What's the last movie you've seen?

[Phony Moderate]

Wow The Muppets has a 98% on RT.

And 8.3 on IMDB. And 76 on Metacritic.

[fezzyfestoon]

Inside Job

Very good and very frustrating. Plus the Eagles' owner had a hand in it.

[Dancing with Myself]

Have a Little Faith

It was kind of cheesy in a  few spots but for a Hallmark made movie it was great. I felt good about watching it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Chinatown

It was a good movie, I enjoyed it more than I expected to.  Chinatown had good plot, featured strong performances by Jack Nicholson and John Huston, and it is probably my favorite Polanski film (although I haven't seen Carnage yet).  That said, I don't think it was a truly great movie either and would argue that it is a little bit overrated.  However, I'd certainly still recommend it, especially to fans of film noir.

[© tweed]

Wow The Muppets has a 98% on RT.

And 8.3 on IMDB. And 76 on Metacritic.

aren't those numbers always inflated at the very beginning?  I remember for a period in 2008 The Dark Night had overtaken Godfather and Shawshank for no. 1 on IMDb.

[LBJer]

J. Edgar

I liked it.  It was an unusual movie, the way it went back and forth in time constantly, but I still liked it.  It wasn't on the order of Eastwood's Unforgiven, but that's not saying much--Unforgiven is simply outstanding.

It was amusing to hear Nixon call Hoover "that old c*cksucker" when he heard of his death, then go to the White House press room and make very respectful comments about him.  While some might condemn this as hypocritical, I think it's simply very human--all of us often have feelings we can't or won't say in public for obvious reasons.

[Phony Moderate]

Analyze That. Not as good as Analyze This.

[© tweed]

watched Boogie Nights last night.

[King]

We Live in Public.  Documentary worth being made into a fictionalized feature.

[patrick1]

For the love of all that is holy...Ugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCdZje_sTF0&feature=player_embedded

[© tweed]

saw He's Just Not That Into You last night.  trying to watch more movies as I take a harm-reductionist approach to escapism in my life.  also is an exercise in increasing my shot attention span.  as for the movie, it was ok.  better than most in its genre, probably.

[Phony Moderate]

12 Angry Men (1997). Not as good as the 1957 version, but still very good.

[Middle-aged Europe]

12 Angry Men (1997). Not as good as the 1957 version, but still very good.

Since the script was left untouched (as far as I can tell), and the story remained exactly the same, it's hard to say whether the remake is actually "worse" than the original.

The main difference is that it was filmed in colour and that Henry Fonda was replaced by Jack Lemmon, Lee J. Cobb with George C. Scott, and E.G. Marshall with Armin Mueller-Stahl. Well, I suppose Tony Danza manages to pull the film down a bit compared to the original.

Kind of unnecessary as remakes go though. But then again, most remakes are.

[fezzyfestoon]

I saw Hugo in 3D last weekend (despite my general aversion to 3D) without ever having heard of it. I'm trying to avoid major movie releases in favor of more personal recommendations. I was massively surprised and genuinely blown away. I absolutely loved it, especially the message.

[© tweed]

Devil's Advocate tonight! three movies in three nights.  kind of goofy.  took exception to the idea that bad people don't deserve representation.  I think evil deserves virulent defense in order to prevent the triumph of evil: the film was oblivious to the Great Paradox.

[Politico]

12 Angry Men (1997). Not as good as the 1957 version, but still very good.

Since the script was left untouched (as far as I can tell), and the story remained exactly the same, it's hard to say whether the remake is actually "worse" than the original.

Acting, cinematography and ultimately direction count.

[King]

Hugo 3D

The setup kind of drags, but the last half hour or so is one of the finest tributes to movies I've ever seen.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

12 Angry Men (1997). Not as good as the 1957 version, but still very good.

Since the script was left untouched (as far as I can tell), and the story remained exactly the same, it's hard to say whether the remake is actually "worse" than the original.

I haven't seen it, but I've heard plenty of people complain about the Gus van Sant remake of Psycho and talk about how inferior it is the original, despite it being a shot for shot remake.

[Middle-aged Europe]

12 Angry Men (1997). Not as good as the 1957 version, but still very good.

Since the script was left untouched (as far as I can tell), and the story remained exactly the same, it's hard to say whether the remake is actually "worse" than the original.

I haven't seen it, but I've heard plenty of people complain about the Gus van Sant remake of Psycho and talk about how inferior it is the original, despite it being a shot for shot remake.

The remake of Psycho currently holds an IMDb rating of 4.6/10, the remake of 12 Angry Men a 7.7. Rotten Tomatoes: 35%/36% for Psycho remake, 100%/82% for 12 Angry Men remake.

Maybe 12 Angry Men gets away with a remake because it very much resembles a classic theater play (and was in fact performed as such many times over). So if the theater version of 12 Angry Men is performed over and over again with a ever-changing cast, the film versions can do too. To date, there are in fact four TV/film adaptions in existence: A Westinghouse Studio One episode from 1954, the Sidney Lumet version from 1957, the remake from 1997, and a Russian adaption from 2007 which won a Golden Lion at Venice and was nominated as Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards.

[Eraserhead]

I've watched some more stuff. Don't feel like listing everything here but has anyone else watched The Visitors (1972)? I can't say I liked the movie but it was interesting and rather disturbing. Fairly revolutionary filmmaking for that time too, no doubt. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have more of a reputation.

[Gustaf]

I've watched some more stuff. Don't feel like listing everything here but has anyone else watched The Visitors (1972)? I can't say I liked the movie but it was interesting and rather disturbing. Fairly revolutionary filmmaking for that time too, no doubt. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have more of a reputation.

Looking at the wikipedia page it somewhat randomly reminded me of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.

[Politico]

Midnight Run (1988):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095631/

I recommend it if you're looking for something with a few laughs, nothing too serious, etc.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

I'm a bit torn actually. All the action and suspence scenes were pretty well done (especially those in, around, and near Burj Khalifa in Dubai). At the same time they were clearly taking the franchise into "silly territory" though. Simon Pegg's much expanded comic relief role really becomes annoying after a while and at times I simply wanted to punch his character in the face. The main villain and his plot was also stolen from some of the more outlandish James Bond films, mainly The Spy Who Loved Me (which had already been influenced by You Only Live Twice).

So, I suppose Ghost Protocol is the right movie for everyone who thinks that the Daniel Craig films have to become too gritty and too "grounded". Tom Cruise is Bond, Simon Pegg is Q and that Russian secret agent bloke could become sort of a Felix Leiter, if there's a sequel.

[Eraserhead]

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Absolutely loved it. Hilarious and weird.

[Хahar 🤔]

Scarface (1983)

Certainly it's entertaining, and Al Pacino makes his character interesting. Unfortunately, all the other characters are flat as cardboard; Michelle Pfeiffer's is particularly bad. The whole movie is 2½ hours of glorification of violence with a bit tacked on at the end to hastily and unconvincingly say that all of that cool stuff that happened before is actually bad. It's not a movie with any sort of real merit.