Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T

Watched savages Friday night.. Ummmmmmm was an ok movie.. Entertaining enough.. Then wtf was with the ending


Also saw rain man for the 1st time, not going lie.. Was a little disappointed.. Hoffman was great, but just expected more
 
just watched hugo...so damn good

It was a surprise favorite of mine. I wish I saw it in theaters because I heard the 3D was great.

I must have watched it every few days after I first saw it. I haven't seen it in awhile, so I'll have to fix that soon :lol:
 
Anybody read Grantland's article last week on Chris Pine essentially being an enigma?


This is pretty hard to do:

First film (The Hunger Games) had an 84%.
Second film (Catching Fire) had an 89%.
Third film (Mockingjay) currently rocking an 86% (24 positive, four negative)

Early signs appear like they've gotten it right (to what degree is subjective) three straight times now, which movie franchises rarely can pull off. If they do it again with Part 2 that'll be something.
 
Last edited:
venom lyrix venom lyrix Have you heard anything about this "Wild" movie coming out in December with Reese Witherspoon? Saw a huge billboard for it today and it looks like it was received well at a couple of film festivals. Its funny too because I was just wondering a couple days ago what happened to Reese. She was one of the hottest actresses in Hollywood for a minute and then seemed to disappear for while. Maybe this movie will be the beginning of comeback for her.
 
Anybody read Grantland's article last week on Chris Pine essentially being an enigma?


This is pretty hard to do:

First film (The Hunger Games) had an 84%.
Second film (Catching Fire) had an 89%.
Third film (Mockingjay) currently rocking an 86% (24 positive, four negative)

Early signs appear like they've gotten it right (to what degree is subjective) three straight times now, which movie franchises rarely can pull off. If they do it again with Part 2 that'll be something.
What are these percentages that the movies were done well based off the books or that they were good?

Cuz I've seen the first two (begrudgingly saw Catching Fire cuz nothing else was available) and I have no plans at all to see the rest of these movies to the point I won't even watch the knockoff versions either like Divergent.

Just came off very bland. Something is just off about acting as well especially in Catching Fire when we're getting to the turning point of this rebellion starting.
 
I'm watching Blazing Saddles.

For the first time.

I know, about time. Lets see what all the hype is about

You might not love it. As is the case with a lot of movies from the 70s (at least IMO), some of the humor in it will seem pretty dated. Some of it is pretty timeless though. Cleavon Little, Gene Wilder and Harvey Korman all give great performances.
 
You might not love it. As is the case with a lot of movies from the 70s (at least IMO), some of the humor in it will seem pretty dated. Some of it is pretty timeless though. Cleavon Little, Gene Wilder and Harvey Korman all give great performances.

It feels so slap stick and satire filled, not really what I was expecting but I have chuckled a few times so far. It's a bit too hokey, not really my type of comedy but I'll see where this goes.
 
man, this film came out in 1974, Mel Brooks was awfully liberal with the N word.

While used in a "comedic" context, it's a bit much.
 
man, this film came out in 1974, Mel Brooks was awfully liberal with the N word.

While used in a "comedic" context, it's a bit much.

That's what I mean about seeming dated. The standards for that kind of thing were very different back then. They shouldn't have been -- but they were. You also get jokes relating to rape in movies from the 70s, which you'd never see today.
 
That's what I mean about seeming dated. The standards for that kind of thing were very different back then. They shouldn't have been -- but they were. You also get jokes relating to rape in movies from the 70s, which you'd never see today.

yea for sure, the whole "#6" thing about raping every woman in town...Obviously with this film you have to keep everything in perspective of the time it came out
 
Yea so...I don't really understand why Blazing Saddles is so highly regarded. Like I said, I tried my best to keep the whole "it came out in 1974" thing in my head, but there were only a few laughs for me and I really have no desire to see it again. Very underwhelming
 
I can understand how some may find the film overall funny. It's blatantly a satire, but the jokes are dated like lawdog said. That being said, how can one call a film a classic when the jokes do not carry over or transcend the time period the film came out in?
 
Now popping in Young Frankenstein.

Both were gifts from a co worker years ago who was appalled I never saw them...
 
Now popping in Young Frankenstein.

Both were gifts from a co worker years ago who was appalled I never saw them...

I predict you'll like YF better than BS. Because of the nature of what Brooks' is satirizing in that one, it doesn't have the same amount of jokes that now seem offensive. It's a bit more timeless, IMO. If you asked me 20 years ago, I would have said I liked Blazing Saddles better, but that's not the case anymore.

In general, although not as funny now as they used to be, I think the best Mel Brooks movies are still worth a watch for fans of film because you can see how Brooks kind of paved the way for people like the Farreley Bros, Todd Phillips, etc.
 
Those percentages are adding up positive reviews and dividing them over the total reviews and then you get a percentage.

Is The Naked Gun worth my time?
 
Robin Hood: Men in Tights is my favorite Mel Brooks film.

It released in '93 when I was still a kid so the humor don't seem as dated and I'm a fan of the legend of Robin Hood so the satire hits me right
 
Back
Top Bottom