Movies You've Never Seen But Have Wanted To

I'll continue to edit and add to this, but I know as many movies as I've seen, there are so many good ones out there I never have taken the time to watch. I guess I'm making a list to see what movies you guys have never made time for which might give me more ideas. Larry has probably told me 18 other movies I need to see. The list is way longer then than the couple I have down there right now, but I can't remember them at the moment.

Kill Bill - Volumes 1 & 2
Cinderella Man
Spiderman 3

Go see Kill Bill.
Drop whatever you're doing.
Go right now.

Lawrence of Arabia
Unleashed

meathorse, thanks for telling me. I'll definitely make get to that movie. I think Larry may own it.

Lawrence of Arabia is pretty good. It's a good Sunday afternoon movie during football's off-season. Do it then.

See "Big Empty" with Jon Favreau and Kelsey Grammar. It's got a dark comedy-Twilight zone feel to it....very interesting and off-the-mainstream movie.

You ask a lot of quetions at the end somewhat like "vanilla sky" but not quite as deep.

Hey, are you going to see Across The Universe?

Absolutely.

I do not own the Kill Bill movies, I didn't like them enough to want to own them. I went to see them both at the theatre when they came out but that was the end of fascination with them. Didn't do much for me.

Despite how many movies I do go to, I am a very picky movie goer. So if there is something that I haven't seen, I didn't want to see it in the first place.

But a couple of new movies out that I want to see are:

Eastern Promises
Good Luck Chuck (Jessica Alba mmmmm)
Mr. Woodcock
And possibly The Brave One

Eastern Promises looks fantastic. I might actually get to a theater for that one.

I'm usually one and done with movies. They aren't like music. Once I see a movie I usually never want to bother with it again, no matter how good. One of the very few exceptions is Kill Bill. Those really did it for me.

Another one is Being John Malkovich... what a mind-f**k! Love it.

Oh Whit, you disappoint me so. Mr. Woodcock? Really? You're going to pay money to see a Billy Bob Thorton movie that's a remake of about six other Billy Bob moves from the past three or four years? Not only that, but one that requires an insane amount of suspension of disbelief just to have an actual premise? Susan Sarandon must have lost it if she's appearing in drivel like that now. Oh honey. I may have to have your Picky Moviegoers of America card revoked.

I can't say anything about Good Luck Chuck. Not because it looks awesome, because Dane Cook is so beyond not funny (I know, blasphemy); it looks awful. However, it is clearly covered by that picky moviegoers clause that states that every picky moviegoer is allowed to have an actor/actress or two for whom it is acceptable to see poor movies just because said celebs appear in them. Those two actors for me are The Rock (Good God that man is hot!) and Hugh Jackman. Fortunately for me, Hugh is an excellent actor who tends to pick good projects. But the minute he decides to make some crap, I'll still go see it. Me-OW.

Anyway, Eastern Promises does look quite good, though I must admit that I worry that it's just A History of Violence 2: Electric Russian Boogaloo. It has that same feel, you know? Possible retread action always makes me wary.

There's not really a whole lot that's either out or headed toward theaters that I have any desire to see. I have seen a couple of trailers for period dramas and such that are currently in limited release, that I am hoping go into general release soon so that I can see them, stuff that you guys either haven't heard of or likely wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Quote :

stuff that you guys either haven't heard of or likely wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole

What's this? Obscure movie superiority complex!
I went to see Moolaade last year. Beat that!
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041202/REVIEWS/41004005/1023

Ah, no, you probably just mean movies that probably wouldn't appeal to the men folk. My wife is going to insist on "The Painted Veil", so that'll be coming down soon. Fine with me though. Edward Norton is badass.

(Dane Cook sucks balls)

Quote :

Anyway, Eastern Promises does look quite good, though I must admit that I worry that it's just A History of Violence 2: Electric Russian Boogaloo.

Hehehe. I hope that's not the case. I thought History of Violence was crap. Very disappointing. Heard nothing but fantastic things... then all of the sudden... crap.

meathorse wrote:

Ah, no, you probably just mean movies that probably wouldn't appeal to the men folk.

Yes, that was more what I meant. The three movies I want to see most right now are "Feast of Love", "Silk" (I hate Keira Knightly, but I will see anything that relates to Japanese or Chinese cultures), and "The Jane Austen Book Club." Every now and then, I have to get my girlie on.

I've heard really good things about "The Painted Veil". I really want to see it too.

meathorse wrote:

(Dane Cook sucks balls)

That can never be said enough. I think I may have to make that part of my signature now.

meathorse wrote:

I thought History of Violence was crap. Very disappointing. Heard nothing but fantastic things... then all of the sudden... crap.

Oh, I really liked it for the most part, though more as psychological experiment than as entertainment, you know? It was very interesting, how totally graphic it was, and the experience of watching everyone else watch it in the theater. It was incredibly telling, how there was barely a reaction to the extremely graphic depictions of violence, or even to the rather violent sex scene between Mario Bello and Viggo Mortensen. However, in an earlier sex scene between the two, that was rather gentle, loving, and playful (but graphic and long), these same people were disgusted. The scene was directed perfectly, in that it was much longer than average and completely unflinching. We went to see it right after it came out, in a sold out theater, and quite a few people actually began to yell at the screen when the scene didn't cut away when they thought it should.

I could get into more about our desensitization to violence vs. our aversion to loving scenes, and whether that's really our "puritanical roots" (God, I hate that phrase so much) or more of a belief in the idea that the privacy of those acts as part of what makes them beautiful, but I won't.

As far as that went, simply because it encouraged the asking of such questions, I found it quite masterful.

Watched "300" last night for the first time.

That movie actually got some bad reviews. Those people were on crack, and were clearly looking to get Shakespeare from Frank Miller. The trailer promised blood, gore, screaming, rippling muscles, beautiful cinematics, sex, and enough testosterone to make a ballerina grow balls. That's exactly what was delivered. Anyone who thought they were going to get cute things like a plot or something are probably the same kind of people who get upset because they went to a strip club and the drinks weren't very good.

That movie fucking rocked.

whodeygal wrote:

Watched "300" last night for the first time.

That movie actually got some bad reviews. Those people were on crack, and were clearly looking to get Shakespeare from Frank Miller. The trailer promised blood, gore, screaming, rippling muscles, beautiful cinematics, sex, and enough testosterone to make a ballerina grow balls. That's exactly what was delivered. Anyone who thought they were going to get cute things like a plot or something are probably the same kind of people who get upset because they went to a strip club and the drinks weren't very good.

That movie fucking rocked.

I see what you're saying, but we have seen Shakespeare from Miller. It's called "Sin City", one of the most focking beautiful movies to come out in a long time. I never read "300", I had read some "Sin City" and I had read other stuff from Miller before (like "Dark Knight") and he had a masterful way of dialog and character..."300" was void of both. While it was stylistically amazing, I thought it ran dry toward the end because it was too damn long for a movie that was simply about war. If this movie was 100-120 minutes long, would have loved it. But I thought it went on too long without a point or plot or character that you could latch onto.

I won't argue that Sin City wasn't a damn fine movie. I own it; I've watched it quite a few times. But I've met Shakespeare too, and Frank Miller is a decent writer, but he's no Shakespeare. Frank Miller doesn't do a bang-up job with character development in that one either, IMO. At least, not for anyone other than the men. Even if it's just because a guy is a total cocksucker, he's got a motivation for what he's doing. The women are just mostly pretty objects to kill, kill for, and sometimes do the killing (because chicks with guns are strong, don't you know ). The constant acts of violence he visits upon them is unneeded. While some of the women in Shakespeare are no doubt degraded, there are quite a few of them who exhibit quite a measure of strength and independence, even from their limited place in society. They exhibit a great deal of strength of intellect. Frank Miller's female characters are almost always woefully underdeveloped everywhere except up top. He likes his damsels distressed, and that's generally all you need to know about them.

I didn't come away from 300 with a question on anyone's motivation. Even Gorgo was a well-developed character, though I detest Frank Miller's need to turn pretty much every woman he writes into a whore. Her whoring was completely unnecessary, a device to cheapen a woman who had the kind of strength that made it perfectly obvious why Leonides loved her so well, all so that she would have something snappy to say at the end. I find that was my one great disappointment.

But like I said, I didn't push the play button expecting the earth to be moved. I expected the primary reasoning for going to war to be "Because screw them, that's why." I expected hacking and chopping and fabulous abs and gorgeous visuals. I wasn't looking for Austen, I was looking for a movie about a war, basically a love song to a grown man's boyhood wet dreams of glorious battle. And that's what 300 was. I got what I was looking for in spades. I was not disappointed.

whodeygal wrote:

I won't argue that Sin City wasn't a damn fine movie. I own it; I've watched it quite a few times. But I've met Shakespeare too, and Frank Miller is a decent writer, but he's no Shakespeare.

I just meant in the sense of...strong writing. And some damn beautiful lines of dialog.

Quote :

Frank Miller doesn't do a bang-up job with character development in that one either, IMO. At least, not for anyone other than the men. Even if it's just because a guy is a total cocksucker, he's got a motivation for what he's doing. The women are just mostly pretty objects to kill, kill for, and sometimes do the killing (because chicks with guns are strong, don't you know ). The constant acts of violence he visits upon them is unneeded.

Well, Miller is an asshole in real life, and yeah he writes for men. I thought the women characters in "Sin City" were more than just objects, but this is coming from a man's perspective, but Rosario Dawson was great in it, and even Alba was decent (for someone who can't act).

Quote :

I didn't come away from 300 with a question on anyone's motivation. Even Gorgo was a well-developed character, though I detest Frank Miller's need to turn pretty much every woman he writes into a whore. Her whoring was completely unnecessary, a device to cheapen a woman who had the kind of strength that made it perfectly obvious why Leonides loved her so well, all so that she would have something snappy to say at the end. I find that was my one great disappointment.

