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

[B]Tremors 5: Bloodlines[/B] I was surprised how good it was, despite the fact that they had African tribes with a long history of hunting graboids and the like (where was this information the first 3 movies??) The new versions of the assblasters was [I]amazing[/I] and I feel their horrifying look is what they ought to have been in Tremors 3. There were a few mistakes and dumb moments in the movie, but with Bert fuckin' Gummer at the wheel, everything was great. 9/10, would love to watch again and again. Right now I rate the Tremor series in 2 > 1 > 5 > 4 > 3

[I][B]Watchmen[/B][/I] [U]11/10[/U] It's a damn good superhero movie, but not that average superman movie like Iron Man, The Dark Knight or Avengers etc, it's more (with more I mean a lot more) darker and brutal, thanks to the base material written by Alan Moore and Zack Snyder as the director.

Saw Black Mass. I didn't find it terribly interesting but it was pretty cool. If anything I felt it ended a little too quickly but that's just me. It was however really tense and I did enjoy Depp's performance. That and the accents :v:.

[B]Blackhawk Down[/B] Didn't realize this was a Ridley Scott movie, nor that there were so many 'big name' (or future big name) actors in the film. Was confused why Orlando Bloom's character got so much attention upon arriving at base only to be taken out of the movie due to his injury extremely early in the battle. Was bloody and intense throughout the whole thing, probably one of the best war movies I've seen in a long while. 10/10

[B]Donnie Brasco[/B] 7/10 Good, but not very memorable. The performances and characters are really what carries the movie, because the story is quite run of the mill. Also, for the length, it's got a pretty slow pace with good scenes far between. Still a good gangster flick.

From Dusk Till Dawn - I really liked it until all the weird shit started happening

[B]Assault on Precinct 13[/B] (John Carpenter, 1976) 5/10 For once, I really don't get what the praise is all about. It was extremely average, the writing was sub-par, even the soundtrack is repetitive and the editing is too slow and suspenseless. What exactly is great about this film?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48871963]Right now I rate the Tremor series in 2 > 1 > 5 > 4 > 3[/QUOTE] Damn son, I thought I was the only one who like Tremors 2 more than Tremors 1 (though only a bit).

Valhalla Rising - Damn, that was a really great film. Managed to develop a main character without any words properly which is very difficult to do in a film. Provided a great atmosphere with stunning visuals and audio. Also noticed minor details that had to have been intentional such as [sp]seeing what hand certain characters held their weapon with, despite one assuming since they were Christians they all would use their right hand. Really showed how they were not as "holy" as they initially believed.[/sp] Also despite [sp]Hell clearly being North America to a modern viewer, the film managed to still shroud it in a mystical yet terrifying atmosphere.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Kero_;48873421]From Dusk Till Dawn - I really liked it until all the weird shit started happening[/QUOTE] I like it as a whole, but the first act is just so good, it could have been an amazing movie in itself.

[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1590089/]Confessions[/url] 8/10 Solid psychological thriller.

Tucker and Dale VS Evil - 8/10 A fun, cute little movie that is a definite much-watch.

opinions on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy?

San Andreas, not bad, not great either. Typical disaster film but I enjoyed it as a relaxed viewing.

[QUOTE=Bathtub;48876081]opinions on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy?[/QUOTE] It's great if you're willing to pay attention. Just don't go into expecting James Bond or a more British Bourne movie, it has a lot more in common with the slow burn conspiracy thrillers of the 60's and 70's with very little action. I personally loved it but admittedly I'm already a sucker for Le Carre novels.

[QUOTE=Bathtub;48876081]opinions on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy?[/QUOTE] I didn't understand much of what was going on, but I'm pretty sure there's a good plot somewhere to be found in it.

[QUOTE=Bathtub;48876081]opinions on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy?[/QUOTE] It's enjoyable, but it demands your full focus and attention. It may be the type of film you have to watch twice or more "to get it".

[QUOTE=Bathtub;48876081]opinions on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy?[/QUOTE] It's got some beautiful shots in it. BUT the story is kind of hard to follow. I mean, I got the main idea of what happened, but all the little details were missed, and some things I still didn't understand by the end of it.

The Martian 9/10 Great movie, I think it worked better as a movie than as a book to be honest. I think they could've stretched it to 3 hours to include more of the hazards he had to deal with. The set design and acting was top-notch.

[QUOTE=booster;48875583][url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1590089/]Confessions[/url] 8/10 Solid psychological thriller.[/QUOTE] I liked this. Mostly watched it because of the Boris and Radiohead songs in the soundtrack

[B]Sicario[/B] It was sick, it was brutal, it was bloody. It was a fucking masterpiece. Especially loved the lack of music for much of the film. It was deafening. 10/10, definitely on the top list of movies to come out this year.

The Martian - 7.5/10 Why don't people like this movie? I can understand wanting a bit more emotion from Damon but the humor is what made the book for the most part, and I think it translated really well to the movie as well. As for the cuts from the book, I think almost all of them were for the best, especially omitting the [sp]sandstorm that ends up not doing anything and lasting like 45 minutes in the audiobook[/sp]. The only real cut that I think should have stayed in was the [sp]rover tipping over down the hill, because the whole year long trip really didn't feel like that much of a dangerous journey at all. Just a 2 minute montage and now he's at Ares 4.[/sp] There's a couple things that keep it from being really good though. The first 10 minutes are rushed [i]BEYOND BELIEF[/i], to the point that even though I read the book, I was getting confused. The introductions to the characters each lasted 15 seconds (or less) before the storm came and hit Watney (which looked really bad tbh). But thankfully after the intro, everything slows down and gets into a nice pace. The whole Johanssen + Beck love subplot was bad in the book, and while I thought Ridley Scott was gonna keep it rather subtle, it took a turn for the worse and ended up being even more terrible than in the book. And lastly, why did they decide randomly to turn Venkat Kapoor into Vincent Kapoor, it was such a pointless change.

[QUOTE=Astr0niiX;48872039][I][B]Watchmen[/B][/I] [U]11/10[/U] It's a damn good superhero movie, but not that average superman movie like Iron Man, The Dark Knight or Avengers etc, it's more (with more I mean a lot more) darker and brutal, thanks to the base material written by Alan Moore and Zack Snyder as the director.[/QUOTE] Yeah Kiefer Sutherland adapted it perfectly.

alright m8, few films this week: [B]The Straight Story[/B] Great film. Mr Lynch has managed to create a composed, heartfelt and righteous film even though his head is spinning 3million miles per hour. This isn't a film for everyone, because to be perfectly honest, not much happens. This is the kind of movie you watch late at night, relax and breathe in the goodness. The one central aspect of the film is the Richard Farnsworth performance. It's not even a performance, it's just about as real as it gets on screen. It's also very well written, it's rare you find such natural conversation in film, it's extraordinary. And by the end I actually wept, and that is rare m8. You might think it's lame but wow, that's some good stuff. :-] [B]The Walk[/B] Here's the truth m8, I saw this in proper Imax, and wow that final sequence was breathtaking. Gr8 3D. Other than that, if you've seen the documentary, you know the film and p much the only reason to see it is for that scene. :] That's not v nice because I'm not talking about Gordon-Levitt, but tbh it's p standard, his french accent is kind of good. [B]License to Kill[/B] This is a really good bond film, and it has one of the most ridiculously good death scenes. :) People compare Dalton to Craig's portrayal but in all honesty, Dalton is a better and more natural actor. That being said, unlike previous ones before it, Dalton is alone and he sorted it himself p much. Gr8 stunt work and imo one of the best action films of the 80s. No question.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;48873445][B]Assault on Precinct 13[/B] (John Carpenter, 1976) 5/10 For once, I really don't get what the praise is all about. It was extremely average, the writing was sub-par, even the soundtrack is repetitive and the editing is too slow and suspenseless. What exactly is great about this film?[/QUOTE] uh, everything? the soundtrack is fantastic, its suspenseful, it's dark, masterfully directed and generally way ahead of it's time. man if you cant see the craft in john carpenter movies then im sorry [editline]11th October 2015[/editline] i watched black mass. it was very boring and too long and while there was a lot going on, very little happened. i don't think it knew exactly what story it wanted to tell and how you were supposed to feel about it. would not recommend.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48878496]uh, everything? the soundtrack is fantastic, its suspenseful, it's dark, masterfully directed and generally way ahead of it's time. man if you cant see the craft in john carpenter movies then im sorry[/QUOTE] If it wasn't you, I'd be certain you were deliberately trolling me by saying those things because they are so wrong. The soundtrack is fantastic? Yeah sure, all 2 tracks of it. Suspenseful? Yeah, slightly, but the pacing is not good. One scene everyone panics, the next everyone acts like soldiers who are used to this, the next everyone is sad and desperate, and the next everyone feels like super-heroes who can make it through anything. The characters' psychology, though supposedly important, is given very little actual effort. And you're not made to care about the characters, apart from the main character. Look at the poor father: he's given a story, a background, motives, he's shown doing an almost desperate but heroic and noble thing, and then? He cowers into Precinct 13 and stays in shock for the rest of the movie, completely left to forget by the director, even though he's the cause of everything. What a waste of a character. Dark? It is. Boring too. Masterfully directed? No, it's by far the worst film of Carpenter's I've seen. Ahead of its time? My mum (who was watching and shared my opinion) said that in the 70s, films like this one were all over the place. This one is far more forgettable than something like Dirty Harry. I don't see what could possibly be ahead of its time in this film. Okay, the main theme was ahead of its time, very 80s, I'll give you that. But that's it. [QUOTE=Rusty100;48878496]man if you cant see the craft in john carpenter movies then im sorry[/QUOTE] I'm a John Carpenter fan, I love his style and his music, his ideas. I enjoy his action films as much as his horror ones. But this one, compared to the rest, is terrible. But it's okay, I know you only express your opinion so violently because you're Rusty100, the others had warned me about you.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48878496]uh, everything? the soundtrack is fantastic, its suspenseful, it's dark, masterfully directed and generally way ahead of it's time. man if you cant see the craft in john carpenter movies then im sorry [/QUOTE] The Council has spoken

Under the Skin 4/10 Granted, im not the target audience, but that still allows me to say how the points the movie is trying to achieve, translates to someone like me. Spoilers. First of all, i must say that for some people, they could probably have seen it without getting anything of it, which is really saying something about the movie. At the end of the movie, i found it pretentious, really slow paced in a bad way, inconsistent, it missed all the really good opportunities it had, it took it 50 minutes to take off with the plot, it had very cliché imagery and the ending was just convenient, as the movie overall worked like if it needed something to happen in the plot, it would come out out of nowhere and just be there, not previously set up. Its infuriating because in a lot of parts you are watching the scene, not knowing whats going on for the longest time, so instead of being intrigued by it, since the visual aspect of the scene is really nothing at all, like a profound stare or something like that, you just want the scene to end so you can get to something, like the next bit of the plot to get to know what happened back there. The movie itself felt like this all the time, like i wanted it to go forward and skip the entirety of it just so i can get to a place where stuff is happening. There are a few moments where the movie gets it right, the scenes where the woman takes the skinny guy to the black goo, and under it theres another guy still alive, then explodes and we get the meat factory like shot. That was fascinating, alongside with when the girl gives a ride to the deformed dude and she does not get why would he has have a girlfriend, since you know, shes an alien without a lot of knowledge about human relationships. I really think those moments represent what the movie should have done. The soundtrack was amazing, intriguing, violent and with a weird feeling to it, too, i can still hear it in my brain. As for the inconsistencies of the production of it, the movie had this very european feeling to it. The cinematography (photographic direction) was very tame and dull for a movie about crazy shit, at least in the shots that take place out of the goo, but i felt they were made on purpose, to give it a realistic feel to it, but seeing scarlett in there breaks this world its creating and gives the hollywood mask to it. Its weird to argue this since thats what the movie is about. The aliens use a very hot chick to attract dudes and then kill them, but they could have used another woman that represents better the beauty of that place, and not someone who sticks out out of everyone in the movie, but they probably wouldnt be able to make the movie without it having a big star to take the role of the woman who is butt naked half the time, so they can have something to attract the audiences. I say the cinematography was dull because lots of shots used the wrong framing to represent what was happening in the scene. It used lots of stationary takes, and when the scene where the family drowns at the beach, they divided the shots, with shots of the same level. That breaks the whole "this is happening at the same time" and makes it boring too. You dont really frame something in parts if you can do it all in 1 frame, there must be a purpose to it, but whatever thats not really important. I said it takes 50 minutes for the plot to take, because before that, its explaining how the couple works to take the guys to the black goo, and thats it. its 50 minutes of that, with 2-3 moments where its actually intriguing. The movie takes all the moments as if they are the most important thing its showing you, granted, it takes a bit more in the black goo scenes, but its literally half and hour of no conflict where they show you the girl is taking dudes to her van and killing them. Its not a visual delight or that intriguing to deserve that kind of runtime, which is another problem since the movie has very little activities to the runtime it has. And im not saying you cant make slow movies, im saying that if the movie deserves the time it takes on the shots it shows, and when the photography is dull, the activities are just a few, theres zero conflict, with cliché imagery and robot like performances, your half hour becomes 2 hours of something you feel so forced to feel like you HAVE to see, it just becomes pretentious. And im not saying the movie takes off at the 50 minutes and doesnt stop either, 10 minutes later it becomes dull again. (at the 50 minutes, the scene with the deformed guy takes place). Lets say its different if we are looking at a guy ripping his arm off for 2 hours, instead of people staring at nothing with intrigued faces for the same time. For the cliché thing, i say it because think about this: how do you represent an alien getting to know itself, humanity, and being intrigued by it? you put a lot of shots of it looking itself in the mirror, lots of close ups of eyes, you show people in their routines with weird music, and you can blend them all too if you want. Thats what people who know little about films would do, and its what this movie does, and the creator knows better so theres no excuse for it i think. Theres stuff thats set up that doesnt go anywhere too, like when the other alien kidnaps the deformed guy, theres a lady watching it from the window of her house, the movie gives her an exclusive shot, but does nothing with it, nothing happens or whatever. Then, when the girl escapes, the other alien calls his alien buddies and go on motorcycles to find her, but the ending happens and all we get from the "oh shit the guys are going to kill her" is a shot of the other alien, in the show, from the back, standing, looking at the horizon. Come on. And the ending was very convenient. The girl escapes from the other alien , a good single guy finds her and takes care of her, they kinda fall for each other but they cant have sex because she doesnt have a hole in her vagina, so she escapes again, finds a rapist out of nowhere and he tries to fuck her, but in that, the rapist takes part of her skin of and notices its an alien. Then, out of nowhere, the rapist comes with a jerry can and burns her. I have to say i laughed a bit at that. Its like they saw the beats of the movie and just wrote them down the way, instead of building them from the start. "So, as the girl killed guys without knowing how it feels, she has to be raped and experience it herself" so they just wrote a rapist in the scene. Great. "Then she must die" well, the rapist could have a jerry can somewhere there. Perfect. I didnt like Enemy too, so you shouldnt take my opinion if you loved that film.

DATS some long arse review for what you think is a mediocre film. a film I'd rate 4/10, I'd feel isn't worth the words :-]

[QUOTE=AK'z;48879362]DATS some long arse review for what you think is a mediocre film. a film I'd rate 4/10, I'd feel isn't worth the words :-][/QUOTE] well its a film lots of filmbuffs love, so it would be insulting to put it, call it a 4/10 and just bail out. I have to justify my opinion and with something that resembles evidence.