@FlyingBanana78 that poor kid..
The Revenant: 8.5/10
I'm not the biggest Leo DiCaprio fan by any stretch of the imagination but I thought he did a fairly decent job in this revenge based flick. I thought the story went on a little long but the scenery, camera work and music kept me riveted. I don't recall seeing a more coordinated Indian attack in any other movie before, although admittedly, I couldn't tell if anything was green screened or not so it's pretty impressive either way. I think it's the most realistic portrayal of an attack and probably pretty close to how these things went in real life in 1823. The scene with the bear should have you in absolute terror!!!!! ABSOLUTE!!!! TERROR!!!!!! I hear that was all done with a real trained bear. Impressive. In fact, just that scene alone makes me change my rating to a solid 9/10. There are a couple other really nifty surprises that make you want to keep watching.....again......camera work was exquisite!!! Just the length is my only complaint.
Cop Car- 8/10
I didn't expect much from this not too well known Kevin Bacon movie. The story focuses on two 8-9 year old boys who are running away from home. Along the way they find a cop car in the middle of nowhere and decide to drive off with it.....in their own clumsy, kind of funny way. What I liked about this movie was the realistic portrayal of the boys. They were just how my friends and I were growing up. A universal thread I guess......supporting the old adage "Boys will be boys". Soon they are in danger up to their eyeballs so check it out- it's under 90 mins and worth at least one viewing.
No Country For Old Men- 9/10
The description for this movie on the channel I watched, read that it was about a law man reminiscing about how things used to be. If that's the central focus I think they got it wrong or I just didn't get that out of the movie. I walked away with more of a sense of 'what the heck did I just see?'. But it's a Cohen brothers production (of O Brother Where Art Thou, Fargo and The Big Lebowski fame) and I seem to like just about everything I've seen by them. No Country.... is very intense and the antagonist is creeeeeeeepy!!!!!!! Javier Bardem did great job in the role.
Big Fish: 10/10
The one I'm referring to is from 2003 starring Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney- directed by Tim Burton. This is a delightful tale of a son trying to hash out the tall tales his father liked to spin before his father dies. Dad likes to steal the show wherever he goes with his stories of seemingly impossible twists and turns and characters woven into his narrative. Or are they? Find out yourself and see this movie today! lol Sorry to come across as an advert.
Money Monster: 7/10
I enjoyed this more than most (neither critics nor audiences on RT give it a particularly high rating!). As a thriller trying to tackle financial issues and stock trading, it does fairly well. It doesn’t have the depth of Margin Call or the testosterone of an action flick, instead ambling around in the middle. As a social commentary it’s simple but relatable. Also some very funny moments.
X-Men: Apocalypse: 4/10
Weak and lacking in peril. The interaction between Xavier and Magneto is tired and repetitive, most of the other characters exist for no other reason than to take part in a fight sequence. Sophie Turner has unfortunately been employed as an actor again, despite having the emotional range of Kristen Stewart on a bad day. Few bizarre, unnecessary story arcs, and of course it thoroughly craps all over the original trilogy.
Martian : 10/10
I really really enjoyed this film, I am slightly annoyed at myself for giving into the temptation of not reading the book first, so weak!!. But, watch a good watch and had me laugh out loud on the train several times. The use of effects was great and the story flowed nicely.
Would I watch again : Hell yes
The Nice Guys: 8/10
Riotously funny and a lot of fun. The Gos and Gladiator were great casting choices. Worth a watch.
Money Monster: 9/10
I actually thought that this film was fantastic. The end of this film was like a punch to the gut and delivers an important message on so many levels. Most notably, the fickleness of the human race and our ability to get swept up in a media drama while still staying at a safe, numb distance from anything that may actually truly affect us. How most of us have got so caught up in a prescriptive lifestyle that money has become so much more important than lives and we don't see it as our responsibility to help each other. Jodie Foster's direction is solid, though not particularly stylistic, and all actors delivered fantastic performances. Those who went to see it with me did say that they thought the characters lacked depth, which made it difficult considering that most of the film takes place on one set and there isn't much movement. However, I felt like this was a deliberate choice to really hammer home the idea of distance from other people. Plus, it didn't stop me from feeling genuinely moved at the end. Great film, highly recommended, but seems to have really split opinion.
Mel Brooks' Silent Movie - 10/10
(Hey, nobody said it had to be a NEW movie....! LOL)
Having only just finally gotten a Bluray player and large flat-screen TV this year (I'm old-skool like that), my wife and I were dying to get The Mel Brooks Collection on Bluray, and we were not dissapointed.
".....non!" -- Marcel Marceau
@Har - Funny how the mime gets the one spoken line! It's perfect!
World of Warcraft Movie Review
First of all, watching this in 3D was by far the greatest $6 investment I've ever made right next to that box of donuts I bought last week.
The movie is simple, bad guys (The Fel and Orcs of the Horde) want something and try to fight the good guys (Humans of the Alliance) to get it. The good guys have to rely on strength beyond themselves to overcome the antagonists.
Then... it takes a turn, the twists are foreshadowed early in the movie if you have a keen eye for details but as the movie rushes forward the clues become more prevalent. And I'm I mean RUSH, this isn't so Lord of The Rings movie with 45% talking, 45% walking, and one climactic battle scene... the entire movie is climactic. I was on edge the entire time, and I should be... the good guys could loose everything in a split second through out the entire movie.
I commend the director on the pacing, fantasy movies are typically quite drawn out and over explain everything.
For those that have played the game... The Warcraft Movie is everything you hoped it would be and for those that have never played... hey, at least it's better than Lord of The Rings.
Lastly, the reviews for the movie are complete rubbish... imbd score of 76 but a rotten tomatoes score of 29? The meaning, don't listen to reviewers watch it for yourself and draw your own conclusion of it
9.9/10 (I'm holding ".1" ransom until they make the sequel... give them some motivation)
Edit: Merged in from another thread by Admin
Warcraft- The Beginning- 5.5/10
The pacing was awfully slow at the beginning and was rather boring...
The story was ok but it wasn't overly exciting. The effects were slightly above average but where definitely noticeable. While I was watching the film it constantly screamed fake. It felt like it had barely any real locations. Even the indoor scenes felt fake. The magic on the other hand was great. They really nailed those effects and the Orcs where probably the most realistic we have seen to date.
The characters names where not memorable and it was hard to tell who our main character was.
I loved the games and was a rather big fan of the franchise. This movie had a lot of fun references to the game such as a brief appearance of a murloc and plenty of locations that felt like the game. The armor and weapons looked great and when the orcs hit the humans with their hammers and maces, you could really feel the impact of the skulls being crushed.
The film picked up towards the 3rd act and from there I started enjoying it more. When it got to the end it was left as a cliff hanger for the next movie although it kinda felt like we were back to where it started.
I may have been too harsh on this film but I will admit I was expecting better. It was still a fun movie to watch but the pacing, the mediocre story and some of the CGI was what brought this down to a 5.5
I think I made that too long :P
@FilmTech ugh l... I typed a rebuttal to you three times but the forum only posted the first word... I give up. I'll try it again tomorrow.
This was better than I expected. Sure, the first act is a confusing myriad of establishing stuff, but it did eventually feed into a fairly neat, well contained story. I too have no idea what the characters were called, but that didn't detract from the enjoying. Agreed on the references, some of those were excellent, though it needed more dwarves, elves and gnomes! Probably would have made the film far more confusing and hodgepodgey, but dammit, gnomes! I didn't have a problem with the effects/fakeness of the film - as Josh put it, rather than attempting to pass off all the CG as reality (which would have looked terrible), they attempted to pass off the small amount of reality as CG, which worked pretty well, IMO. I also liked the ending.
Gods of Egypt: 2/10
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, what a shambles. The tone was set in the opening title flash, when the words "Gods of Egypt" come blaring onto the screen in a hail of sudden unnecessary noise. Weak characters, a byzantine storyline, too many bad jokes and not enough acting. As Mark Kermode said in his review, it makes you miss the good old days of Clash of the Titans (not even the original, but the remake!).
Maybe I was too harsh :P
I want the next one to have more murlocs though. That one cameo just didn't cut it
@FilmTech well I still only gave it 6.5 I suppose!
I come in peace, to address your comments @FilmTech @DanielGWood.
Daniel, the reason the 1st part is slow is to help humanize the "Frost Wolf Clan" as the stigma is orcs are all 'barbaric monsters.' Without this and the backstory they are loosing their homeworld the movie would have just been a bunch of contextless battle scenes where the audience only wants the alliance to win.
It's a game adaptation, while I do normally play alliance, 50% of the fan base is horde and it's import they viewers don't see it as good vs bad but good vs good both manipulated by bad.
FilmTech, the effects were essentially better renderings of the games spells, they were intended to look this way Also 99% of the movie was face captured (even the humans), remember the Polar Express and the way people looked? Compare that to these humans, quite an impovement, no? The scenes very straight out of the game but again, super highrendering of it with a lot of sylistic approaches. The names were from lore... if they changed them I and 10million players would have lost our heads!
