Oh yeah. We're using icheckmovies.com, which can be a somewhat useful tool, and come to the conclusion we have around 600 to watch (we've luckily been watching good film for years, so portions of the list we'd seen by our own taste).

Your silent film project sounds worthwhile. I haven't watched as much of it as I should, seen a lot of Chaplin and Keaton, watched most of the obvious essentials, but that's about it.

got conned into playing a drinking game with this last night with this girl i been running around with

A sequence of events:
See your post
Open new tab
Examine Site
Register
Spend at least an hour and a half checking off 250+ movies
Realize what time it is
Get ready to leave the house
Tell my brother about the site
Now he's going to blow hours on it

So yea, I don't know whether to thank you or seek my revenge... for now I will side with the former >_>

If you're seeking revenge, count me in, after reading Magnus' post I spent an hour checking off movies.

Haha, it is a time sapping site. Does it lag like all Hell for you? Often takes forever to load anything for me, I'm thinking it's my campuses' internet. I haven't checked nearly as many as I migh've, because I tend to get frustrated and close the browser when it starts being slower, and slower, and...

edit- I've also found that they just don't seem to have some movies listed. Such as Born on the Fourth of July, eXistenZ, and some others I forget. You run into this?

It's missing a lot of movies. I was wondering if they only have the movies that are already on lists. As well, you can't search by director or anything, which kinda sucks. It runs slowly for me also, and my internet is solid. Good site, though. They just need to work on it a bit more.

Yea, similar deal with flickchart.com. A site where you rank movies against each other to determine your real favorites. And criticker.com, which had an interesting ratings system. None of them ever have complete databases, and they're always missing the most random stuff. IMDB will remain my major voting/rating/tracking site, but being able to see how much of my favorite lists I've completed is pretty cool.

Yeah, I got used to the no director search option, but that bummed me out at first. I think the missing films are just random. Some of the ones on there have doubtfully ever been on a list, and I feel like some of the omitted films are perhaps on lists but are gaps in the system Like Born on the Fourth of July, if that's not on any list...embarrassing.

Accidentally stumbled upon this doc last night--it makes some great points (about capitalism, corporate ethics, and greed) but tends to come across as Michael Moore light (no pun intended). There are more than a few truly LOL moments, like the one pictured above--BBC World interviews this prankster, ostensibly from Dow Chemical, on the 20-year anniversary of Bhopal. He announes that Dow is "happy to finally take responsibility for the disaster and to do the right thing" (a $12B settlement with the victims). I felt that they were a bit understated in making their points, but they seem to have avoided prosecution so maybe that's why.

is that the 2nd yes men movie?

Glad I'm not the only anal retentive idiot with some sort of movie watching/tracking project. I've been going through an IMDB list of every movie with more than (I think) 5 votes. It's 290,000 titles, but about 90,000 are tv shows. I'm sure I'll be done in no time.

You'll find movies I've seen, and movies I have (either because I really like them, or because I haven't watched them yet here:

http://freetexthost.com/bdoruehx5u

contemplating doing some of the WANT to see list now, but I should really be working on my final stuff for school.

^^
That IS a project. Makes our 1,000 look incredibly minuscule.

bastard. don't you know I get hooked on these things?

Actually, I'm forcing myself to be completely honest. So all those films I've said that I've seen but only watched the first ten minutes of before getting distracted aren't getting ticked.

Edit: Yeah, this site kinda sucks sometimes. Basically it only lists the films which are part of any of those lists. Where can I check that I've seen Beverly Hills Cop III?????

Finally got around to seeing this and wow, it was quite heartbreaking. Anne Hathaway deserved all the praise she got for this roll.



American Teen was a doc that looked better than it actually was. It seemed somewhat staged and contrived.

Yes. Is the first one any good?

Here's a youtube of that BBC broadcast, btw:




Went in with a healthy dose of cynicism to watch "Prom Night in Mississippi," about the Charleston, MS high school having their first integrated prom in 2008--paid for by Morgan Freeman (who lives there). Color me a native northern Californian, I guess, but mind = boggled to see that that sort of racism is still tolerated, even in the deep south.

