Films: Rate and Discuss

Big Bang theory is alright, a bit too formulaic and relying too much on overused stereotypes to fuel the humour. Hardly genius.
 
I always thought it was crap precisely because it was so generic
 
**** yeah, I love Boston Legal.
Denny Crane and Alan Shore are the second best duo on the planet.

Clash of the Titans - 5/10...
It's like the writers decided to rip apart the original film and kill what little story it already had and then attempt to fix it while watching Disney's Hercules.

The CGI was cool though.
 
I suppose Katsulas' death might also exclude them. *sigh*
 
Christ toaster, why don't you go marry a book. You're meant to be comparing it to other films, tv shows or forum members.
 
I finally got around to watching Sherlock Holmes and I'm really, really embarrassed by just how much I liked it. Definitely looking forward to the sequel oh god what's wrong with me.
 
You're embarrassed for liking it? It was a really good film I thought. Theres something wrong with this forum in terms of opinion lol.
 
Yorick is too sophisticated for himself.

Must not like movies that appeal to the masses!
 
I grew up reading the books, and this is at best a hollywoodised bastardisation. It's in my very nature to hate everything about it. But goddamn did I enjoy it.
 
The Book of Eli

I refuse to give this points. It has cool fight scenes. But the rest of the movie, and the message? Ugh.
 
Back to the Future 8.5/10

Perhaps the most enjoyable movie I've ever seen. Smiled from start to finish.

Yorick said:
I grew up reading the books, and this is at best a hollywoodised bastardisation. It's in my very nature to hate everything about it. But goddamn did I enjoy it.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is pretend Sherlock Holmes didn't exist until the movie was created and you know nothing about him, and it's a perfectly enjoyable movie.
 
Syriana - 3/10

Never been so confused about a film. Couldnt follow it. Some vague reference to a brother wanting to pipe oil across land to boost profits, something about a stinger missile...*yawn* and an overweight Clooney...

Didnt really care about the film so was half watching half not. Seems like you need to watch it twice, or I just didnt listen enough to care about any of the characters or what the hell was going on.
 
Yorick said:
I grew up reading the books, and this is at best a hollywoodised bastardisation. It's in my very nature to hate everything about it. But goddamn did I enjoy it.
Click to expand...
I went with my girlfriend who has read most of, if not all of, the stories and she thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation barring the obvious liberties that were taken. Adler becoming a love interest being the big one, though she made the point that it's entirely possible they did fancy each other but seeing that the stories are written from Watson's perspective he might be just might have never noticed because he thought them fancying each other was ridiculous and impossible.

I'm not really sure why I'm arguing this now, I've not even read any of the stories, although I to plan to.
 
ríomhaire said:
I went with my girlfriend who has read most of, if not all of, the stories and she thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation barring the obvious liberties that were taken. Adler becoming a love interest being the big one, though she made the point that it's entirely possible they did fancy each other but seeing that the stories are written from Watson's perspective he might be just might have never noticed because he thought them fancying each other was ridiculous and impossible.

I'm not really sure why I'm arguing this now, I've not even read any of the stories, although I to plan to.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't mind at all that Adler filled that role. Watson pointed out that she was the only person to ever outsmart Holmes gave them an obvious attraction. I did have a slightly larger problem with how that was used against them. But I thought their relationship was done well. I also really liked Holmes and Watson's relationship.

I can't really pinpoint anything specifically that I didn't like, because I really did enjoy the hell out of it. Even the plot of having Black Magic I thought was really excellent.

Dynasty said:
Syriana - 3/10

Never been so confused about a film. Couldnt follow it. Some vague reference to a brother wanting to pipe oil across land to boost profits, something about a stinger missile...*yawn* and an overweight Clooney...

Didnt really care about the film so was half watching half not. Seems like you need to watch it twice, or I just didnt listen enough to care about any of the characters or what the hell was going on.
Click to expand...

I saw it in theatres when it came out and left with very much the same feeling.
 
Yorick said:
I grew up reading the books, and this is at best a hollywoodised bastardisation. It's in my very nature to hate everything about it. But goddamn did I enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Never fear, I'm hating it for you.
 
Yorick said:
I can't really pinpoint anything specifically that I didn't like, because I really did enjoy the hell out of it. Even the plot of having Black Magic I thought was really excellent.
Click to expand...

Well for me, as I said I didn't like that he was made into a petulant man-child. He's got the fighting skills of Bond, and the intellect of Holmes, yet is depicted mostly as a juvenile cockblocker.

Now I'm not all that familiar with the canon, I've read only a couple of the stories way back when, like The Hounds of Baskerville, but can't for the life of me remember any of the plots, etc. So maybe he was a reclusive, troubled-genius lush in the books, but that's not how I remember it (because I don't remember it at all).

I did enjoy it, tho. On technical points (cinematography, etc) I'd give it an 8. It's basically textbook Guy Ritchie, which I like. Only gave it a 6 as I expected more out of it.
 
Fragalishus said:
Well for me, as I said I didn't like that he was made into a petulant man-child. He's got the fighting skills of Bond, and the intellect of Holmes, yet is depicted mostly as a juvenile cockblocker.

Now I'm not all that familiar with the canon, I've read only a couple of the stories way back when, like The Hounds of Baskerville, but can't for the life of me remember any of the plots, etc. So maybe he was a reclusive, troubled-genius lush in the books, but that's not how I remember it (because I don't remember it at all).

I did enjoy it, tho. On technical points (cinematography, etc) I'd give it an 8. It's basically textbook Guy Ritchie, which I like. Only gave it a 6 as I expected more out of it.
Click to expand...

See, I felt a lot of the subtleties were accurate. I recall Holmes as being knowledgeable to the point of arrogance. He enjoys pointing things out and confusing people. He breaks the law when he has to. But he doesn't care about fame (In the movie he covered his face during a photo session for the paper). He was messy and eccentric and a loner and often seems cold. He gets wrapped up in a case and feels lost without one, and plays violin. In the books he even does cocaine when he's bored.

It's probably the immaturity and fighting skills that bothered me, yes, but even those have a place in the books. Holmes did use his cane as a weapon before in the stories, and they both did carry revolvers. Holmes also bare-knuckle boxed. The movie also scored a lot of points with me for not using the phrase "Elementary my dear Watson". When you look at it part by part, it seems perfectly reasonable, and overall it's a very enjoyable movie. But still something about it certainly bothers me.
 
Perhaps the fact that it's actually good when by all the rules you have in your head about how hollywood works you think it should be shit and your mind just can't cope with it and tells you "something" is wrong with it.
 
I went in search of other reviews to verify my opinion, but they all remark that it suffered from ADD and incoherence, which I didn't find at all to be the case. A lot of people seem to just hate it for the sake that Guy Ritchie directed it, which I think is rather silly. But I also found his previous films quite good.

I'm going to watch Sherlock Holmes again, it might very well be that I'm just so used to disappointment and this is, in fact, a great movie.
 
Wall-E (in high definition (after eating two hash brownies)) - 10/10

I laughed, I cried, my eyes lost focus and I was sucked into the screen in an ecstatic miasma of robot
 
Sherlock Holmes - 8/10...

This is the most fun I've had with a movie since the very first time I watched the Indiana Jones films.
Hell, this isn't even an Indiana Jones movie and yet it felt more like one than the Crystal Skull did.

I admit, I know next to nothing about the Holmes lore since I only used to watch the TV series way back when I was 8 or 9... but seeing this movie has piqued my interest enough to want to check out the books and other films.
 
JCVD - 8/10
It is a movie that I watched.

I enjoyed it.

... Honestly can't think of much else to say. Jean-Claude was good in it.

Edit: Oh yeah.

Sherlock Holmes - 6/10
It's pretty good. It's also kind of dumb, but in a smart way. It's kind of deceptive like that.

The ending annoyed me. I really didn't appreciate the entire plot being explained to me at length while the villain dangled there waiting to die. In a way it was kind of ironic, but it also felt kind of forced, whereas a greater mystery movie would have either provided clues for the audience to discover certain things on their own, or at least unveil things gradually instead of just lumping them into one huge contrived speech right at the end.
 
So you give it an excellent score of 8/10?

Yeah, let's start this discussion again. You are all too generous when you rate movies.

"Yeah it was alright I guess... Probably worth a rental 9.6/10"

It's a scale from 1-10. Not 6-10 god damn it.
 
I agree with the racist ghost. I feel like it's a habit people get into because of how schools grade. Let's insult people until they learn to do things properly.

Bad^Hat said:
Sherlock Holmes - 6/10
It's pretty good. It's also kind of dumb, but in a smart way. It's kind of deceptive like that.

The ending annoyed me. I really didn't appreciate the entire plot being explained to me at length while the villain dangled there waiting to die. In a way it was kind of ironic, but it also felt kind of forced, whereas a greater mystery movie would have either provided clues for the audience to discover certain things on their own, or at least unveil things gradually instead of just lumping them into one huge contrived speech right at the end.
Click to expand...

That monologue would have annoyed me except that I could absolutely see Holmes doing exactly that. We already saw through the movie how much he loves to flex his intelligence, especially in front of people. It's very much like him, after everything that's happened, to say "lol I won, and here's all the stuff you did wrong. I'm way smarter than you."
 
For what it was, and for what it was trying to do, it exceeded admirably. It had a surfeit of energy, a firmly decided upon and interesting style, panache, vigour, and a tongue-in-cheek attitude to itself. It was an interesting and progressive twist on the superhero genre, with a ****ing brilliant performance from Nicholas Cage. (as my friend said - "finally someone's realised how to cast Nicholas Cage and his wooden acting - you cast him as a wooden character").
 
Yorick said:
I agree with the racist ghost. I feel like it's a habit people get into because of how schools grade. Let's insult people until they learn to do things properly.
Click to expand...
That's why I grade stuff on a scale of 5 and just double it. Pure semantics, right? Not after the way the 10/100 scale has been bastardized into 6-10 or nothing. The 6 I gave Sherlock was actually pretty good in my mind, if you imagine it as a 3/5. A 4/10 would still be a redeemable score as well, since 2 stars doesn't mean awful but simply sub-par.

Not saying I'm the authority on scoring or anything, just makes it easier to grade stuff in my mind without thinking about the implications of any given score. It also lets me avoid one of the other pitfalls of the 10 scale - it's way too easy to give most stuff a 7, which in essence is kind of an undecided score. :p

(Can you tell I kind of overthink this stuff?)

Yorick said:
That monologue would have annoyed me except that I could absolutely see Holmes doing exactly that. We already saw through the movie how much he loves to flex his intelligence, especially in front of people. It's very much like him, after everything that's happened, to say "lol I won, and here's all the stuff you did wrong. I'm way smarter than you."
Click to expand...
I agree that it was entirely in character for him, and in fact I did really enjoy the way he was written, and the way Downey portrayed him (even if the accent was a bit suspect at times, but not enough to really matter). I just don't really like being force-fed information like that on principle. It seems like a kind of shoddy writing technique to me, even though the way it was written was fine.

In any case I still really enjoyed the film, and the way Sherlock flexes his genius is really integral to what makes his character charming, so it's mostly forgivable.
 
I agree with you on all counts good sir.

I need to watch Sherlock again but my tentative score is between a 6 and a 7. The fact alone that I want to watch it again should say quite a bit.
 
The problem with the 1-10 scale is that it is a finite linear scale. Everyone knows that logarithmic scales are better at comparing values. But anyways, 1 (or 0) has to be the worst movie possible. Like say 12 hours of fuzzy screen and white noise for a sound track. That would be a 1. Since everyone is at least trying to make a movie, anything that hits theatre's is probably at least a 6/10. And then since nobody can imagine a movie better than the best movie they have seen, 10/10 occur every time someone experiences the best movie of recent memory.
 
Dan said:
The problem with the 1-10 scale is that it is a finite linear scale. Everyone knows that logarithmic scales are better at comparing values. But anyways, 1 (or 0) has to be the worst movie possible. Like say 12 hours of fuzzy screen and white noise for a sound track. That would be a 1. Since everyone is at least trying to make a movie, anything that hits theatre's is probably at least a 6/10. And then since nobody can imagine a movie better than the best movie they have seen, 10/10 occur every time someone experiences the best movie of recent memory.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While certainly 0 and 1 would never/rarely be used, there are certainly movies that are lower than 6's.

Being John Malkovich, X-Men Origins Wolverine, Batman and Robin, Death Proof, the Star Wars Prequels, The Matrix Sequels, the new Star Trek movie, Raimi's Spider-Man movies, and the Transformers movies are all things I would consider far worse than 6/10. In fact all of those are probably between 2 and 4.

When you have an incoherent plot, poor characters with no development, villains with no motive, bad acting, and other rubbish all combined into one film, it's hard to see any merit. "Yay your movie hit theatres" isn't worth ****all in my book.
 
Don't forget 1/10 - Battlefield Earth

Also some Ed Wood stuff would definitely be below 6/10
 
Minority Report 10/10


way ahead of it's time and no matter how hard I try I cannot bring myself to hate Cruise
 
The Secret of Kells - 8/10
Wasn't crazy for the story, but this one's all about the presentation. The animation is immaculate and wonderful in it's use of weird interpretations of objects and strange perspectives, while still mirroring nature in it's own way (the forest scenes are amazing). The characters are charming for the most part, if sometimes underdeveloped - I was sorry to see Aisling practically vanish in the latter half. The ending in particular kind of left me wanting, but that's as much a good sign I guess. In all not really a deep film, but lovingly crafted in every aspect, and a real joy to behold.

Oh, if I had to level one major complaint at the film, it'd be that Brendan Gleeson as the abbot is kind of distracting. I usually love the guy, but he doesn't really have the stern, commanding voice you'd expect of the character, instead opting for a softer, more serious tone, which kind of makes him a bore to listen to. Also he's (as far as I could tell) the only well-known actor to lend his voice, which makes him stick out among an otherwise very able cast.
 
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