• Adults Only Website 18+

    If you are under 18 you are not permitted to submit personal information to us or use this website. If discovered you will be banned.

    We will ban and report anyone posting illegal content.

    We will ban any forum user who breaks our terms.

    Freedom of speech should be wide open as long as it doesn't incite violence.

    We have a 15 year old thriving community here with 400,000+ members and hundreds of people online at any given moment, we encourage you to join!, there are 1000's of topics to discuss. Please be aware before registering and read our terms of service and privacy policy.

    By dismissing this notice and proceeding, you agree to the above.

movies Last Movie You Watched..

Quo Vadis. 1951.
7/10
Epic cinematic depiction of a Rome when Nero was running things and how the christians got the blame for the fire.
With a run time of three hours there is alot going on. The plot moves at a steady pace, the dialouge is well written and the sets are pretty amazing.
The immense cast isn't an issue as the characters are set up well. It does portray the christians as a specific group of people who are being bashed around a bit, but have the age old 'lets just all get along' kinda vibe happening. The romans who are the dominant force are shown to be what happens when power is concerntrated.
Overall a good film that shows a time in film history when things could be done on a grand scale. Production and script wise.
Trailer is 5 mins.
 
Waterloo. 1970.
8/10
Napoleon faces off against Wellington.
Grand and epic film that sets the demise of Napoleon. Staring Rod Steiger and Christoper Plummer as the leaders of opposing armies. It slowly sets the stage following Napoleons defeat in Russia. After escaping his island prison and rallying a army he marches forth.
Epic in scale, it follows what i could only assume is a reasonably accurate series of events. The film builds nicely as the french army advances and Wellington decides to meet him at Waterloo. The battle itself takes place in the last 45 minutes of a two hour fifteen minute film, with a few time stamps to highlight how things played out.
It's a vast area with alot of extras and effects. Similar to the Russian film version of War and Peace, film three but not as violent.
Different points of view of the commanders add to the suspense
 
The lair. 2022. Dir. Neil Marshall.
2/10.
A fighter pilot gets shot down and unleashes a creature.
Directed, co written, edited and co produced by Marshall. It start OK for about 10-20 minutes then just became a cringe bore fest.
There just seemed to be nothing to keep me interested. When the main character leaves the underground bunker, with the 'monster' seemingly locked inside within the first act. It lost me. From there the soldiers she meets are led by a bloke with a eye patch. The monster looks like a guy in a rubber suit.
I flicked thru to the end and just didn't care.
Marshall early films are his best. Dog soliders, The decent, Centurion and to a degree Doomsday.
Might be appealing to some people, but a dud for me.
 
The lair. 2022. Dir. Neil Marshall.
2/10.
A fighter pilot gets shot down and unleashes a creature.
Directed, co written, edited and co produced by Marshall. It start OK for about 10-20 minutes then just became a cringe bore fest.
There just seemed to be nothing to keep me interested. When the main character leaves the underground bunker, with the 'monster' seemingly locked inside within the first act. It lost me. From there the soldiers she meets are led by a bloke with a eye patch. The monster looks like a guy in a rubber suit.
I flicked thru to the end and just didn't care.
Marshall early films are his best. Dog soliders, The decent, Centurion and to a degree Doomsday.
Might be appealing to some people, but a dud for me.

was a bit rate movie, they tried hard, but failed. Charlotte kirk was something to look at least
 
Freebie and the bean. 1974.
8/10
Buddy cops.
James Cain and Alan Arkin star in the 70's buddy cop film in which they have to stop a hitman killing a suspect they are building a case against.
Gritty and very funny, the film has them already paired and working the case. They are angry and quick to use not quite legal methods to get what they want. The plot is simple, but there is a real chemistry between the two leads. Action wise, some of the 'fight' scenes are pretty useless by todays standards but the car chases and stunts are real. Not quite the over top destruction that came with later 'buddy cop' films. But a simple set up with very real action.
Parts of it were really funny, while some of it did drag a bit.
A real gem of what a good movie could be.
 
Dr Crippen. 1962.
7/10
Dr Crippen poisoned (he maintained by accident) his wife and tried to sail to America with his young assistant.
Interesting crime drama that starts with their trail and ends with his hanging. The film shows through flashbacks the flamboyant nature of his wife and his quiet manner. Donald Pleasence stars as Crippen and gives a solid performance.
The film shows england coming out of the victorian era with them being kind of at odds with the over-the-top american. No real suspense in the film just a simple retelling of what is a very hyped up case.

There is no trailer, just the last two minutes of the film.
 
Flesh & blood. 1985.
6/10
Directed by Paul Verhoeven.
A group of mercenaries are used to raid a castle then not given any reward. They in turn kidnap the young bride, intended for the son of the lord.
Action epic in the 16th century. Rutgar Hauer stars as 'Martin' the unofficial leader of the group. The bride seems to accept her role as his partner in the group as a means to survive. Lots of action and drama make the film move at a steady pace. The characters are well defined and the group as a whole remains pretty ruthless and always on the verge of mayhem. This sets the tone that things won't end well for any of them.
Near the end it does drag, with a run time of just over 2 hours.
 
Ripoux contre ripoux. (rotton cops vs rotton cops) 1990. France.
4/10
Two bent cops are stood down pending a investigation, there replacements turn out to be more bent than them.
Cheerful simple comedy about a older cop with a younger one who is trying to get a promotion.
Engaging and lighthearted, it took the buddy cop formula minus all the action. No twists or suspense in the plot. Just them trying to clear there names.


Via que da certo. (It's going to work.) 2013. Brazil.
8/10
A group of friends plan a heist.
Good comedy with a core group of blokes, one of whom has a plan to stage robbery of a armoured truck.
One thing goes wrong, which leads them to a increasingly funny series of events that add suspense and humor. The plot reflects the corrupt nature of the Brazil with the police, a politician and gangster all wound into a plot that has a series of twists and laugh out loud moments.
 
Scorsese: journey through american movies.
9/10
Doco narrated by Scorsese as he discusses film from the silent era thru to the late 60's.
He looks at what he saw and influenced him as well as what was happening at the time. It's a master class in cinema appreciation with many examples of films from different directors who were doing different things at the time. Some of it is purely about the art form, the transition from silent to 'talkie'', black and white to colour and the introduction of wider screens. The depth of knowledge on all levels is impressive and kind of overwhelming. Some of the more interesting parts were the directors who directly challenged the establishment.
It finishes with him saying that he can't talk about films of the 70's, when he starts, due to him being part of the new wave of directors. Spielberg, De Palma, Lucas, Coppola.
His recent essay criticizing generic superhero films churned out by the studio, not the film maker, when film makers before have had careers crushed by studios for daring to be different is a testament to someone who knows what they are talking about.
 
Scorsese: journey through american movies.
9/10
Doco narrated by Scorsese as he discusses film from the silent era thru to the late 60's.
He looks at what he saw and influenced him as well as what was happening at the time. It's a master class in cinema appreciation with many examples of films from different directors who were doing different things at the time. Some of it is purely about the art form, the transition from silent to 'talkie'', black and white to colour and the introduction of wider screens. The depth of knowledge on all levels is impressive and kind of overwhelming. Some of the more interesting parts were the directors who directly challenged the establishment.
It finishes with him saying that he can't talk about films of the 70's, when he starts, due to him being part of the new wave of directors. Spielberg, De Palma, Lucas, Coppola.
His recent essay criticizing generic superhero films churned out by the studio, not the film maker, when film makers before have had careers crushed by studios for daring to be different is a testament to someone who knows what they are talking about.
Jon if I remember correctly a while back you mentioned the movie goodnight mommy . Theu finally did a version in English so I managed to get toh to watch it with me. Was a damn good movie. Thank you for recommending it.
 
Back
Top