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

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

Ready player one 10/10

It's young adult popcorn done masterfully. The interesting part is how the virtual world is set up and explained. Didn't get tedious. For a film so conceptual it was pulled off brilliantly. Visually it's perfect. The graphics are amazing and the action never got boring.

I don't understand most reviews of it. They're reviewing it as if it's a deep movie with profound things to say and are dissapointed when it doesn't deliver. But it's a film in the vein of Indiana Jones or Star Wars. There's no depth to it. And judging it on that scale is like rating fish on their tree climbing abilities. I thought it was awesome.
 
Last edited:
DrZoidberg said:
Ready player one 10/10
Click to expand...

You should definitely read the book! It’s my favorite book of all time. Even listened to the audio book 9 times so far. That actually worked against me for the movie, as it was clear what was changed or left out. There is so much that was cool, but understandable won’t work in a movie. Not to mention all the licensing agreements needed for the references.

As a child of the 70’s-80’s the book was all the stuff I lived as a kid. One of the few things it referenced that I didn’t know was a 70’s live action Japanese Spider-Man tv series. Managed to find its cheesy goodness online.
 
I saw Ready Player One on the plane on the way to England last month. Having read the book quite some time ago, I was ready to be disappointed, but I thought it was fantastic.

A perfect way to pass a couple of hours on a twenty hour flight.
 
Glass

Thought it was a great film. This is the third film in a series, the first being Unbreakable. The second was Split, which I only saw last week. James McAvoy is great at playing a guy with 20 different personalities. In this film, Bruce Willis’ hero from Unbreakable is trying to capture james’ split personality psycho, but both are caught and locked in the same institution as Mr Glass. Can’t really say more without spoiling things.
 
Solo 7/10

It's a well made, well acted pretty film. The action is great. The train heist scene is awesome. A perfect Star Wars delivery. What I don't like about it is that it reads like a check-list of the well known Han Solo backstory. It doesn't flow organically at all. It feels crowbared in. The way he meets Chewbacca is told as if a five year old would retell the story. First this happened, then this happened. There's not enough build nor reason behind it. Nor any stakes really. They're suddenly just besties for life. And that's how most of it feels. Same deal with him being accepted into a criminal gang. It's just suddenly, "this kid is starting to grow on me". Ehe... what? Why? I still enjoyed it. Woody Harelson is great in it. He plays a stoic gangster just trying to get on with it. While Donald Glover plays Lando Calrissian very well, that entire sub-plot was bizarre. More plot holes than actual plot. But great acting, and the dialogue was great. Lando really comes across as nothing but a sleazy yet smooth crook.

The film doesn't really introduce anything new except Solo's love interest. I like that when they separate she doesn't stay pining for him, but quickly moves on with her life. While he doesn't. It's an interesting love story. That said, I think Emelia Clarke was miscast in this. No way does she come across as a scrappy street kid. She feels too delicate and civilised. Her casting as Daenarys Targeryen for GOT was perfect. So it's a shame to see her crash and burn here. Reminds me of when Charlize Theron played Aileen Wuornos. A woman with similar sensibilities as Clarke, but managed to transit to the hard edge of a school of hard knocks alumni. Clarke fails to do the same transition in this. Clarke's character managing to rise in the maffia... ehe... lol. No. Not believable one iota. She looks more like the prison bitch, rather than the girl running the prison.
 
La La Land - 9/10

An excellently done musical movie about an actress and a singer who get into a relationship while trying to make their careers happen in Hollywood. The whole plot is about how their naivete and hopefulness crash into the reality of getting ahead in their industry ... until the end when their naive hopefulness just wins out and they fall ass backwards into success through random people wandering up and handing them career defining opportunities while they were busy doing other things.

I've seen a lot of movie critiques lately about how scripts fail at the basic film technique of "show, don't tell" and just have characters spout exposition to let the audience know what's happening. This one succeeds at that task and there's one scene where an entire deep, meaningful and emotional dialogue is conveyed simply by two characters locking eyes across a room for a couple of seconds.

It's an uplifting and entertaining movie and well worth seeing.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
I've seen a lot of movie critiques lately about how scripts fail at the basic film technique of "show, don't tell" and just have characters spout exposition to let the audience know what's happening. This one succeeds at that task and there's one scene where an entire deep, meaningful and emotional dialogue is conveyed simply by two characters locking eyes across a room for a couple of seconds.
Click to expand...

That scene hit both my partner and I hard.

Seems like serious cinema doesn't get made too often anymore, although I'm not often looking out for it either, but La La Land fit that bill and I really enjoyed it. Outside of that all I seem to watch anymore is Disney and other kids movies.
 
Red Sparrow, 2/10; Stars Jennifer Lawrence as a one time ballet dancer who gets recruited as a spy after an injury ends her ballet career. It's a hell of a slow movie with not a lot happening and some bizarre Russian spy training methods to get women spies to use their sexuality to manipulate their targets. The movie was far too long and boring most of the time.
 
Daddy's Home 2. Not sure how to rate it. It's stupid and goofy, but that's what it's supposed to be. I love Mark Wahlberg and I always laugh at Will Ferrell even though he creeps me out.

In this one, John Lithgow and Mel Gibson join the cast to play the granddads, Pop Pop and El Padre. Now, I'm hoping for a Daddy's Home 3, aka The Pop Pop and El Padre Show.
 
Bridget Jones's Baby. It stars the very wooden Colin Firth and Patrick Dempsey who I think steals the movie. A lightweight comedy that has it's moments. Strictly for the fans. 4/10
 
So I watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service with George Lazenby as James Bond.

Everyone agrees that Lazenby was the worst Bond. And this is his only movie. Is it the worst Bond Movie?

The answer, is yes.

In addition to the worst Bond, it also had the worst Blofeld. This version is a guy who creates a superweapon (in this case, viruses that will wipe out entire species of food crops and animals) and uses it to demand...Amnesty, and a fake title of nobility. Which seems to be a very un-Blofeld thing to do. Second, this Blofeld is a physically formidable fellow, who joins his henchmen in chasing down Bond on skis. A worthy adversary, but not great for Blofeld. (My favorite is, of course David Pleasance's take in You Only Live Twice)

In addition to these two things, it also has one of the worst evil plots: developing super chemical weapons in the guise of curing allergies and gain a title of British nobility. It also has a terrible credit sequence (the theme music was good, everything else was bad), and frankly dull and slow pacing, with more than the usual stupid villain decisions. Also the several call backs to superior Connery movies, and Lazenby's breaking the fourth wall.

What was good? The theme music. A Bond girl who was interesting in her own way and could take care of herself, until her death at the end causes the psychopathic Bond momentary regret that he used and manipulated her and then got her killed (a moment that Lazenby was unable to do justice). It also did not have an over reliance on gadgets, with only a cool safecracking device and a not so cool portable photocopier used in a way that is not a deus ex machina. And that's about it.

The only Bond movies nearly as bad:

A View to a Kill: A mess, redeemed only by Christopher Walken as the villain, who actually takes precautions to ensure Bond is dead, which Bond actually has to use cleverness to evade.

The Living Daylights: A muddled mess, where I can't even remember the plot. What do you think, worse than OHMSS?

Never Say Never Again: An aging Connery is brought back in a remake of Thunderball. Why remake one of the best movies of them all? Still, Connery as Bond, aging or not, is a million times better Bond than Lazenby. Miles inferior to the original though.

Die Another Day: Pierce Brosnan, in my opinion, the second worst Bond, blah's his way through this nonsensical caper of BDSM, weird genetic surgery, diamonds embedded in a guy's face, bad CGI and the most absurd gadgets in a Bond movie (rare distinction!) Shiny enough to hold one's interest. Replacing Desmond Llewellyn with John Cleese was an inspired move.

I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the subject.
 
Sarpedon said:
I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the subject.
Click to expand...

I came late to the Bond franchise, but I'd put Lazenby as the second best classic Bond behind Connery.

Not because he was a great actor, but because he embodied what Bond was. A man who could bullshit his way into any situation based on little more than charm and good looks. He had little to no acting experience, yet for one major studio film, he was James Bond.

That's like a guy putting on scrubs, walking into an operating room and managing to save the patient despite not being a doctor.
 
Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past. [ on Netflix] I managed to watch around half an hour of the mindless plot before switching off. Netflix, you owe me 30 minutes of my life back!

3/10
 
The Favourite 8/10

An historical arty drama about queen Anne and her relationship with the duchess of Marlborough. It's a very interesting depiction of a sickly lesbian queen trying to keep sane while in constant pain, and also navigate between two powerful political sides without tearing England apart. It's pretty. Olivia Colman does a good performance as the queen. Nice to see her not doing comedic roles. I think I have a mancrush on her from her Extra's and Peepshow days. I think she's brilliant. But makes Anne seem crazy at times. But that might have been in the script. Emma Stone does a good manipulative upstart. The film is pretty.

It's also pretty obviously a reverse Bechdel test film. Which I approve of as a change. But didn't quite fit this story. Anyway... the film is all about women, and womens' relationships. The male characters are paper thin and exist to support the women or act as sexual objects. When men have conversations with eachother they always are talking about women. Like I said, it's fun to see it for it's own sake. But these men are historically significant people. It would have been nice to get to know them a bit better.

To the things I hated about the movie. I don't understand... if you are making a historical drama... why not base it on history? If it's just about the costumes why not make up a fantasy medeival world and then you get to do what you want with it. Why corrupt our already badly abused understanding of European history. To date, the only historical drama that actually listened to what their historical consultant had to say is the TV series Rome. I think we can do better than that. The director, Yorgos Lanthimos, has been open about that it's only set in an historical era. But all the values, language and much of the clothes are modern. Ok... so why call it a historical drama? I hate this attitude.

In the film queen Anne was portrayed as weak and easily manipulated. In reality Anne was most likely a shrewd and capable leader. She was the niece of Charles II who was deposed in the glorious revolution. She came to power following political chaos and due to an unlikely string of events. The reason why the historical queen Anne allowed herself to be bossed around by the duchess of Marlborough wasn't because she was in love with her, but because she was dependent on her support in order to rule effectively. Anne was very aware that she was replacable. Anne outmaneuvered Marlborough and came out on top using one of Marlborough's cousins against her. In the film Anne is the one being manipulated.

Whether or not the historical queen Anne really was a lesbian is anyone's guess. But the source of the belief comes from a mocking political song written in order to defame her. Not the most reliable source of information. But in English tradition lesbianism has never been a henious crime, if at all. Anne would certainly never have to hide it or be a target for blackmail if it got out.

I still liked it.
 
Sarpedon said:
Never Say Never Again: An aging Connery is brought back in a remake of Thunderball. Why remake one of the best movies of them all? Still, Connery as Bond, aging or not, is a million times better Bond than Lazenby. Miles inferior to the original though.
Click to expand...
The soundtrack was awful in this movie and it seemed to be quite the phone in for acting and writing.

Die Another Day: Pierce Brosnan, in my opinion, the second worst Bond, blah's his way through this nonsensical caper of BDSM, weird genetic surgery, diamonds embedded in a guy's face, bad CGI and the most absurd gadgets in a Bond movie (rare distinction!) Shiny enough to hold one's interest. Replacing Desmond Llewellyn with John Cleese was an inspired move.
Click to expand...
I thought Bronsan was the greatest bond, who lacked good plots to put him in. Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies are among my favorite. But after that, the films were awful.
 
Two awfully bad films -- or --let's make that "moom pictures", to quote W.C. Fields.
1) National Lampoon's European Vacation (1985) -- Not a laugh to be had, even in poor Eric Idle's scenes. Funny only if you play it with Chevy Chase's commentary, where he discusses certain comic bits as if they were refined French farce -- he proudly takes credit for improvising a bit on set where his character irritates everyone by fiddling with the cigarette butt compartment on the train.
2) Valentine's Day (2010) - Has every pretty face in Hollywood, especially a moon-faced Ashton Kusher. Oh, and Taylor Swift in a performance that makes you want to kong her on the head with a garbage can lid. This film made money!!! Tons of money. 125 long minutes. Looooonnnngggg minutes.
 
Logan Lucky 7/10

Oceans 11 meets the Cohen Brothers. A fun movie about a ridiculously convoluted heist by a couple of country bumpkins in West Virginia. Don't look at the casting until you watch it. There is a surprise supporting role you probably won't realize until you see the credits and say "Wait, who was he?".
 
DrZoidberg said:
The Favourite 8/10

An historical arty drama about queen Anne and her relationship with the duchess of Marlborough. It's a very interesting depiction of a sickly lesbian queen trying to keep sane while in constant pain, and also navigate between two powerful political sides without tearing England apart. It's pretty. Olivia Colman does a good performance as the queen. Nice to see her not doing comedic roles. I think I have a mancrush on her from her Extra's and Peepshow days. I think she's brilliant. But makes Anne seem crazy at times. But that might have been in the script. Emma Stone does a good manipulative upstart. The film is pretty.

It's also pretty obviously a reverse Bechdel test film. Which I approve of as a change. But didn't quite fit this story. Anyway... the film is all about women, and womens' relationships. The male characters are paper thin and exist to support the women or act as sexual objects. When men have conversations with eachother they always are talking about women. Like I said, it's fun to see it for it's own sake. But these men are historically significant people. It would have been nice to get to know them a bit better.

To the things I hated about the movie. I don't understand... if you are making a historical drama... why not base it on history? If it's just about the costumes why not make up a fantasy medeival world and then you get to do what you want with it. Why corrupt our already badly abused understanding of European history. To date, the only historical drama that actually listened to what their historical consultant had to say is the TV series Rome. I think we can do better than that. The director, Yorgos Lanthimos, has been open about that it's only set in an historical era. But all the values, language and much of the clothes are modern. Ok... so why call it a historical drama? I hate this attitude.

In the film queen Anne was portrayed as weak and easily manipulated. In reality Anne was most likely a shrewd and capable leader. She was the niece of Charles II who was deposed in the glorious revolution. She came to power following political chaos and due to an unlikely string of events. The reason why the historical queen Anne allowed herself to be bossed around by the duchess of Marlborough wasn't because she was in love with her, but because she was dependent on her support in order to rule effectively. Anne was very aware that she was replacable. Anne outmaneuvered Marlborough and came out on top using one of Marlborough's cousins against her. In the film Anne is the one being manipulated.

Whether or not the historical queen Anne really was a lesbian is anyone's guess. But the source of the belief comes from a mocking political song written in order to defame her. Not the most reliable source of information. But in English tradition lesbianism has never been a henious crime, if at all. Anne would certainly never have to hide it or be a target for blackmail if it got out.

I still liked it.
Click to expand...

Point of order - It was James II, not Charles II who was deposed in the 'Glorious Revolution', which wasn't so much a revolution as a coup d'état, in which the plotters invited a foreign power (The Netherlands) to invade, for religious reasons.

Don't tell the English though; They still like to believe that the last invasion of their country was in 1066.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom