-
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
- 44,390
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
JJ Abrams just doesn't understand anything that is remotely about science. For years, he has probably been losing his mind, screaming at his tv to change the channel.
- - - Updated - - -
My favorite part was when the movie went X-Files and I'm thinking, what the fuck movie am I watching right now?!
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Actually, Part 4 was much better than Part 3. When did the movie go X-Files? I must have missed that.
I think he's talking about when all the mutants started attacking them in the sewer tunnels. That was really fucking dumb and the scene was out of place even in a horribly patched together and unintelligible piece of drivel like this film.
And yes, it was better than Part 3, but that's not saying a whole lot.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,390
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Yeah, that was the part. Part 3b was better because the plot evolved and moved somewhere. Part 3a was a couple hours long and didn't feel like much actually happened. 3a wasn't bad, it just felt empty by the time the credits scrolled by. It isn't your fault Danny Strong, you were working with what you had.
The ending for 3b was about as subtle as a freight train running through the living room. I knew nothing of the book but it was so obvious where they were going with the presumed to be President.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Ah, OK. Well that part was actually in the book. The government made mutations a lot. The book was pretty specific about them, the movie glossed them over. Mockingjay is a mutant - a cross between a Mockingbird and special birds called "Jabberjays" that the government created.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
In the book, the main character Katniss is in full PTSD meltdown. She's lost everything she fought for, and is deemed emotionally unstable. She gets conflicting info from her hated enemy and it takes a lot for her to think it through. In the movie, she is fully in command. In the book, she's a scarred, injured, damaged teenage girl trying to make adult decisions when everyone has lied to her or deceived her in some way.
Well, that was probably a dumb part of the book then. Regardless of where it came from, it didn't fit into the movie at all. Or it might have - honestly, by that point I wasn't paying a hell of a lot of attention.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,390
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
See! That is why women should never be in charge.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Because women get PTSD?
Underseer
Contributor
Suicide Squad was fucking awful.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
1911 Revolution (3/10)
I thought I was watching "Beginning of the great revival". It turned out that I watch another film about the same period. Ie, the fall of the last Chinese imperial dynasty.
This film is a mess. It focuses on Sun Yat-sen. He's the Benjamin Franklin of the Chinese revolution. A brilliant man, great leader and an even better diplomat. He, more than anybody else, is the instrument that brought down the Chinese imperial system. Sun's struggle is seen through the eyes of Huang Xing (Jackie Chan). This guy was historically a bad-ass. So when Jackie Chan plays his typical Jackie Chan character it works just fine. That's the type of guy the historical Huang really was.
The problem is that they tried to fit too much into too little time. It led to a disjointed film that jumped between key scenes. I ended up not caring about anybody. It's co-written and produced and starred by Jackie Chan. It had characters that were introduced, did nothing and then at the very end Sun Yat-sen shook there hands and thanked them for all their work. "Show, don't tell" guys! Almost all the characters supporting the emperor were nothing but a name and a face Why even bother introducing them?
As for the war itself, also here, it jumped around too much. I had no idea what the objective of each battle was and how critical it was. It came across as a series of identical battle scenes where the last one just randomly was the one to carry the day. Though that is, historically correct. The Chinese revolution was a series of full blown wars which were defeated one by one until, seemingly at random, one of them simply won. It wasn't at random, but they spent way too little time to explain why this was. As a viewer it was boring to watch. No pay-off.
The films villain was Yuan Shikai. Which was a really cool dude, historically. And by cool dude I mean ruthless psychopath who didn't give a fuck. They portrayed that. But they made him a bit cartoony. He was the reason the last revolution worked. He came from the side-lines right at the end and just fucked everybody up the ass, and seized power through a military coup. He said all the revolutionary things, but didn't give a fuck. That is where the film ends. Not a satisfactory ending. Historically Yuan Shikai was a very brief figure. After seizing power he lost it about as quickly. And the mess he left after him is the reason China then had 40 years straight of nothing but all out war. This could have been explained more. Or at all.
I also don't get why they gave the empress dowager Longyu so much airtime. Ok, I get it. They managed to get Joan Chen for the film and wanted her to act the fuck out of that roll. But historically this was a largely irrelevant figure. Apart from the detail that she physically signed the paper of abdication ending the Chinese imperial system, she was nobody. She only gained her position right before this date. She only had power on paper and came too late onto the scene to matter. It was the ministers who ran the show, and had for 100+ years. The film spent almost no time explaining this, or how it worked. Or rather didn't work, hence the Chinese revolution.
To sum up, this film focused on too much in too little time, and also focused on the wrong things/characters.
I thought I was watching "Beginning of the great revival". It turned out that I watch another film about the same period. Ie, the fall of the last Chinese imperial dynasty.
This film is a mess. It focuses on Sun Yat-sen. He's the Benjamin Franklin of the Chinese revolution. A brilliant man, great leader and an even better diplomat. He, more than anybody else, is the instrument that brought down the Chinese imperial system. Sun's struggle is seen through the eyes of Huang Xing (Jackie Chan). This guy was historically a bad-ass. So when Jackie Chan plays his typical Jackie Chan character it works just fine. That's the type of guy the historical Huang really was.
The problem is that they tried to fit too much into too little time. It led to a disjointed film that jumped between key scenes. I ended up not caring about anybody. It's co-written and produced and starred by Jackie Chan. It had characters that were introduced, did nothing and then at the very end Sun Yat-sen shook there hands and thanked them for all their work. "Show, don't tell" guys! Almost all the characters supporting the emperor were nothing but a name and a face Why even bother introducing them?
As for the war itself, also here, it jumped around too much. I had no idea what the objective of each battle was and how critical it was. It came across as a series of identical battle scenes where the last one just randomly was the one to carry the day. Though that is, historically correct. The Chinese revolution was a series of full blown wars which were defeated one by one until, seemingly at random, one of them simply won. It wasn't at random, but they spent way too little time to explain why this was. As a viewer it was boring to watch. No pay-off.
The films villain was Yuan Shikai. Which was a really cool dude, historically. And by cool dude I mean ruthless psychopath who didn't give a fuck. They portrayed that. But they made him a bit cartoony. He was the reason the last revolution worked. He came from the side-lines right at the end and just fucked everybody up the ass, and seized power through a military coup. He said all the revolutionary things, but didn't give a fuck. That is where the film ends. Not a satisfactory ending. Historically Yuan Shikai was a very brief figure. After seizing power he lost it about as quickly. And the mess he left after him is the reason China then had 40 years straight of nothing but all out war. This could have been explained more. Or at all.
I also don't get why they gave the empress dowager Longyu so much airtime. Ok, I get it. They managed to get Joan Chen for the film and wanted her to act the fuck out of that roll. But historically this was a largely irrelevant figure. Apart from the detail that she physically signed the paper of abdication ending the Chinese imperial system, she was nobody. She only gained her position right before this date. She only had power on paper and came too late onto the scene to matter. It was the ministers who ran the show, and had for 100+ years. The film spent almost no time explaining this, or how it worked. Or rather didn't work, hence the Chinese revolution.
To sum up, this film focused on too much in too little time, and also focused on the wrong things/characters.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I wouldn't say that. I thought it was decent, and would give it 6.5/10
See my review in the Suicide Squad thread for more info.
rewatched Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, ..... slow paced, but the acting was excellent. It had many well known Brit actors in it. A sleeper for many. If you like Spy movies as I do, it would be 8/10, since they probably could have cut out a lot of the brooding and thinking scenes to tighten it up. No issues with the plot though. Note: this is a plotting/betrayal/traitor type spy film, not a Bourne/Bond type.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Movie was excellent. And it's not hard to follow, despite what some reviewers have said.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Angry Birds (10/10)
Holy mother of God that was a fucking hilarious movie. There's so many levels of genius in that film. Too many to count. Just see it! I haven't laughed that hard for many years. Thank you Finland for gracing us with Angry Birds.
A million billion dollars that they will make a sequel. Anybody bet against?
Holy mother of God that was a fucking hilarious movie. There's so many levels of genius in that film. Too many to count. Just see it! I haven't laughed that hard for many years. Thank you Finland for gracing us with Angry Birds.
A million billion dollars that they will make a sequel. Anybody bet against?
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Deadpool, 7/10: Stars Ryan Reynolds as a DC comic charatcer. The Deadpool character is some sort of mutated mercenary soldier that is out for revenge on the cad that mutated him. I don't get these movies at all but it was quite entertaining at times with snappy dialogue and some decent action sequences.
Sing Street, 4/10:I thought this was going to be like the 1991 movie "The Commitments" but it wasn't. It's a pretty weak love story revolving around a teenage boy in Ireland putting together a band in the 1980's. Not much to see here.
Death At a Funeral, 5/10: The 2007 British version. A farcical black comedy where bad situations just keep getting worse and more absurd.
Money Monster, 4/10: Stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts. The plot is about uncovering share price/insider trading in Wall Street by some greedy bastard that ruined the lives of many an ordinary investor. One such investor goes off at the deep end and kidnaps Clooney live on air while he is presenting his investor tips show on TV. As things progress, the plot thickens and eventually the real greedy bastard is uncovered and confronted. A pretty shit movie.
The Ones Below, 6/10Stars David Morrisey (Walking Dead) in a psychological thriller. The plot involve two couples that are both expecting children. However, an accident that occurs during a dinner party causes one of the women to fall and lose the child and the psychological games begin. It's an OK movie but the music is pretty annoying.
Sing Street, 4/10:I thought this was going to be like the 1991 movie "The Commitments" but it wasn't. It's a pretty weak love story revolving around a teenage boy in Ireland putting together a band in the 1980's. Not much to see here.
Death At a Funeral, 5/10: The 2007 British version. A farcical black comedy where bad situations just keep getting worse and more absurd.
Money Monster, 4/10: Stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts. The plot is about uncovering share price/insider trading in Wall Street by some greedy bastard that ruined the lives of many an ordinary investor. One such investor goes off at the deep end and kidnaps Clooney live on air while he is presenting his investor tips show on TV. As things progress, the plot thickens and eventually the real greedy bastard is uncovered and confronted. A pretty shit movie.
The Ones Below, 6/10Stars David Morrisey (Walking Dead) in a psychological thriller. The plot involve two couples that are both expecting children. However, an accident that occurs during a dinner party causes one of the women to fall and lose the child and the psychological games begin. It's an OK movie but the music is pretty annoying.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,253
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Finally got around to seeing Star Trek: Beyond
7/10
This is the most "Star Trek" of the new Star Trek movies. Yeah, there's Kirk on a motorcycle, yeah it features not just the Beastie Boys but Public Enemy, and yeah there's lots of action and explosions, but there's also an underlying theme that is pure Star Trek.
Our intrepid crew is exploring the frontier, but that frontier is not just physical. It is metaphorical as well. The frontier is our future, and it is unknown and clouded in mystery. To get...well...beyond that frontier, we have to confront the demons of our past.
Where the movie really shines is in the characters. The first "reboot" movie introduced them, the second put them in danger, but this one takes time to flesh them out more. Kirk, Spock, and Bones all become more like their original series counterparts, and they all grow into the characters in interesting ways.
7/10
This is the most "Star Trek" of the new Star Trek movies. Yeah, there's Kirk on a motorcycle, yeah it features not just the Beastie Boys but Public Enemy, and yeah there's lots of action and explosions, but there's also an underlying theme that is pure Star Trek.
Our intrepid crew is exploring the frontier, but that frontier is not just physical. It is metaphorical as well. The frontier is our future, and it is unknown and clouded in mystery. To get...well...beyond that frontier, we have to confront the demons of our past.
Where the movie really shines is in the characters. The first "reboot" movie introduced them, the second put them in danger, but this one takes time to flesh them out more. Kirk, Spock, and Bones all become more like their original series counterparts, and they all grow into the characters in interesting ways.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Dunno... still skeptical. I saw the second movie. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
repoman
Contributor
Mike from RedLetterMedia, who is a massive Star Trek nerd, was somewhat enthusiastic about it. He also disliked the Abrams movies.