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

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

Jimmy Higgins said:
Point Break (Rifftrax Live) - Good gawd this was an awful 1980s/early 90s movie. It was probably a good popcorn flick when it came out, but this thing aged about as well as 1 pound of cheese behind the fridge over the same period of time. Had it not been for the Rifftrax live portion of this, I'd have given up maybe ten or fifteen minutes. It made Lethal Weapon look like Lawrence of Arabia. And don't get me wrong, I liked Lethal Weapon. And it isn't like the acting crew is incapable of acting, it's just the plot is really stupid. Makes me think of Twister with the dueling tornado hunters. You have two groups of surfers but one is allegedly pure to purpose of surfing... but they rob banks. Filming and surfing apparently were legitimate, and I'd say decently done. But that isn't going to save this 80s/early 90s short expiration date plot.

The Rifftrax crew killed it however.

Probably 2.5 of 4 (back then)
1 of 4 (today)
3.5 of 4 with Rifftrax
Click to expand...
I think I remember watching it once when it first came out. Apparently it didn't make much of an impression on me since your description is the only thing that reminded me of what it was about.
 
rgyS3wIwyWxd2Fik7iCSrthxkeaoweJo_PEKqLXUHaF8UoG47ZVJPsbxNER0zSeVG6JFLZtrxbMldQFyeAnnUPxO5PwWm-Of3Bhqw8SWRWvD2tKLTHSjfB4P62iVIFCZggEXxuOeoAHk9g3YyDhiMg

Bring Up Baby
 
Borg v McEnroe, 7/10; Stars Shia LeBeouf as John McEnroe. The movie is a biographical drama "based on true events" about the lives of two great tennis players, Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Borg is a Swedish, cool and calm professional who is at his peak and going to play at Wimbledon where he has won four times in a row. McEnroe is an brash American youngster whose star is on the rise and his path is about to cross with Borg. This type of movie is usually quite interesting but they almost always lack much entertainment. The story covers both athletes' background in mostly vague terms, very dramatic at times. Once the Wimbledon tournament gets underway the tension ratchets up. I didn't know the history of this 1980 tournament or the rivalry but I think most people would assume Borg and McEnroe would meet in the final but the movie builds up well to the finale. The two lead actors do an impressive job playing their characters and the supporting actors all do a great job. LeBeouf apes McEnroe pretty well on court but is weaker when away from court.
 
Payback

A 1999 Mel Gibson film noir with Gibson playing an expert at robbery double crossed by his partner and his wife. He barely survives the shooting and everyone else thinks he's dead. Then he comes back to get the money owed him.

Gibson has the film noir genre down pat. I don't think the movie did good at the box office but for some reason I really like the film. Always outsmarting his rivals as he kills his way to getting his money back.

I have no idea how to rate it for others. I just know I like the movie.
 
The Notorious Landlady - Already had seen this, I've seen a huge number of Lemmon movies. This is a fun romp / whodunnit starring Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon, and Fred Astaire. It revolves around the mess a US diplomat finds himself in after renting an apartment from a particular woman of questionable morals. The controversy grows and grows and Lemmon's career in the Diplomatic world (and maybe even his life) is in jeopardy. The premise is a little forced, but otherwise, this is a fun film to watch.

3 of 4
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Point Break (Rifftrax Live) - Good gawd this was an awful 1980s/early 90s movie. It was probably a good popcorn flick when it came out, but this thing aged about as well as 1 pound of cheese behind the fridge over the same period of time. Had it not been for the Rifftrax live portion of this, I'd have given up maybe ten or fifteen minutes. It made Lethal Weapon look like Lawrence of Arabia. And don't get me wrong, I liked Lethal Weapon. And it isn't like the acting crew is incapable of acting, it's just the plot is really stupid. Makes me think of Twister with the dueling tornado hunters. You have two groups of surfers but one is allegedly pure to purpose of surfing... but they rob banks. Filming and surfing apparently were legitimate, and I'd say decently done. But that isn't going to save this 80s/early 90s short expiration date plot.

The Rifftrax crew killed it however.

Probably 2.5 of 4 (back then)
1 of 4 (today)
3.5 of 4 with Rifftrax
Click to expand...
I think I was around 26 or 27 when that movie came out. I thought it was stupid then and it even got me a FWB for a few months because we initially bonded by talking about how dumb Point Break was (I don't remember the details of how this came to be). Turned out it was the only thing we had in common, but I thank Point Break for a sweet memory.
 
Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 / 4.5 of 5
Three hours in length and easy to sit through. For me it has all the settle in for a good story aspect as a series of books might.
It is the westward expansion. It is brutal and violent without being unnecessarily offensive to watch. The characters are varied. There are bullies, clueless people out of their element, leaders, poor decisions being made, dishonesty, wrecked families, women trying to survive, and the plight of indigenous people. The story of Native Americans is not portrayed solely in the violent aspect of the expansion. Their story is at least explained, albeit to a much lesser extent.

Erik Kain gives a good review below. I disagree on some minor points he makes, particularly regarding the mother and daughter. I don't think he is fully appreciating their situation.

 
Start the Revolution Without Me - Film starring Wilder and Sutherland in a painstakingly accurate reproduction of the French Revolution in 1789 and the very odd coincidences that shaped it. As a Historical Reproduction in 1789, it puts the historical reproduction of Braveheart to shame (this line works on multiple levels). This is a 1970 film and comedies (the movie industry in general?) are going through a phase at this point. As such, a comedy can get a little out of touch or out of hand. This film straddles that line, giving the impression that it is going to go too far, without generally going too far, except maybe the very end... in 1789. Sometimes a gag carries a little too far, but overall, it had enough restraint not to be counter-productive (I'm looking at you Jerry Lewis!). There are genuine LOL moments throughout the film.