But like I said, I didn't push the play button expecting the earth to be moved. I expected the primary reasoning for going to war to be "Because screw them, that's why." I expected hacking and chopping and fabulous abs and gorgeous visuals. I wasn't looking for Austen, I was looking for a movie about a war, basically a love song to a grown man's boyhood wet dreams of glorious battle. And that's what 300 was. I got what I was looking for in spades. I was not disappointed.

Yeah and for a lot of people, that was the case. I wasn't expecting heaven and earth to be moved either, but I wanted to see more I guess, more substance. I wasn't totally disappointed, I just wasn't thrilled. There were some great moments, some great scenes, but like "Gladiator", just left me sort of empty. To each his/her own.

I'm sorry, did you just compare "300" to that asstastic drivel "Gladiator"?

Now we must duel. Wet trout at dawn, sir!

Gladiator is the worst best picture winner EVER!
How that's considered better than Traffic, or even Erin Brockovich, I'll never know.

Quote :

I'm sorry, did you just compare "300" to that asstastic drivel "Gladiator"?

Well, I don't know. As far as substance goes they're about on par... but one of them came as advertised and looks fucking gorgeous :)

If you'd still like to have a trout-fight, be my guest

Quote :

I thought the women characters in "Sin City" were more than just objects, but this is coming from a man's perspective, but Rosario Dawson was great in it, and even Alba was decent (for someone who can't act).

I suppose you have a point. Rosario Dawson did a fabulous job as a crazy, gun-toting prostitute, given what she got to work with. And the reason Alba did so well in that role is because there was minimal talking.

As a woman, though, I did find the women insulting. They were all either hookers (or strippers, in the case of Nancy), abused, crazy/uber-violent, plain stupid or some combination thereof. Not a single one of them made her way by her wits alone, and the one woman who didn't use her body to make her living was first victimized by her nutjob ex, and then rather unceremoniously dumped by her new guy for - you guessed it - a crazy/uber-violent hooker, who he deemed "[his] Valkyrie."

Oh wait, there were two; the other was Marv's social worker, the nudist lesbian. Who was forced to watch as a serial killer ate her hand, and ended up with a bullet in her brain.

What the hell did Frank Miller's mother do to him as a kid anyway?

Quote :

Gladiator is the worst best picture winner EVER!

As much as I enjoyed this movie, I agree with that statement. When I think "Best Picture" I don't think Gladiator would ever come to mind.

Foolishly, because everyone loved Gladiator so much, I bought it cold, watched it once (in two sittings, because I fell asleep on it), and haven't watched it since.

I really need to pass that on, like The Ring or something.

whodeygal wrote:

I'm sorry, did you just compare "300" to that asstastic drivel "Gladiator"?

Now we must duel. Wet trout at dawn, sir!

No no no, hold it there, put the sword away. I was comparing how I felt toward the movie...both left me feeling pretty empty. That doesn't mean the two are alike...I felt completely bored by "Gladiator". "300" I was just wanting more from I guess. It definitely looked better, but substance wise I felt they were pretty vacant. "300" was a better film by far than "Gladiator".

whodeygal wrote:

Quote :

I thought the women characters in "Sin City" were more than just objects, but this is coming from a man's perspective, but Rosario Dawson was great in it, and even Alba was decent (for someone who can't act).

I suppose you have a point. Rosario Dawson did a fabulous job as a crazy, gun-toting prostitute, given what she got to work with. And the reason Alba did so well in that role is because there was minimal talking.

As a woman, though, I did find the women insulting. They were all either hookers (or strippers, in the case of Nancy), abused, crazy/uber-violent, plain stupid or some combination thereof. Not a single one of them made her way by her wits alone, and the one woman who didn't use her body to make her living was first victimized by her nutjob ex, and then rather unceremoniously dumped by her new guy for - you guessed it - a crazy/uber-violent hooker, who he deemed "[his] Valkyrie."

Oh wait, there were two; the other was Marv's social worker, the nudist lesbian. Who was forced to watch as a serial killer ate her hand, and ended up with a bullet in her brain.

What the hell did Frank Miller's mother do to him as a kid anyway?

His male characters weren't exactly "heroes" either; he tends to go darker with his male and female characters.

W_Z wrote:

No no no, hold it there, put the sword away. I was comparing how I felt toward the movie...both left me feeling pretty empty. That doesn't mean the two are alike...I felt completely bored by "Gladiator". "300" I was just wanting more from I guess. It definitely looked better, but substance wise I felt they were pretty vacant. "300" was a better film by far than "Gladiator".

Oh. Okay. No trout then.

Great. What the hell am I going to do with all this trout?!

Quote :

His male characters weren't exactly "heroes" either; he tends to go darker with his male and female characters.

Being dark is one thing; Dwight was dark, but his big quirk was his freakin' shoes. Only being able to be a sex worker/victim with a heart of gold is something quite different.