• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

TSwizzle said:
Rogue One, 6/10; I am not a Star Wars fan and don't know where the series of films is at. I have not seen a Star Wars movie since Return of The Jedi I think. This movie clips along at a decent pace and pieces things together so I don't think I missed out having not seen the previous movies in the series. It was enjoyable enough but I wasn't wowed by it. The acting was decent and the special effects are good. It was a nice twist at the end. I was expecting Harrison Ford in this movie but I didn't see him, perhaps that's in a future move. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Rogue One more on the second viewing, but it did suffer a little from weak storytelling. It was sometimes difficult to glean the characters' motivations, and thus it could be difficult to connect with them at times.
 
Blade Runner 2049 5/10

This is a sequel made by people who, it seems to me, haven't watched the original. The original Blade Runner had two things going for it.

1) It's one of the few film-noir science fiction films, and undoubtedly the best film-noir science fiction film.

2) Ambiguous evil. *spoiler* the bad guys aren't bad guys. In the end the baddest baddy turns out to be the goodest character. A being who truly loves life in all its forms. Which is doubly interesting, because the humanity of the replicants are in question.

I didn't bother to hide this because the film is almost 40 years old



There are many science fiction films that aren't film-noir. Why, oh, why, would you chose to make a sequel of Blade Runner and remove it's singular unique feature... the one feature that makes it unique and stand out? I really would like to know wtf went through the minds of the people conceiving this.

The bad guy in the sequel is basically a Bond villain. Making the protagonist a replicant is interesting. But then you've got to change the humans. Because we will of course perceive them as evil, being basically slavers. And that's all they were. Completely one-dimensional.

Music... Vangelis is still alive. Why not ask him? His music is one of the cool things about the original. Handing the epic score over to another party to make lame Vangelis covers, and to modern-it-up a bit. Not a good idea. The music is awful. It's like they couldn't decide what to do, so they tried doing everything. Good art is about making choices.

Gimmics! There's just loads and loads of gimmics in the sequel. I'm pretty sure that the picture zoom scene scored high in the focus groups because picture zoom scenes was done... over and over and over. It got so bad that I got annoyed.

What's with the blind Wallace? Did it have any point to it? What was with the single tear going down the cheeks of sad replicants? Once or twice works. Not a thirty times at every opportunity. It becomes farcical. Yes, we get it. Replicants have feelings. That was established in the first film. Please move on. What's with murdering people left and right? There was so many pointless corpses in this film. The law didn't seem to mind either. How kind of them.

I also hate the horrendously corrupt police trope. Captain Bryant wasn't corrupt. He was just very focused on the job and willing to go to any length to succeed. Ie, the opposite of corrupt. Which is film-noir!! Film-noir is about existential issues. Existentialism is about feeling alive or constantly trying to flee existential anxiety. By drink or workoholism. It's about the pain of existence. The original established a virtual menu of paths to take. Nope... they ignored all of them for the sequel.

Pointless exposition. Ok, so the future has been cleaned up and there's greenhouses now. Who gives a shit? The original film hardly explained anything. Well.. the distributor forced them to add a retarded speaker voice, but which was removed for the directors cut. Which is the cut I assume that everybody has seen today. The "blackout" that destroyed all the memory files. WTF?!? Such a pointless idea. Slowed down the pace. Added a fair bit of worthless dialogue. And could have been dropped without losing anything.

Wallace buying up a bankrupt Tyrell corporation. Why? What did that add? Here's an idea. After the death of Tyrell his second in command Wallace took over as CEO and go... Would have been the same movie, with much less bullshit. Less talk. Less need to explain anything. Wallaces ninja side-kick was so retarded. Her murdering everybody in her way... yawn. Wallace stabbing the replicant in the stomach. Yawn.

K/Joe's relationship with his computer girlfriend. Ehe... didn't they do this in Her? What exactly did it add... and what was the point? We're supposed to wonder exactly how human the replicants are. If the replicant has a robot girlfriend then what are we learning? I think this was just a cool idea that they wanted to use in a sci-fi movie, and they took it in.... because why not. Still doesn't fit. And the evil corporate assassin killing her. WTF?!? Why not also letting her kick a dog? Or take an ice cream from a child?

Gorgeous exteriors and atmospheric shots. But not film-noir. This draws upon classic science fiction book covers from the 60'ies and 70'ies. Ok, fine. But don't call it a Blade runner movie. Film-noir is a very specific genre. It has rules. Please follow the rules or call it something else.

I also want to point out that the idea that a million bottles of whiskey just left alone in Las Vegas for 20 years just waiting for somebody to move in and start chugging... Not believable. When the Apocalypse comes I'm pretty sure that the first causality of war will be all the alcohol. I also thought that the idea that the orphanage was surrounded by a group of vicious gang of rocket wielding brutes shooting down all who approaches... about as unbelievable. They clearly couldn't decide whether the world is better functioning now than in the original, or everything was worse. Also, Deckard having a dog. So this is a guy who has been on the run from the law for 40 years. Not a lucrative business. How the fuck could he afford a dog? It just breaks the entire setup of the original film. It was after an ecological disaster (of an unknown magnitude) and all large animals were incredibly rare.

The main thing of the original book was just how extremely valuable all life becomes when it is rare. And made into a status object. Deckard in the book has a replicant goat.

As for the story. Loved it. Some really great ideas. I won't spoil anything. Some great twists and mind fuckery. And worth seeing just for that. I just wished they hadn't called it a Blade runner sequel. It really wasn't. This was just another generic science-fiction movie, albeit a decent one. I docked points for claiming it was a Bladerunner movie
 
Shadowy Man said:
TSwizzle said:
Rogue One, 6/10; I am not a Star Wars fan and don't know where the series of films is at. I have not seen a Star Wars movie since Return of The Jedi I think. This movie clips along at a decent pace and pieces things together so I don't think I missed out having not seen the previous movies in the series. It was enjoyable enough but I wasn't wowed by it. The acting was decent and the special effects are good. It was a nice twist at the end. I was expecting Harrison Ford in this movie but I didn't see him, perhaps that's in a future move. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Rogue One more on the second viewing, but it did suffer a little from weak storytelling. It was sometimes difficult to glean the characters' motivations, and thus it could be difficult to connect with them at times.
Click to expand...
I think we simply didn't have enough time to actually feel too much for these characters immediately involved in the heist. In IV we are told that the Rebels lost a lot to get that info, and then we find out that the group directly involved are nothing more than a bunch of B-characters that had almost no relationship to either each other or the Rebel movement.

In general, the great sacrifice was so poorly written and unbelievable. This is the trouble of having to fill in the blanks. We already know what happens, that is easy. It is the how that is hard.

The main players were really nobodies and people that Leia would never have known about at all. Those she would have known about were the ships that gave up their lives because they forget their ships had light speed capabilities.
 
I had the exact opposite thought. This one creeped me out much more than the original. Tim Curry was, imo, the only good thing about the first one.
DrZoidberg said:
IT 2017 (7/10)

I enjoyed this way more than I thought I would. I was also prepared to be disappointed, because I just loved Tim Curry's Pennywise. One thing I really liked about it is the absurdity of that little city. Everybody had the most extreme teenage problems imaginable. They really ticked off the list of everything. It's also a city... seemingly devoid of cops. Because they could murder each other left and right and the city just went on with life... no cops. It gave the entire film a dream like feel to it. Throughout most of the film it felt like being on psychedelic drugs.

I also liked that there were no Midiclorians. If you're doing a film with a supernatural element, any explanation of its nature is superfluous. The magic just is. It adds to the mystery and avoids slowing down the pace. They did this well (pun, get it?). The original had Midiclorians. Which I must admit I ate up as a kid. But making Pennywise an alien doesn't really explain anything anyway. I guess aliens were super cool enough in the 80'ies to make it work. But a bit silly IMHO.

It's also... quite clearly a film for children. There's very little depth (lol... another pun) to it. Which I thought was fine. The film is pretty and well made. The child actors were excellent. Bill Skarsgård did a nice clown. It never got boring. Great dialogue. A good popcorn flic.

It's completely different from the 80'ies original. The original is much darker and grimier. This new one isn't going to scare anybody. You'll sleep just fine after watching it. The original... perhaps not. Tim Curry's Pennywise is most likely impossible to beat.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Shadowy Man said:
I enjoyed Rogue One more on the second viewing, but it did suffer a little from weak storytelling. It was sometimes difficult to glean the characters' motivations, and thus it could be difficult to connect with them at times.
Click to expand...
I think we simply didn't have enough time to actually feel too much for these characters immediately involved in the heist. In IV we are told that the Rebels lost a lot to get that info, and then we find out that the group directly involved are nothing more than a bunch of B-characters that had almost no relationship to either each other or the Rebel movement.

In general, the great sacrifice was so poorly written and unbelievable. This is the trouble of having to fill in the blanks. We already know what happens, that is easy. It is the how that is hard.

The main players were really nobodies and people that Leia would never have known about at all. Those she would have known about were the ships that gave up their lives because they forget their ships had light speed capabilities.
Click to expand...

I liked Rogue One, but not enough to buy the movie.

I did buy Episode 7 for what it's worth.

I enjoyed Rogue One in that it fills in certain gaps, and departs from the standard formula, giving filmmakers the freedom to move outside the standard formula at least on alternating years. I enjoy what that involves, but Rogue One itself has narrative and editing problems.
 
Why Him, 0/10; Stars the excellent Bryan Cranston and odd James Franco in a father v fiancé face off. The constant and unnecessary swearing turned me off early on but I stuck with it for about 30 minutes before throwing in the towel and switching this pile of crap off. Maybe it got funny later on but I doubt it. I'm so disappointed in Cranston putting his name to this crap.
 
The House

At this point, in most comedies, all I look for are a minimal number of moments to give me a few chuckles with the person I'm watching the movie with. This movie delivers the minimal number of moments because Amy Poehler and Will Farrell combined, over the course of 90 minutes, will deliver something funny at some point.

The premise is incredibly stupid. Daughter gets into college but may not be able to go because Mom and Dad can't pay for it. Therefore, Mom and Dad, along with a desperate neighbor, open up a casino in said neighbor's house.

If student loans didn't exist, the premise wouldn't have been so stupid. But they do, and so it is. However, since the movie demands you suspend disbelief right up front, it makes it easier to swallow. After that, there are some good jokes and some solid physical comedy. The whole thing is absurd and is likely unwatchable if you're by yourself. I highly suggest watching it with other people who are in the mood to laugh.

4/10

Bad Moms

The premise from IMDB:

When three overworked and under-appreciated moms are pushed beyond their limits, they ditch their conventional responsibilities for a jolt of long overdue freedom, fun, and comedic self-indulgence.
Click to expand...

This movie is stupid from start to when I quit watching it after about 45 minutes. Unlike The House, which has some moments, this turd has none, and it seems bent on insulting the viewer's intelligence throughout. The fact that there's a sequel coming out is baffling. It must've done well in China or something. The person I watched it with isn't a parent and she thought it was funny. And so maybe this was written by people who aren't parents or have no ability to imagine what it's like to have kids. I don't know. The premise is ripe for good jokes, but it misses the mark so badly at every single turn, that... fuck it, just avoid this thing.

-2/10
 
Just watched Hidden Figures last night. Well worth the watch.

But what struck me was the continuity errors and scene errors. A couple scenes of people driving down the road, both scenes the gear selector on the car was still in park. Scene in a conference room, Kevin Costner at the head of the table. In front of him are two pieces of chalk and two pencils. The scene switches to another person, then back to Costner. The pencils and chalk are gone. Another switch back and forth and the pencils and chalk are back again.

I noted both of those to my wife, had to rewind the Costner scene for her to see it. She was quite surprised.
 
Brawl in Cell Block 99

8/10

Ultraviolent nihilistic grindhouse gorefest is not a movie type I thought I would find myself enjoying... but boy did I. Vince Vaughn is damn good in it, playing well against type.
 
Well, I thought I was going to have time to get through it all at once, it didn't work out that way so it took me 2 nights to get through The Big Lebowski.

Kinda weird, definitely funny.

7.5/10
 
TSwizzle said:
Rogue One, 6/10; I am not a Star Wars fan and don't know where the series of films is at. I have not seen a Star Wars movie since Return of The Jedi I think. This movie clips along at a decent pace and pieces things together so I don't think I missed out having not seen the previous movies in the series. It was enjoyable enough but I wasn't wowed by it. The acting was decent and the special effects are good. It was a nice twist at the end. I was expecting Harrison Ford in this movie but I didn't see him, perhaps that's in a future move. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Based on the storyline, because this is the only one I've not yet seen, I believe this one fits in between episodes III and IV.
 
Shake said:
TSwizzle said:
Rogue One, 6/10; I am not a Star Wars fan and don't know where the series of films is at. I have not seen a Star Wars movie since Return of The Jedi I think. This movie clips along at a decent pace and pieces things together so I don't think I missed out having not seen the previous movies in the series. It was enjoyable enough but I wasn't wowed by it. The acting was decent and the special effects are good. It was a nice twist at the end. I was expecting Harrison Ford in this movie but I didn't see him, perhaps that's in a future move. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Based on the storyline, because this is the only one I've not yet seen, I believe this one fits in between episodes III and IV.
Click to expand...

Correct. This episode could properly be called, "Star Wars, Episode 3.99".
 
ZiprHead said:
Just watched Hidden Figures last night. Well worth the watch.

But what struck me was the continuity errors and scene errors. A couple scenes of people driving down the road, both scenes the gear selector on the car was still in park. Scene in a conference room, Kevin Costner at the head of the table. In front of him are two pieces of chalk and two pencils. The scene switches to another person, then back to Costner. The pencils and chalk are gone. Another switch back and forth and the pencils and chalk are back again.

I noted both of those to my wife, had to rewind the Costner scene for her to see it. She was quite surprised.
Click to expand...
It must have been some sort of magic chalk.
 


When Logan came out, Grace (who has written a comic book) commented that we finally had a movie version of Wolverine that genuinely felt like Wolverine in the comic books.

She made a similar observation about Thor: Ragnarok, which is a really good sign.
 
I'm actually super-psyched for this Thor film. I don't know why, I saw a small trailer (usually try to avoid them, but it was in the theater), and I absolutely thought it was going to be a killer film. Which is odd because the two Thor films have been good, but not great. Better than Ironman 2 and 3, but not fantastic like Captain America. I think this will be the Winter Soldier for Thor. And I know almost nothing about the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom