What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (4 Viewers)

John Carter.I couldn't get 5 minutes into this. I thought the CGI looked fake and turned it off. Worth giving more of a chance?
I can understand not watching a whole film but not even giving it more than 5 minutes makes me wonder why you even bothered to turn it on in the first place. Seems like you had made up your mind before you even started.ETA: IMO it was decent with moments of awful and moments of quite good. Certainly better than the biggest flop ever, which apparently it is.
I'll go back and watch it, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it right then.
FYI I think some Jews were involved in the production.
lol
 
Just finished watching the cytokine storm of a trainwreck flick 'Contagion'.

Was so alarmist, I expected to see Mr Ham come up in the credits.

Even Myett Daymn couldn't save it.
But what about Gwenyth's early demise? I liked that.And I can't read Damon's name without

 
John Carter.I couldn't get 5 minutes into this. I thought the CGI looked fake and turned it off. Worth giving more of a chance?
I can understand not watching a whole film but not even giving it more than 5 minutes makes me wonder why you even bothered to turn it on in the first place. Seems like you had made up your mind before you even started.ETA: IMO it was decent with moments of awful and moments of quite good. Certainly better than the biggest flop ever, which apparently it is.
I'll go back and watch it, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it right then.
FYI I think some Jews were involved in the production.
lol
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Not sure if he was fishing in that thread, but he should change usernames now, nothing he can ever post will allow me to forget how anti semetic he is
 
Finally got around to watching "Shame" and I thought it was rather over-rated. I realize there's a tendency in these types of films to not spell everything out and for the most part I'm fine with that but there really was nothing which provided any groundwork for what Fassbender's character was going through. He was rich, good-looking, women pretty much threw themselves at him and yet we're supposed to think he's a wreck because he doesn't speak to his sister and he watches a lot of porn. There was no attempt at all to convey anything meaningful about why he was supposed to be a wreck. Just pointing out he isn't keen on relationships tells us nothing. Hinting but not confirming a possible incestuous relationship with his sister tells us nothing. I wanted to like this film because I like Fassbender and Carey Mulligan but when it was over I felt like it was a film that was trying to make a statement about something but had not real insight into what that statement should be or why I should even care.
I think it's safe to say that the statement the film was trying to make had nothing to do with how one ends up becoming a sex addict, so not having a direct cause for why he's an addict was probably beneficial to the film imo; the film's statement dealt with the other aspects of sex addiction; such as how severe the addiction takes hold of a person even if everything about the person looks fine to the outside world, by showing that even though he can get hot chicks, he's willing to go wayyyyy lower on the food chain to quickly satisfy his obsessive desires. But still, considering how messed up his sister in the film is too, I think there were some pretty heavy hints suggesting some family related stuff happened in their pasts; though maybe not between the two of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally got around to watching "Shame" and I thought it was rather over-rated. I realize there's a tendency in these types of films to not spell everything out and for the most part I'm fine with that but there really was nothing which provided any groundwork for what Fassbender's character was going through. He was rich, good-looking, women pretty much threw themselves at him and yet we're supposed to think he's a wreck because he doesn't speak to his sister and he watches a lot of porn. There was no attempt at all to convey anything meaningful about why he was supposed to be a wreck. Just pointing out he isn't keen on relationships tells us nothing. Hinting but not confirming a possible incestuous relationship with his sister tells us nothing. I wanted to like this film because I like Fassbender and Carey Mulligan but when it was over I felt like it was a film that was trying to make a statement about something but had not real insight into what that statement should be or why I should even care.
I think it's safe to say that the statement the film was trying to make had nothing to do with how one ends up becoming a sex addict, so not having a direct cause for why he's an addict was probably beneficial to the film imo; the film's statement dealt with the other aspects of sex addiction; such as how severe the addiction takes hold of a person even if everything about the person looks fine to the outside world, by showing that even though he can get hot chicks, he's willing to go wayyyyy lower on the food chain to quickly satisfy his obsessive desires. But still, considering how messed up his sister in the film is too, I think there were some pretty heavy hints suggesting some family related stuff happened in their pasts; though maybe not between the two of them.
And just so I"m clear...
He's going to "shameful" places- gay sex, etc, when he's got the three-some hookup on call pretty much any time he wants? That girl doesn't want me, the club won't let me in... I guess I better get blown by a dude. Now that I'm done with that, let me call the two hot chicks who want to have a threesome with me at the drop of a hat. Oh, THE SHAME!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally got around to watching "Shame" and I thought it was rather over-rated. I realize there's a tendency in these types of films to not spell everything out and for the most part I'm fine with that but there really was nothing which provided any groundwork for what Fassbender's character was going through. He was rich, good-looking, women pretty much threw themselves at him and yet we're supposed to think he's a wreck because he doesn't speak to his sister and he watches a lot of porn. There was no attempt at all to convey anything meaningful about why he was supposed to be a wreck. Just pointing out he isn't keen on relationships tells us nothing. Hinting but not confirming a possible incestuous relationship with his sister tells us nothing. I wanted to like this film because I like Fassbender and Carey Mulligan but when it was over I felt like it was a film that was trying to make a statement about something but had not real insight into what that statement should be or why I should even care.
I think it's safe to say that the statement the film was trying to make had nothing to do with how one ends up becoming a sex addict, so not having a direct cause for why he's an addict was probably beneficial to the film imo; the film's statement dealt with the other aspects of sex addiction; such as how severe the addiction takes hold of a person even if everything about the person looks fine to the outside world, by showing that even though he can get hot chicks, he's willing to go wayyyyy lower on the food chain to quickly satisfy his obsessive desires. But still, considering how messed up his sister in the film is too, I think there were some pretty heavy hints suggesting some family related stuff happened in their pasts; though maybe not between the two of them.
I learned that I don't need to see Michael Fassbender's dong again and that I am only about 2/3 of the way to having a serious sex addiction problem.I also learned that I didn't need to listen to a full nine minute rendition of New York, New York by Carey Mulligan.And apparently Steve McQueen isn't dead...and he's black now.
 
