jpghttp://wrathofnino.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/knowing_poster5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...