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

[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;42549241]I think you need to reevaluate the things that bother you. [editline]16th October 2013[/editline] Automerge shit.[/QUOTE] well she really is hated by the ~cosplaying community~ afaik i dont really have an opinion on her but everyone loves bringing up how much they hate her

Well that's silly. Anywho. Pacific Rim, 9/10 one of the best action movies I've watched in awhile, shoddy acting at times but I was a-okay with it

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;42552402]I have a bit of a hard time enjoying movies like Independence Day. I don't know if Pacific Rim would be my thing or not. Is it really as good as everyone says it is? What should I expect out of it?[/QUOTE] It's exactly as you would expect it to be. Giant robots vs giant monsters. If that doesn't sound interesting to you right now, I don't think the movie will change your mind

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;42552402]I have a bit of a hard time enjoying movies like Independence Day. [/QUOTE] You mean bad movies?

Independence Day is a stupid fun movie. Along with The Core. I don't even care.

RIP Scot

Exam 6/10 I want to really like this movie since the premise and general plot are pretty cool, which makes it all the more tragic that one twist kind of reeks of ass-pull and the other is plain contrived. Damn, damn shame.

Gonna have to go and say that Prisoners was a great movie. So great, that I didn't even realize it was 153 minutes long. 9/10 easy.

Dredd (2012) 8.5/10 Holy shit that was fantastic, I was not expecting it to be so good. It felt like a classic 80s action movie almost, and the special effects were amazing (and even getting into it knowing it was gore-y, I was still not expecting so much gore)

[B]Captain Phillips[/B] Very solid show that tenses and thrills. It doesn't tackle the bigger picture of the problems that concern piracy as it focuses largely into the character of Mr Phillips. Very well shot under close encounters and a nice worthwhile flick. It may not be a film to blow up the box office, on opening screening... there were 99% vacant seats, but for me it's a very good example of what it portrays. Highly focused and a real good performance by Hanks. This time, there's a section where the role really seems to break him up, it's not something I've seen before in him. Not even in Cast Away where you think you've got the best of him. It did have oppurtunities to delve further into the somali piracy issues, being that the reality concerns fisherman put out of work by American/Foreign fishing companies. By challenging those roots, there could have been more to it on the other side of the field. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Go for it. [editline]18th October 2013[/editline] opposite this film is another called A Hijacking, it's supposed to be different but brilliant.. I'd check it out too.

Sint (or as it's known outside of Clog-and-weedistan, Saint Nick) 3/10 Riddled with cliches, dialogue is awful, the acting is BEYOND wooden and the effects are nothing short of abysmal.

Ak'z how many movies do you watch a week

i'll ask here since the thread for it seems dead; im searching for this movie; it started with some woman giving birth, then it cut to this guy that looks a lot like sean bean standing on some cliff and jumping off of it when something exploded. all i can remember is that it looks sci-fi-ish, there was some sort of a giant bat that he flew on, there was a cool futuristic looking city. its pretty recent afaik. help?

Crumb, a cult documentary giving insight into the unique lifestyles of Robert Crumb and his family members. - 8/10

[QUOTE=Killuah;42566402]Ak'z how many movies do you watch a week[/QUOTE] sometimes a few, recently not a lot. I'm trying to keep away from rewatching stuff. I'd like to do that cinema spree thing where critics would see 3 or 4 films in a day. Would be difficult to grab anyone whose interested though :v:

[B]Man of Steel[/B] yes I enjoyed it but the script is sloppy, the pacing could have been much better and they should have trimmed some of the action. Some of the best effects I have ever seen though, I'll give them that. 6.8/10

[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;42565229]Dredd (2012) 8.5/10 Holy shit that was fantastic, I was not expecting it to be so good. It felt like a classic 80s action movie almost, and the special effects were amazing (and even getting into it knowing it was gore-y, I was still not expecting so much gore)[/QUOTE] Dredd is the fucking best. It's a shame how it did in theaters though, and that really kills its chances of getting a nice sequel.

Leon The Professional - 9/10 I'm glad HattiWatti was able to recall the movie for me. I watched it over the course of two days, and I'll probably watch it again in one day. Damn that was a great movie. Though, I wish there was more action with the two working together. [sp]The ending was ruthless, but I'm somewhat glad the cop got what was coming to him.[/sp] But I suppose that's what happens when you listen to Bach.. Instead of Mozart or Beethoven ;)

Escape From Alcatraz- 3/5 Pretty good flick, Eastwood was cool. As the title suggests its about the only breakout from Alcatraz. Cool to see how it was done although tbh there's not a lot to say about this film, it's a good suspenseful thriller that's worth a watch. Con Air- 3/5 Fun, cool, and really stupid. I enjoyed it quite a bit although it reeked of Bruckheimer to its own detriment (not that it wouldn't have been ridiculous anyway). Cage was good and jacked to shit. Malkovich was crazy but tbh too over the top. Not so much in his portrayal but in some of his dialogue. The scene where [sp]Cage finally meets his wife and daughter[/sp] caught me off-guard for being quite a tearjerker, actually Cage's whole story was really well done and he portrayed it brilliantly. Not to jump on the Cage bandwagon of which I'm already a part of but he was definitely the best part of the film. I really enjoyed his character. I feel like the film would have been better if it was less action-y and focused more on Cage. The Turin Horse- 4/5 This'll be a long one. Before I start I'll say I highly recommend this to those interested in slower arthouse stuff. It's a brilliant film but absolutely not for everyone. My first venture into Bela Tarr's work. It's a very unique film and I will 100% be checking out more of his stuff. This is a brutal film. I'll say that off the bat. It's not violent at all, but it is bleak, slow and tough to watch. Might be the single slowest film I've ever seen. It's over 2 1/2 hours long and there's a shitload of nothing that goes on, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't captivated the entire time. While I can see the majority of people considering this film boring and pointless garbage, imo it was enthralling beginning to end and once I picked up on some of the symbolism and underlying themes, I really started to love the film. I think I'll need to watch it again, now knowing at least partly what it's about. To me, this is an apocalypse film. Sure on the top it's essentially almost 3 hours of 2 people barely existing, doing nothing more than fetching water, eat potatoes and futilely attempting to move a horse... But it's the underneath that's important here. I think there are a lot of layers to this film. Bela Tarr described it as being about the "heaviness of human existence". Also that at the start of his career he wanted to change society and change the world with his films. Now he wants to just forget that and talk about the end of everything, because he understands he can't change it. I might not have interpreted him totally right but that's the impression I get and I respect his honesty. Before I start discussing my opinions on the point of the film etc, the technical aspects. Outstanding. The film has only 29 cuts in total. The shortest shots in the film are still running at 3-4 minutes. The film is in black and white, despite being only 2 years old, and my god it was a great decision. It helps convey the bleakness of their lives and lack of colour in their nihilistic world, as well as allowing for stunning use of light and dark to really give it a stunning visual style. Very high contrast and I loved it. Apparently shot on the same camera Roger Deakins has used for pretty much his whole career. The camerawork itself is just incredible, too. So well planned and structured. Such brilliant use of shadow and lamplight. Stunning. Anyway, I'm gonna go on and write some stuff about how I think that 2 people eating potatoes is allegory for the end of the world (spoilers and the usual train of thought nonsense next)- First off, the horse is the horse that made broke Neitzsche. The film opens with an original text describing the story that was the end of Neitzsche and the beginning of The Turin Horse. [quote]"In Turin on 3rd January, 1889, Friedrich Nietzsche steps out of the doorway of number six, Via Carlo Alberto. Not far from him, the driver of a hansom cab is having trouble with a stubborn horse. Despite all his urging, the horse refuses to move, whereupon the driver loses his patience and takes his whip to it. Nietzsche comes up to the throng and puts an end to the brutal scene, throwing his arms around the horse’s neck, sobbing. His landlord takes him home, he lies motionless and silent for two days on a divan until he mutters the obligatory last words, and lives for another ten years, silent and demented, cared for by his mother and sisters. We do not know what happened to the horse.”[/quote] I don't know very much about Neitzsche and I'm not going to pretend to, although I can tell that he was a clear influence on this film although tbh I couldn't really say a lot on how since I'm not well-read on his philosophy at all. Any ideas I consider related to Neitzsche will come up in what I say next but I couldn't write about how this film is a Neitzschean works. It's probably the most nihilistic piece of cinema I've ever watched. Apocalypse stuff... The film starts off with the father bringing home the Turin Horse. Even from the very beginning I felt like the horse was otherworldly and magical, although I still don't know how. I feel like it brings on the end of the world but why I don't know. (aside the collapse of the universe as the film progresses, coincidentally the day the father brings the horse that defeated Neitzsche home with him) actually perhaps the horse represents nihilism in its true form. In its strongest and purest. Neitzsche talked about nihilism but as far as I'm aware he never actually said there is literally no reason for anything whatsoever and why even do anything more than exist- and even then, why exist if there is no point? I think the horse broke Neitzsche but to Bela Tarr, it also enlightened him. He learnt everything is pointless. Thus, the two main characters in The Turin Horse. They do the absolute bare minimum to survive and show absolutely no emotion and don't converse because they don't need to. They simply... exist. The absolute most nihilistic life. As the film goes on things stop existing because what's the point. The storm throughout the entire film except the very end (I'll get to that) is apocalyptic. The man who appears and buys the bottle of vodka tells that the town is destroyed. The world is disappearing. The gypsies come over the hill, the same way the man went and the same way the main characters go at the end. The city [I]was[/I] likely there. The gypsies had to move to find somewhere else. As did the man. When the two characters decide to go to town, the just turn back when they get over the hill because although we never see what's past the hill, it's because there's nothing there. So they accept it in true nihilistic fashion and just... Continue, knowing that the end is coming. The well drying up the day before also relates to the idea of the world disappearing. By the end, the storm is gone. The storm is gone because there is no more world. The horse, which has ever since its arrival has been uncooperative and refused to eat, finally died and brought the rest of the world with it (the horse is tied to the world? idk. More of the otherworldly stuff I mentioned at the start.) I loved the end when it all just went dark, as there was no sun and no world to be lit. It's also maybe the only time we really see emotion from the characters, however little it may be. The final shot is amazing, where only the two characters and the table are lit- the rest of the house is pure blackness. It's then that, maybe, the characters look more solemn that neutral, because they realise now there is literally nothing and they're a bit sad about that, but it's too late now. They've lost it. End film. Also, the final time we see the horse was honestly beautiful. The shot of them opening the door etc, taking off the reigns... We then get a really big close-up of the horse's face. It holds for about a minute then fades. The emotions that evoked reminded me of the part in Aguirre, The Wrath of God where Kinski and the horse stare at each other as he drifts away. That scene was the best part of Aguirre for me. Good Will Hunting- 4/5 Really enjoyed this. I know it won a best original screenplay Oscar but even then I was really impressed by Damon and Affleck's writing abilities. Also by Damon's acting abilities. He was great. Really liked this film, tbh I'm a bit at a loss of words after writing all that about The Turin Horse but I loved this film and definitely think it's worth a watch. Would recommend it to most people.

Give me a number Ak'z

requiem for a dream - 9/10 i cried

i watched blue jasmine a few hours ago and it was so good. it manages to influence you emotionally and also very well written. definitely better than any of his latest films

[B]Only God Forgives[/B] This movie is quite something and incredibly tense. The experience leaves you with a bitter taste and in bewilderment. Aesthetically speaking is this movie an absolute masterpiece, the camerashots and scenery is terrific making this movie a mystical and somewhat surreal experience. Additively the topnotch acting added a lot to this feeling. Also the soundtrack is just marvelous and sets the tone of the movie. The plot is absolutely confusing at first but becomes quite transparent when you don't take everything at face value and just watch the movie. Symbolism and metaphors are omnipresent, the characters don't act real and everything is heavily stylistic. Especially the characters makes you wonder what this is all about. There are also many reoccuring stylstic scenes and themes which leaves the watcher thoughtful. It's nohow a traditional movie and typical drama, even if you recap the plot it might look like an overly edgy and pretentious story but there is still some depth behind it. Although at times I felt like the movie tried to be more complex and deeper than it actual appears, but that is up for discussion. There are many underlying tones and themes which are indicated but never really explained due to the lack of a comprehensive narration. The movie is very reminiscent of Finchs work so if you really like his movies, Only God Forgives is definitely worth a watch. What I really like compared to Finchs work is that it feels far less random and pulled from nowhere, in a way it's more cohesive even if that sounds really ridiculous, considering that Only God Forgives is already pretty vague. Finally I can say that it's a really good and experimental movie, some might like it and some might hate it. It was universally panned by reviewers although I think that it's a bit unfair because the movie is still more than it first appears to be. Simply called it overstylized is a bit to harsh. On the side note of the violence, it's really fucking intense. This was actually the first time in my life where I had to cover my eyes and I really watched a lot of brutal movies. I don't think that it glorifies violence but it's more of a medium to set a tone for the movie. Some of my thoughts. [sp]At first I thought that it was an overly artsy and edgy movie which had only good looks an no depth behind it, the plot itself is actually really simple. The lack of narration is somewhat confusing but with all the symbolism it's rather obvious that there is a theme underneath all of it. I thought that it was pretty obvious. Justice, vengeance, redemption, sexual desire, oedipus complex and jealousy play a large role, it's actually really obvious. But thinking more about it I came to the conclusion that the characters themselves aren't actually human characters, but rather concepts or abstract depictions of humans that have sinned. Chang plays an avatar of justice, of form of god from the old testament and Julian being a sinner who seeks forgiveness. There are many hints and different approaches to this movie but the vague narratives leaves a lot open for discussion. Anyway I enjoyed it a lot, good movie albeit really strange.[/sp] Edit: I want to add that at times such surreal movies always have this unique and deep feeling to them, but the very stylistic and unusual approach of narration can be a compensation for any lack of substance . I still can't make my mind it this movie that is actually more that it appears or just visually very impressive but overall lacking substance. I like seeing deeper meaning into movies but very often there isn't much to see or people tend to overanalyze movies, which I generally despise. The use of symbolism and metaphers can be good but also backfire severly if the director fails to put them to good use and just try to make everything look more mysterious and deep than they actually are. Edit 2: Now after reading a lot about it and watching several informative interpretation, I have come to the conclusion that it's actually a really deep movie and that it's not all artsy moviemaking. Although a lot of the information that supported the interpretation came from interviews and articles where Refn somewhat explained what he was going for. In my opinion a movie should be based upon the information that is provided soley by the movie and not some outside source of information. It's really hard to understand some of the concepts if you don't look it up. Like I said a really good movie should includ enough information for the audience to get a graps of the things that are going on. Also when I actually read the translation for the dialogues in the native language, it made much more sense and that karaoke has a very meaningful and deep tradition in thailand which isn't really a common knowledge for a viewer to have. I had this issue with Donnie Darko, that movie was also great but a lot of information that made the movie clearer was provided by interviews and directors commentary instead of being in the actual movie. So that's a negative point about the movie.

Up In The Air - 8/10 Dudes, I think I'm legitimately obsessed with Anna Kendrick. I loved her in this movie, and I loved her in all the movies I've seen her in. I've also seen practically every interview with her. The scene in this movie where she [sp] burst out crying [/sp] was so adorable that my heart melted. I'm currently watching more movies with her in it. Starting with Rocket Science then I'm going to watch Drinking Buddies and I think that'll cover all of her movies that I haven't seen except for Twilight. I don't know if it'll be worth it sitting through Twilight just to see her scenes though. Do I need help? Oh and George Clooney was really good in this movie too.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;42567014] Some of the best effects I have ever seen though, I'll give them that. 6.8/10[/QUOTE] seriously? i just watched steelyman too, and i thought the effects were pretty dodgy. zod's head and neck often wobbled around in his suit, and the effects were just plain unrealistic looking, especially when cgi people were fighting.

Akira Kurosara's [B]Ran[/B] 9/10 Legitimately considering spending half a grand on an Akira Kurosawa collection. Somebody please change my mind

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42572125]seriously? i just watched steelyman too, and i thought the effects were pretty dodgy. [B]zod's head and neck often wobbled around[/B] in his suit, and the effects were just plain unrealistic looking, especially when cgi people were fighting.[/QUOTE] Yeah, especially at the end of his fight with Superman.

[QUOTE=Hoboiam;42572350]Akira Kurosara's [B]Ran[/B] 9/10 Legitimately considering spending half a grand on an Akira Kurosawa collection. Somebody please change my mind[/QUOTE] Do it ;) his early work is meant to be dangerously underrated

[B]What Lies Beneath[/B] 4/10 Good acting from all but everything else was just lacking. The writing and direction takes a huge nose dive after the reveal that[sp]establishes the supernatural.[/sp] Which despite Zemeckis' attempt at a Hitchcockian movie, that reveal seems to me like a cheap copout and something Hitchcock would never have done.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42572125]seriously? i just watched steelyman too, and i thought the effects were pretty dodgy. zod's head and neck often wobbled around in his suit, and the effects were just plain unrealistic looking, especially when cgi people were fighting.[/QUOTE] yeah some of them are eye-twitching, but I loved the flying, building smashing and the initial sequence on krypton.