Finally got around to watching "Shame" and I thought it was rather over-rated. I realize there's a tendency in these types of films to not spell everything out and for the most part I'm fine with that but there really was nothing which provided any groundwork for what Fassbender's character was going through. He was rich, good-looking, women pretty much threw themselves at him and yet we're supposed to think he's a wreck because he doesn't speak to his sister and he watches a lot of porn. There was no attempt at all to convey anything meaningful about why he was supposed to be a wreck. Just pointing out he isn't keen on relationships tells us nothing. Hinting but not confirming a possible incestuous relationship with his sister tells us nothing. I wanted to like this film because I like Fassbender and Carey Mulligan but when it was over I felt like it was a film that was trying to make a statement about something but had not real insight into what that statement should be or why I should even care.
I think it's safe to say that the statement the film was trying to make had nothing to do with how one ends up becoming a sex addict, so not having a direct cause for why he's an addict was probably beneficial to the film imo; the film's statement dealt with the other aspects of sex addiction; such as how severe the addiction takes hold of a person even if everything about the person looks fine to the outside world, by showing that even though he can get hot chicks, he's willing to go wayyyyy lower on the food chain to quickly satisfy his obsessive desires. But still, considering how messed up his sister in the film is too, I think there were some pretty heavy hints suggesting some family related stuff happened in their pasts; though maybe not between the two of them.
And just so I"m clear...
He's going to "shameful" places- gay sex, etc, when he's got the three-some hookup on call pretty much any time he wants? That girl doesn't want me, the club won't let me in... I guess I better get blown by a dude. Now that I'm done with that, let me call the two hot chicks who want to have a threesome with me at the drop of a hat. Oh, THE SHAME!
Yeah I agree that the story didn't completely make sense, primarily for the reason you mentioned. I still liked the film well enough though :shrug:
Finally got around to watching "Shame" and I thought it was rather over-rated. I realize there's a tendency in these types of films to not spell everything out and for the most part I'm fine with that but there really was nothing which provided any groundwork for what Fassbender's character was going through. He was rich, good-looking, women pretty much threw themselves at him and yet we're supposed to think he's a wreck because he doesn't speak to his sister and he watches a lot of porn. There was no attempt at all to convey anything meaningful about why he was supposed to be a wreck. Just pointing out he isn't keen on relationships tells us nothing. Hinting but not confirming a possible incestuous relationship with his sister tells us nothing. I wanted to like this film because I like Fassbender and Carey Mulligan but when it was over I felt like it was a film that was trying to make a statement about something but had not real insight into what that statement should be or why I should even care.
I think it's safe to say that the statement the film was trying to make had nothing to do with how one ends up becoming a sex addict, so not having a direct cause for why he's an addict was probably beneficial to the film imo; the film's statement dealt with the other aspects of sex addiction; such as how severe the addiction takes hold of a person even if everything about the person looks fine to the outside world, by showing that even though he can get hot chicks, he's willing to go wayyyyy lower on the food chain to quickly satisfy his obsessive desires. But still, considering how messed up his sister in the film is too, I think there were some pretty heavy hints suggesting some family related stuff happened in their pasts; though maybe not between the two of them.
I learned that I don't need to see Michael Fassbender's dong again and that I am only about 2/3 of the way to having a serious sex addiction problem.I also learned that I didn't need to listen to a full nine minute rendition of New York, New York by Carey Mulligan.And apparently Steve McQueen isn't dead...and he's black now.
Completely agree about the Mulligan singing scene, way too long, overdramatic, and boring. I really don't like scenes where a jazz singer is singing on stage by herself and is completely ignoring the audience's existence. Jennifer Connelly has a similar scene in Dark City which I equally hated. I will say though I think this Steve McQueen is a pretty fantastic and unique director. His first film Hunger was really good and has one really great 15+ minute scene between Fassbender and Liam Cunningham that's just 2 guys talking at a table. That film has just as much dong as Shame though and is without any boob shots to make up for it; so that's something to prepare yourself for if you're gonna see it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
21 jump street Echoing many other thoughts in the thread. I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. Obviously not the greatest movie out there but I found myself laughing more than I thought. The explosion schtick was :thumbup:

Overall a good movie.

The Big Year had no idea what this was about, the wife and i sat down and gave it a shot. I didn't think I would enjoy it based on reading the description but I thought it was a decent movie. It's not going to win any awards and is pretty "plain" but did enjoy it. We'll say 2.5 out of 5.

 
Just finished watching the cytokine storm of a trainwreck flick 'Contagion'.

Was so alarmist, I expected to see Mr Ham come up in the credits.

Even Myett Daymn couldn't save it.
But what about Gwenyth's early demise? I liked that.And I can't read Damon's name without

I didn't think it was a horrible movie. A bit slow but it was ok. 2.5/5Yeah, I can buy this.Just so heavy-handed.

 
John Carter.I couldn't get 5 minutes into this. I thought the CGI looked fake and turned it off. Worth giving more of a chance?
I can understand not watching a whole film but not even giving it more than 5 minutes makes me wonder why you even bothered to turn it on in the first place. Seems like you had made up your mind before you even started.ETA: IMO it was decent with moments of awful and moments of quite good. Certainly better than the biggest flop ever, which apparently it is.
I'll go back and watch it, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it right then.
FYI I think some Jews were involved in the production.
lol
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Not sure if he was fishing in that thread, but he should change usernames now, nothing he can ever post will allow me to forget how anti semetic he is
:lol:
 
'TexanFan02 said:
The Big Year had no idea what this was about, the wife and i sat down and gave it a shot. I didn't think I would enjoy it based on reading the description but I thought it was a decent movie. It's not going to win any awards and is pretty "plain" but did enjoy it. We'll say 2.5 out of 5.
This. I liked it, think it's worth seeing.
Yeah I may even bump it to 3 or more. It was put together nicely and I did enjoy it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrath of the Titans - 3/10

I figured "what the heck". I shouldn't have.

The story was boring and disjointed and the action scenes made no sense. Those involved should be embarassed.
Silly movie, but I loved the lava monster.
Yeah the lava monster was fun.
For the 30 seconds that it was on screen...But Perseus flying through the lava streams was ludicrous. Epically ludicrous, but still ludicrous.

 
Wrath of the Titans - 3/10

I figured "what the heck". I shouldn't have.

The story was boring and disjointed and the action scenes made no sense. Those involved should be embarassed.
Silly movie, but I loved the lava monster.
Yeah the lava monster was fun.
For the 30 seconds that it was on screen...But Perseus flying through the lava streams was ludicrous. Epically ludicrous, but still ludicrous.
By that point of the movie I was over things like that. But yeah it wasn't good.
 
Wrath of the Titans - 3/10

I figured "what the heck". I shouldn't have.

The story was boring and disjointed and the action scenes made no sense. Those involved should be embarassed.
Silly movie, but I loved the lava monster.
Yeah the lava monster was fun.
For the 30 seconds that it was on screen...But Perseus flying through the lava streams was ludicrous. Epically ludicrous, but still ludicrous.
I never quite got the impression that he was in any real danger. Seemed too easy.
 
