-
Features
Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?
- Thread starter C_Mucius_Scaevola
- Start date
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,759
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
And in this universe, that is what we people call a SPOILER!!!
The timeline stopped working after X-Men 3.
The Colourful Jester
Member
Yes, but not much of a spoiler, trust me. And there's a tidy line about third movies (in general) in the film as well.
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
The Witch
A religious fanatic, even by the Pilgrim's standards, ends up getting himself and his family banished from the colony for his zealotry. The eventually find a place to settle down go about farming the land and whatnot. Eventually, evil things start to happen.
Because this is a pretty good movie, I don't want to go into anymore detail than that. It's easy to spoil it. Suffice it to say that it's well shot, well acted, and has a very realistic feel to it. It's a very subtle film with a lot of subtext that allows you to put yourself into the shoes of each character. All the pace is initially slow, it steadily throttles upward until the end.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror movie, then this is a really good one. I suspect it didn't do well at the box office because the language used by the actors sticks hard to late middle/early modern English, which at times can make some of the dialogue hard to understand. But one would have to be truly thick to not understand what's happening. The taboos are clear, the family dynamics obvious, and the creepiness ever present.
8/10
A religious fanatic, even by the Pilgrim's standards, ends up getting himself and his family banished from the colony for his zealotry. The eventually find a place to settle down go about farming the land and whatnot. Eventually, evil things start to happen.
Because this is a pretty good movie, I don't want to go into anymore detail than that. It's easy to spoil it. Suffice it to say that it's well shot, well acted, and has a very realistic feel to it. It's a very subtle film with a lot of subtext that allows you to put yourself into the shoes of each character. All the pace is initially slow, it steadily throttles upward until the end.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror movie, then this is a really good one. I suspect it didn't do well at the box office because the language used by the actors sticks hard to late middle/early modern English, which at times can make some of the dialogue hard to understand. But one would have to be truly thick to not understand what's happening. The taboos are clear, the family dynamics obvious, and the creepiness ever present.
8/10
13 Hours 4/10
The color is oversaturated to give the effect of sweltering heat. I could do without that. They used the effect indoors and it didn't work. Neither did the constant blurring they used. I guess sand and mirages are blurry, so they thought they'd try to be artistic and failed.
No performer takes control. Several of the actors could be very good alone, but together they just seemed to cancel each other out. They needed one huge actor to allow the shittier actors to fall into orbit. Not very good direction.
The biggest problem with the movie was not following the isis end of the story. I can sympathize with actors playing isis without sympathizing with isis. They could have given us a morsel of insight, but no. Brown people with praying mats are all out to kill me because Budweiser and mud flap. Trust no one.
A hundred badly dressed barbarians led by a few suave, handsome and mysterious brown men. That is what isis is apparently. They throw sheep when they're out of bullets and they never stop coming. They're the Michael Myers of brown people and I should be very afraid. They spent 50 million dollars to tell rednecks in America that isis is bad - Marines are awesome - go bravery - USA. Go. Yay.
The violence in the movie is the best thing about watching it. I got nothing else from it. Some scenes had incredible CGi. One scene followed the path of an rpg through the air in a way I've never seen filmed. The messy violence didn't disappoint me and it was honestly the only reason I made it to the credits.
It didn't play like outright propaganda like Angry Birds does, but it still didn't do any favors for the awareness of the American public, or the world. They are of course two separate things. America and the world.
Also, I don't see any sort of victory in the story.
The color is oversaturated to give the effect of sweltering heat. I could do without that. They used the effect indoors and it didn't work. Neither did the constant blurring they used. I guess sand and mirages are blurry, so they thought they'd try to be artistic and failed.
No performer takes control. Several of the actors could be very good alone, but together they just seemed to cancel each other out. They needed one huge actor to allow the shittier actors to fall into orbit. Not very good direction.
The biggest problem with the movie was not following the isis end of the story. I can sympathize with actors playing isis without sympathizing with isis. They could have given us a morsel of insight, but no. Brown people with praying mats are all out to kill me because Budweiser and mud flap. Trust no one.
A hundred badly dressed barbarians led by a few suave, handsome and mysterious brown men. That is what isis is apparently. They throw sheep when they're out of bullets and they never stop coming. They're the Michael Myers of brown people and I should be very afraid. They spent 50 million dollars to tell rednecks in America that isis is bad - Marines are awesome - go bravery - USA. Go. Yay.
The violence in the movie is the best thing about watching it. I got nothing else from it. Some scenes had incredible CGi. One scene followed the path of an rpg through the air in a way I've never seen filmed. The messy violence didn't disappoint me and it was honestly the only reason I made it to the credits.
It didn't play like outright propaganda like Angry Birds does, but it still didn't do any favors for the awareness of the American public, or the world. They are of course two separate things. America and the world.
Also, I don't see any sort of victory in the story.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Fall of Ming 6/10
It's about the events leading up to the fall of the Ming dynasty (16'th century China). It's got plenty wrong with it. Still liked it. I think it's something about the inbuilt tension. It's a bit like Der Untergang, where you know it'll end in shit. Which keeps it interesting. Also, it's a Chinese film. Anything not Hollywood gets points for feeling fresh. But objectively speaking, I shouldn't have enjoyed it as much as I did. It's far from a perfect historical production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgRMteY-o0k
It's about the events leading up to the fall of the Ming dynasty (16'th century China). It's got plenty wrong with it. Still liked it. I think it's something about the inbuilt tension. It's a bit like Der Untergang, where you know it'll end in shit. Which keeps it interesting. Also, it's a Chinese film. Anything not Hollywood gets points for feeling fresh. But objectively speaking, I shouldn't have enjoyed it as much as I did. It's far from a perfect historical production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgRMteY-o0k
MarkW
Senior Member
Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
8/10
This fifth installment in the now 20 year old MI film series is highly entertaining, in my view the second best in the series behind Ghost Protocol. A realistic spy film it is not, but director-writer Christopher McQuarrie delivers plenty of intricate and exciting set-pieces and a twisty plot (plus a pace that is generally fast enough that you don't notice the plot holes all that much). Tom Cruise has really grown into the role of superspy Ethan Hunt over the years, Rebecca Ferguson is a nice addition to the crew, and I give this one some extra props for having one of the big action sequences at the Vienna State Opera during a performance of Turandot (anything to give people a bit of exposure to opera).
8/10
This fifth installment in the now 20 year old MI film series is highly entertaining, in my view the second best in the series behind Ghost Protocol. A realistic spy film it is not, but director-writer Christopher McQuarrie delivers plenty of intricate and exciting set-pieces and a twisty plot (plus a pace that is generally fast enough that you don't notice the plot holes all that much). Tom Cruise has really grown into the role of superspy Ethan Hunt over the years, Rebecca Ferguson is a nice addition to the crew, and I give this one some extra props for having one of the big action sequences at the Vienna State Opera during a performance of Turandot (anything to give people a bit of exposure to opera).
X-Men apocalypse - 7/10 - I found this rather longwinded; one or two bright spots but the diffuse exposition didn't work for me. I did quite like the fight at the end, but it took a bit too long to get there. How I wish we could go back to X-Men II, this is nowhere near as good as that.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
The Last Man on the Moon
That would be Gene Cernan, the subject of this very good documentary (available on Netflix).
He didn't just walk on the Moon, either. He drove on the Moon, left a little graffiti on the Moon, and previously had orbited the Moon on Apollo 10 and space walked on Gemini 9.
It touches on things that (IMO) have sort of dropped out of the public consciousness about the Moon shot. Like the Gemini flights, which were test beds for everything. The early Apollo missions like 10 - which did everything but land on the Moon. It gave you a sense of everything prior to "one small step" being Moon landing practice, which of course it was. It also gave insight into the tight knit community of astronauts, including interview clips with Dick Gordon (Apollo 12) and a heartbreaking interview with Martha Chaffee, who's husband was killed in the Apollo 1 fire.
The movie didn't really spend a lot of time on the actual Apollo 17 flight itself, but it didn't need to. It was about the man, not the mission.
8/10
That would be Gene Cernan, the subject of this very good documentary (available on Netflix).
He didn't just walk on the Moon, either. He drove on the Moon, left a little graffiti on the Moon, and previously had orbited the Moon on Apollo 10 and space walked on Gemini 9.
It touches on things that (IMO) have sort of dropped out of the public consciousness about the Moon shot. Like the Gemini flights, which were test beds for everything. The early Apollo missions like 10 - which did everything but land on the Moon. It gave you a sense of everything prior to "one small step" being Moon landing practice, which of course it was. It also gave insight into the tight knit community of astronauts, including interview clips with Dick Gordon (Apollo 12) and a heartbreaking interview with Martha Chaffee, who's husband was killed in the Apollo 1 fire.
The movie didn't really spend a lot of time on the actual Apollo 17 flight itself, but it didn't need to. It was about the man, not the mission.
8/10
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/where_to_invade_next/
I have not seen all of Moore,s movies.I like this one.
However,as great are the ideas in this movie,it will never work in the USA.Be it the problem of scale or the vast diversity of USA,or just stubbornness.We may be the biggest and baddest but,by far not the best!
I have not seen all of Moore,s movies.I like this one.
However,as great are the ideas in this movie,it will never work in the USA.Be it the problem of scale or the vast diversity of USA,or just stubbornness.We may be the biggest and baddest but,by far not the best!
MarkW
Senior Member
3:10 to Yuma (1957 version)
8/10
A solid western which was one of the first feature films adapted from the writings of Elmore Leonard (along with The Tall T from the same year). Glenn Ford and Van Heflin are very good as the outlaw determined to avoid the train of the title (which will return him to prison) and the rancher equally determined to get him on that train.
8/10
A solid western which was one of the first feature films adapted from the writings of Elmore Leonard (along with The Tall T from the same year). Glenn Ford and Van Heflin are very good as the outlaw determined to avoid the train of the title (which will return him to prison) and the rancher equally determined to get him on that train.
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
Jupiter Rising
So this movie bombed and was widely panned by critics, both amateur and professional. And it did suck. However, it didn't suck any worse than the latest Star Wars movie. The CGI, makeup, and sets were great and the story combined the classic fairy tale theme of a down and out person discovering they're actually someone very important with the modern superhero craze. The problem was its execution.
A lot of times, you can't really tell what's happening and why or more importantly, why Jupiter Jones is important to any of it. She's this kind of passive ignoramus who's greatest strength seems to be having the luck to be rescued at least three times by a guy with super advanced rollerblades. This movie could have been subtitled "Rollerblades in Space" and it would have been entirely appropriate.
But again, I fail to see how it was that much worse than the Ironman series or any of its similar ilk. Rollerblades in Space vs. Building Supersuit Out of Spare Parts in Cave just aren't that different.
4/10
So this movie bombed and was widely panned by critics, both amateur and professional. And it did suck. However, it didn't suck any worse than the latest Star Wars movie. The CGI, makeup, and sets were great and the story combined the classic fairy tale theme of a down and out person discovering they're actually someone very important with the modern superhero craze. The problem was its execution.
A lot of times, you can't really tell what's happening and why or more importantly, why Jupiter Jones is important to any of it. She's this kind of passive ignoramus who's greatest strength seems to be having the luck to be rescued at least three times by a guy with super advanced rollerblades. This movie could have been subtitled "Rollerblades in Space" and it would have been entirely appropriate.
But again, I fail to see how it was that much worse than the Ironman series or any of its similar ilk. Rollerblades in Space vs. Building Supersuit Out of Spare Parts in Cave just aren't that different.
4/10
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
X-MEN: 2/10
this was pretty much just an absolute bullshit movie from top to bottom and a complete failure on every conceivable level: the screenplay was garbage, the story/narrative either didn't exist or was just a random jumble of redundant exposition, it had some of the worst dialogue i've ever heard in a major motion picture, and they so utterly fucked up the character of Apocalypse i was genuinely impressed by their ineptitude.
this definitely goes along with origins: wolverine and X3 to create the new low point of x-men related movies, and if it weren't for the fact that i already subjected myself to the toxic steaming pile of shit that is Interstellar i'd say this was the worst movie i'd seen since... probably since 47 ronin.
this was pretty much just an absolute bullshit movie from top to bottom and a complete failure on every conceivable level: the screenplay was garbage, the story/narrative either didn't exist or was just a random jumble of redundant exposition, it had some of the worst dialogue i've ever heard in a major motion picture, and they so utterly fucked up the character of Apocalypse i was genuinely impressed by their ineptitude.
this definitely goes along with origins: wolverine and X3 to create the new low point of x-men related movies, and if it weren't for the fact that i already subjected myself to the toxic steaming pile of shit that is Interstellar i'd say this was the worst movie i'd seen since... probably since 47 ronin.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,759
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Ouch.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
The Zero Theorem
Starring Christoph Waltz, David Thewlis, Matt Damon, and Tilda Swinton. Directed by Terry Gilliam.
This is full-on Gilliam featuring the above actors (and the radiant Melanie Thierry) in a story about a near future that is just so...Gilliam.
Imagine the future world of 12 Monkeys if the plague hadn't happened (or hadn't been as bad) mixed with the future world of Brazil without so much fascism. Waltz's Qohen Leth is a loner. A drone who lives in an old church and works at a mindless job which nonetheless also requires him to be brilliant. Which he is, but he's at once tormented by his lonely existence and comforted by it, so when his boss (Thewlis, who consistently forgets his name) assigns him an important task from Management (Damon) he demands to be allowed to work from home so he doesn't have to interact with anyone.
The opposite happens, and he's constantly pestered by Thierry's sex-worker (who has been hired by the boss) as well as "Bob" (Management's genius son), and Dr. Shrink-rom (Swinton), a virtual psychotherapist who has been assigned to analyze Qohen at seemingly the most inconvenient times.
All this drives him further away from being able to complete his task - crunching data in order to help solve the Zero Theorem - and find meaning in his own life which he thinks is coming in the form of a phone call.
If you like Gilliam, this is a decent movie. It is filled with his directorial quirks, and oozes his artistic sensibilities. It is also a hot mess, which will render it almost unwatchable for non-Gilliam fans.
Starring Christoph Waltz, David Thewlis, Matt Damon, and Tilda Swinton. Directed by Terry Gilliam.
This is full-on Gilliam featuring the above actors (and the radiant Melanie Thierry) in a story about a near future that is just so...Gilliam.
Imagine the future world of 12 Monkeys if the plague hadn't happened (or hadn't been as bad) mixed with the future world of Brazil without so much fascism. Waltz's Qohen Leth is a loner. A drone who lives in an old church and works at a mindless job which nonetheless also requires him to be brilliant. Which he is, but he's at once tormented by his lonely existence and comforted by it, so when his boss (Thewlis, who consistently forgets his name) assigns him an important task from Management (Damon) he demands to be allowed to work from home so he doesn't have to interact with anyone.
The opposite happens, and he's constantly pestered by Thierry's sex-worker (who has been hired by the boss) as well as "Bob" (Management's genius son), and Dr. Shrink-rom (Swinton), a virtual psychotherapist who has been assigned to analyze Qohen at seemingly the most inconvenient times.
All this drives him further away from being able to complete his task - crunching data in order to help solve the Zero Theorem - and find meaning in his own life which he thinks is coming in the form of a phone call.
If you like Gilliam, this is a decent movie. It is filled with his directorial quirks, and oozes his artistic sensibilities. It is also a hot mess, which will render it almost unwatchable for non-Gilliam fans.
MarkW
Senior Member
The Pirates of Penzance
7/10
This one is a mixed bag, and if you're not a Gilbert and Sullivan fan you might rate it lower. It's a film adaptation of Joseph Papp's stage version of the G&S operetta, which was all the rage back at the start of the 1980s. Papp's version featured a re-arranged, synthesizer-heavy version of Sullivan's score, which may not be to all tastes, and he cast pop stars Linda Ronstadt and Rex Smith as the romantic leads, both of whom returned for the film. The film also features some heavy-handed physical comedy and some awkward editing. On the plus side, you have, first and foremost, Kevin Kline as a fantastic Pirate King--he is totally into the role and makes it his own, and he sings very well. Ronstadt sings beautifully--she had an amazing set of pipes back in the day--and George Rose is a very good "modern Major General," although he is deprived of one verse of his signature song.
7/10
This one is a mixed bag, and if you're not a Gilbert and Sullivan fan you might rate it lower. It's a film adaptation of Joseph Papp's stage version of the G&S operetta, which was all the rage back at the start of the 1980s. Papp's version featured a re-arranged, synthesizer-heavy version of Sullivan's score, which may not be to all tastes, and he cast pop stars Linda Ronstadt and Rex Smith as the romantic leads, both of whom returned for the film. The film also features some heavy-handed physical comedy and some awkward editing. On the plus side, you have, first and foremost, Kevin Kline as a fantastic Pirate King--he is totally into the role and makes it his own, and he sings very well. Ronstadt sings beautifully--she had an amazing set of pipes back in the day--and George Rose is a very good "modern Major General," although he is deprived of one verse of his signature song.
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
The Fog (2005 version)
I was just up the coast and it was nice and foggy at times so I felt the need to watch this movie, anticipating shittiness all the way through. And boy it delivered.
It's not exactly a shot by shot of the original, which was on the weakest end of the cool spectrum, but it tends to stay kind of true to it, but still manages to fuck up what should have been an easy improvement.
Anyway, a wooden clipper ship with sick people aboard is robbed of its gold and then sunk by greedy townies on an island just off the coast of Oregon (it was California in the original). The ghosts of the dead then come back decades later to take revenge and get their gold back.
This type of movie should be like spaghetti; hard to fuck up and satisfying. But it isn't. Stupid people do stupid things and while the ghosts can instantly ancient-ify one person into a crispy skeleton just by touching them, they don't bother to employ that power with everyone. They can also make the lights go out and shut down cars, except for the hero's somehow ghostly-fog resistant vehicle.
And in one scene the heroine's car is pushed off a cliff and into the sea. First, the windows are shattered and blown out before the car's in the water. When it hits the water the windows are still out and it sinks rapidly. But then once it's underwater, the cabin of the car starts to slowly fill up with water---the windows are back in place. Then when it fills up, she eventually frees herself and swims out of the once again broken window. Then a fog ghost grabs her ankle and tries to pull her back under, but unlike with the other character, this ghost doesn't have the deadly touch and she kicks her way free. A few minutes later she appears with her hair and clothes completely dry.
WHY??? Why, why, why, why, why, why, why??? How hard is it to be consistent?
Fuck this movie
1/10
I was just up the coast and it was nice and foggy at times so I felt the need to watch this movie, anticipating shittiness all the way through. And boy it delivered.
It's not exactly a shot by shot of the original, which was on the weakest end of the cool spectrum, but it tends to stay kind of true to it, but still manages to fuck up what should have been an easy improvement.
Anyway, a wooden clipper ship with sick people aboard is robbed of its gold and then sunk by greedy townies on an island just off the coast of Oregon (it was California in the original). The ghosts of the dead then come back decades later to take revenge and get their gold back.
This type of movie should be like spaghetti; hard to fuck up and satisfying. But it isn't. Stupid people do stupid things and while the ghosts can instantly ancient-ify one person into a crispy skeleton just by touching them, they don't bother to employ that power with everyone. They can also make the lights go out and shut down cars, except for the hero's somehow ghostly-fog resistant vehicle.
And in one scene the heroine's car is pushed off a cliff and into the sea. First, the windows are shattered and blown out before the car's in the water. When it hits the water the windows are still out and it sinks rapidly. But then once it's underwater, the cabin of the car starts to slowly fill up with water---the windows are back in place. Then when it fills up, she eventually frees herself and swims out of the once again broken window. Then a fog ghost grabs her ankle and tries to pull her back under, but unlike with the other character, this ghost doesn't have the deadly touch and she kicks her way free. A few minutes later she appears with her hair and clothes completely dry.
WHY??? Why, why, why, why, why, why, why??? How hard is it to be consistent?
Fuck this movie
1/10
Underseer
Contributor
Seriously? As bad as Wolverine: Origins?
Can't say I agree. It's not the greatest X-Men movie, but it's pretty decent by X-Men standards, which sadly is no longer that good ever since Marvel raised the bar. Apocalypse is a silly villain anyway, but the film did better than I expected given the shitty source material. I was surprisingly entertained.
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
i thought so, yes - in fact the two movies have a fair number of notable similarities, both abstract and literal: as an example both movies feature what is basically a cameo by The Blob where all he does is get beat up by someone.
but both have horrible screenplays, the dialogue is hilariously atrocious, the timelines make no sense in relation to the other movies that are supposed to share a continuity, and they're both a massive ruining of good characters.
x-men, x2, and days of future past are all fairly decent.
x3, first class, origins, and apocalypse are most definitely absolute shit.
which you stated in the thread for this film, and as i stated Apocalypse is one of my favorite comic book villains of all time - so i suppose you could chalk that up to a perception of the character, but my friend (who isn't into comics at all but is a hefty nerd) also thought the movie was utterly abysmal on a purely technical level, so i don't think it's all geek bias.