• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Movies/TV Rate the Last Movie you Watched

Oh garrison, you glutton for punishment.

Critters marathon continues.

Critters 3

The killer hedgehogs are back...again. And they're still hungry for human flesh. This time, however, they branch out a bit and eat beans too, though that's really just an excuse to add some fart humour into the mix (I saw close-up shots of a space hedgehog cutting the cheese and my life is so much more enriched for it).

It amuses me that the box art for this one pretty much sells itself entirely on the fact that Leonardo Di Caprio is in it (though it's not like he's the main character or anything). Yep, Leonardo before he was famous. Triple bonus points if you knew that this was actually his movie debut.

Pretty bad, though at least it's not as spirit-crushingly boring as Critters 2. 3/10

Leonardo can feel glad that he'd eventually move on to bigger and better things. The Critters on the other hand...


Critters 4 (In Space!)

The last surviving critters are now terrorising the occupants of a space station, moving this franchise out of the shadow of Gremlins and closer toward the shadow of Alien (though it's so blatantly inferior that comparisons aren't really called for). Something new for the franchise at least, but overall I'm not feeling it. 2/10


Overall, this series didn't really satisfy my craving for some bad B-movie fun, and for that I'm kind of disappointed.
 
Last edited:
"Psycho".
9.9/10.
Deliciously crazy and thought provoking movie. Doesn't rely on gore at all, instead it scares you with its mind tricks and twists.
 
Society (1989, Brian Yuzna)

Society-1989-Front-Cover-5419.jpg


8.5/10
 
I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I saw the Gus Van Sant version first. :embarass:

I don't see anything wrong with that. The Van Sant version is almost universally stigmatised for...nothing really.

I do not consider it a pointless experiment. If anything, it was interesting to see the film in that light for several reasons:

The cross between acting styles, so evolved from pre-Method to Method and now a mix of Meisner, Method and Stanislavski training sensibilities -

The transfer from black and white to colour: While colourisation is normally a bad idea (and I don't endorse it when it comes to playing around with older films), it is interesting to see Van Sant make this attempt on his own accord and transfer exact camera shots (so innovative for their time) so we could gauge whether that film would have had the same effect on its audience in, not only the present day, but also for its heyday audience -

This brings to light certain social implications: Would the film have been as critically lauded or would it have been universally panned? While Van Sant was hated for 'messing' with a classic, I think his experiment was necessary to explore a hypothesis that cinema, as an art, is not just a product of its day. It is something timeless that can be fooled around with at whim - the avant garde sects no doubt appreciated what he attempted to do.
 
Last one I saw? Hmm... Napoleon Dynamite.

8/10

The movie was funny, but a lot of the time kind of slow. I guess it's one of those movies that you just HAVE to see, kind of like Star Wars and the like.

My friends and I are always quoting it. "Your mom goes to college!" "Kip ate it all." "Tina, you fat lard, eat your dang food!" "Yes, I love technology, not as much as I love you, but I still love technology. Always and forever." "You're just jealous 'cause I've been online talking to babes all day."
 
Dead Man

Johnny Depp goes to the Old West to get a job in accounting, and finds nothing there but violence and acrimony. He gets himself shot, wanders around in the American wildnerness for a while and goes on a spiritual journey.
He dies.

One of my personal favourites. It's beautifully shot, and brimming with Jim Jarmusch's signature humour and understatement. Gary Farmer is particularly good as Nobody, the eccentric Native American Johnny befriends, and Lance Henriksen is genuinely menacing as a psychopathic, cannibalistic bounty hunter. I give it a full 10/10.


I don't see anything wrong with that. The Van Sant version is almost universally stigmatised for...nothing really.

I do not consider it a pointless experiment. If anything, it was interesting to see the film in that light for several reasons:

Having now seen both films I do, with hindsight, have to view the Van Sant film as a failed experiment, since I don't think his version stands either as a direct replication of the Hitchcock film or as an individual film on its own merits (I sometimes wonder which of the two Van Sant was really going for, since while he adheres very strictly to Hitchcock's film in many regards, he also inserts his own material which feels oddly out of place - the surrealist imagery during the shower scene, for example). I do, however, find your defense of the film to be quite interesting. The characters give off very different vibes in each film, despite having the same lines, which reminds me very much of the nature of a play, where you can see completely different characters emerge from the same material in different productions depending on the actor. I wonder if Van Sant's film would have worked better if he'd attempted a looser reinterpretation of the story, rather than a rigid replication.
 
Having now seen both films I do, with hindsight, have to view the Van Sant film as a failed experiment, since I don't think his version stands either as a direct replication of the Hitchcock film or as an individual film on its own merits (I sometimes wonder which of the two Van Sant was really going for, since while he adheres very strictly to Hitchcock's film in many regards, he also inserts his own material which feels oddly out of place - the surrealist imagery during the shower scene, for example). I do, however, find your defense of the film to be quite interesting. The characters give off very different vibes in each film, despite having the same lines, which reminds me very much of the nature of a play, where you can see completely different characters emerge from the same material in different productions depending on the actor. I wonder if Van Sant's film would have worked better if he'd attempted a looser reinterpretation of the story, rather than a rigid replication.

I took a theatre course at one point while at uni and there were three questions a critic has to answer:

What is being attempted?

How well did the attempt succeed?

and

Was the attempt worth making?


While Van Sant's experiment may not have been entirely necessary, I think it was definitely an intriguing look into a realm of filmmaking most don't even dare to venture into. In a medium rife with bad remake after bad remake after bad remake and constant public outcry and studio bitching, I find it admirable that he (someone with such a respected, famous reputation no less!) decided to put his 'balls to the wall' so to speak. It may still be considered stupid that he did so by many (and I'd actually consider his worst film to be Even Cowgirls Get the Blues to be honest) but he did it with gusto, whether acceptable or unacceptable. Perhaps certain elements may have felt a bit tacked on (I remember being a tad weirded out by the surrealist imagery myself but warmed up to it somewhat eventually) but film is like any other art: it is there to be experimented with, to be a window to a soul, to uncover more than the usual suspect in someone's artistic output. He could have made a 'safe choice' much like many writers do, afraid of the public backlash. But he didn't, and I respect him for it and thankfully his career hasn't suffered from it!

My Own Private Idaho is my favourite of his works, though his most recent work that I found to be phenomenal was Paranoid Park. He can be hit and miss sometimes but he's definitely a very interesting filmmaker.
 
"Scarface"
10/10.
I just... love this movie. I think I'm kinda biased on this one. But Pacino's acting was great. Especially his Cuban accent.
 
Last film I saw was Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). It was alright but I hate Winona Ryder, although Gary Oldman was good as Dracula.

6/10
 
Suzumiya Haruhi no Shoushitsu

I don't want to sound like a noob, but I really really want to give this movie a 10/10. The art direction of the movie is superb, the soundtrack beautiful, the story is compelling. This is about as close to perfect as anime movies can get, and it certainly does make up for Endless Eight.

Needless to say, I love this 2 and a half hour movie. Perhaps more than Inception?
 
Scott Pilgrim vs the World

I didn't expect it to be that good. I don't like the male character; he pisses me off. But in this movie, he was pretty humorous and surpassed my low expectations. Overall, it was a good watch.

Rating: 8/10
 
Last film I saw was Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). It was alright but I hate Winona Ryder, although Gary Oldman was good as Dracula.

6/10

Aww, Winona Ryder's a wonderful talent.

That said, I am very fond of this version of Dracula. This is the one I've seen the most I think. Just a beautiful feast for the eyes; love all those set pieces and everyone looks right at home in period garb.
 
Yesterday was movie day, so I watched...

Vampires Suck: 7/10, because we had the dad from Wizards of Waverly Place beating a vampire awesomely (only part of the movie that was undoubtedly good)

Shrek 4: 4/10, as the franchise has decayed.

Up: 10/10, watched it once in the past and I still love it very much.

How to train your dragon: 11/10, I want to fly! :loopy:

...and technically I also watched Hercules (8/10, in spite of the Greek mythology rape), but I didn't pay much attention.
 
Back
Top Bottom