When it got to the end it was left as a cliff hanger for the next movie although it kinda felt like we were back to where it started. Its the lore haha
The pacing is something I liked and I think they did much better than Lord of the Rings, a series I find comparable but worse in every way
Lastly, if you guys didn't watch it in 3D.... you didn't watch it all haha
Link to my HitFilm Thread Reviewing the movie: https://hitfilm.com/forum/discussion/40681/world-of-warcraft-movie-review#latest
10 Cloverfield Lane: 8/10
With the inkling of something big happening on the southern boarder of the U.S., which we learn about from a radio broadcast, this story revolves around three people holed up in a bunker wondering what the 'attack' two of them witnessed was all about. Not as fast paced as it's predecessor, Cloverfield, this was still a fun movie to watch and there were a few plot twists along the way to keep you guessing. This time though, the story is told third person rather than through the lens of a camera being carried by one of the characters. The ending is left wide open for another addition to the franchise, which I personally hope they do, as this Cloverfield wasn't as monstery as I was hoping.
@triflixfilms I did see some scenes that looked like they would have been great in 3D. Watching all the behind the scenes showed me that they used a lot of practical effects although they did use the bluescreen... A lot. I don't know why but the CG in this film was very noticeable for me. Maybe it's because I recently watched The Force Awakens again which had so many practical effects.
@FilmTech completely understandable, while I wasn't a fan of TFA I do agree they used practical effect very well. The last 3D movie I watched was Spy Kids... the 3D in this movie was subtle and was used simple to improve the "Depth of Field" and make the movie more immersive.
Sorry, you weren't too fond of the movie. I really enjoyed it and when you like something you want everyone else to be able to enjoy it as well. And I believe I over sold the 9.9/10. After taking off my rose colored glasses of fanboyism I feel the movie easily earns an 8/10 but itll always be a 10 to me
DEADPOOL (10/10) - Brilliant fun (for an adult)
Well I think this is my first 10, I really enjoyed this movie, and I am a little sad that I missed it on the big screen, my tablet did not do it justice. I felt this film just nailed it on so many levels, the pure fun in parts was just great and the nice touches which I assume fall out of the comic like the bullet count down and the super hero landing. I liked the look and feel of the movie and the special effects seemed to blend well into the story. Plus it has been a while since I have watched a movie and gone, "They did that!"
I should add I am not a Deadpool fan as in never read the comics or played the games.
Best line and there are so many to quoate for me was while Deadspool was waiting at the Xmen mansion he said "Funny how we only ever see two Xmen, maybe the studio could only afford two".
Transformers: Age of Extinction: 1/10
I'm pretty sure someone warned me not to watch this. It also had a 1-star rating on Netflix. Anyway, I thought it was the one with the base-jumping squirrel suits (it wasn't), so I gave it a go. Most boring 1h 45 of my life. The full film is 2h 45, but around the 1h 45 mark I genuinely thought it was over, then it turned out it was just getting started, and I couldn't face another hour of drudgery. So, so, so bad. I should have known better.
@DanielGWood My mate here at work said the same, oh dear oh dear, is that a Michael Bay film, isn't he the one that's blowing stuff up? Was it a case of how much screen flame render can one person watch.
Not on my list.
The Fundamentals of Caring 7/10
It's a little bit of an older film, but it's just popped up on NetFlix, so I gave it a watch. Reminds me a little bit of one of my favourite books, 'All the Bright Places' although it's a different subject matter. It's tackling some difficult subjects but has a light-heartedness to it, as the main character who suffers from multiple-sclerosis is persuaded by his failed-writer, newly divorced carer to go and see the things he wants to visit rather than sitting at home. It's got a cool heart-stopping moment at the end, and is generally really well acted. Would recommend!
The new Ghostbusters 8/10
Already getting some major stick for this, but I really, really liked the new Ghostbusters. I went into the cinema expecting to hate it because of the terrible reviews, so started from a place of very low expectations. It was fun and full of colour and gags. There were some jump scares in there too (didn't see it in 3D but I could see a couple of scenes which would have made me drop my drink). There were cameos from the old cast (stick around for the credits to see Weaver), some decent VFX work and excellent prop design. I don't feel that the female cast detracted from the film, but then as a woman I was honestly just really excited to see a group of female scientists and engineers wielding kickass proton packs because I could relate to them more easily as protagonists and experience the childish joy I missed out on with the first Ghostbusters. Perhaps the experience for guys will be different as they will see less of themselves in the film and therefore feel distanced? I'm not sure - anyone else seen it that can offer a perspective?
The old Ghostbusters film was all about silliness and fun, and this was the same. The humour hit a couple of bum notes and there were some major plot and character flaws (but there have been numerous essays on that already), but the general entertainment value made up for it in my eyes. Also, APPARENTLY in China, the title of the Ghostbusters reboot was reworked as "超能敢死队," meaning "Super Power Dare Die Team." If that doesn't make you want to see it, I don't know what will.
@KirstieT That's good to hear. I was really hoping that the new cast would be able to pull it off.
Independence Day: Resurgence: 4/10
Probably set the bar a bit too high for this, as I love the original. The effects are pretty good, and the performances from Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman were fun. That's about it though. None of the new actors were particularly exciting, and there was a distinct lack of peril and well.. soul. Too...big.
13 Hours: 9/10
Before I saw this movie I had a chance to see three survivors of the Benghazi attack which is the subject of this film. Hearing the story through their own words of what all transpired over the 13 hours they fought for their lives, quite literally, and how no help was on the way for rescue. Their story had me in tears and I have no doubt every word of it was absolutely true. They came across as credible, sincere, dedicated to the safety of all U.S. citizens and very human. The movie is no less incredible. My only real critique would be some of the camera angles. I understand now why @Triem23 dislikes sudden camera angle changes in opposite directions from opposite sides as well. It can get confusing fast and on first watch it was like that for me. Other than that, the story is riveting, the effects spectacular- there was even a brief moment of, dare I say, elegance in a scene involving a picture and that's all I can say. You'll know it when you see it. I can't guarantee you'll like it, I recommend it if for nothing more than, the film follows the actual events as closely as they could portray it, right down to the layout of the two facilities in which the story is centered.
A Roman tribune is tasked by Pontius Pilot to find the body of Jesus 3 days after being crucified. I was skeptical going in as I have seen too many movies in recent years that portray religious, more specifically, Biblical people as nutters. Noah comes to mind. While the story deals with a religious icon, this movie was not overly preachy and one movie critic, Kevin McCarthy said it is fairly accurate in it's historical base. I've read that this could be a follow-up to Mel Gibson's Passion a few years back. I suppose it could but the point of view is from the Roman tribune which makes the story that much more compelling. I would recommend at least one watch of this one- even if it's just for the cinematography.
Ghostbusters (2016): 7/10
I watched the original Ghostbusters (one of my favourite films) again at the weekend, then saw the reboot last night. Honestly, I thought it was great. Humorous, even hilarious at times, and dammit Jim, it was fun.
I don't see why anybody (male or female) would have difficulty relating to the characters as they were really rather human. Even the reworked theme music wasn't so bad in the context of the film, because it fitted the more actiony/YouTubey/contemporary vibe. The villain was a bit naff though, and the updated Slimer looked a little "too CG" (though I suppose it matched the other ghosts more than keeping the original would have).
CAT. 8 - 10/10
I normally don't give movies good scores (usually without telling people :P), but this movie is sooo good. It was a nail-biter and honestly one of the better disaster movies out there. My favorite genre is disaster movies, and I can't believe that I've missed this gem.
The movie is basically split up in 2 parts, Night 1 and Night 2, but regardless, that doesn't qualify for a series for me, so I'm just going to call it a movie. It's fairly low budget. The music and sound design are great, and the effects were cool. Acting, all things considered - top notch.
If you're a fan of disaster movies, and haven't seen this one yet, I definitely recommend it.
I don't like that a lot of the reviews bashed on the fact that it was a low budget movie, hence the low scores.
I'm probably very different from other people though. I never read a movies synopsis, and I never watch a movie trailer before watching a movie. 99% of the time when I watch a new movie, I know nothing about it, which could be the reason why I score so many movies high because I'm very neutral and prefer it that way. If the movie blows my socks off it gets good scores, regardless how cliche, entertainment is never original anyways...
IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2336630/
Amazon reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Cat-8-Blu-ray-Matthew-Modine/dp/B00CRWDKRO
@KevinTheFilmmaker - I'm the same way- never watch too much about a movie before hand and go in clueless as to what to expect. I also grade higher even if the effects aren't 100%. For me, story and conceptual ideas outweigh special effects but not bad acting. If it's got bad actors nothing will save it. lol
I'll definitely scope this one out though, I love me a good disaster..........only in movies that is.
@StormyKnight - Cool, looking forward to hearing what you have to say (if you're going to share your thoughts).
Sign in to comment