What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

I thought the first Jack Reacher movie was okay. Even though the 6'5" Jack Reacher is played by the 4' 11" Tom Cruise, it's still not a bad movie. However, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back was not nearly as good. In the first one they stayed pretty close to the novel, but in this movie they changed it up a bit, for the worse. Characters were running around doing things that make no sense, to follow a plot that made no sense. Cobie Smolders and Tom Cruise have zero charisma. It was just a disappointing movie all the way around.

yeah the first one wasn't that bad. i enjoyed much of it. Especially that German documentary guy. Plus, I like the idea that if you want to secretly kill one person, make sure you kill another 5-6 random people around them so no one will link it to you.

Anyway seen John Wick 2 yet? I hear it's even better than the first one (which i LOVED).

Just got out of John Wick Chapter 2. SEE IT NOW.

It is everything you want it to be, and then some.

Why isn't JOHN WICK on Netflix or Amazon Prime? I've had it on my Watchlist on those sites for a while with no hits. Same goes for LOOPER. Some films get stuck in some weird rights/$$$ limbo and never show up.

I watched John Wick on TV last weekend, I thought it was pretty shite. Dumb revenge story (it doesn't get any dumber than this movie), graphically ultra-violent, Keanu, protagonist who takes down dozens of minions before ultimately getting to their boss, yada yada. It didn't do anything for me (or anything new for that matter), and I don't understand its success.

because of all the revenge action movies, it's one of the best done (world-building and such). It's not 5 stars or anything, but it's very very good. The new one is supposed to be much more violent so make sure you skip that one if you have trouble with that.

I did like the hotel bit.

Columbob wrote: I watched John Wick on TV last weekend, I thought it was pretty shite. Dumb revenge story (it doesn't get any dumber than this movie), graphically ultra-violent, Keanu, protagonist who takes down dozens of minions before ultimately getting to their boss, yada yada. It didn't do anything for me (or anything new for that matter), and I don't understand its success.

I thought John Wick was solid. I think it helped itself tremendously by having some cool action sequences that weren't ruined by shitty shaky cam shots. I admit there were at least a couple of times where I was baffled why they didn't just kill Wick.

Varys wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Also, did he really steal that dog in the end?

Haha yeah, but IIRC it was marked to be put down or something, that red label on its info sheet.

If you're up for a little cinematic ultraviolence, you can do far worse than John Wick.

For instance, you could be watching Predators. It might just be me, but Adrian Brody as a badass is just too miscast to watch. I sat there and made fun of the movie until my wife and daughter told me to shut up. Like I said, it could very well be my take on a perfectly serviceable actor.

Predators was awful.

Awful.

I found Predators to be a perfect seven on my ten-point scale. A little bit worse, and I would never watch it again. A little bit better, and I might feel like watching it again once every decade or so. Brody is a good actor but definitely miscast in Predators, and yet I still think that he sort of pulls it off. There is a sufficient amount of action and and okay amount of tough guy dialogue, with a few moderately entertaining plot twists.

I just got done watching a documentary about nineteenth-century whaling called "Into the Deep" by the American Experience at PBS. There are a lot of parallels between those ships, that chew up crew and spit out money, and silicon valley startups. They also talked about the Essex, the inspiration for Moby Dick. I have to finish like 30 chapters for class tomorrow. Good night.

Gf and I watched Frogs from 1972 last night. Staring Sam Elliot and Joan van Ark. Its the kind of movie that should be front and center.on MST3K. It's an eco-horror movie. Dumb as hell. How dumb? Well, for a movie named "Frogs", you'd expect at least one frog to be the antagonist. But no, even butterflies are antagonists. Frogs are just voyeurs throughout the entire film.
The acting is bad more often than not, though Sam Elliot wasn't horrible. The pacing is a snoozefest and the cinematography is pointless.
It is in fact, one if the worst movies imaginable. This is a warning, and not an invitation for the reader to be challenged to witness how bad it is.

I saw FROGS about 20 years ago. There was a time that awful horror movies would play SUPER late at night on channel CFCF-12 and I wouldn't be up at 2-3am to watch them so I'd set them to tape on my VCR and watch them at my leisure. The quality of taping these things on a VCR (and the fact that I was continuously overwriting what was on the tape) made the image really bad, which I think added a TON to these movies. I remember FROGS being bad, but there was a scene where some poor soul finds himself under an Elm or a Weeping Willow tree or something and there's TONS of spiders and webs that just start falling on him. Our Barney has a nice case of arachophobia and this scene FREAKED me out and was totally out of place with the rest of the movie cuz nothing else was scary at all.

So even 20 years out , i still remember that spider scene of that poor guy and I think i'm not well when I'm under those kinds of trees still to this day.

Because that scene scared me i can't think of this as one of the worst of all time. That honour, for me, still belongs to the remake of The Fog. Worst movie of all time, says I.