Wrath of the Titans - 3/10

I figured "what the heck". I shouldn't have.

The story was boring and disjointed and the action scenes made no sense. Those involved should be embarassed.
Silly movie, but I loved the lava monster.
Yeah the lava monster was fun.
For the 30 seconds that it was on screen...But Perseus flying through the lava streams was ludicrous. Epically ludicrous, but still ludicrous.
I never quite got the impression that he was in any real danger. Seemed too easy.
He flew RIGHT DOWN IT'S ESOPHAGUS!!! :angry:
 
Wrath of the Titans - 3/10

I figured "what the heck". I shouldn't have.

The story was boring and disjointed and the action scenes made no sense. Those involved should be embarassed.
Silly movie, but I loved the lava monster.
Yeah the lava monster was fun.
For the 30 seconds that it was on screen...But Perseus flying through the lava streams was ludicrous. Epically ludicrous, but still ludicrous.
I never quite got the impression that he was in any real danger. Seemed too easy.
He flew RIGHT DOWN IT'S ESOPHAGUS!!! :angry:
And you know lava monster looked like he had some scarring there. Maybe this is was just a case of untreated acid reflux. Lava monster is in pain and lashes out. If only they had Prilosec.
 
Lost in Translation

Second viewing for me. There are things I like about this movie (the music, the photography). There are things I don't like (Scarlett isn't a very good actor). Overall, the movie is worth seeing a second time. But I could do without the Japanese characters having trouble with pronunciation. There's a scene where a prostitute visits Murray at his hotel room, and her pronunciation was so terrible, it felt more like a creepy stereotype than a real person.

 
Se7en - 4.5/5 (I know this film has probably been cover to death.)

Kevin Spacey as John Doe is one of the more fascinating characters i've seen in a movie.

Outstanding film.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'TexanFan02 said:
The Big Year had no idea what this was about, the wife and i sat down and gave it a shot. I didn't think I would enjoy it based on reading the description but I thought it was a decent movie. It's not going to win any awards and is pretty "plain" but did enjoy it. We'll say 2.5 out of 5.
This. I liked it, think it's worth seeing.
Yeah I may even bump it to 3 or more. It was put together nicely and I did enjoy it.
:eek: Thought it was freaking dreadful. What was entertaining about it? Bird watching? Maybe because I was expecting a laugh, you know since it had Martin, Black and Wilson in it. Not a single funny momeny.

 
'TexanFan02 said:
'TexanFan02 said:
The Big Year had no idea what this was about, the wife and i sat down and gave it a shot. I didn't think I would enjoy it based on reading the description but I thought it was a decent movie. It's not going to win any awards and is pretty "plain" but did enjoy it. We'll say 2.5 out of 5.
This. I liked it, think it's worth seeing.
Yeah I may even bump it to 3 or more. It was put together nicely and I did enjoy it.
:eek: Thought it was freaking dreadful. What was entertaining about it? Bird watching? Maybe because I was expecting a laugh, you know since it had Martin, Black and Wilson in it. Not a single funny momeny.
It wasn't supposed to be funny. It was a movie about what's important in life. Plus, I'm in love with Rashida Jones. And Jack Black wasn't nearly as annoying as he usually is, it's worth watching just for that.
Genre: Comedy
 
watched "The friends of Eddie Coyle" the other night. Low key ensemble with a noir-ish feel from 1973 with Robert Mitchum and Peter Boyle. As much as I like Mitchum and Boyle, it's pretty meh all things considered.

"Life During Wartime" is lesser Todd Solondz work. Dark, deadpan humor with a game cast. I like "Welcome to the Dollhouse", "Happiness" and "Storytelling" because they are funny and uncompromising.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Life During Wartime" is lesser Todd Solondz work. Dark, deadpan humor with a game cast. I like "Welcome to the Dollhouse", "Happiness" and "Storytelling" because they are funny and uncompromising.
We know that Solondz makes shocking movies. That's kind of his trademark. But there were a couple of lines in this movie that were just so outrageous, I couldn't finish it. At this point, Solondz's outlandishness is a cliche.
 
