Rate the Last Movie you saw.

[Kirkreng]

It was awful. I only like horror movies that are creepy. Not movies that completely rely on jump scares or movies that are just plain disgusting. The Human Centipede is the latter.

 

Jump scares? after the second act, it more or less drops those completely. It presents itself rather openly, I think. They barely hide after the beginning of the training.

 

and for the record, few movies are 'plain disgusting'. That's childish thinking. That's why I consider most moviegoers babies, they think anything that uses violence is bad. It's a piece of fiction with the purpose of telling a story and likely to point out some perspective. It's art. It's fun art at that. I felt the creepyness in the atmosphere of the film and the tension within the primarily static setting.

 

Meta settings in horror usually don't work (just look at the latter Scream movies), but I think the Human Centipede pulls it off rather well. The second one, taking place in the 'real world' where the first film has been released is a pretty great idea, I think and will be very impressive if pulled off correctly.

 

If you don't like it, that's your cross to bear, but I happen to like to actually think about films when I see them and I found a good deal to work with in the Human Centipede.

I don't have anything against violence in games or movies as long as it serves a purpose. In this movie it didn't. It was just violence to be violence. It was useless and so was the rest of the movie.

It was some psycho wanting to make a human centipede, he succeeded tries to train the thing but it tried to kill him and he died, the end. How is that remotely interesting or original?

[Batman]

It was awful. I only like horror movies that are creepy. Not movies that completely rely on jump scares or movies that are just plain disgusting. The Human Centipede is the latter.

 

Jump scares? after the second act, it more or less drops those completely. It presents itself rather openly, I think. They barely hide after the beginning of the training.

 

and for the record, few movies are 'plain disgusting'. That's childish thinking. That's why I consider most moviegoers babies, they think anything that uses violence is bad. It's a piece of fiction with the purpose of telling a story and likely to point out some perspective. It's art. It's fun art at that. I felt the creepyness in the atmosphere of the film and the tension within the primarily static setting.

 

Meta settings in horror usually don't work (just look at the latter Scream movies), but I think the Human Centipede pulls it off rather well. The second one, taking place in the 'real world' where the first film has been released is a pretty great idea, I think and will be very impressive if pulled off correctly.

 

If you don't like it, that's your cross to bear, but I happen to like to actually think about films when I see them and I found a good deal to work with in the Human Centipede.

I don't have anything against violence in games or movies as long as it serves a purpose. In this movie it didn't. It was just violence to be violence. It was useless and so was the rest of the movie.

It was some psycho wanting to make a human centipede, he succeeded tries to train the thing but it tried to kill him and he died, the end. How is that remotely interesting or original?

 

I take it you don't like the Saw movies either, or Jackass to some extent ?

[Kirkreng]

I did see all the Saw movies. And i actually liked them somewhat. Because violence makes sense in those movies, he has an actual reason to do those things. But what really made me like them is the whole thing that he had every last bit, every situation planned out from the beginning. And seeing that unfold over the movies is cool.

And i also have seen all Jackass episodes and the movie. But then again those are not horror's. While they do mindlessly harm themselves over and over again it is not to such an extend. And i really only watch it for the pranks they pull on each other.

[The Hamburglar]

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

 

CRITICAL REVIEW BY MARK GECKO.

 

Silence of the Lamb chops is a scary mary motion picture starring Jodie Foster, Ted Levine, and Anthony Hopkins. you might remember Jodie from Taxi Driver, Anthony from The Elephant Man, and Ted from his scene where he dances around half naked and traumatizes me for life.

 

This film begins with Agent Clarice (Jodie Forest) running through a foster and I was thinking "oh man she's gonna die" but she didn't and i was like "WOAH." than she's called into some guy with nerdy glasses' office where she sees bodies of some dead people who look like potatoes (they were skinned.)

 

They need help finding Buffalo Bill, notorious killer and NFL football team so they get help from other serial killer Hannibal Lector, famous and brilliant psychiatrist who happens to eat people.

 

He's being a clever clogs and being sneaky around Clarice but some dickbutt flicks semen at her and he agrees to help and THE ADVENTURE BEGINS.

