I suggest Oldboy.
Great family movie.
Great family movie.
Great family movie as in the incest?
Or great family movie as in cutting out his own tongue
Or great family movie as in cutting out his own tongue
Spoilers please. He hasn't seen it yet.
Yeah but who's the 'he' in my sentence?
So Harry Potter has torture and murder. Aslan gets stabbed by a scary witch. Mufasa falls off a cliff and Jafar looms over the audience. Even Roger Rabbit could still have scary bits for a three year old, just like a lot of other recommended family films. HITRUN is a big boy. He can crop out any film he doesn't want his kids to see yet.Ty wrote:
Newbie um... Pan's Labrynth? Really? You seriously think a movie where a dude gets his face brutally and graphically bashed in by a wine bottle is a family movie? A movie where a dude get's a Glasgow Smile ripped into his face? A movie with torture and murder? The Pale Man? You must have had a traumatic childhood.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a good one though.
Besides which, I wasn't sure how young his youngest was. Troll was about as traumatic a film as I'd seen when I was a really little kid (even the music made me uncomfortable until I was like in gradeschool), but you know, different generations and all.
I've actually watched a few of these again. They're not bad. It's a close run between Going Postal and Hogfather (plus I have to hook up my region-free player to watch damn Going Postal), but I prefer Hogfather. Wyrd Sisters is still a laugh. Soul Music came packed with it, but I don't remember much about it.
Trailers
(couldn't find an trailer in English)
Trailers
(couldn't find an trailer in English)
Going postal was a great book and the tv adaptation was very good. It was true to the book moreso than the above.
Lord Voldemort killing people with a word and a flash of green light is one thing, one man making another into a Lord Voldemort replica with a wine bottle before shooting him is something else entirely. I get your point though.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
So Harry Potter has torture and murder. Aslan gets stabbed by a scary witch. Mufasa falls off a cliff and Jafar looms over the audience. Even Roger Rabbit could still have scary bits for a three year old, just like a lot of other recommended family films. HITRUN is a big boy. He can crop out any film he doesn't want his kids to see yet.Ty wrote:
Newbie um... Pan's Labrynth? Really? You seriously think a movie where a dude gets his face brutally and graphically bashed in by a wine bottle is a family movie? A movie where a dude get's a Glasgow Smile ripped into his face? A movie with torture and murder? The Pale Man? You must have had a traumatic childhood.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a good one though.
Besides which, I wasn't sure how young his youngest was. Troll was about as traumatic a film as I'd seen when I was a really little kid (even the music made me uncomfortable until I was like in gradeschool), but you know, different generations and all.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Also, Helena Bonham Carter and that one teacher who liked cats carved bloody words into Hermione's and Harry's flesh. What I really remember bothering kids at the theaters during those movies wasn't the violence, but the scary supernatural shit like the Voldemort resurrection scene or the lake full of zombies.
I thought that was the TV adaptation (unless you're comparing it to Hogfather).AussieReaper wrote:
Going postal was a great book and the tv adaptation was very good. It was true to the book moreso than the above.
Compared to soul music and sisters.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I thought that was the TV adaptation (unless you're comparing it to Hogfather).AussieReaper wrote:
Going postal was a great book and the tv adaptation was very good. It was true to the book moreso than the above.
Yeah we are holding off on the the Harry Potter movies too... I was married when I saw the second one (with the spiders, I think?) and I thought it was creepy... There were a bunch of people that had brought their 3-6 year olds in the theater, and I was like "What is wrong with you people?"
Year One: 3/10
I snickered at something once... That almost made it a 4. There were attractive females. There was a great cast:
Jack Black
Michael Cera
Vinnie Jones
Horatio Sans
Olivia Wilde
Oliver Platt
David Cross
Hank Azaria
And yet it still sucked. With a cast like that, you should be able to throw them into a room together with no script and no costumes and just let them chit chat and be able to make an entertaining movie out of it...
I snickered at something once... That almost made it a 4. There were attractive females. There was a great cast:
Jack Black
Michael Cera
Vinnie Jones
Horatio Sans
Olivia Wilde
Oliver Platt
David Cross
Hank Azaria
And yet it still sucked. With a cast like that, you should be able to throw them into a room together with no script and no costumes and just let them chit chat and be able to make an entertaining movie out of it...
I remember buying Year One for like two dollars within months of its release. I'd have been better off with a $1.50 rental.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes: 8/10
Pretty solid flick. I enjoyed it... I wish the other remake had been half that good.
Pretty solid flick. I enjoyed it... I wish the other remake had been half that good.
The other remake didn't even come close.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 8/10
I want to see thatAries_37 wrote:
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 8/10
Ip Man 2 - 9/10
Point Blank - A+++
Probably the best crime drama/thriller I've ever seen. A+ directing, A+ performance/dialogue, A+ cinematography.
