Last Movie You Watched

[ERayR]

I guess I don't know what you want me to say. Maybe it's lack of sleep. Only getting 4 hrs. a night lately.

I don't want you to say anything just realize you "Don't believe everything you read in the news papers" or sensationalized accounts or that you see in the movies. Sorry to hear you are not sleeping well.

Edited January 2, 2013 by ERayR

[Duncan]

I saw a movie last night, called "The Raid:Redemption" probably the most violent movie I have ever seen in the whole of my life! My friend, a member in another ward, has an entertainment system that rivals the IMAX experience, it's so sick and so many levels and I so love it!

[bluebell]

Watched Les Miserables for the second time this morning. Almost burst into tears at the end of it. Seriously, wow. Now I need to read the book ASAP.

The book is difficult. For me, it was the lack of emotion in the telling of such an emotional story that got to me.

[Damien the Leper]

I most recently watched a made-for-TV movie titled In God's Country which tells a fictionalized tale that alludes to FLDS and their behaviors and beliefs. It was very eye opening. If it this movie merits truth than it was very disturbing especially due to the abusive behaviors both physically and emotionally.

I also watch the show Sister Wives and I do not see abuse or child brides there. Their lifestyle paints a very different side to polygamy. I'm not sure if their happy but they have chosen to live this difficult lifestyle out of religious conviction. This show has caused me to be very sympathetic to their lifestyle. The Brown's care for their children, everyone is consenting and they are actively trying to live out their faith.

The FLDS is not the same Restoration denomination as Sister Wives. The people on the show are members of Apostolic United Brethren (if I remember correctly).

[Damien the Leper]

I watched "The Search for Paul". I borrowed it from the Phoenix Library.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Valentinus

[Tacenda]

The FLDS is not the same Restoration denomination as Sister Wives. The people on the show are members of Apostolic United Brethren (if I remember correctly).

IMHO, the Brown family could live in any of our wards and hold recommends even. They don't drink, they dress modestly, they follow the BoM etc. So yes they are different than alot of polygamists out there. My nephew on my husband's side through marriage, grew up in a polygamist family and I believe there were some drinkers etc. and it was ok in their church.

[bluebell]

IMHO, the Brown family could live in any of our wards and hold recommends even. They don't drink, they dress modestly, they follow the BoM etc. So yes they are different than alot of polygamists out there. My nephew on my husband's side through marriage, grew up in a polygamist family and I believe there were some drinkers etc. and it was ok in their church.

I always love watching that show, especially because the Browns are from the same area i am from in Wyoming and when they visit i usually get to see familiar faces or places.

Some of my friends from church have even appeared in an episode where they were visiting family and friends in Lovell wyoming. That was fun to watch!

[Garden Girl]

I just went to the theatre (recommended vs renting DVD) to see "Lincoln." What a terrific movie. The reason I go to the theatre to see a movie vs renting it is because some movies just need to be seen on the big screen and I thought this would be one. It wasn't the few war scenes, although they were powerful and heart wrenching... brother against brother... the blue and the grey... but all of the scenery, costuming, and particularly the debate in the Senate... I felt right there.

Daniel Day-Lewis gave an Oscar deserving performance as Lincoln... he seemed to fit into the Lincoln character, including his voice, mannerisms, the way he walked... wonderful performance.

When my husband and I visited Wash DC, we went to the Lincoln museum, to Ford's Theatre, and to the house across the street where he was taken after he was shot. It was something I'll not forget...

GG

[thesometimesaint]

The Kings' Speech.

I liked it very much. Based on true events leading up to world war 2. No violence. Rated R for language. So not appropriate for children.

http://www.kingsspeech.com/

[followerofemmanuel]

I always love watching that show, especially because the Browns are from the same area i am from in Wyoming and when they visit i usually get to see familiar faces or places.

Some of my friends from church have even appeared in an episode where they were visiting family and friends in Lovell wyoming. That was fun to watch!

That's cool. I enjoy the show because it has shown me to respect another person's way of life and worship. They seem very real about the journey.

[JaceyCarter]

Last weekend i have seen the complete series of Scary Movie till 4th part. And after that series i am waiting for the 5th part of Scary Movie. I have found its trailer on youtube and its really funny.

Here is the link for the trailer.

[altersteve]

The Kings' Speech.

I liked it very much. Based on true events leading up to world war 2. No violence. Rated R for language. So not appropriate for children.

http://www.kingsspeech.com/

I disagree that it's inappropriate for children (if by "children" you mean teenagers). The King's Speech is such an inspiring movie and, I think, a wonderful film for teenagers. There's only one scene where a stream of F-bombs is let out, but it's made clear that it's out of anger because the main character can't get a word out (and as a fellow stutterer, I understand his frustration). So yes, that scene may not be appropriate for younger viewers, but the movie as a whole? It absolutely is.

[altersteve]

I just went to the theatre (recommended vs renting DVD) to see "Lincoln." What a terrific movie. The reason I go to the theatre to see a movie vs renting it is because some movies just need to be seen on the big screen and I thought this would be one. It wasn't the few war scenes, although they were powerful and heart wrenching... brother against brother... the blue and the grey... but all of the scenery, costuming, and particularly the debate in the Senate... I felt right there.

Daniel Day-Lewis gave an Oscar deserving performance as Lincoln... he seemed to fit into the Lincoln character, including his voice, mannerisms, the way he walked... wonderful performance.

When my husband and I visited Wash DC, we went to the Lincoln museum, to Ford's Theatre, and to the house across the street where he was taken after he was shot. It was something I'll not forget...

GG

Agreed 100 percent. Lincoln is, in my opinion, one of the best movies of the year. What a powerful, witty, and heartfelt tribute to one of our nation's greatest leaders. I also agree with what you said about Daniel Day-Lewis. I mentioned to my friend on the ride home from the movie theater, "It's pretty amazing that they were able to get Abraham Lincoln to play himself" -- because that's exactly how it felt while watching his performance.

Edited January 9, 2013 by altersteve

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree that it's inappropriate for children (if by "children" you mean teenagers). The King's Speech is such an inspiring movie and, I think, a wonderful film for teenagers. There's only one scene where a stream of F-bombs is let out, but it's made clear that it's out of anger because the main character can't get a word out (and as a fellow stutterer, I understand his frustration). So yes, that scene may not be appropriate for younger viewers, but the movie as a whole? It absolutely is.

I should have been more specific when I said children. Not for preteens because of language.

As a child I stuttered until the first grade. My elementary school had a program to help, and my parents signed me up. I am forever grateful. I didn't learn F bombs until Jr. High. But knew all about the A Bomb's, H Bomb's, and Duck and Cover. The Cuban Missile Crises was no fun.

[Gohan]

Saw Wreck-It Ralph again, very fun movie, good message too methinks. And now I feel the urge to buy the soundtrack for it too.

[bluebell]

I heard that they were going to release a version of The King's Speech that was rated PG-13 so that teens would be able to watch it (because the message of the movie is such a good one that would benefit teens). Anyone else hear such a rumor?

[thesometimesaint]

I heard that they were going to release a version of The King's Speech that was rated PG-13 so that teens would be able to watch it (because the message of the movie is such a good one that would benefit teens). Anyone else hear such a rumor?

Haven't heard that one. All an R rating means is that someone under 17 needs a parent/guardian with them.

R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

I didn't/wouldn't take my kids to see a inappropriate for their age movie.

[bluebell]

Haven't heard that one. All an R rating means is that someone under 17 needs a parent/guardian with them.

R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

I didn't/wouldn't take my kids to see a inappropriate for their age movie.

Yes, i know what an R rating means. It always amazes me when i see little kids in PG-13 movies which obviously contain scenes not appropriate for such an age group. Some parents really don't have a clue.

If the rumor is at all true, it could be that the makers of the movie were looking to make it easier for teachers in high school to be able to show this movie and for conservative parents to feel comfortable allowing their kids to see it.

Edit to add i just googled it and apparantly they did release a PG-13 version in April of 2011. Interesting.

[thesometimesaint]

Some parents need to get a clue. Taking kids to see movies they neither understand nor appreciate doesn't serve them well. Kids need to be kids; protected by their parents during those formative years. They have plenty of time as jaded adults.

As a rule I'm not in favor of efforts to make R rated movies PG-13 just for the sake of more viewers. I think it detracts more from the movie than it adds to it. While I've long known that stutterers swear quite well. I'm willing to bet most adults, let alone kids, don't know that. So much of the impact of the movie would be lost when that fact is deleted.

Edited January 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

Haven't heard that one. All an R rating means is that someone under 17 needs a parent/guardian with them.

R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

I didn't/wouldn't take my kids to see a inappropriate for their age movie.

This was how I saw and it was shown at a "dollar" theatre. One of those older locally owned theatres here in Utah suburbia.

[Tacenda]

Some parents need to get a clue. Taking kids to see movies they neither understand nor appreciate doesn't serve them well. Kids need to be kids; protected by their parents during those formative years. They have plenty of time as jaded adults.

As a rule I'm not in favor of efforts to make R rated movies PG-13 just for the sake of more viewers. I think it detracts more from the movie than it adds to it. While I've long known that stutterers swear quite well. I'm willing to bet most adults, let alone kids, don't know that. So much of the impact of the movie would be lost when that fact is deleted.

I'll have to rent the "R" version to see if it's better, going by your observations. Edited January 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

Some parents need to get a clue. Taking kids to see movies they neither understand nor appreciate doesn't serve them well. Kids need to be kids; protected by their parents during those formative years. They have plenty of time as jaded adults.

As a rule I'm not in favor of efforts to make R rated movies PG-13 just for the sake of more viewers. I think it detracts more from the movie than it adds to it. While I've long known that stutterers swear quite well. I'm willing to bet most adults, let alone kids, don't know that. So much of the impact of the movie would be lost when that fact is deleted.

I do agree that sometimes changing a rating can be a disservice, but most of the time, i find that what makes a movie R is so unneccessary that nothing of value is lost when such is edited out.

The last R rated movie that i saw (The Grey with Liam Neeson) had so much swearing in it that it would probably be easier to count the non-swear words than the swear words and i honestly didn't see that using the F word every other word added to the movie in the least (and the movie was quite good on all other fronts). I'm excited for it to come out on cable eventually so that i can see it again without all the 'men still trapped in the 8th grade' language of the original.

[Garden Girl]

While we're discussing movies, let me share a pet peeve of mine... REMAKES...

Sometimes I'll see a remake come out and I'll think... what in the world are they trying to do, remaking that movie... then I check the date the original was released and it's been 25 years!!! Talk about wondering where the time flies...

But, IMO, the remake rarely rises to the level of the original... three cases in point... movies that are recent remakes and now showing on television...

1. South Pacific... original made in 1958 starring Mitzi Gaynor and Rosano Brazzi. The remake stars Glenn Close in Gaynor's Nurse Nellie role... let me put it nicely... Close is no Mitzi Gaynor. The original stands the test of time and this remake is hollow...

2. The Music Man... Can't remember when first released (1960's I think). Original starred Robert Preston and Shirley Jones... the remake stars Matthew Broderick in Preston's role has the salesman Henry Hill... Preston's scene in the town square where he does his "Trouble starts with "T" and that rhymns with "P" which stands for POOL" scene was stellar... Broderick's is lifeless...

3. Little Women... Original was made in 1940's (set in the 1800's) and starred June Allyson, Eliz Taylor, Janet Leigh, and Margaret O'Brien as the March sisters... Allyson was in the role of "Jo" an aspiring writer and tom boy who wished she'd been born a boy so she could run off and fight in the war...

The remake stars Wynona Ryder as Jo... again, compared to Allyson, Ryder's performance is shallow.

The origiinals had such strong casts that their roles were embedded in my mind and to see today's stars try and reprise the roles is disappointing. Some remakes have been successful, but most can't compare to the originals... even with jazzed up storylines and action scenes.

Oh yes, another of my favorites is "The Day the Earth Stood Still," starring Michael Rennie as the spaceman... the remake places Keanu Reeves in the starring role... and the story was not as good even though there was much more "action."

Again, these are just my opinions, but I'm an old woman and set in my ways... but I love movies and can't help but be disappointed in most cases at what Hollywood puts out as remakes...

GG

[thesometimesaint]

I'll have to rent the "R" version to see if it's better, going by your observations.

You don't have to see any movie you don't want to. I'm a firm believer in personal censorship. I watch few movies, and I just find the originals the better of the ones I do.

Would "Saving Private Ryan" be better without the graphic war scenes. How about "Schindlers List" would taking the brief nudity in the NAZI "Showers" scene out make it a better one? I didn't/wouldn't take my underage kids to see either one. But taking my mom, a real true to life WW2, whom survived the V1 and V2 attacks on England, American veteran to see "Saving Private Ryan" didn't bother me a bit.

Edited January 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Garden Girl]

Would "Saving Private Ryan" be better without the graphic war scenes. How about "Schindlers List" would taking the brief nudity in the NAZI "Showers" scene out make it a better one? I didn't/wouldn't take my underage kids to see either one. But taking my mom, a real true to life WW2, whom survived the V1 and V2 attacks on England, American veteran to see "Saving Private Ryan" didn't bother me a bit.

TSS...

Saving Private Ryan was a terrific film... but I can't stand to watch it because I get so angry at the character of the cowardly soldier who had all this ammunition that he was ordered to take to the troops who were running low and needed it... instead when the firing was fast and furious and he saw some Nazis he hid, crouching down practically in a fetal position rather than try to reach his group and give them the desperately needed ammo. It is clear that he could have made it. But as a result of his cowardice they were killed, including Tom Hanks' character, who was scheduled to go home in a very short time. Finally the shooting stops and this coward stands up, all this ammo draped all over him, alive when all the others are needlessly dead because he hid.

Sure, it's only a movie, but it was such a gripping story and after surviving many a battle as a Sgt., Hanks was scheduled to pull out for home... but he too died needlessly because of this coward. I have the movie in my film library, but I can't stand to watch it.

I also have Schlindler's List in my library, and it is the scenes in the prison yard where the Jews were herded like cattle, stripped of their clothing (and dignity), forced to stand in line naked, and then divided into who was sent to work and who was to be gassed that were so powerful that to do away with any of it would remove the true glimpse of the horror of the camps. We have nothing to compare... my only frightening experience to my 3-4 year old mind was the "blackouts" where we had to hang blankets over our windows at night because we were just 60 miles inland and from the air our lights would be like a beacon. I can remember my fear to this day, 68 years later. Imagine the memories of those who did survive the death camp horrors. Unimaginable...

GG