Playball40
Veteran Member
No no no no no no no!!!! That is all.
-
Features
Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?
- Thread starter C_Mucius_Scaevola
- Start date
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Hell and Back
Proof that people are actually funny can take a good idea and turn it into crap.
This is an animated flick about some slacker friends who work/own a carnival that's about to shutdown. Then suddenly through some blahblahblah one of their friends is sucked into Hell. So the two remaining friends go into the vortex to find him.
There are some funny moments, so it's not a total waste, but overall it's a sophomoric, underwhelming, and disappointing movie. Scenarios are created that are ripe for excellent comic wit, but the movie constantly fails to capitalize.
What could have been a unique comedy is blah.
4/10
Proof that people are actually funny can take a good idea and turn it into crap.
This is an animated flick about some slacker friends who work/own a carnival that's about to shutdown. Then suddenly through some blahblahblah one of their friends is sucked into Hell. So the two remaining friends go into the vortex to find him.
There are some funny moments, so it's not a total waste, but overall it's a sophomoric, underwhelming, and disappointing movie. Scenarios are created that are ripe for excellent comic wit, but the movie constantly fails to capitalize.
What could have been a unique comedy is blah.
4/10
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Animatrix
This is an animated prequel to the Matrix series. I don't usually go in for animated fare, but this one begins and stays pretty good until around halfway through. Then it completely shits the bed.
Through series of short sequences it chronicles how humans came to build the machines that would eventually take over the world. Once the machines became sentient humans drove them into what we call the Cradle of Civilization, where the robots kept to themselves and thrived. But humanity then tried to destroy it through nukes, but the robots survived and counterattacked and then humans broke the sky in order to cut off the machines energy supply.
So this^ is all kickass. Then it takes a dive into more short sequences on a micro scale and the whole thing crashes into the dirt like a car that flings off all of its tires, doors and trunk-lid at the same time. It becomes disjointed, purposeless, and an overall big yawn.
5/10
This is an animated prequel to the Matrix series. I don't usually go in for animated fare, but this one begins and stays pretty good until around halfway through. Then it completely shits the bed.
Through series of short sequences it chronicles how humans came to build the machines that would eventually take over the world. Once the machines became sentient humans drove them into what we call the Cradle of Civilization, where the robots kept to themselves and thrived. But humanity then tried to destroy it through nukes, but the robots survived and counterattacked and then humans broke the sky in order to cut off the machines energy supply.
So this^ is all kickass. Then it takes a dive into more short sequences on a micro scale and the whole thing crashes into the dirt like a car that flings off all of its tires, doors and trunk-lid at the same time. It becomes disjointed, purposeless, and an overall big yawn.
5/10
Underseer
Contributor
Just got back from Batman vs Superman. How much you like it will depend on how familiar you are with comic books, as they don't always bother to slow down and explain things to non-geeks.
For the geeks, it borrows heavily from some of the most iconic DC story lines. Don't want to say which ones because I don't want to spoil anything. I'm not crazy about this version of Superman, but that character is difficult to make interesting because he is such a one-dimensional boy scout. I do genuinely like this version of Batman and I really like their interpretation of Wonder Woman.
For the geeks, it borrows heavily from some of the most iconic DC story lines. Don't want to say which ones because I don't want to spoil anything. I'm not crazy about this version of Superman, but that character is difficult to make interesting because he is such a one-dimensional boy scout. I do genuinely like this version of Batman and I really like their interpretation of Wonder Woman.
DBT
Contributor
Might go and see it tonight. The reviews I've heard say that Ben Affleck's performance is quite wooden, the same dead pan expression throughout the movie and that the some of the others aren't much better. I'm hoping that the reviews are exaggerated.
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Frankenstein's Army
Brilliant.
A squad of Red Army soldiers are fighting their way through Germany, only to stumble on the Grandson of Dr. Frankenstein, who has been commissioned by the Nazis to make new weapons. These weapons consist of human beings, in whole or part, melded with an imaginative array of absurdly violent machinery, which then wreak havoc on the Russians. Know that this a gory flick on the scale and spirit of movies like Dead/Alive and Re-Animator, which means that it's fucking awesome.
This is not a serious movie with grave social commentary. It is bloody, violent, fun, and it shows you everything. There is nothing left to the imagination. That is, you don't have wonder what Dr. Frankenstein's lab and experiments and how they're carried out look like: you get to see them in all of their horrible glory.
Of course it's flawed as hell, but it doesn't matter.
8/10
Brilliant.
A squad of Red Army soldiers are fighting their way through Germany, only to stumble on the Grandson of Dr. Frankenstein, who has been commissioned by the Nazis to make new weapons. These weapons consist of human beings, in whole or part, melded with an imaginative array of absurdly violent machinery, which then wreak havoc on the Russians. Know that this a gory flick on the scale and spirit of movies like Dead/Alive and Re-Animator, which means that it's fucking awesome.
This is not a serious movie with grave social commentary. It is bloody, violent, fun, and it shows you everything. There is nothing left to the imagination. That is, you don't have wonder what Dr. Frankenstein's lab and experiments and how they're carried out look like: you get to see them in all of their horrible glory.
Of course it's flawed as hell, but it doesn't matter.
8/10
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I probably won't get to see it for a couple of weeks, the NHL season is wrapping up, and I have tickets for several games during the stretch. The one review I have read was not kind to the movie, mostly because of what Underseer mentioned, they don't bother to explain much of what it happening. That review, however, noted that Ben Affleck's performance was a standout, along with Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman), but that Batman's part was not well scripted. Anyway, I try not to pay too much attention to reviews... except for those in this thread.
BTW, what rating would you give the movie, Underseer?
bradw
Member
Pee Wee's Big Holiday (2016)
A little bland but it has enough weirdness to keep it entertaining.
6.5/10
Contact (1997)
Yes, it's emotionally manipulative tripe from Zemeckis, and I'm susceptible to emotional manipulation. And I do wish the main character had responded differently to events. But overall it's an entertaining movie and Jodie Foster does a good job with the material
7/10
A little bland but it has enough weirdness to keep it entertaining.
6.5/10
Contact (1997)
Yes, it's emotionally manipulative tripe from Zemeckis, and I'm susceptible to emotional manipulation. And I do wish the main character had responded differently to events. But overall it's an entertaining movie and Jodie Foster does a good job with the material
7/10
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,047
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Odd, one critic from NPR said the opposite, it wasn't fun. Sounded like was Super Returns again. How did Affleck do?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
The Hateful eight 10/10
Even though it may not be everybody's cup of tea it's undeniably a masterpiece (my opinion). Tarantino has gone back to his roots. This is similar to Reservoir Dogs. Almost the same actors. It's interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly they're all horrible. There's no good guy who's side there is to be on. There's an interesting mind-fuck about that. I found myself justifying the actions of whoever I was rooting for. And then switched sides and it all started over. Secondly it's a re-interpretation of 70'ies Westerns. I love that whole period. I love that Ennio Morricone composed the music. Discordant and spooky. Just like Reservoir Dog's it's staged like a play. Each scene is in just one location, and the actors really play to the audience. If you can stomach the violence I highly recommend it.
Even though it may not be everybody's cup of tea it's undeniably a masterpiece (my opinion). Tarantino has gone back to his roots. This is similar to Reservoir Dogs. Almost the same actors. It's interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly they're all horrible. There's no good guy who's side there is to be on. There's an interesting mind-fuck about that. I found myself justifying the actions of whoever I was rooting for. And then switched sides and it all started over. Secondly it's a re-interpretation of 70'ies Westerns. I love that whole period. I love that Ennio Morricone composed the music. Discordant and spooky. Just like Reservoir Dog's it's staged like a play. Each scene is in just one location, and the actors really play to the audience. If you can stomach the violence I highly recommend it.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Sexy Beast 8/10
Poorly named(to be kind) British gangster movie about a retired gangster being pressured into pulling a robbery.
Ben Kingsley is brilliant, as good as anything DeNiro, Pacino, etc.
Very successful retro look, maybe due to low budget. I would've guessed it was filmed around 1980 instead of 2000. Some arty dream/subconscious mind type sequences.
Ian MacShane also paints a strong portrait of a basilisk eyed cockney gangster.
Poorly named(to be kind) British gangster movie about a retired gangster being pressured into pulling a robbery.
Ben Kingsley is brilliant, as good as anything DeNiro, Pacino, etc.
Very successful retro look, maybe due to low budget. I would've guessed it was filmed around 1980 instead of 2000. Some arty dream/subconscious mind type sequences.
Ian MacShane also paints a strong portrait of a basilisk eyed cockney gangster.
The Colourful Jester
Member
I found him pretty good. Not deep, just good.
Underseer
Contributor
7/10 or so? Not great, but much better than what we've seen from DC recently, and thanks to Marvel's success, they aren't shying away from the fantastical elements so much as they used to. A decent action flick with lots of comic book references for the geeks.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Don Verdean 8/10
Low key comedy about a fraudulent religious archaeologist fooling the faithful into paying for his fake digs to find old artefacts. They're not nice to religious people in this film. Fun fun fun. I recommend it to any regular on this forum. No real laugh out loud moments. It's not that kind of comedy
Low key comedy about a fraudulent religious archaeologist fooling the faithful into paying for his fake digs to find old artefacts. They're not nice to religious people in this film. Fun fun fun. I recommend it to any regular on this forum. No real laugh out loud moments. It's not that kind of comedy
It seemed to me that it was three movies crammed into one movie. There was the Man of Steel sequel, the Batman movie and the prequel for the Justice League. All three looked like they wild be quite good movies, but all three got short shrift and the whole thing just seemed kind of disjointed. It was entertaining, but it could have been a lot more.
DBT
Contributor
I thought it was reasonable. Nothing like the critics were saying. Not bad for light entertainment.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies 5/10
It's what the title says it is. The zombies aren't really part of the plot. They're just sprinkled on top of the original story. I can't really put my finger on it but the book works, The film doesn't. I think it has to do with how books are read. In the book the zombies just act to add a level of absurdity to a great, and well known, classic story. When watching the film I expect a zombie movie. It isn't. This is Pride and Prejudice. A drama of manners. So it just becomes a boring zombie movie.
It's fun how traditionally zombie movies are about how civilisation is fragile. Very little is needed to turn us into monsters. Well... in this film nothing and no degree of apocalypse ruffle the feathers of the British upper classes. Even in the midst of a zombie apocalypse people are mostly preoccupied with saving face and social status. But not that fun.
It does have a twist on the zombie genre that I like. That the zombies look like zombies before they themselves realise they're succumbing to the infection. So they behave normally not realizing how others see them. Eventually they go rabid.
But full points for trying. This is creative and they are taking risks. My hat off to them for that. The problem with taking risks is that it sometimes it fails.
It's what the title says it is. The zombies aren't really part of the plot. They're just sprinkled on top of the original story. I can't really put my finger on it but the book works, The film doesn't. I think it has to do with how books are read. In the book the zombies just act to add a level of absurdity to a great, and well known, classic story. When watching the film I expect a zombie movie. It isn't. This is Pride and Prejudice. A drama of manners. So it just becomes a boring zombie movie.
It's fun how traditionally zombie movies are about how civilisation is fragile. Very little is needed to turn us into monsters. Well... in this film nothing and no degree of apocalypse ruffle the feathers of the British upper classes. Even in the midst of a zombie apocalypse people are mostly preoccupied with saving face and social status. But not that fun.
It does have a twist on the zombie genre that I like. That the zombies look like zombies before they themselves realise they're succumbing to the infection. So they behave normally not realizing how others see them. Eventually they go rabid.
But full points for trying. This is creative and they are taking risks. My hat off to them for that. The problem with taking risks is that it sometimes it fails.
MarkW
Senior Member
White House Down
6/10
The second "Die Hard at the White House" movie from 2013. This is the one with Channing Tatum as the heroic cop/Secret Service wannabe, Jamie Foxx as the president, and home-grown extremists as the baddies. Between this and its rival film, Olympus Has Fallen, I'd say it's a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. White House Down is a little harder to swallow from a plausibility standpoint--not so much due to plot as to the staging of the action (probably the difference between Roland Emmerich directing as opposed to Antoine Fuqua). On the other hand, it works a little better as a popcorn movie than Olympus, which had two or three gratuitously violent scenes and less humor. It was also nice to see two of my favorite supporting actor types, Jason Clarke and Jimmi Simpson, in this one.
6/10
The second "Die Hard at the White House" movie from 2013. This is the one with Channing Tatum as the heroic cop/Secret Service wannabe, Jamie Foxx as the president, and home-grown extremists as the baddies. Between this and its rival film, Olympus Has Fallen, I'd say it's a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. White House Down is a little harder to swallow from a plausibility standpoint--not so much due to plot as to the staging of the action (probably the difference between Roland Emmerich directing as opposed to Antoine Fuqua). On the other hand, it works a little better as a popcorn movie than Olympus, which had two or three gratuitously violent scenes and less humor. It was also nice to see two of my favorite supporting actor types, Jason Clarke and Jimmi Simpson, in this one.
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Last House on the Left (new version)
Truth be told, I don't really know if this movie is any good. At some point IFC decided to start editing its movies like normal cable. For example, you know that "Fuck" is not going to be said on TBS or any of the major networks for that matter.
It's not that the F word is required for a movie to be good, but in a flick like this, for it to be effective, it can't be sanitized (e.g. poorly dubbed in "frick").
So fuck you IFC. I'm never watching another movie on your shitty channel again.
Anyway, the movie tried to emulate the sleazy feel of the 1970s original version, but the production values were way too good. It's one of those things that just can't be faked. Part of the impact of 1970s movies of this stripe were their pure rawness, part of which came from doing them on a severe budget. But that also lent itself to a realism that gave the viewer the feeling they were watching this shit actually happen. It was creepy and realistic.
This version, from the portion that I watched, made an earnest effort. But I don't know if it was IFC's sanitizing of the language and visuals that caused it to fail or if it would have failed anyway. If it comes on HBO or Netflix, I'll have to watch it again. Until then:
?/10
Truth be told, I don't really know if this movie is any good. At some point IFC decided to start editing its movies like normal cable. For example, you know that "Fuck" is not going to be said on TBS or any of the major networks for that matter.
It's not that the F word is required for a movie to be good, but in a flick like this, for it to be effective, it can't be sanitized (e.g. poorly dubbed in "frick").
So fuck you IFC. I'm never watching another movie on your shitty channel again.
Anyway, the movie tried to emulate the sleazy feel of the 1970s original version, but the production values were way too good. It's one of those things that just can't be faked. Part of the impact of 1970s movies of this stripe were their pure rawness, part of which came from doing them on a severe budget. But that also lent itself to a realism that gave the viewer the feeling they were watching this shit actually happen. It was creepy and realistic.
This version, from the portion that I watched, made an earnest effort. But I don't know if it was IFC's sanitizing of the language and visuals that caused it to fail or if it would have failed anyway. If it comes on HBO or Netflix, I'll have to watch it again. Until then:
?/10