According to wikipedia it was not a box office hit in 1967 but its now regarded as one of the best thrillers ever made (according to film historians, critics, etc.)
95 percent rating on rotten tomatoes. Highly recommend for those who appreciate film as "high art"
Probably the best crime drama/thriller I've ever seen. A+ directing, A+ performance/dialogue, A+ cinematography.
According to wikipedia it was not a box office hit in 1967 but its now regarded as one of the best thrillers ever made (according to film historians, critics, etc.)
95 percent rating on rotten tomatoes. Highly recommend for those who appreciate film as "high art"
Really shows how low Hollywood has gone. The pursuit of profit at the expense of creativity and "reaching the widest audience with the most familiar cast available" has really turned the comedy genre into shit. Not just comedy of course, but comedy seems to suffer the worst in comparison to others.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Year One: 3/10
I snickered at something once... That almost made it a 4. There were attractive females. There was a great cast:
Jack Black
Michael Cera
Vinnie Jones
Horatio Sans
Olivia Wilde
Oliver Platt
David Cross
Hank Azaria
And yet it still sucked. With a cast like that, you should be able to throw them into a room together with no script and no costumes and just let them chit chat and be able to make an entertaining movie out of it...
Must be jokingPoseidon wrote:
Ip Man 2 - 9/10
Red Cliff 3/10
I knew all about the Battle of Chibi because from the RTK novel. I went in expecting a serious movie because of how rich the story of the battle was and how it really didn't need anymore glamorization (wrong word to use maybe?). I knew that wasn't what I was going to get when it said "made by John Woo" at the start. It's basically a kung fu movie set in 200 AD China. If that if your thing, go for it. If it is not, avoid this one. If you read the RTK novel avoid this one. It completely butchers the book's story/history. It ignores a bunch of really interesting stuff and details while also adding in a bunch of stuff that makes me want to vomit. Also the sex scenes they put in (they added a whole love triangle sub plot which is literally retarded) blow. After watching this I can understand why Woo isn't regarded highly as a director in the U.S.
The only part I liked was the parts with Chi-ling Lin. Too bad the sex scenes with her were so bad. She just lied there while the guy pushed himself silently into her while she took short breaths that you had to concentrate to notice otherwise she was completely unresponsive. Pretty much just laying there.
Catch 22 7-8/10
I never read the book but knew it had hell of a reputation behind it. I liked it the movie. I wasn't blown away but I think it was a cut above what most movies from it's period. (early 70's.) If you like surreal comedy you should check it out.
I knew all about the Battle of Chibi because from the RTK novel. I went in expecting a serious movie because of how rich the story of the battle was and how it really didn't need anymore glamorization (wrong word to use maybe?). I knew that wasn't what I was going to get when it said "made by John Woo" at the start. It's basically a kung fu movie set in 200 AD China. If that if your thing, go for it. If it is not, avoid this one. If you read the RTK novel avoid this one. It completely butchers the book's story/history. It ignores a bunch of really interesting stuff and details while also adding in a bunch of stuff that makes me want to vomit. Also the sex scenes they put in (they added a whole love triangle sub plot which is literally retarded) blow. After watching this I can understand why Woo isn't regarded highly as a director in the U.S.
The only part I liked was the parts with Chi-ling Lin. Too bad the sex scenes with her were so bad. She just lied there while the guy pushed himself silently into her while she took short breaths that you had to concentrate to notice otherwise she was completely unresponsive. Pretty much just laying there.
Catch 22 7-8/10
I never read the book but knew it had hell of a reputation behind it. I liked it the movie. I wasn't blown away but I think it was a cut above what most movies from it's period. (early 70's.) If you like surreal comedy you should check it out.
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-01-12 21:52:41)
It was a fine movie until the very first fight scene. Why the fuck they need a 1 vs 100 fight with a guy on wires, it's so fucking annoying.Macbeth wrote:
Red Cliff 3/10
I knew all about the Battle of Chibi because from the RTK novel. I went in expecting a serious movie because of how rich the story of the battle was and how it really didn't need anymore glamorization (wrong word to use maybe?). I knew that wasn't what I was going to get when it said "made by John Woo" at the start. It's basically a kung fu movie set in 200 AD China. If that if your thing, go for it. If it is not, avoid this one. If you read the RTK novel avoid this one. It completely butchers the book's story/history. It ignores a bunch of really interesting stuff and details while also adding in a bunch of stuff that makes me want to vomit. Also the sex scenes they put in (they added a whole love triangle sub plot which is literally retarded) blow. After watching this I can understand why Woo isn't regarded highly as a director in the U.S.
Macbeth, do yourself a favour and wash the thought of that piece of shit movie away, by watching this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0913968/
Jet Li? Another action movie?