Rate The Last Movie You Watched - This Thread Took 12 Years To Make Edition - General

Why is Agent 47 not on anyone's list

mad max it's one of the rare times i went out and watched a movie in theaters three times

[QUOTE=Pops;49423412]honestly, it's more wrong than you telling us lord of the rings is bad because it's fantasy.[/QUOTE] i didnt say it bad because its fantasy i just said it's boring and shitty fantasy i dont care if the books pioneered any modern fantasy. the movies are poorly made overlong technical disasters [editline]31st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=stupid07er;49423812]Why is Agent 47 not on anyone's list[/QUOTE] is this a joke [editline]31st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=VietRooster2;49423814]mad max it's one of the rare times i went out and watched a movie in theaters three times[/QUOTE] fury road was underwhelming and not great i appreciated a little bit of classic action, but it wasn't all THAT classic. + a lot of the characters sucked ass and took up too much focus. and max was a weird raggedy hobo with an inconsistent accent

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49423852]is this a joke [/QUOTE] Very much so. Worst movie I've seen in a long time. My friends were embarrassed for buying tickets.

Saw Hateful Eight tonight. (The longer 70mm version) Really good. Not my favorite Tarantino movie, but really good. Also saw Star Wars in IMAX Dome. Would not recommend. Regular IMAX is probably great, but the dome just distorts everything and makes scenes where the action isn't centered hard to watch.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49423852]i didnt say it bad because its fantasy i just said it's boring and shitty fantasy[/QUOTE] i am curious, what do you consider to be good fantasy?

yeah, i really didn't get what tom hardy was trying to do with his accent in Fury Road. and normally i think he's on point with that stuff also The Drop is really good , I saw it again and it's another movie that gets better with rewatches and you can appreciate all the thought that went into it. it's like a showcase for hardy's acting skills, not to discount everything else

Tom Hardy was like a caveman in Mad Max. Only complaint

[QUOTE=Pops;49424096]i am curious, what do you consider to be good fantasy?[/QUOTE] ones with engaging and coherent plots. i feel like almost all movies are fantasy anyway. but the closest example of something i like to lotr, i dunno, berserk?

fury road felt like pure spectacle imo, not that there's anything totally wrong with that. not much in the way of dialogue or plot

once again, lotr fails in almost any measurable way. it looks cheap and like shit, the dialogue is incredibly hammy and bad, the acting is just as hammy, the story is insanely uninteresting, the fight scenes are wooden and robotic, the cinematography is heaps of shot reverse shot with the occasional panning overhead landscape sprinkled in, and it all has a weird bloom effect that's hard to look at. theres literally nothing good about these movies, they are a disaster, but people will eat it up because its all magical and fantasy and shit and literally cannot look at them objectively.

Bare in mind I haven't actually watched them yet so it isn't fully informed but hearing that one of the LotR films won 11 Oscars sounds odd to me. I'm not too sure why but at a glance it just doesn't seem like the kind of movie that would win an Oscar.

[QUOTE=Luxuria;49424422]Bare in mind I haven't actually watched them yet so it isn't fully informed but hearing that one of the LotR films won 11 Oscars sounds odd to me. I'm not too sure why but at a glance it just doesn't seem like the kind of movie that would win an Oscar.[/QUOTE] you could always watch it and see for yourself, generally if a movie gets 11 oscars it won't be a total waste of time. i like all three of them, fellowship is probably my favorite that being said no matter what your opinion is on LOTR it's objectively better than the shitshow that is the Hobbit

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49424454]you could always watch it and see for yourself, generally if a movie gets 11 oscars it won't be a total waste of time. i like all three of them, fellowship is probably my favorite [B]that being said no matter what your opinion is on LOTR it's objectively better than the shitshow that is the Hobbit[/B][/QUOTE] Wouldn't argue that, and yeah I am due to watch them already since I still haven't. [editline]31st December 2015[/editline] For some reason I've never really felt a need to though, they've just never really interested me enough to watch them.

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49424454]you could always watch it and see for yourself, generally if a movie gets 11 oscars it won't be a total waste of time. i like all three of them, fellowship is probably my favorite that being said no matter what your opinion is on LOTR it's objectively better than the shitshow that is the Hobbit[/QUOTE] yeah. the hobbit suffers from all the same problems, just far far worse. so bad that even fantasy fans see through that shit. from what i've seen. i still haven't watched the hobbit movies. why would i [editline]31st December 2015[/editline] everyone else pretty much confirms it's everything i hate about lotr but worse anyway.

I saw the Smaug one and it was pretty bad, glad I didn't go for five armies.

i only watched the first hobbit, smaug was too long for me to bother to sit through again for the supposdely good parts, and three was apparently even more of a disaster [QUOTE=Luxuria;49424467]Wouldn't argue that, and yeah I am due to watch them already since I still haven't. [editline]31st December 2015[/editline] For some reason I've never really felt a need to though, they've just never really interested me enough to watch them.[/QUOTE] to be frank they do have a much better impact on you when you're a kid so it's kinda hard to argue with some peoples' points at least it's not a bunch of shitty CGI disney movies mashed together [editline]d[/editline] if i watched lotr for the first time in my 20s with no previous knowledge of it id have no idea how i would react probably something along the lines of "pretty good but overly long"

Guess I dropped the ball on that one then.

the hobbit really shouldn't have been drawn out into a trilogy, they should have just directly adapted the book and kept it as one film.

[QUOTE=Luxuria;49424524]Guess I dropped the ball on that one then.[/QUOTE] not really, it's great for a lotta people and im thankful for watching it then but it's not like essential viewing essential viewing doesn't age [editline]d[/editline] soundtrack is still gr8 though

I dunno, I'm turned off by nearly all fantasy/medieval stuff, and hated the first LotR book (didn't attempt the others), but I genuinely enjoyed them as movies. I don't think they deserve the praise they get but they're still a good watch. Totally agree with the hate for the 3 hobbit movies though.

books were a tough read, tolkien is an amazing worldbuilder but a pretty shit storyteller so that's understandable. though there were some key differences in the books that should've been a bit more emphasized in the movies that would've given way more meaning to them i'm not a fan of most fantasy/medieval either but LOTR always kinda clicked with me [editline]d[/editline] plus Viggo Mortensen is a straight G [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viggo_Mortensen#Career[/url] [QUOTE]Mortensen was a last-minute replacement for Stuart Townsend, and would not have taken the part of Aragorn had it not been for his son's enthusiasm for the J. R. R. Tolkien novel. In the The Two Towers DVD extras, the film's swordmaster, Bob Anderson, described Mortensen as "the best swordsman I've ever trained." Mortensen often performed his own stunts, and even the injuries he sustained during several of them did not dampen his enthusiasm. At one point during shooting of The Two Towers, Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, and Brett Beattie (scale double for John Rhys-Davies) all had painful injuries, and during a shoot of them, running in the mountains, Peter Jackson jokingly referred to the three as "the walking wounded." Also, according to the Special Extended Edition DVD of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Mortensen purchased the two horses, Uraeus and Kenny, whom he rode and bonded with over the duration of the films.[/QUOTE] hobbit aint got shit on viggo

[QUOTE=Joz;49422096]The Raid: Redemption fits almost ideally in your description. Also Jarhead, also Black Hawk Down and to a certain point Assault on 13th Precinct.[/QUOTE] I saw Raid: Redemption, Jarhead and Black Hawk Down, haven't seen Assault on Precinct 13, thanks. Also, for some reason I couldn't sit through Raid 2, I just didn't have any interest in it :why: I mean, the fights were good but that's it. I should watch it again, to the end this time [QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;49422130]also: DREDD[/QUOTE] Yeah I've seen and enjoyed it, thanks

The Mist: 5/10 It's extremely surprising that this was made by the same guy who made The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. I feel like Darabont's adaptation missed a lot about what Stephen King was trying to convey in the original book. The Lovecraftian monsters described in the book were redesigned terribly (replacing disturbing slug suckers on the windows with oversized dragonflies, for example) and executed even worse with really horrible CGI. Seriously, look how bad this looks. [IMG]http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/3262209_f260.jpg[/IMG] This is from a movie from 2007, albeit with a smaller budget The adaptation races out of the first chapter and tries to get to the supermarket as quick as possible, and in doing so, we barely get a look at the mist before it's already completely covering the market. The first 30 minutes in general was just very badly paced in my opinion. We barely get to see the wife for two minutes before getting shoved forward, so why would we care what happens to her? The book illustrates a perfect picture that I was really surprised wasn't in the movie: [sp]As David drives out of the driveway, he watches as his wife waves goodbye to him, with the mist ominously creeping up behind her by the lake.[/sp] The actors were really good (the kid was surprisingly good in some scenes, props to him), but the dialogue was really poorly written so a lot of what was happening in the first half just felt like a joke. I appreciate a lot of what was done, but I still think it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. The scene with [sp]the giant colossus walking by the car[/sp] could have been really evocative and beautiful, but once again the Lovecraftian nature of the book was ignored and we saw too much of the monster. The ending that the book had, despite how much it works in text, definitely would suck as the ending of a movie, so the ending that Darabont created was the right move. It's hilariously depressing, but it works really well imo. Oh yeah and the camerawork really annoyed and distracted me. I get that he was going for a "documentary style" approach to filming some shots to add to the claustrophobia, but it just felt really sloppy.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49424398]once again, lotr fails in almost any measurable way. it looks cheap and like shit, the dialogue is incredibly hammy and bad, the acting is just as hammy, the story is insanely uninteresting, the fight scenes are wooden and robotic, the cinematography is heaps of shot reverse shot with the occasional panning overhead landscape sprinkled in, and it all has a weird bloom effect that's hard to look at. theres literally nothing good about these movies, they are a disaster, but people will eat it up because its all magical and fantasy and shit and literally cannot look at them objectively.[/QUOTE] Yo my first ever car was a broken scrapper that had tons of problems but I still loved driving it(and would still love it today) It seems to me like you are trying to convince people that they are idiotic morons for liking a movie that's objectively and technically "bad". I'm not saying that's what are you are actively trying to do, but it certainly is how you come across and that's just ignorant as fuck lol. You said there is literally nothing good about these movies but people still love them. How is that even possible? Surely there must be something good for all those people to like those movies?

the lotr movies are great in many aspects, but I can understand why some people might not like them. Like every movie out there, some just don't connect with some audiences. It's far from being a technical mess though, if there's one thing I had to praise about them it's the cinematography, and the overall mise en scene of the films. the hobbit movies are horrible, especially the five armies one. They even look plasticky, fake and artificial when compared with lotr. Even when there isn't any cgi, I dunno it just feels like you're watching people on a set while in lotr middle earth feels like a real place.

[b]The Man from U.N.C.L.E.[/b] Enjoyable, but completely forgettable. As a blockbuster works fine, probably even better than anyone has expected but there's little to none substance. And I think I enjoyed it tiny-bitsy more than anyone because I'm slowly falling in love with Alicia Vikander.

I swear if rusty watched battle of the five armies he might literally go insane and start a personal revenge quest to murder peter jackson

the mist fucking rules if only for the ending

[QUOTE=Rusty100;49426157]the mist fucking rules if only for the ending[/QUOTE] No The Mist is pretty bad, a depressing ending doesn't save it.