What movies have you seen recently?

[UWfan206]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

Aliens (1986) No need for ten paragraphs here, we've all seen it. I like it even better than the first one. 4.75 out of 5 stars.

Disagree. In my opinion the first one was better.

[Lieutenant Dan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils

The best thing about both of those films is they are both top-notch and offer two completely different experiences. When you can go round and round over which two are the best not only in the series but in film overall it certainly says something about both. Godfather 1 and 2 can do the same.

Thank you.

Guys...one is a sci-fi suspense thriller, the other a sci-fi action film. Apples and oranges...

I am also pretty sure Aliens was the first of it's kind.

I love them both equally and it's a 'mood' thing for me, as each film fulfills a unique film craving for me.

Both excellent films. And yes, agree with the Godfather Parts I and II sentiment as well.

[daflyboys]

I think it's gonna be more like Anchorman 1 and 2!

Spoiler

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by daflyboys

Gotta disagree somewhat there. The original Alien was filmed so well. The lighting and sets made it that unique blend of futuristic and gritty/dirty present-day realism. The casting ensemble was superb and the unique element of the life-like robot was an surprise excellent addition. The "old" abandoned ship nest for the eggs also added that mysterious element that left you filling in the blanks for yourself at the time. With "Aliens" you had more of the campy element especially led by the way Paxton and Goldstein delivered their lines. Paul Reiser was a horrible casting move as well. He was too well known at the time as a comic stand-up/actor (sort of as bad as a casting move as Michael Keaton in Batman, imo). There were not really any more surprises in Aliens with so much revealed in the original......so it was up against the sequel let down. Maybe a 3.5/5 with "Alien" deserving a 4.5/5.

Michael Keaton bad as Batman? Are you kidding me?!?!?! He was awesome in that role.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[daflyboys]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

Michael Keaton bad as Batman? Are you kidding me?!?!?! He was awesome in that role. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Michael Keaton is Mr. Mom.... not Mr. Batman.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by daflyboys

Michael Keaton is Mr. Mom.... not Mr. Batman.

You might have a slight point there. I think Keaton was PERFECT as Bruce Wayne. His Batman was adequate, maybe even a bit stiff but you know what? I think that's a great way of interpreting the character as I think that's how a real life rich guy would be Batman. One aspect I liked about Keaton is that his Batman was pretty much even keeled and determined as opposed to Christian Bale who tried to be a force of nature what with that annoying gravelly voice and being all "I'm the Goddamned Batman!" in his persona. I also found that Bale was too busy being super serious with no room for other emotions. Yes, Keaton's Batman was pretty serious but I always got the feeling that he'd eventually lighten up at some point. His Batman looked like a guy who'd eventually have a Robin, Bale does not.

[SPTO]

Back to the oldies (and no, no more Randolph Scott for the foreseeable future LOL)

Cafe Hostess (1940)

This is a solid little B noir that is a nice little gem of a film. It's basically about a hooker (it's never explicitly said but the film makes it very obvious) wanting to get out from under her night club owner/pimp/gangster boss. She meets a guy who's your typical knight in shining armor who she wants to live a new life with. The movie has a neat stylistic touch with the beginning and ending bookending themselves and the whole "wanting to leave the sordid life of a hooker" theme is well done despite the love interest being poorly written and paper thin.

I write a bit more about it but despite it sounding like not such a great flick, it's actually pretty good and has a nice dark, gritty atmosphere to it. The actors all have this grungy, tough, and in the case of the main villain, slimy quality that really sells the seediness of the situation.

It's a good rare little B noir gem that I rather liked because it was honest about the subject matter though the love interest sinks the movie a bit.

** 1/2 stars

[55]

Repulsion (1965)

Polanski's sophomore film (commonly mistaken as his debut by many) is a psychological thriller disguised as a horror movie. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, even in its "ugly" spots, but beyond that I find this film to be very overrated. The pacing is rather slow (just like modern horror films) and the story in and of itself isn't very good. The acting is also pretty lackluster all-around. The "twist" at the end is actually pretty cool though and was ahead of its time. All in all, the direction and cinematography make this one still worth the watch, but overall this film doesn't stack up to Polanski's debut (Knife in the Water), nor the next feature (Cul-de-sac) he made after this one.

2.5 out of 5 stars.