[B]Cabin in the Woods - 9/10[/B]
Brilliant. I don't think I've had this much fun watching a movie in a long time.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;38979044]You've gone too far this time.
TOO GOD DAMNED FAR.[/QUOTE]
are you kidding? the thin red line was the biggest piece of pretentious shit ive ever seen
[editline]27th December 2012[/editline]
how can anybody enjoy that film
[QUOTE=Rusty100;38984539]are you kidding? the thin red line was the biggest piece of pretentious shit ive ever seen
[editline]27th December 2012[/editline]
how can anybody enjoy that film[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rusty100 from a year ago]fix brain[/QUOTE]
my brain is in full working order it is you who is out of order this whole damn court is out of order
[QUOTE=Kill coDer;38956319]UUurgrghhh [sp]when they stick the hooks through the fabricants legs... Certainly sympathised with the rebels at that point; that meat factory scene was hard to watch.[/sp]
It was a convoluted mess of emotions resulting from trying to achieve too much in one movie.
It would have worked better if they established more connection between the stories other than 'they're the same soul, get it?'. If they'd just had a few less main characters and linked it together better it would have worked. I mean in one subplot you have Luisa Rey then you have the actor playing 'Indian Party Guest' in the next one for [i]no reason[/i]. If they're main characters they should be important throughout the entirety of it.
I really enjoyed the Timothy Cavendish plot however, despite (because of?) it having absolutely zero connection with the rest of the movie. But what [sp]Hugo Weaving cross dressing[/sp]? I get it, he's the bad guy in all of them, but eeeeeeeeehh. But honestly I feel cheated given the [sp]Robert Frobisher suicide playing through without him being saved[/sp], I think it would been better with the clichéd 'just in time' ending. It was Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet all over again.
The fabricant subplot could have made a fantastic true sci-fi film on its own, a social problem caused by the same thing that caused The Matrix to unfold: the requirement for cheap labour. A look at humanities advancement of technology while still requiring this void between equals. Which goes back to the slavery problem. If they'd done something like the slavery thing, then the nuclear thing, then the clones and then the search for the lost colonies it would have been great. Link the slavery and the fabricants, the nuclear power problem and have the colony at the end. Have the nuclear subplot fail, causing the events that force the need to relocate in the final act. Actually show the actions of the main characters reverberate through to the future instead of just throwing that line at people. Bookend the film with the Zachry monologue (but have Hanks speak fucking [i]English[/i]) and maintain the same small amount of actors throughout, hello what it could have been. I got that they were trying to do a 'Hanks goes from bad to good' thing over the whole movie, but character development didn't seem to be the driving force. And the diary was a massive red herring! Just ughhhhhh.
It was exhausting to watch and now I have a headache, Rusty I believe you called it as soon as you saw the trailer, here's your $10.[/QUOTE]
Watch Soylent Green.
P. good movie by the way.
[editline]27th December 2012[/editline]
Eagle vs. Shark: I know it's one of those pretentious "look how strange we are" indie movies but for some odd reason I really liked it 7/10 it had a very odd Napoleon Dynamite feel. If you like Napoleon Dynamite and want a "romance" go watch it.
Jack Reacher - 7/10
I was expecting something like Mission Impossible or some shit but I was pleasantly surprised with the detective stuff that kept it suspenseful. Too bad the plot kinda just died at the end. But it was enjoyable.
Django Unchained - 9/10
Loved it, probably my favorite movie this year.
[B]Midnight in Paris[/B]
I liked it, but I hardly found it deserving of the 93% it totes on RT.
How I was watching it with a friend whom must have had his parents raped and murdered by Woody Allen, judging by the amount of negative commentary he spouted out during the film, may have effected my experience, but still.
7/10
django unchained was good. really feels its length around the middle but it makes up for it with tarantino doing his tarantino dialogue thing. see it in a theater before the crowd burns out
if i had to score it, i'd give it eight jamie foxx's hairy naked grundles out of ten
Here is a list of movies I have yet to see, and will watch in the coming days: (I scrolled through about 100 pages of this thread, and these all seem to be highly rated and reviewed among us, feel free to pick from the list)
Memento
Super
Eyes Wide Shut
The Ides of March
The Intouchables
A scanner darkly
Its kind of a funny story
evil dead i, ii
the good the bad and the ugly
Boys dont cry
in bruges
american beauty
city of god
snatch
crash
children of men
raging bull
casino
A clockwork orange
black dynamite
into the wild
trainspotting
american psycho
the cabin in the woods
the big lebowski
oldboy
true grit
american history x
one flew over the cuckoos nest
the awakening
tangled
the princess bride
end of watch
the fountain
the sunset limited
But I did just watch moonrise kingdom and it was a very good movie. I would give it an 9/10.
