Films: Rate and Discuss

Tarantino.png
 
Star Trek (2009) - 4/10

My scanners are picking up enormous bullshit levels, captain.

Also, did the main theme bug anyone else? I swear they stole it from somewhere.

Edit: Also also, oh god my eyes. Is lensflare the new shakycam or what?

Yorick said:
It sounds like quite a description of how idiotic most humans are. People who like Avatar also probably like fireworks.
Click to expand...
MY STIMULI MUST BE PURELY MENTAL. NO VISUAL SPECTACLE CAN SATISFY MY ENJOYMENT CHIP.

I AM AN ANDROID. BEEP BOOP.
 
Public Enemies 8/10
Awesome movie. Great action. Christian Bale is 1930s Batman err... Gman.

Hardwired 0/10
Holy shit Val Kilmer has let himself go.

The Informant 7/10
Kind of funny and quirky.

Land of the Lost 5/10
It is hard to really call this a movie. It is more like a series of shots of Will Farrell saying funny thing. Good thing that he's funny. Sometimes other stuff happens in the background but it doesn't matter and doesn't make sense.

Avatar 9/10
Very entertaining. I go to the cinema to be entertained. Avatar delivered.
 
Oh and I almost forgot:
Sherlock Holmes 6/10
This movie delivers what is expected from a movie.
 
Moon 9/10

loved it! was very different from what I'm used to and for most sci-fi movies i need action and suspense but this movie was spot on with the way it played out. must see if you like sci-fi and a great story
 
12 Angry Men is excellent.


Sherlock Holmes was surprisingly good. It was no masterpiece but it was what I call a "fun" film. I would never, ever bother comparing it to the likes of Twelve Angry Men or No Country for Old Men but it was very good at what it did. I've always intended to read the stories at some point but after leaving the cinema I got in a two hour long conversation with a friend who had about the books and comparisons to the film and just the books in general and I really want to read them now.
 
The Book of Eli - 4/10

The pacing was too slow. No interesting characters, except Gary Oldman cause hes always cool as a villain. Very anti-climatic ending. Overall, a forgettable film.
 
Warped said:
Moon 9/10

loved it! was very different from what I'm used to and for most sci-fi movies i need action and suspense but this movie was spot on with the way it played out. must see if you like sci-fi and a great story
Click to expand...

You just reminded me that I need to see that one sometime :). I'll probably be checking it out from my free video rental place (aka the public library), but all their copies are currently checked out.

I rewatched The Science of Sleep. Definitely giving it a solid 9 to 9.5 rating now. I was more awake when I watched it this time, and discovered that it's not as confusing as I previously thought. So watching it while fully conscious and maybe with captions on (for those of us who are half deaf) helps a lot :p. The only negative I have is that it gets so emotionally painful/taxing at the end. Bad idea to watch at night when you need to get up in the morning and be a functional person. It's not one of those films that I can watch very often.

Also saw a documentary called How the Earth Was Made in class last week and today. I think it's a History Channel film. It's pretty epic and I actually learned a lot -- for example, that the Earth had a single landmass at one point (before Pangaea) that changed the climate patterns so that the planet became completely covered in ice, after which volcanic activity split up the land and allowed life to resurge. I have a little more respect for geologists now. It also had some pretty hilarious sound cues.
 
The Fellowship of the Ring 4/10

I remember being not that impressed by this movie in the theatres, but man is it crap. I guess it looked good because the visuals were pretty advanced, but now they look like crap too, and there is nothing else to back it up. The acting is pretty bad, but the dialogue is just groan worthy.

The characters all come off as 1 dimensional if not less:
Frodo - Looks constipated all the time
Sam - Talks like he's gay and cries about stuff all the time
Merry - Says maybe 5 words the entire movie. Mostly just makes a surprised face.
Pippin - Comic relief one liners
Aragorn - Always makes funny eyes and cocks his head. Just tells other people to be calm.
Boromir - Actual character that is believable and not cardboard. Too bad he dies.
Legolas - Just looks pretty and shoots arrows at things
Gimli - Grumpy Scotsman
Gandalf is the only really likable and well acted role. Except the wizard battle was stupid.

Oh and why does there always have to be epic music ALL the ****ing time. Can they not spend 5 minutes doing something not epic? Especially the half hour we spent in the elf forest where all they did was talk, but the music went on like it was the craziest shit ever.
 
Pontypool
7.5/10

This is a really odd movie. It is technically a horror movie, but its not that horrific. It's technically a zombie movie, but there aren't that many zombies.

I don't want to spoil it, but essentially the plot of the movie revolves around a small French Canadian town that gets infected with a really really unconventional zombie-type disease. The protagonist is a radio announcer. The entire movie takes place in his radio booth, and all we know about the outbreak are the reports he gets (until, spectacularly, the infection comes to his own studio).

In this way, the movie is sort of like a filmed radio drama. Sort of like the original War of the Worlds radio show, but in reverse. It's quite interesting.

That said, the actual plot is a bit hard to believe. There are definitely zombies in this film, but they are not the conventional, shambling zombies of the Romero films, nor are they the fast zombies of the 28 Days Later/ Left 4 Dead type. They are more like very confused, insane people. Sometimes they run, sometimes they shamble, but mostly they just seem confused, or even happy. The terror comes from the empathy we have for these zombies, because they are clearly just confused people who don't exactly know what they are doing, yet nevertheless end up killing people. The method of infection is not the air, or bites, or blood, but in the mind. This movie takes Richard Dawkin's idea of memes to their absurd extreme, and takes virus of the mind literally. The movie really plays on language, thoughts, and memes, and takes advantage of the dual language nature of French Canada.

I really do recommend it, although its likely to disappoint avid zombie movie fans.

The ending is also a little disappointing and weird.
 
Dan said:
The Fellowship of the Ring 4/10

I remember being not that impressed by this movie in the theatres, but man is it crap. I guess it looked good because the visuals were pretty advanced, but now they look like crap too, and there is nothing else to back it up. The acting is pretty bad, but the dialogue is just groan worthy.

The characters all come off as 1 dimensional if not less:
Frodo - Looks constipated all the time
Sam - Talks like he's gay and cries about stuff all the time
Merry - Says maybe 5 words the entire movie. Mostly just makes a surprised face.
Pippin - Comic relief one liners
Aragorn - Always makes funny eyes and cocks his head. Just tells other people to be calm.
Boromir - Actual character that is believable and not cardboard. Too bad he dies.
Legolas - Just looks pretty and shoots arrows at things
Gimli - Grumpy Scotsman
Gandalf is the only really likable and well acted role. Except the wizard battle was stupid.

Oh and why does there always have to be epic music ALL the ****ing time. Can they not spend 5 minutes doing something not epic? Especially the half hour we spent in the elf forest where all they did was talk, but the music went on like it was the craziest shit ever.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Watching this in theaters was nausea inducing.
 
Dan said:
The Fellowship of the Ring 4/10

I remember being not that impressed by this movie in the theatres, but man is it crap. I guess it looked good because the visuals were pretty advanced, but now they look like crap too, and there is nothing else to back it up. The acting is pretty bad, but the dialogue is just groan worthy.

The characters all come off as 1 dimensional if not less:
Frodo - Looks constipated all the time
Sam - Talks like he's gay and cries about stuff all the time
Merry - Says maybe 5 words the entire movie. Mostly just makes a surprised face.
Pippin - Comic relief one liners
Aragorn - Always makes funny eyes and cocks his head. Just tells other people to be calm.
Boromir - Actual character that is believable and not cardboard. Too bad he dies.
Legolas - Just looks pretty and shoots arrows at things
Gimli - Grumpy Scotsman
Gandalf is the only really likable and well acted role. Except the wizard battle was stupid.

Oh and why does there always have to be epic music ALL the ****ing time. Can they not spend 5 minutes doing something not epic? Especially the half hour we spent in the elf forest where all they did was talk, but the music went on like it was the craziest shit ever.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if I can take this seriously either. The complaints you have listed are absolutely superficial.
 
Dan is no longer in my fan club.

Edit: Trying to get back onto topic...the last movie I saw in theatres was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.(dollar theatre mind you)
I actually liked it more than I thought I would. The plot was fairly typical but they did a lot of fun and creative things with it to make it seem more exciting. The characters were enjoyable as well. I particularly enjoyed the change that occurred to the "villain" during the course of the movie. There are also a ton of tributes to other movies which were quite funny.
I give it 7/10.
 
Superbad - 8/10

I finally got around to watching this film, and I got to say that I was not disappointed. I'm not a huge fan of comedies, especially since most as of late are god awful, but Superbad made me laugh a lot. The only reason it gets a 8/10 was that the scenes dealing with the cops and Fogel seemed to drag on, and they weren't that funny to start with. Other than that, great movie.

Grandma's Boy 9/10
Yes another comedy. I really liked this one. The humor was so juvenile and absurd and yet I loved every minute of it. And Doris Roberts drank Steel Reserve in that movie. I feel vindicated!

And I kept thinking that Allen Covert looks like Mel Gibson... Does anyone else see it?

allencovert.jpg
 
DUMB PEOPLE said:
Talkin shit bout da Fellowship.
Click to expand...
I just called the mayor of New Zealand to get you barred for life, but then I remembered there are NO TROLLS ALLOWED IN THE SHIRE.

****ers.
 
Dan said:
The Fellowship of the Ring 4/10

I remember being not that impressed by this movie in the theatres, but man is it crap. I guess it looked good because the visuals were pretty advanced, but now they look like crap too, and there is nothing else to back it up. The acting is pretty bad, but the dialogue is just groan worthy.

The characters all come off as 1 dimensional if not less:
Frodo - Looks constipated all the time
Sam - Talks like he's gay and cries about stuff all the time
Merry - Says maybe 5 words the entire movie. Mostly just makes a surprised face.
Pippin - Comic relief one liners
Aragorn - Always makes funny eyes and cocks his head. Just tells other people to be calm.
Boromir - Actual character that is believable and not cardboard. Too bad he dies.
Legolas - Just looks pretty and shoots arrows at things
Gimli - Grumpy Scotsman
Gandalf is the only really likable and well acted role. Except the wizard battle was stupid.

Oh and why does there always have to be epic music ALL the ****ing time. Can they not spend 5 minutes doing something not epic? Especially the half hour we spent in the elf forest where all they did was talk, but the music went on like it was the craziest shit ever.
Click to expand...

I quite agree with you.
 
I liked LOTR BUT I do agree they were VERY overrated. I thought the book was aswell to be fair.
 
I didn't mind them. Not something particularly memorable by any stretch of the imagination - certainly not as far as what is often considered. But I didn't mind them. I had thought the film stayed true to it quite well.

Ah, to each's own.
 
Samon said:
I quite agree with you.
Click to expand...
You know what, **** this whole thread. You people and your opinions, god. I don't even know any more.

The first hour or so of Twilight - n/a
Yes I voluntarily subjected myself to this. Yes alcohol was involved. Yes it is every bit as unwatchable as people say.
 
The Road (2009) - 8/10

The movie itself is an excellent take on post-apoc and panders to my general distrust of humanity. The ending was a bit unsatisfying, but what I really hate is when movies show something interesting and then refuse to explain it. The scientist in me practically screamed out at the end, "WHAT?? What caused the apocalypse? You can't just leave me hanging here!"

They did.
 
Bad^Hat said:
You know what, **** this whole thread. You people and your opinions, god. I don't even know any more.

The first hour or so of Twilight - n/a
Yes I voluntarily subjected myself to this. Yes alcohol was involved. Yes it is every bit as unwatchable as people say.
Click to expand...

There mustve been a woman involved. Anything for **ssy!

Zombieland..aka Left 4 Dead - 8/10

Kind of liked the comedy. The gore was actually quite good on the zombies. Shame that Woody was a bit of a d-bag, he kind of didnt fit in for some reason. Well, for me anyway.

Double Tap made me laugh. And Bill Murray was pretty funny, pretty much the whole time he was on screen.

Film gets 2 extra points for Emma Stone..those legs, yikes.
 
I loved the LOTR books and must have read them at least 5 or 6 times. But the movie is just so bad. The FX don't hold up that well now compared with something like Avatar. The acting is terrible. All of the exposition is given through these windy lame sounding monologues or even worse dialogues where characters spew out all of the back story to each other so that the audience can understand. Even then, half of the plot is not explained. The elves all come off as douchebags. Everything is hamfisted and they smack you over the head with who is evil and who is good. None of the characters actually have any character. They just do stuff for 3 hours. This movie just follows the events of the book. First this happens, then this happens, then something else happens, then the next thing happens. But it doesn't build up any of the emotions. Sarumon, who was a clever character that was manipulated by Sauron has become his evil lackey now. The music is always distracting. The fighting just makes me roll my eyes. Oh yeah, we know what is going to happen. Some really fast closeups of sword kung fu and a lot of dead orcs. The battles aren't epic, just a greater quantity of sword kung fu.

It is just terrible in every measure of a movie except maybe visuals where it is okay.
 
To find that many flaws with any of the LOTR films is just being FAR too overly critical imo, I personally think that anyone who can sit through those films, especially the first, and not enjoy them, simply must lack a personality.

The Road - 9/10

A highly emotional charged film, me and mate were depressed for about three quarters of it. Exceptionally brutal and realistic in its depiction of a post-apoc world. The every man for himself mentality, and how all humanity fails to exist when man is pushed to the very edge. The acting was superb, the color pallet was a mix of dull, greyish colors and the general direction and camera work was spot on, it was just perfect in portraying just how ****ed everything was.

99.vikram said:
The Road (2009) - 8/10

The ending was a bit unsatisfying, but what I really hate is when movies show something interesting and then refuse to explain it. The scientist in me practically screamed out at the end, "WHAT?? What caused the apocalypse? You can't just leave me hanging here!"

They did.
Click to expand...

I liked the ending, I mean yeh it could have been better, but I was fine with it. And that was the idea really, they don't just hand it to you on a plate about what actually happened, you have to use your imagination, and look for the hints in dialogue and the surroundings. For instance the father said that was a brilliant flash of light, and everything wouldn't stop burning. The weather was completely ****ed, constantly grey and dull, vicious storms and most likely acidic rain and snow, so it was most likely a nuclear war of some kind.
 
Why wasn't the apocalypse explained? Because to pin the origin of the disaster down to one specific cause would be to invite specific criticism about that cause. If it turned out to be global warming, then the film would to some extent be about global warming, or if about the biblical end of the world, then substantially about religion. This would leave a door open for people to attack it on those grounds, noting how they don't believe in global warming or don't believe in God.

That had to be avoided for two reasons. Firstly because unlike a lot of 'apocalyptic' films, The Road isn't about the disaster at all. No attention is given to the myth of the Fall itself, and we are never invited to consider the sins of man as being its reason. There's no "what has science done" or "if only we hadn't" or "if we don't stop soon, this might happen." The Road is about humanity now and the world right now. So we don't see a specific apocalypse but instead a generalised lack of hope or possibility, just as in Children of Men mass infertility expresses hopelessness about the future but without ever being explained as a scientific plague or a divine curse. It is just a metaphorical extrapolation of what we feel and what we know today. And perhaps it isn't that exaggerated after all. Earth isn't a stranger to the vicious humanity that The Road depicts.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Why wasn't the apocalypse explained? Because to pin the origin of the disaster down to one specific cause would be to invite specific criticism about that cause. If it turned out to be global warming, then the film would to some extent be about global warming, or if about the biblical end of the world, then substantially about religion. This would leave a door open for people to attack it on those grounds, noting how they don't believe in global warming or don't believe in God.

That had to be avoided for two reasons. Firstly because unlike a lot of 'apocalyptic' films, The Road isn't about the disaster at all. No attention is given to the myth of the Fall itself, and we are never invited to consider the sins of man as being its reason. There's no "what has science done" or "if only we hadn't" or "if we don't stop soon, this might happen." The Road is about humanity now and the world right now. So we don't see a specific apocalypse but instead a generalised lack of hope or possibility, just as in Children of Men mass infertility expresses hopelessness about the future but without ever being explained as a scientific plague or a divine curse. It is just a metaphorical extrapolation of what we feel and what we know today. And perhaps it isn't that exaggerated after all. Earth isn't a stranger to the vicious humanity that The Road depicts.
Click to expand...

You get my thumbs up! :D
 
Shift said:
To find that many flaws with any of the LOTR films is just being FAR too overly critical imo, I personally think that anyone who can sit through those films, especially the first, and not enjoy them, simply must lack a personality.
Click to expand...

Yes, that must be it. I have no personality.
 
Grumpo-bot selfishly refuses to sacrifice himself for humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminator
Long time...
Replies
16
Views
1K
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Chris D
Half-Life: Alyx announced
Replies
32
Views
25K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top