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

The romance was shoe horned in because it meant their survival. The characters have no personality because they've all been thrust into this nightmare and forced to kill other kids, so naturally... they're all scared out of their mind. I have a feeling there will be more character in the sequel now. I mostly enjoyed how hopeless and meaningless everything was, they're killing eachother for no reason because the higher ups want to watch gladiatorial games and they add arbitrary rules that really mean fuck all. The kids are just entertainment and nothing more.

It doesn't matter if a character is supposed to have no personality. No one wants to watch a robot for 2 hours.

[QUOTE=Scot;42925549]The Hunger Games is fine. If you think it's dreadful then you obviously haven't seen many movies.[/QUOTE] or ive seen lots of fantastic movies and the hunger games holds nothing to any of them

[QUOTE=The_Marine;42925894] The characters have no personality because they've all been thrust into this nightmare and forced to kill other kids, so naturally... they're all scared out of their mind.[/QUOTE] The only movie characters who have any excuse to be as bland and devoid of personality as the cast of Hunger Games are robots and the recently brainwashed. I don't watch a movie to see the main character try her hardest to be a blank slate for 2,5 hours, especially when she's in a conflict where she's the one I'm supposed to be rooting for.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;42926177]or ive seen lots of fantastic movies and the hunger games holds nothing to any of them[/QUOTE] Doesn't make it a bad movie.

The Mask 9/10. Really fun movie.Jim Carrey played good. Not much to say about this one. Ace Ventura:When Nature Calls 9.50/10 I think i crapped my pants laughing at this one. Jim Carrey is absolutely brilliant,the movie has a lot of funny moments,and it's worth watching!

[QUOTE=Scot;42926286]Doesn't make it a bad movie.[/QUOTE] no but all the points made in this thread do lol

You guys should also remember that they didnt know if Hunger Games was going to be a hit or not so they didnt exactly put all there effort in making it a great movie. Im expecting Catching Fire to fix some of that.

thats honestly retarded like if they didn't think it was going to make money they 1)wouldn't have made it because investors don't want to lose money 2) would have tried even harder to make it better, so that they actually make money?? You 100% cannot blame a bad film on that. No film is a guaranteed success. Every single film is a risky investment. And there's loads of great films that don't make money, lots of great small films that barely see cinema release, assuming they actually do. Whenever you set out to make a film you should try and make it the best it can be. If your logic was the case there would be literally no good movies cos they'd just be like "well idk man it's probably not gonna be successful anyway so why bother"

[QUOTE=mark6789;42927022]they didnt know if Hunger Games was going to be a hit or not so they didnt exactly put all there effort in making it a great movie.[/QUOTE] what has it being a hit got to do with it being a good film?

[QUOTE=mark6789;42927022]You guys should also remember that they didnt know if Hunger Games was going to be a hit or not so they didnt exactly put all there effort in making it a great movie. Im expecting Catching Fire to fix some of that.[/QUOTE] Yeah, try pulling that shit on a test or fucking up in the workspace. "No really, the reason I fucked it up is because I didn't put all that much effort in it, which I did because I didn't expect to do the job well."

Im talking book movies. There either a success or there not a success so its always a risk with book movies.

I don't see how that changes what you said at all

I dont either. What i think im trying to say is, on book movies they dont put a ton of effort into the first installment on the chance that its bad so they dont take that much of a loss on profit. Look at the other book movies that have came out this year and have failed.

Yeah aren't like at least half the movies out there based on books anyway? You're probably talking about the generic adaptations of fantasy-ish book series, stuff like Harry Potter or Percy Jackson, but even those didn't "hold back" in their first installments

[b]À bout de souffle[/b] Some pieces were damn fun and I loved how it was a giant parody of the noir & gangster movie genres from the classical hollywood era. Also Jean Seberg was SO DAMN HOT. like, fuck, I couldn't stop thinking how hot she was. Perhaps the movie I enjoyed the most out of the whole cinema class so far. 9/10 for today's standards, the long takes and Novelle Vague style can alienate a modern viewer a lot. 10/10 for 1960's standards. [editline]Edited:[/editline] Hah, this talk about movie adaptations reminds me I have to organize a public stoning of M.N.Shyamalan for what he did to Avatar: the Last Airbender

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;42928045]What about Forrest Gump? What about Fight Club? What about The Godfather? What about Mary Poppins? Book movies are insanely easy to market and they can and have been made very well in the past. It doesn't matter what kind of movie you're making, you give it your best shot or don't try in the first place.[/QUOTE] Huh, never knew Forrest Gump and Fight Club were based off books. The more you know I guess.

[QUOTE=cardfan212;42928802]Huh, never knew Forrest Gump and Fight Club were based off books. The more you know I guess.[/QUOTE] Forrest Gump even has a sequel, oddly.

I love that film. To me its the coolest film ever made, even to todays standards. Godard is just like a rebellious teenager who's had enough of the system and wants to do whatever the fuck he wants so he just goes and takes what he knows and totally turns it on his head and packs it full of just the kind of Marxist and existential themes you'd expect to find. its just so good and satisfying. I recently wrote in an essay that touched on French New Wave and I said that if people like Wiene bent the motion picture then Godard broke it. And I stand by that and mean it in a very good way. Breathless is, even 53 years on, the freshest and coolest film I've ever seen. I could write a big ass essay on New Wave itself easy, and the same for Breathless itself. [SIZE=1][COLOR=#444444][B]Edited:[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE] And its influence is insane. You can see Godard in Scorsese, Tarantino, Korine... The list goes on. Tbh Tarantino blatantly steals from Godard all the fucking time. Uma Therman's character in Pulp Fiction is just Anna Karina in Vivre Sa Vie. She looks like her, she talks like her, she smokes like her, she has the dance scene, she has the same dialogue. A lot of the style of Tarantino's camera also comes right out of Godard. Hell his production company is called A Band Apart, after the Godard film A Bande A Part.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;42928703] Hah, this talk about movie adaptations reminds me I have to organize a public stoning of M.N.Shyamalan for what he did to Avatar: the Last Airbender[/QUOTE] I refuse to believe Shyamalan actually watched the series. Hell, I don't even believe the guy was sober when he made it. It's the only reason I can give for shit like the Earthbender's prison and the, frankly, abysmal acting.

Haven't watched the movie, never want to. I've seen a few clips though. Terrible.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;42928990]I love that film. To me its the coolest film ever made, even to todays standards. Godard is just like a rebellious teenager who's had enough of the system and wants to do whatever the fuck he wants so he just goes and takes what he knows and totally turns it on his head and packs it full of just the kind of Marxist and existential themes you'd expect to find. its just so good and satisfying. I recently wrote in an essay that touched on French New Wave that if people like Wiene bent the motion picture then Godard broke it. And I stand by that and mean it in a very good way. Breathless is, even 53 years on, the freshest and coolest film I've ever seen. I could write a big ass essay on New Wave itself easy, and the same for Breathless itself. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] And its influence is insane. You can see Godard in Scorsese, Tarantino, Korine... The list goes on. Tbh Tarantino blatantly steals from Godard all the fucking time. Uma Therman's character in Pulp Fiction is just Anna Karina in Vivre Sa Vie. She looks like her, she talks like her, she smokes like her, she has the dance scene, she has the same dialogue. A lot of the style of Tarantino's camera also comes right out of Godard. Hell his production company is called A Band Apart, after the Godard film A Bande A Part.[/QUOTE] Hell yeah, I loved it. I'll go and watch more from Godard myself.. I just wish my class could talk some more about him but we're in a hurry because of tight deadlines. [editline]21st November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;42929197]I refuse to believe Shyamalan actually watched the series. Hell, I don't even believe the guy was sober when he made it. It's the only reason I can give for shit like the Earthbender's prison and the, frankly, abysmal acting.[/QUOTE] The guy changed the ethnicity of an entire race to give himself main charachter role in the movie. I think you can't do anything worse than that to a movie. Let's not discuss how avatar is already 'orientalized' to give it 'other' and 'exotic' status, but holy shit making the bad guys indian and the good guys white? Christ what were you thinking. Like, cameo appearances of the director in the movie? It's fun, I'm game. Main charachter status? Woah woah hold the phone we're risking a [i]The Room[/i] here.

I got the rifftrax a while back but [I]still [/I]haven't watched it

hungr games is just stupid can we stop now ugh havent seen it yet tho The Counselor - 6/10 ridley scot nooooo. this movie is so unnecessary, you can EASILY tell that it's an adaptation of a book because of all the terrible conversation scenes where i think Ridley scott just went "ok so here fassbender says this then this mexican dude does this and then fassbender cries very emotionally" and it just doesnt feel right. like its just words, theres no weight behind them. had a few cool scenes though, which were mostly all the action driven ones where stuff was actually happening.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;42929463]I got the rifftrax a while back but [I]still [/I]haven't watched it[/QUOTE] I did. The Rifftrax is the only reason anyone should ever get a copy of the movie. Same deal with The Happening.

[QUOTE=Xephio;42930101]hungr games is just stupid can we stop now ugh havent seen it yet tho The Counselor - 6/10 ridley scot nooooo. this movie is so unnecessary, [B]you can EASILY tell that it's an adaptation of a book[/B] because of all the terrible conversation scenes where i think Ridley scott just went "ok so here fassbender says this then this mexican dude does this and then fassbender cries very emotionally" and it just doesnt feel right. like its just words, theres no weight behind them. had a few cool scenes though, which were mostly all the action driven ones where stuff was actually happening.[/QUOTE] The joke's on you, it's an original script.

the perfect description of my reaction to the counselor is javier's reaction to malkina fucking his car.

Catching Fire was pretty good. The camera work was good and as well the story. 7-8/10

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;42930725]I did. The Rifftrax is the only reason anyone should ever get a copy of the movie. Same deal with The Happening.[/QUOTE] I've seen bits and pieces of The Happening. Think I might watch it.

12 years a slave was pretty great [editline]21st November 2013[/editline] the shot of him [sp]in the noose after almost being hanged to death that lingered on while no one would stop to help him, it was super uncomfortable and pretty horrible to watch, very effective direction on mcqueen's part.[/sp]