-
Features
Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?
- Thread starter C_Mucius_Scaevola
- Start date
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
Continuing my self-inflicted theme of getaway driving movies for some reason, I saw "Drive" 5/10. AKA "Dude, where's my motivation?"
Very slow paced for a movie where the action is in car chases. Both the main man and the main woman cast members seem to have absolutely no character whatsoever. I don't understand what motivates them. Everyone else has some reason to do what they are doing, even if it isn't necessarily a good reason.
Very slow paced for a movie where the action is in car chases. Both the main man and the main woman cast members seem to have absolutely no character whatsoever. I don't understand what motivates them. Everyone else has some reason to do what they are doing, even if it isn't necessarily a good reason.
San Andreas - 6/10
Straight-up disaster porn. The plot is inane and the action sequences so fucking over the top that you're laughing your ass off everytime that there's supposed to be a heroic emotional moment because of how cheesy and stupid it is.
Quality popcorn movie if you turn your brain off before entering the theatre, though.
Straight-up disaster porn. The plot is inane and the action sequences so fucking over the top that you're laughing your ass off everytime that there's supposed to be a heroic emotional moment because of how cheesy and stupid it is.
Quality popcorn movie if you turn your brain off before entering the theatre, though.
Bacillus anthracis
Member
We Are Who We Are
This is a horror flick dealing with cannibalism and family norms and deeply held traditions. While it is a horror movie, it treats its subject matter much differently than something like Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The treatment is in depth and even cerebral, which makes it actually disturbing as opposed to just being some attempted shock-flick that has been done to death many times over.
I don't like to describe movies in any depth here that are actually worth seeing because I don't want to possibly ruin them. But I will say that this movie could be a metaphor for almost any family tradition that harms its young members and perpetuates that cycle generation after generation--and that that harm isn't insular. Like a nut who fires a machine gun into a crowd desiring only to hit one person, there is going to be a lot of collateral damage as well.
This is a good movie regardless of genre
7/10
This is a horror flick dealing with cannibalism and family norms and deeply held traditions. While it is a horror movie, it treats its subject matter much differently than something like Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The treatment is in depth and even cerebral, which makes it actually disturbing as opposed to just being some attempted shock-flick that has been done to death many times over.
I don't like to describe movies in any depth here that are actually worth seeing because I don't want to possibly ruin them. But I will say that this movie could be a metaphor for almost any family tradition that harms its young members and perpetuates that cycle generation after generation--and that that harm isn't insular. Like a nut who fires a machine gun into a crowd desiring only to hit one person, there is going to be a lot of collateral damage as well.
This is a good movie regardless of genre
7/10
Bacillus anthracis
Member
Exists
Okay, so how can a found-footage film where a group of young people are terrorized by Bigfoot be worth a shit? I don't know but this one is.
One night on the way to their uncle's cabin deep in the woods a group of pot smoking, horny 20-somethings (are there any other kind?) accidentally side-swipe a Sasquatch who's taking a midnight stroll along the road, and who, for some odd reason doesn't step out of the way. Bigfoot vengeance ensues.
As bad as it sounds, this movie is actually pretty watchable. Of course it has its "Why the fuck did they do that?" moments, but if you're willing to watch a Bigfoot found-footage film in the first place, you have to be as stoned as the characters to think you're going to see revolutionary film-making in the first place.
For what it is, this a surprisingly entertaining flick.
5.5/10
Okay, so how can a found-footage film where a group of young people are terrorized by Bigfoot be worth a shit? I don't know but this one is.
One night on the way to their uncle's cabin deep in the woods a group of pot smoking, horny 20-somethings (are there any other kind?) accidentally side-swipe a Sasquatch who's taking a midnight stroll along the road, and who, for some odd reason doesn't step out of the way. Bigfoot vengeance ensues.
As bad as it sounds, this movie is actually pretty watchable. Of course it has its "Why the fuck did they do that?" moments, but if you're willing to watch a Bigfoot found-footage film in the first place, you have to be as stoned as the characters to think you're going to see revolutionary film-making in the first place.
For what it is, this a surprisingly entertaining flick.
5.5/10
Bacillus anthracis
Member
A Child of God
If you've read Cormac McCarthy, then you've probably read this book. The movie is a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, which somewhat coherently tells the story of a guy who is of low intelligence, but great cunning. Ballard, the main character, is a filthy, murderous, corpse-fucking animal with no redeeming qualities. At almost no time does he personally ever engender sympathy and so, like most McCarthy stories, it's just one scene of depravation after another--or scenes setting up other scenes of depravity.
One can feel bad for him at the beginning when he loses his home and doesn't understand why. But after that, it quickly becomes apparent that the planet would be better off if Ballard would have slipped on a rock in a creek, fell down, bumped his head and drowned.
The title tells you what McCarthy wants you to observe in the big picture. But at the same time, he could have named any of his books the same thing and made the same point. See it if you want, but if you already understand the Christian point of view that we're all children of God and that simple observation of humanity makes that a highly dubious statement, then all this does is provide a visual illustration for you.
6/10
If you've read Cormac McCarthy, then you've probably read this book. The movie is a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, which somewhat coherently tells the story of a guy who is of low intelligence, but great cunning. Ballard, the main character, is a filthy, murderous, corpse-fucking animal with no redeeming qualities. At almost no time does he personally ever engender sympathy and so, like most McCarthy stories, it's just one scene of depravation after another--or scenes setting up other scenes of depravity.
One can feel bad for him at the beginning when he loses his home and doesn't understand why. But after that, it quickly becomes apparent that the planet would be better off if Ballard would have slipped on a rock in a creek, fell down, bumped his head and drowned.
The title tells you what McCarthy wants you to observe in the big picture. But at the same time, he could have named any of his books the same thing and made the same point. See it if you want, but if you already understand the Christian point of view that we're all children of God and that simple observation of humanity makes that a highly dubious statement, then all this does is provide a visual illustration for you.
6/10
MarkW
Senior Member
His Girl Friday
10/10
The second of several film adaptations of Hecht and MacArthur's play "The Front Page" is the classic, owing to director Howard Hawks' inspired decision to make the character of Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) a woman (rather than a man as in the play), and for her to be the ex-wife of the other lead character, Walter Burns (Cary Grant). The blazing chemistry between Grant and Russell, combined with the rapid fire dialogue which they and most of the other characters exchange, make this one unforgettable. Standouts in the supporting cast include Ralph Bellamy as Hildy's much-abused fiance, Porter Hall and Cliff Edwards (the voice of Disney's Jiminy Cricket) as reporters and Gene Lockhart as an officious but bumbling sheriff.
10/10
The second of several film adaptations of Hecht and MacArthur's play "The Front Page" is the classic, owing to director Howard Hawks' inspired decision to make the character of Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) a woman (rather than a man as in the play), and for her to be the ex-wife of the other lead character, Walter Burns (Cary Grant). The blazing chemistry between Grant and Russell, combined with the rapid fire dialogue which they and most of the other characters exchange, make this one unforgettable. Standouts in the supporting cast include Ralph Bellamy as Hildy's much-abused fiance, Porter Hall and Cliff Edwards (the voice of Disney's Jiminy Cricket) as reporters and Gene Lockhart as an officious but bumbling sheriff.
James Brown
Veteran Member
Totally agree. Smart, snappy dialogue; breathless pacing. Great movie all around.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,799
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The only problem is the finish. One nice thing about Mae West films is that she doesn't have to fall for the guy(s). Head strong character that remains head strong in the end.
I prefer the less socially awkward The Front Page with Mathau and Lemmon.
I prefer the less socially awkward The Front Page with Mathau and Lemmon.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
I did love the ending of that one. Mathau was SUCH a bastard.
The Tale Of Princess Kaguya
2/10
This movie has gained alot of praise since it came out.......but I really didn't think it was all that good
Frstly I thought the animation could have been better, and it was in certain scenes and with much of the background scenery it delivers some grand simplicity
But all the Human characters (Except perhaps Kaguya) looked absolutely hideous and distorted with lumpy, stumpy and just plain weird bodies and at times nightmare inducing faces atop stragely proportioned heads
Secondly the voice acting (I watched the english dub) was mostly pretty flat and lifeless
Some characters were bland (Kaguya) and a few were kinda awful (Kaguyas father) with none really standing out as interesting or memorable
But thirdly it didn't help that I thought most of the characters themselves were pretty bland
The father and mother were kinda one dimensional and never really change for most of the movie, the best friend is basically a nobody and the supporting cast are all one note
And Kaguya herself is just a bland person to watch and never really does anything of any real note and only rarely shows any sort of personality
Finally the story was a slow, bland and relatively empty thing that just never did anything of note
Overall I felt incredibly let down by this film and do not understand all the hype surrounding it
It's bland, boring and lifeless
2/10
This movie has gained alot of praise since it came out.......but I really didn't think it was all that good
Frstly I thought the animation could have been better, and it was in certain scenes and with much of the background scenery it delivers some grand simplicity
But all the Human characters (Except perhaps Kaguya) looked absolutely hideous and distorted with lumpy, stumpy and just plain weird bodies and at times nightmare inducing faces atop stragely proportioned heads
Secondly the voice acting (I watched the english dub) was mostly pretty flat and lifeless
Some characters were bland (Kaguya) and a few were kinda awful (Kaguyas father) with none really standing out as interesting or memorable
But thirdly it didn't help that I thought most of the characters themselves were pretty bland
The father and mother were kinda one dimensional and never really change for most of the movie, the best friend is basically a nobody and the supporting cast are all one note
And Kaguya herself is just a bland person to watch and never really does anything of any real note and only rarely shows any sort of personality
Finally the story was a slow, bland and relatively empty thing that just never did anything of note
Overall I felt incredibly let down by this film and do not understand all the hype surrounding it
It's bland, boring and lifeless
bradw
Member
I just watched.
Very skillfully done.
But I just didn't give a crap. I could see and hear the craft, but I didn't find it in anyway entertaining.
Just didn't work for me at all.
5/10
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
Seriously? No "The Hustler"? "Cool Hand Luke"? "Slap Shot"? Freaking "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"?
You need to catch up.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,799
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Nope, none of those. Just The Sting. I assume Cars didn't count.
bradw
Member
Don't forget "Hud". He plays a real bastard in that one. And a great performance by Patricia Neal.
Spy 8/10 - some very funny sections and lines, interspersed with some rather more predictable stuff: sort of a standard spy-movie with swearing and some slightly odd casting. I'll be watching "Spectre" later this year and thinking of this.
As for next week: Jurassic World ("grrrr")
As for next week: Jurassic World ("grrrr")
Fantastic Four
5/10
So I had seen this once a long time ago and didn't think much of it
Now I gave it a rewatch
And I really don't think it is all that terrible
I did think that Jessica Alba was bland as Sue Storm and Julian McMahon lacked the gravitas to really pull off Dr Doom
But the other actors all put in solid enough performances
The CGI doesn't hold up terribly well but it isn't all that awful either
The movies biggest problem is the middle part of the script
Because the start and end were both solid and if it kept like them for the whole movie it could have been better
but the middle just fluffs around for a while and begins to drag on and on
So ultimately while the FF movie is not brilliant I don't think it is truly awful either
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
2/10
Everything about this movie is anticlimactic
Galactus, The Silver Surfer and Doom all culminate in a boring confusing mess of nothing
Honestly I found this movie to be much worse then the first in pretty much every way
5/10
So I had seen this once a long time ago and didn't think much of it
Now I gave it a rewatch
And I really don't think it is all that terrible
I did think that Jessica Alba was bland as Sue Storm and Julian McMahon lacked the gravitas to really pull off Dr Doom
But the other actors all put in solid enough performances
The CGI doesn't hold up terribly well but it isn't all that awful either
The movies biggest problem is the middle part of the script
Because the start and end were both solid and if it kept like them for the whole movie it could have been better
but the middle just fluffs around for a while and begins to drag on and on
So ultimately while the FF movie is not brilliant I don't think it is truly awful either
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
2/10
Everything about this movie is anticlimactic
Galactus, The Silver Surfer and Doom all culminate in a boring confusing mess of nothing
Honestly I found this movie to be much worse then the first in pretty much every way
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Pretty much nailed it on both accounts, but I would probably notch the first one up to 6/10, and the second to 4/10. The Fantastic Four get a reboot this summer, though, and I hope they will do a better job with it. I'm not all that confident, though, given that Fox is still in charge of the franchise. I seriously do not get the decision to go with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm. Do they not realize that Sue and Johnny are brother and sister, and that they have the same father and mother? If you are going to make one of them black, you kind of need to make them both black.
Also, given this is still a Fox property, I guess there is no chance of the FF appearing in the Civil War movie, though Mr. Fantastic and Johnny Storm figure into the plot line fairly heavily. I guess they can replace Johnny with someone else, since he is in a coma through most of the Civil War, but Mr. Fantastic is a major player in that story.
angelo
Deleted
Watched an oldie that had a genuinely funny moment seeing the American presidential elections are just around the corner. "Back To The Future" in a scene when McFly is trying to convince the professor he's from 1985. The prof asks. : " who's the president in 1985?" McFly replies : Ronald Reagan. The prof roars : " the actor? Who's vice president, Jerry Lewis? "
I thought it a real funny scene.
Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk
I thought it a real funny scene.
Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk