• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

Zigurd

Zigurd

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
3,481
Points
38
So I'm gathering from the comments that I shouldn't bother seeing T4 this week....... :dunnodude:

Guess I'll go see Star Trek or State of Play.

Nah, go watch it. The effects are worthy of going to the cinema, you won't enjoy the movie as much on TV or your computer.

But I would recommend you watching Star Trek instead.
 
Johnny5

Johnny5

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,264
Points
38
I'm not a big Star Trek fan, but the movie kicked ass! They chose a really good cast of actors.

Mall Cop was good too. XD

"Twist it, feel the nub."
 
jnutz19

jnutz19

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
2,906
Points
38
Gran Torino 9/10
i laughed so hard at some of the things that Clint Eastwood said. it was a really good movie too.

Taken 8/10
i thought this was a really good movie. i love when he said that if they didnt return his daughter he said "I will find you and I will kill you" and by god he did.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
7,955
Points
38
Took the advice and went to see Star Trek. It certainly didn't suck like other Star Trek films.

It did still have some of the inherent schmaltz associated with Star Trek. But the fact that the movie kept moving along solidly and had decent action and plot was admirable.

Probably the best Trek I've seen. I'd have to re-watch The Wrath of Khan to confirm this. Either way decent and worth seeing on the big screen.
 
Skeptic

Skeptic

I am god.
VIP
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
7,450
Points
38
Transformers 2: 7/10 - I rather enjoyed all the glitz and effects. Would have been better if that stupid bitch from Home and Away wasn't in it. She is terrible.
 
P

Pioneer

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
652
Points
18
IP Man - 8/10

Thought this was a great film and would recommend to anyone who enjoys martial arts films. The fighting sequences are great and are not over done like certain martial arts films. The film follows the life story of IP Man who is described a the Grand Master of Wing Chun and the teacher of the legendary Bruce Lee.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
7,955
Points
38
Isabel Lucas... or some shit. She's a dolt.

Still had to look up who she was. Was she a computer tech in the first film?

Either way I've seen very few soapy stars that actually act. Most need a lot of other work before they can make it.

Or they can just bank on being pretty and getting their kit off for studio people :borat:
 
D

DriDDeRz

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
13,150
Points
38
nah she wasn't in the first film,
i thought she played a sexy tease roll :drool:
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
there will be blood. fucking weird. though for a 2 1/2 hour film it didn't drag very much. some slow parts, some disturbing parts. it shouldn't have been rated R.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
6,257
Points
38
I too found there will be blood weird, extremely interesting but weird. Lewis did a great acting job in that one.
I don't get the descriptor. The film aims to create an Altmanesque pictorial of the tenets of American cinema. It's basically a grander vision the pre-war Western landscape focused around a central character who is too large for the screen to hold. This might be a slightly new approach, or a rare one, as far as contemporary American cinema is concerned but much of what goes on is derived from popular filmic influences and Anderson in no way sets out to rewrite the language of movies.
 
Clint

Clint

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,886
Points
38
I've seen several new movies recently but I'll only comment on one.

The Hangover. Very Funny. I would certainly see it again.


I also saw Transformers just last week, yea. Loud noises.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
I don't get the descriptor. The film aims to create an Altmanesque pictorial of the tenets of American cinema. It's basically a grander vision the pre-war Western landscape focused around a central character who is too large for the screen to hold. This might be a slightly new approach, or a rare one, as far as contemporary American cinema is concerned but much of what goes on is derived from popular filmic influences and Anderson in no way sets out to rewrite the language of movies.


I tried to like it, i really did. Lewis's character was fantastic and he completely deserved the best actor nod, but the film was a continuing scene of somewhat strange events. not to mention the ending just left a terrible taste in my mouth. not only weird and deranged, but then the music? idk what it was going for, but i didn't get it.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
6,257
Points
38
I tried to like it, i really did. Lewis's character was fantastic and he completely deserved the best actor nod, but the film was a continuing scene of somewhat strange events. not to mention the ending just left a terrible taste in my mouth. not only weird and deranged, but then the music? idk what it was going for, but i didn't get it.
What didn't you like about the ending? What did you expect or hope would happen?

For once, I'm really not trying to be argumentative here.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,429
Points
38
What didn't you like about the ending? What did you expect or hope would happen?

For once, I'm really not trying to be argumentative here.


and i wouldn't even try to argue with you about it as i'm aware there are layers to it that i just didn't pick up on though i tried. i'm not able to look as deep as you are in the actual commentary a movie is trying to make or message/ideal it's trying to send. i can pick up on it occasionally when it isn't as "out there" as this film was, but for the most part, i'm a face value kinda movie watcher. and for face value, it just came off as bizarre. for instance, the introduction of his "brother"...... it had absolutely imo no impact on the movie or relevance, just ended up being weird.

and, since he obviously was not a religious man, why, after he BS'd that little "i'm a sinner" speech in the church, did he actually reunite with his son? he was only there to get what he wanted and i don't understand how that made him want to find his son. it just seemed like the movie couldn't work without it so, BAM, he finds his son.

the ending.....dude i don't even know what to say. i thought it was horrific what he did to that religious wacko and completely unsubstantiated. he kept drifting more and more into madness.....but really why? did his son becoming deaf really mess him up that much? because everything else business wise seemed to be going well. why after making him say those things ("i'm a false profit") did he just go batshit killer crazy? i really just don't connect the dots here and think the movie tries to be somewhat non-sequitar in an effort to be artistic/different, but just ends up being weird.


EDIT: i know some of you get your panties in a bunch if there's no spoilers, so just a fyi, don't read this if you want to see there will be blood.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Points
16
I don't get the descriptor. The film aims to create an Altmanesque pictorial of the tenets of American cinema. It's basically a grander vision the pre-war Western landscape focused around a central character who is too large for the screen to hold. This might be a slightly new approach, or a rare one, as far as contemporary American cinema is concerned but much of what goes on is derived from popular filmic influences and Anderson in no way sets out to rewrite the language of movies.

I found the sound track, or lack thereof off putting for some reason. I understand that it is a character based movie, but I found I was unable to connect with the character, perhaps my own failing. The movie wasn't radically different and it had its high points.

Lewis did a great job as I said conveying ambition and drive and what many of these oil start ups must have been like in those days. Just the ambiance and flavor, if you will.

Perhaps in the end the reason I found it strange was my lack of connection with the characters. Perhaps I should watch it a second time.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
6,257
Points
38
for instance, the introduction of his "brother"...... it had absolutely imo no impact on the movie or relevance, just ended up being weird.
Part of the difficulty with understanding this movie on a first viewing is how expansive it is in terms of scope, which can disorient the viewer a bit in terms of knowing what to focus on, both in terms of action and theme. First and foremost, the movie is decidedly about Plainview and is decidedly apolitical. Notions of capitalism vs. religion are juxtaposed to show how they and, more importantly, those most embodying them, can be exploitative forces. This isn't to say the movie is allegorical though, as Plainview and Eli are both people existing within this pre-war western world. Much has been delved into regarding how these characters reflect religion and capital (or ambition, but truth be told both characters had this in spades) but after a few viewings it's pretty clear that the nature of their relationship is a human one. The pair just happens to be incredibly passionate humans. In this, There Will Be Blood comes a bit of a character study, though this theory is rarely discussed. Plainview is present in every scene and, though not obnoxiously centered in the lens each time (something boring directors do), his presence is felt in every shot in one way or another. The movie is about him through and through. In this, it becomes important to recognize who he is as a character -- a borderline-sociopath alcoholic who's without any real family. Throughout the movie he seeks to understand and explain (mostly to himself) this disconnection from society and feels that he'd still feel at home with his own bloodline, regardless of past events. He's trying to define the family bond in hopes of eventually understanding himself, and becomes crushed when he realizes he's been duped (and that his brother is already dead, which closes that door forever).
Duality said:
and, since he obviously was not a religious man, why, after he BS'd that little "i'm a sinner" speech in the church, did he actually reunite with his son? he was only there to get what he wanted and i don't understand how that made him want to find his son. it just seemed like the movie couldn't work without it so, BAM, he finds his son.
I actually find the scene at the church to be one of the more touching moments in the entire film. Eli and Plainview were both people who put on airs and were both greatly invested in the image so this scene becomes a concession of power by Plainview to Eli. After what happened with his faux-kinsman, Daniel realizes how important HW is to him. That, although he didn't raise him, he felt closer to him than anyone else he'd encountered. The looks of anger and discontent he shoots Eli during his "confession" are appropriate, as he A) knows Eli is correct, and B) doesn't want to look weak in comparison to the "almighty preacher". Plainview knows he's a fraud and probably knew upon first meeting him. He's seen too much and has exploited too many people to not know what it looks like when people are following something without question. This ties back into an early scene, where Plainview and HW make a pitch but eventually refuse the contract when the meeting erupts in question and speculation. He realized there's no point in dealing with a town of free-thinkers; they're harder to exploit. This is why he settles into Little Boston -- the people are sheep and he finds himself a rival, which he needs. At this point of his life, he clearly doesn't feel a connection you'd label as "love" to his son and Eli's existence (and the resulting feud) gives him purpose. It's not until later that he realizes how close he was to HW, but this only comes after he's pushed him away. Hence his immense drop-off in sanity between the time the film leaves Little Boston and rejoins Plainview in his mansion. At this point he has nothing but a petty rivalry. He has money, sure, but no purpose.
the ending.....dude i don't even know what to say. i thought it was horrific what he did to that religious wacko and completely unsubstantiated. he kept drifting more and more into madness.....but really why? did his son becoming deaf really mess him up that much? because everything else business wise seemed to be going well. why after making him say those things ("i'm a false profit") did he just go batshit killer crazy? i really just don't connect the dots here and think the movie tries to be somewhat non-sequitar in an effort to be artistic/different, but just ends up being weird.
Ha, the ending was hardly trying to be arty for the sake of it, but it is intended to be funny (the black humor is thick as molasses). I've touched on why Plainview lost his mind in the above responses but the most important thing to remember is that the movie is adamantly about him, his emotional longing, and how this translates to physical behavior. Killing Eli was like smashing a mirror to Plainview, as he ended up seeing himself more in Eli than anyone else on Earth, including the boy he raised who isn't really his and the brother he'll never get the chance to know again. Again, what he has is his rivalry with Eli, who is now actually his family by marriage, something that terrifies Plainview. While he'd always longed for someone to share - not his success - but himself with, he's now left with Eli...that's it. Everything he wanted in his life (success aside, which doesn't bring him joy anyway) is now gone and he traces this back to his involvement in Little Boston and the chasm that existed between he and Eli's sensibilities. Eli becomes a reminder of his failures, not as a business man but as a human being. Thus, he hopes that squashing him will end his own conscience connection to a life he has no reason to remember and he can go, as if reborn. Naturally, we don't really see what happens to him afterward, but the satisfied nature in which he delivers the final line is indicative of his contention. Above all, director PT Anderson realizes that Plainview is a product of cinema and thus gives him that final send off at a "high point" of his life, even if he comes to grossly regret it later. This also ties into the idea that class distinctions are also legal distinctions and that the rich can play by a different set of rules than the poor, especially in the face of an economic collapse (relevant, eh? ;) )
I found the sound track, or lack thereof off putting for some reason. I understand that it is a character based movie, but I found I was unable to connect with the character, perhaps my own failing. The movie wasn't radically different and it had its high points.

Lewis did a great job as I said conveying ambition and drive and what many of these oil start ups must have been like in those days. Just the ambiance and flavor, if you will.

Perhaps in the end the reason I found it strange was my lack of connection with the characters. Perhaps I should watch it a second time.
Maybe the above will help. I talk a decent amount about the characters in my explanation to Jason.
 
Top