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

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;42999120][img]http://i.imgur.com/a0WMgHV.png[/img] /r/movies once again setting the standard for quality film discussion[/QUOTE] /tv/ is a bit like that too.

[QUOTE=Scot;42999223]/tv/ is a bit like that too.[/QUOTE] at least /r/movies doesn't have FOR YOU posts every day

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;42996869]I know what you're saying, it's just that you (though mostly AK'z) made it sound like foreign filmmakers really are better, just because they're foreign. [/QUOTE] All I saw was "English movies are somehow the be all end all of filmmaking". Seeing as you mentioned the huge number of filmmakers of jumping ship to the US, I assumed you were focusing on Hollywood. Still... indie films will rise ;) unlike batman [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;42996869]since everyone views then as "exotic" and whatnot[/QUOTE] nooo why did you have to say this :( you're brazilian too, why are you trying to act pseudo-foreign?

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;42999239]at least /r/movies doesn't have FOR YOU posts every day[/QUOTE] As stupid as it is, watching The Dark Knight Rises after daily dose of /tv/ is now several times more enjoyable experience.

Man of Steel 4/5 I still think it's a pretty good film, but after seeing it a second time, it really is jarring once you realize how many of the characters- and people in general- just die. Also, this time it looked as if they toned down the heavy saturation filter, but I could have been imagining it.

[QUOTE=Pops;42999181]is that guy implying that avengers was bad? my blood is boiling.[/QUOTE] Avengers was not that good imo and very cheesy (but still enjoyable) but thats besides the point-- yes he was. Guy sounds like a real pseudo intellectual snob. The film was Place Beyond The Pines, it's not even some arthouse film at all. Just a Hollywood film thats kinda different cos its some different stories.

I haven't seen The Avengers, mostly due to the fact that I don't really care for superhero movies.

Video Game High School 3/10 Bad acting, but funny and clever CGI thanks to Freddie Wong

I loved The Avengers. 9/10

Avengers was a fun movie, sometimes I like to have fun.

BLASPHEMY!

[B]Disconnect[/B] nice film. Nothing special, but it's well made and has some good acting especially by Jason Bateman who was interesting to watch in a non comedic role. 7/10

I remember the shawarma scene in the avengers because after the movie I went and got chicken shawarma over rice with lentil soup

Catching Fire, 8/10, it was much better than I expected. Although to be fair I expected nothing from it.

So 8/10 better than nothing? :D

Here I go catching sleeper minor masterpieces on HBO again a year after they've passed out of judgment - John Carter; a 7/10 on the Rusty100 Normalized Scale. That's primarily due to the fact that (a) I'm attuned to staring deeply into fictional worlds, and (b) the strength put into that premise redeems whatever internal logic has actors do things we'd find cheesy. With *those* bits of judgment put at arms' length for a bit, you'd think we'd be feting the writers for working *both* a third column *and* a subverted Brazil (and Carter's wheeze at the end makes up for aborting what could've possibly been an endless spigot of feels; I'd have loved the movie for dying on me. That's precisely because I spend too much time dreading a franchise somehow managing to become more transparent each and every iteration.) I never quite understood the antipathy for it - but it's a fairly shitty trope to have pasted on you: director spends an inheritance and a half first imagining (production accountants shuddering at the thought projecting street prices of hallucinogens six months into the future, and all that;) and then realizing a world - precisely then to have it fade into complete nothingness. City of Ember, sadly enough - or not so, if getting kicks out of obscurantism has any value - falls into that category as well; and, sadly enough, I can't wait for the next person to dream a world and fail to write the narrative that'll give it glory. (Both, incidentally enough, would do just as brilliantly as adventure games - presumably we're less judgmental about a plot when we're right in the thick of the agency. Were Grim Fandango to become a movie we'd be sneering at it as well - hmm.) Tropic, though? Down with you for thinking a transparent (and compromised) transfer from the Imperial Roman Army in combination with a vast and spare world (and so a vast and spare people) isn't required at this point - Tolkien can't be the holder of a monopoly on watertight escapism, damnit.

Just finished watching The Lives of Others for around the third time, still heartfelt and poignant as the first time I watched it. 9/10. It has an amazing theme. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz48W9UMRL0[/media]

Dog Pound 9/10 Holy fuck I wasnt expected none of that, I thought it was going to be about 3 white boys who tries to get out of prison by good behavior and shit. Great movie and acting, [sp]God that riot scene got me super excited[/sp]

Irreversible (rewatch)- 5/5 Yeah I actually watched to watch this film for a second time. Imo its fantastic. Pretty much everyone online says that they've only watched this once and couldn't dare watch it a second time. Sure it's a tough film but I watched it about a year ago and it's been in the back of my mind ever since and is one of the most powerful and unforgettable films I've seen. I guess the plot of the film is really really basic. Guy goes out with girl. Girl gets raped. Guy goes to get revenge. But it's the way it's done. The way it's shot, the way it's told, the incredible sound design and special effects, and backwards narrative (the film starts and the end and works its way to the start scene by scene) I think the things I love about this the most are the little things. I think the quality of the entire film is hugely overshadowed by the very explicit, but not gratuitous in the slightest, rape scene. Running at almost 10 minutes it's incredibly harrowing to watch. It's the only scene in the film where the camera is still. The rest of the time it's spinning around doing 360's and 180s in gay bars, jumping in and out of car windows, flying around the streets at up to about 30mph. Stellar performances by real life couple Vincent Cassell and Monica Belluci (deliberately chosen for authenticity), incredible direction and cinematography, sound design that's top notch and really really fantastic SFX. This film has some of the best use of CGI I've ever seen (I felt the same way for director Gaspar Noé's later film, Enter The Void- both of these films are technical marvels) It's the subtleties that make this stand on its own and not be some rape and revenge film. The fact that it's told in backwards chronological order just changes the entire film and 100% for the better. It raises questions for one. We don't know who these people are or why they just [sp]absolutely destroyed a man's face with a fire extinguisher, leaving it nothing but a bloody pulp[/sp]. And [sp]why is that dude who's standing watching laughing? We only learn later -and not explicitly- that the man they murder is NOT the rapist. The rapist is the man watching. But obviously they don't know what he looks like.[/sp] Also, being told backwards adds meaning to all the scenes leading up to (or in the order of the film, before) the rape. We've witnessed the rape and its repercussions and now we watch the earlier part of the night and it's absolutely harrowing. It's harrowing because it's normal. They're normal people going on a normal night out. Marcus and Alex are painfully realistic in the final/first scene where they're naked in the house. They laugh, touch, have fun... Etc. You see where I'm going with this. I don't want to ruin anything. It shows how easily things can go out of hand. This film is brought on by just two little sentences, pretty much. Alex says she'll walk home herself, and then the girl tells her to take the underpass instead of cross the road "because it's safer" (from traffic I assume). And that's all it took to change all 3 of these characters' lives. I mean, obviously it required the rape but that character is someone we haven't met. However I think the most important part of its being told backwards is this- it means rape and revenge are not payoffs. The film is not exploitative because of this. If the film did what many horror films do, and build up characters that are pretty normal etc and then kill them its a payoff. They build it up, they let it down. It's pornographic. But Gaspar Noe has none of this. I can't remember where but I remember that in response to his being called sick, he called out Hollywood horror films as being the real sick filmmakers as they glorify extreme violence whereas Noe's bleak objectivity and narrative techniques inherently condemn the violence. There is no revenge in Irreversible, because to the viewer nothing has happened to justify a vengeance. All we're seeing is a brutal murder. If the film were in order, the audience would come out of the theater thinking, "Ha! That rapist sure got what coming to him, the scum!" but for us now, because it's backwards, we're left empty. We're left contemplating. We wish it didn't happen but it does happen and we got an insight into one of the worst things a man can do, and we were forced to watch it all happen in all its brutality. It would be unfair to cut away or imply, because that softens the blow and sympathises with the rapist. But the rapist is a horrible person, Alex is a lovely girl and a fighter, and the film is not torture porn. This film is justified in everything it does and a lot of it comes down to the film being told backwards. One thing that hit me so hard was when [sp]Alex tells Marcus she's late on her period, when they wake up late (early) in the film.[/sp] It hit me really hard not just because she's going to be raped later... But because I then realised what something he said meant. He says to Alex [s[]"Are you bleeding or are you wet?"[/sp] I then realised what happened and I was horrified. [sp]she miscarried.[/sp] This is also an existential film. It deals with things like free will, determinism, responsibility, causality, and chance. It's absolutely not some cheap exploitation film from the 70s, and so far from a shlocky Hollywood torture porn film that it's ridiculous and quite honestly offensive that people compare it. Irreversible is as real as it gets and as good a film as any I've seen. One of my favourites, although it's not a film you enjoy. To me it's a masterpiece. Absolutely highly recommend this but with a strong disclaimer- forget zombie films, action films, even dark and gritty gang films or whatever. This is one of the most disturbing and shocking films ever made. Other films make you cringe from the violence. Irreversible will shake you to the core. It's relentless and brutal and rightly so. If it wasn't it would be hypocritical. The film is incredible but not for everyone and definitely not for anyone with a weak stomach.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;43012060]Easy A: 9/10 [/QUOTE] Movie was really funny too. Any scene with the parents was gold.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;43011276]Irreversible (rewatch)- 5/5 Yeah I actually watched to watch this film for a second time. Imo its fantastic. Pretty much everyone online says that they've only watched this once and couldn't dare watch it a second time. Sure it's a tough film but I watched it about a year ago and it's been in the back of my mind ever since and is one of the most powerful and unforgettable films I've seen. I guess the plot of the film is really really basic. Guy goes out with girl. Girl gets raped. Guy goes to get revenge. But it's the way it's done. The way it's shot, the way it's told, the incredible sound design and special effects, and backwards narrative (the film starts and the end and works its way to the start scene by scene) I think the things I love about this the most are the little things. I think the quality of the entire film is hugely overshadowed by the very explicit, but not gratuitous in the slightest, rape scene. Running at almost 10 minutes it's incredibly harrowing to watch. It's the only scene in the film where the camera is still. The rest of the time it's spinning around doing 360's and 180s in gay bars, jumping in and out of car windows, flying around the streets at up to about 30mph. Stellar performances by real life couple Vincent Cassell and Monica Belluci (deliberately chosen for authenticity), incredible direction and cinematography, sound design that's top notch and really really fantastic SFX. This film has some of the best use of CGI I've ever seen (I felt the same way for director Gaspar Noé's later film, Enter The Void- both of these films are technical marvels) It's the subtleties that make this stand on its own and not be some rape and revenge film. The fact that it's told in backwards chronological order just changes the entire film and 100% for the better. It raises questions for one. We don't know who these people are or why they just [sp]absolutely destroyed a man's face with a fire extinguisher, leaving it nothing but a bloody pulp[/sp]. And [sp]why is that dude who's standing watching laughing? We only learn later -and not explicitly- that the man they murder is NOT the rapist. The rapist is the man watching. But obviously they don't know what he looks like.[/sp] Also, being told backwards adds meaning to all the scenes leading up to (or in the order of the film, before) the rape. We've witnessed the rape and its repercussions and now we watch the earlier part of the night and it's absolutely harrowing. It's harrowing because it's normal. They're normal people going on a normal night out. Marcus and Alex are painfully realistic in the final/first scene where they're naked in the house. They laugh, touch, have fun... Etc. You see where I'm going with this. I don't want to ruin anything. It shows how easily things can go out of hand. This film is brought on by just two little sentences, pretty much. Alex says she'll walk home herself, and then the girl tells her to take the underpass instead of cross the road "because it's safer" (from traffic I assume). And that's all it took to change all 3 of these characters' lives. I mean, obviously it required the rape but that character is someone we haven't met. However I think the most important part of its being told backwards is this- it means rape and revenge are not payoffs. The film is not exploitative because of this. If the film did what many horror films do, and build up characters that are pretty normal etc and then kill them its a payoff. They build it up, they let it down. It's pornographic. But Gaspar Noe has none of this. I can't remember where but I remember that in response to his being called sick, he called out Hollywood horror films as being the real sick filmmakers as they glorify extreme violence whereas Noe's bleak objectivity and narrative techniques inherently condemn the violence. There is no revenge in Irreversible, because to the viewer nothing has happened to justify a vengeance. All we're seeing is a brutal murder. If the film were in order, the audience would come out of the theater thinking, "Ha! That rapist sure got what coming to him, the scum!" but for us now, because it's backwards, we're left empty. We're left contemplating. We wish it didn't happen but it does happen and we got an insight into one of the worst things a man can do, and we were forced to watch it all happen in all its brutality. It would be unfair to cut away or imply, because that softens the blow and sympathises with the rapist. But the rapist is a horrible person, Alex is a lovely girl and a fighter, and the film is not torture porn. This film is justified in everything it does and a lot of it comes down to the film being told backwards. One thing that hit me so hard was when [sp]Alex tells Marcus she's late on her period, when they wake up late (early) in the film.[/sp] It hit me really hard not just because she's going to be raped later... But because I then realised what something he said meant. He says to Alex [s[]"Are you bleeding or are you wet?"[/sp] I then realised what happened and I was horrified. [sp]she miscarried.[/sp] This is also an existential film. It deals with things like free will, determinism, responsibility, causality, and chance. It's absolutely not some cheap exploitation film from the 70s, and so far from a shlocky Hollywood torture porn film that it's ridiculous and quite honestly offensive that people compare it. Irreversible is as real as it gets and as good a film as any I've seen. One of my favourites, although it's not a film you enjoy. To me it's a masterpiece. Absolutely highly recommend this but with a strong disclaimer- forget zombie films, action films, even dark and gritty gang films or whatever. This is one of the most disturbing and shocking films ever made. Other films make you cringe from the violence. Irreversible will shake you to the core. It's relentless and brutal and rightly so. If it wasn't it would be hypocritical. The film is incredible but not for everyone and definitely not for anyone with a weak stomach.[/QUOTE] Irreversible is so shit. I hated it with such a passion. It being in reverse, unlike Memento, adds nothing to the plot. It's borderline unwatchable and pretentious (like all Gaspar Noe films). There's also nothing shocking about it either. The plot is fucking dumb, the whole twist is [sp]'omg she was pregnant!! so her death had more meaning!!!'[/sp], give me a break. It's such an obvious attempt to tug at heart strings with no substance. The whole movie rides on it's audience being shocked. That is what I call a shit film. Not to mention it wasn't shocking at all. If this dumb trite horrifies you you mustn't have seen many movies.

