Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You Saw


Guest

Recommended Posts

On 9/13/2017 at 8:12 PM, WestRider said:

Monsters: I have no idea what this movie was supposed to be about. I think there was something metaphorical about immigration, and the script/director seemed to be under the misapprehension that the two leads had any chemistry whatsoever, and that the various problems in their way were just kind of acts of the universe, or bad luck. Basically all their problems were the male lead's fault , as he questioned and argued with everyone they needed to trust, and then got hammered when they could have been perfectly safe, resulting in them getting robbed. The overall vibe was sort of like one of those student films where it's trying way too hard to be deep and meaningful, but ends up just being confusing and stupid.

When you finally do get to see the creatures, tho, they're pretty cool.

Umm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)

Here's some choice facts about the film from Wikipedia:

*Monsters is a 2010 British science fiction monster film written and directed by Gareth Edwards in his feature film directorial debut. Edwards also served as the cinematographer, production designer, and visual effects artist.

*Filming took place in five countries, and many locations were used without permission. Most of the extras were people who were at these locations during filming and were persuaded to act in it; all of their dialogue was improvised, and Edwards provided outlines of the primary plot points.

*The film received generally positive reviews and was a box office success, grossing US$ 4.2 million against a budget of less than $500,000.

The whole thing really turned out pretty amazing... but if you went in expecting a high budget low plot monster movie you were in the wrong place.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dkieft said:

Umm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)

Here's some choice facts about the film from Wikipedia:

*Monsters is a 2010 British science fiction monster film written and directed by Gareth Edwards in his feature film directorial debut. Edwards also served as the cinematographer, production designer, and visual effects artist.

*Filming took place in five countries, and many locations were used without permission. Most of the extras were people who were at these locations during filming and were persuaded to act in it; all of their dialogue was improvised, and Edwards provided outlines of the primary plot points.

*The film received generally positive reviews and was a box office success, grossing US$ 4.2 million against a budget of less than $500,000.

The whole thing really turned out pretty amazing... but if you went in expecting a high budget low plot monster movie you were in the wrong place.

The real issue is that I absolutely couldn't stand either of the main characters, and for me, they ruined all the stuff that was done right. Good atmosphere, good monsters, but I spent way too much time not appreciating those because they were overwhelmed by my desire to reach through the screen and smack the leads. However technically well-done a film may be, if it focuses on people I hate, I'm going to hate the flick as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WestRider said:

The real issue is that I absolutely couldn't stand either of the main characters, and for me, they ruined all the stuff that was done right. Good atmosphere, good monsters, but I spent way too much time not appreciating those because they were overwhelmed by my desire to reach through the screen and smack the leads. However technically well-done a film may be, if it focuses on people I hate, I'm going to hate the flick as a whole.

Don't worry, one day you'll learn to love again.

I honestly can't remember how bad or good the main characters are, I saw the movie in 2010...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2017 at 9:59 PM, WestRider said:

The Descent: OK, first off, I suffer from claustrophobia and acrophobia, and read Lovecraft's The Lurking Fear when I was way too young to deal with it. As such, this film is pretty much tailor-made to scare the $#!^ out of me, and I'm really glad that my apartment is on the top floor of my building. Even leaving those factors aside, tho, this was a damn good flick, that does a great job of gradually building up the tension level.

Also, it had a really great poster, which I put up in the random photo thread.

The Descent Part 2: Not quite as good as the original, but I feel like a lot of the bad press it got was just because it doesn't really add anything new. It's basically just more of the same, and for anyone who liked the first one and wanted more of that, I highly recommend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Beauty and the Beast (2017). 

1/5.

I loved the cartoon. This live action/CGI version tries and fails. The CGI is top notch, and the film tries hard to capture the cartoon as a live action film, while remaining it's own film. Each instance where they deviate from the cartoon's plot, I find them very lacking. The Actors are incredibly poor choices for their roles and are entirely unconvincing, seemingly selected for appearances only. Entire film sounds dubbed (though entirely possible that my stream had the audio out of sync with the film, but I doubt it). 

In particular, Emma Watson (whose name I had to look up for this) is cast as Belle, who just cannot act. Like she's well spoken and I think her body is acting the part, but she is unable to portray emotion in word or facial acting. Sure, she can smile or frown, but she doesn't seem attached to those emotions. Feels like she's reading lines off a page, rather than being there. 

I do wonder if I had not seen the original, the cartoon, if I would enjoy this one more. Reminds me of seeing a film based on a loved book. Just not as good as the one before it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Beauty and the Beast (2017). 

1/5.

I loved the cartoon. This live action/CGI version tries and fails. The CGI is top notch, and the film tries hard to capture the cartoon as a live action film, while remaining it's own film. Each instance where they deviate from the cartoon's plot, I find them very lacking. The Actors are incredibly poor choices for their roles and are entirely unconvincing, seemingly selected for appearances only. Entire film sounds dubbed (though entirely possible that my stream had the audio out of sync with the film, but I doubt it). 

In particular, Emma Watson (whose name I had to look up for this) is cast as Belle, who just cannot act. Like she's well spoken and I think her body is acting the part, but she is unable to portray emotion in word or facial acting. Sure, she can smile or frown, but she doesn't seem attached to those emotions. Feels like she's reading lines off a page, rather than being there. 

I do wonder if I had not seen the original, the cartoon, if I would enjoy this one more. Reminds me of seeing a film based on a loved book. Just not as good as the one before it. 

Your stream really negatively impacted your enjoyment... Emma is very good in the part as the afraid to let her feelings show belle... I've seem both the cartoon and own this one on disc I'm on the other side while not mind blowing good I give it the same score I would the cartoon. 

 

 edit: Timing for a musical is so important. This is a remake targeted at the same audience. Like the same people that watched it originally and are now parents themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Cult of Chucky: This series is definitely back and going strong again. I really can't think of another series that has a seventh movie this good, especially not after having gone direct-to-video. Very much hoping they do an 8th one.

Never did I think they'd get this far or keep you that interested in it. Been 20 years since I watched....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Romans832 said:

Never did I think they'd get this far or keep you that interested in it. Been 20 years since I watched....

The three in the middle sucked, to various degrees. But Curse and Cult of Chucky have really been kicking their game up again. The main writer and producer got together after the 5th one, and decided they wanted to bring it back from the over-the-top comedy-horror that the series had fallen into.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, WestRider said:

The three in the middle sucked, to various degrees. But Curse and Cult of Chucky have really been kicking their game up again. The main writer and producer got together after the 5th one, and decided they wanted to bring it back from the over-the-top comedy-horror that the series had fallen into.

okay now I'm interested again...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sicario 10/10 -- I watched this to get a feel for Denis Villeneuve's style (he directed the new Blade Runner flick) and was absolutely blown away. Amazing film that covers drug wars covert-ops, the role of government vs. individual responsibility, the nature of evil, revenge... you know.. a fun romp. It's been more than  a week and I'm still thinking about it. Films don't get much better.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, andy said:

Sicario 10/10 -- I watched this to get a feel for Denis Villeneuve's style (he directed the new Blade Runner flick) and was absolutely blown away. Amazing film that covers drug wars covert-ops, the role of government vs. individual responsibility, the nature of evil, revenge... you know.. a fun romp. It's been more than  a week and I'm still thinking about it. Films don't get much better.

I just watched for the second time and it is just a great movie all around. Seeing Blade Runner tonight and watching Sicario again had me even more excited.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

V/H/S: I'd heard that Second Honeymoon and 10/31/98 were particularly scary in this volume, but I found the latter more funny, and the former actually rather sweet. Tuesday the 17th was the only one I found even slightly scary. The other two just seemed kind of tragic more than anything.

Honeymoon (2014): In a lot of ways, there isn't actually a whole lot that happens in this flick, but the atmosphere is great, and it does a wonderful job of setting a mood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2017 at 9:51 AM, Swan-of-War said:

Bad Batch

Burning Man meets Escape from New York.  Pretty good apocalypse-type movie, cannibalism throughout so don't watch with kids / weak stomachs

Keanu Reeves! 

Couldn't disagree more. Love almost every trope they put in there and still hated the actual movie. It's like eating a  steak with chocolate sauce on a helicopter while trying to nap.

All good things but put together horribly. Mostly just boring though.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...