Looking abroad online, some don't seem to have taken as well to this historical adaptation as I did. Wikipedia has this, which I think I agree with thoroughly.
wiki said:
Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote that the film "is not without some oafish and wrong-headed touches, but on the whole it's a witty and engaging picture, an affectionate and competent revival of traditional farce."
Click to expand...

A solid 3 of 4 from me.
 
She Done Him Wrong - Film adaptation of very successful West written Broadway show called Diamond Lil, which the censors were very much against going on the screen. West and others adapted the script just enough to fool the censors to get She Done Him Wrong onto the screen. The film kind of co-stars Cary Grant who plays a missionary (in more ways than one). The movie is short, 65 minutes, and while nominated for Best Picture (shortest film ever for that honor), it didn't feel like a Best Picture. The primary weakness of the film is it loosely crafted. It has all the right parts for a great movie, but the compacted Broadway sense of the film holds it from fulfilling its potential. Granted, it is possible that this design for a plot is newish.

The movie's comedy for me is hit and miss. When it hits, it is pretty good though, such when West's character asks how much the building next door was worth to the owner and he asks, ~'how much as in what I tell the tax man its worth or what it is worth when setting the rent.' This is 1932, things never change. Seeing a "young" Grant and West together is always good. I don't know if it is the technology, but West doesn't sound too good when singing in this film. Makes DIetrich sound like Chenoweth.

2.5 of 4

Saw this quote from West. I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it.
 
The Beekeeper, 7/10; Streaming on Amazon and stars Jason Statham as a retired "Beekeeper" government operative Adam Clay. Clay's landlady (played by the lovely Phylicia Rashad) is taken in by a cyber phishing scam, losing all her money and the money of a charity she manages. She commits suicide and Clay goes to war with the seedy organization behind the scam, starting with one of the call centers. It gets complicated because the head of the scammers is the son of the US president. The movie is pretty standard for the genre, lots of highly choreographed fight scenes, explosions and silliness. Statham is good at what he does here.
 
The Third Man - Movie regarding a pulp fiction novelist visiting the funeral of friend in post-WWII Vienna. The postwar is noted not for a period of time, but the politics involved regarding the Allies during the transition from Nazi Austria to not Nazi Austria. The novelist was curious about the accident that led to his friend's death. However, the curiosity became more involved as conflicting information started to raise doubts about the death being an accident.

Overall, the film was enjoyable, though the filming was a little in your face style wise. The movie does a very good job of letting the viewer be as clueless as the protagonist. The use of foreign language without subtitles helps sell the isolation.

Sounds like Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant were potential actors for the role Joseph Cotton ultimately won. It is a bit fun to imagine how Stewart and Grant would have managed the role. I agree that Cotton was the better of them, an imperfect stranger in Vienna. Fun fact, other than Casino Royale (which doesn't count), this was the first film with Orson Welles I think I've seen.

3.5 of 4
 
Speaking of The Third Man, I've been to, and ridden on, that Ferris Wheel, which seems much smaller "in person."
 
Strangerland.

There was potential for this to be a good film. Nicole Kidman works her butt off, (I think I may have underestimated her as an actress), as do Ralph Fiennes and Hugo Weaving.

Not enough to save it. I think it's poor writing, but I'm unclear about why it doesn't gel for me. Certainly they have search and rescue teams doing things they just wouldn't do, which pulls you right out of the story and into nitpicking.

I can live with the lack of resolution, on several fronts, but it feels as if they just ran out of funding.

Save yourself. Don't watch this.
 
The Watchers

I'd hoped this was based off the Dean Koontz novel of the same name. There was a 1988 movie that really sucked and for some reason I recall a more recent attempt at basing a movie off of that novel.

Anyway, this wasn't an adaptation of that book.

The concept is cool and the film does a good job of setting up the atmosphere, but that's about it.

Monsters that were former fairies have four people in a house in the middle of the woods with a two way mirror. The purpose of this is so the former fairies can watch them. Why is this? I haven't a clue.

Also, the main character carries around a cage with a parrot in it. I think it's some sort of ham fisted attempt at symbolism, but it's just lame. The filmmakers attempt to have it matter in a really cringey Chekov's gun moment, but it's like something a 16 year old trying to use the trope for the very first time.

There's also a twist at the end, which you can see coming a mile away. While you're not sure who the twist is going to happen with, you do know it's coming and likely who it is.

I could go on about the inconsistency and stupidity of the movie, but I've said enough already.

You can feel very free to give this one a miss.

4/10
 
Colonel Sanders said:
The Watchers

I'd hoped this was based off the Dean Koontz novel of the same name. There was a 1988 movie that really sucked and for some reason I recall a more recent attempt at basing a movie off of that novel.

Anyway, this wasn't an adaptation of that book.

The concept is cool and the film does a good job of setting up the atmosphere, but that's about it.

Monsters that were former fairies have four people in a house in the middle of the woods with a two way mirror. The purpose of this is so the former fairies can watch them. Why is this? I haven't a clue.

Also, the main character carries around a cage with a parrot in it. I think it's some sort of ham fisted attempt at symbolism, but it's just lame. The filmmakers attempt to have it matter in a really cringey Chekov's gun moment, but it's like something a 16 year old trying to use the trope for the very first time.

There's also a twist at the end, which you can see coming a mile away. While you're not sure who the twist is going to happen with, you do know it's coming and likely who it is.

I could go on about the inconsistency and stupidity of the movie, but I've said enough already.

You can feel very free to give this one a miss.

4/10
Click to expand...
Yeah, leave it to a Shyamalan (sp?) to ruin a good concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom