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

[credoconsolans]

I was disappointed at the ending. In the story

Show

the story didn't end with such a downer, it actually ended with a glimmer of hope. The group is still holding together, holed up in a hotel and they're still in the mist, but they think they've heard something on the radio about a certain city and they're going to try for it.

The movie's ending was jarringly negative.

The ending of the movie was a lot different than the story, but holy crap does it hit like a ton of bricks. And IMHO, that's good. It was a great movie and by sticking with the same ending of the book it would have practically forced a second and inevitably crappy sequel. The way they ended in the movie ensures that it remains a good stand alone horror flick that won't be defiled by future iterations. The same thing with Pet Sematary. I really liked the first movie, but the sequel was awful.

Er, actually it can. There

Show

was a survivor, don't forget.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

The ending of the movie was a lot different than the story, but holy crap does it hit like a ton of bricks. And IMHO, that's good. It was a great movie and by sticking with the same ending of the book it would have practically forced a second and inevitably crappy sequel. The way they ended in the movie ensures that it remains a good stand alone horror flick that won't be defiled by future iterations. The same thing with Pet Sematary. I really liked the first movie, but the sequel was awful.

Er, actually it can. There

Show

was a survivor, don't forget.

Okay, yes, Hollywood could make a sequel to the end of the universe if they wanted to, but the way The Mist ended made it difficult to do. And that movie is now what, some ten years old? If they haven't conceived of some idiotic part II where Bereaved/Angry Dad goes out to hunt down The Mist in the dimension it sprang from, they probably never will.

Probably.


Hopefully.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The Omen - 8/10

An extraordinarily well done horror movie which features the creepiest little kid who's ever been on film. Some parts of the story seem really dated, but it holds up well over time.

 

[Archimedes]

Life of Pi - 4/10

Meh. I got the impression I was meant to take home some message or moral from this movie, but I'm not sure what that was.

If anything, I got the impression that the movie was pushing the idea that it's better to believe a fanciful lie that appeals to you than the ugly truth. And that religion is good, no matter what flavour you should happen to subscribe to, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, etc. And God is mysterious.

Was there meant to be a parallel drawn between how the young Pi was drawn to Catholicism simply because he liked the story behind it like the author at the end preferred the fanciful version of his survival at sea? It doesn't matter what you believe as long as it makes you feel warm and gooey inside?

Was it really that shallow or did I just completely miss the point?

 

[Juma]

Life of Pi - 4/10

Meh. I got the impression I was meant to take home some message or moral from this movie, but I'm not sure what that was.

If anything, I got the impression that the movie was pushing the idea that it's better to believe a fanciful lie that appeals to you than the ugly truth. And that religion is good, no matter what flavour you should happen to subscribe to, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, etc. And God is mysterious.

Was there meant to be a parallel drawn between how the young Pi was drawn to Catholicism simply because he liked the story behind it like the author at the end preferred the fanciful version of his survival at sea? It doesn't matter what you believe as long as it makes you feel warm and gooey inside?

Was it really that shallow or did I just completely miss the point?

I dont think so. I got the same impression from the book.

 

[MarkW]

The Wild Bunch

10/10

One of the greatest of all Westerns. At his best, Sam Peckinpah achieved a blend of lyricism and violence, and that is what this film delivers. The cast is excellent. William Holden leads the outlaw band of the title, trying to adapt to the 20th century and maintain the loyalty of his "bunch"--right-hand man Ernest Borgnine, Warren Oates and Ben Johnson as the hedonistic Gorch brothers, old-timer Edmond O'Brien and young hothead Jaime Sanchez, all very good. Best of all is Robert Ryan as Holden's former associate, now dragooned by the railroad into tracking him down (it would have been nice if Ryan had gotten an Oscar nod for his work here); there's also a memorable cameo from Bo Hopkins.

 

[Daioh]

Mad Max: Fury Road
5/10
Ok so I'm not sure why but I wasn't that fussed on this movie
I mean yeah it is fun and worth a watch
But it just failed to really excite me at any point
Maybe I will give it another go at some point, but overall I was a bit underwhelmed

Tarzan (Disney Animated Version)
5/10
This is a movie that had alot of good ideas, but never really went anywhere with them to a satisfying degree
So the main character was.......ok
The love interest.....ok
Animation.......ok
Music........ok
Everything a resounding..........ok
You can do worse, but ultimately you can do better

 

[MarkW]

Much Ado About Nothing (2012 version)

7.5/10

Joss Whedon does Shakespeare--and quite nicely, I might add. While this version is not quite as good as Kenneth Branagh's film from the early 1990s, it's more than adequate. Whedon shot it on an ultra-low budget: filming in black-and-white at his Santa Monica, CA, home, using cast members from his numerous TV shows, with modern costumes, and shooting many scenes in natural light. Most successful among the cast are Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof; as she is Beatrice and he Benedick, you have the most important ingredients for an entertaining version of one of Shakespeare's finest comedies. Nathan Fillion is a scene-stealing Dogberry and the rest of the cast, while not renowned Shakespeareans, are all giving good, honest performances.

 

[angelo]

Have just set my PVR to record the original Godfather made in 1972.

 

[credoconsolans]

Much Ado About Nothing (2012 version)

7.5/10

Joss Whedon does Shakespeare--and quite nicely, I might add. While this version is not quite as good as Kenneth Branagh's film from the early 1990s, it's more than adequate. Whedon shot it on an ultra-low budget: filming in black-and-white at his Santa Monica, CA, home, using cast members from his numerous TV shows, with modern costumes, and shooting many scenes in natural light. Most successful among the cast are Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof; as she is Beatrice and he Benedick, you have the most important ingredients for an entertaining version of one of Shakespeare's finest comedies. Nathan Fillion is a scene-stealing Dogberry and the rest of the cast, while not renowned Shakespeareans, are all giving good, honest performances.

I wanted to see this, but doubted they could have made Hero's situation as dire in modern times as it was in the 16th century. Back then, if Hero was slandered and the accusation believed, basically her life was over. She could be cast out from her family with no means and would have either been killed, committed suicide or had to turn to prostitution for survival. Hence Beatrice's extreme request of Benedick.

I really enjoyed Branagh's version.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lucy - A Luc Besson effort about a woman who makes with the super powers after a bad date goes real bad. In general, the film seemed to be well reviewed here and with Besson behind it, seemed like a safe-ish bet for me. Sadly, the film felt like it had something to offer, but in the end, the climax seemed terribly underwhelming. The film requires the viewer to accept quite a bit on faith, but even goes beyond that plenty of times. My main beef is that having a bunch more of your brain available doesn't make you able to understand any concept like neuroscience or be able to cruise the internet at lightspeed if you don't know about it. The other main beef is that French security sucks very badly and it is a bag of granular material, not a powder!!!

The performances are fine and I can live with the premise, but the premise doesn't take us anywhere.

2 of 4

Much Ado About Nothing (2012 version)

7.5/10

Joss Whedon does Shakespeare--and quite nicely, I might add. While this version is not quite as good as Kenneth Branagh's film from the early 1990s, it's more than adequate. Whedon shot it on an ultra-low budget: filming in black-and-white at his Santa Monica, CA, home, using cast members from his numerous TV shows, with modern costumes, and shooting many scenes in natural light. Most successful among the cast are Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof; as she is Beatrice and he Benedick, you have the most important ingredients for an entertaining version of one of Shakespeare's finest comedies. Nathan Fillion is a scene-stealing Dogberry and the rest of the cast, while not renowned Shakespeareans, are all giving good, honest performances.

I tried watching it, but it might as well be in Spanish for me.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Citizen X

It's about Andrei Chikatillo, the Russian mass murderer. It was made in 1995 and so there's a significant amount of ignorance about the Soviet Union in general, and not so subtle pandering to American superiority, and I think there may be only one or two actual Russian actors in the entire movie.

Still, it was a decent Netflix view. It was cliche' at times, melodramatic at others--it's a pretty uneven film. But again, it's good enough to keep you watching. My biggest complaint is about the actor who played Chikatillo. In real life, Chikatillo was fucking scary looking. But in the film he's portrayed by Jefferey DeMunn, a character actor who's name you probably don't recognize, but whose face you will recognize from a million different movies and TV shows. It's not that DeMunn is a bad actor, he's okay in this movie. But he should have been willing to go the extra mile and shave his head for this role.

Or maybe the least appealing part was Donald Sutherland. Oi. I swear to Buddha, one of the best things about the ending of the Cold War is that there are plenty of Russian actors to fulfill Russian roles on TV and in the movies.

But even with all of its issues, the movie is suspenseful and doesn't make you wish would have chosen that documentary about how things are made. And for Netflix, that's usually as good as it gets.

5.5/10

 

[bleubird]

Call Me Lucky
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3899932/
Never heard of this guy.
Must watch!
8/10

 

[another1]

Dope

MDMA is a cool drug, all cool kids are doing it and I should do it if I want to be cool. That was the plot. It would be 8/10 if it wasn't so blatant. 6/10

 

[Sarpedon]

I finally saw Mad Max 4/10.

Really, what the hell is all the fuss about? Is the second movie better? I know everyone said the third one is great, but I wanted to see the first two first, but now I'm not so sure.

I mean, rogue future cop takes on a biker gang who's numbers mysteriously shrink throughout the movie, and who apparently own only one firearm between them, which gets fired in anger only once.

 

[Sarpedon]

I also saw How to Lose Friends and Alienate People 2/10.

Normally I enjoy Simon Pegg, but if a comedy doesn't make me laugh in its first half hour, I turn it off as I did here.

 

[Jayjay]

I finally saw Mad Max 4/10.

Really, what the hell is all the fuss about? Is the second movie better? I know everyone said the third one is great, but I wanted to see the first two first, but now I'm not so sure.

Yes, the first one is kind of an outlier. The second one is considered by many to be the best of the trilogy, so definitely suffer through that one at least. If you don't like that, forget #3.

 

[prideandfall]

I finally saw Mad Max 4/10.

Really, what the hell is all the fuss about? Is the second movie better? I know everyone said the third one is great, but I wanted to see the first two first, but now I'm not so sure.

Yes, the first one is kind of an outlier. The second one is considered by many to be the best of the trilogy, so definitely suffer through that one at least. If you don't like that, forget #3.

huh, not entirely sure about the logic on that - i had never seen the first two movies and only seen beyond thunderdome vaguely as a kid, so after Fury Road was the hands-down best movie of this year i went and bought the trilogy.
i thought #1 and #2 were just *awful*, incomprehensible, boring, and ridiculous.
beyond thunderdome remains moderately amusing for its pure bugfuckery and "what in the SHIT am i watching!?" factor of the second half.
anyways the point is, since #3 is absolutely nothing like #1 or #2, i don't see how you can say "if you don't like the road warrior, forget beyond thunderdome" because they're nothing alike.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes, the first one is kind of an outlier. The second one is considered by many to be the best of the trilogy, so definitely suffer through that one at least. If you don't like that, forget #3.

huh, not entirely sure about the logic on that - i had never seen the first two movies and only seen beyond thunderdome vaguely as a kid, so after Fury Road was the hands-down best movie of this year i went and bought the trilogy.
i thought #1 and #2 were just *awful*, incomprehensible, boring, and ridiculous.
beyond thunderdome remains moderately amusing for its pure bugfuckery and "what in the SHIT am i watching!?" factor of the second half.
anyways the point is, since #3 is absolutely nothing like #1 or #2, i don't see how you can say "if you don't like the road warrior, forget beyond thunderdome" because they're nothing alike.

Can't argue with anyone's taste. The impression I have from the internet is that a lot of people liked #2, and #3 not so much. Personally I think all three are worth watching despite being slightly different in tone, but the first one mainly out of historical curiosity.

 

[laughing dog]

Bridge of Spies - 8/10

The story of James B. Donovan who negotiates the trade of a russian spy for Gary Powers and Frederic Pryor is well told. The movie captures the "red fever" of the 1950s very well. Tom Hanks puts in a good performance as Donovan.