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

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

Horror Of Dracula
7/10
So I finally found the original Christopher Lee as Dracula movie
And I thought it was pretty good
The story moves along well, Peter Cushing is awesome as Van Helsing and Christopher Lee gets a decent amount of menacing time to sink his teeth?... fangs?....into
I did have a bit of a problem with some of the early dialogue, which I'm not sure was intentional or just a glitch with the old film but when people talked it was like they were on fast forward and the lines would get a little garbled
but this soon smoothed out and the rest of the film was fine
So I would say that I liked the Horror of Dracula

Dracula: Prince Of Darkness
7/10
So this is the second sequel of the Dracula series
And it is also pretty good
Again it had good characters, a solid script and a noce overall design and look
So yeah I would also recommend this Dracula movie
 
Seven Days in May

8.5/10

John Frankenheimer followed up The Manchurian Candidiate with another political thriller, only somewhat less effective, about a fictional military coup attempt during the height of the Cold War. A film like this today would likely have some big action sequences, but this one emphasizes the clash of characters, especially between Frederic March as the President who has negotiated an arms treaty with the USSR, and Burt Lancaster as the general who believes that his duty requires him to destroy the US Constitution in order to save it. The strong cast also includes Kirk Douglas as the Marine colonel who first twigs to the coup plot, Oscar nominee Edmond O'Brien as an alcoholic Senator who supports the President, and Ava Gardner, Martin Balsam, Hugh Marlowe, George Macready and an uncredited cameo from John Houseman that was his first feature film appearance.
 
Lucy 7/10 - Scarlett Johansson as Lucy, a drug mule who is accidentally infected with a drug that enhances her mental abilities. The old Chestnut of ''we only use 10% of our brains'' again. But an entertaining movie nonetheless.
 
Jack Reacher

6/10

While Tom Cruise, all 5-7 of him, would never have been my first choice to play Lee Child's 6-5 hulk of an ex-MP, he isn't as awful as I feared. That consideration aside, for about the first hour and a quarter, this film is a reasonably good adaptation of Child's novel One Shot. However, at that point it seems that producer Tom Cruise decided that lead actor Tom Cruise hadn't done enough heroic action stuff, and the final third of the film more closely resembles the Mission Impossible movies. The overdone car chase I could sort of live with, but the point during the final shootout where Cruise deliberately tosses his gun aside to go hand-to-hand with the #2 villain was too much--Reacher would never go off mission like that. Rosamund Pike is pretty good as the female lead, Robert Duvall shows up for the last half hour and is very good and Alexia Fast makes a nice impression in a small role; Werner Herzog, however, disappoints.
 
Guardians of the Galaxy
9/10

Lot of good action, plenty of funny moments. The comic purists might have a few problems with some of the changes from the comic characters. Michael Rooker (walking dead's Merle) was a great, despicable version of Yondu. First look at Thanos in a speaking part. The post credits scene was neither story related, or a preview for the next Marvel film. It was just a funny bit this time.
 
Guardians Of The Galaxy
10/10
Ok I am a huge Marvel fanboy
And this movie is just awesome from start to finish
The characters are awesome
The script is both hilarious but also filled with good moments of character that never feel forced or rushed
The action is all fast paced and exciting
And the visuals of this movie are just plain beautiful to behold
This movie is awesome

Frankenstein
6/10
I liked this movie, but not as much as I wanted to
We all know the movie and what happens, but watching this movie I felt that at times it didn't pace itself all that well and some parts could have been explored just a little bit more or some parts could have been filmed better
For example I loved the first appearance of the monster walking and seeing the light
Then after that we just cut to the henchman being an idiot and the monster going crazy, with little development between them
And this happens a couple of times
This meant that while good, I don't put Frankenstein as my favourite of the classic monsters

Bride Of Frankenstein
7/10
So then the sequel just goes kinda crazy
This movie is alot wierder then the original
And I think that overall it works better
It is paced well, it takes it's somewhat silly plot and just rns with it and overall I just felt that both Frankenstein and the Monster both get more to chew on in this movie
So I liked the sequel more then the original:)
 
GenesisNemesis said:
Alone in the Wilderness (2004) - 10/10

Fascinating and uplifting film about one man, Dick Proenneke, going out in the wilderness and building a log cabin for himself. All of it is filmed by him. It makes you wonder just how much we as individuals are capable of.
Click to expand...

ha ha. Fun. I also saw that. God how much that guy annoyed me. It took all the fun away for it from me. I wondered how anybody could enjoy it. I guess I've now found out.
 
Ford said:
I watched the first half hour of The Tree of Life and I'm not so sure I'm in for the other two hours.

Normally I'm a big fan of slow moving, beautifully shot yet pretentious films, but I don't know if I can make it through this one. Sean Penn is Brad Pitt's son? What?
Click to expand...

Finally got around to finishing this one. A month and two more hours later! Two more hours of a slow moving, beautifully shot yet pretentious film. It seemed like it actually lasted a month.

Nope. Didn't like it.
 
Guardians of the Galaxy: 7.5/10
i would have loved to score this higher, but a combination of swing-and-a-miss with regards to character development for anyone or anything that isn't peter quill, and perhaps some measure of too high of expectation because everyone was saying this is the best marvel movie EVAR! and it really just isn't, kinda shot it down a bit in my book.

Lucy: 7/10
didn't care for the ending, had too much "hey, you forgot you have this superpower you used 5 minutes ago", and a lot of shots and visual metaphors were a bit too on the nose.
but other than that it was a great and good looking action flick, i almost always enjoy stuff that luc besson does.

side note: "humans only use 10 of their cerebral capacity" is the line in the movie, not "humans only use 10% of their brains," and even if it was the latter, there's no sound in space - do you shit on star wars and refuse to see it because of that scientific inaccuracy? it's a fucking movie... in that world, humans only use 10% of their cerebral capacity, i don't give a shit if that's not true in real life.
 
Shadowy Man said:
prideandfall said:
there's no sound in space - do you shit on star wars and refuse to see it because of that scientific inaccuracy?
Click to expand...

It's a poor comparison because the plot of Star Wars doesn't hinge on there being sound in space.
Click to expand...
and the plot of Lucy doesn't hinge on a canard which isn't even actually in the movie, so it's a perfectly apt comparison.
 
Snakeman
4/10
This is the kind of movie that has all the hallmarks of the "So bad it became good again"
We start with one of the Baldwins (That isn't Alec)
We have cheesy special effects
Some pretty bad racial stereotypes
Villians who are evil........just cos
And plenty of side characters who don't even get names
Throw them all together with a pretty ove the top script, and for some reason it never fully reached the good part again
it isn't bad (Well it is but funny bad), but I wasn't that invested in it by the end

Batman: Mystery Of The Batwoman
6/10
I think this is a movie version of one of the many animated Batman T.V shows (which I haven't watched)
But the movie on it's own holds up alright
The animation is solid, although Bane is a little goofy looking
The voice acting is a little hit and miss but the misses are mostly on the supporting cast so don't get too annoying
The script suffers some pacing problems at the start but comes through in the end
And overall it isn't the greatest Batman ever but it will entertain for it's short runtime
 
prideandfall said:
side note: "humans only use 10 of their cerebral capacity" is the line in the movie, not "humans only use 10% of their brains,"
Click to expand...

That's right, but there is not a whole lot of difference between ''cerebral capacity'' and the architecture of the brain itself - nor is it a case of brains being used by humans.
 
prideandfall said:
Shadowy Man said:
It's a poor comparison because the plot of Star Wars doesn't hinge on there being sound in space.
Click to expand...
and the plot of Lucy doesn't hinge on a canard which isn't even actually in the movie, so it's a perfectly apt comparison.
Click to expand...

Why did Lucy's 'brain whatever' increase by discrete percentage points, accompanied by big numbers flashed on the screen? Was the drug in her system a time-release capsule?
 
Lethal Weapon 2

8/10

Not quite as good as the first film but a solid, entertaining sequel. The buddy-cop chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover is, if anything, stronger and more effective than in the original. Joe Pesci joined the regular cast in this one as comedy relief who also plays a role in the plot. Joss Ackland and Derrrick O'Connor as the South African heavies are appropriately menacing, although not quite as potent as Mitchell Ryan and Gary Busey from Lethal Weapon.
 
prideandfall said:
Shadowy Man said:
It's a poor comparison because the plot of Star Wars doesn't hinge on there being sound in space.
Click to expand...
and the plot of Lucy doesn't hinge on a canard which isn't even actually in the movie, so it's a perfectly apt comparison.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, all I know about the movie Lucy is what I have seen in the previews.
 
Shadowy Man said:
prideandfall said:
there's no sound in space - do you shit on star wars and refuse to see it because of that scientific inaccuracy?
Click to expand...

It's a poor comparison because the plot of Star Wars doesn't hinge on there being sound in space.
Click to expand...
Some character I can't remember: There is no air in space.
Homer Simpson: There is an air and space museum.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Shadowy Man said:
It's a poor comparison because the plot of Star Wars doesn't hinge on there being sound in space.
Click to expand...
Some character I can't remember: There is no air in space.
Homer Simpson: There is an air and space museum.
Click to expand...

And technically there is sound in space. You'd just need a really, really big microphone to record it.
 
James Brown said:
Why did Lucy's 'brain whatever' increase by discrete percentage points, accompanied by big numbers flashed on the screen? Was the drug in her system a time-release capsule?
Click to expand...
it was basically a visual metaphor gimmick - the movie is jammed full of them, flashes to totally abstract and unrelated images that are visual metaphor for what's happening in the plot. it was rather on-the-nose a lot of the time and not used consistently, but it was there enough to establish it as being part of the movie's visual dialogue.
the percentages on the screen served no purpose aside to denote A. when more powers unlocked, and B. as a gauge of time to denote when the 'final form' was reached, the basic idea being that once she unlocked 100% of what she could do within the confines of a human brain, she would stop being human. they could have been removed and it would have been completely obvious what was happening, but like i said the movie is full of these weird little cut-aways that are really on the nose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom