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

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;43172999]Double feature! [B]The Terminator[/B] - 9/10 [B]Terminator 2: Judgement Day[/B] (Extended Cut) - 8.5/10 I think I like [I]Judgement Day[/I] a bit more, but they're both very good.[/QUOTE] ???

[QUOTE=Rusty100;43173848]???[/QUOTE] Sometimes people have legitimate opinions that conflict with your equally legitimate opinions.

Uh oh, you awoke Rusty and made him emerge from his lair!

[QUOTE=blooregardo;43174007]Sometimes people have legitimate opinions that conflict with your equally legitimate opinions.[/QUOTE] no, rusty is confused because he said he liked judgement day more, but rated T1 higher [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;43174403]I think it was more because he gave the first movie a higher rating and said the second one was better.[/QUOTE] ya bastard well i'll rate [B]Eragon[/B] Decided to watch it after reading the first two books. Jesus Christ, worst book adaption I've ever seen 3/10 would not recommend to anyone. Jeremy Irons was the only one remotely trying and he openly he admitted in interviews he disliked the source material.

Well yeah, its bad teen fiction. Basically twilight for teenage boys

I will admit the first book is a piece of shit. But I've read the second one and am currently 3/4 of the way through the third, and to be honest, when the author starts expanding on the lore and the wider world it isn't that bad. The author gets better with age.

The first 20 minutes of [B]Ironclad[/B] Yep. Sorry, couldn't do it. This movie is torture to my soul and an offense to everything. Wanted to vomit more after seeing 20 minutes of this ridiculosity than anything else I've seen so far this year. Don't go near this movie, not even in a hazmat suit

Ah Ironclad, I can forgive it of its terrible historical inaccuracies if it was a good movie by itself but it failed that too.

There's a difference between mild suspension of disbelief or playing loose with the source material, and this This was just like a bad porn parody of history where they get everything wrong just to show ~action, ~conflict, ~grittiness, ~swords! ~VIKINGS!! ~BOOBS!!! Theres a way to do historically inaccurate movies correctly (Inglorious Basterds), and to just make a terrible movie (Ironclad) Honestly worse than 300 imo, at least 300 is funny

Well 300 was a heavily stylised and almost shot for shot accurate adaptation for Frank Miller's 'graphic novel' so it did what it was supposed to do quite well. Ironclad was...worse than 300 in every way. I know Lindybeige has a series of videos explaining what types of inaccuracies there were in Ironclad.

Watched The Place Beyond the Pines I liked it. Admittedly it started off strong and slightly lost some of its power as it went on but i thought it was still pretty good. I usually don't like Bradley Cooper but he was alright in this. Dane DeHaan im growing fonder and fonder of, and of course Ryan Gosling took the show.

sherlock holmes: a game of shadows - 7.5/10 very entertaining and with a satisfying ending but mostly shallow imo, the first hour was essentially filler. still a good popcorn flick.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;43173848]???[/QUOTE] [I]The Terminator[/I] is a more finely crafted film, but I derive more enjoyment from watching the slightly inferior [I]Terminator 2[/I] [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ElectronicG19;43174719]I will admit the first book is a piece of shit. But I've read the second one and am currently 3/4 of the way through the third, and to be honest, when the author starts expanding on the lore and the wider world it isn't that bad. The author gets better with age.[/QUOTE] The fourth book is pretty weak, though

I never personally got why the original T-800 was considered so threatening especially if you compared it to the T-1000. It's Arnold, he looks like a big inhuman robot and he acts like a big inhuman robot. The T-1000 however doesn't look like a big robot, doesn't act like one and is able to replicate human emotions quite well. It also has the steely cold death stare when it's on the chase unlike Arnold who just had this blank dumb expression on his face. The T-1000 also had the more convincing 'infiltrator' aspect down since he acts like a person. You won't suspect that guy to be a robotic killer made out liquid metal. Arnold's T-800? If there had to be a person who had to have a metal endoskeleton covered with living tissue it would be that guy. Compare the chase scene after the shoot out in the Technoir club compared to the T-1000 chase after the Galleria fight. I don't know, personally the Robert Patrick's T-1000 is superior to T1 Arnold's T-800. You could make the argument though that Judgement Day completely goes backward on the first movie by going down the path of 'we can change the future' since it's implied that despite Skynet's attempts at changing the future all it did was confirm it. John Connor's gonna be born, Sarah Conner's gonna to prepare John Connor for the inevitable war and John Connor's going to send Kyle back with the same picture. It was a stable 'time-loop'.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;43176567][I]The Terminator[/I] is a more finely crafted film, but I derive more enjoyment from watching the slightly inferior [I]Terminator 2[/I][/QUOTE] You don't rate movies based on how much you enjoy them?

[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43176754]I never personally got why the original T-800 was considered so threatening especially if you compared it to the T-1000. It's Arnold, he looks like a big inhuman robot and he acts like a big inhuman robot. The T-1000 however doesn't look like a big robot, doesn't act like one and is able to replicate human emotions quite well. It also has the steely cold death stare when it's on the chase unlike Arnold who just had this blank dumb expression on his face. The T-1000 also had the more convincing 'infiltrator' aspect down since he acts like a person. You won't suspect that guy to be a robotic killer made out liquid metal. Arnold's T-800? If there had to be a person who had to have a metal endoskeleton covered with living tissue it would be that guy. Compare the chase scene after the shoot out in the Technoir club compared to the T-1000 chase after the Galleria fight. I don't know, personally the Robert Patrick's T-1000 is superior to T1 Arnold's T-800. You could make the argument though that Judgement Day completely goes backward on the first movie by going down the path of 'we can change the future' since it's implied that despite Skynet's attempts at changing the future all it did was confirm it. John Connor's gonna be born, Sarah Conner's gonna to prepare John Connor for the inevitable war and John Connor's going to send Kyle back with the same picture. It was a stable 'time-loop'.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090210171835/terminator/images/3/31/T-800.1.jpg[/IMG] Sorry but this is way more horrifying than [IMG]http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1266/294666-t1000.gif[/IMG]

A big metal skeleton that's supposed to infiltrate and kill is more threatening than a robot that not only mimics people perfectly, is made out of liquid metal, able to make 'knives and stabbing weapons' and having the ability to repair itself. Okay. Besides, you see Arnold for the majority of T1 not the T-800 endoskeleton.

Well its entirely subjective. I believe an amalgamation of steel and hatred for humanity in a form imitating their creators but in a crude and savage way as portrayed in the T-800 is going to be scarier than some cool but suave, emotionless shape shifter Imo the brutality of the T-800 serves to mock humanity and its culture and refinement

[QUOTE=AK'z;43173804]Terminator Salvation was such a dud it's unbelievable... There was so much they could do, even terminator 3 THE GAME had a more intriguing outlook.[/QUOTE]Terminator 3: Redemption was a game I actually enjoyed. And not only that, but I thought the ending was pretty fucking awesome. [sp]John Connor puts Arnie's chip into this huge fucking mech that shoots rockets and has a gatling gun and shit.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;43176567][I]The Terminator[/I] is a more finely crafted film, but I derive more enjoyment from watching the slightly inferior [I]Terminator 2[/I] [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] The fourth book is pretty weak, though[/QUOTE] then honestly t2 should be rated higher because what's more important than enjoyment? surely all it's elements worked better if you ended up enjoying it more?

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;43176927]Well its entirely subjective. I believe an amalgamation of steel and hatred for humanity in a form imitating their creators but in a crude and savage way as portrayed in the T-800 is going to be scarier than some cool but suave, emotionless shape shifter Imo the brutality of the T-800 serves to mock humanity and its culture and refinement[/QUOTE] Well yeah of course it's subjective but to me, the Arnold T-800 in no way represented hatred for humanity in form. It was a big relentless robot that was intended for infiltration and assassination. It wasn't savage or that particularly brutal. It shot a lot of people and drove his fist into some punk's stomach. It started showing those aspects however when it was stripped of its human skin. The better representation of a brutal infiltrator robot was in that flashback scene when that non-Arnold T-800 started shooting a bunch of people in that underground bunker. It's faceless, relentless, efficient and without feeling. All you see are those red eyes in the shadows and smoke. It's done perfectly. T-1000 on the other hand is relentless, unstoppable, 'faceless' in a way since it has no real definable face, brutal, efficient and it's sadistic. To me, it did the job better of representing Skynet. But opinions so yeah.

[QUOTE=Scot;43176768]You don't rate movies based on how much you enjoy them?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rusty100;43177000]then honestly t2 should be rated higher because what's more important than enjoyment? surely all it's elements worked better if you ended up enjoying it more?[/QUOTE] It's a combination of both, I guess. I tend to rate movies both on "how successful was it at what it was trying to do?" and "how much did I enjoy it?" I generally enjoy action-comedies more than intense thrillers so I lean towards T2. Still, they're pretty neck-and-neck.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug 4/5 Quite impressive. A few hiccups near the beginning, but overall, much, much better than the first one.

Miller's Crossing - 7.8/10 liked it alot. gonna watch Barton Fink after this

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;43177114]It's a combination of both, I guess. I tend to rate movies both on "how successful was it at what it was trying to do?" and "how much did I enjoy it?".[/QUOTE] So if a film's purpose was to be shit in every way, you'd rate it 10/10? Perhaps you should watch Freddie Got Fingered to understand how rating it like that isn't a great method :v:

Speaking of Terminator - [url=http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/emilia-clarke-terminator-sarah-connor-role/]Emilia Clarke has just been cast as Sarah Conner in upcoming remake[/url] [img]http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201339/rs_560x415-130409093613-1024.EmiliaClarkeNoMakeup.mh.040913.jpg[/img] Sounds neat. I'm not saying automatically no to the reboot, because Sarah Connor Chronicles was pretty good.

i am automatically saying no to a reboot. the original is fantastic. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] t1 and 2 are among movies that should absolutely never be remade or touched again.

The Mummy (1999) - 7/10 I remember watching this when I was something like 11 and loving it so I went into it again thinking 'this is gonna seem like such shit now'. Turns out it's aged pretty well, unlike some of the CG effects in it. The plot's not very coherent, the effects, while functional for the most part, have their moments where situations become more comedic than terrifying but Arnold Vosloo is suitably intimidating and the rest of the cast, along with some nice dialogue, is decent enough to carry the movie to a functional and ultimately entertaining conclusion.

[QUOTE=Joz;43179738]Speaking of Terminator - [url=http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/emilia-clarke-terminator-sarah-connor-role/]Emilia Clarke has just been cast as Sarah Conner in upcoming remake[/url] [img]http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201339/rs_560x415-130409093613-1024.EmiliaClarkeNoMakeup.mh.040913.jpg[/img] Sounds neat. I'm not saying automatically no to the reboot, because Sarah Connor Chronicles was pretty good.[/QUOTE] Son of a fucking bitch no no no no no no no no no no no this is so unnecessary it isn't even funny Sarah Connor Chronicles wasn't a reboot or remake, it was a continuation of Terminator 2. FYI.

At least a reboot will give us something to grumble about how much better the original was