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

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

Batman (Spoilers) - Robert Pattinson plays James Dean playing Bruce Wayne. This movie gets bonus points off the top for not reminding us that Bruce's parents were killed with a scene showing them killed. The movie is more detective work than super action film, though that is likely because of the very long length of this film, clocking in near 3 hours! The movie does an interesting job at developing an unraveling story as Batman tries to piece together what is happening and why. It is dark and gritty, but not overly so. There are a couple brilliantly shot gun battles in the dark! However, the flying scene was its polar opposite and as visually uninspired as it possibly could have been.

The movie did leave me with a sense that Ra's al Ghul might have had a point. The other concern is that I started wondering, why what the Riddler was doing was a bad thing. The actions were targeted, lacked collateral damage and was effectively taking out the bad guys pretending to be good (sound familiar?). Which then leads to the flaw, the ultimate ultimate plan of his seemed completely unrelated and discontinuous to the previous actions. It is completely blind and without specific target. I was figuring the target would be the renewal projects. Instead of a fine incision plan, he uses a blowtorch or drops a large anvil on Gotham. They build him up to be cerebral, cunning, intelligent, but then in the end 'Anvil man'.

The good, this movie stands on its own. The acting is good. I am tiring of the same ole Batman villains, that is getting old, but Pattinson's portrayal of James Dean playing Batman, to me, was much better than Affleck's. It was also his own, so happy with that. The movie's action only include a few moments of these people should have died, but it's okay now. The movie felt a little overly long, I can take long movies, but it started to feel a bit too long. Honestly, a better finish would have been the Riddler doing what he aimed to do (gets away), and then communicates with Batman and has the conversation they had in the prison, and Batman struggles with the idea that two of them are much more alike than he wants, which leads to the epiphany. Skip the stupid flood.

3 of 4
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Batman (Spoilers) - Robert Pattinson plays James Dean playing Bruce Wayne. This movie gets bonus points off the top for not reminding us that Bruce's parents were killed with a scene showing them killed. The movie is more detective work than super action film, though that is likely because of the very long length of this film, clocking in near 3 hours! The movie does an interesting job at developing an unraveling story as Batman tries to piece together what is happening and why. It is dark and gritty, but not overly so. There are a couple brilliantly shot gun battles in the dark! However, the flying scene was its polar opposite and as visually uninspired as it possibly could have been.

The movie did leave me with a sense that Ra's al Ghul might have had a point. The other concern is that I started wondering, why what the Riddler was doing was a bad thing. The actions were targeted, lacked collateral damage and was effectively taking out the bad guys pretending to be good (sound familiar?). Which then leads to the flaw, the ultimate ultimate plan of his seemed completely unrelated and discontinuous to the previous actions. It is completely blind and without specific target. I was figuring the target would be the renewal projects. Instead of a fine incision plan, he uses a blowtorch or drops a large anvil on Gotham. They build him up to be cerebral, cunning, intelligent, but then in the end 'Anvil man'.

The good, this movie stands on its own. The acting is good. I am tiring of the same ole Batman villains, that is getting old, but Pattinson's portrayal of James Dean playing Batman, to me, was much better than Affleck's. It was also his own, so happy with that. The movie's action only include a few moments of these people should have died, but it's okay now. The movie felt a little overly long, I can take long movies, but it started to feel a bit too long. Honestly, a better finish would have been the Riddler doing what he aimed to do (gets away), and then communicates with Batman and has the conversation they had in the prison, and Batman struggles with the idea that two of them are much more alike than he wants, which leads to the epiphany. Skip the stupid flood.

3 of 4
Click to expand...
Personally, Sparkly Vampire Batman just put me and my husband off.

If they had done as you suggested with the ending, and had cast an actor that wasn't tainted with enough glitter to choke a stripper, then it might have been a good movie.
 
The Talented Mr. Ripley, 7/10; Streaming on Netflix this movie was originally released in 1999 and stars Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and a host of other familiar faces including the recently deceased Philip Baker Hall. The plot revolves around Tom Ripley being recruited by Dickie Greenleaf's father to go on a mission to Italy to get his son to return to to the USA and the family business. Ripley takes on the task and befriends Dickie. Ripley rather enjoys the carefree lifestyle being paid for by the Greanleaf's. But things start to go south when Dickie tires of Ripley and initiates a parting of ways. A very good story with believable scenarios and great performances form a very strong cast. Jude Law is a much better actor than I had him pegged for.
 
The Time Machine, 3/10.

The 2002 film with Guy Pearce. I don't even know where to start with this one. I loved the George Pal adaptation, I've got a collection of Wells' stories, and I am at a loss to describe just how terrible this movie was. How do you take such a classic story, cast an actor who had so much potential, and completely, utterly screw the pooch in the process? The H.G. Wells sub-plot in the Sci Fi show "Warehouse 13" was head and shoulders above this dreck. The late 70s film "Time After Time" - with Malcolm McDowell as a good guy - was better. What the hell went wrong with this?

The main character (again, Guy Pearce completely wasted in this role) is a professor about to propose to his girlfriend. They get robbed by the lamest criminal in history, she dies, and next thing you know our hero has a time machine? Whatever...so he goes back exactly ONE time to save his beloved by fixing history, but once that fails? He gives up and "four years later" decides to travel to the future because...that would fix the past...because...?

As often happens, he winds up a few years in the future. Apparently in 2002 it was accepted that 2030 would be an idyllic future where AI was commonplace and we were colonizing the Moon? Oh shit...we blew up the Moon? Fast forward to 800k years in the future and within a hot minute the modern day Weena knew English? CGI Morlocks, Jeremy Irons chewing scenery, and what was the point of this movie again?
 
Thor - Love & Thunder - Two words, "perfectly ridiculous". It isn't perfect (okay, I said perfectly ridiculous not one sentence ago), there are some angles that I think are stealing genuine emotion and their is the occasional comic book plot hole, but overall, this is a perfect continuation of the the Ragnorak version of Thor.

3.5 of 4

Dr. Strange - Multiverse of Madness (spoils) - The first time I watched this, it felt too muddled and chaotic. The second time, things made a bit more sense and less chaotic. Presumable resolutions were actually addressed and put aside within reason. My problem with the film, however, is that the Sorcerer Supreme put Dr. Strange on a high pedestal. Yet, in a bunch of universes, he ain't that. In fact, he is the antithesis of the high pedestal. I suppose this could be resolved by saying the Sorcerer Supreme was a drunk in those universes as well.

If you are a snowflake and can't handle things not straight and white, you could be dealing with some serious triggers.

3 of 4
 
Prey

The latest in the Predator series. This time it takes place in early American history. The protagonist is a Cherokee woman who has a knack for tracking and hunting. Besides dealing with the Predator, the natives have to deal with hostile French fur hunters. This lacks the bits of humor and catch phrases of other Predator movies and the Predator itself is an earlier version of those we are used to.

The action was well choreographed and the movie moved quickly. A worthy effort in the series. I give it a 4/5.

Available on Hulu.
 
Hustle, 6/10; Stars Adam Sandler as a scout for NBA team the Philadelphia 76ers. He believes he has found a hidden gem in a Spanish youth who hustles money at scrimmage basketball games in the street courts. The movie is nicely paced and clips along going through the predictable plot. Quite entertaining, worth a watch.
 
prideandfall said:
Playball40 said:
Everything, Everywhere All at Once.

9/10 Interesting take on a multiverse theme. I like films that make you think, laugh and cry in the same sitting. This has all the components.
Click to expand...
i'm curious... have you heard of or seen the first film this writer/director duo made, swiss army man?
if so, what did you think of it?

EEAAO has been getting rave reviews from every direction and i... kinda fuckin' hated it, because it's such an enormous pile of shit compared to swiss army man and i was so hugely disappointed, so i've been trying to figure out if i disliked it on its own merits or just because of what a monumental let-down it was compared to their first movie.
Click to expand...
I haven't. But I will check it out.
 
Ford said:
The Time Machine, 3/10.

The 2002 film with Guy Pearce. I don't even know where to start with this one. I loved the George Pal adaptation, I've got a collection of Wells' stories, and I am at a loss to describe just how terrible this movie was. How do you take such a classic story, cast an actor who had so much potential, and completely, utterly screw the pooch in the process? The H.G. Wells sub-plot in the Sci Fi show "Warehouse 13" was head and shoulders above this dreck. The late 70s film "Time After Time" - with Malcolm McDowell as a good guy - was better. What the hell went wrong with this?

The main character (again, Guy Pearce completely wasted in this role) is a professor about to propose to his girlfriend. They get robbed by the lamest criminal in history, she dies, and next thing you know our hero has a time machine? Whatever...so he goes back exactly ONE time to save his beloved by fixing history, but once that fails? He gives up and "four years later" decides to travel to the future because...that would fix the past...because...?

As often happens, he winds up a few years in the future. Apparently in 2002 it was accepted that 2030 would be an idyllic future where AI was commonplace and we were colonizing the Moon? Oh shit...we blew up the Moon? Fast forward to 800k years in the future and within a hot minute the modern day Weena knew English? CGI Morlocks, Jeremy Irons chewing scenery, and what was the point of this movie again?
Click to expand...
I just watched the 1979 movie, "Time After Time" which depicts HG Wells chasing Jack the Ripper through time. I've watched before but was watching as a tribute to David Warner.
 
I loved Time After Time.

I tried to watch Prey a few days ago, and didn't make it thru the movie.
 
Last night I went and saw "The Conference" https://mhm.org.au/the-conference/
Whist a very good docodrama I found it chilling and disturbing.
The participants knew why they were there and what was being discussed. Mass slaughter of Jews and others.
Discussing the slaughter as if they were to work out how to improve the efficiency of a production line.
At the start of WW2 the Germans were the most educated and cultured group in Europe and yet they did that.

PS: What the movie lacked in my opinion was a list of the participants and what happened to them i.e Executed at Nuremburg, died of old age, missing etc.
Heydrich who organised the conference was killed by Czech partisans 4 months later.
 
Worldtraveller said:
Top Gun: Maverick
Some huge plot holes, unrealistic military/operational sequences, but lots of fun anf worth seeing. Also, Jennifer Connelly is still the hottest woman on planet earth. 😊
Click to expand...
Yeah, who plotted that mission?!?!

1) You go in on a mission like that with no redundancy?!

2) Why weren't there some more Hornets coming in a bit more sedately--and nailing those SAM launchers with Mavericks when things go loud?! I don't think they could do anything about the SAMs on the far side of the valley but the rest of them should have gone kaboom just after the Tomahawks went in.

3) No HARMs taking down the SAM radars?

4) Any part of the air wing not allocated to the already-listed stuff should have been armed for air-to-air. There should have been AMRAAMs heading for those bandits with the seekers only turned on when they get close.
 
Just watched Saving Mr. Banks yesterday. The story of Walt Disney trying to get the rights from the author of the Mary Poppins books to make the movie. It was pretty good and Emma Thompson was fantastic as the author. It bounces back and forth between her childhood in the Australian outback and dealing with her loving but severely alcoholic father and the memories the process of creating the movie brings back to her.

Only because of Thompson's performance do I give it an 8/10.
 
Watched the latest Spiderman movie. The one with the three spider men from different ¿multiverses? I guess. The storyline could have been wrapped around a piece of bubblegum. Speaking of wrapping around, the special effects with the curving cityscapes was cool but even that, Inception. Seriously, why do these movies get such good reviews? I think it's like the Christian nutjobs coming in and five staring their bad movies.
I watched it til the end so I'll give it 54%. That's ten points better than the president who I cannot watch til the end.
 
Samaritan - Sylvester Stallone super hero film on Amazon Prime

The city is falling apart with unemployment, homelessness, poverty. 13 year old kid hopes for a return of Samaritan, Asher that supposedly died 25 years before fighting his brother Nemesis. Thinks he found him when a neighbor of his, a garbage man that just wants to be left alone, seems to have super strength.

the film is a bit predictable, but still pretty good. 8 out of 10
 
The Guilty, 3/10; Streaming on Netflix stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Joe Boyler, a demoted LA policeman who is manning a Los Angels 911 call center while suspended for doing something naughty. The movie starts off interesting enough but becomes boring after about thirty minutes. It is filmed entirely within the call center. Boyler takes a call from a woman who appears to have been abducted and has trouble relaying her location to Boyler. The tension builds as Boyler frantically tries to save her and her home alone kids using contacts out on the field who relay situations to him. I had to bail after about 30 minutes as it became apparent the film was not going to have any action in it. Some people like this sort of movie as it gets rave reviews and Gyllenhaal is really good but this was not my cup of tea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom