What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Scotty Tunbridge]

Next goal wins is watchable if nothing else tbf.

[velo army]

Currently watching The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare and Rory Kinnear as Churchill is one of the worst pieces of casting I've ever seen. It's a terrible performance.

It's good fun aside from this

 

Edited July 25 by velo army

[Hedgecutter]

Requiem For a Dream.

Lasted half an hour before saying "it's only 9pm, let's quit this overrated p*sh and put decent on instead".

The OH considered The Meg instead.  The f***ing Meg.

 

PS. Jennifer Connolly definitely improves with age.

[accies1874]

64. In a Violent Nature - Cinema

Waited a few days before doing a review as I didn't, and still don't, know what to make of it. Its premise is fascinating - to strip back a slasher to the perspective of the killer - but I'm not sure that it did enough with that premise. There are loads of correct comparisons to make with other films, but I was weirdly reminded of The Zone of Interest throughout due to the In a Violent Nature detaching itself from genre conventions and giving a different perspective of horror where absence draws attention to what you're not seeing. Maybe that's the point of it all. 

It has a lot of stuff I love in horror like a villain lingering in the background of scenes, and I found the monotony of his footsteps to be effective as both luring you into perspective of the killer and also an attempt to build tension as to what he'll do next - the latter of which it failed to accomplish for me. 

It took until the final moments for any of the tension to be effective (and I genuinely loved the last 10 minutes or so) as its premise is in direct competition with making the consequences of the horror matter. The idea of a typical slasher existing in the background of what you're watching is honestly so interesting to me, but, despite the attempt at fleshing out the characters in that scene by the fire, they are very much disposable vessels for the killer to conduct brutal and kinda fun kills on. I appreciated the audience chuckling at a couple of them, though based on what I overheard leaving the screening I don't think they were too fond of it overall. 

Despite that, the killer is the main character: he's the one with motivations, a goal and obstacles to overcome. You get a sense of his personality as, similar to Leatherface, being a tortured individual who processes their trauma by inflicting horrendous acts of violence on young intruders. I think it was interesting to experience that through the person inflicting those acts of violence, especially the somewhat scary indiscriminatory nature of it as you almost want him to achieve his goal, but it just hasn't quite clicked in my mind yet.

And, because I'm a man of my word, I watched a playthrough of Plumbers Don't Wear Ties last night. Until yesterday, I didn't actually know that that sicko @BFTD was going on about a game, and I'm not sure if it would be even more disturbing playing it, but my God that was one of the freakier Saturday nights I've had. When it first started up, I wondered why he was so freaked out by a very horny, very low-res woman talking through a screen, then the game-proper started and I was led on an unforgettable journey through a slideshow of otherworldliness. Slap an A24 logo at the start and you've got yourself an effective horror that does a ham-fisted job of commenting on the insecurities over finding love (I'm sure that was unintentional). 

65. Poolman - Prime 

This straddles the fine line between being funny and insufferable - sadly it all too often falls into the latter category. The film's frequent references to Chinatown only succeeded in making me wonder "yeah, why am I not watching Chinatown right now?" and the fact that it resides within a fairly worn out subgenre that I don't like all that much in the first place (LA stoner-noir) meant that, as you might have guessed, I didn't like Poolman all that much. 

It's not all bad, though, as some of the background characters (well, mostly just Danny DeVito's) got some mild chuckles out of me, plus Chris Pine as director showed some talent at conveying an atmosphere, the promise of which was why I gave this a go in the first place. Unfortunately, that talent doesn't extend to directing his own performance - and it was a performance that really could've done with being reeled in by a director - or shooting a scene effectively, as I got annoyed pretty quickly at the god-awful editing which looked for all the world like it was the result of a lack of a vision from scene-to-scene.

[MSU]

097 Deadpool & Wolverine -- I liked the first Deadpool, liked the second one less, and now at the third time of asking, it just feels like the schtick is pretty tired at this point. Deadpool seems to have the same disregard for the MCU as I do and so should also realize that a stabby, sweary, bloody, fourth-wall-breaking comic-book movie needs, at some point, to become a bit more than that, and maybe rely on things other than having people in the movie you don't expect to have in the movie, or having a good choice of music from our childhoods. All this said, I chuckled a few times and I quite liked The Void but it was too samey for too long. 5/10

[accies1874]

The Deadpool arc is interesting to me as it started out as a parody of the superhero stuff, but that became less authentic when it got a sequel and even moreso when it got brought into Marvel and cost 4x as much to make, so when the parody loses its effect then all you're left with is The Reddit Movie. That might be unfair as I haven't watched it and won't watch it, but in my mind Deadpool has become emblematic of why I've grown bored of these films as opposed to being in any way fresh. 

Anyway @MSU what's your take on the whole In a Violent Nature thing? I know you quite liked it but what did you think the point of it all was?

[Scorge]

Saw Deadpool & Wolverine last night and it wasn't too bad, but as a non-comic book nerd I sensed a lot of 'in' jokes that flew past me, and it does drag on about 20 minutes too long (post credits payout is quite good though)

[MSU]

1 hour ago, accies1874 said:

Anyway @MSU what's your take on the whole In a Violent Nature thing? I know you quite liked it but what did you think the point of it all was?

Ooft, the point of it? I heard an interview with the director and he claims they had to reshoot 70% of it as it wasn't working out and I'd be interested to know where he felt it was going wrong and I think it would help to accentuate what it ended up doing right. Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street eventually morphed into movies where we just want to see stupid teenagers being killed and this seemed to simplify all that. We know next to nothing about most of the victims, I'm not sure all of them even have a name, and we only get the slightest of hints that any of them have a story. The only person who has a clear motivation is Johnny. The last quarter of an hour or so breaks its own rule and while I found it really effective, it was an unfortunate rug pull.

But I really liked that it started in its own sequel. I liked the role nature had to play in it all. The killer in the woods isn't doing anything new, but the killer seemed to be born from the woods and I thought that was interesting. The more I think about the movie the more I'm looking forward to seeing it again but I wish it had better actors and a better script and I wish it had a couple of kills that were at least 75% as impressive as the yoga one.

[Laid Back Maverick]

1 hour ago, Scorge said:

Saw Deadpool & Wolverine last night and it wasn't too bad, but as a non-comic book nerd I sensed a lot of 'in' jokes that flew past me, and it does drag on about 20 minutes too long (post credits payout is quite good though)

As a comic book nerd, I can confirm that yes, there are a tonne of easter eggs and in-jokes. 

[Chripper]

"Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness"

I'm actually on "Hawkeye".

I'm doing yet another MCU rotation to work up to "Deadpool and Wolverine".

(I haven't seen "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" onwards)

By the time I'm there, it'll probably be on Disney +.

Edited July 30 by Chripper

[54_and_counting]

3 hours ago, Scorge said:

Saw Deadpool & Wolverine last night and it wasn't too bad, but as a non-comic book nerd I sensed a lot of 'in' jokes that flew past me, and it does drag on about 20 minutes too long (post credits payout is quite good though)

 

1 hour ago, Laid Back Maverick said:

As a comic book nerd, I can confirm that yes, there are a tonne of easter eggs and in-jokes. 

And remember, for the love of god, do not try work out the timelines, its a complete and utter mind f**k

Spoiler

Logan died in 2029 according to the film, but deadpool digging up his corpse in 2024, fucking got to love timelines and how fucking warped they are lol

 

[Laid Back Maverick]

1 minute ago, 54_and_counting said:

 

And remember, for the love of god, do not try work out the timelines, its a complete and utter mind f**k

 

Keeping up the X-Men timeline traditions.

See also Spiderman Homecoming.

 

[Chripper]

Anyone struggling with MCU timeline. This is pretty accurate:

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a825774/marvel-cinematic-universe-in-chronological-order/

[54_and_counting]

9 hours ago, Laid Back Maverick said:

Keeping up the X-Men timeline traditions.

See also Spiderman Homecoming.

 

Ha forgot about that belter of a timeline f**k up

[accies1874]

15 hours ago, MSU said:

Ooft, the point of it? I heard an interview with the director and he claims they had to reshoot 70% of it as it wasn't working out and I'd be interested to know where he felt it was going wrong and I think it would help to accentuate what it ended up doing right. Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street eventually morphed into movies where we just want to see stupid teenagers being killed and this seemed to simplify all that. We know next to nothing about most of the victims, I'm not sure all of them even have a name, and we only get the slightest of hints that any of them have a story. The only person who has a clear motivation is Johnny. The last quarter of an hour or so breaks its own rule and while I found it really effective, it was an unfortunate rug pull.

But I really liked that it started in its own sequel. I liked the role nature had to play in it all. The killer in the woods isn't doing anything new, but the killer seemed to be born from the woods and I thought that was interesting. The more I think about the movie the more I'm looking forward to seeing it again but I wish it had better actors and a better script and I wish it had a couple of kills that were at least 75% as impressive as the yoga one.

Yeah the simplification of on-screen violence was what I took from it, too, but I kind of think that that's at odds with the spectacle of the "yoga" kill. That said, it also made the ending more effective for me as it was an additional act to the typical slasher film that made me reconsider the trauma inflicted by surviving something like this. Maybe the rest of the film is in service of that, idk. Just very conflicted about the whole thing. 

[scottsdad]

On 26/07/2024 at 21:19, Hedgecutter said:

Requiem For a Dream.

Lasted half an hour before saying "it's only 9pm, let's quit this overrated p*sh and put decent on instead".

The OH considered The Meg instead.  The f***ing Meg.

 

PS. Jennifer Connolly definitely improves with age.

The Meg is great fun. 

[CraigFowler]

On 26/07/2024 at 21:19, Hedgecutter said:

Requiem For a Dream.

Lasted half an hour before saying "it's only 9pm, let's quit this overrated p*sh and put decent on instead".

The OH considered The Meg instead.  The f***ing Meg.

 

PS. Jennifer Connolly definitely improves with age.

 

Requiem For a Dream is one of my favourite movies, if not my favourite, that I'll never watch again. I thought it was exceptional. I find it surprising you'd turn it off after 30 minutes. It's not like it's overly pretentious or it's a very slow burn where nothing happens.

Edited July 30 by CraigFowler

[Ewanandmoreagain]

 

North by North West !

Cary Grant , James Mason , Martin Landau , " Mr Waverly " and Yves Marie Saint

Very good stuff !

[Chripper]

For my money "Pet Sematary" (1989) and "Salem's Lot" (1975) are the best adaptations of Stephen King's catalogue.

They don't get the love of a "Shawshank Redemption" or "The Shining", but they should.

I love people who cite "Shawshank Redemption" like they've unearthed a Vibranium mine from under their garden gnome.

No shit, Sherlock. It's been on everyone's top 10 list since 1994.

For any Stephen King fans out there, read "Stephen King: On Writing".

Its half autobiographical and half a Masterclass on Writing.

Great read.

Apparently, he doesn't remember writing "Cujo". At all. It was in his alcoholic phase.

Edited July 31 by Chripper

[Steve_Wilkos]

On 30/07/2024 at 10:33, accies1874 said:

Yeah the simplification of on-screen violence was what I took from it, too, but I kind of think that that's at odds with the spectacle of the "yoga" kill. That said, it also made the ending more effective for me as it was an additional act to the typical slasher film that made me reconsider the trauma inflicted by surviving something like this. Maybe the rest of the film is in service of that, idk. Just very conflicted about the whole thing. 

Did you not find the acting and the dialogue hilariously terrible?