Fishtank - fassbendersgotabigcock/10 cool british film, sort of like tyrannosaurus. would recommend

gotta watch irreversible now that rusty built it up so much. tx :)

what isn't perfect is Dick Van Dyke's accent. [editline]29th November 2013[/editline] hah [QUOTE]Van Dyke's attempt at a cockney accent has been decried as one of the worst accents in film history, cited by actors since as an example of how not to sound. In a 2003 poll by Empire magazine of the worst-ever accents in film, he came in second. According to Van Dyke, his accent coach was Irish, who "didn't do an accent any better than I did."[/QUOTE]

500 Days Of Summer 7.5/10 Really liked this one. A friend of mine recommended it to me. Thought it was going to be a standard chickflick/romantic comedy but damn, great film. Very good performances from Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and a refreshing way of story telling. The story itself might not be the most interesting but the way it's played out and the acting performances were great. Reminded me a lot about Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind.

Another Friday, another movie night. The Dictator - 6/10 I remember watching this in the cinema and liking it a lot. After a second watch, I still do but with a caveat. Most jokes work at least decently (the helicopter tour never stops me chuckling at it) but the ones that miss just miss gigantically. You know the expression 'can't hit the broad side of a barn'? That's some of the jokes in this movie. They're not funny or just crossing a line they shouldn't. It's still a movie I can recommend to most as it at the very least does what it needs to do at its core - entertain you. Dinner for Schmucks - 8/10 I was going through my shelf for things to watch when I stumbled upon this. I couldn't recall when I bought it (my guess is a 2 for 1 deal or something) and I don't know anyone around me who knows it. But hey, Paul Rudd and Steve Carell? I like Carell's work, I really do. Rudd slightly less so but I've yet to watch a movie of him that makes me go 'god damn, this was a mistake' so what the hey. We were pleasantly surprised. Solid performances across the board. Steve Carell does what he does best and gets good laughs out of us, be it from being genuinely funny or orchestrating unbelievably awkward situations, while also being sympathetic. Zach Galifianakis as Carell's boss is also a riot as the two almost visibly try to outdo each other. David Walliams (now there's an unexpected face) is clearly having a little too much fun playing the stuck-up snob. Even a brief spoken cameo of Jeff Dunham manages to get at least a giggle. The miniature rat scenes throughout the movie are absolutely gorgeous and deserve special mention. Hats off to the Chiodo Brothers (Critters, Team America) for doing such a good job of visualizing such a relatively absurd concept so well. Definitely check this out.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;43021552]Yeah, that's true, I guess. I still like his voice, even if his accent isn't accurate at all.[/QUOTE] You haven't heard a bad accent until you've heard Tim Curry in Congo. That is absolutely hilarious.

did anyone here enjoy watching upstream color? i just finished watching it and i didn't understand anything... the soundtrack and cinematography were great but apart from that i didn't understand what the movie was about

[QUOTE=Kero_;43026071]did anyone here enjoy watching upstream color? i just finished watching it and i didn't understand anything... the soundtrack and cinematography were great but apart from that i didn't understand what the movie was about[/QUOTE] it's a film where you've got all these different elements flowing together, I need to watch it again but it reminds me of Tree of Life. If you were frustrated with the experience, it ain't for you. For me, when you realise that it moves with a certain conscientious flow, you feel it all coming together. Then you're able to understand all the different elements. Or you could call it pretentious and give up, go to the next film. [editline]30th November 2013[/editline] but then you'd be a wimp!

[QUOTE=Kero_;43026071]did anyone here enjoy watching upstream color? i just finished watching it and i didn't understand anything... the soundtrack and cinematography were great but apart from that i didn't understand what the movie was about[/QUOTE] I enjoyed it, I actually had a fairly easy time understanding it I think though I was unsure of quite a few things. I say fairly easy but what I mean is easier to understand than primer, with primer I needed to read plot summaries and look at diagrams and stuff to work it out. I should watch upstream color again seeing how primer got better with each rewatch, perhaps upstream color does as well.