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

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;42231014]I thought Man of Steel was okay, but it definitely could have benefited from some Avengers cheeriness as opposed to Dark Knight grimness.[/QUOTE] That and I was just confused about the tone MoS was going for. Is it supposed to be inspirational? Am I supposed to 'believe' in Superman like what the actors and director stated in countless interviews? Is it supposed to be mythic like All Star Superman? Or is it supposed to be realistic and grimy like The Dark Knight. I wouldn't have minded a realistic Superman. Perhaps someone whose powers don't actually benefit him all that much. Maybe he feels tortured by them (super senses, difficult to control immense power) and he feels so damn clueless to why he's here or what he should do. And then, he finds his call and purpose being someone who goes against "absolute power corrupts absolutely". With absolute power, Kal-El decides to love his new home and does his best to make it a better world for everyone. Have him doubt himself, have him question his choices and feel burdened by the fact the entire world's fate is in his hands. He can single-handedly screw things up. A small mistake can create huge consequences, especially from someone like Superman. I dunno, just an idea. The point I'm making here is that MoS's Superman is...just there. They didn't know what to do with him and I was really confused on how to feel towards him. Snyder talked about the mythic qualities of Superman and how he "reminds us of ourselves" despite being an alien but you just can't talk about it. I can't like him just because he's Superman and you can't make the film more meaningful by shoving in lines from All-Star Superman, Birthright and Secret Origin. MoS needed a strong consistent definitive tone and with some action in it to make some parts exciting. Instead it was a film with some guy who looks like Superman, has similar powers like Superman, lots of action and sprinkles of 'meaningful' stuff behind Superman. I believe Elliot S! Maggin said it best of what a full Superman story should be like. [quote]"Superman stories are about moral and ethical choices. They're not about kicking ass -- I put [an action scene] in there, but everything else was about a moral decision. What [Schwartz] told me before I wrote the first one was, 'Are you ready for a Superman story? You know that's the hardest character to write.' And for years, I believed him," Maggin said. "The problem is not that he's too powerful, the problem is that he has to think and he has to make the readers think. And that's what separates Superman from everything else. So if you've got a Superman story that could be an Iron Man story, it's the wrong story."[/quote] EDIT: related [IMG]http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/i10-600x461.png?f6a06b[/IMG] [IMG]http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/i11-600x461.png?f6a06b[/IMG] I'll shut up about Man of Steel/Superman now.

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;42230165]The score was alright, it did its job well I suppose but nothing extraordinary. Michael Shannon was the best actor in the film but it was Zod again. The only reason they did him was because of Superman II. Without that film, Zod's actually a really minor and unimportant character in the Superman mythos. Also Zod needs to learn how to count and fight inexperienced scientists. "There's only one way this can end Kal-El! Either you die or I do!" That's two ways Zod.[/QUOTE] well goyer is a bad screenwriter so [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] "no..... i came to stop... U."

Dont know why it took me so long but i finally watched Drive even though i loved the OST when i first heard it a year ago. 9/10 It kept surprising me the only thing i didn't really like was the overuse of silence by the main character. And on the topic of the superman/batman film i think its rushed. I felt they made a great set up for a second superman film that would focus on Clark Kent, but now i think there wont be enough time to do justice to that or to introducing Ben affleck's batman.

Due to the sucess of the Avengers, Iron Man 3 got lots of money too, but it doesn't deserve that money. Also, Henry Cavill played a average Superman, but god Lois Lane was really awful even though she was played by a good actress

Gone Baby, Gone - 8.5/10 damn i loved this, had been on my to-watch list for so long the story just keeps changing direction and really feels different from you'd expect and theres just something unique about Casey affleck's acting in general, he might be one of my favourite actors ever.

[QUOTE=Pops;42230027]surely, thou jest?[/QUOTE] Could barely see what was going on during the action scenes and the flashback stuff was awful.

[QUOTE=Xephio;42237090]Gone Baby, Gone - 8.5/10 damn i loved this, had been on my to-watch list for so long the story just keeps changing direction and really feels different from you'd expect and theres just something unique about Casey affleck's acting in general, he might be one of my favourite actors ever.[/QUOTE] One of the best directorial debuts I've seen.

RoboCop - 8/10 Man some of those scenes were brutal. Laughable at times but it was an entertaining film. It just has [I]something[/I]; the remake definitely won't live up to it.

[QUOTE=Scot;42237144]Could barely see what was going on during the action scenes and the flashback stuff was awful.[/QUOTE] you definitely need some glasses or laser surgery.

Casino, 9.2/10 (Bear in mind here I haven't seen any other Martin Scorsese films.) Fantastic film, really get the sense of things starting to go wrong as it progresses. Make some time for it though, because it is three hours long.

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;42242919]Casino, 9.2/10 (Bear in mind here [B]I haven't seen any other Martin Scorsese films.[/B]) Fantastic film, really get the sense of things starting to go wrong as it progresses. Make some time for it though, because it is three hours long.[/QUOTE] Woah, you better start checking out more of Scorsese's films. Since you liked Casino, I think Goodfellas and maybe The Departed should be up next. I recommend Goodfellas.

haven't seen casino tbh will watch it

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;42242942]Woah, you better start checking out more of Scorsese's films. Since you liked Casino, I think Goodfellas and maybe The Departed should be up next. I recommend Goodfellas.[/QUOTE] I ordered it off Amazon in a box set yesterday as a matter of fact. (Goodfellas that is)

Casino is a great movie

Cannot recommend Goodfellas and The Departed enough

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;42242919]Casino, 9.2/10 (Bear in mind here I haven't seen any other Martin Scorsese films.) Fantastic film, really get the sense of things starting to go wrong as it progresses. Make some time for it though, because it is three hours long.[/QUOTE] goodfellas the departed gangs of new york taxi driver raging bull those are definite must-sees (i'm sure i'm forgetting a few)

Last movie i watched well i can remember roughly only 2. Star trek into darkness 7/10 and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 8/10.

Currently watching Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li and only 6 minutes in can I already tell this is going to suck. Why? Meet M. Bison in this movie. [t]http://puu.sh/4vh0s.jpg[/t]

Just watched Riddick. 9.2/10 Fucking kickass film, especially if you liked Pitch Black and/or Butcher Bay/Dark Athena. Great action, well acted, looks great, sounds good, just overall really badass. It's nothing like The Chronicles of Riddick, trust me.

[QUOTE=Pops;42244732]goodfellas the departed gangs of new york taxi driver raging bull those are definite must-sees (i'm sure i'm forgetting a few)[/QUOTE] Aviator, Shutter Island, Mean Streets, Bringing Out The Dead. Not exactly "underrated" but possibly ones never mentioned as the essentials, still fantastic. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] Still need to see Cape Fear.

I watched The Tree Of Life and The Big Lebowski 2 days ago, seen them 2-3 times before this and I've written about them as many times so I can't really be bothered with it but Tree Of Life is a strong 4/5 and The Big Lebowski is a 5/5. Absolutely love them both. Upon watching Tree Of Life the first time I never expected to watch it again, and again, and again. It felt like it'd be a tough one that you watch and would lack on repeat viewings, but honestly it gets better each time. It's amazing. And everyone knows The Big Lebowski is pretty much one of the best films. The Wrestler- 3/5 Tbh I'm a bit disappointed, it was a good film but not totally amazing. Mickey Rourke was very good. I wasn't that engaged throughout the film and didn't feel much either way in the film. Not a whole lot to say other than it wasn't as good as I was hoping, at all. Not shit but not great. I Saw The Devil- 5/5 Amazing. Absolutely outstanding. Just finished watching this. I was not prepared for how dark or gruesome the film would be, and I was tbh pretty damn shocked for the first 30 minutes or so. A brilliant totally thrilling and terrifying revenge film. Lee Byun-hun is great as ever in the lead and Choi Min-Sik (the lead actor in Oldboy) gives a really brilliant and raw performance as a brutal and ruthless serial killer. The film is very violent and gory, but it works. You could argue it's superfluous but imo it's not. It works with the tone and the plot. Highly, highly recommend this film. Definitely worth checking out.

Cape Fear's pretty good, definitely a 4/5 for me.

