What are you watching?

[Ent]

OK Sir @Alexander Scamilton, you press Ent to a hasty decision.
There are so many elements upon which to rate any given movie, it is difficult.
Ent's "weighted average" for the movie, given his particular predilections, would be about a 7* on a scale of 1 to 10.
There are, of course, aspects higher than a 7 and lower than a 7, each of the multitude of categories receiving its own score.

*Note: this rating subject to future adjustment as circumstances require.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I’ve watched several movies where it takes a few go-throughs to understand the entire thing. Doesn’t mean I didn’t get the full plot the first time, but sometimes a rewatch is the only way to catch the smaller details—things you don’t even know you missed until they jump out at you later. I’m 38, not an “old people,” and I’ve seen plenty of films that genuinely reward that second or third viewing.

For example, most Stanley Kubrick movies are very complex. The Shining, for instance, isn’t just a horror movie where a family stays at a hotel and creepy ghosts cause mayhem. It’s also about the psychology behind Jack Torrance, the patterns of abuse he carries with him, and the way the hotel amplifies the cracks already forming in his mind. Kubrick layers symbolism, visual cues, and thematic parallels all over the place, so each revisit feels like peeling back another layer of what the movie is actually doing beneath the surface.

A more modern director who does the same thing—though maybe on a lighter, more whimsical note, in my opinion—would be Wes Anderson. His movies might look simple on the surface with their symmetry, pastel palettes, and quirky charm, but there’s a ton of layered storytelling happening underneath. You catch new jokes, subtle character beats, and visual callbacks every time you rewatch one. Like Kubrick, he builds his films with such precise detail that a single viewing barely scratches the surface; the difference is just that Anderson wraps his complexity in warmth and style instead of dread and psychological unraveling.

And honestly, the whole idea that something like the new Wicked “isn’t for old people” feels a little off to me. Movies don’t really have an age barrier unless the content is inappropriate for kids. If a story connects with you, it connects—doesn’t matter if you’re 8, 38, or 88. We’ve all watched films way outside our “demographic” and still loved them. Good storytelling just works on a universal level, whether it’s a big fantasy musical, a horror classic, or a quirky Wes Anderson comedy.

I’m sure you’d then have to say older movies like Casablanca (1942) are only for “old people.” Um, no. It’s one of the greatest films ever made, one of my personal favorites (again, 38), and a pillar of Hollywood that has influenced countless directors, actors, actresses, and entire studios. A great film doesn’t check your birth year before it moves you.

 

[Ent]

Ent would like to give an example.
One of Ents favorite background (and truly mindless) movies to put on while writing, is Wyvern. Now - each time Ent watches, something fresh and new catches his eye.

For example, it wasn't until the 5th watch, Ent caught the sign in the town reflecting it has a population of 307.

Here's the thing. Beaver Mills, the setting of the town, is entirely fictional. Thus, that sign - "Beaver Mills: Population 307" was made expressly for the movie. What a nice touch.

There's another spot toward the end Ent finally caught showing a great deal about the character (and change in) 2 of the townspeople. Ent didn't trip to it for some time - but it is a truly nice, if unnecessary, touch to include in the film.

These kinds of things are why Ent gives several watches to things, before he (normally) sets any kind of a 'rating' or develops any kind of a perspective he intends to be lasting, about them (In fact, of course we should NEVER, on any subject, at any time, determine we have come to the end of our perspective on a thing. If we do, it simply calcifies back into an Opinion instead.)

Ent will shut up now.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

And honestly, the whole idea that something like the new Wicked “isn’t for old people” feels a little off to me. Movies don’t really have an age barrier unless the content is inappropriate for kids. If a story connects with you, it connects—doesn’t matter if you’re 8, 38, or 88. We’ve all watched films way outside our “demographic” and still loved them. Good storytelling just works on a universal level, whether it’s a big fantasy musical, a horror classic, or a quirky Wes Anderson comedy.

I disagree. Some movies are made for teenagers. Like, adults may not enjoy them, but teenagers will. Like, the story could be good, but maybe it didn't vibe with me. Let's take my friend. She admits that the Lord of the Rings is a great trilogy and book series, BUT it wasn't her style of movie\book. That's sort of what I mean for the new Wicked movie. Like, I wouldn't watch it with a grandma or something. Also, Heathers. I personally enjoyed the movie. Would it be something I would watch with my parents? Haha NO.

re: Wicked:
No sir.

You had to make your response weird? Y can't u just say 'no i haven't watched wicked'? Respectfully tho. Im not insulting u. its just an honest question.

OK Sir @Alexander Scamilton, you press Ent to a hasty decision.
There are so many elements upon which to rate any given movie, it is difficult.
Ent's "weighted average" for the movie, given his particular predilections, would be about a 7* on a scale of 1 to 10.
There are, of course, aspects higher than a 7 and lower than a 7, each of the multitude of categories receiving its own score.

Was that so hard? But thank you.

Ent would like to give an example.
One of Ents favorite background (and truly mindless) movies to put on while writing, is Wyvern. Now - each time Ent watches, something fresh and new catches his eye.

For example, it wasn't until the 5th watch, Ent caught the sign in the town reflecting it has a population of 307.

Here's the thing. Beaver Mills, the setting of the town, is entirely fictional. Thus, that sign - "Beaver Mills: Population 307" was made expressly for the movie. What a nice touch.

There's another spot toward the end Ent finally caught showing a great deal about the character (and change in) 2 of the townspeople. Ent didn't trip to it for some time - but it is a truly nice, if unnecessary, touch to include in the film.

These kinds of things are why Ent gives several watches to things, before he (normally) sets any kind of a 'rating' or develops any kind of a perspective he intends to be lasting, about them (In fact, of course we should NEVER, on any subject, at any time, determine we have come to the end of our perspective on a thing. If we do, it simply calcifies back into an Opinion instead.)

Ent will shut up now.

I sorta understand this. Like, I wouldn't do this for every movie tho. Like take Age of Ultron. At first, I didn't rlly like it. But when I watched it multiple times, I noticed more stuff that made me like it more. I'm not saying i agree with everything you've said, but i can understand it ig. but i have neither the time nor patience to rewatch most movies. There r a couple ones a will rewatch (like Lotr, OG Mean Girls, Hamilton, etc) but those are ones ik r good.

 

[Ent]

You had to make your response weird? Y can't u just say 'no i haven't watched wicked'?

Wierd: Definition: "of strange or extraordinary character"

Just saying 'no' is so hasty. Ent would not be Ent if that were his resposne. Wierd would be if Ent "just said no."

Was that so hard? But thank you.

It was extraordinarily hard - but you're welcome.

I wouldn't do this for every movie tho.

Nor would Ent. There are some just not having enough attraction to revisit. Others may be revisited, but "in their appropriate time." Naturally, there are movies on the "mindless movies list" for a period of time, but then drop off, to be repilaced by others.

Ent is no different than most in this respect, probably. Though he may pay more attention to some things from time to time, than others do. Or evaluate on more levels than some others do. Hard to tell.

 

[Erurávennë]

I disagree. Some movies are made for teenagers. Like, adults may not enjoy them, but teenagers will. Like, the story could be good, but maybe it didn't vibe with me. Let's take my friend. She admits that the Lord of the Rings is a great trilogy and book series, BUT it wasn't her style of movie\book. That's sort of what I mean for the new Wicked movie. Like, I wouldn't watch it with a grandma or something. Also, Heathers. I personally enjoyed the movie. Would it be something I would watch with my parents? Haha NO.

You had to make your response weird? Y can't u just say 'no i haven't watched wicked'? Respectfully tho. Im not insulting u. its just an honest question.

Was that so hard? But thank you.

I sorta understand this. Like, I wouldn't do this for every movie tho. Like take Age of Ultron. At first, I didn't rlly like it. But when I watched it multiple times, I noticed more stuff that made me like it more. I'm not saying i agree with everything you've said, but i can understand it ig. but i have neither the time nor patience to rewatch most movies. There r a couple ones a will rewatch (like Lotr, OG Mean Girls, Hamilton, etc) but those are ones ik r good.

Wierd: Definition: "of strange or extraordinary character"

Just saying 'no' is so hasty. Ent would not be Ent if that were his resposne. Wierd would be if Ent "just said no."



It was extraordinarily hard - but you're welcome.



Nor would Ent. There are some just not having enough attraction to revisit. Others may be revisited, but "in their appropriate time." Naturally, there are movies on the "mindless movies list" for a period of time, but then drop off, to be repilaced by others.

Ent is no different than most in this respect, probably. Though he may pay more attention to some things from time to time, than others do. Or evaluate on more levels than some others do. Hard to tell.

Don't let @Alexander Scamilton bother you, Ent. We all love your Entishness just as it is. Some will, I hope, grow to love it too: It seems some are of the Gimli type - meaning well but not yet there. 😄

 

[Ent]

Don't let @Alexander Scamilton bother you, Ent

Ah, how kind of you Elves in Silva.
But fear not. Sir Scamilton just does not yet understand Ent.
And, like other things, Ent "is."
Just as Sir Scamilton "is."
So... there it "is."
"So let it be written...so let it be done."
(Yul Brynner, The Ten Commandments, Cecil B. DeMille, 1956. Ent already had a few years behind him, when that movie came out. Took several watchings, to see the trail of smoke from the jet plane in the sky, over the plains when Moses was leading the people out of Egypt..!)

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I had a similar shock moment, when I watched The Horsemen, from 1971. I'd say more, but don't want to spoil it for you.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I had a similar shock moment, when I watched The Horsemen, from 1971. I'd say more, but don't want to spoil it for you.

Never heard of it, worth watching?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I wouldn't call it great, but you can easily decide for yourself:

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Don't let @Alexander Scamilton bother you, Ent. We all love your Entishness just as it is. Some will, I hope, grow to love it too: It seems some are of the Gimli type - meaning well but not yet there. 😄

THen we need a Gimli type on this forum. And i'm funny.
Why did the scarecrow win an award?
Because he was outstanding in his field. 😂
ok maybe im not that funny

Wierd: Definition: "of strange or extraordinary character"

Just saying 'no' is so hasty. Ent would not be Ent if that were his resposne. Wierd would be if Ent "just said no."



It was extraordinarily hard - but you're welcome.



Nor would Ent. There are some just not having enough attraction to revisit. Others may be revisited, but "in their appropriate time." Naturally, there are movies on the "mindless movies list" for a period of time, but then drop off, to be repilaced by others.

Ent is no different than most in this respect, probably. Though he may pay more attention to some things from time to time, than others do. Or evaluate on more levels than some others do. Hard to tell.

fine u win bro.

Though he may pay more attention to some things from time to time, than others do.

i pay attention. im not one of thsoe ppl who go ranting on about stupid things. those are annoying. im not annoying. am i annoying?

I wouldn't call it great, but you can easily decide for yourself:

I wouldn't say 6.2/10 is the best rating a movie could get, but its better than 5/10.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Well, this threads been off the rails for the last page or two. Let’s drop the mindless drivel and use it for its actual purpose, posting what we’re watching. Any further off topic things are going to be deleted.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Good idea.
@Deimos cited Alan Rickman as a British actor he hadn't known until his role in Sense and Sensibility, so I'll add one of my own -- Michael Kitchen, in the TV series Foyle's War, about a police detective during World War II. Very understated acting, much of it done with his eyes. It takes seeing an episode or two to appreciate fully, but a glimpse can be seen in this short clip from Episode 1:

The series garnered praise for its historical accuracy, by the way. It's currently being reaired on PBS in the States.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Another PBS series I'll be watching tonight: two episodes of this documentary:

 

[Deimos]

Yes, people are always moving on aren't they. (sniff!) But not me, no sirreee. Not Lobelia B. S-B. Not until I get Bag End. (Or jailed, or something.)
....
(Though I see that Ent is still spouting poetry, and the spaceman is still hanging around.)
...
I watched a movie called Battleship. Very odd. Something about aliens and invasions. Been seeing a lot of those around the Shire lately. Ruffians I say, ruffians..! @]Klaatu may know something about it.
....

omg, that is priceless... (I wonder if the spaceman saw it 🤣)
That too...I'm dying, just dying. 😂

 

[Deimos]

How 'bout an "occurring recurrence"?

I’ve watched several movies where it takes a few go-throughs to understand the entire thing. Doesn’t mean I didn’t get the full plot the first time, but sometimes a rewatch is the only way to catch the smaller details—things you don’t even know you missed until they jump out at you later. I’m 38, not an “old people,” and I’ve seen plenty of films that genuinely reward that second or third viewing.

For example, most Stanley Kubrick movies are very complex. The Shining, for instance, isn’t just a horror movie where a family stays at a hotel and creepy ghosts cause mayhem. It’s also about the psychology behind Jack Torrance, the patterns of abuse he carries with him, and the way the hotel amplifies the cracks already forming in his mind. Kubrick layers symbolism, visual cues, and thematic parallels all over the place, so each revisit feels like peeling back another layer of what the movie is actually doing beneath the surface.


A more modern director who does the same thing—though maybe on a lighter, more whimsical note, in my opinion—would be Wes Anderson. His movies might look simple on the surface with their symmetry, pastel palettes, and quirky charm, but there’s a ton of layered storytelling happening underneath. You catch new jokes, subtle character beats, and visual callbacks every time you rewatch one. Like Kubrick, he builds his films with such precise detail that a single viewing barely scratches the surface; the difference is just that Anderson wraps his complexity in warmth and style instead of dread and psychological unraveling.

And honestly, the whole idea that something like the new Wicked “isn’t for old people” feels a little off to me. Movies don’t really have an age barrier unless the content is inappropriate for kids. If a story connects with you, it connects—doesn’t matter if you’re 8, 38, or 88. We’ve all watched films way outside our “demographic” and still loved them. Good storytelling just works on a universal level, whether it’s a big fantasy musical, a horror classic, or a quirky Wes Anderson comedy.

I’m sure you’d then have to say older movies like Casablanca (1942) are only for “old people.” Um, no. It’s one of the greatest films ever made, one of my personal favorites (again, 38), and a pillar of Hollywood that has influenced countless directors, actors, actresses, and entire studios. A great film doesn’t check your birth year before it moves you.

Only a little off? Man, you possess a lot more forbearance than I.
Such a condescending statement warrants a

followed by a box of the ears

 

[Beleg_Cúthalion]

 

[KnightFluttershy]

MLP FIM Season 3

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

 

[herlig9]

Some Space Ice video. Known for joking about terrible Steven Seagal movies. But occationally makes other spoofy voice reviews of other movies.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

I recently watched Murder, my Sweet which is based on Chandler's Farewell my Lovely. It stars Dick Powell, Claire Trevor and Anne Shirley. Dick Powell had just signed with RKO and part of the contract was that his first film would be a move away from musical comedy. He is very good as Philip Marlowe and the whole film is well made all round. There is great use of shadows making this an early US film noir - definitely a film that benefits from being in black and white.

Spoiler: femme fatale

Trevor is great as the femme fatale

and Anne Shirley also very good as the rich father's daughter. Apparently they wanted to swap roles and act against type. Sadly this was Anne Shirley's last film as her husband was caught up in the McCarthy persecution and she decided to give up acting.

Bogart has always been my favourite Marlowe but I think Powell does equally well here - he's very good at conveying being caught up in events beyond his control. My favourite line is the one

Spoiler: favourite line

about doing something really tough like putting on your pants.

.

If you like US film noir then you should definitely watch this one. It's free on Facebook of all places:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2714399042171950