i dont understand how a person can have seen none of those
if someone came to a forum about seafood saying they've never eaten lobster itd be perfectly reasonable to express disbelief
[QUOTE=zingo;38963639][B]The Amazing Spider-Man - 7.5/10[/B]
It's all right, but not as good as good as the original. The acting was pretty good, and I was very happy with the casting choices (it was good to finally see the Lizard as a villain), but I just find it very lacking in both story telling and character development. It's by no means a bad film, but I just think everything this film does, the original Spider-Man does better.[/QUOTE]
stop rating movies like ign rates games.
the scale goes from 1-10, not 7-10.
[QUOTE=AK'z;38990591]way to twist what he said.[/QUOTE]
he is a desperate man he takes what he can get
Synecdoche, New York 8/10
[editline]27th December 2012[/editline]
Halfway through watching "In The Name of the Father", it's pretty good so far 7.9/10
Cosmopolis
7/10
The entire film is a gigantic mindfuck. When characters speak, their words are more like a pretentious mix of poetry and philosophical quips. One could easily the dialogue as the sentences taking the scenic route to arrive at the thought be conveyed rather than conveying the thought itself. The cinematography is a highlight of the film, with most of the scenes being filmed from the inside of a limousine; the shots used are really interesting ways to show how disconnected the wealthy are from the rest of society. I think the dialogue works as both a benefit and a detriment to the overall feeling of the film. While it barely manages to make sense most of the time, in a way that characteristic of it sets the entire tone, and after a while it becomes comfortable listening to it. Seeing this makes me want to check out some other Cronenberg films just to see if those are as strange as this one is.
Goodfellas: 10 out of 10
Batman Begins: 8 out of 10
Star Trek (2009): 7 out of 10
The Expendables 2 was the most groan worthy unfunny collection of "old 80's action movie jokes" that I've ever seen
"that thing belongs in a museum!"
"We all do."
Get it? GET IT? Cause theyre all a bunch of old washed up terrible actors??? (except bruce he's still got it)
[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;38992949]The Expendables 2: 9/10
pretty good, but not as good as the first one
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: 10/10
amazing[/QUOTE]
You have awful taste.
Bruce Willis is literally the only good 80s action star and I think its mean to compare him to the likes of awful actors like dolf lungren and stallone who I really don't understand why they are famous
like rambo was good and so was rocky but stallone is a bad actor who generally does bad films and lungren is just fucking shameful. arnie can't act for shit either but he's a cool guy. Jason stathams ok I guess, done some good films nd he's a decent actor but hes typecast to fuck lol
[editline]27th December 2012[/editline]
def don't put Willis in the same barrel as them. he's way fucking better and way more versatile and respectable.
Bruce Willis is like the only one in the whole group who actually does any kind of acting
the rest are just there to blow shit up and crack 1-liners
saw Looper.
some kind of Back to the Future/Die Hard/Exorcist shizzle. Really enjoyed it.
Unlike many failed attempts at convincing sci-fi, this one has integrity and doesn't hesitate with its premise.
It's about time travel, and doesn't fuck around with "the science of it" and "viability" of it. It's just what it is and has a world that is as clear as day. Maybe not masterful, but definitely ambitious and euphoric.
John McClane is also back, which is good.
also, people I know who saw it said it was the most confusing, mindboggling movie they'd seen. This is not complex at all, as long as your brain is on it's incredibly easy to absorb...
I still can't get over my friend trying to argue with me that Cid was Joe and Joe fucked his own mom
i was like bro are you actually retarded what is wrong with you
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;38991760]Cosmopolis
7/10
Seeing this makes me want to check out some other Cronenberg films just to see if those are as strange as this one is.[/QUOTE]
Heh.
You have [I]no idea.[/I]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IxeroqZSuo[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpqIDt1Z4xg[/media]
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;38994033]
People thought Looper was confusing?
What[/QUOTE]
they admitted they weren't paying attention lol
[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;38992949]The Expendables 2: 9/10
pretty good, but not as good as the first one
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: 10/10
amazing[/QUOTE]
You should feel bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