 

Now I'm not gonna tell you more but I will say that Jodie Foster's accent was really funny at first and killed the mood, but trust me, you won't notice it by the end. And the film is not as gory as I thought it would be, except for a certain scene with Hannibal. It's got shocking images so if you're a baby don't watch it.

 

baby.

 

5/5

also Anthony Hopkins stole the show.

[ProHypster]

On the topic of saw, it isn't too bad I would say, it has some plot and I liked it because it's always interesting to see the new ways how people can survive a situation like that, I also watched the cube and it was pretty good too even though some parts were cheesy.

 

The cube had a really groovy atmosphere to it too. I believe that movie was made by some italian director.

 

Saw, I would say is the most proffesional movie of the genre.(In terms of video and audio not in plot necessarily)

 

But when it comes to horror to me these movies (Even though pretty good) are nothing compared to classics like "Sphere" and the one were some humans visit a spaceship and it invades the people's minds one by one it's with the guy from jurassic park, forgot the title.

 

I really didn't get into Scream though, kind of boring and cheesy. More like a chick flick movie.

[Lux Arbuckle]

If you think Saw was the most professional of the genre nowadays, then you aren't watching any horror movies aside from the shit that US distributors are churning out. They're all cheap and not in a good way.

 

Check out some Korean, French and Spanish modern horror. I think those are the best countries doing horror (and horrific) cinema right now.

 

 

Kirkreng, the violence in a film has little to do with the intentions of the antagonist, it has everything to do with the director and writers intentions. The purpose of the violence in horrors highly depends on what the filmmakers wanted to convey and what the viewer took away from it. In the case of the Human Centipede, I'd say the violence is highly useful to show not only how far science and obsession can go, but how pliable we are has human beings. How easily our bodies can be turned to something subservient and weak. It could be a metaphor for the need for cooperation between people, and how disconnected we have become. Or on the other hand, how trapped we are by the actions of everyone else (we're all killing each other constantly via pollution, etc. We're all in some way shitting in each other's mouths).

 

The Saw movies do have an attempt at a meaning, but it's not very good. They're just not fun, enriching, or entertaining films and I see the whole 'appreciation of life' thing to be about the blandest motivation in the history of film. It's been done in a decent way in other films, but Saw got lucky and became a franchise. It tested well, producers could hire cheap writers, actors and effects teams and could pump out a picture every year for a certain buck.

 

The film industry is all about money, and Saw makes money because people are fucking stupid and give their money to movies like that because they don't know or care about anything new or different.

 

EDIT (I have more to rant about):

 

also, there is, more or less, no such thing as 'violence for the sake of violence' in real horror film. It's all there for a reason. Just as every frame of every motion picture is a portrait, every drop of blood is a statement. Sometimes the statement is strong or angry, this is usually when the violence is more extreme. Other times the statement is more passive, but open to the audience to react to and form.

 

For example: George Romero didn't plan on making a metaphor about a new generation rising up and devouring the old while the old kills black men and burn them at first. He just happened into it. He happened to know a black actor, he happened to have an idea for a scary movie, and he happened to have some black and white film stock to use. In the end, he created one of the most though provoking series' in the history of the genre, and only came into the metaphor after it was done and people began pointing it out.

 

It's only in movies like Blood Sucking Freaks is the violence truly pointless, but even if the filmmaker was just a douche who liked S&M and women in pain, you still get meaning out of it. Horror film is meant to be scary, and the film is a perfect snapshot of the era in which it was made. Meaning, if you just look at any horror film, good or bad, you can still learn something from it. You can learn about how everyone was afraid of the Reds and nukes in the 50s (Body Snatchers and Gojira and any daikaijū, really), freaked out about strife at home and abroad in the 60s (Deathdream, Peeping Tom, Night of the Living Dead), scared of the destruction of the traditional family in the 70s (Halloween, The Stepford Wives, The Omen, Carrie, Shivers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre), panicked about venereal disease in the 80s (The Fly, Near Dark, Lost Boys), lost in technology, an increasingly detached culture and gen X in the 90s (Scream, American Psycho, Se7en, Audition,). Even in last decade you can see how attached we've grown with our technology and how glib we have become about war in our horror (The original Pulse, all these remakes we've been getting from the 70s, you know back when the US was in Vietnam.)

 

Long story short (too late), there is always something to learn, study and analyze in horror and it's all worth something. Just occasionally, it's not worth the time to watch a whole stupid franchise.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

If you think Saw was the most professional of the genre nowadays, then you aren't watching any horror movies aside from the shit that US distributors are churning out. They're all cheap and not in a good way.

 

Check out some Korean, French and Spanish modern horror. I think those are the best countries doing horror (and horrific) cinema right now.

 

 

Kirkreng, the violence in a film has little to do with the intentions of the antagonist, it has everything to do with the director and writers intentions. The purpose of the violence in horrors highly depends on what the filmmakers wanted to convey and what the viewer took away from it. In the case of the Human Centipede, I'd say the violence is highly useful to show not only how far science and obsession can go, but how pliable we are has human beings. How easily our bodies can be turned to something subservient and weak. It could be a metaphor for the need for cooperation between people, and how disconnected we have become. Or on the other hand, how trapped we are by the actions of everyone else (we're all killing each other constantly via pollution, etc. We're all in some way shitting in each other's mouths).

 

The Saw movies do have an attempt at a meaning, but it's not very good. They're just not fun, enriching, or entertaining films and I see the whole 'appreciation of life' thing to be about the blandest motivation in the history of film. It's been done in a decent way in other films, but Saw got lucky and became a franchise. It tested well, producers could hire cheap writers, actors and effects teams and could pump out a picture every year for a certain buck.

 

The film industry is all about money, and Saw makes money because people are fucking stupid and give their money to movies like that because they don't know or care about anything new or different.

 

You are right but you insulted me. I said saw was the most proffesional looking movie in terms of video and audio.

I never said anything about entertaining or beautfiul, it amused me a bit that is all, it's not a classic IMO, but I could watch it.

 

I'm not exactly a movie fan but I do know the difference between hollywood and real movies. I can appreciate both at times simply because I'm not bored with hollywood yet, and I don't have time in the movie industry (As you correctly said) but when I do watch indie movies I enjoy them a lot.

 

I told you my favourite movies. And I never paid for saw, I watched it on my tv. I'm not exactly a fan of it.

 

You are probably right about me not having watched enough movies and mostly hollywood but it's not because I don't have interest, I sinply don't have time, I am concerned with music more, and my tv right now is shit, it's no reason to insult me though.

[Kirkreng]

The film industry is all about money,

It's an industry.....every industry is about money.

 

Also metaphors can't hold a movie. You can throw a piece of bread on the ground and someone can think of some metaphor to it. And the science and obsession thing, isn't that the same story of Frankenstein? They at least could have given some kind of background to the bad guy(can't even remember his name), but all he is is a insane surgeon that went insane because..........just because, i guess.

[Lux Arbuckle]

The film industry is all about money,

It's an industry.....every industry is about money.

 

Also metaphors can't hold a movie. You can throw a piece of bread on the ground and someone can think of some metaphor to it. And the science and obsession thing, isn't that the same story of Frankenstein? They at least could have given some kind of background to the bad guy(can't even remember his name), but all he is is a insane surgeon that went insane because..........just because, i guess.

 

Yeah, I know. Money, money, money. I get that every conversation I get into. The film industry is the greatest blessing and curse on the art of cinema, but what can you do? Nothin'.

 

 

Metaphors can't hold most movies, and that's where personal enjoyment also plays in. I found the film highly entertaining because it was tense, lovely to look at, and reminded me as well about Frankenstein. If you wanted to split hairs, every movie is a ripoff, so that debate isn't even worth starting.

 

Do you really need your hand held for the plot? Do you need someone to tell you every character's life? Their reason for doing every action within the movie? Man, I can think of ten movies of the top of my head that would be awful if they explained the intentions and background of all the characters. Even to explain a little bit would be foolish, I think. It's not important, nor is it relevant to the story at hand, the film itself.

[Kirkreng]

Yeah, I know. Money, money, money. I get that every conversation I get into. The film industry is the greatest blessing and curse on the art of cinema, but what can you do? Nothin'.

You brought it up

 

 

Metaphors can't hold most movies, and that's where personal enjoyment also plays in. I found the film highly entertaining because it was tense, lovely to look at, and reminded me as well about Frankenstein. If you wanted to split hairs, every movie is a ripoff, so that debate isn't even worth starting.

But at least they do something different, either with the ripped off story itself or in some other department.

 

Do you really need your hand held for the plot? Do you need someone to tell you every character's life? Their reason for doing every action within the movie? Man, I can think of ten movies of the top of my head that would be awful if they explained the intentions and background of all the characters.

No, not every action. But in this case i think it is very much needed to explain why he does "what he does" because it is what the whole movie is about. You want your main villain of the movie to be interesting. This one is very empty and boring.

[Lux Arbuckle]

I see him more as a blank slate.

 

actually, I prefer to think there truly is no reason aside from him just being able to do it and getting pleasure from it.

 

I miss film theory so much sometimes, it's so much fun to do.

[Blue]

The film industry is all about money,

It's an industry.....every industry is about money.

Cept porn. They're about shittons of money.

[The Hamburglar]

Full Metal Jacket.

 

It's good but looses a lot of its steam after the boot camp section.

[Scorpia]

^second. i pretty much watch it for the training section..oh, and the sniper section.

[Axeldeath]

The film industry is all about money,

It's an industry.....every industry is about money.

Cept porn. They're about shittons of money.

 

I lol'd so hard.

[Batman]

Transformers 3: Dark of the moon - 4/10

 

Story was pretty much was an after thought, it was too long yet wrapped up in a quick unpolished sort of manner that could of been handled better. The whole scene where the people are in the falling building was pretty cool though, and as always the effects were pretty awesome.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[Blightmare]

Men in Black - 4/5

 

I always seem to like it more and more each time I see it. I guess it's just the humor of how light they make the idea of aliens on earth. Not to mention Tommy Lee Jones is an acting hero of mine.

[Collective Foal]

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

 

By far one of my favorite movies. So many parts that have me crying. Even the credits were hilarious.

P_a8dDltfDk

[Blue]

Top Gun

1986, directed by Tony Scott

 

Ever since I played Ace Combat 5, I've had a curiosity about jet fighters and pilots of all sorts. The unfortunate consequence of this interest is the fact that there is an enormous lack of movies about them. I watched Stealth (2005) because it's the only recent entry into such a category of intrigues, and the fact that it still today holds the world record for biggest box-office bomb is relatively self-explanatory for its quality. Thus I was forced by my interest to watch Top "TOP "TOM "MAVERICK" CRUISE" GUN" Gun.

America.

Set in some conflict in which the United States is always under threat via (American F-5s and F-2s painted to look like) Mig-28s flying within a 200 mile radius of the USS Enterprise, Tom Cruise and pals take to the air to defend the nation and their friendly neighborhood aircraft carrier from said aircraft, Tom is established as a rebel without much of a cause, goes to school and becomes the best at flying, and then he shoots down a few planes.

There are very few pictures of him actually flying the plane on Google.

The movie has pretty good acting, excellent special effects (what few there are) and beautiful principal photography (most shots of the aircraft are real footage of VF-114 and 213 Squadrons with real F-14 Tomcats). There is nothing fundamentally "wrong" or "bad" about how the movie plays out, apart from some technical gripes with how the Pilots operated inside the cockpit (like putting your hands on the canopy. Even when you're not piloting the plane, your hands are at your sides and you minimize movements so that you know where your arms are if you maneuver unexpectedly and suddenly have G-forces all over the place. Especially egregious when Goose and Maverick eject; hands not being where they're supposed to be is how you get flailing injuries.) but those are nitpicks.

Nitpicks in F-14s.

Conceptually it's a pretty decent film, but nothing spectacular. Although looking at it with this decade's eyes, there's a lot of what could be interpreted as homosexual allusion, or just straight pandering to women.

America.

Overall I liked it a lot more than I thought I would, but still I do not consider it a phenomenal film by any means. It just makes me wish someone could make a cooler film about pilots, since there's a lot of ground one could cover in a fictional movie about pilots; the only decent ones that seem to be made are historical portrayals, like Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff (1983) or Apollo 13 (1993)

or Chinese copyright infringement.

 

I give it a thumbs up, but it comes no where close to being on my top twenty.

[Eedo Baba]

Just got finished watching Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. It's absurdist comedy at it's strangest and silliest.

 

hAFrhcPHd-I

 

Um, rating... 6 out of 7.