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

I watched Sightseers last night with my younger brother, he didn't enjoy it as much as I did, but I found it thoroughly enjoyable though the characters development seemed to be solved in bouts of crying and stony looks. 7/10.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;43319587]didn't watch the original, but tried watching the 2012 remake dear god it was bad even for an action popcorn movie couldnt finish it[/QUOTE] You're a fucking idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43325898]are you sure the first two are italian[/QUOTE] pretty sure [QUOTE]Blastfighter is a 1984 Italian action film by Lamberto Bava starring Michael Sopkiw and George Eastman.[QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Monster Shark (original Italian title Shark: Rosso nell'oceano; also known as Shark: Red on the Ocean, Devouring Waves and Devil Fish)[1] is a 1984 Italian natural horror film, and one of several environmental disaster films to emerge following the success of the 1975 film Jaws[/QUOTE] also got those posters from wiki

was just confused because the posters you got are in french :v:

It's a Wonderful Life 8.5/10 I'd never seen it before, but there was about 67 years of hype and parodies to live up to. I was pleasantly surprised how well it stood up. Some nice characterisation and acting. Sentimental as fuck but I would expect nothing less, and it kept me interested with lots of nice little touches.

So about Wolf of Wall Street [quote]414 uses of fuck (which sets the record for most uses ever in a non-documentary), 3 uses of cunt, 70 uses of shit, 10 uses of cock/cocksucker, and dozens of uses of milder language including dick, twat, pussy, ass, bitch, etc.[/quote] I can't wait to see it next Monday.

[B]The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug[/B] - 6.5/10 Remember what I said about the first one? I feel much the same, but more so. The good parts (especially Bilbo and/or Smaug) are really enjoyable, but a lot of the movie was not that great. Low points include a elvish love triangle and heavy-handed attempts to tie into Lord of the Rings. Not to imply the film is rubbish - it's about the same as the first one - but the quality varies greatly. Again, if one or two subplots (and action scenes) were removed, we could see some more of the great stuff that there wasn't enough of in this one.

Watching the Elysium 1 hour in, fortunately not as terrible as Iron Man 3 so it goes.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;43328219]Watching the Elysium 1 hour in, fortunately not as terrible as Iron Man 3 so it goes.[/QUOTE] couldn't wait another hour to post?

Also holy shit this Elysium has the most ridiculous sounding villain ever what the fuck! [t]http://afewgoodfilmreviews.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/new-elysium-featurette-centers-on-sharlto-copleys-villain-video.jpg[/t] this guy ahahaha, i couldn't take him seriously at any point in the film. this film had some other ridiculous dialogue as well, but it was otherwise pretty cool if you ignore a lot of the stuff they said.

its very bad [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] well nah its not terrible but its pretty shitty in a lot of ways and its only redeeming feature is that its action is pretty well done but it abuses slowmo and district 9 was better in literally all ways, even technical aspects [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] and matt damon is cool. Sharlto Copley will make or break the film depending how you find him. Hes stupidly over the top and imo it was awesome but not really in a way that was intended tbh

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;43328219]Watching the Elysium 1 hour in, fortunately not as terrible as Iron Man 3 so it goes.[/QUOTE] are you seriously saying that elysium is better than IM3

Just saw The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. Absolutely great film. Kept my attention throughout, thoroughly enjoyed the story, the music and scenery were amazing, just pure eye candy. 9.9/10

I saw Wolf of Wall Street It was definitely entertaining, the part with the [sp]Lemmons[/sp] had me dying. The only real issue I had with it is it was basically the exact same formula as Goodfellas which made it pretty predictable.

[QUOTE=TheLaughingGod;43329109]Just saw The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. Absolutely great film. Kept my attention throughout, thoroughly enjoyed the story, the music and scenery were amazing, just pure eye candy. 9.9/10[/QUOTE] The trailer for this movie did catch my eye, but I don't know, I think I might just catch it on DVD or something later down the line.

[QUOTE=TheLaughingGod;43329109]Just saw The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. Absolutely great film. Kept my attention throughout, thoroughly enjoyed the story, the music and scenery were amazing, just pure eye candy. 9.9/10[/QUOTE] Could the person who disagreed post their view?

[QUOTE=Scot;43328972]are you seriously saying that elysium is better than IM3[/QUOTE] well they were both quite terrible I give you that

Are you one of those people who got mad at [sp]the mandarin twist[/sp]?

[QUOTE=redBadger;43329875]Could the person who disagreed post their view?[/QUOTE] It was not 9.9/10 lmao Decent enough movie but sure hell ain't nearly the best movie I've ever seen in my life or perfect, depending on what your rating scale is

Before Sunset- 5/5 I gave Sunrise 4/5. Mainly it missed the 5 because I thought it was too heavy handed. But wow, Sunset was just perfect. Really stunning. I thought this was miles better than the already really good Before Sunrise. Perhaps it's to do with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy working with Richard Linklater to write the script- they worked with each far before shooting and the dialogue was so natural and smooth that way. Not one word felt forced and not one time did it roll off the tongue strangely, or feel anything less than real. The script is so beautifully crafted and nuanced, and I can say the same thing about Linklater's direction or Hawke and Delpy's performances. I feel all 3 improved over the 9 years between the films. It touched me on a more emotional and personal level than Sunrise. The characters are now older, in their early 30's, and are no longer dumb kids barely finished being teens. Their lives have developed independent from the other but at the same time neither of them left the other one's mind. The film is an even better love story than the first in my mind, because it shows love is everlasting. They don't even kiss, they barely touch in the film. but they don't need to. They're both in relationships anyway. It's heartbreaking, quite honesty. Their one night together in Vienna has damaged their entire life. Maybe if they never met they'd be happier. But then, maybe if they did meet 6 months later they'd have realised their picture of the other is not real and it's an idealised image, and they'd ruin it for each other. But then, at least there'd be closure and they'd move on. I'm just rambling here, but this film just talks about so much. I feel like this trilogy is the best love story I've ever seen, and I've not even seen Before Midnight. It's just absolutely captivating and beautiful.. And really, really sad. There are so many little tiny things I could talk about that I love about this film. One of them being when Selene talks about how it's always the little things she remembers and misses about relationships, eg the little bit of red in Jesse's beard that she noticed when the light caught it and she never forgot it and for 9 years missed it, or how Jesse doesn't care that he's going to miss his plane. It's just all the little things that capture love so purely. I mean, I've never been in love, but I have a fantasy of what it's like. It's implanted in all of us, I guess. Tv, books, stories, other people. The film makes me feel old because I feel like I understand what they're talking about so well, but I feel like if I come back in 9 years myself, I'll be pushing 30, and the film would say so many different things to me. Right now "true love" is little more than a concept to me, that apparently is real but some people don't think so, I like to believe it is. I don't think there is one person for everyone but I think there are people out there for anyone. Which I think is nicer. I dunno... I adored this film. Didn't adore Sunrise but I adored Sunset. Nothing short of incredible and I absolutely can't wait to watch Before Midnight- I'll be doing so very soon, I'm sure. [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] and the ending to Before Sunset... Ugh it's just fantastic. This film was near enough perfect in every way. [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] Oh yeah I forgot that I decided to start rating out of 10 again because sometimes I feel like i'm not doing a film justice with its rating, if I give something a 3 or whatever. I give Before Sunrise 8/10 and Before Sunset 9/10. [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] The film also makes you notice how imperfect people are though, these people, and you actually question if anything they've done is the right choice. Is it fair, is it true, are they lying to each other or even themselves... I feel like a second watch will uncover a lot more to the characters that I've missed. Lots of subtle things not directly mentioned, or barely even hinted at, that are powerful and could shape my views. It's interesting.

500 days of summer 9/10 i really enjoyed it. the critics that i've seen bash it have the dumbest reasons to that i've ever seen

anyone seen lone survivor? how is that?

[B]The Truman Show[/B] Pretty good movie. I don't have to worry about this happening to me since my life is so boring and pathetic and I'm a fairly big asshole

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;43327983][B]The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug[/B] - 6.5/10 Remember what I said about the first one? I feel much the same, but more so. The good parts (especially Bilbo and/or Smaug) are really enjoyable, but a lot of the movie was not that great. Low points include a elvish love triangle and heavy-handed attempts to tie into Lord of the Rings. Not to imply the film is rubbish - it's about the same as the first one - but the quality varies greatly. Again, if one or two subplots (and action scenes) were removed, we could see some more of the great stuff that there wasn't enough of in this one.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I disagree entirely. Many things from the first one that I disliked either weren't an issue or weren't even in the film. The pacing was a lot better, and it seemed to have more direction behind it. The first was muddled and confusing; unable to decide whether it wanted to be its own thing or wanted to be The Lord of the Rings. The second one seemed more unique and a bit more focused. With the subplots already established, each got enough screentime to at least feel relevant. While the tone is still a little bit more lighthearted, it was a bit more serious than the first but far more tonally consistent throughout. Rather than having the extremely serious shit with the necromancer and then the dwarves making merriment in the very next scene, they withheld all the necromancer stuff until more towards the end where it better fit, as by then they have already gotten to Smaug and fought with the orcs and such. It gave me a much more unique and independent vibe than the first. Where as the first clearly wanted to be more of the Lord of the Rings, this one had a few parts Pirates of the Caribbean with its outlandish and over the top characters, heavily choreographed fight scenes, and dark and gothic set designs. I think that may be a bit of Del Toro's influence in the movie, where as the first seemed a bit washed from it. I felt the whole love triangle thing, while unnecessary, was at least competently done and Tauriel was given a bit more to do than just sit around and look pretty. She was an actual character and I was even getting a little invested in it. [sp]I was hoping that she and the dwarf dude (Kili I think it was? I don't know, all there names sound the same on purpose) would hook up because Legolas is a dick and it would be so cliched if those two got together.[/sp] Legolas seemed fairly unneeded and didn't really do a whole lot though, but there was a fight scene later on he got involved in that I missed because I had to pee, so that could have been important. This will make me sound like a major pussy, but when the dwarves finally reached Erebor and Bilbo finds the keyhole, I cried a little. After nearly 5 hours from the first movie to that moment, we had been with the dwarves for so long and I was elated to see that they had finally returned home. and unlike the first, I wasn't actually bored for really any of it. In fact, when they meet Bard, I was happy knowing that there was still over an hour left. Normally I would be pissed knowing a movie is [I]still[/I] going on but I wanted to see more. I wanted to see how it developed. And they made the Necromancer tie into the main story too, which helps because in the first movie it felt very out of place, having almost zero relation to the dwarves' quest. Now that Azog is involved, it has become an important part of the story. They also did a great job with characterization. All that wealth could very well [sp]drive Thorin to madness like his father[/sp] and the whole movie has the moral theme of [sp]greed is wrong. That's why the dragon came, both for its greed and from the greed of the Dwarven king. That's why Thorin continues his quest, to gain all that wealth and power.[/sp] All in all, I would go as far as to put it at a 9/10, where as the first was maybe a 6/10 at best.

[QUOTE=redBadger;43330993]anyone seen lone survivor? how is that?[/QUOTE] I don't know but I'm pretty stoked for it, I hope it does the book justice. It probably will be considering the real guy helped out in the direction/authenticity, although I hear Berg kinda effed up/made up the ending. A lot of critics seem to hate it and the only reason they can come up with is that it's too "jingoistic," while its user ratings are really high, so that's probably a good thing. Most of the critics who didn't like it just gave a political spiel for their reviews. It doesn't have a wide release until January so I still haven't seen it. Can't wait though.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;43331250]Honestly, I disagree entirely.[/QUOTE] I did like a lot of the individual parts. The idea of corruption ([sp]Bilbo and the ring, Thorin/Smaug and the gold, Mirkwood, etc[/sp]) was a very neat theme. I feel like the tone was more consistent overall, but the great number of subplots was distracting. Cutting between the dwarves, Bard, and Gandalf often gave me whiplash - although Gandalf and the necromancer were tangentially connected, they were so physically removed from Laketown and the mountain that it was very distracting. It did start to drag a bit though. I think I just prefer shorter (90-120 minute) movies, because when they got to Laketown I was partially excited for Smaug to show up but also annoyed because I knew that there was probably still an hour left. The pacing just felt a little weird - I recall thinking that the Beorn scene felt strangely rushed while other portions had a great deal of time invested. I admire Jackson's attempts to tie the story into LotR, but some touches (e.g. the Ring leitmotif playing every single time the ring was used, pocketed, felt, dropped, or alluded to) were a bit overdone.

As per the holiday season I got a bunch of new movies to watch (8 to be exact) so i'll have to rate them according to which ones I watched first (so only 3): Falling Down 8/10, some of the scenes went by very slowly but the movie as a whole was really entertaining and very meaningful. Also that ending, just damn. American Psycho 7/10, Very funny, liked how the comedy parts played out, and the horror aspect of the movie wasn't at all ruined by the comedy that was present in it. Although now an image of Christian bale running nude, covered in blood holding a chainsaw is ingrained in my mind and it isn't pleasant. A great comedy horror all around. The World's End 10/10, seems like a really high rating but i'm mostly rating it in comparison to the other films in the blood and ice cream trilogy, it was an amazing end to a great trilogy. Of course a dvd copy never compares to seeing it in theaters (although my experience was ruined by some talkative middle aged woman sitting in front of me who were talking about some kind of cracker and cheese party that they went to the previous day). I usually overrate films that I see but I don't usually stray outside of my preferences in film and when I try something new I usually end up liking it.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;43319587]didn't watch the original, but tried watching the 2012 remake dear god it was bad even for an action popcorn movie couldnt finish it[/QUOTE] how can someone even think this dredd was like the best movie of 2012 (and it's not a remake) [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] i can't even begin to fathom how you can have such a bad opinion

[QUOTE=Rusty100;43331742]how can someone even think this dredd was like the best movie of 2012 (and it's not a remake) [editline]28th December 2013[/editline] i can't even begin to fathom how you can have such a bad opinion[/QUOTE] Holy shit, I actually agree with Rusty for once. Albeit as always you're being a bit harsh, but Dredd was fantastic.

Who else seen Secret life of Walter Mitty? The cinematography was great, and I loved the ending. though the characters were rather bland. And it could had more scenery. 7/10