The film was silent on how widespread these segregated proms are, but a quick google reveals that they're common in rural areas. The excuse most frequently used by the white parents who threw a whites-only prom anyway, was that "if god had wanted you to mix, he wouldn't have made you white and them black." Also, "the more races mix, the more inferior America becomes." May these assholes remain inbred and die out.

I think American Teen is about as "real" as we can expect that kind of doc to be, now that we have a generation of kids who grew up on reality TV.

And I disagree with you RE Hathaway. I actually think Rosemarie Dewitt was better. I think a better actor could have won the oscar with that role. Picture a younger Jennifer Jason-Leigh, or Ally Sheedy. The problem I have with hathaway's performance, is that I think she (and maybe Lynch, for that matter) could/should have made the character more sympathetic. I really didn't care about this girl's problems at all.

I didn't necessarily find Rachel Getting Married to be a fabulous movie...a good one, though. I did find Hathaway to be surprisingly good in the role.

Just finished season one of Deadwood.

Obviously Swearengen is the titan of the series, his character is fucking awesome and interesting, but I think my own personal favorite may be-

Ignore the cheesy tagline, this is one of the bleakest and most gripping films in years.

Oh I didn't say I was a gentleman. I said I was tired.

In A Lonely Place: Great Humphrey Bogart vehicle with Bogart as Dix Steele, a Hollywood screenwriter, who gets implicated in a murder which leads to him meeting his dream girl. It's alternately sweet, then violent, fun, then mysterious. Fabulous movie.


Simply try for one hour to behave like gentlemen.

The Ladykillers: I'd never seen this one and can sort of start to comprehend why people are so down on the remake. If nothing else, the first one was a lot more logical: the old lady catches onto the criminals much quicker, I like the criminals turning on each other, and the individual deaths make a little more sense. Great fun. Alec Guinness is hilarious.

I thought it was a lot more than that in my opinion...I wont' go into detail to avoid needing spoiler filter, but let's just say that none of the characters are completely moral, and that certain things go in a circular motion in the hopes for things to be corrected.

I must admit, the idea of doing it in my sister's bed gives me a perverse thrill.

sex, lies, and videotape: Nothing special. I have a Premiere magazine from late 89/early 90 and they keep going on about this being this mind-blowing film, and I've heard all the praise over the years and finally watched it and...yeah. The acting is all uniformly good, the pacing is fairly brisk, but there's not really a lot going on, IMO. I could see the plot points coming a mile away, and there was no mind-blowing moment where you go "Ohhhhhh......WOW!" It's not bad, but that's about as high as I'd rate it.

Fantastic little film. Lightning fast talking, dense political discussions, and overall damn hilarious.
Definitely buying this one on DVD when it comes out.

^^
Dying to see that. I'm constantly realizing what the benefits were of living in Atlanta. Gettysburg isn't playing a damn thing. I can't find showings of In the Loop, 500 Days of Summer, or The Hurt Locker. Bah.

Taking a little break from the TSPDT quest:

Oh yeah.

really underwhelmed with rachel getting married. hathaway was excellent, but i really don't even remember much about it months later other than the interminable and pointless dance sequences, bad atmosphere and the dude from tv on the radio

Really? I thought some of those sequences were the really remarkable aspect of RGM.

RGM is one of my favorite films.

My face hurts a little from all of the smiling I just did at 500 Days of Summer.

More thoughts later if I get time, but really that's about all that needs said about it.

The Quick and the Dead: Had this film recommended to me probably a year or so ago by Slackmo and some others in this thread. Finally watching it in its entirety now.

The more I come to appreciate Raimi, the more I'm saddened by the time he's wasting with the Spiderman films.

The movie is pretty damn fun so far. Don't want to overanylze an intentionally campy movie, but-
-Wondering why everyone just instantly hates the preacher. Not that I can blame them since it's Russel Crowe, but weird.
-Why Sharon Stone doesn't just shoot Gene Hackman. There's been two scenes so far of her being tempted to just kill him...why the hell not? It's the Wild West.
-If Lance Henriksen

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

was nothing but a liar..why in the Hell would he enter a contest where he'd actually have to put his "skills" on the line? And fuck him dying so soon, he was my favorite actor in the movie. Bah.

Leo DiCaprio is terrible in this. Read a Russel Crowe interview where he said all Leo talked about in between takes was how he was a virgin and needed to lose it. I swear it shows in the performance. (not saying that's what makes the performance terrible, just find it funny)

before:


after:


I dunno why, but for some reason that tickles my sensahumah.

