Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[InfestedKerrigan]

Dudes and dragons 

I laughed a couple times. Really bad, not in the good way. Well, depends on what you want out of your camp films.  Acting was horrid. CGI was decent in places, but it wasn't blended as well as other low budget films. 

 

1 out of 5 virgins sacrificed to keep the love monster away 

[WestRider]

11 hours ago, paxmiles said:

If I'm thinking of the correct actor, which is big if, I do like that guy in film. He fills his role well. Plays a good hired killer, business man, or hmm...I think may be the only roles I've seen him in. Holds a fake hollywood gun as if it has weight, yeah, good actor.

I did see battlefield earth, though I didn't know he was in it. That one had cool costumes and a neat setting, but too much of a hollywood plot archetype and a crappy end. Granted, haven't seen it since it was in the theatres, so I really only vaguely remember it.

John Travolta is good too, but he's more of a physical actor. If his character doesn't speak much he's got the body language, but not much of a speaking actor. Grease was good. Face Off I enjoy when it was new. And I really liked that Phenomeon film, though that's one of those films that you only need to see once. Oh, Pulp Fiction too, I think. 

Dunno, I don't recall either of these guys in any really big movies where their role made the film, but they not bad actors either. Strong side characters in big films, and sold main characters mediocre films. 

Battlefield Earth was Travolta, not Cage.

Cage isn't a good actor, but he is a good performer. In other words, he only ever really plays one character, but he plays that character very well. And like I said, he's very consistent. When you're in the mood for a Nic Cage film, nothing else will do, but pretty much any of his movies will do. This isn't actually a negative comment, just an observation on his very specific niche. I've got a couple of his flicks in my queue on Netflix right now.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Battlefield Earth was Travolta, not Cage.

Cage isn't a good actor, but he is a good performer. In other words, he only ever really plays one character, but he plays that character very well. And like I said, he's very consistent. When you're in the mood for a Nic Cage film, nothing else will do, but pretty much any of his movies will do. This isn't actually a negative comment, just an observation on his very specific niche. I've got a couple of his flicks in my queue on Netflix right now.

How is only playing one role make him not an actor? Isn't "actor" the proffessional term for a person hired to play role in a film?

[InfestedKerrigan]

On 7/25/2018 at 2:37 PM, WarlordGhrom said:

Have you seen Nic Cage's list of films?  How about John Travolta (Battlefield Earth anyone).  Most do not have standards when it comes to a big paycheck or needing a new movie.

 

On 7/25/2018 at 3:44 PM, InfestedKerrigan said:

I get what you are saying, but when you are talking about doing a religious film for your church, it's not the same thing. 😎

@Romans832 battlefield earth is a Scientology movie.

And it is a very bad movie.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

 

@Romans832 battlefield earth is a Scientology movie.

Really? I sure didn't get that from the film. Is that like saying Lion King is about Jesus just because it has similar themes in places? Or do you mean it's an actual religious film, like The Ten Commandments (1956)?

[InfestedKerrigan]

Battlefield Earth IS a Scientology film. Period. That's what I mean. 

[Romans832]

1 hour ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

 

@Romans832 battlefield earth is a Scientology movie.

Who knew?

[WestRider]

2 hours ago, paxmiles said:

How is only playing one role make him not an actor? Isn't "actor" the proffessional term for a person hired to play role in a film?

There are a number of different uses of the term "actor". In the broadest sense, yes, it applies there, but using the narrower, more technical, definition, a "good actor" is one who is capable of portraying a variety of different characters effectively, and with a range of emotional expression, depth, and nuance. A "good performer", in this level of definition, is one who doesn't necessarily have a broad range, but is effective and entertaining within their range.

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

Really? I sure didn't get that from the film. Is that like saying Lion King is about Jesus just because it has similar themes in places? Or do you mean it's an actual religious film, like The Ten Commandments (1956)?

It's an adaptation of an L. Ron Hubbard novel. All the relevant rights to the property belong to a company owned by the church of scientology. It's not as blatantly connected as some of Hubbard's other works, and the most notable connections are in the second half, which was never made as a movie because of how badly the first one failed, but yeah, it is a scientology movie.

[WestRider]

So, this got me to jump ahead in my queue a bit and watch Rage. Holy @%#$ that was %^*&ing depressing.

[WestRider]

Bethany: Pretty good horror flick. Kept me guessing for quite a while as to whether it was supernatural horror or psychological horror. It does get a bit heavy-handed at points, and tries to ramp up the suspense a bit too quickly, but overall, it was good. There was one other awkward aspect, on a personal level, because I recently watched Don't Blink, and Zack Ward's character in there has a very different arc, and that kind of sent me off in the wrong direction a couple of times here.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Extinction

0 out of 5 Replicants 

Predictably boring. Unoriginal. 

[WestRider]

Universal Soldier: Mostly notable because I now know where a ton more VNV Nation samples come from.

Where the Skin Lies: Cool concept, lots of potential, some great individual scenes and performances, but in the final analysis, it doesn't really hold together as a good movie. Feels like they only really had the story about 80% worked out, but had to shoot with what they had rather than waiting for another pass on the script.

[Guest]

On 7/26/2018 at 6:37 PM, WestRider said:

It's an adaptation of an L. Ron Hubbard novel. All the relevant rights to the property belong to a company owned by the church of scientology. It's not as blatantly connected as some of Hubbard's other works, and the most notable connections are in the second half, which was never made as a movie because of how badly the first one failed, but yeah, it is a scientology movie.

So I had to look this one up, but I did see the film and don't recall any religious component. Nothing more than any other sci-fi book or film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_(film)

An interesting read.

Film doesn't really seem to be about scientology, per say, but more is a tribute to the deceased author. But since the author is who he is, those opposed to scientology are also, inherently, opposed to his other works.

Seems that anti-scientology rumors were spread around regarding the film's scientology component, which I don't think is really there. Bigotry, as far as I can tell, was the point of spreading the rumors. I have noticed that people are very opposed to scientology, though I've yet to understand why they'd be more opposed to that particular religion than any other. Anyway, not all that interested in it, just think that this view may have given the film a worse name than it deserved..

Additionally, apparently the company that produced it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_Pictures, was "padding" the budget and essentially embezzling money from the film's investors. Can't imagine that any film would do great under that sort of strain.

Anyway, not arguing it was a great film or anything, but I don't recall it being horrible either. The negativity against it, though, seems disproportionate with what another, similarly bad film, would receive.

[WestRider]

4 hours ago, paxmiles said:

So I had to look this one up, but I did see the film and don't recall any religious component. Nothing more than any other sci-fi book or film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_(film)

An interesting read.

Film doesn't really seem to be about scientology, per say, but more is a tribute to the deceased author. But since the author is who he is, those opposed to scientology are also, inherently, opposed to his other works.

Seems that anti-scientology rumors were spread around regarding the film's scientology component, which I don't think is really there. Bigotry, as far as I can tell, was the point of spreading the rumors. I have noticed that people are very opposed to scientology, though I've yet to understand why they'd be more opposed to that particular religion than any other. Anyway, not all that interested in it, just think that this view may have given the film a worse name than it deserved..

Additionally, apparently the company that produced it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_Pictures, was "padding" the budget and essentially embezzling money from the film's investors. Can't imagine that any film would do great under that sort of strain.

Anyway, not arguing it was a great film or anything, but I don't recall it being horrible either. The negativity against it, though, seems disproportionate with what another, similarly bad film, would receive.

The Wikipedia article glosses over a lot. Travolta was actually pretty clear that promoting scientology was part of the point of the film when it was in production, and showing in theatres.

[Duckman]

6 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Seems that anti-scientology rumors were spread around regarding the film's scientology component, which I don't think is really there. Bigotry, as far as I can tell, was the point of spreading the rumors. I have noticed that people are very opposed to scientology, though I've yet to understand why they'd be more opposed to that particular religion than any other. Anyway, not all that interested in it, just think that this view may have given the film a worse name than it deserved..

Try doing a little google searching on why people hate Scientology.  The reason the producers were embezzling was to donate to the church.  There are cases of the wills being altered after the death of someone.  Cases of donation checks being signed post-mortem.  Whether or not you think it is a religion, it hides behind certain laws about non-profits and religious organizations in order to do some really shady things regarding finances.  Or at least so go the accusations.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Yeah, allegedly they can get gun nut allegedly violent when it comes to "defending" their "public name." 

[WestRider]

Warrior: So good. Not sure how many times I've seen it, but it still hits me just as hard every time. The Brendan/Koba fight is probably the best fight scene I've ever seen in a movie.

[Guest]

On 7/30/2018 at 10:46 AM, Duckman said:

Try doing a little google searching on why people hate Scientology.  The reason the producers were embezzling was to donate to the church.  There are cases of the wills being altered after the death of someone.  Cases of donation checks being signed post-mortem.  Whether or not you think it is a religion, it hides behind certain laws about non-profits and religious organizations in order to do some really shady things regarding finances.  Or at least so go the accusations.

I have been. Non-profits doing iffy things with money and people being becoming violent when their ideals are slandered, this all normal behavior.

Seems like the main issue with Scientology, as a religion, is that it isn't as old as the other religions and it's current persona is very documented (and usually by people opposed to it). Everything I read seems rather one-sided, either for or against.

Meanwhile, religions like Christianity, are really old and subject to personal interpretation due to the ambiguity of the surviving documentation. Christians a have long history, certain parts of which include doing iffy things with money and people becoming violent when Christian ideals are slandered.

 

Anyway, doesn't mean I want to join, but I don't really think your points are valid. I think you are just repeating what others have said, and are otherwise just going with the flow. And that's normal too. It's popular to hate Scientology, so you do.

[Duckman]

It's popular to hate anyone who steals someone's estate and then pays money to clean it up when they get caught.  Documented cases (multiple) in New England over the last 20 years.  The problem is you never hear about them unless you go to the local papers (which you can do online) because it is intentionally kept out of larger publications and not picked up by the AP.

I'm not trying to excuse other religions.  That was not on topic so I  didn't address other religions at all.  The truth of the matter is that I had about two more paragraphs here but as the topic is religion they probably belong in RoC.  The summary is, "Don't assume that someone else's biases are like yours.  You don't have the world experience (and probably have not read enough legal proceedings) to even begin to guess why people don't like the Scientologists."

As regards your assumptions about me, you are so wrong that I can't even begin to correct your wrong assumptions.  See prior comment about stuff that belongs in RoC and just understand that I grew up so deep in the heart of the Bible Belt that you can't imagine what it was like.  I will say this, though, and maybe you'll learn it after you offend enough people here.  Most of us are not you.  We don't think like you, we don't act like you and we don't have the same blind spots you do.  Not to say we have none, but they certainly aren't going to be the same as yours.  If you want to question why we react some way to something feel free to ask but never assume you know because essentially everything you've ever written in these forums about me is wrong, mostly because I have 20-30 years more experience than you do in totally different settings than you are in.

[WestRider]

The Pit: Mostly pretty bad, but the ending was awesome. The kid really is the actual worst. I'd rather babysit Damien Thorn. Also, the soundtrack has that super screechy ear-destroying quality that I usually associate with stuff about 10 years older than this. And note that when I complain about music being screechy and ear-destroying, I'm doing so as someone who enjoys listening to black metal and found Metal Machine Music quite pleasant.

[Raindog]

Eraser: Arnold S. James Caan, James Colburn, Vanessa Williams. I think every cliche ever conceived was used in this movie. The dialogue is like a drinking game.  The rail guns are cool, but fight scenes are dumb. It is a good painting models movie and on Netflix.  5/10.

[WestRider]

2 hours ago, Raindog said:

Eraser: Arnold S. James Caan, James Colburn, Vanessa Williams. I think every cliche ever conceived was used in this movie. The dialogue is like a drinking game.  The rail guns are cool, but fight scenes are dumb. It is a good painting models movie and on Netflix.  5/10.

I haven't seen that since it was in theatres. Thanks for the heads up, that'll be a perfect Netflix background movie for some evening here.

[WestRider]

Eraser: For overall rating, see above. Some random thoughts:

• I think this might be the most likeable character Arnie has ever played. John Kruger just seems like a genuinely nice guy.
• The railguns are really cool. Even tho their functioning, as displayed in the film, has no relationship whatsoever with anything that might be described as a railgun in real life. But as generic SF super guns, they're pretty awesome.
• It's like they went out of their way to make Vanessa Williams look bland and unattractive. Why would they cast someone like that, and then not make use of it. It's like when Dichen Lachman was on Supergirl and they did her makeup so it totally downplayed and concealed her cheekbones.
• James Caan in this kind of feels like Phil Coulson's evil clone.
• As is actually fairly common in Schwarzenegger's movies, there's some pretty good humorous bits in here. He's got good delivery and timing.

[WestRider]

Cave: Not "The Cave". That one is somewhat better, even tho it is itself basically a less effective knockoff of The Descent. So what we have with "Cave" is basically a knockoff of a knockoff, and, yeah, it works out about as well as you might expect from that.

Soldiers of the Damned: I had trouble engaging with it, since the viewpoint characters are all Nazis, but it does a good job of pacing the building tension and spreading out the reveals of what's actually going on. It's never completely explained, but enough is conveyed that I didn't feel unsatisfied by the lack of info. Also some good cinematography and well-chosen locations help a lot with maintaining the mood and keeping up the creep factor.

[splinx]

Occupation. Worst film I have ever seen in my life. Ozzy type of sci fi film that is atrocious. I can’t even give it a 1 out of 10. Appalling actors, disgustingly boring storyline and too many cheesy moments. Stay well clear people. The aliens are laughable I actually spat my drink out.