Okay, finished Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. Fuck this movie. Fuck it. At least the 1994 version put effort into its characters (Jean-Claude van Damme as Guile notwithstanding). Legend is awful. It's abysmal. The characters are NOTHING like their video-game counterparts, the writing is either bland or hilariously bizarre, the acting ranges from fitting (Michael Clarke Duncan seemed to be the only person who realized how ridiculous it all was) to middle-school level (Kristin Kreuk reciting half her lines with enthusiasm usually reserved for sandwiches), the casting is bizarre (Taboo from Black Eyed Peas as Vega?), it's an absolute mess of a movie. The only positive thing about this movie is that it makes the 1994 version seem a lot better. That movie, while deviating from its source material a bit, knew it was campy and cliched and ran with that shit.

One of the things I really liked about the 1994 version was Raul Julia as M. Bison

District 9 I had an overwhelming urge to re-watch this after being disappointed by Elysium and wow does it make that movie look like shit. The characters, even the CGI alien ones (which look amazing btw, even four years on), are far better and more developed; the effects are just as good; the story and pacing are better; the cinematography is done in a way that I can actually see what's happening; it's just better in every way. Not to say it's only better than Elysium, it's also just a brilliant movie.

finished watching [b]Monsters[/b] (2010) was recommended it by a friend.. well not really, he said he walked out of the theatre 30 minutes in. I had a sudden urge to see why and I have actually discovered something really fantastic. Throughout.. there is a relentless aura of reality that moves within the film. You never leave it, even when there's something really big happening, it's just a consistent start to finish. Being quite a low budget sci-fi flick, I expected mediocrity all over the place. I have just been gobsmacked. Gobsmacked by bewildering shots of beautiful landscape as well as stunning set pieces and rich cgi. Even the interactions are shot with graceful intricacy. There are films with beauties that I can't see people denying. Some may be bored by the lack of gore or the fact that a film called "Monsters" has a surprisingly low amount of gun violence and explosion. What you've got here is the simple facts, nothing overblown.. not even a slight bit of bloat. My friend gave up 30 minutes in, this was prior to the film developing an atmosphere I've yet to see in a film which resembles Fallout. I'm quite serious, this film.. with it's indiest of the indie budget with the most unknown of actors, have pulled off quite the gem of a film. It does everything that Cloverfield didn't. If you loved Cloverfield, you may hate this. The very first few seconds made me foresee some kind of Cloverfield-esque film, but it just isn't.. in any way. The soundtrack is, to say it straight, quite soothing and pretty damn good. It's a film that puts more faith into films that don't need piles of money but just put the money where the mouth is, and really do its thing. Some may gripe about the lack of a enticing intro into these characters.. you're given plenty and it's a very nice way to set up the sequence where they make their way back. Nobody has heard of it, not many care.. and it's weird. It's a time like when "Moon" left people thinking how really big a film can be on the inside, but remain quite a small film. Not one to miss. It's another time when the consensus can cram it..

I didn't like Monsters at all. I like slow movies but it was just so painfully dull.

[QUOTE=Scot;42247772]I didn't like Monsters at all. I like slow movies but it was just so painfully dull.[/QUOTE] It's probably more a filmmakers film than a mass audience flick. It was probably advertised as a Cloverfield remake. But it's not even focused too much on the creatures themselves. Most of the film is the protagonists reacting to the world that is affected by it. It's photographed so damn well, those shots from the boat... I just can't even comprehend how it was budgeted at half a mil.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;42246783] The Wrestler- 3/5 Tbh I'm a bit disappointed, it was a good film but not totally amazing. Mickey Rourke was very good. I wasn't that engaged throughout the film and didn't feel much either way in the film. Not a whole lot to say other than it wasn't as good as I was hoping, at all. Not shit but not great.[/QUOTE] I think Matt Sloan said it best on Welcome to the Basement (which you should watch if you like film): "It seems to be a movie that only exists so Mickey Rourke can give a great performance."

[QUOTE=AK'z;42247916]It's probably more a filmmakers film than a mass audience flick. It was probably advertised as a Cloverfield remake. But it's not even focused too much on the creatures themselves. Most of the film is the protagonists reacting to the world that is affected by it.[/QUOTE] That's what I was looking forward to, a character driven movie, but I found them to be flat and boring.