Final word:

Very fun. Recommended. Sharon Stone is pretty ineffectual as the heroine. By the end, I was more interested in Crowe's character than her's, and would've preferred to see him finish things. Now I want to see a sequel with his marshal character, The Swift and the Crippled, or something.

and Leo is still terrible.

I think the Quick and the Dead might be the western for people who don't like westerns. I didn't know Raimi directed it, but now I think it makes perfect sense.

And regarding "Sex, Lies and Videotape" - it may not be a 'great' film, but not only was it Soderburgh's first, it really was quite groundbreaking. It pretty much started the whole hand-held revolution. Without SLV, there would have been no "Once", and no (gag) Blair Witch, etc.

I remember watching Ebert and Siskel being very impressed with just how "diferent" SLV was from your average Hollywood relationship movie. Sure would be nice to see Andie McDermott again. I always thought she was a much smarter 'Julia Roberts'.

I'm thinking that's a big reason why it seems so "meh" now. Every review I've read that tags it as genius or a masterpiece speaks to its ground-breaking nature, and after basically a lifetime of handheld camera low-key movies, it doesn't feel groundbreaking to me. But, I'm sure it certainly did at the time.

And that's what geezers like me are here for. To bring up the past.

What do you mean, exactly? I tend to love westerns. It simplified and stylized the idea of a typical 'western'- is that what you mean?

It was a stupid movie, and not on the level of the Evil Dead movies, but I found it amusing enough.

Sorry, I guess what I mean is, it's not very good. Frankly I don't think it's worth analyzing. I saw it once, was disappointed, and have no urge to see it again.

I think what I mean is, Sam Raimi should stay away from westerns. There is such a thing of being 'out of your element'.

Great westerns with women that come to mind are "3 Mules for Sister Sara" and "A big hand for the little lady"

I agree. Like I said, it was a stupid movie. Don't think it's worth analyzing either, I was just pointing out some things that simply didn't make sense.

Watching The Name of the Rose again. I feel like Ron Perlman deserved more attention for his role. He plays the part very convincingly, I imagine it was a bit of a challenge.

Got drunk tonight and watched this for shits and giggles. Absolute dogshit.

^^
Oh God it's terrible. Potentially Connery's last film too. Talk about going out with a fart. Best line of all time- "The bat lady will protect us from above." Or something like that. I just know Sean Connery actually says 'bat lady'.

Watching Assault on Precinct 13 right now. The original. Haven't seen it in a few years, was again surprised by

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

the killing of the little girl. Killing kids in movies is relatively taboo

, and it was a popular mainstream action flick.

I conclude my night of masochism with this. Also absolute, incomprehensible dogshit. At least with League, you can tell the filmmakers never even read the book. With this, it's clear they read it but just didn't give a shit about it. What is it about adapting Alan Moore that makes retards of men?


Indeed, a career-capper to rival Bela Lugosi's. At least he got paid well. 17 million. Not a bad price for one's soul.

Agreed. From Hell, League, Watchmen...couldn't even choose which is the worst. Comes down to it, at least League doesn't think it's good. Probably got the most entertainment out of it. Not that that says much at all.

Started season 2 of Deadwood. Best damn season opener I may have ever seen. (mild spoiler) "Welcome to fuckin' Deadwood", as everyone manages to injure each other within 2 minutes. Just great.

Just watched this:




Incredible film.

^^
I wasn't a fan. I tend to find Nolan overrated in general, so maybe I'm biased, but I didn't think the film worked too well. It was boring for stretches of time, and I thought it failed in its purpose. The film revolves around a twist that's rather obvious, and even disregarding that, I found Nolan's attempt at transferring

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

the sympathy from Jackman's character to Bale's to fail as well. Hence, when the film shifted to side with Bale...it just didn't fly for me. I found him self-righteous and annoying throughout the film. (or both of him, however you want to put it)

A post on a blog about the 2000's most overrated films had a piece about it that sums it up well for me (if I wrote anything further, I'd just be taking words from it anyway)- "The little trick they were playing was so painfully obvious to me that I obeyed Michael Caine. I focused on it, hoping that it was their sleight of hand; I was wanting to be fooled. But when I got to the end, no... that was it. That was all they had in the tank. And they did everything they could to wave it in front of my face from the onset. If you can't fool me, you ain't good at foolin'. And when your movie's all about foolin', and you ain't good at it, you ain't got a good movie."

The whole bit, if anyone's interested- http://comans.blogspot.com/2008/01/top-5-m...s-of-2000s.html

I appreciate the feedback but your post has a huge spoiler in it. Probably should edit it.

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

The movie was sympathetic to Bale the whole time. I don't know why you were surprised or saddened to see that as the end result.

I thorouglhy enjoyed both the performances and the writing.

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

I wasn't expecting some huge surprise either. The movie let us know that there really weren't any surprises with the dead pigeon trick. The child calls it perfectly with "but you killed its brother". In the end, this was not all that different from "Transporter Man".

Did I cover the portion you found to be a spoiler?

Anyway, I clearly didn't explain myself well. I wasn't surprised to see the end result with Bale's character, you're right, Nolan did try to set that up the "whole time", which is where I thought the film failed-

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

it was intended to make my sympathize with Bale, and I didn't. So I didn't think the film itself was successful.

I guess I'm confused as to why you found it incredible- you weren't looking for a big surprise, so what did you find to be so fantastic in the film? I didn't personally find the performances of the two leads to be strong, but disregarding that, if you enjoy the film as a performance piece, I wouldn't think that'd rank it as "incredible." Such as, I enjoy Lions for Lambs largely due to its performances, and while I may argue that this makes it a good film, I wouldn't say that makes it an incredible one. If you particularly enjoyed the writing, that's another thing, but I suppose what I'm asking, is what absorbed you so entirely? The film was considered a thriller, and by your own admission of its lacking surprise, and immediate openness about the lack of shocks coming...what grasped you? I found the film to be kind of empty. Style, but little gripping substance.

I obviously also didn't find the writing strong, due to

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

my never developing sympathy for Bale

, despite the writer's clear intention that I should. Then again, maybe that's my shortcoming. I discussed the film with my old film professor, and he had the same complaint about the film, for what little that's worth. (I know it's tiresome to throw out the "oh, my film prof said...", sorry for that one) I've come to dislike Bale, but when the film was released/I saw it, I was impartial, so I don't think that's what affected me.

I know people say this all the time, but you guys should really read the book of the Prestige. They changed a lot of the last quarter of the story (Including one of the tricks), and the book is seriously amazing in what happens.

I recognized the movie as really really good, but it was hard not to be disappointed with the changes.

I thought "the Prestige" was much better than the "Illusionist", that's for sure.

And here I liked The Illusionist. Not new to this debate, it was pretty intense between my friends and I when the films came out. Seemed like more of us preferred the Norton film, though. I A- simply liked the people involved with the film better (Norton and Giamatti squaring off was priceless). B- I found that despite The Prestige's larger budget and epic flash, that The Illusionist had more soul and was simply more entertaining. Then again, one of my closest friends whose' tastes I respect probably above all else despised The Illusionist. (Can't remember what she thought of The Prestige).

theremin, I'll try to get around to the book some time. My reading list has been expanding rapidly lately, I've spent the last several years on film much more than literature, so I'm lacking pretty embarrassingly in that area. I've read plenty of Steinbeck, Hemingway, and etc, etc, but need to give more attention to writers like Hunter S. Thompson and Umberto Eco.

This was fantastic. GEnuine Joseph Heller style satire.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Still my favourite movie of all time. My fiancee hadn't seen it before and wanted to know where my SMS ringtone was from, so I showed her. Not sure if she liked it, but the viewing was interrupted a few times by the dog. Will watch it again with her in a few months.

Also,



Hero

I like this more than I think I should.

Control
Pretty decent Ian Curtis biopic.
Nice portrayal of the awkward twitchiness of the Joy Division vocalist.

^^
Want to see that.


What a disappointment. I tend to enjoy silly horror-comedies, and hoped this would be a good for a fluff view, but it was just a let down. I'd been led to believe it was more ridiculous than it was- that due to cut backs, the people were supposed to kill each other, and that'd it just be ludicrous. Instead, basically nothing happens for 40 minutes, which is followed by a dull final 50. Just boring and unpleasant, aside from a precious few legitimately funny moments.