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

Movie 2 is done and apart from the fact that I might never feel joy again in my life I think I liked Everest

[QUOTE=squids_eye;48885611]I just finished watching The Guest. It was pretty good but that ending was bullshit.[/QUOTE] why was the ending bullshit? it ruled

Good Will Hunting Good ass movie, has some great performances from the two leads as well as some really quotable/memorable dialogue. The story was a bit predictable but I still thought it was a great movie, especially considering Damon and Affleck wrote and featured in it.

[QUOTE=cricket50;48887145]id go check out the walk, meant to be pretty awesome and doesnt seem to be getting much attention[/QUOTE] Looks interesting, but the trailers alone have given me intense anxiety due to my fear of heights. I probably won't see it due to that. Even though I'm not in any kind of danger, seeing such great heights and people over them just give me a nervous breakdown.

Just got out of my last movie for the night and I'll have a full write up later but for now I'll say this: [B][U][I]GO. SEE. THE. WALK[/I][/U][/B]

dont tell me what to do!!! [editline]13th October 2015[/editline] i have 0 interest in seeing joseph gordon levitt do a bad french accent in an adaption of a real life event i already saw half the documentary for but stopped watching because it was so fucking boring and uninteresting i just dont care about some idiot walking a tightrope across a building

I dunno, the bad accent has an unintentional charm to it imo.

[B][I]Pan[/I][/B] [B][I][U]SPOILERS-NOT THAT YOU REALLY CARE[/U][/I][/B] Hoo boy, where the hell do I start with this stinker? When I first saw the trailer for this I had a thought something along the lines of, "Well that looks interesting but I already know all the characters and how they end up." I thought that maybe the visuals would be great but at worst I thought it might just be the film winking to the audience all the time. Aside from the visuals being crap this film is somehow that and simultaneously so much more and so much less than that. I can't say this film didn't surprise me. There are a couple of scenes where I am just sitting there in the theater thinking, "What the fuck am I watching?" The most amazing one is where, and make sure you are sitting down because I am going to tell you something that is just going to amaze you, after the opening scenes are Peter in an orphanage in World War II Britain (I'm just as confused as you since the original Peter Pan play opened in NINETEEN-OH-FUCKING-FOUR) but then when they enter Neverland the ship flies into a scene that looks like the Citadel from [I]Mad Max Fury Road[/I] and the pirates and miners sing,` I shit you not, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana and later the Ramones' "Blitzkrieg Bop." This actually happens, I swear I did not take anything before I saw this. But the thing is that not only does this not accomplish anything in the film, not only does this just leave you agape, not only is this or any other anachronistic music brought up again in the film, but it leaves you wondering why the hell this is in the film. The young kids who would be brought to see it aren't going to recognize Nirvana let alone the Ramones, and like I said any adult who sees it is just going to be taken aback by it. This film seems to be taking so many ideas from somewhere else. I'll forgive the aforementioned Citadel comparison since I doubt that a film that came out in November could really be ripping off one that came in May, but everything else seems to be taken from somewhere else. The orphanage we open in is like a mix of "Oliver Twist" and [I]Evelyn[/I]. The anachronistic crowd music is taken from [I]Moulin Rouge[/I]. The forest scenes look like a mix between Cirque de Soleil and [I]Avatar[/I], even going so far as to take the "hero rides an untameable bird" scene that Avatar had. Hugh Jackman is basically playing Jack Sparrow mixed with Darth Vader. This film even has a scene like in [I]Empire Strikes Back[/I] where one of the minions enters into his private chambers, and similarly Garrett Hedlund's Hook is basically a mix between Indiana Jones and Han Solo, even doing the "Changed my mind, kid" thing. Speaking of I compared it to the Phantom Menace, and yes Kritter is right, Episode II was the worst of the Prequel trilogy, but I think my argument came across is that this has all of the worst flaws of the Star Wars prequels. All of this explaining of a backstory that simultaneously explains nothing that we really needed to know and simultaneously not explaining the things that [I]this[/I] story should have explained. I never felt the need to ask how Peter could fly and how he got to Neverland or anthing else, but now this film makes me wonder how come Tiger Lily is so much older than Peter? Did Peter's fairy dad live for one day and just bone? What the heck is with the anachronistic music? Is or isn't Neverland the world where none grow old? But also there's this god damn nods to the audience. People talked about Rooney Mara playing Tiger Lily as being offensive, but believe me the most offensive thing is all these goddamn nods and winks to the audience who already know how this story turns out. It's apparent all of the time before they're even named that this character is or will be this character, or characters show up just because they were characters in the traditional Pan stories, or characters say things that only make sense to be ironic later. If there is one thing that I liked in this film, anything at all that I liked, it's ironically Adeel Akhtar's performance in the bit role as Smeegol (three guesses as to who he becomes and the first two don't count). He's actually kind of charming compared to the rest of the cast and I actually wish I could see the actor in better things than this. Now that I'm thinking about it I kind of liked the score as well when it wasn't being [I]Moulin Rouge[/I]. For the most part however I'm sitting there in the theater alternating between anger and just this sense of bewilderment. I can't believe that the movie is just this bad, this unoriginal, this stupid. I haven't even gotten into the editing (smash cuts ahoy!), the acting (Say what you will, but Joseph Gordon Levitt's French accent sounds downright natural and real compared to Rooney Mara's attempt at vague British), or the ending, which I swear contradicts itself. This is a terrible film. If you have kids either take them to [I]Hotel Transylvania 2[/I] which is probably at least competent or wait a week until [I]Goosebumps[/I] or rent just about any other Peter Pan story. Better yet, go outside and do something with them. The fall colors are lovely this time of year. 2/10

[B][I]Everest[/I][/B] Talk about a film where your expectations are shattered. When I went in to see this I knew nothing about the story it was based on and thought from the trailers that maybe it would be some sort of inspirational but bland mountain climbing vs nature flick, the kind that you would see at Omnimax at a science museum or something like that. This is not one of those films. This is probably one of the most depressing films I've seen in a long time in theaters. On the way out of the theater I thought it was pretty good but the more I thought about it and the more I went over the notes I took the more I was unsure. I mean there were things about it that I liked. It surprised me and kept me interested as to where it was going the whole time, the actors were doing their best, there's some pretty good cinematography, and the usual technical expertise. The problems with the story are that while the movie is ostensibly entirely about the mountain climb and should be nothing but the mountain climb, it still feels like something important should be happening besides what we're seeing up on the screen. History and nonfiction is more than just "here's the events. Here's how they happened." They still need to be interesting and in the best of cases they should serve a thesis or some central idea. While this film certainly kept my interest for the most part I'm not quite sure if this film has an idea other than "The mountain is dangerous," which is something that was set up very quickly on in the film through dialogue and so the latter half of the film seems like just taking an hour to rehash this idea. Another problem is that, similarly to [I]American Ultra[/I] after a certain point I no longer felt any reason to care for the character's fates because I could predict them with stunning accuracy, but interestingly enough I couldn't get involved because at a certain point I couldn't tell who was who or who was where or who was alive still. All of the characters from the beginning of the climb on wear full winter jacket gear that completely obscures their faces and so if you hadn't memorized who was wearing what God help you, especially since I'm fairly certain there's three characters wearing yellow and black coats with similar striping. At a certain point I was just begging for the movie to count off who was still alive because I had no clue who was who underneath that gear in some cases. But the question remains then, is it a good film? I'll have to admit for all the flaws I had with it, that yes it's an alright film. While it's depressing if its goal was to make me feel scared of the mountain or be the antithesis to inspirational films than yes it does suceed in those regards, but I still wouldn't say it's the best film I've seen this year. I hate to say it but I'll probably have forgotten most of it in a week from now. In most markets it closes this week but if you're going to see it I say go see it at matinee or discount pricing or wait until it's a rental. Just don't take your kids to it like the family in the front row of my theater because it's really really depressing. 6.5/10

you took notes during the movie? impressive

Just watched Maggie and damn that was depressing. Overall was a good movie, and Arnold did alright in the movie.

i thought maggie was insufferably boring and i didn't care about any of the characters like nothing happens at all

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48889028]why was the ending bullshit? it ruled[/QUOTE] Like my mum pointed out, the moment when the guy's intentions and nature are revealed is when the film loses its aura of mystery that had made it so great until then and becomes a rehash of Terminator. What made the guy interesting was that he was unpredictable, but after the reveal he acts like a robot and everything becomes predictable. I like the way he goes away at the end, but that leaves him a very confusing and ambiguous character. The ending is not that bad, but it was the weakest point in the film.

if the dude's intentions are never revealed then it's just a movie of a dude fuckin about being mysterious and then it's just over

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48889980]dont tell me what to do!!! [editline]13th October 2015[/editline] i have 0 interest in seeing joseph gordon levitt do a bad french accent in an adaption of a real life event i already saw half the documentary for but stopped watching because it was so fucking boring and uninteresting i just dont care about some idiot walking a tightrope across a building[/QUOTE] the 3d is v good

[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;48891221]if the dude's intentions are never revealed then it's just a movie of a dude fuckin about being mysterious and then it's just over[/QUOTE] I agree, but turning him into a soulless robot was not a good solution.

watched Escape from New York again after a really long time, even better than i remember it being. the atmosphere is so good, ending is awesome lol

Saw Source Code, I'd have to give it about a 5/10. I really don't get why everyone loves Duncan Jones so much, kind of feel like he's just Christopher Nolan 2 The first 30 minutes or so were good, how the viewer is just thrown in without any information at all, but it's all ruined with a really fucking sappy-sweet sentimental Hollywood ending centered around a giant gaping plot hole. The direction and performances were are very solid and I can't deny Duncan Jones has a good eye for appealing sci-fi aesthetics, but this was pretty disappointing. I pretty much feel the same way about Moon as well

Disaster movie 12/10

[QUOTE=cheetahben;48891853]Saw Source Code, I'd have to give it about a 5/10. I really don't get why everyone loves Duncan Jones so much, kind of feel like he's just Christopher Nolan 2 The first 30 minutes or so were good, how the viewer is just thrown in without any information at all, but it's all ruined with a really fucking sappy-sweet sentimental Hollywood ending centered around a giant gaping plot hole. The direction and performances were are very solid and I can't deny Duncan Jones has a good eye for appealing sci-fi aesthetics, but this was pretty disappointing. I pretty much feel the same way about Moon as well[/QUOTE] Funny enough it has pretty much a perfect ending 10 minutes before the actual bullshit ending. If I was in the business of handing out numeric ratings I'd dock a few points just for the dogshit ending alone. It's one thing to have an awful ending, but having a really good ending ruined by a really shitty one immediately afterwards is arguably worse.

Guna go see Sicario tonight. Opinions?

[QUOTE=Loadingue;48891211]Like my mum pointed out,[/QUOTE] dude, you're killin me. [QUOTE=Loadingue;48891211]the moment when the guy's intentions and nature are revealed is when the film loses its aura of mystery that had made it so great until then and becomes a rehash of Terminator. What made the guy interesting was that he was unpredictable, but after the reveal he acts like a robot and everything becomes predictable. I like the way he goes away at the end, but that leaves him a very confusing and ambiguous character. The ending is not that bad, but it was the weakest point in the film.[/QUOTE] his intentions are never revealed. his past is never revealed. he is still a complete mystery. [sp]Although I theorize that he IS their brother, there are a few little hints. at one point he calls pretends to be the kids 'brother' in front of friends. it is revealed he has changed his face. if he was someone they never met, why add in this detail? when lance mentions that he will 'do ANYTHING to protect his identity' - it's a pretty strong emphasis. even kill his own family? and honestly, if he really was just a friend, why would he have taken such a big risk as to come back there?[/sp] on one hand you say it loses all mystery, then you also say he's confusing and ambiguous. i think you're honestly just spouting words, dude. probably your mom's words. the end is one of the best points and i think you misunderstood a good part of the film. [sp]the only thing that's revealed is that 'he came there to help them, but the experiment causes him to tie up all loose ends as soon as he thinks his identity is compromised. that is literally all that's revealed about that. it still leaves 90% of the mystery, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say his mysterious aura is gone. i think calling this a rehash of the terminator is one of the farthest stretches i've heard tbh. it's a john carpenter era homage, down to the title font.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48892237]his intentions are never revealed. his past is never revealed. he is still a complete mystery. [sp]Although I theorize that he IS their brother, there are a few little hints. at one point he calls pretends to be the kids 'brother' in front of friends. it is revealed he has changed his face. if he was someone they never met, why add in this detail? when lance mentions that he will 'do ANYTHING to protect his identity' - it's a pretty strong emphasis. even kill his own family? and honestly, if he really was just a friend, why would he have taken such a big risk as to come back there?[/sp][/QUOTE] I'll need to rewatch it with that theory in mind. [QUOTE=Rusty100;48892237]on one hand you say it loses all mystery, then you also say he's confusing and ambiguous. i think you're honestly just spouting words, dude. probably your mom's words.[/QUOTE] Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant he becomes predictable at the end while his unpredictability was what made him most interesting in the first place. He remains a somehow shady character, but isn't unpredictable anymore since his motives are revealed. [QUOTE=Rusty100;48892237]the end is one of the best points and i think you misunderstood a good part of the film. [sp]the only thing that's revealed is that 'he came there to help them, but the experiment causes him to tie up all loose ends as soon as he thinks his identity is compromised. that is literally all that's revealed about that. it still leaves 90% of the mystery, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say his mysterious aura is gone. i think calling this a rehash of the terminator is one of the farthest stretches i've heard tbh. it's a john carpenter era homage, down to the title font.[/sp][/QUOTE] You're right, I watched the film some time ago so I don't remember all the details. [QUOTE=Rusty100;48892237]dude, you're killin me.[/QUOTE] I feel sorry for you if you wouldn't consider my mother capable of reviewing films properly because you can't imagine such a thing for some reason. But I'm posting here, with her comments in mind, because two opinions are better than one. We don't always agree either, I liked [I]The Bad, the Ugly and the Weird[/I] while she hated it, but that is besides the point. I hope you're not under the impression that I can't review a film on my own and that's why we watch films together, but that of course is absolutely stupid. Also, in case it wasn't clear, I really liked The Guest; I must have given it a 8 or 8.5 probably. I just wasn't a big fan of the ending. It didn't seem to fulfill my expectations.

[QUOTE=Over-Run;48892229]Guna go see Sicario tonight. Opinions?[/QUOTE] You're in for a ride. A fantastically fun ride. Into the depths of hell.

[QUOTE=Over-Run;48892229]Guna go see Sicario tonight. Opinions?[/QUOTE] It's tense, grimy, horrible, and all around nasty. It's also one of the best movies of the year so far. But to be fair this hasn't been too strong of a year

Very surprised to be seeing positive feedback towards the Walk -- its trailer looks like schmaltzy garbage, Robert zemeckis is a painfully obnoxious director and jgl's French accent is just.... Terrible. No need for the film to rly exist the documentary is already there and this just seems like a trashy Hollywood rehash that everyone will forget about before it even comes out on home release. It looks like a boring dime a dozen biopic w really bad forcefully ott visuals

the only thing i like about it is the poster [t]http://static.omelete.uol.com.br/media/extras/capas/the-walk-poster.jpg[/t]

[B][I]The Walk[/I][/B] My oh my what an experience it was in the theater watching this. Having gone over it again in my head and with the notes I took, I have to say that yes, perhaps my unbridled preaching to go see this film was a bit unwarrented, but I honestly would not have traded the experience of seeing this film in 3D last night for the world. [I]The Walk[/I] is, appropriately enough, much like the protagonist's street performance in that it grabs your attention and keeps it there for the entirety of the film. For 95% of this film, at no point did I feel bored, or not feel entertained, or did I feel dissatisfied with having paid to see this film. The film is upbeat and optimistic throughout but at no point did I feel that the film was trying to be too twee or too whimsical or overly sentimental or that it was treating me without the utmost respect. It was, in a word, charming. That's the biggest thing I think as to why this film works as well as it does when by all accounts it really shouldn't. It has a character narrator, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Philippe Petit, and much like films with these kinds of narrators it means that you know where the story is going, but fortunately it doesn't fall victim to the normal traps that films with in story narrators have for numerous reasons. For one it actually takes the time to show us these events happening and then telling us what character's were thinking or what the significance was in the long run. Some might call this unnecessary, and I must admit that in some cases it is, but for the most part I still remain captivated by it because of how good and how charming a narrator I think Philippe is. Spending two hours with Philippe and this story is much like meeting someone at a party that you never knew before but become friends with by the end of the party. Just like the best street performers Gordon-Levitt's Phillippe and director Robert Zemeckis are doing their damnedest to entertain you and divert you, and for all but a few points they succeed with flying colors. What's more is that it goes into what I said earlier about non-fiction stories. They can't just be facts, facts, and more facts. Besides just telling a story they have to keep the audience entertained and interested and if they can they should revolve around a central idea or thesis by stripping out all of the details that are not necessary to any of these three goals. In my mind this film accomplishes all of those. It's very uplifting and inspiring and is charming enough to keep the audience's interest, and what's more is that has a very clear idea: Phillippe Petit was able to overcome immeasurable odds and obstacles in order to accomplish his dream because he was determined but also he could not have done it with out the help of his loyal "accomplices," as he calls them. From a film making standpoint there's a lot to love as well. There is some excellent cinematography and if you see it in 3D it captures the height of the buildings and how to a man on a wire even a height of no more than 15 feet can seem like an endless abyss. There are some excellent performances by everyone involved, most notably Ben Kingsley in his small but important role of Petit's mentor, Papa Rudy. Watching this Kingsley's performance kind of reminded me of the great French actor Yves Montand's Cesar Soubeyran character from the [I]L'Eau des collines[/I] saga, only far more kind and generous. There's also some amazing chemistry between just about everyone involved in the cast, especially between Gordon-Levitt and the Quebecois actress Charlotte Le Bon. Le Bon is wonderful in this film as Petit's first accomplice Annie and I really wish that she would do more English work because this is only her second non-French film. It's not a perfect film by any means. There are certain things that I think should have been changed, most notably the ending which not only goes on a bit too long but also dips into too much sentimentality, but it's still not a dealbreaker for me. As an amateur historian studying to be professional I know that there are certain stories that have to end on a bit of melancholy. There are situations where, because stories end but history doesn't, we have to note that in the long run it doesn't end so happily. Despite my disatisfaction with the ending I was still able to leave the theater with a smile on my face. Despite my reservations and reluctance to recommend 3D, I would whole-heartedly recommend seeing [I]The Walk[/I] in 3D. It adds a lot to the experience to help simulate just how high and breathtaking of an experience it is. This was one of the best experiences I've had in a theater in a long time and I would see it many more times if I could. 8/10

[QUOTE=AltF4 All Day;48892188]Funny enough it has pretty much a perfect ending 10 minutes before the actual bullshit ending. If I was in the business of handing out numeric ratings I'd dock a few points just for the dogshit ending alone. It's one thing to have an awful ending, but having a really good ending ruined by a really shitty one immediately afterwards is arguably worse.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I feel like the ending was something that would have only happened in a movie and felt really counter-intuitive and unnecessary. Kind of the same reason I didn't like Gravity that much

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;48895121]Very surprised to be seeing positive feedback towards the Walk -- its trailer looks like schmaltzy garbage[/QUOTE] all trailers are shit. I just watched the trailer after having seen the movie and the music is bullshit, the whole feel has no resemblance to seeing the film. why does noone believe me when I say seeing trailers is stupid, you spoil the film and you never get the best experience which is going into it blind. the film itself isn't that great, but that trailer is god-awful. tbh, I recommend it wholeheartedly for the 3D, I'm not joking. The 3D is done so tastefully and properly, you wondered why you doubted the gimmick. But here it actually has a point, there is no point seeing this in 2D tho.