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

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

Undead 2003

9/10 in category of low budget zombie movies.

Australian zombie apocalypse movie with an ET twist.
 
Lego Batman Movie
6/10
So this is a Lego Batman movie that is apprently based upon the Lego Batman game
And stragely it pulls it off
The animation is quite good and these lego figure have a wider range of movement (Compared to the other Lego movie) so can pull off more stuff while still putting a few good lego related gags
The voice acting is all good, and I really liked the guy who voiced Batman in this
The script moves along well, is well written and is generally quite funny
Occasionally some bits might fall flat, but this is actually a nice entertaining little movie
 
The Amazing Spider Man 2
3/10
it was horrible, I even was hoping spidey would die at certain times..
 
MarkW said:
Zombieland

9/10

Despite the title, this is not a horror film, it's an action comedy which just happens to involve a lot of zombies. And it's a good one, too. The script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick is witty, director Ruben Fleischer supplies fast pace and a light touch, and the four leads--Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin--are all in the spirit of things and work well with each other. Very enjoyable.
Click to expand...
I watched this last night and agree with your review. A thoroughly enjoyable action comedy.
 
First, I tried to watch High Sierra (1941), but 35 minutes into this movie I had to give up. Bogart was OK as the main character, a criminal just released from prison preparing for his next heist, but everyone else was bland or just hokey. And to top it off, they included a badly stereotypical African-American character for comic relief. He was lazy, easily frightened, and he had big bulging eyes.

Then I watched Errors of the Human Body (2012). A geneticist lives with the painful memories of a son who died of a genetic disease. While this was obviously a sci-fi story, I couldn't quite figure out where they were going with it. Part soap opera, part character study, with the possibility of horror. It never fully went in any of those directions, but in the end it was an interesting and enjoyable film thanks to an unexpected twist. 7/10
 
American Hustle - A pretty well done film about an FBI agent trying to catch the biggest of fishes. Katnis clearly was not the better from having been in the Hunger Games, being crazy and all. I didn't know beforehand that Christian Bale was in it, I swore from the pictures I thought it was Burt Reynolds. Bale is such an incredible actor, he pulled off one of those, you can't tell it is Bale performances. He was always in character. Amy Adams continues to head towards an Oscar and that other guy played his overly ambitious character pretty well, though I'm not certain if he is acting. Jeremy Renner played the role of the Camden Mayor superbly. You see him and know it is Jermey Renner, but you also believe he is some guy straight from the 70s.

3.5 of 4
 
Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For - 5/10

had a number of issues that stopped it from being that good, was definitely not as good as the first one, but was a hell of a lot better than some other action/fantasy movies i've seen this year.
 
Sin City 2
6/10

Agree with above, not as good as the first, but still watchable. I like the Marv character, but they wore him thin in this one, forcing him into too many stories. One of the action scenes was badly staged (the big shoot em up at the Eva's house). And there was also Jessica Alba's acting ability.
 
Lost in Space
1/10

Danger! Danger! Don't watch this piece of crap or you'll get brain damage.

- - - Updated - - -

blastula said:
Sin City 2


...And there was also Jessica Alba's acting ability.
Click to expand...

They weren't able to add it in post production like they usually do?
 
Before Sunrise

9/10

The first of what I like to think of as the "Jesse and Celine" trilogy, followed at nine-year intervals by Before Sunset and Before Midnight. A romance, but not a romantic comedy, this is far more compelling than you'd expect from a film that consists almost entirely of two people (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) talking to each other as they walk the streets of Vienna.
 
Man of Steel

I'd heard it was disappointing, but gave it a chance anyway. I was not disappointed. It lived up to low expectations.

Krypton was certainly impressive. Kudos for making Zod more than a one dimensional villain. But the actual Super Man himself? One of the challenges in dealing with a basically invincible super-being who looks human is to...well...humanize him. It is hard not to make a comparison to the Christopher Reeve portrayal. The way that version was made less "alien" was to make him not just Super, but Super-American. His other-ness was balanced by an outsized earnest and honest persona. He was physically invincible, but emotionally vulnerable, and as a result was a sympathetic character.

This new Superman? I didn't feel one way or another about him at the end of the film. In contrast, I remember leaving the theater in 1978 feeling like I could fly.

5/10
 
blastula said:
One of the action scenes was badly staged (the big shoot em up at the Eva's house).
Click to expand...
i also thought that whole scene was oddly bad, even within the broader context of the film - it seemed awkward and weird.

and then i found out that the entire 'attack on eva's house' was not in the comics, but was a scene written for the movie by frank miller.
 
Lucy 8/10

Yes, the science is pretty bad. Further, the ads are misleading and make it look like an action movie, which it very much is not. The filmmakers are simply using science fiction as a setting for talking about human nature, which I'm fine with because at least this movie has more interesting things to say about human nature than most sci-fi movies with bad science (e.g. Star Wars).

As the Moviebob review noted, while the movie has a lot of bad science, at least it takes a fairly pro-science view of things, which is frankly refreshing after decades of "science causes bad stuff" crap we've seen in sci-fi movies over the last three or four decades.

Oh, and the Scarlet's performance was fantastic.

Addendum -- Before you ask, the movie title and the name of the main character is indeed a reference to the infamous protohuman skeleton.
 
MarkW said:
Before Sunrise

9/10

The first of what I like to think of as the "Jesse and Celine" trilogy, followed at nine-year intervals by Before Sunset and Before Midnight. A romance, but not a romantic comedy, this is far more compelling than you'd expect from a film that consists almost entirely of two people (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) talking to each other as they walk the streets of Vienna.
Click to expand...

Oh! I didn't know they made a third one. Off to manage my Netflix queue.
 
Godzilla(2014)-- not a bad movie at all. Compelling characters, and everything you'd expect visually from a movie with this kind of budget. I suppose it just reminds me how disappointed I am that kaiju have been relegated to these sorts of action/sci-fi blockbusters, neglecting their potential for horror. It's been years since the last time I saw a Godzilla film, so I forgot how much they rub me the wrong way. I've never been the sort who thought of giant monsters as "cool", and enjoyed watching them fight each other(or giant robots). To me, they work better as harbingers of the apocalypse, symbols of humanity's powerlessness and insignificance in the face of an uncaring cosmos. But the Godzilla franchise is on a totally different wavelength. There's this irritating undercurrent of reverence for nature, this notion of Godzilla existing to return "balance", which in feel-good Hollywood productions like this tends to mean saving the disseminated primatemaia instead of burning them off the planet. Honestly, how is it "restoring balance" to

eradicate the species which absorbs nuclear radiation, instead of the species which builds the fucking reactors in the first place? It seems to me that it's the MUTO that are bringing balance to the planet.



From a more objective standard, judging it for what it's trying to be, I'd give it a 9/10-- 1 point off because too many shots of the monsters are poorly lit.
Based on my personal enjoyment, I'd give it 5/10.
 
Blow Out

8/10

Brian De Palma's paranoid political thriller was in the vein of 1970s films like The Parallax View, but of course also had his trademark nods to Hitchcock (including a blackly comic take on the shower scene from Psycho). John Travolta, making one of his first non-comic, non-musical films, is a pretty good lead, but for me Nancy Allen's performance was a weakness. On the other hand, John Lithgow was memorable as a psycho-for-hire.
 
Unbeatable said:
There's this irritating undercurrent of reverence for nature, this notion of Godzilla existing to return "balance", which in feel-good Hollywood productions like this tends to mean saving the disseminated primatemaia instead of burning them off the planet. Honestly, how is it "restoring balance" to

eradicate the species which absorbs nuclear radiation, instead of the species which builds the fucking reactors in the first place? It seems to me that it's the MUTO that are bringing balance to the planet.

Click to expand...


I would say it is a holdover from the original Japanese movies where Godzilla is essentially a "protector of Japan (or even earth)" in some movies along with long time Rival/Ally Mothra
They probably just saw that and kinda ran with it, except they didn't realise that Godzilla needs an enemy worthy of him being a hero

But then that isn't always true for the originals as Godzilla has been everything from pure evil to ultimate good to just plain doesn't care and will kill anything
it probably doesn't help that, as you mentioned, the MUTO aren't really the antagonist for that kind of setup as opposed to opponents like King Ghidorah, Space Godzilla, Destroyah, Hedorah or Gigan which in the original Godzilla movies are often portrayed as being pure evils that Godzilla can to protect the world from (as well as the Xilians)

But for the MUTO I think the idea was that they are like the beginning of a plague that would result in the death of everything
So the MUTO take the role that Godzilla played in the original Godzilla movie and they represent the idea that continuus proliferation of Nuclear weapons will result in things going beyond our control and things being wiped out

or I could just be overthinking it and they were just badly thought out monsters for Godzilla to beat up



Piranha DD
1/10
Ok so this movie is about a bunch of stupid people that really just make a mess of things being killed by a heroic band of Piranha who seek to protect huanity from becomming too stupid
or something
I mean all the characters are pretty stupid and most are just A-holes on top so they are stupid and unbearable at the same time
The jokes....if you can call them that.... are all either goofy reference (because David Hasselhof is HILARIOUS) or just pointless shock value gags
And they throw in obvious 3D gimmick shots, which if you are like me and watched in 2D just look really really stupid
Love the Dun DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!! moment at the end
and the effects are kinda.....ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Just skip this one
 
Wreck of the mary deare
1959 Cooper and Heston.
Got it all.Ships,storms,intrigue.
 
Heist

8/10

This one delivers pretty much what the title promises--a well-executed, intricate heist movie. Since it's written and directed by David Mamet, there's some clever dialogue, and layers upon layers of schemes and double-crosses. And since it's written and directed by Mamet, it suffers from his penchant for casting his wife, Rebecca Pidgeon, in a major role--while good in some of his other films, she is seriously miscast here as a femme fatale. Otherwise the cast is very strong, with Gene Hackman, Delroy Lindo, Danny DeVito, and Mamet regular Ricky Jay all outstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom