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

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

Tom Sawyer said:
Left Behind - 1/10
Click to expand...
the only good thing about these movies is the ever hammier actor playing the Anti-Christ
Everything else is horrible but he was hilarious:D

The Thing (2011)
6.5/10
So this is the prequel to the 1982 version of the Thing
And I think it does a reasonable job
Firstly I think they did well to recreate the Norwegian base seen in the 1982 version and I loved being able to go through and be like "hey I remember that bit"
But I also liked how they also blended in so many elements of the 1951 version of the thing as well, either being straight up copying of ideas or some more subtle references which I think for the most part they handled well
They also made some good characters, not always great, there are some "idiots in a horror movie" characters there, and some characters could have been more fleshed out (The Head Scientist, who really could have copied more of his role from the '51 version)
But for the most part the characters were acceptable and I can't say I got annoyed at any of them
The plot is also pretty solid overall and moves along well, again borrowing heavily from both other versions but blending them pretty well, except I did have a problem with the end, where things just seem to get a bit rushed and the main girls plot just kinda abrubtly cuts off, the plot point of Lars is never actually explained, and one charaters demise just kinda happens but isn't really touched on, in fact I forgot he was still alive until the end showed him
And finally the special effects are all pretty solid, not brilliant but never bad or clunky, although some of the monster designs were a little on the bland side
So overall I would say I liked this film, now I don't think it is as good as the 1982 version, but it is a solid prequel and just a solid movie
So I would recommend it
 
Best in Show

8/10

One of the Christopher Guest/Eugene Levy "mockumentaries," this one has some mocking but gentle fun with dog shows and show dog owners. Guest directed, he and Levy co-wrote the script, and a lot of the usual suspects from other Guest/Levy films are in the cast--Jennifer Coolidge, John Michael Higgins, Jane Lynch, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Fred Willard, to name some of the prominent ones. Levy, as a man with two literal left feet, and Willard, as a clueless announcer, are both especially fun to watch.
 
MarkW said:
Best in Show

8/10

One of the Christopher Guest/Eugene Levy "mockumentaries," this one has some mocking but gentle fun with dog shows and show dog owners. Guest directed, he and Levy co-wrote the script, and a lot of the usual suspects from other Guest/Levy films are in the cast--Jennifer Coolidge, John Michael Higgins, Jane Lynch, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Fred Willard, to name some of the prominent ones. Levy, as a man with two literal left feet, and Willard, as a clueless announcer, are both especially fun to watch.
Click to expand...
A much underrated movie. I loved it and agree with your rating.
 
Watched An Officer And A Gentleman on telly last night. Despite the cheesy romance it's not a bad movie of it's time. My gawd was it that long ago? 1982! And the nudity! The attractive cast [Richard Gere,Debra Winger] makes it watchable.

6/10
 
Daioh said:

The Thing (2011)
6.5/10
So this is the prequel to the 1982 version of the Thing
And I think it does a reasonable job
Firstly I think they did well to recreate the Norwegian base seen in the 1982 version and I loved being able to go through and be like "hey I remember that bit"
But I also liked how they also blended in so many elements of the 1951 version of the thing as well, either being straight up copying of ideas or some more subtle references which I think for the most part they handled well
They also made some good characters, not always great, there are some "idiots in a horror movie" characters there, and some characters could have been more fleshed out (The Head Scientist, who really could have copied more of his role from the '51 version)
But for the most part the characters were acceptable and I can't say I got annoyed at any of them
The plot is also pretty solid overall and moves along well, again borrowing heavily from both other versions but blending them pretty well, except I did have a problem with the end, where things just seem to get a bit rushed and the main girls plot just kinda abrubtly cuts off, the plot point of Lars is never actually explained, and one characters demise just kinda happens but isn't really touched on, in fact I forgot he was still alive until the end showed him
And finally the special effects are all pretty solid, not brilliant but never bad or clunky, although some of the monster designs were a little on the bland side
So overall I would say I liked this film, now I don't think it is as good as the 1982 version, but it is a solid prequel and just a solid movie
So I would recommend it
Click to expand...

Did you watch the credits?

I enjoyed it, because the actors were, for the most part, really Norwegian. They used the creme de la creme of Norwegian thespians. It was great. There were a few plotholes, but as you said, was enjoyable and it was fun to recognize the carryovers into the 1982 movie. But the 1982 movie still reigns supreme as the best.
 
MarkW said:
Best in Show

8/10

One of the Christopher Guest/Eugene Levy "mockumentaries," this one has some mocking but gentle fun with dog shows and show dog owners. Guest directed, he and Levy co-wrote the script, and a lot of the usual suspects from other Guest/Levy films are in the cast--Jennifer Coolidge, John Michael Higgins, Jane Lynch, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Fred Willard, to name some of the prominent ones. Levy, as a man with two literal left feet, and Willard, as a clueless announcer, are both especially fun to watch.
Click to expand...

I've been told that the characters ad-libbed a lot in this movie. To me, that explained the plethora of not-funny scenes and the :beatdeadhorse: of the gay characters. It had the opportunity to be really funny, but instead it was kind of boring, dumb and unfunny with the sex jokes.
 
You have to be kidding. Ad lib or not this is a black comedy that's stood the test of time in still getting a LOL.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeifMjqpsg0[/YOUTUBE]
 
credoconsolans said:
Did you watch the credits?
Click to expand...
yeah I know that bit
I mean

The part where he goes out into the snow, something knocks him or pulls him or something
Apparently it wasn't the Americans (I remember them saying they weren't the ones), and he wasn't one of the monsters
So what happened?

Or did I miss something obvious?:D


I enjoyed it, because the actors were, for the most part, really Norwegian. They used the creme de la creme of Norwegian thespians. It was great. There were a few plotholes, but as you said, was enjoyable and it was fun to recognize the carryovers into the 1982 movie. But the 1982 movie still reigns supreme as the best.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the carryover from the '51 version as well, and I agree having actual Norwegians playing the role was pretty cool (And they were good actors)
And the 1982 version is definitely the best
 
I remember when I first watched The Thing the original. I kept thinking about this movie for days after, a sure sign it had the desired effect. A great movie for it's time. The Day The Earth Stood Still was another that had me thinking of it days later. I loved SF movies, still do but nowadays are a little too far fetched.
 
X-Men: Days of Future Past and The Edge of Tomorrow

My brother and I were going to see these back to back at the cinema using the old high school trick of walking out of one and then into another, however they don't display the films being screened in each cinema, presumably to prevent such behaviour. We picked a likely theatre for The Edge of Tomorrow, based on the flow of people and the demographics, but when we got through the advertising and trailers it turned out to be the new Transformers film. I have never walked out on a film before but we sauntered out within the first two minutes - neither of us even willing to watch that shite for free. Ugh, Michael Bay sucks ass.

But X-men was awesome, the best of the franchise so far I think. Bryan Singer - damn you for leaving to make that decidedly average Superman film. I hold you responsible for the steaming pile of shit that was X3. That said I am thankful you have returned for this film. It was great to see an X-men movie that was not completely about Wolverine and in which the other characters really drove the story. As with a few of these big budget superhero films you have to forgive the odd bit of discontinuity and the suspension of disbelief is stretched on a couple occasions E.g.


Magneto is angry, but he is also clever. However it is not especially clever to immediately try to kill Raven/Mystique after they stop her from ending Boliver. I understand his motivation for wanting her dead but it would have been far more discerning and intelligent to lure her away from the situation and then do away with her. Also - given the dude can levitate a freaking stadium how has anyone ever defeated him in the past. Jeez. Quicksilver was awesome - as a few other people have mentioned in their reviews - but they should have kept him around for the rest of the film. It seems like his abilities would have been really handy in quite a few situations faced by the X-pack.


Still - all round excellent for this type of film and brilliant to have a finale in which a large city is not reduced to rubble by an evil army/giant robots/villain clones/pillsbury doughboy.

Edge of Tomorrow was also very enjoyable but not as good. Two things would have made this film better - no Tom Cruise and

the darker more realistic ending the film deserved

(a different ending)

Cruise does an okay job, but really there is no need for him to be saving the world again, especially from aliens as Oblivion did not come out all that long ago. It should have been a more believably cowardly and smarmy actor in this role - it would have made the character arc more believable and engaging. Other than that the film had a great mixture of action and humour and managed the mechanics of a re-lived d-day very well. I liked the way it dealt with the questions of "Why are the aliens here" and "Why is time looping".

X-men 8.5/10

EOT 7-7.5/10
 
Planet 51
6/10
So this is basically a parody of the 1950's alien encounter movies, except this time the human is the Alien
Throw in dozens of nods to old movies (and any newer Sci-Fi movies you can)
Put them with a cast of likebale if pretty standard characters
And then write them into a script that is simple, a little predictable but overall good fun and working well
And you end up with a movie that won't blow you away but will be entertaining for its run time

The Killer Shrews (1959)
7/10
This movie does well with it's practical effects
And I think for an old movie that is its biggest strength as its effects work well enough with a good cast and solid script
So as far as old movies go I would say this is a good one

Return Of The Killer Shrews (2012)
6/10
So this is a sorta sequal to the original (With the main character coming back 50 years later to reprise his role)
However the tone of this movie is much much more that of a comedy as opposed to the originals serious tone
And it mostly works
Although a few of the gags fall kinda flat, and many characters are just too silly, James Best steals this movie as he is easily funnier then everyone around him
Also the CGI in this movie is just plain awful
Kinda funny awful, but mostly just awful
So if you want a comedy takeoff of the original, this isn't that bad
 
20 Feet From Stardom

A documentary about backup singers.

One of the things it does very well is to show just how difficult it is to make it as a "star" in the music business. It isn't always about sheer talent. Some of the most talented singers in the business are standing at the back of the stage backing up the "rock star" who can carry a tune.

7/10
 
Ford said:
20 Feet From Stardom

A documentary about backup singers.

One of the things it does very well is to show just how difficult it is to make it as a "star" in the music business. It isn't always about sheer talent. Some of the most talented singers in the business are standing at the back of the stage backing up the "rock star" who can carry a tune.

7/10
Click to expand...
A perfect example of that is Booker T Jones. Keyboard player, producer, back up vocals etc. Although he did find fame later as a solo artist and band leader in Booker T and The MG's.
 
Bridesmaids I have the DVD but at the time I bought it didn't think much of the film. Last night it was a television movie and I thoroughly enjoyed it even though it's a chick flick.

Perhaps the commercial breaks work to enhance the movie, but anyway I now rate it 8.5/10
 
The Wolf of Wall Street

7/10 (and a shaky 7 at best)

Martin Scorsese's adaptation of the memoir of the same title by Wall Street swindler Jordan Belfort (a very hammy Leonardo DiCaprio in the film) will not go down as one of the director's classics. The basic story seems similar to a true Scorsese classic, Goodfellas--with Belfort in the Henry Hill role and Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) sort of a counterpart to Joe Pesci's character--but the pace drags, especially during the repeated depictions of Jordan and Donnie's debaucheries. Also, while Henry Hill was an initially likable character who deteriorated over time, Jordan Belfort is an obvious bastard from the start, a much harder character for an audience to relate to. There are some good performances--Hill, Margot Robbie, a nice Joanna Lumley cameo--and a few powerful scenes, but overall not a memorable film.
 
Straw Dogs...the remake. Not even close to the original, but maybe it was only lacking Susan George. Remake 5-10 Original 7-10
 
A much underated and lttle known movie actually. The Body/B] starring Antonio Banderas Its about a body found in Jerusalem and it turns out it's the body of christ. The church sends it's emissary there to cover it up.
8/10
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Left Behind - 1/10

So, for some fucking reason I went and watched all three movies in this series on Netflix. It's a good concept for a story - hundreds of millions of people vanish and the leftbehinders try to figure out what to do about it while the Anti-Christ is taking over the world.

The execution sucks, however, and it was just ... weird. So, the heroes are going around trying to spread the word of Jesus because if you accept Christ, the Anti-Christ can't ... do something to you. It's never all that clear what the guy's power is. There was one even more odd bit where God sent some messengers to spread his word beside the Wailing Wall, so the Anti-Christ put up a fence and didn't let anyone near the Wailing Wall and the messengers just stood there and didn't spread their message anymore until Kirk Cameron showed up with a camera to film them, at which point the Anti-Christ turns off the TV feed (because he owns the network). Then the messengers are never, ever mentioned again.

Then there's the bit where the President of the United States finds out that something fishy is going on at one of the Anti-Christ's factories so instead of sending one of the hundreds of thousands of trained professionals who work for him to check it out, he sneaks out himself and pokes around the factory and gets into a gun fight with the guards. Then the President becomes a suicide bomber to try and kill the Anti-Christ ... after discovering that the Anti-Christ is immortal so the guy just kind of blows himself up and the Anti-Christ walks away. Then the series ends with the heroes going off to fight the Anti-Christ by talking to people about Jesus. Seriously.

I was willing to give it a shot. It wasn't worth the time and effort it took to sit on the couch and watch it.
Click to expand...

Been there, Tom, so I know exactly how you feel. Here's my assessment of them from the old forum:
Me said:
Left Behind: The Movie
Left Behind II: Tribulation Force
Left Behind: World at War

Feeling particularly masochistic, I sat down to "enjoy" this little marathon the other day. All I can say is, "I want my 4½ hours back!".

Of course, I went into it with low expectations, and I wasn't disappointed. From the first scenes of CGI tanks, rolling across the desert looking like something from a low-budget early 90s video game, through poisoned Bible plots and Kirk Cameron using Ray Comfort's "Are you a good man" conversion strategy (and succeeding! Which is probably more than Comfort ever did with it) to the POTUSA performing his own wetwork and failing, despite calling in an airstrike on his target, who walked away from it unscathed, it was just one facepalm after the other for me.

I would have given it zero for being sheer unadulterated pap, but everybody deserves something for trying, so ...

½/10
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom