Rate The Last Movie You Watched - April V3 - no tv shows - General

I state my love for Peter Jackson in elvish and make Lembas Bread before every viewing of LotR.

Peter Jackson should go back to B-movie horrors

Star Trek Into Darkness - 5.5/10 I'm not sure whether I should be glad because Abrams is done with Star Trek saga, or worried because he's now in charge Star Wars. At least script for the latter is written by someone competent.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;42013176]Peter Jackson should go back to B-movie horrors[/QUOTE] Braindead is pretty amazing. I remember watching it at a really young age.

Extended cut of lotr? Is it necessary? You have to get up and switch DVD halfway through each one, and its already long enough. I am skeptical.

[QUOTE=mark6789;42012053]Guys cmon Rusty is just trolling us. On a related note: [video=youtube;xKbyWSwd7hk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKbyWSwd7hk[/video][/QUOTE] i'm not trolling, and kevin smith is on the money. they are just bad movies that are poorly made, ALL of peter jackson's movies are exactly like that! have any of you ever actually enjoyed any other peter jackson films? newer than the frighteners? what was it king kong? lovely bones? peter jackson is just a bad filmmaker. he made a few good ones very early in his career but produces nothing but turds now. someone said before it's like saying the godfather movies are bad because you don't like them. wheras i actually appreciate their level of quality, i'm just not a fan of them. it's the same way you feel i should be about lotr. the difference being lotr is actually really quite terrible and the godfather isn't.

[QUOTE=harryh11;42014539]Extended cut of lotr? Is it necessary? You have to get up and switch DVD halfway through each one, and its already long enough. I am skeptical.[/QUOTE] bluray versions have them on one disc i'm also pretty sure they came out with some double edition that included both the theatrical and extended cuts.

i think it's funny that people get upset when I hate-fuck lord of the rings (Because its truly a poorly put together pos) but it's okay to hate the shit out of movies we as a group all agree are bad and taunt newcomers who like them newsflash i dont care if nobody else on earth agreed with me or not, those movies are damn terrible and nothing's going to change my mind on that, unless the films themselves changed their entire content and became not-bad

"I don't care what people think of my opinion, but let me repost it weekly anyway and bitch about how awful these universally loved movies are!" [editline]29th August 2013[/editline] I'm Rusty, my opinions are fact.

[QUOTE=Kiamberm;42015124]"I don't care what people think of my opinion, but let me repost it weekly anyway and bitch about how awful these universally loved movies are!" [editline]29th August 2013[/editline] I'm Rusty, my opinions are fact.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he can't resist the urge to bring it up whenever the movies get mentioned here which causes a shitstorm in the thread for a few pages almost every time. Kind of funny since I agree with him on most things but I just can't with LOTR, it's probably my favorite trilogy of all time next to the original Star Wars.

Pi (1998) 10/10 WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!! I almost had a stroke watching this movie. This is a good thing. Seriously, watch it.

[QUOTE=harryh11;42014539]Extended cut of lotr? Is it necessary? You have to get up and switch DVD halfway through each one, and its already long enough. I am skeptical.[/QUOTE] There are three types of extended scenes. 1. Stuff that directly helps the plot but was trimmed for theaters 2. Longer, additional setpieces that got cut out for time 3. Extra scenes and effects that aren't really needed but are pretty to look at

[QUOTE=Pops;42015002]bluray versions have them on one disc i'm also pretty sure they came out with some double edition that included both the theatrical and extended cuts.[/QUOTE] The extended blu-rays are on two discs.

Rewatched "My little eye". 7/10 Love surveillance movies.

Please don't use the term "hate-fuck"

[QUOTE=Kiamberm;42015124]"I don't care what people think of my opinion, but let me repost it weekly anyway and bitch about how awful these universally loved movies are!" [editline]29th August 2013[/editline] I'm Rusty, my opinions are fact.[/QUOTE] there are some things about the filmmaking process which are demonstrable facts and can be quantified and judged objectionally. the acting and dialogue is ham fisted. the cinematography is a plethorough of flat dialouge angles with a few overhead landscape shots sprinkled in between. and they do have a cheap dreamlike glow on them. like, did we all even see the same movie? there is not even one single interesting or well done thing about them. can you name any? and come on, its been more than half a year since i went on a lotr tirade

I watched Napoleon dynamite, always heard that it was a neat movie and that it was super funny and etc. I'm confused. It was very dull, and only got a chuckle out of me a few times. I don't think there were any stellar characters or moments in it either. Maybe I missed the entire point of the movie but it was dull as fuck and not very funny.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;42015959]I watched Napoleon dynamite, always heard that it was a neat movie and that it was super funny and etc. I'm confused. It was very dull, and only got a chuckle out of me a few times. I don't think there were any stellar characters or moments in it either. Maybe I missed the entire point of the movie but it was dull as fuck and not very funny.[/QUOTE] Napoleon Dynamite is really divisive - I remember back in the day that Netflix wouldn't recommend it to anyone because it's algorithm couldn't figure out who it'd appeal to.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;42015491]Pi (1998) 10/10 WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!! I almost had a stroke watching this movie. This is a good thing. Seriously, watch it.[/QUOTE] I didn't understand anything of it, same with Primer. Am i stupid?

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;42016006]-The story is classic. The characters are memorable. -The acting is pretty spot-on. -The action scenes are absolutely [I]incredible[/I]. -The world it's trying to create is detailed, interesting and beautiful to look at. -The creature effects are crazy good. Especially in Fellowship of the Ring. -It only used CGI when it had to, unlike The Hobbit which uses CGI way too much in my opinion. -The cinematography is amazing most of the time, dude. [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pxbEXmWB4TI/Ser380PD-xI/AAAAAAAAARc/w6OyVa1R3XE/s320/20090418+Arwen+and+Aragon.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] C'mon man, it's a center shot of a couple in soft lighting. I'm pretty sure The Clone Wars had one of these, in fact, I'm pretty sure every movie had one of these.

alright enough with the lotr shit. just everyone remember that you're entitled to your own opinions, even rusty. if someone doesn't like what you like, simply hit the dumb or disagree button and move on with your life. save the shitposting for later when the mods are asleep.

whats wrong with makin the thread a little more interesting every now and again [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] its not shitposting unless this were the lotr thread

Okay, we get it. Rusty doesn't like LOTR, most of us regulars disagree. Why are we still making a big deal about this? [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] I mean, come on, this is old news.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;42015959]I watched Napoleon dynamite, always heard that it was a neat movie and that it was super funny and etc. I'm confused. It was very dull, and only got a chuckle out of me a few times. I don't think there were any stellar characters or moments in it either. Maybe I missed the entire point of the movie but it was dull as fuck and not very funny.[/QUOTE] the entire point of the movie is to give white teenagers a list of things they can quote to their friends at school otherwise its a completely insubstantial piece of garbage that doesn't even realize that movies have plot until 3/4 of the way in a pg borat without the improvisation it needs to stand up

[QUOTE=Billiam;42016259]C'mon man, it's a center shot of a couple in soft lighting. I'm pretty sure The Clone Wars had one of these, in fact, I'm pretty sure every movie had one of these.[/QUOTE] yea its a classic george lucas shot. im pretty sure theres lots similar in attack of the clones (cos its a hammy romance shot) Peter Jackson is not that amazing a director (King Kong and The Lovely Bones both very terrible) Braindead/Dead Alive is amazing cos its ridiculous and gory as fuck. I think Tolkien created something really special with his books and lore but its tolkien that makes it great not peter jackson. if you like lotr you should read the books. although i do think the films portray The Shire perfectly and the first stuff in Fellowship of the ring is the best part of any of the films [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] I do feel like the world is captured amazingly in the films though and they do look great. Costume/set design and make-up is absolutely top notch.

[b]We're the Millers - 7/10[/b] Good for shits and giggles.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;42016006]-The cinematography is amazing most of the time, dude. [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pxbEXmWB4TI/Ser380PD-xI/AAAAAAAAARc/w6OyVa1R3XE/s320/20090418+Arwen+and+Aragon.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That's really the example for "amazing cinematography" you used? That shot looks dull and boring as fuck, the characters are just in the center of the screen and that's it.

[QUOTE=Nsybouts;42018117][b]We're the Millers - 7/10[/b] Good for shits and giggles.[/QUOTE] yea, saw this yesterday. way better comedy than most in theaters recently

[B]Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace[/B] 10/10 Absolutely incredible dialogue, diverse and engaging story and beautiful cinematography. Also portrayals by great and genius characters like little Anakin and Jar Jar Binks, which show a much more human side of Darth Vader. [b]Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones[/b] 9.5/10 Not as good as the Phantom menace in my opinion, I really really like Hayden Christiansen as an actor, his roles are always spot on the dialogue is top-notch. Plus all the CGI was really good. Like in Episode I, I really liked the romance subplot between Anakin and Padme because it shows a much better side of Vader than the dumb black robot thing we see in the sequel trilogy. [b]Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith[/b] 8.5/10 Easily the weakest of the trilogy, I didn't like the plot as much as the other two movies. I felt like they made Darth Vader in a cheap way and kind of brushed over his story. Also it made me angry to see Anakin hurt Padme like that. I felt like the Jedi should have won the match between the masters and Darth Sidious. The space battles were okay but nothing compared to the final battle over Naboo in Episode I. [B]Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope[/B] 6.5/10 I don't really understand where Lucas was going with the sequel trilogy. All the CGI seemed really dated, and the characters seemed less fluid than I,II, and III. The cinematography was downright bad and the dialogue was totally inferior to I,II, and III. From the unique and powerful Anakin Skywalker to a big bumbling black droid with a messed up voice? Lame [b]Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back[/b] 4.5/10 Easily the worst out of the Star Wars movies. I didn't like Han Solo's seriousness here compared to his true character like in Star Wars Kinect's Han Solo song. Also I feel like nothing important happened and it just continued all the bad dialogue and visual effects of episode IV. Seriously were these movies made in the 80s or something? This movie was so bad that I'm not even going to watch Episode VI

[QUOTE=Killuah;42002069]I can too but then again it's hilarious and it's more of "I can understand how people don't get the humour" than "I can see why people hate it"[/QUOTE] I liked it but I'm really sure that part of the reason I do is because I considered myself part of the "irritable weird kid" demographic that Napoleon and his brother were part of. I remember that overall the movie wasn't THAT funny but there were just so many random small things I could relate to that it more or less made up for it.