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

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

Keith&Co. said:
Sarpedon said:
One jarring moment was when a character who 'is completely literal' and incapable of understanding idioms, gratuituously refers to a woman as a 'whore' despite her not making her living from exchanging sex for money,
Click to expand...
Well, Thanos loaned her and her sister out to What's-his-hammer as assistants. I'm sure there are plenty of rumors running around about what sort of assistance the two women were to supply to the insane Kree warrior.

Literal-minded doesn't mean dedicated fact-checker.
Click to expand...

Ronan is an accuser, not a warrior. Very different job functions in the Kree empire. ;)
 
War of the worlds 5/10
(the Spielberg one)

Pros:
Good action scenes with good special effects
Nice photography (e.g. the tripods in the smoke)
A couple striking scenes (e.g. the train on fire)

Cons:
Tom Cruise
Unrelatable main characters (idiot dad + dumb adolescent)
Unrealistic kid (did whoever wrote the script ever interact with a 10 yo girl? I've got one at home if they want to check)
"heartwarming" scene(s) boring (probably because of the above)
Unrealistic out-of-the-blue "good" ending
Preachy (and dumb) ending monologue

Pet peeve / pedantry corner:
ground attack jets normally fly fast enough you don't hear them before you've seen them pass above you! Filmmakers, think ghosts, not roaring lions!

Conclusion
You coud choose worse for entertainment / action movie, but remember to unplug your higher brain functions before seeing it.
 
The Mexican starring Brad Pit in a forgetful film. Also starring and stealing the show James Gandolfini plus Julia Roberts. Had it not been for Gandolfini playing the gay hood which made it worth watching it until the end this is a waste of time. Better off watching paint dry. 2/10. Would have rated it a 0 had it not been for JG.
 
48 Hrs. 9/10

and

Another 48 Hrs. 4/10

The first: a definitive buddy movie and a breakthrough role for Eddie Murphy, filled with a pulsing energy (characteristic of Walter Hill's best films) that sweeps you quickly past the plotting improbabilities.

The second: a limp attempt at a sequel that crashes and burns.
 
Edge of Tomorrow 7/10

Above average action/sci-fi, which is to say, about what you would expect from a Tom Cruise action/sci-fi movie. The premise is at least a bit different from the usual fare.
 
CitizenFour, about Edward Snowden
I know he was a trained and technical operative for a few agencies not just a clerk or lackey.
Well I just can't get past the low key slow pace of the movie/documentary.
I tried, maybe others can do better but I lasted about 10 minutes and a basketball game started so I moved on.
My review is based on only about 10 minutes so your mileage might vary.
4/10, I tried...
 
Snowpiercer - 8.5/10

I get what the fuss is about. Loaded with metaphors and symbolism, quite a bit of social commentary - this is a liberal's wet dream, but it's actually a reasonably entertaining movie to boot. The visuals were memorable and the fight scenes were much, much better than I expected. And the introduction of Korean actors was a cool way of bridging the gap between Korean and American audiences. That said, there are some pretty huge narrative issues, some outright silly moments and too much suspension of disbelief that's required for me to consider this a masterpiece.

Robocop (2014) - 7/10

I'm actually shocked that I'm giving this a score that high, but it was a lot better than I expected. That's not saying much, but still. It puts a modern touch on the story, light on social commentary but much darker and more emotional. Well-acted and pretty entertaining. It's a decent movie on its own merits.
 
The Signal (2014)

Hackers. Alien technology. Government conspiracies. Super powers.

Laurence Fishburne.

All designed to blow your mind.

It's kind of a mess. Incoherent.

5/10
 
The A-Team
6/10
The movie adaptation of the T.V show I never watched
And it isn't bad
The characters are interesting enough and well acted
The action scenes are a bit silly but work well and look good
And the script is decent
It has it's flaws, but it is a fun action movie
 
Big Hero Six - 10/10

I really liked this movie and my sons were riveted. Also loved how they portrayed the city and characters from the comic. A great animated work.
 
Beverly Hills Cop 111 an Eddie Murphy vehicle that fits like a glove . I also liked the much underrated actor Judge Reinhold's character. 8/10
 
angelo said:
Beverly Hills Cop 111 an Eddie Murphy vehicle that fits like a glove . I also liked the much underrated actor Judge Reinhold's character. 8/10
Click to expand...

I gave up on the series after the first 110 episodes ;)

I agree with you RE Judge Reinhold. Too good for the parts he plays. Perhaps they will give him more screen time in episode 4.
 
The Interview, 3/10: Starring James Franco and Seth Rogen. It's not very good but there are one or two funny bits and Franco hams it up beautifully.
 
The Lazarus Effect - 2/10

Did you see that movie Flatliners back in the 90s? The guys who wrote this movie did. Then they were curious about what that film would be like if it absolutely sucked, so they put together this crap fest to find out. It was nonsensical drivel cobbled together by morons and then handed to a director who thought that "horror movie" is defined as "something with a pointless jump scare every five minutes".

What made it particularly bad was the fact that there were moments when it was almost good but then those almost moments never panned out and the movie just trundled along to a pointless ending which didn't make any sense and left me disappointed.

Also, what the hell happened to that dog? Did she kill him? Was he not evil too? I don't get the truncated ending to the dog storyline. He was a far better onscreen presence than any of the humans and I would have liked that fleshed out a little more.
 
I saw Valkyrie 7/10

This is the relatively new film where Tom Cruise tries to kill Hitler. On the plus side, it does a very good job of dramatizing the valkyrie plot in a way that is both clear and illuminating. I'm not sure why exactly I don't give it higher marks. Could it be that it omitted some very important figures, to focus more exclusively on Von Stauffenberg, played by Cruise? Is it Cruise himself, and his indescribable way of acting, which doesn't really seem like acting? He doesn't vanish into a role, unlike, say, Forest Whitaker, who despite his very distinctive appearance, manages to vanish into role after role. Nor does Cruise have a very mannered performance, like, say, Shatner, who's tremendous hamminess is perfect for some roles, and utter disaster in others. Its hard to say what it is about him. Perhaps it was the very understated way the Nazis are portrayed. I'm not sure what it is with this movie. On the other hand, Terence Stamp is always a pleasure to see in a movie.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
The Lazarus Effect - 2/10

Did you see that movie Flatliners back in the 90s? The guys who wrote this movie did. Then they were curious about what that film would be like if it absolutely sucked, so they put together this crap fest to find out. It was nonsensical drivel cobbled together by morons and then handed to a director who thought that "horror movie" is defined as "something with a pointless jump scare every five minutes".

What made it particularly bad was the fact that there were moments when it was almost good but then those almost moments never panned out and the movie just trundled along to a pointless ending which didn't make any sense and left me disappointed.

Also, what the hell happened to that dog? Did she kill him? Was he not evil too? I don't get the truncated ending to the dog storyline. He was a far better onscreen presence than any of the humans and I would have liked that fleshed out a little more.
Click to expand...

I loved Flatliners. Very stylish thriller with some very creepy parts.

Sarpedon said:
I saw Valkyrie 7/10

This is the relatively new film where Tom Cruise tries to kill Hitler. On the plus side, it does a very good job of dramatizing the valkyrie plot in a way that is both clear and illuminating. I'm not sure why exactly I don't give it higher marks. Could it be that it omitted some very important figures, to focus more exclusively on Von Stauffenberg, played by Cruise? Is it Cruise himself, and his indescribable way of acting, which doesn't really seem like acting? He doesn't vanish into a role, unlike, say, Forest Whitaker, who despite his very distinctive appearance, manages to vanish into role after role. Nor does Cruise have a very mannered performance, like, say, Shatner, who's tremendous hamminess is perfect for some roles, and utter disaster in others. Its hard to say what it is about him. Perhaps it was the very understated way the Nazis are portrayed. I'm not sure what it is with this movie. On the other hand, Terence Stamp is always a pleasure to see in a movie.
Click to expand...

He was underplaying him probably trying to portray Von Stauffenberg as he really was. Family and biographers say the man was very professional.

I agree about Cruise though. He's become a Star, so he can no longer disappear into roles. He's "Tom Cruise playing X".
 
Oh, those two things were separate thoughts: Cruise seemed to underplay von stauffenberg, AND the nazis also seemed underplayed. It is certainly not fair to call Von Stauffenberg a nazi. I should have indented.
 
I did a Hunger Games marathon. 1, 2 and 3. I don't get what all the hate is about. I think they're excellent. All of them. Sure, the first is best (9/10), the second second best (7/10) and the third (6/10). Even if the third is the weakest, with way too much talking and way too much pointless angry acting. I love how the rebels use just as much propaganda and fakery as the evil dictator. I love ambiguously good good-guys. Well done!

I don't mind the stupid story line. Didn't bother me in the Running man (which is the same story). Doesn't bother me here. Battle Royal has an even dumber story line than this. I loved that one. Hunger games is basically Battle Royale with violins. I think the Hunger Games does a better than the Truman show showing off the cruelty of reality television.

As far as book adaptions go, I don't care whether or not the film follows the book it's made from. Film and literature are different media. Changes have to be made to make best use of it. I haven't read the books. But most people's complaints seem to be about how the film is more shallow than the books. Well... duh. Nobody wants to watch a five hour long lecture. So no problem there. I don't care that I didn't have all the back story. I think it worked anyway.

I think it helps to have the understanding that this is a film written for teenage girls when watching it. I certainly did. I let my inner little girl roam free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom