Rate the last movie you watched (DON'T POST SPOILERS Y' EEJITS)
- Thread starter craig
- Start date
- Status
Sheepo
The Freeman
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 79
Perhaps I'm remembering it wrong (it's been a while). I know 3 was definitely terrible, and I still have the feeling there was something very bad about 2.
Sparta
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 6,312
- Reaction score
- 0
Nope. Godfather 2 is almost universally considered superior to the first.
Qonfused
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 9,500
- Reaction score
- 6
Broken Flowers: 7/10
This is quite the odd movie. Bill Murray played his role flawlessly, though, watching a man who seems as though he is bored, showing less emotion than everyone else on the screen led me to become partially bored. It works, and I'm not sure if it could have been done any other way. Most people might call this film boring, because it essentially is, unless you get into the head of Murray's character. And the ending was really good.
This is quite the odd movie. Bill Murray played his role flawlessly, though, watching a man who seems as though he is bored, showing less emotion than everyone else on the screen led me to become partially bored. It works, and I'm not sure if it could have been done any other way. Most people might call this film boring, because it essentially is, unless you get into the head of Murray's character. And the ending was really good.
SimpleAssassin
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 378
- Reaction score
- 0
The mask 7/10
It has been a time since ive seen this.
The only problem with The godfather 2 is its slow burning. Luckily that doesnt bother me
It has been a time since ive seen this.
The only problem with The godfather 2 is its slow burning. Luckily that doesnt bother me
Y
Yorick
Guest
The Little Mermaid - 8/10. Kinda wish there was more music.
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,316
- Reaction score
- 16
Superbad - 4/10 - Did I miss something? Why is this movie held in such high regard? It's very boring, and almost all the jokes would be considered immature by a 12-year-old.
I'm Not There - 8/10 - Very nice, post-modern movie. A very daring approach, but it payed off.
I'm Not There - 8/10 - Very nice, post-modern movie. A very daring approach, but it payed off.
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
Y
Yorick
Guest
It's called the first like 6 James Bond movies. :E
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
Season 2 was much better. Season 3 was a bit all over the place. To many ideas were introduced without being developed (and it's not like they didn't have time to, the just had comedy filler episodes instead).
Sheepo
The Freeman
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 79
That's really supposed to be the point. It's for adults to shake their heads while chuckling at the sad way they once were while missing it somewhat, and for teenagers to just go "LOLOLOL McLovin". I do agree with you though, one of the most overrated comedies ever.
Qonfused
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 9,500
- Reaction score
- 6
Nope, you didn't miss anything. Superbad is not a good movie.
lefty
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 2
pff c'mon he was like thirty, I'm surprised he wasn't in a wheelchair.
Y
Yorick
Guest
Sparta
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 6,312
- Reaction score
- 0
True but its ending more than made up for its faults for me. That and Zuko's arc throughout the series ends pretty much perfectly. Granted it was a little predictable, but hey, I liked it. Season 2 was great, but i felt that actually had too much filler in it. Also, i missed the epic showdown the first season had in the second season. As shallow as that sounds, it is a contributing factor as to why i think Season 1's end is better than season 2's.
Y
Yorick
Guest
No, I saw it in theatres and had a similar feeling. It was a bit predictable, but it was relatively moving and a good mood piece and so on. Still, it did feel like something just... wasn't there.
kupocake
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2004
- Messages
- 6,127
- Reaction score
- 16
The movie was a bit too bleak for me. To the point of implausibility, and for the same reasons as V for Vendetta. It's all very well decking the UK out with fascist symbolism and dressing every RP speaking, moustachioed authority figure in black, but it doesn't fly as a logical progression of any thrust of political thought in the country. Well, the fascism itself could work quite easily, but it would have to be re-branded to actually work here, people are very afraid of that stuff (well, obviously. Otherwise they wouldn't put it in the film to shock people).
A very enjoyable movie for sure. Fantastic action sequences. Not sure what was so bad about the end, Mr Shift. Perhaps it was just a little too obvious.
A very enjoyable movie for sure. Fantastic action sequences. Not sure what was so bad about the end, Mr Shift. Perhaps it was just a little too obvious.
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
In what way was it anticlimactic?
As for the charge of implausibility, Kupo: I remember thinking the same thing. But I don't think your characterisation of it is quite right. There's no explicit fascist idealogy visible in the film, indeed, little visible ideology from the government generally. In V For Vendetta the government exhibits a clear iconography and philosophy - the big crosses, 'Norsefire' - that we presume people believed in at some point. It's the preserve of a defined class of "RP-speaking" villains.
But in Children of Men the most visible representatives of unjust authority are a bent Scots cop and various cockney police. And the authority they represent does not display "any thrust of political thought" at all. Its oppression is depicted not as resulting from or even being justified by ideas but rather as a contingent effect of vast material shortages, a deficit of resources, various foreign disasters and a generally calamitous world. It's simply a country in very dire straights whose government is trying to maintain control any way it can. After all, the film hinges on a dialectic of irrational hope for an uncertain future versus justified despair at the current state of the world. The government has responded to the latter with too little humanity and in the process has become broken and brutally pragmatic.
All this might itself be implausible (looking at the world right now I'm not so sure). But it's not implausible for the reasons you describe.
The proto-'uprising' escalates, the main characters escape, the entire town is bombed, one main character dies, and the other is forced to confront a distressingly bleak reality (alone on a boat, no way to see one's own position let alone act to remove oneself from it) before finally being rescued by hope for the future.
But in Children of Men the most visible representatives of unjust authority are a bent Scots cop and various cockney police. And the authority they represent does not display "any thrust of political thought" at all. Its oppression is depicted not as resulting from or even being justified by ideas but rather as a contingent effect of vast material shortages, a deficit of resources, various foreign disasters and a generally calamitous world. It's simply a country in very dire straights whose government is trying to maintain control any way it can. After all, the film hinges on a dialectic of irrational hope for an uncertain future versus justified despair at the current state of the world. The government has responded to the latter with too little humanity and in the process has become broken and brutally pragmatic.
All this might itself be implausible (looking at the world right now I'm not so sure). But it's not implausible for the reasons you describe.
- Status
Similar threads