"Life During Wartime" is lesser Todd Solondz work. Dark, deadpan humor with a game cast. I like "Welcome to the Dollhouse", "Happiness" and "Storytelling" because they are funny and uncompromising.
We know that Solondz makes shocking movies. That's kind of his trademark. But there were a couple of lines in this movie that were just so outrageous, I couldn't finish it. At this point, Solondz's outlandishness is a cliche.
that kind of thing is pretty necessary to cut through all the darkness.
 
"Life During Wartime" is lesser Todd Solondz work. Dark, deadpan humor with a game cast. I like "Welcome to the Dollhouse", "Happiness" and "Storytelling" because they are funny and uncompromising.
We know that Solondz makes shocking movies. That's kind of his trademark. But there were a couple of lines in this movie that were just so outrageous, I couldn't finish it. At this point, Solondz's outlandishness is a cliche.
that kind of thing is pretty necessary to cut through all the darkness.
The lines I was referencing were dark. I can't remember the exact line, but Allison Janney says something really vulger that was totally out of character. I like Solondz. I've seen almost all his movies. I just think it's time he took his films to another level.
 
The lines I was referencing were dark. I can't remember the exact line, but Allison Janney says something really vulger that was totally out of character. I like Solondz. I've seen almost all his movies. I just think it's time he took his films to another level.
he's mining a very specific territory with his films. i don't expect him to give it up anytime soon. that said, i didn't think this was nearly as good - if that is the right word - as his other films. it was, as i said in my post, a lesser solondz film. speaking of janney, i was surprised - and a little alarmed by - what she did in this film. solondz got a good cast for this (which is no surprise) but the script wasn't strong.
 
The lines I was referencing were dark. I can't remember the exact line, but Allison Janney says something really vulger that was totally out of character. I like Solondz. I've seen almost all his movies. I just think it's time he took his films to another level.
he's mining a very specific territory with his films. i don't expect him to give it up anytime soon. that said, i didn't think this was nearly as good - if that is the right word - as his other films. it was, as i said in my post, a lesser solondz film. speaking of janney, i was surprised - and a little alarmed by - what she did in this film. solondz got a good cast for this (which is no surprise) but the script wasn't strong.
Yeah, cast was strong and script was weak. I don't expect Solondz to suddenly become Woody Allen. But I don't see much growth in his movies over the last four years.
 
'TexanFan02 said:
The Big Year had no idea what this was about, the wife and i sat down and gave it a shot. I didn't think I would enjoy it based on reading the description but I thought it was a decent movie. It's not going to win any awards and is pretty "plain" but did enjoy it. We'll say 2.5 out of 5.
This. I liked it, think it's worth seeing.
Yeah I may even bump it to 3 or more. It was put together nicely and I did enjoy it.
:eek: Thought it was freaking dreadful. What was entertaining about it? Bird watching? Maybe because I was expecting a laugh, you know since it had Martin, Black and Wilson in it. Not a single funny momeny.
:goodposting: One of the worst movies I saw last year.
 
Holy #### - a page 7 bump???

King of Kong:

Wanted to revisit this one again, and it was as good as I remember. As much as I hate Billy Mitchell in this movie, the uber-creeps are the lackeys that have been swinging from his junk for the past 20 years.



The Prestige:

Still one of my favorite movies of the past 10 years or so. Sure the ending is pretty silly, but up until that point it is a fantastic movie. And it's not like the ending is out of left field - what I love about the movie is it's just like Michael Caine keeps telling us - you are being told what's going on with the trick/movie, you just don't want to believe it. 8/10



Desperado:

I am slowly starting to come around to Robert Rodriguez's stuff. He has flashes of brilliance, but there is something about his style and action scenes that rub me the wrong way. LOVE the opening scene with Buschemi. Liked this one more than I expected to, but overall didn't love it. 6/10

and after much stalling and slowly talking myself into it, I finally watched.....

Martyrs:

:shock: :shock:

 
Rampart...A mess of a movie and storyline for the most part. Woody Harrelson stars as an old school cop who goes about business as he pleases, until he's videotaped nearly beating a man to death. Almost no time is spent on this incident or its resolution as the movie just focuses on his character's relentless bad decisions and declining self respect, which is pretty much the only character or plot development youll find. Thought Harrelson was great and kept it entertaining, but nothing else to see here besides a cougtastic Robin Wright and Ben Foster who has less than 5 minutes of screen time yet creates another interesting character. Decent character study and psychological film, but the severely lacking script holds back the whole from equaling the sum of the parts...2/5
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top