Rate the last film you watched

145791030

Comments

  • When you like to play host and pay for other people, and tickets are $10-15, and you make a point of buying concessions because you know it's the only assured source of revenue that keeps the movie theater model alive, it adds up.
    Just glad my new credit card gives me 'repeat spending' updates. Quite sobering, really. :D
  • You must learn allot going to the theater that often Andrew.
  • Lesson one: Movie tickets are expensive.
  • BATTLESHIP 5/10
    Okay, so went to see this with one of my bezzies, we're both massive sci-fi nerds. I recall him announcing that, along with Prometheus (f**k yeah) that this may be one of the best films of the year. Boy, how he was wrong.
    Pros:
    Awesome VFX
    Awesome SFX
    One scene that was relatively clever
    Nice camerawork.
    Cons:
    TERRIBLE ACTING
    STUPIDLY CORNY AND CHEESY AND CLICHÉ
    QUITE BAD STORYLINE
    RIHANNA
    RUBBISH VERSION OF TRANSFORMERS
    What we mean is that it was EXACTLY like Transformers, but worse, which is quite an accomplishment as we all know that Michael Bay is the destroyer of movies.
    Let me explain:
    An ordinary teenage guy, with an ordinary first name and a wierd last name, tries to impress a slutty woman at the start, but then realises that he is an absolute knob and is pushed into heroism, ends up in an awesome fight with aliens and somehow manages to save the world, thus gaining the slut.
    Another thing, who the hell decided to put Rihanna in that film? CHEESY, STUPID, DUMB ASS QOUTES IS ALL HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE FILM.
    This film was nothing but a pain in the ass, besides the SFX and VFX, to watch and I ended up "going to the toilet for my seventy-ninth turd of the day" with a thumping headache that was screaming at me to go and watch something like Winnie The Pooh.
    Waste of money.
    Unless, all you do is watch films for the effects of course.
    -LinkedPictures
  • Sounds like the trailer for Battleship was an extremely accurate representation of the film then.

  • Sounds like the trailer for Battleship was an extremely accurate representation of the film then.

    He did just see the trailer, he actually went to see Mirror Mirror, but he didn't want to admit it.
  • Yes, but did anyone say, "YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!"? Been waiting for confirmation on this incredibly important piece of information since that film was announced.
  • edited April 2012

    He did just see the trailer, he actually went to see Mirror Mirror, but he didn't want to admit it.

    If you have a problem with me, say it now. Because I doubt anyone with a good taste in films would watch that.

    Yes, but did anyone say, "YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!"? Been waiting for confirmation on this incredibly important piece of information since that film was announced.

    No, no one at all said that. Sucks.
  • Yep, guess I won't ever be watching that then. What a wasted opportunity.
  • Courtesy of in-flight entertainment:
    The Muppets - 6/10 Fun, nostalgic and lightly entertaining, rather spoilt by terrible songs and a limp performance from Segel.
    A Dangerous Method - 7/10 - Great performances, though a strangely theatrical movie that feels like it'd be better off as a play. Also, Keira's chin is amazing in this.
    We The Party - 5/10 Went to see this in LA because long-time FXhomer and friend AJ Rickert-Epstein was DoP. It was actually a solid bit of teen entertainment, albeit far too overtly preachy at times and with a few misjudged, accidentally-creepy scenes. Crucially, though, the film looked very nice, so nice job to AJ. :)

  • A Dangerous Method - 7/10 - Great performances, though a strangely theatrical movie that feels like it'd be better off as a play.

    It was actually adapted from a stageplay, so that makes some sense.
  • Saw every movie in theaters. Little bro wanted to give Three Stooges a shot. I went.
    Liked it, truthfully enough. It's a definite-measure kid's movie- but for how absolutely-god-awful-horrendous it looked, I actually really enjoyed it. It was slaptick simplicity, but it had an endearing, earnest quality to it- much like the real, original Three Stooges- and definitely a harken to the earlier works of the Farrelly Brothers.
    Though it was critically lambasted, I always really liked the Farrelly Brothers movie Stuck On You (and thought it always seemed like a concept and execution straight out of Dennis & Ronnie Films)- and thought The Three Stooges- while absolutely juvenile, as silly as can be, and devoid or true, belly-aching laughs- had a similar edge. Some oddball humanity to it.
    I thought this was not only going to be one of the worst movies of the year, but based on the trailers one of the worst I'd seen in theaters.
    In the end, it was just a solid-and-silly kid's movie. Very pleasantly surprised. Could've been much much much worse.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    edited April 2012
    The Cabin In The Woods - 10/10 I've not had this much fun in a cinema for a very long time. Hilarious, a bit scary in the right spots, and utterly outrageous. To say anything further would spoil it.
    I also love that this is just the first Joss Whedon-involved movie I'm seeing in the space of a week. He's going to have to go some with The Avengers to match the sheer entertainment value of TCITW, though. Plus he still hasn't apologised for running over Andrew's dog.
  • edited April 2012
    Battleship - 4/10 A terrible but hilarious (for all the wrong reasons) type of movie. Move over xXx (and xXx 2) this is the ultimate BS movie!
    The most unruly and least qualified naval officers on earth (and a singer in a naval uniform) think they have what it takes to take on an intergalactic alien force. Luckily they find a decommissioned WW2 steam powered Battleship and a group of octogenarians to take the battle to the enemy.
    Do they have what it takes to power slide a 45,000 tons ship on its anchor to take out the aliens? Yes, yes they do. :S
    The Avengers - 7/10 While I enjoyed the film overall I did expect more.
    It had the best version of the Hulk so far, mostly well timed comedy (although a couple of bits did cross the line and belittled the story) and some spectacular action sequences.
    Sadly there was absolutely no emotional depth from any of the key cast. There is only one non-action scene, with Scarlett and Hiddleston, which seems highly charged and rather gripping - this was quite a revelation as she is normally pretty average. I found the general lack of soul disappointing as it is something both Thor and Captain America were able to achieve despite being silly/camp films. It was all the more surprising considering the Whedon back catalogue. Still, I doubt 99.9% of people watching the film will care much about this and it is my most significant criticism.
    Lastly, at no point was there any sense of peril which made for a fairly mundane climax.
    Just for comparison here is how I rate the films leading up to The Avengers.
    Iron Man - 7/10 Really enjoyable but gets a little lost in the end.
    Iron Man 2 - 5/10 A not-very-good remake of Iron Man which focused too much on additional nonsense weapons.
    Thor - 8/10 Great balance of camp action/comedy and a solid hero story.
    Captain America - 7/10 A really solid start, annoying montage middle (which needed more depth) and a great sad ending.
    I'm not going to talk about either the older or the more recent (and connected to The Avengers) Hulk films - The Avengers Hulk is so much better. :)
  • "The Three Stooges" really made me laugh so hard. They actually made "Jersey Shore" entertaining. Definitely a 9 out of 10 as "New York Times" rated it.
  • edited April 2012
    Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 9/10
    I admit I was skeptical about this. When the first trailers came out, I thought it looked stupid. But then I watched Mission: Impossible 3, and I understood the appeal again.
    This easily tops M:I3, and was probably just as good, or better than the original. Brad Bird is everywhere in this film, which is awesome, because I wasn't sure if his style would translate to live action. I loved the premise (renegade secret agents), and the characters were all well thought out and portrayed. It's amazing that Tom Cruise is still such a great action star. It helps that he's played the character three times before, but he really nails it in this.
    But the best part by far were the action sequences. I'm not even really that into action films anymore, but goddamn there is some great action in this film. It's amazingly intense throughout, but when you get to these high-impact, enormous, and extravagant setpieces (the Burj Khalifa, the magnet suit, and the auto-garage), it's just white-knuckle intensity non-stop. Definitely the best action film I've seen in years, and now I'm excited about the potential for another Mission: Impossible movie somehow. This is a hard one to top, though.
  • First off, loving that this topic is still going.
    The Avengers - 8/10 I refuse to call it by its ridiculous UK name (Marvel Avengers Assemble). Really, really loved this film. Takes a little while to get going, but from the scene in Banner's lab with Stark trying to provoke him I was entirely engrossed. Best full-on superhero action since Chronicle. Going on previous history of superhero films with tons of characters (Batman & Robin, X3), the fact it isn't terrible is remarkable in itself - that it's actually really good is something of a miracle.
  • The Avengers - 7/10 While I enjoyed the film overall I did expect more.
    It had the best version of the Hulk so far, mostly well timed comedy (although a couple of bits did cross the line and belittled the story) and some spectacular action sequences.
    Sadly there was absolutely no emotional depth from any of the key cast. There is only one non-action scene, with Scarlett and Hiddleston, which seems highly charged and rather gripping - this was quite a revelation as she is normally pretty average. I found the general lack of soul disappointing as it is something both Thor and Captain America were able to achieve despite being silly/camp films. It was all the more surprising considering the Whedon back catalogue. Still, I doubt 99.9% of people watching the film will care much about this and it is my most significant criticism.
    Lastly, at no point was there any sense of peril which made for a fairly mundane climax.
    Just for comparison here is how I rate the films leading up to The Avengers.

    This is pretty much exactly how I felt. Very well-said.
    It's soul the film lacks most.
  • Saw the Avengers over the weekend and I loved it. Very entertaining, good blend of humour and I thought Wheedon did a great job given that there were so many characters with their own stories to weave in.
    Loki was much better than I thought he would be.
    FX were great with a massive sense of scale, and the Hulk was a huge improvement on the previous attempts.
    All in all a good solid 8.5/10 from me.!
    Loved it!
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    edited April 2012
    **Post contains minor spoilers, though nothing that hasn't been shown in trailers**
    The peril (or lack thereof) issue is an interesting one. It's always the big problem with superhero stories, certainly ones which don't go down the Nolan hyper-real route. It's at its worst with Superman, of course, but it affects all superhero characters: they're essentially indestructible, even the ones that can supposedly be killed, because the franchise hinges on their continued existence.
    So the options left to storytellers seem to be to either introduce a crap Macguffin (kryptonite) which bypasses the character's usual rules, or to transfer the peril to secondary, weaker characters (Lois Lane, Mary Jane). I've never been entirely happy with either option.
    Avengers seemed to take a different route, which was to change it from a question of life & death to a strategic question of "how do we beat this?" As Stark puts it, even if they don't stop Loki's army, they'll keep fighting it after the invasion - there's an assumption that they'll all survive it, the question is whether they'll be able to stop it, and how. The fun, for me, then, was in them figuring out how to work together and how to tactically defeat the overwhelming odds.
    Even if those tactics largely boiled down to the Hulk punching things in the face.
    It's not going to work for everyone, and I'm not even sure it was entirely successful myself. But I liked that Whedon tried a different approach to the usual Macguffin and Vulnerable Female story approaches.
  • I've seen so many great movies recently it's hard to find just a few to rate. By far my favorite genre is war/action-adventure and there is a whole lot to choose from there, so I'll just have to make a list of my favorite one's I've seen recently (not necessarily all new)
    Act of Valor 9.5/10
    This was by far my favorite overall movie of recent years, taking a step away from the "Hollywood-ized" war movies, and dropping you right in their shoes. It's one of the only ones I've seen with the first person view being a big part of the action. The script was fantastic and it had more than it's fair share of edge of your seat moments, most importantly none of the weaponry was screwed over which you can see in about every movie depicting war, or guns in and of themselves. Knowing that they used live ammo for most every shot was awesome as well, there was limited CGI which for a modern war film is unheard of.
    My only reason for knocking off .5 is the way they ended it, and in that it's just personal preference, I like somewhat open ends on movies of that nature.
    Battle L.A. 6/10
    It really wasn't the greatest thing I'd ever seen, There was some good action, but overall I couldn't get into the storyline... or find a clear one for that matter, the trailer basically summed up the entire movie on it's own.
    Die Hard Series 8/10
    It's so over the top it's hilarious, Bruce Willis is perfect in that role and I'm a bit psyched for the next release.
    The Expendables 7/10
    What happens when you take a bunch of actors that usually do action movie and pile them all in one film? You get some massive explosions and a ton of memorable one liners. Some moments they tried to be so serious they were hilarious. This was the first film I had seen Jason Statham in I believe and since then I've seen a few others he was in as well, pretty good actor.
    I've seen lots... and lots of movies in the past 2 years it's hard to remember them all :D
  • Avengers: 9 out of 10.
    Extremely well done. The Hulk was great.
  • On flights recently:
    The Big Year: 3/10
    Pretty mediocre stuff. Rarely funny, blindingly obvious story. Not a big fan of Jack Black or Owen Wilson, but it was a shame for Steve Martin, who has actually done some good films.
    The Descendants: 7/10
    I really enjoyed this. Moving, well shot and directed, Clooney showing he actually has some range as an actor. Worth a watch.
    Aside: they may not be good at getting flights to leave on time, but Kenya Airways do have a great selection of films available on their flights - pretty much every major film from the last year was available to watch "for free", in Economy class!
  • Picked up the Sherlock Holmes double pack this week, it did wonders for my procrastination as I had never seen them.
    Sherlock Holmes - 7/10: Enjoyable, loved the high speed shots, Downy Jr and Jude Law worked well as a team, but Mark Strong's villain became a bit comic towards the end.
    Game of Shadows - 8/10: Much like the first, but amped up and more focused on action, which was excellent, the explosive scene in the woods was fantastic.
  • Prometheus: 6.5/10
    Since this film is very new, I won't post spoilers here. Mini-review with spoilers in the Prometheus topic.
  • edited June 2012
    John Carter: 4/10
    This has a lot of very impressive visuals, and while I thought all of the non-human characters/creatures were extremely cartoonish, they did a good job blending them in with the live-action footage, and the animation was not too shabby. The flying machines were awesome, and a lot of the Goddess' Sidekick Dude powers were really cool looking. It's a nice film to look at, although it is fairly generic. I thought the opening sequence explaining what was going on with Barsoom was really well done, and it had me very excited for the rest of the film, until it ended.
    If only VFX and spectacle could save a terrible film! Maybe it's just that I've outgrown the Disney thing, but this was just so generically Disney Adventure Movie to me. Probably a lot of has to do with the way the footage is graded to share the exact same color palette as every other popular adventure film for the last decade or so, but it's also a lot to do with the pacing, the plot, and the acting. Carter and Dejah are Aladdin and Jasmine, or literally any other Disney pairing. The dirty rascal with a heart of gold meets the princess who longs to escape her father's dominion, or some variant of that. I'm sure it works for kids, but anyone who's old enough to recall National Treasure gets the basic gist of it. These all work the same way.
    The plot, then, is expectedly predictable and bloated. There are far too many plot threads to keep up with, and most of them get lost in the shuffle. Why is it important that this utterly forgettable secondary character is really the daughter of someone of vague authority? It has nothing at all to do with the plot, it's just some pointless background information that feels extremely tacked on. I won't go on too long about this, but the predictability has a lot to do with what I talked about in the last paragrap. In the arena sequence, for an easy example, is there ever any doubt that Carter is going to end up bursting out from inside the giant beast? Of course not. That's just what happens in a movie like this.
    I also had a lot of issues with smaller things like how after they magically made everyone able to understand everyone else, they still used the Barsoom language for certain terms, and then translated it into English (like the "my right arms" thing, or any time they mention Barsoom or Jasoom). As well as the fact that Carter has superhuman strength and can escape from any situation and murder a dude with one hit, and battle hundreds of massive enemies without breaking a sweat (that scene was hysterical, despite attempting to be emotional), yet he's in captivity for much of the film, simply because that's how his character is written. Yet, no matter how often he gets into these scrapes, there's never any real sense of danger. You always know he's going to come out on top, even up to the very end.
    It's a wreck of a movie. All the inconsequential nonsense on Barsoom, all the anti-climactic showdowns, the terrible kid they got to play Burroughs, plus everything else I've mentioned... Skip it. If you have little kids, or are a little kid, they/you will probably enjoy it, because like I said earlier, it is very nice to look at. I will say that I enjoyed watching it, though. It's not a good movie, but it is entertaining, and unintentionally hilarious.
    Ps. "This chamber can only be opened from inside, unless you press a few letters, which is probably going to eventually happen by accident when someone is cleaning it."
  • Prometheus - 9/10
    enjoyed this greatly, i managed to not see any trailers or any news that would spoil it and to a degree i think that aided my enjoyment of the film.
  • edited June 2012

    Act of Valor 9.5/10
    This was by far my favorite overall movie of recent years, taking a step away from the "Hollywood-ized" war movies, and dropping you right in their shoes. It's one of the only ones I've seen with the first person view being a big part of the action. The script was fantastic and it had more than it's fair share of edge of your seat moments, most importantly none of the weaponry was screwed over which you can see in about every movie depicting war, or guns in and of themselves.


    [IMG]http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6822/61292568.png[/IMG]
    You must be or have been in the armed services, because that's the only justification I can see for such a blindly slanted review. Don't get me wrong- I thought Act Of Valor was a good movie. Not bad, not just decent- but pretty solidly good, using innovative ways of demonstrating action and cinematography. The use of DSLRs and other digital camerawork on the part of DP Shane Hulburt is, truly, pretty astounding- and I was thoroughly entertained by the film.
    But it's as rigidly-written, poorly-acted, and "Hollywood-ized" as they come, and bares basically no story at all. The action, additionally, while real- is somewhat suspect and head-scratching. I still don't know how I feel about a film profiteering off of the resources and time of active-duty armed servicemen. Not great, I'll tell you that. Even moreso because of the reaction I've seen to the film. It shouldn't be apathy- definitely not- but the amount of pride behind seeing it is insane. In my aunt and uncle's (who went to military college) theater, a wired-up Marine beat down a doctor who answered his phone for an emergency call during the trailers before the movie because it was 'being disrespectful to the troops', and in my theater upon my viewing, similar yells and violence-threatening calls came out to teenagers whispering through the movie; with an angered consensus following that it was the 'best movie ever made' and 'anyone who thinks differently can talk to my fist'. Which is somewhat what I chalk up to short-tempered, ill-disciplined, and all-around young gun Marines- which isn't anything like the real, admirable Navy SEALS in the film- but still.
    I realize that's not the status-quo, but it's the sort of implications created by conceiving a movie that's sole novelty is that it's 'real heroes' in 'real' action.
    When, at the end of the day: it isn't. It's a movie. The real-life servicemen that 'died' in the movie didn't really die- they're still alive. They're acting. (Not well, though) Maybe they represent their fallen brothers-in-arms, and I can respect that, but the distinction needs to be understood.
    So it's both troubling and laughable to read these 'perfect movie' reviews and praises. Because while it was most-definitely an above-average action movie, and did some cool, innovative things cinematographically- it wasn't much more than that.
    And while the film really did 'drop you into the shoes', it was still very weak plot-wise, and it's thinly-veiled excuse for a bunch of militarized action setpieces was just that: thinly-veiled.
    The trailer for it, though, was really stellar. I will give it that.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdt6GRpxC8w
  • edited June 2012
    ...some stuff... (no need to quote all of it, really, was there?


    Opinions. People have them. He loved the movie, you didn't. Whats the problem?
  • I found Andrew's response really fascinating, actually. You'll note that he acknowledges that it's a good film, and instead is questioning the political motivations of some viewers. It's a very interesting perspective that doesn't apply to many (any?) films, and I'd certainly like to read Andrew H's view.
    Not a film I've seen or have any intention of seeing as it sounds like pure military propaganda, but there are certainly lots of very interesting issues to be discussed surrounding its production and reception.

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment