Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

[The Colourful Jester]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/13/12466234/kenny-baker-r2d2-star-wars-robot-obituary

Perhaps if we watch one film today it should be one of the first six Star Wars movies. ??????

RIP K.Baker.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Dunno... still skeptical. I saw the second movie. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Ugh.

Star Trek: Beyond...ummmm. Let's just say by comparison, Star Trek: Into Darkness was a masterpiece.

5/10

It was slow, had plot holes you could drive starships through and the bad guys were WTF?

See here,

Show

it's been 3 years since the Enterprise has been exploring deep space and Kirk is bored because - wait for it - deep space is just full of empty space.

It brings him down and depresses him and he's not much of a diplomat so being diplomatic bores him. So he puts in for a desk job when they stop at a supercool new space station (which is so huge, it makes you wonder how fast they can build such places in the future) which is completely totally not his style at all. While there, a victim shows up and needs help rescuing her crew from a planet in a nebula where they crashed. Kirk agrees to take her to the planet since the Enterprise has the best direction sensing.

They arrive and get attacked by weapons and ships that can get completely inside their shields. The Enterprise is boarded and the bad guys - who seem to number in the tens of thousands - kidnap all the crew while the leader is looking for a doohicky that was part of their last failed diplomatic mission that the crew kept as a souvenir as opposed to returning it. How the bad guys found out about it is anyone's guess. The ship is then destroyed and the crew scattered over the planet in life boats which then the bad guys capture. Except they're scattered within a mile or so of each other.

The bad guy leader seems to want to talk to someone besides the 10,000 man army he has so he drags Uhura everywhere and explains everything that's going on to her, so the audience doesn't get lost. Then our heroes manage to find each other and with the help of a motorcycle that's nearly 100 years old and still uses wheels, the ignition of the 'fuel' the Enterprises uses, and good ole rock n roll they escape and defeat the bad guy, who turns out to be a Federation officer suffering PTSD, the side effects of an alien technology and a killer complex who really needed a pysch eval before the Federation gave him a starship to command. His big plan is to kill the people he thought abandoned him...

That's it. That's the big story. Like the 1st Star Trek reboot, it's one man with an agenda who goes to A LOT OF TROUBLE for revenge. Yes, it's another revenge story.

My sister who was with me said, "It looks like a nice planet. Pretty, plenty of water, forests and fresh air. You'd think they'd start building houses and farming over the years. Settle down, you know?"

It was bad. Amusing at times, there were some funny parts but for the most part, lame.

Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin deserved better.

Let this be the end.

 

[Thomas II]

Has anybody seen this? "Don't think twice", by Mike Birbiglia

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I watched Pride and Prejudice and Zombies against my will but enjoyed it 7/10

 

[DrZoidberg]

Beginning of the Great Revival (8/10)
or
The Founding of a Party

I'm continuing my journey into high-production Chinese film. This one is about the context which led to the formation of the Chinese communist party. This too is a propaganda piece produced by the Chinese government. This is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, it's fun to see (another) high-production propaganda piece that isn't produced by Hollywood and is pro-USA. Secondly I'm interested in the period.

Acting is top-notch. Well written. Filming is great. Plenty of funny scenes. The villain this time around is Yuan Shikai. And boy is he evil. When one of his plots was foiled he picked up a goldfish from a fishbowl just to see it gasp for air. He didn't laugh evily. But he might as well have. Emperor Pu-Yi, even though he was only 11 years old... already evil. Amusing himself with harassing and humiliating his underlings. I should say this is pretty subtle though. So it keeps from becoming comic.

Even though this is an exceedingly complex period, they were good at sorting it out. So it never got confusing. All interesting to watch, and really well filmed. They were also good at showing how complicated life was for people in general. This was truly a revolutionary period, with massive insecurities. The revolution could have gone any way really. A couple of times they did explain, in dialogue, the inevitability of the communist take-over. But that's not what they showed. I liked that.

I learned a lot. Even though I knew this history very well, this allowed me to get a greater understanding of how it all was connected. The Chinese Communist Party was founded in 1921 by a bunch of newly graduated university students who all had been studying during the time the Russian revolution happened. A university was the most informed environment to be in pre-Internet times. The Russian Komintern was involved in helping the fledgling Chinese communist organize. Just practical stuff. Practical stuff young intellectuals aren't good at. I just hadn't thought of this before. Kind of obvious really. I just hadn't.

But for the propaganda. The film showed Mao so dedicated to his studies that he didn't join in with his friends. The truth was that Mao was from the country, and everybody else at uni were sophisticated urbanites who looked down on him. I'm sure that helped form his political ideology. But it's a propaganda piece. So obviously they spun everything in Mao's favor.

Another thing I hadn't appreciated before was the importance of Mao's height. He was 1.8 meters and fit as fuck. Which is true. Which is damn tall by Chinese standards. He could physically bully anybody into submission. Which he did. Also had a lot of sex with ladies. In the film, seeing everybody just reaching Mao's chin, and a lot of people commenting his height, demonstrated the importance of it. Stuff like this is much easier to understand when seeing it on screen.

They also made a point of that Mao is the only leader in the early communist movement who in any way shape or form isn't a middle-Class urbanite. Not super in-your-face, but once I noticed it was clear they were trying to show this. Not that Mao came from humble beginnings. Mao's father did. He was a self made man. But rich. So Mao grew up wealthy. But still from the country. They showed none of this. In this film Mao was from a poor farming family.

The film ends with the communist party forming. During this whole period communists were horribly persecuted. That is true. You can't really spin that anymore for propaganda purposes. And this was before the communists had really done anything. So I have no doubt that part was all accurate. And there was loads and loads they didn't show. They mostly stuck with the people around Mao, and a brief bit about Zhou Enlai (who organised communist uprisings independently).

I hope they keep making these. I've enjoyed both of them. "The foundation of a Republic" and this one. Both have been a very brief snapshot into a critical moment in recent Chinese history. But Chinese recent history has been so tumultuous that there's no shortage of candidates of events worth telling about.

A funny detail is that the reception in China was stellar. It could have something to do with explicit instructions by the government not to criticize the film. Lol. I'm also sure the government gave away a lot of tickets to bolster the sales. It's a bit boring to read reviews about this on the net. Most are politically motivated. Me personally, I have no trouble turning off bits of my brain, if it helps me enjoy a otherwise fun movie.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Jason Bourne - 2/10

I enjoyed the first three Bourne movies; they exceeded my low expectations. And they look so much better when compared to this clusterfark. I've seen better plots in FORTRAN manuals. And Matt Damon apparently lost his interest in acting while he was stranded on Mars. Tommy Lee Jones is the only halfway interesting thing to watch, but he's so damn ugly at this point that even that got old.

BTW, if you are prone to motion sickness, do not watch this movie on a big screen. Like everything else in this disaster, the constant camera movement/shake that was interesting/quirky in the earlier films has now been cranked up to 11. You will lose your lunch.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

About Time - 7/10

Surprisingly good for a romantic comedy. It's about this guy who has his dad casually tell him one day that men in his family can travel back in time. This allows him a number of do-overs for regrettable or awkward situations where he can just say "Excuse me one moment" and go give it another shot. He meets and falls in love with this girl one evening but has to go back and redo that evening in order to help out a friend of his, so this girl never met him. He then runs around trying again and again to find her and recreate the connection with her and they eventually fall in love.

It starts out very funny with the humour of the do-over abilities and the conflict of what choices to make about them done quite well. It also ends strong with his learning the lessons about how to enjoy life as it is and not try and fix everything, etc, fairly nice. The middle of the movie was kind of a mess, though, and it seemed that they knew where to begin and where to finish but didn't have much of an idea how to transition between the two. It's worth watching, but about 45 minutes in, you can fast forward for half an hour and not miss anything.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Jason Bourne - 2/10

I enjoyed the first three Bourne movies; they exceeded my low expectations. And they look so much better when compared to this clusterfark. I've seen better plots in FORTRAN manuals. And Matt Damon apparently lost his interest in acting while he was stranded on Mars. Tommy Lee Jones is the only halfway interesting thing to watch, but he's so damn ugly at this point that even that got old.

BTW, if you are prone to motion sickness, do not watch this movie on a big screen. Like everything else in this disaster, the constant camera movement/shake that was interesting/quirky in the earlier films has now been cranked up to 11. You will lose your lunch.

Actually if you watch the first film there's not much "shaky cam" at all with Doug Liman behind the wheel. The fight scenes were done very well, and you could tell how choreographed they were due to a steadier hand on the camera. When the sequel came and the director changed, shaky-cam was brought in and everything became a mess.

 

[DBT]

Jason Bourne - 2/10

I enjoyed the first three Bourne movies; they exceeded my low expectations. And they look so much better when compared to this clusterfark. I've seen better plots in FORTRAN manuals. And Matt Damon apparently lost his interest in acting while he was stranded on Mars. Tommy Lee Jones is the only halfway interesting thing to watch, but he's so damn ugly at this point that even that got old.

BTW, if you are prone to motion sickness, do not watch this movie on a big screen. Like everything else in this disaster, the constant camera movement/shake that was interesting/quirky in the earlier films has now been cranked up to 11. You will lose your lunch.

It's bad. Even when Bourne is doing nothing than checking data on his phone, the camera shakes to the point where the words are illegible. I don't think there's a moment in the movie without excessive shaking.

The odd thing is, if I remember correctly, the previews for the movie don't appear to have been done with shaky cam. Bloody false advertising!

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Jason Bourne - 2/10

I enjoyed the first three Bourne movies; they exceeded my low expectations. And they look so much better when compared to this clusterfark. I've seen better plots in FORTRAN manuals. And Matt Damon apparently lost his interest in acting while he was stranded on Mars. Tommy Lee Jones is the only halfway interesting thing to watch, but he's so damn ugly at this point that even that got old.

BTW, if you are prone to motion sickness, do not watch this movie on a big screen. Like everything else in this disaster, the constant camera movement/shake that was interesting/quirky in the earlier films has now been cranked up to 11. You will lose your lunch.

It's bad. Even when Bourne is doing nothing than checking data on his phone, the camera shakes to the point where the words are illegible. I don't think there's a moment in the movie without excessive shaking.

The odd thing is, if I remember correctly, the previews for the movie don't appear to have been done with shaky cam. Bloody false advertising!

I think the initial fight scene shows a different camera angle in the movie than it did in the preview. It's as if they were ashamed of the final cut (as they should be).

- - - Updated - - -

Jason Bourne - 2/10

I enjoyed the first three Bourne movies; they exceeded my low expectations. And they look so much better when compared to this clusterfark. I've seen better plots in FORTRAN manuals. And Matt Damon apparently lost his interest in acting while he was stranded on Mars. Tommy Lee Jones is the only halfway interesting thing to watch, but he's so damn ugly at this point that even that got old.

BTW, if you are prone to motion sickness, do not watch this movie on a big screen. Like everything else in this disaster, the constant camera movement/shake that was interesting/quirky in the earlier films has now been cranked up to 11. You will lose your lunch.

Actually if you watch the first film there's not much "shaky cam" at all with Doug Liman behind the wheel. The fight scenes were done very well, and you could tell how choreographed they were due to a steadier hand on the camera. When the sequel came and the director changed, shaky-cam was brought in and everything became a mess.

You're right about the first one. But at least it was tolerable for me in 2 and 3.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jason Bourne - 2/10

I enjoyed the first three Bourne movies; they exceeded my low expectations. And they look so much better when compared to this clusterfark. I've seen better plots in FORTRAN manuals. And Matt Damon apparently lost his interest in acting while he was stranded on Mars. Tommy Lee Jones is the only halfway interesting thing to watch, but he's so damn ugly at this point that even that got old.

BTW, if you are prone to motion sickness, do not watch this movie on a big screen. Like everything else in this disaster, the constant camera movement/shake that was interesting/quirky in the earlier films has now been cranked up to 11. You will lose your lunch.

I've always felt that the shaky cam complaints were overdone, but maybe I just can take the visual input better. It is a shame to read that the latest film isn't good. My main concern was Bourne becoming like John MacClaine, where as he becomes less destructible than Ultron.

Looks like I'll be waiting for this film on disc.

 

[none]

And what is it with the heavy breathing?
Chris pine was doing it the whole time in star trek out of darkness
And
Matt Damon seemed to be doing it a whole bunch in the first Bourne
I'm just noticing it a lot I guess but it seems that heavy breathing is not acting

 

[DrZoidberg]

City of Ember 9/10

A Children's adventure film from 2008. It's a classic dystopian theme where a bunch of people seal themselves into a bunker and await a ruined Earth to heal itself. The twist in this one is that the people in the bunker have forgotten about the outside world. I thought this was awesome. I had a great time watching it. Great acting. A star studded cast. Scenery is awesome. I really got into it. Apparently it bombed. I don't get why. I'm guessing it was bad timing? The world being in a financial crisis at the time of it's release. Because the film is solid IMHO.

Flight of the navigator (6/10)

This is a 1986 film about a boy who disappears for 8 years and then reappears in 1986 as if nothing has happened, and hasn't aged a day. There's also a crashed spaceship, and the two are connected. I saw this as a child, and it made a huge impression on me. I've had so many games and fantasies about being that boy. The problem was that I forgot the name of the film. So I've spent countless hours going through 80'ies teen sci-fi movies trying to find it again. So I'm really happy now, that I found it. Awesome.

It is a bad film though. The story makes no sense. So contrived. The dialogue is awful. The cheese pours off the screen. Don't watch this unless you have a thing of 80'ies sci-fi. This is so typical of it's age.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, I remember that one. I could have saved you the trouble. Do you have any others you are looking for?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Flight of the navigator (6/10)

This is a 1986 film about a boy who disappears for 8 years and then reappears in 1986 as if nothing has happened, and hasn't aged a day. There's also a crashed spaceship, and the two are connected. I saw this as a child, and it made a huge impression on me. I've had so many games and fantasies about being that boy. The problem was that I forgot the name of the film. So I've spent countless hours going through 80'ies teen sci-fi movies trying to find it again. So I'm really happy now, that I found it. Awesome.

It is a bad film though. The story makes no sense. So contrived. The dialogue is awful. The cheese pours off the screen. Don't watch this unless you have a thing of 80'ies sci-fi. This is so typical of it's age.

It was a movie of its time (not nearly as much special effects), made with kids in mind. You can't reproduce that experience.

It is kind of like Ewoks. Fucking awesome if you are 10 years old. Gun to the head if an adult.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Flight of the navigator (6/10)

This is a 1986 film about a boy who disappears for 8 years and then reappears in 1986 as if nothing has happened, and hasn't aged a day. There's also a crashed spaceship, and the two are connected. I saw this as a child, and it made a huge impression on me. I've had so many games and fantasies about being that boy. The problem was that I forgot the name of the film. So I've spent countless hours going through 80'ies teen sci-fi movies trying to find it again. So I'm really happy now, that I found it. Awesome.

It is a bad film though. The story makes no sense. So contrived. The dialogue is awful. The cheese pours off the screen. Don't watch this unless you have a thing of 80'ies sci-fi. This is so typical of it's age.

It was a movie of its time (not nearly as much special effects), made with kids in mind. You can't reproduce that experience.

It is kind of like Ewoks. Fucking awesome if you are 10 years old. Gun to the head if an adult.

Yeah... but for that age's 10 year olds. Show it to kids today and they'd, within five minutes, have picked up their phones and started playing Pokemon Go. The film is sloooooooooow. There's not much that happens in it. First it's the ten year disappearance of the kid, and how that plays out when he comes back. Secondly it's the crashed spaceship and how the kid figures out that he's it's pilot, and then whizzes around.

These two bits have nothing to do with each other and is clearly to disparate ideas for films they've just merged to stretch the story. The entire film is at most a thirty minute film.

Nah... this is a horrendous film, very much, a child of it's time. Partly a movie film. But mostly a video film. I'm pretty sure this film was made with the intention to milk the video market. Like so many of it's day. Budgets were squeezed, and the goal was to make them as quickly as possible. So that each studio could churn out as many films as often as possible. So ideas are under worked and stories stretched. Every film is built around just one or two gimmicks (which go on the video cover) and that's it. This is a time when film consumers truly were passive in every sense. This film so fits into this time.

 

[repoman]

The 1940 and 1944 versions of Gaslight, from which the term "gas lighting" comes from.

I like much about the movies, but the actual ways she was driven to doubt her sanity were too weak and easy for modern viewers. But you can't expect an Amélie level gaslighting in these older films.

Both of the husbands are great if a bit overacted in that old style. Ingrid Bergman is yowza.

Also, the plot points changed in the 1944 american version were mostly sensible, but at times cloying.

I give each about a 7.

 

[Sarpedon]

One thing I like and remember about that film was the spaceship that changed shape. This was very clever and well executed.

 

[Playball40]

City of Ember 9/10

A Children's adventure film from 2008. It's a classic dystopian theme where a bunch of people seal themselves into a bunker and await a ruined Earth to heal itself. The twist in this one is that the people in the bunker have forgotten about the outside world. I thought this was awesome. I had a great time watching it. Great acting. A star studded cast. Scenery is awesome. I really got into it. Apparently it bombed. I don't get why. I'm guessing it was bad timing? The world being in a financial crisis at the time of it's release. Because the film is solid IMHO.

Flight of the navigator (6/10)

This is a 1986 film about a boy who disappears for 8 years and then reappears in 1986 as if nothing has happened, and hasn't aged a day. There's also a crashed spaceship, and the two are connected. I saw this as a child, and it made a huge impression on me. I've had so many games and fantasies about being that boy. The problem was that I forgot the name of the film. So I've spent countless hours going through 80'ies teen sci-fi movies trying to find it again. So I'm really happy now, that I found it. Awesome.

It is a bad film though. The story makes no sense. So contrived. The dialogue is awful. The cheese pours off the screen. Don't watch this unless you have a thing of 80'ies sci-fi. This is so typical of it's age.

Still love this movie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rewatched Song of the Sea again. The movie contains two huge hints early in the film, but if you don't know what to look for, you'll miss them, like I obviously did. Movie holds up, great story telling and animation. 4 of 4

Flushed Away, again. Typical Aardman product, solid voice acting, animation, and a good story. Lacks the whimsy that makes Wererabbit one of my all time favorite films, but a great film in itself. 3 of 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk