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

[QUOTE=AK'z;42703835]well, Bad Grandpa got the same rating as Blue Is the Warmest Color on Ebert's site. I think it's fair to say I won't be bothering with any more new reviews on that site any more..[/QUOTE] To be honest neither of them was a great film, just it happened that one has won Palme d'Or in Cannes and other is a Jackass movie.

[QUOTE=Joz;42704349]To be honest neither of them was a great film, just it happened that one has won Palme d'Or in Cannes and other is a Jackass movie.[/QUOTE] After Earth was rated higher than both on that site... now you understand?

Hey you know this movie? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NerHJqENCvs[/media] He gave it 2 stars because he used to read the comic strip when he was a kid.

[QUOTE=AK'z;42704416]After Earth was rated higher than both on that site... now you understand?[/QUOTE] I'm with you on this. After Ebert's death his site should become an archive for his reviews and nothing more. But because of money some people try to promote themselves on his name. And their reviews will never be even close to what Ebert wrote. Though I think he wouldn't like either of those films.

[QUOTE=shian;42704606]Hey you know this movie? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NerHJqENCvs[/media] He gave it 2 stars because he used to read the comic strip when he was a kid.[/QUOTE] honestly i can see the reasoning behind that, as long as he stated, one way or another, that he realizes its objectively a bad movie regardless of how he feels about it like, one thing is giving it bonus points just for the nostalgia factor, but nostalgia shouldnt cloud your judgement as a professional

Rango 8/10 ++ for the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas reference.

Here, have a hidden gem: [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuP5kUQro40[/MEDIA]

rewatching Hard Candy. It's good.

[QUOTE=AK'z;42704273]He was quite a good writer, but I like reviewers who are consistent with what they look for in film. I didn't agree with everything but he had a recognisable pattern. It's only when I realised how learned he was when listening to his Dark City commentary, he really analysed that film and drew off influences like a dedicated student of film. But these new reviewers are pathetic.[/QUOTE] IMO his 'great movies' list were normally better than his reviews. And personally I think it's impossible to have the exact same opinions on films with someone else. There's always gonna be one film, one actor, hell one scene or cut you'll prefer that someone is definitely going to disagree with. However like you said, Ebert definitely had a recognisable pattern and generally, his taste wasn't bad at all.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;42704682] that he realizes its objectively a bad movie regardless of how he feels about it [/QUOTE] Who cares [editline]31st October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=kimchimafia;42706166]IMO his 'great movies' list were normally better than his reviews. And personally I think it's impossible to have the exact same opinions on films with someone else. There's always gonna be one film, one actor, hell one scene or cut you'll prefer that someone is definitely going to disagree with. However like you said, Ebert definitely had a recognisable pattern and generally, his taste wasn't bad at all.[/QUOTE] once you see a whole lot of films beyond the "greats", everyone gets that noticeable pattern anyway.

[QUOTE=AK'z;42709253]once you see a whole lot of films beyond the "greats", everyone gets that noticeable pattern anyway.[/QUOTE] Yeah but I like reading about people's extended opinions on the 'greats' even though they tend to be universally positive. Despite them generally being "wow a great movie", the ways the reviewer reach that conclusion is always interesting, more so if the person knows what he's/she's talking about.

[B]John Carpenter's The Thing[/B] - 10/10 [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/ThingPoster.jpg[/t] Watched this again, and it still freaks me out. Also I saw it with my roommate, it was his first time and he was losing his mind. It's fantastic. If it has one weakness, I think the dog scene isn't that well done. It feels like it hits too hard for such an early scene, the acid-spraying is never seen again, and the effects seem a bit weak in comparison to the other scenes as the doge just lies there while flailing around. But holy cow the rest of this movie is damn near perfect. The practical effects are amazing and terrifying, the actors are all very natural, and the mood of paranoia is established perfectly. I still don't know when each person gets turned, if people know they're Things or if they're sleeper agents, who messed with the blood sample, who shredded MacReady's jacket... There's plenty of things to wonder and discuss - and tons of reasons to watch it again and again.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;42709519]If it has one weakness, I think the dog scene isn't that well done. It feels like it hits too hard for such an early scene, the acid-spraying is never seen again, and the effects seem a bit weak in comparison to the other scenes as the doge just lies there while flailing around.[/QUOTE] That dog thing never sprayed acid though and most of the things stay still while they attempt to absorb other organisms. Although the dog thing did try to get away by growing arms. [editline]31st October 2013[/editline] IMO the dog part was just fine, it was a very well done scene to establish the capabilities of the thing whilst not revealing everything. It's not even that hard hitting (since you already know that dog is weird) and tbh it was just unavoidable after keeping the dog so mysterious and eerie for awhile.

[QUOTE=AK'z;42709253]Who cares[/QUOTE] what? im assuming if people read the reviews then they probably care

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;42711307]what? im assuming if people read the reviews then they probably care[/QUOTE] [quote] its objectively a bad movie regardless of how he feels about it[/quote]

what is your point?

what is your major malfunction [editline]31st October 2013[/editline] gonna watch: [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076162/][img]http://i48.fastpic.ru/big/2013/0814/bf/67d67039d3cfad37c39661d6857947bf.jpg[/img][/url]

[QUOTE=AK'z;42712038]what is your major malfunction[/QUOTE] rude

[QUOTE=AK'z;42712038] gonna watch: [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076162/][img]http://i48.fastpic.ru/big/2013/0814/bf/67d67039d3cfad37c39661d6857947bf.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] Hey, I'm about to watch this too!

Is "You're Next" any good? Might want to give it a shot with my girlfriend.

Its pretty good, like a 7/10 but very disappointing to me at least. Since there was so much potential for an absolutely outstanding self-aware horror film. Could have been a cult classic. Still worth a watch if not only for the last 20 minutes though, they're fucking amazing. [editline]31st October 2013[/editline] Could've been the next big thing on horror. Had to potential to top Cabin in The Woods and Tucker And Dale vs Evil. Coulda, shoulda, didn't.

I say it's still a fun lil' flick. The first 30 minutes is the worst thing ever filmed, but after that it's really enjoyable.

Antichrist - 8/10 I saw it before and thought it was a load of pretentious rubbish, but it's a lot better than I thought. The only other Lars von Trier film I've seen is Melancholia, and I prefer that much more. I quite like his shaky camera, and love the slow-motion shots in both films. I'm curious about Nymphomaniac and will check it out when possible.

[QUOTE=Echidna666;42717648]Antichrist - 8/10 I saw it before and thought it was a load of pretentious rubbish, but it's a lot better than I thought. The only other Lars von Trier film I've seen is Melancholia, and I prefer that much more. I quite like his shaky camera, and love the slow-motion shots in both films. I'm curious about Nymphomaniac and will check it out when possible.[/QUOTE] Breaking The Waves and Dancer in the Dark are some of his best for me. Can't wait for his new flick.

The Conjuring - 6/10 Eh, if you've seen any possession horror film, you've seen them all. [editline]31st October 2013[/editline] Predictable jump-scares, predictable plot, very basic but it was pretty entertaining at the climax. Also there was [i]no[/i] reason for it to be rated R. There was no sex/nudity, almost no blood, the violence wasn't gross-out or anything, and there was barely any profanity. It should've been a light-PG13.

^depends on the context of usage hence why a film like The Right Stuff (in which they freely float around plenty of fucks) is PG or why kingdom of the crystal skull is pg-13, when they only say shit like twice.

I watched all the Homestar Runner Halloween toons (ten years' worth of stuff, about two hours) and it was excellent. [editline]1984[/editline] [B]Ghostbusters[/B] 5/5 [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Ghostbusters_cover.png[/t] This film is fantastic. I could write a lot about why I love it so much but I won't because I am lazy.

[QUOTE=AK'z;42717844]Breaking The Waves and Dancer in the Dark are some of his best for me. Can't wait for his new flick.[/QUOTE] Breaking The Waves is one of the single best films I've ever seen. Easy scores a place in my top 5. Emily Watson's performance is the greatest female performance of all time imo. Can't wait for Nymphomaniac. Von Trier's a master. [editline]1st November 2013[/editline] I've noticed Breaking The Waves is way overshadowed by Dancer In The Dark though which imo was not nearly as good (although still a fantastic film) Breaking The Waves is much more powerful to me.

[QUOTE=Echidna666;42717648]Antichrist - 8/10 I saw it before and thought it was a load of pretentious rubbish, but it's a lot better than I thought.[/QUOTE] I'd watch it again, but I don't know if I can handle the gratuitous [sp]goblin dick[/sp] and other wonderful scenes.

Antichrist is one of the most enthralling films to watch tbh [editline]1st November 2013[/editline] fascinating film