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

So The Internship is one of the most cringey movies i've seen 6/10

Looper (2012) I didn't enjoy this movie one bit. The plot was tremendously dodgy. I never found out why they need to do that time travel execution bit, and they shamelessly handwave in movie that you shouldn't "think about the time travel shit" as a coverup for bad writting. The movie was slow as hell and I had no investment in any of the characters at the end.

I saw 2 Guns, I enjoyed it, it was kinda dumb but also a lot of fun. The Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington duo worked really well and really fit together nicely.

[B]Saving Private Ryan[/B] Beautiful movie, definitely one of most favorite war movies. So many feels too

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42576457]Looper (2012) I didn't enjoy this movie one bit. The plot was tremendously dodgy. I never found out why they need to do that time travel execution bit, and they shamelessly handwave in movie that you shouldn't "think about the time travel shit" as a coverup for bad writting. The movie was slow as hell and I had no investment in any of the characters at the end.[/QUOTE] I liked most of Looper - in fact, my biggest gripe was how lazy they were in the montage where Joe grows old and turns into Bruce Willis. I did feel that it was lacking a certain je ne sais quoi at times. Like Half in the Bag said, it was weird to see a sci-fi movie where half of it takes place on a farm.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;42577254]I liked most of Looper - in fact, my biggest gripe was how lazy they were in the montage where Joe grows old and turns into Bruce Willis. I did feel that it was lacking a certain je ne sais quoi at times. Like Half in the Bag said, it was weird to see a sci-fi movie where half of it takes place on a farm.[/QUOTE] Like Signs?

[QUOTE=simkas;42576552]Mark Wahlberg[/QUOTE] I keep meaning to watch more (good) Marky Mark movies - I think I've only seen him in The Italian Job and Date Night. I know he's been in some notoriously bad movies, but what are some good ones? I've heard The Other Guys is funny.

[QUOTE=junker154;42570432]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.[/QUOTE] I disagree tbh, if the viewer isn't connecting with what's on screen then the onus is on them to find out what they're missing. Except they don't and call it bad writing then forget the whole thing. :-) In the end, it's not a film for everybody but if you're compelled to see this kind of film, it benefits to get a feel of what you're getting into.

Mark was pretty good in The Fighter

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42577307]Like Signs?[/QUOTE] Like Signs but with more sense and not as dumb.

the other guys is fantastic, you have no idea what you're talking about of course, it makes a lot more sense if you've actually lived in nyc.

Monsters 8/10 - Surprisingly good! Have had plans on seeing Monsters for quite some time, but never really gotten to it since i thought it was just some kind of cloverfield inspired indie movie. Damn was i surprised! The great Gatsby 7/10 - Definately a good movie, but kind of boring in some parts. I was pretty surprised by this one to, because it wasn't anything like i imagined it to be. Really great lightning and some really great shots, altough a bit to much computer animated camera "glides".

Watched Green Lantern 3/10 holy crap that movie is bad.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42576457]Looper (2012) I didn't enjoy this movie one bit. The plot was tremendously dodgy. I never found out why they need to do that time travel execution bit, and they shamelessly handwave in movie that you shouldn't "think about the time travel shit" as a coverup for bad writting. The movie was slow as hell and I had no investment in any of the characters at the end.[/QUOTE] Uhh, no Looper is great and everything in the plot (that can be explained) is explained. The only thing they hand wave is the paraxodical-ness inherant to a time travel plot, because every single other time travel movie has the exact same gaping hole. The only difference is that Looper actually addresses it, even if it's a 'don't think about it too much' kind of way. What they are saying is, hey, this is a movie. There's always gonna be some problems with a time travel story. But just enjoy the story we are telling you anyway, which makes sense in the universe it's told in. There's no bad writing in the movie, it's solid as hell. I had a pretty big investment in the characters, and the thing it did really well is show you that both young an old, Joe is still as selfish as ever, just for different reasons. The young one was headstrong and self involved and wasn't a forward thinker. He saw what he wanted in the moment and took it without regard for others or himself in the future. This was a great contrast to the old Joe's hypocrisy, who was willing to kill 3 children (and anyone else) to get his wife and life back, not for the benefit of his wife, but for the benefit of himself. He could have saved his wife's life at any time by topping himself, but instead wanted her back only to be with her himself. Obviously in the end, young Joe saw the error of both his present and future self, and did what old Joe could have (should have?) done, essentially saving everybody in an ultimate act of selflessness. screw you if you thought that was bad writing. hey wanna talk about other time travel plot holes? How does John Connor exist in the first place to send his own father back in time to impregnate his mother? yeah that's what I thought, bozo.

[B]Gravity[/B] I thought the movie was pretty poor to be honest. The visual effects were amazing but everything else isn't very good. I feel like way too much of the movie is trying its hardest to get you on the edge of your seat but doesn't give you enough time to "catch your breath", so to say. I also didn't think that enough time was spent [sp]building the relationship between Kowalski and Ryan. I didn't feel terribly sad when he sacrificed himself to save her.[/sp] [sp]I also had a lot of problems with the scenes in which Ryan is alone, particularly the one scene where she talks to the fisherman on the radio, the dialogue is just laughably bad. Finally, the movie is ridiculously predictable after Kowalski dies and I didn't really feel happy when she finally got to land.[/sp]

[B]Toy Story [I]of Terror![/I][/B] 7/10 [t]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130514195726/pixar/images/7/72/Toy-Story-of-Terror-Logo.jpg[/t] A fun little adventure with the Toy Story gang. Combat Carl Weathers was hilarious.

[QUOTE=Dunsparce;42570625]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] Drinking Buddies is a piece of shit and not even Anna Kendrick could redeem it. Just save yourself the trouble and watch pitch perfect [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] If you haven't seen that then you're insane. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] 50/50 was also great check that one out

[B]The Rock[/B] Very exciting flick. Kind of ridiculous but that's what makes it funny and exciting. Classic Cage and Connery here.

The Hamiltons 3/10 The only reason I watched this is because I saw it mentioned alongside Hausu, which I liked. However, I didn't really like this so much. I wasn't very interested throughout most of the film, even though some of the stuff that was happening on screen [I]should[/I] have been interesting. There was one scene halfway through that piqued my interest but then I quickly became bored again. There were so many cliches that contrasted with how desperately this film wanted to be different. Most of the actors were on the lower end of "passable," except for the guy who played Wendell who was alright and the guy who played Francis who was baaaaad. So into spoiler territory: [sp]I liked how for the majority of the film it was very subtle about the vampirism, and tried to pass off the kidnapped people as possibly just "they're serial killers," but the fact that they had a door with a fucking crazy ghost kid in it kind of ruined that. Then at the end they just went full out "Yeah they're vampires" with Francis growing big dumb teeth and having a monologue about, "OOOO, we work alongside you and our kids play with your kids, we're everwhere!" That was pretty stupid.[/sp] At the end I felt like I had wasted my time watching a poorly made trying-to-be-original movie.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42580827]Uhh, no Looper is great and everything in the plot (that can be explained) is explained. The only thing they hand wave is the paraxodical-ness inherant to a time travel plot, because every single other time travel movie has the exact same gaping hole. The only difference is that Looper actually addresses it, even if it's a 'don't think about it too much' kind of way. What they are saying is, hey, this is a movie. There's always gonna be some problems with a time travel story. But just enjoy the story we are telling you anyway, which makes sense in the universe it's told in. There's no bad writing in the movie, it's solid as hell. I had a pretty big investment in the characters, and the thing it did really well is show you that both young an old, Joe is still as selfish as ever, just for different reasons. The young one was headstrong and self involved and wasn't a forward thinker. He saw what he wanted in the moment and took it without regard for others or himself in the future. This was a great contrast to the old Joe's hypocrisy, who was willing to kill 3 children (and anyone else) to get his wife and life back, not for the benefit of his wife, but for the benefit of himself. He could have saved his wife's life at any time by topping himself, but instead wanted her back only to be with her himself. Obviously in the end, young Joe saw the error of both his present and future self, and did what old Joe could have (should have?) done, essentially saving everybody in an ultimate act of selflessness. screw you if you thought that was bad writing. hey wanna talk about other time travel plot holes? How does John Connor exist in the first place to send his own father back in time to impregnate his mother? yeah that's what I thought, bozo.[/QUOTE] I don't remember them explaining a god-damned thing about the criminal organization other than "we use time travel just because we need to have an excuse for this plot to happen." Everything else was supremely predictable, especially the suicide at the end. I can suspend my disbelief for time travel plots but if they don't throw me anything to work with there isn't much I can be expected to do. It bothered me up until the end that "we employ people to execute people from the future in the past because _______ when we easily could do it ourselves in the first place because evidently we don't care about collateral damage when we send our 4 man armed hit squads to capture the targets." The whole plot rested on that single point and I simply could not find a single justification for this bizzar behavior in-universe other than "don't think too hard about it, turn off your brain, and just watch." If they had given me that I probably wouldn't have been so critical of the movie. Never really saw any of the Terminator movies. I'm sure they were much better than Looper and I'm sure there was probably a cogent reason for every plot point.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42583887]I don't remember them explaining a god-damned thing about the criminal organization other than "we use time travel just because we need to have an excuse for this plot to happen."[/QUOTE] wtf? it completely IS explained, specifically. [sp]The targets aren't killed in the future, because technology is so advanced, it's impossible to get rid of the evidence or make somebody 'disappear', there are life monitors and what not and will always supposedly lead to the body or what remains of the body. by literally disappearing the body without a trace, they actually do just go missing, which would not be possible otherwise. hence sending them back to the past to kill them. were you even paying attention? because that is more than enough info for a stellar story to be told. do they need to hand-hold you through the exact time travel science too?[/sp] [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42583887] Never really saw any of the Terminator movies. I'm sure they were much better than Looper and I'm sure there was probably a cogent reason for every plot point.[/QUOTE] Nope not really, they don't even try to explain the paradoxes brought forth by the plot. Everything just is, and nobody gives a shit, because the story it tells owns regardless. Plot holes don't ruin a movie. Find me a single person that doesn't like Terminator 2, despite its huge and obvious time travel plotholes. Plot holes don't matter if the movie is great despite them, and they matter even less so when it's a time travel plot, because there's no way not to have plot holes, so you just go with it. It's science fiction. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] The only thing that throws me off is why it was okay to kill [sp]Bruce's wife in the future. That's a bit of a head scratcher. But not a movie ruiner by any means.[/sp] [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] also you really need to watch t2 (t1 first if you have the time but it's not required)

The Grey (2012) Not a bad movie. I like the gravity they have each death, they made people dying a very visceral, personal feeling in a way I haven't quite seen before in a film. At the same time it tried too hard at points, for instance whenever he recited his father's poem you can tell they wanted it to be this deep powerful moment and it just fell flat for me. It also didn't help that I had no idea what this movie was going to be about and this movie came out just after the Taken movies and I expected a white-knuckle action thriller but that's hardly the movie's fault. A pretty decent movie but I wouldn't watch it twice.

I liked Looper but the kid and its superpowers were really tacky and I saw it coming from a mile away when they dropped that "hey there are telekinesis dudes but haha look they are very weak" scene into the script. And the thing is that I know I was supposed to see it from a mile away and I feel kinda insulted by that. Could've been much more subtle. And "Kid with superpowers" is always a very bad plot device so there's that.

[QUOTE=Killuah;42584045]I liked Looper but the kid and its superpowers were really tacky and I saw it coming from a mile away when they dropped that "hey there are telekinesis dudes but haha look they are very weak" scene into the script. And the thing is that I know I was supposed to see it from a mile away and I feel kinda insulted by that. Could've been much more subtle. And "Kid with superpowers" is always a very bad plot device so there's that.[/QUOTE] Why is that inherently bad? I don't think it is. As long as it's done well and doesn't fall prey to the hollywood cliches surrounding it. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] and i think the kid [sp]exploding a man mid air is pretty much new territory for 'kid with telekinesis.'[/sp]

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42584017]wtf? it completely IS explained, specifically. [sp]The targets aren't killed in the future, because technology is so advanced, it's impossible to get rid of the evidence or make somebody 'disappear', there are life monitors and what not and will always supposedly lead to the body or what remains of the body. by literally disappearing the body without a trace, they actually do just go missing, which would not be possible otherwise. hence sending them back to the past to kill them. were you even paying attention? because that is more than enough info for a stellar story to be told. do they need to hand-hold you through the exact time travel science too?[/sp] [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] Nope not really, they don't even try to explain the paradoxes brought forth by the plot. Everything just is, and nobody gives a shit, because the story it tells owns regardless. Plot holes don't ruin a movie. Find me a single person that doesn't like Terminator 2, despite its huge and obvious time travel plotholes. Plot holes don't matter if the movie is great despite them, and they matter even less so when it's a time travel plot, because there's no way not to have plot holes, so you just go with it. It's science fiction. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] The only thing that throws me off is why it was okay to kill [sp]Bruce's wife in the future. That's a bit of a head scratcher. But not a movie ruiner by any means.[/sp] [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] also you really need to watch t2 (t1 first if you have the time but it's not required)[/QUOTE] Oh really? I don't remember that part. That makes a lot more sense. I will admit that I was scurrying around when it came on and taking care of shit so I wasn't giving it my undivided attention like it deserved. I might give it a second run through some day because obviously I missed important plot points. Also I'll put the Terminator films at the top of my list [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rusty100;42584057]Why is that inherently bad? I don't think it is. As long as it's done well and doesn't fall prey to the hollywood cliches surrounding it. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] and i think the kid [sp]exploding a man mid air is pretty much new territory for 'kid with telekinesis.'[/sp][/QUOTE] For a bit I was almost rooting for Old Joe even though I knew I wasn't supposed to because that kid had "evil supervillain" written all over him.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42584017]wtf? it completely IS explained, specifically. [sp]The targets aren't killed in the future, because technology is so advanced, it's impossible to get rid of the evidence or make somebody 'disappear', there are life monitors and what not and will always supposedly lead to the body or what remains of the body. by literally disappearing the body without a trace, they actually do just go missing, which would not be possible otherwise. hence sending them back to the past to kill them. were you even paying attention? because that is more than enough info for a stellar story to be told. do they need to hand-hold you through the exact time travel science too?[/sp] [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] Nope not really, they don't even try to explain the paradoxes brought forth by the plot. Everything just is, and nobody gives a shit, because the story it tells owns regardless. Plot holes don't ruin a movie. Find me a single person that doesn't like Terminator 2, despite its huge and obvious time travel plotholes. Plot holes don't matter if the movie is great despite them, and they matter even less so when it's a time travel plot, because there's no way not to have plot holes, so you just go with it. It's science fiction. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] The only thing that throws me off is why it was okay to kill [sp]Bruce's wife in the future. That's a bit of a head scratcher. But not a movie ruiner by any means.[/sp] [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] also you really need to watch t2 (t1 first if you have the time but it's not required)[/QUOTE] So the movie explains weird plot points like sending people back in time to be killed but DOESN'T explain its paradoxes. Why explain one with a crude "future is too advanced" story (that doesn't even matter later on, see [sp]his wife being killed[/sp]) but not the other? I just don't like movies that constantly raises questions only the movie could answer.

Also Looper was on some TV station that came on that I watched on impulse so it's possible they bowdlerized it.

I feel like the movie didn't need to answer them. It was a great story despite it's plotholes that I thoroughly enjoyed. Any and every movie will have some degree of plot holes. Even in breaking bad it is never explained how walt managed to poisen brock, and i can't really picture how he could even do that without being seen. but everyone just rolls with it. because the story is so good regardless. that's how i feel with looper

It's because Walt is a cancer ninja. That's how he evades the DEA dragnets.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;42584057]Why is that inherently bad? I don't think it is. As long as it's done well and doesn't fall prey to the hollywood cliches surrounding it. [editline]20th October 2013[/editline] and i think the kid [sp]exploding a man mid air is pretty much new territory for 'kid with telekinesis.'[/sp][/QUOTE] It's so lazy. "And then a xxxx with superpowers appears" is such bad writing. And those few "look there are telekinesis people but they are weak" make that even worse in my eyes. It's like someone read the script and then noticed that they couldn't suddenly have a kid with superpowers in the script so they dropped a little "mutant" scene here and there. And besides that I think it really changes the subject of the movie. It was about Joe vs. Joe before and that was enough to carry the movie. Of course it's still about Joe vs. Joe when the kid comes in but that completely changed the point of their conflict. Think about this: Would the movie WITHOUT the kid make it [I]more[/I] or [I]less[/I] COMPLICATED for young Joe? It makes it [I]MORE[/I] complicated(aka interesting) because he wouldn't have that [sp]self-sacrifice[/sp] excuse.