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

[credoconsolans]

And that didn't resonate with you? A sweet angel forced to become a murderer?

I found that all the characters were too two-dimensional to resonate with me, especially Katniss. Jennifer Lawrence really didn't seem to bother to give a shit in any of these movies.

It is weird that even though The Running Man made little or no attempt to be anything more than a shallow action movie, its characters resonated with me far more than those in The Hunger Games, which was actually trying.

Then it's probably just you that they resonate with.

 

[Daioh]

Gremlins
6/10
I have been meaning to watch this one for quite a while now and finally got around to
And it was fine
The acting was all solid, the script worked well enough although it did feel a bit thin at times and it was definitely worth a few laughs
Biggest kudos go to the amazing puppets which were just awesome
So I think it was worth the watch

Should I try the sequals?

Ernest and Celestine
6/10
This is a very interesting movie
Right off the bat, the animation is pretty awesome with the entire movie done to look like a watercolour painting in motion
And the animators use it well to create gorgeous backdrops and characters that can be both dramatic and also comedic when needed
The voice acting is pretty good across the board with Mackenzie Foy easily being the standout as Celestine
And Celestine is by far the best part of this movie as everything about her is just awesome and she is easily the one that makes this movie
Ernest is the kind of character you have seen done before (But done well so he is fine in this movie)
The plot is a bit slow at times, and this is probably the weakest aspect of this movie
The start is slow and it would have been great to see more of Ernest and Celestine together as their interactions are the best parts of the movie since the non-interaction parts can be a little on the weak side
Overall this is a fun little movie with an awesome character in Celstine
A little slow overall but worth giving a watch

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem is deeper. I didn't care about Katniss. I cared about Ben Richards. Which is strange, since Arnold's character is a genuinely unlikeable character. He grows a heart as the story progresses. That makes him interesting. Katniss is an angel right from the start. The only interesting thing is when she fakes being in love to win. But that never went anywhere. They barely did anything with it. Oh, the relationship with that guy we rarely get to see is ruined. They didn't develop that relationship on screen so I never gave a shit.

And that didn't resonate with you? A sweet angel forced to become a murderer?

If it was there, that whole aspect with it didn't work for me. I never got the feeling any of the characters had the merest issues with slaughtering one another. Which is believable. Even though we don't like to admit it, everybody is always a tiny little step away from being a murderer. Civilisation is an extremely thin varnish. So I didn't have a problem with that.

I'm not an angel nor do I want to be one. I could never relate to Katniss. She was too angelic and perfect. Not until she faked the kiss and the relationship did she finally turn human. But then immediately she became an angel again. That was boring. Since The Running Man had less complex setup there was less opportunity to show these kinds of emotional conflicts. They managed just fine to do it anyway. And they did it really well. Ben Richards just wanted to play the game to win. But his two friends, who weren't really his friends, didn't care about winning, only exposing the fraudulent regime to the public. That was a constant on-going conflict. And as it happens Ben Richards was wrong. Only thanks to his stubborn friends did he get out at all. If they'd done it his way they'd all been executed. That's another issue I have with The Hunger Games. Things went according to plan way too often. Was Katniss ever wrong about anything? I don't think so. It doesn't make her feel real.

I did like the alliances thing. That turned it into just another reality show. Which I thought was awesome. But they only really explore the alliance system in the second film. In the first film it was mostly just confusing. I also like that the ex-winners in The Hunger Games 2 were super jaded reality show celebrities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And that didn't resonate with you? A sweet angel forced to become a murderer?

If it was there, that whole aspect with it didn't work for me. I never got the feeling any of the characters had the merest issues with slaughtering one another. Which is believable. Even though we don't like to admit it, everybody is always a tiny little step away from being a murderer. Civilisation is an extremely thin varnish. So I didn't have a problem with that.

I'm not an angel nor do I want to be one. I could never relate to Katniss. She was too angelic and perfect. Not until she faked the kiss and the relationship did she finally turn human. But then immediately she became an angel again. That was boring. Since The Running Man had less complex setup there was less opportunity to show these kinds of emotional conflicts. They managed just fine to do it anyway. And they did it really well. Ben Richards just wanted to play the game to win. But his two friends, who weren't really his friends, didn't care about winning, only exposing the fraudulent regime to the public. That was a constant on-going conflict. And as it happens Ben Richards was wrong. Only thanks to his stubborn friends did he get out at all. If they'd done it his way they'd all been executed. That's another issue I have with The Hunger Games. Things went according to plan way too often. Was Katniss ever wrong about anything? I don't think so. It doesn't make her feel real.

I did like the alliances thing. That turned it into just another reality show. Which I thought was awesome. But they only really explore the alliance system in the second film. In the first film it was mostly just confusing. I also like that the ex-winners in The Hunger Games 2 were super jaded reality show celebrities.

Super Jaded reality show celebrities? Is that what you got from that. Hunger Games is rather paper thin, but the former winners were traumatized victims. Even after winning, they are just pawns of the Capital. As the guy says, "White men can't jump and the games never end."

What I didn't particularly like about the first film is that the clan of the top killers is whittled down to one near the end without even an explanation and the one remaining guy is pussing out to 11. Additionally, while District 12 competitors are given advice by a former winner, their only former winner, apparently many of the other Districts never had a winner as the competitors made huge mistakes from the get go.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If it was there, that whole aspect with it didn't work for me. I never got the feeling any of the characters had the merest issues with slaughtering one another. Which is believable. Even though we don't like to admit it, everybody is always a tiny little step away from being a murderer. Civilisation is an extremely thin varnish. So I didn't have a problem with that.

I'm not an angel nor do I want to be one. I could never relate to Katniss. She was too angelic and perfect. Not until she faked the kiss and the relationship did she finally turn human. But then immediately she became an angel again. That was boring. Since The Running Man had less complex setup there was less opportunity to show these kinds of emotional conflicts. They managed just fine to do it anyway. And they did it really well. Ben Richards just wanted to play the game to win. But his two friends, who weren't really his friends, didn't care about winning, only exposing the fraudulent regime to the public. That was a constant on-going conflict. And as it happens Ben Richards was wrong. Only thanks to his stubborn friends did he get out at all. If they'd done it his way they'd all been executed. That's another issue I have with The Hunger Games. Things went according to plan way too often. Was Katniss ever wrong about anything? I don't think so. It doesn't make her feel real.

I did like the alliances thing. That turned it into just another reality show. Which I thought was awesome. But they only really explore the alliance system in the second film. In the first film it was mostly just confusing. I also like that the ex-winners in The Hunger Games 2 were super jaded reality show celebrities.

Super Jaded reality show celebrities? Is that what you got from that. Hunger Games is rather paper thin, but the former winners were traumatized victims. Even after winning, they are just pawns of the Capital. As the guy says, "White men can't jump and the games never end."

What I didn't particularly like about the first film is that the clan of the top killers is whittled down to one near the end without even an explanation and the one remaining guy is pussing out to 11. Additionally, while District 12 competitors are given advice by a former winner, their only former winner, apparently many of the other Districts never had a winner as the competitors made huge mistakes from the get go.

I like The Hunger Games. I think they pulled it off well. It's just that the Running Man is essentially the same story and they did it much better. Much better. That was my only point. The Hunger Games is less well made and less interesting than the Running Man.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Super Jaded reality show celebrities? Is that what you got from that. Hunger Games is rather paper thin, but the former winners were traumatized victims. Even after winning, they are just pawns of the Capital. As the guy says, "White men can't jump and the games never end."

What I didn't particularly like about the first film is that the clan of the top killers is whittled down to one near the end without even an explanation and the one remaining guy is pussing out to 11. Additionally, while District 12 competitors are given advice by a former winner, their only former winner, apparently many of the other Districts never had a winner as the competitors made huge mistakes from the get go.

I like The Hunger Games. I think they pulled it off well. It's just that the Running Man is essentially the same story and they did it much better. Much better. That was my only point. The Hunger Games is less well made and less interesting than the Running Man.

I'm sorry but we are talking about movies and you aren't allowed to have a different opinion from mine... not that I have an opinion comparing the two films.

 

[KeepTalking]

Super Jaded reality show celebrities? Is that what you got from that. Hunger Games is rather paper thin, but the former winners were traumatized victims. Even after winning, they are just pawns of the Capital. As the guy says, "White men can't jump and the games never end."

What I didn't particularly like about the first film is that the clan of the top killers is whittled down to one near the end without even an explanation and the one remaining guy is pussing out to 11. Additionally, while District 12 competitors are given advice by a former winner, their only former winner, apparently many of the other Districts never had a winner as the competitors made huge mistakes from the get go.

I like The Hunger Games. I think they pulled it off well. It's just that the Running Man is essentially the same story and they did it much better. Much better. That was my only point. The Hunger Games is less well made and less interesting than the Running Man.

With regard to The Running Man v. The Hunger Games, I thought that The Hunger Games was the better movie of the two. This is probably because I read the story that The Running Man was based on before seeing the movie, and that almost always sets you up for a let down. The story, written by Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman, is vastly different from the movie. It is much more gritty, and there was no over the top game show aspect to it. The ending is quite different as well. I have not read The Hunger Games, so I had no expectation going in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like The Hunger Games. I think they pulled it off well. It's just that the Running Man is essentially the same story and they did it much better. Much better. That was my only point. The Hunger Games is less well made and less interesting than the Running Man.

With regard to The Running Man v. The Hunger Games, I thought that The Hunger Games was the better movie of the two. This is probably because I read the story that The Running Man was based on before seeing the movie, and that almost always sets you up for a let down. The story, written by Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman, is vastly different from the movie. It is much more gritty, and there was no over the top game show aspect to it. The ending is quite different as well. I have not read The Hunger Games, so I had no expectation going in.

I've never understood this obsession with the expectation of the film being essentially the same content as the book, but on screen. They're different media, so they need to be told differently. The emphasis has to be shifted. I have not read the Hunger Games though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

With regard to The Running Man v. The Hunger Games, I thought that The Hunger Games was the better movie of the two. This is probably because I read the story that The Running Man was based on before seeing the movie, and that almost always sets you up for a let down. The story, written by Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman, is vastly different from the movie. It is much more gritty, and there was no over the top game show aspect to it. The ending is quite different as well. I have not read The Hunger Games, so I had no expectation going in.

I've never understood this obsession with the expectation of the film being essentially the same content as the book, but on screen. They're different media, so they need to be told differently. The emphasis has to be shifted. I have not read the Hunger Games though.

Yes and no. I'd almost rather an I, Robot translation of a story (ie a film inspired by the title of the story) than a completely arbitrary retelling of the story like Rising Sun, but I'll live with the hit and miss of a Harry Potter translation where the oddest things seem to get glossed over, but overall the story is intact.

 

[KeepTalking]

With regard to The Running Man v. The Hunger Games, I thought that The Hunger Games was the better movie of the two. This is probably because I read the story that The Running Man was based on before seeing the movie, and that almost always sets you up for a let down. The story, written by Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman, is vastly different from the movie. It is much more gritty, and there was no over the top game show aspect to it. The ending is quite different as well. I have not read The Hunger Games, so I had no expectation going in.

I've never understood this obsession with the expectation of the film being essentially the same content as the book, but on screen. They're different media, so they need to be told differently. The emphasis has to be shifted. I have not read the Hunger Games though.

I wouldn't call it an obsession, at least not in my case. I can often still enjoy a movie after reading the books. In relation to the current discussion, I liked the film adaptations of some other Stephen King stories, like The Stand, and It (I am looking forward to the new upcoming movie adaptation of It as well). I don't mind some minor tweaks, and I understand that given the different media, the way the story is told will be different. If you have read The Running Man, however, you should understand that the movie bears very little resemblance to the story. I don't even know how they felt the movie deserved to bear the same title, other than the fact that it is a catchy name for a story or movie.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've never understood this obsession with the expectation of the film being essentially the same content as the book, but on screen. They're different media, so they need to be told differently. The emphasis has to be shifted. I have not read the Hunger Games though.

I wouldn't call it an obsession, at least not in my case. I can often still enjoy a movie after reading the books. In relation to the current discussion, I liked the film adaptations of some other Stephen King stories, like The Stand, and It (I am looking forward to the new upcoming movie adaptation of It as well). I don't mind some minor tweaks, and I understand that given the different media, the way the story is told will be different. If you have read The Running Man, however, you should understand that the movie bears very little resemblance to the story. I don't even know how they felt the movie deserved to bear the same title, other than the fact that it is a catchy name for a story or movie.

Well... it's "loosely based". I'd say that's honest. A good example of what I'm talking about is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner. Both awesome. Similar idea, but with key aspects changed, to make them radically different. The whole cultural fixation with android animals is never explained. It's just a fact they run with. I liked that. Same deal with the off-world colonies. They alluded to it. But never really explained it. I liked that to. The whole thing with the reader wondering whether or not Deckard also is a replicant is not played up. While still a possible viewing of Bladerunner. The mood altering devices are dropped from the film. Which I never liked in the book anyway. Deckard's wife is dropped in the film. Which certainly makes for a different story. But not necessarily worse. The replicant police station in the book is just bizarre. Good riddance. So both are good in their different ways. I'm happy they changed it for the film.

 

[bradw]

Nightcrawler (2014)

The tale of a thoroughly creepy yet ingratiating sociopath who finds fame and fortune as a hard news videographer.

Sort of a mix of Weegee and elements of "Taxi Driver". Good performances by Jake Gyllenhall and Renee Russo.

8.2/10

 

[Tars Tarkus]

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Bloated, and action sequences that are so far over the top they can be considered campy. I mean, sticking a dagger into a troll's head and then using it as a joystick to move it around like a vehicle?

4/10

 

[Ford]

Forks Over Knives

A "documentary" that makes the case for avoiding animal protein and processed foods in favor of a "whole food, plant-based diet."

As with all such films (or at least all the ones I've watched) it employs some dodgy science in the name of convincing people to eat more healthy foods and shy away from the processed crap like Cheetos.


But as I sit here munching on raw vegan kale chips loaded with garlic and vegan cheese, I can't help but wonder...


Thanks to food science, we can make a glob of...well...whatever it is that Cheetos are made from...taste like heaven on earth. We can take barely edible cuts of meat or stuff that isn't even food (cellulose, anyone?) and turn it into a product that is not only tasty, but downright addicting.


So why is it that we can't make kale taste good? Why can't we employ the same technology that makes partially hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup yummy and apply that science to make kale, spinach, and soy products taste so absurdly good that people become addicted to eating them?



Oh...the movie? I'd give it a 5/10.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Wiz (7/10) (1978)

This is the 1978 blaxploitation version of the Wizard of Oz. This one also a musical. It received an completely negative reviews. While I agree mostly. I think it's better than that. One thing it has going for it is that it's very clever. It's an allegory about being black and poor in urban USA, with all that it implies. The underlying message is of how, sure the deck might be stacked against poor black people, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying. The sets were equally clever and well made. I loved that Oz was an urban jungle. Subway scene was awesome. As was the portrayal of the Emerald City as just one huge disco nightclub. The sea of poppies that put people to sleep was in this film a brothel numbing their minds with drugs and sex.

Most of the negative reviews focused on how Diana Ross was a terrible choice for Dorothy. It's hard not to agree. She's not an actor, and her personality doesn't fit the roll. So I'm not sure what they were thinking. The original director even threatened to quit if Ross wasn't replaced. She wasn't. So he quit. So this was a known problem even before they started filming. Michael Jackson is phenomenal as the Scarecrow. As musicals go, the score was pretty weak. Not terrible. But usually better than this. This was also just a year or so before Richard Pryor's cocaine addiction would spiral out of control. Which comes across on screen. This is not a particularly convincing performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wiz_(film)

Hercules in New York 1/10 or 10/10 (1969)

The plot is that Arnold Schwarzenegger has big muscles and talks funny. That's about it. One hour and twenty eight minutes of this. This is a b-movie. Arnold might be a terrible actor in it, but he's in good company. I personally think this comes into the category so-bad-it's-good. But it is a shit film. There's no two ways about it. There's no real story here. The constant Greek Bouzouki score is makes it hysterically funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_in_New_York

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Bloated, and action sequences that are so far over the top they can be considered campy. I mean, sticking a dagger into a troll's head and then using it as a joystick to move it around like a vehicle?

4/10

I tried to continue on the first film of the trilogy and I simply can not get into it. The action sequence with the trolls felt too much like a Bruckenheimer film, I'm thinking Pirates of the Caribbean. It just looked fake, despite the good effects.

 

[James Brown]

The Theory of Everything

Mr. Redmayne deserves his Oscar.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Asterix: Le Domaine Des Dieux (Asterix and the Mansions of the Gods)

I've been a fan of Asterix for as long as I can remember, and more; I couldn't have been more than 4 years old when I read my first Asterix book. So I'm pretty demanding with regard to any Asterix film that comes out. The quality of the animated versions varies, but at its best, it can bring back the childhood delight of reading the books. The live action ones, not so much. Depardieu as Obelix? Bollocks. Depardieu plays Depardieu, whatever his role, so I don't think he works as any character people already know and love (except maybe Cyrano, but that was just a great movie, anyway). So, yeah, there's Asterix and there's Asterix; to adapt a nursery rhyme, "when they're good, they're very very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid".

But this?

This is brilliant. It's a return to an animated Asterix in the spirit of the original comic books, and I loved it. I saw it in the original French; I just hope the voice acting's as good in the English version. Go see it.

9.9/10

 

[MarkW]

Into the Night

8.5/10

A comic thriller with a kinship to some of Hitchcock's films--the sort where an everyman is thrust into unusual events that he doesn't really understand--directed by John Landis. Jeff Goldblum is the "everyman" protagonist who finds himself in the middle of a jewelry-smuggling caper when he rescues Michelle Pfeiffer from a quartet of Iranian gunmen at Los Angeles Airport late one night; both leads are good and have a believable chemistry that develops over the film. There's a very nice supporting cast; David Bowie's part as a hit man is not to be missed and Dedee Pfeiffer, Michelle's younger sister, has her first film role, plus there are appearances by Richard Farnsworth, Clu Gulager and Vera Miles. Some viewers find the abundance of cameos by well-known filmmakers--David Cronenberg, Jonathan Demme, Amy Heckerling, Jim Henson, Lawrence Kasdan, Paul Mazursky, and Roger Vadim, just to give a partial list--to be an unneeded distraction; I wasn't particularly bothered. More effective is the use Landis makes of the LA cityscape, circa 1985, as the story takes us to a variety of local landmarks of the day like the now-defunct Ships Coffee Shop. Above all, while this isn't the most realistic of films, it's quite a bit of fun to watch.

 

[MarkW]

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Bloated, and action sequences that are so far over the top they can be considered campy. I mean, sticking a dagger into a troll's head and then using it as a joystick to move it around like a vehicle?

4/10

I watched this one tonight and while I'd rate it a little higher than 4/10, I wasn't blown away. The battle that gives the film its name goes on and on, and on, and on and on--and yes, there are some pretty implausible elements, especially those involving a certain pretty-boy super ninja elf who wasn't even in the novel. The best thing about the whole Hobbit trilogy has been the cast, and as in previous films several actors turn in very nice work: Martin Freeman as Bilbo, Richard Armitage as Thorin and Luke Evans as Bard all come to mind. The final farewell of Bilbo and Thorin makes a pretty strong impression, as do a few other scenes, largely those that are faithful to the source material. There aren't enough of them, though, to make me regret that I passed on seeing this one in the theater.