-
Features
Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?
- Thread starter C_Mucius_Scaevola
- Start date
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Not the same kind of film. The protagonist is the Jewish barber. Not Hynkel himself. If the Great Dictator would be seen from Hynkel's perspective it would have been a valid comparison. I think that puts the finger on the problem of Cohen's Dictator. Apart a handful of dictators in the world nobody else can relate to Aladeen. We just see him as an idiot.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Deadpool. 5/10
Didn't like it. Yeah, real clever with the self referential humour. But I caught myself looking at the watch all the time. No belly laughs and the action scenes were just tedious and boring. Oh, look at all the over-the-top violence... yawn. Considering all the praise this film has gotten I wonder if I'm dead inside. After about 2/3 in I had to turn it off. If was too painful to watch. Have I become a grandpa?
Didn't like it. Yeah, real clever with the self referential humour. But I caught myself looking at the watch all the time. No belly laughs and the action scenes were just tedious and boring. Oh, look at all the over-the-top violence... yawn. Considering all the praise this film has gotten I wonder if I'm dead inside. After about 2/3 in I had to turn it off. If was too painful to watch. Have I become a grandpa?
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Not sure, do you have any grandkids?
I became a grandpa about 2 years ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was the best laugh I had at the theater (with the possible exception of RiffTrax Live performances) in decades.
PyramidHead
Contributor
I gotta agree with you for the most part. Some of the humor was so full of pop-culture references that it was dated before the movie even hit theaters. There were a few chuckle-worthy moments, and I'm glad to see that the studio is willing to do something different with the superhero movie theme, but I wouldn't see it again.
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
inside out: 3/10
pixar movie - not like it's some rarity, i don't need to explain it.
i just found it to be generally schmaltzy and far more annoyingly simplistic than i was expecting given how much praise it's gotten.
it only had 2 good jokes/cute moments that i actually smiled or laughed at, and those were within 2 minutes of each other and at the very end of the film. same for any sort of grown up emotional moment.
pixar movie - not like it's some rarity, i don't need to explain it.
i just found it to be generally schmaltzy and far more annoyingly simplistic than i was expecting given how much praise it's gotten.
it only had 2 good jokes/cute moments that i actually smiled or laughed at, and those were within 2 minutes of each other and at the very end of the film. same for any sort of grown up emotional moment.
Suite Francaise 6.5/10 - there's some films of books which work well due to cutting out the pointless crap. Alas, this one wastes a lot of time on subplots, squeezing the romance between the two main characters (and it's supposed to be a romance, not a war movie) to the point that it's too rushed. It's a shame because the acting was quite good. The ending was quite clunky too. This sort of thing has been done before and better. I was reduced to wondering what model of panzer was being depicted in a couple of scenes.
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Ouija
What a glaring piece of sub-mediocrity this one was. And the thing is, they apparently made a sequel. Here's how it goes:
Girl's sister dies. Girl finds Ouija board her now-dead sister was playing with. Girl contacts The Other Side through Ouija board, looking for departed sis, but contacts evil ghost instead. Uninteresting mayhem follows.
I suppose if you're especially desperate for a horror movie, there really are worse ones than this out there. But re-watching a horror movie you actually like is probably a much better idea.
4/10
What a glaring piece of sub-mediocrity this one was. And the thing is, they apparently made a sequel. Here's how it goes:
Girl's sister dies. Girl finds Ouija board her now-dead sister was playing with. Girl contacts The Other Side through Ouija board, looking for departed sis, but contacts evil ghost instead. Uninteresting mayhem follows.
I suppose if you're especially desperate for a horror movie, there really are worse ones than this out there. But re-watching a horror movie you actually like is probably a much better idea.
4/10
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Aren't you the problem? Horror exploits real fears we have. That's the "job" of horror. It helps us explore them.
Supernatural horror is sometimes targeted towards people with supernatural beliefs. If you don't believe in ghosts such films will fall flat.
Could that be the case? I often have the same problem when I look at supernatural horror. I find the whole idea of belief in ghosts inane. So ghosts aren't likely to stir any fears in me
James Brown
Veteran Member
Curious. I have no belief in the supernatural, but I don't like horror movies involving ghosts. Perhaps because they typically involve children in distress and some kind of disfigurement.
On the other hand, monster movies bother me not at all.
On the other hand, monster movies bother me not at all.
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
I'll agree with Dr Zoidberg there. I recently saw Rosemary's Baby,and found it less than scary. Apparently there are some people who find old people hanging around yelling 'Hail Satan!' to be scary, but I don't. It was scary while it was all just a shadowy conspiracy and Rose didn't know what was going on. The reveal was disapointing.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Kalifornia, 8/10: Stars Brad Pitt, Juliette Lewis, David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes. It's a suspense thriller that builds up very well. Duchovny and Forbes are a couple going on a cross country road trip and take two young adults with them to share the cost of gas. Pitt and Lewis put in fantastic performances. Pitt as the unstable psycho who descends into increasing levels of violence as the movie goes on and Lewis as his insecure and slightly retarded girlfriend who cannot comprehend the the severity of her situation. I would say Lewis is the star performer in this. The ending is a bit over the top and could have been done differently but overall a pretty good movie.
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
In the Heart of the Sea
This was a decent movie. Not great, not terrible; somewhere in the "It was good, but could have been better" range.
It's about the Essex, a whaling ship that was sunk at sea by one very pissed off whale. It's a true story and the one that Moby Dick was based on. The visuals are great--it looks like how you'd expect early 19th century Massachusetts would look. And it doesn't do that horrible expository thing where characters explain everything to each other so that the audience knows exactly what's going on. I'm thinking here of all the sailing stuff. How they got the ship going, what with all the sails and the tying and the cutting and shit swinging everywhere without getting everyone killed or injured is an utter mystery to me. But that's fine, I don't need to know that. I just need to see it to understand that it was a dangerous trade.
But the movie gets hurt in the first part with its subject matter. Killing whales for blubber and oil and the zest they do it with is historically accurate, but we long ago became much more aware of the damage and the cruelty involved in whale hunting, so it's hard to cheer the ship on as it does so. Their goal is to bring back 2,000 barrels of whale oil, and when you do the math, after hearing that one whale yields only about 25 barrels, the scale of the carnage really hits home. So on a sympathy scale of say, 0 to a million for the endeavors of the Essex, it lands in the minus range.
Next are the characters. The captain is a privileged prick and so there goes that. The first mate, played by Chris Hemsworth, kills whales with great gusto and is kind of an all around dick mixed with good leadership skills. At times you can sympathize with him; at others he's just a tool. And Hemsworth plays the role in a somewhat over the top manner.
Finally, there must have been a decision to keep the gore to a minimum when the crew members were cast adrift at sea. I don't want to spoil it, so I'll leave at that. But only at one time, for one split second shot do we get to see the scope of the horror. They should have done more with that.
And of course there's Ron Howard's signature sappiness that has to show up even in his best of films.
This is too long already so...
6.5/10
This was a decent movie. Not great, not terrible; somewhere in the "It was good, but could have been better" range.
It's about the Essex, a whaling ship that was sunk at sea by one very pissed off whale. It's a true story and the one that Moby Dick was based on. The visuals are great--it looks like how you'd expect early 19th century Massachusetts would look. And it doesn't do that horrible expository thing where characters explain everything to each other so that the audience knows exactly what's going on. I'm thinking here of all the sailing stuff. How they got the ship going, what with all the sails and the tying and the cutting and shit swinging everywhere without getting everyone killed or injured is an utter mystery to me. But that's fine, I don't need to know that. I just need to see it to understand that it was a dangerous trade.
But the movie gets hurt in the first part with its subject matter. Killing whales for blubber and oil and the zest they do it with is historically accurate, but we long ago became much more aware of the damage and the cruelty involved in whale hunting, so it's hard to cheer the ship on as it does so. Their goal is to bring back 2,000 barrels of whale oil, and when you do the math, after hearing that one whale yields only about 25 barrels, the scale of the carnage really hits home. So on a sympathy scale of say, 0 to a million for the endeavors of the Essex, it lands in the minus range.
Next are the characters. The captain is a privileged prick and so there goes that. The first mate, played by Chris Hemsworth, kills whales with great gusto and is kind of an all around dick mixed with good leadership skills. At times you can sympathize with him; at others he's just a tool. And Hemsworth plays the role in a somewhat over the top manner.
Finally, there must have been a decision to keep the gore to a minimum when the crew members were cast adrift at sea. I don't want to spoil it, so I'll leave at that. But only at one time, for one split second shot do we get to see the scope of the horror. They should have done more with that.
And of course there's Ron Howard's signature sappiness that has to show up even in his best of films.
This is too long already so...
6.5/10
My main problem with that movie was how the whale spent weeks stalking them. I get attacking them in order to protect its herd and sinking their ship, but the notion of a whale hiding out and holding back until they're just about to hit land and then suddenly jumping up to say "SURPRISE, FUCKERS!" and knock them out of their life boats and then follow them from the island to attack them again later (or whatever the hell it did) was just dumb. I get that fighting the giant whale was the centerpiece of their movie and they wanted to draw it out as much as possible, but it became way too Jaws 3: The Revenge way too quickly for me.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Don't like as in you like them? Or don't like as in they do nothing for you? I also prefer monster movies. It's a more plausible fear.
- - - Updated - - -
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
When I was a lad in the eighties and nineties, I wasn't allowed to watch a lot of these horror movies from those times. In recent years with netflix, I have made a point to see these movies all my friends said so much about and I never saw. Like, for example, I saw the Exorcist for the first time a couple of years ago, and found it very non scary. In general, I find even the secular movies I wasn't able to watch at the time disappointing. Films like Mad Max and Highlander and all that shit. But the supernatural and satanic shit is even worse.
James Brown
Veteran Member
I don't like them because they creep me out. I don't feel any sort of catharsis after watching them, which I presume is one reason why people like watching horror movies.
Colonel Sanders
Senior Member
Yes and no. Of course creepiness is of great importance, but what a great horror movie also does is touch some part of you in a way that no other genre of movie can. But there are an absolute dearth of great horror movies. I'd guess that maybe 15-20 great American ones have ever been made. Every year, some 5-10 really good to great movies are honored at the Oscars. In just five years that outnumbers all the great horror movies in film history--at least IMHO.
It has to be more than visual shock. Gore is easy to do (as are jump scares). Gore can be vital, but it should never play more than a supporting role. The same goes for brutality. To me, no film has ever been more brutal than Passion of the Christ. But that isn't a horror movie--it's a horror show, but one that doesn't fit into the discussion.
I guess the question that the maker of a great horror film asks is, "What aspect(s) of death truly terrifies most people?" And then they've found the answer and executed it well.
Underseer
Contributor
Zootopia was incredible.
A big theme is prejudice, and the metaphor does not play out the way you expect it to. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you end up identifying with the bigot and feeling that character's guilt. Younger kids will probably miss the significance of the theme and still enjoy it, but very good for adults and definitely go see it with older children and talk to them about the theme afterwards.
A big theme is prejudice, and the metaphor does not play out the way you expect it to. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you end up identifying with the bigot and feeling that character's guilt. Younger kids will probably miss the significance of the theme and still enjoy it, but very good for adults and definitely go see it with older children and talk to them about the theme afterwards.