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

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

Since Robin Williams death I've been catching up with his extensive catalogue of films. The World According To Garp was an amusing flick if not a blockbuster. 4/10
 
prideandfall said:
good for you.

I'm not exactly certain how you differentiate Transformers from the movies you listed above.
Click to expand...
by using this crazy new thing that just came up with called subjectivity - using it, you can have points of view different from other people. it's fucking crazy.
Click to expand...
But there is nothing different between those films. They suffer the exact same flaws.
 
A couple days ago I watched The Wolverine. Part of my quest to try and sort of keep up with the never ending stream of Marvel Comics movies.


Like most of them, this one was average. As the folks making Superman movies figured out a long time ago, if you've got a basically invincible protagonist, you've got to introduce some Kryptonite at some point to keep things interesting.

Actually you don't even need to "cross the streams" into the DC universe to find this plot point. Iron Man 3 and the first Thor movie were predicated on the "superhero loses powers" premise to an extent. In "Days of Future Past" Xavier lost his powers (or more accurately gave them up).


Then, inevitably, the hero regains their power and saves the day.


It is starting to get old.


5/10
 
prideandfall said:
bad boys, the rock, armageddon, the island - all were pretty stupid, i'm not saying any of them were good movies, but i consider them all to be *entertaining*
pearl harbor and the transformer movies have all been incredibly stupid, and not entertaining.

also... jerry bruckheimer is a producer, not a director - he's never actually directed anything.
Click to expand...

I'd go further and say that The Rock was a good film with a few flaws. Can't speak to the others.

angelo said:
Since Robin Williams death I've been catching up with his extensive catalogue of films. The World According To Garp was an amusing flick if not a blockbuster. 4/10
Click to expand...


:eeka: What part did he play? I can't have been paying attention. Or did they do a remake with Williams in the John Lithgow part?
 
spikepipsqueak said:
I'd go further and say that The Rock was a good film with a few flaws. Can't speak to the others.

angelo said:
Since Robin Williams death I've been catching up with his extensive catalogue of films. The World According To Garp was an amusing flick if not a blockbuster. 4/10
Click to expand...


:eeka: What part did he play? I can't have been paying attention. Or did they do a remake with Williams in the John Lithgow part?
Click to expand...
From Wiki......................The World According to Garp is 1982 American comedy-drama film directed by George Roy Hill, based on the novel of the same title by John Irving, who co-wrote the script with Steve Tesich. The film starred Robin Williams in the title role. For their roles, John Lithgow and Glenn Close were respectively nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role at the 55th Academy Awards. The movie adaptation was filmed mostly in the Leewood Estates neighborhood of Eastchester, New York in the Spring and Summer of 1981. Many scenes were filmed at the town's high school, as well as Rutgers University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Garp_(film)
 
Ford said:
A couple days ago I watched The Wolverine. Part of my quest to try and sort of keep up with the never ending stream of Marvel Comics movies.


Like most of them, this one was average. As the folks making Superman movies figured out a long time ago, if you've got a basically invincible protagonist, you've got to introduce some Kryptonite at some point to keep things interesting.

Actually you don't even need to "cross the streams" into the DC universe to find this plot point. Iron Man 3 and the first Thor movie were predicated on the "superhero loses powers" premise to an extent. In "Days of Future Past" Xavier lost his powers (or more accurately gave them up).


Then, inevitably, the hero regains their power and saves the day.


It is starting to get old.

5/10
Click to expand...

There are only so many plot lines ANY story can go through before they start repeating themselves.
 
I'm not and never have been a big fan of fantasy movies. The Harry Potter movies for example, I have yet to sit and watch one.
 
The Maze Runner 7/10

Nice entry in the YA post-apocalypse genre. Could make a good TV series.

On a side note, those soda machines at AMC theaters are the single best innovation in movies since color film.
 
Ocean's Eleven

8/10

While there's nothing classic here, this is a very well-crafted and executed caper film that I have enjoyed repeatedly over the past decade or so. The heist is just about believable (and that's not the norm in caper films), and there's a solid cast featuring ringleader George Clooney, scene-stealing right-hand man Brad Pitt, antagonist Andy Garcia as well as Elliott Gould, Don Cheadle and Carl Reiner.
 
Grabbers (2012). 7/10

Decent Irish monster horror movie. It's got a nice vibe to it. The characters are well played. But horribly stereotypical. The main hero cop is an old drunk. Done to death a million times over. As is the new cop who comes to town and is all overly anal about the law, and has to learn that that won't work in this town. They lose the suspense element toward the last third of the movie. All the scenes become extremely predictable. I also don't understand why the cops couldn't tell the villagers about the monster. But instead pulled them along with elaborate lies. The CGI monster is well made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1525366/
 
Kon-Tiki (the 2012 film)

8/10

A good adventure film, about a real life adventure. This is a fairly realistic but also dramatic recreation of Thor Heyerdahl's 1947 Kon-Tiki expedition.
 
Seeds of Destruction. -8/10.

Seriously, it is hard to see how they could have made a worse film if they had been deliberately trying to do so; It has everything, from a killer plant that grows at 30mph (but which our inept heroes can outrun on foot when necessary), to a botanist who found seeds from the Garden of Eden on an archaeological (or perhaps archaeoillogical) dig, but then just took her evil boss's word for it that the jar was empty when they got it back to the lab, to a secret government agency with actual unmarked black helicopters, to characters who haven't the slightest emotional response to the deaths of their friends (Who are, after all, just extras), to the serious scientist telling the G-man "The Bible may just be a book of myths to you, but there is some serious scientific evidence that some of the places and events in it are real!". Oh, did I mention that the secret government agency is called 'Scope', because their mandate is to examine stuff that is 'outside the scope of science'?

Still, it isn't all about the awful script, or the woeful acting; the CGI effects are incredibly clunky, the incidental music is cheesy, and there is a plant described breathlessly as 'Not seen for a million years' which is a dead ringer for the dieffenbachia in my back yard. Oh, and it has leaves that miraculously heal unrealistic looking gunshot wounds when pressed to the skin, in a way almost indistinguishable from a poorly shot special effect!

I thoroughly enjoyed every awful minute of this turkey. Of course, it was made for the Sci Fi channel (who have decided that their time is better spent spelling their name with Y's in place of I's than actually commissioning decent films), so I knew what to expect, and only had myself (and an awful hangover) to blame.

Yes, that is a minus sign on that rating. You have been warned.
 
bilby said:
Seeds of Destruction. -8/10.

Seriously, it is hard to see how they could have made a worse film if they had been deliberately trying to do so; It has everything, from a killer plant that grows at 30mph (but which our inept heroes can outrun on foot when necessary), to a botanist who found seeds from the Garden of Eden on an archaeological (or perhaps archaeoillogical) dig, but then just took her evil boss's word for it that the jar was empty when they got it back to the lab, to a secret government agency with actual unmarked black helicopters, to characters who haven't the slightest emotional response to the deaths of their friends (Who are, after all, just extras), to the serious scientist telling the G-man "The Bible may just be a book of myths to you, but there is some serious scientific evidence that some of the places and events in it are real!". Oh, did I mention that the secret government agency is called 'Scope', because their mandate is to examine stuff that is 'outside the scope of science'?

Still, it isn't all about the awful script, or the woeful acting; the CGI effects are incredibly clunky, the incidental music is cheesy, and there is a plant described breathlessly as 'Not seen for a million years' which is a dead ringer for the dieffenbachia in my back yard. Oh, and it has leaves that miraculously heal unrealistic looking gunshot wounds when pressed to the skin, in a way almost indistinguishable from a poorly shot special effect!

I thoroughly enjoyed every awful minute of this turkey. Of course, it was made for the Sci Fi channel (who have decided that their time is better spent spelling their name with Y's in place of I's than actually commissioning decent films), so I knew what to expect, and only had myself (and an awful hangover) to blame.

Yes, that is a minus sign on that rating. You have been warned.
Click to expand...

Oh - come on.. It wasn't that bad.... IT WAS WORSE!!! You are generous giving at -8 out of 10. :p
 
Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes, or "The Cars That Ate Paris" must surely rate as the worst films ever made! Shakernado looks like academy award stuff compared to those two stinkers. Both those I would rate 1/10
 
angelo said:
Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes, or "The Cars That Ate Paris" must surely rate as the worst films ever made! Shakernado looks like academy award stuff compared to those two stinkers. Both those I would rate 1/10
Click to expand...

Bad bad. Or so bad it's good bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom