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

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44343848]Especially since the at best meh FD4.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say 4 was meh I'd say it was insultingly terrible.

I vaguely recall it at least being entertaining when I first watched it. Then again, this was before I paid more attention to the movies I watched. Maybe I should re-watch it.

There was zero tension or creativity in the deaths, the characters sucked balls, the acting was bleh and the effects were laughably bad. It was a shit cash grab.

so I need a movie to kill some time atm, should I watch smaug if I hated the first Hobbit?

It's worth it just for smaug.

Reading a fascinating breakdown of Michael Bay's Transformers trilogy. It's a pdf coming in at 489 pages :v: (although it's not nearly as long as it sounds. It's not an essay.) and it is great. Honestly it makes me really want to watch the films. It doesn't make them seem amazing but it defends their ideas and also criticises how they went wrong. There's some brilliant, brilliant things in them (morality, the hypocrisy of the Transformers, specifically the autobots, plot logic, [I]so many[/I] underlying things that make sense that you'd never notice just watching it casually (everyone calls it a popcorn flick, but it actually doesn't spoonfeed beyond basic plot and forces you to think and use your brain on a massive amount of things which is really interesting. I don't think it's an accident as there are things that happen, lines that are said that are easily justifiable with a little logic or reference to things that happen earlier/later in the films, and it happens consistently through the movies so I find it hard to believe it's not on purpose) justifying the redesigns, the weirdly half-assed action scenes for an action movie, war commentary (this film is NOT pro military as many people seem to say purely because it has a lot of military stuff in it and it makes things look cool, any extra thought and tbh it's obvious) the racial stereotyping, potential satire...) that I didn't pick up on and I think watching it again now would be at the very least, interesting. I never hated Michael Bay as a director, in my opinion he is at the very least competent, I'd say he's quite good at what he does. His scripts suck but his technical prowess is there and his crews are great. (just about every film he's made has won or been nominated for technical Academy Awards) With a good script he could make a great film. I don't know if it's his own personal taste, or the producers being controlling (probably a bit of both. Definitely a lot of the latter. After all a $200m movie has to sell.), but he's just never really landed one aside The Rock. I think he's an interesting director though in that he clearly is smart and knows exactly what he's doing. I respect him tbh. Not anyone could do his job. Even good directors would be absolutely pushed to make Transformers. His films are on such a scale and are generally long, full of CGI and demand a very high technical skill in probably every field. His crew must be huge and the shoots long. His ability to control that and produce a successful movie at the end of the months is absolutely not something to scoff at whether you think his films are good or not. I'm gonna go to sleep but im gonna keep reading this thing tomorrow and I'll probably watch Transformers again and see what I think of it after like 4 years. Not seen any of them since the third in the cinema, I don't think. I'm not even sure if I saw 3 actually but from what I can tell 3 is super super important in understanding characters, plot and the cinematic universe of the trilogy.

Do you have a link or an upload or something? It sounds kind of interesting to read.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;44345781]Reading a fascinating breakdown of Michael Bay's Transformers trilogy. It's a pdf coming in at 489 pages :v: (although it's not nearly as long as it sounds. It's not an essay.) and it is great. Honestly it makes me really want to watch the films. It doesn't make them seem amazing but it defends their ideas and also criticises how they went wrong. There's some brilliant, brilliant things in them (morality, the hypocrisy of the Transformers, specifically the autobots, plot logic, [I]so many[/I] underlying things that make sense that you'd never notice just watching it casually (everyone calls it a popcorn flick, but it actually doesn't spoonfeed beyond basic plot and forces you to think and use your brain on a massive amount of things which is really interesting. I don't think it's an accident as there are things that happen, lines that are said that are easily justifiable with a little logic or reference to things that happen earlier/later in the films, and it happens consistently through the movies so I find it hard to believe it's not on purpose) justifying the redesigns, the weirdly half-assed action scenes for an action movie, war commentary (this film is NOT pro military as many people seem to say purely because it has a lot of military stuff in it and it makes things look cool, any extra thought and tbh it's obvious) the racial stereotyping, potential satire...) that I didn't pick up on and I think watching it again now would be at the very least, interesting. I never hated Michael Bay as a director, in my opinion he is at the very least competent, I'd say he's quite good at what he does. His scripts suck but his technical prowess is there and his crews are great. (just about every film he's made has won or been nominated for technical Academy Awards) With a good script he could make a great film. I don't know if it's his own personal taste, or the producers being controlling (probably a bit of both. Definitely a lot of the latter. After all a $200m movie has to sell.), but he's just never really landed one aside The Rock. I think he's an interesting director though in that he clearly is smart and knows exactly what he's doing. I respect him tbh. Not anyone could do his job. Even good directors would be absolutely pushed to make Transformers. His films are on such a scale and are generally long, full of CGI and demand a very high technical skill in probably every field. His crew must be huge and the shoots long. His ability to control that and produce a successful movie at the end of the months is absolutely not something to scoff at whether you think his films are good or not. I'm gonna go to sleep but im gonna keep reading this thing tomorrow and I'll probably watch Transformers again and see what I think of it after like 4 years. Not seen any of them since the third in the cinema, I don't think. I'm not even sure if I saw 3 actually but from what I can tell 3 is super super important in understanding characters, plot and the cinematic universe of the trilogy.[/QUOTE] I've always thought that Michael Bay can make really pretty stuff, but ultimately its all fluff when your movie lacks any real substance whatsoever

The Wolf of Wall Street - 8.5/10 Pretty god damn good, though only thing that annoyed me was some weird editing every now and then.

Divergent. Best comedy of the year. Wait

A few friends of mine thinl diverget is really good. Blargh. Target audience writing is the worst.

[B]Dallas Buyers Club[/B] All I can say is the oscars McConaughey and Leto won are entirely deserved.

Kick-Ass 2 Finally watched it after a group of friends wanted to see it. And now I feel sick due to how bad it was. shit and vomit/10

Bad Lieutenant (1992) This movie helluva lives up to its title, I highly recommend this if you wanna see the most rotten cop in movie history This cop is so sleazy that it gets darkly comedic after a while, and it's the blackest humor imaginable 8/10

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;44346212]I've always thought that Michael Bay can make really pretty stuff, but ultimately its all fluff when your movie lacks any real substance whatsoever[/QUOTE] i agree and the films are not much more than fluff and this thing isn't looking at them like they're masterpieces and critiquing them as arthouse cinema or anything (it's called "I actually kind of appreciate the Transformers films" and ends a section with the line "fuck nerds forever" so yea lol) its just kind of a dude writing about them as he watched the films making a lot of interesting points or observations. and there's stuff there that's pretty interesting, but the films are still failures because aside obvious issues, there's a lot of cool stuff that's kinda hinted at but that's just it, they're just kinda hinted at... It's like they had an idea, put it in a little bit but didn't bother to adapt the screenplay to fit anything more in. Its weird. the films are bad but there's nothing wrong with looking at [I]why[/I]. I think it's important to do so. And at the same time, they aren't 100% bad. And there's good things in there and I don't see the issue with looking for them. The Transformers trilogy is one of the most important film franchises in recent years for several reasons and looking at them beyond blatantly disowning them for being shit makes sense imo

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;44345781]Reading a fascinating breakdown of Michael Bay's Transformers trilogy. It's a pdf coming in at 489 pages :v: (although it's not nearly as long as it sounds. It's not an essay.) and it is great. Honestly it makes me really want to watch the films. It doesn't make them seem amazing but it defends their ideas and also criticises how they went wrong. There's some brilliant, brilliant things in them (morality, the hypocrisy of the Transformers, specifically the autobots, plot logic, [I]so many[/I] underlying things that make sense that you'd never notice just watching it casually (everyone calls it a popcorn flick, but it actually doesn't spoonfeed beyond basic plot and forces you to think and use your brain on a massive amount of things which is really interesting. I don't think it's an accident as there are things that happen, lines that are said that are easily justifiable with a little logic or reference to things that happen earlier/later in the films, and it happens consistently through the movies so I find it hard to believe it's not on purpose) justifying the redesigns, the weirdly half-assed action scenes for an action movie, war commentary (this film is NOT pro military as many people seem to say purely because it has a lot of military stuff in it and it makes things look cool, any extra thought and tbh it's obvious) the racial stereotyping, potential satire...) that I didn't pick up on and I think watching it again now would be at the very least, interesting. I never hated Michael Bay as a director, in my opinion he is at the very least competent, I'd say he's quite good at what he does. His scripts suck but his technical prowess is there and his crews are great. (just about every film he's made has won or been nominated for technical Academy Awards) With a good script he could make a great film. I don't know if it's his own personal taste, or the producers being controlling (probably a bit of both. Definitely a lot of the latter. After all a $200m movie has to sell.), but he's just never really landed one aside The Rock. I think he's an interesting director though in that he clearly is smart and knows exactly what he's doing. I respect him tbh. Not anyone could do his job. Even good directors would be absolutely pushed to make Transformers. His films are on such a scale and are generally long, full of CGI and demand a very high technical skill in probably every field. His crew must be huge and the shoots long. His ability to control that and produce a successful movie at the end of the months is absolutely not something to scoff at whether you think his films are good or not. I'm gonna go to sleep but im gonna keep reading this thing tomorrow and I'll probably watch Transformers again and see what I think of it after like 4 years. Not seen any of them since the third in the cinema, I don't think. I'm not even sure if I saw 3 actually but from what I can tell 3 is super super important in understanding characters, plot and the cinematic universe of the trilogy.[/QUOTE] talk about looking way too much into things

Mask of the Phantasm. 4.5/5

[B]Le Week-End[/B] really superb... I expected a simple heartfelt romantic film but this one is a real gem. I'm talking "almost" Before Midnight-tier. If you liked that film, this one should be seen. Really worthwhile and well-realised. One thing you'll see is how natural the actors are, the main bloke is easily recognisable and he's fantastic here. Possibly a career defining role, but this kind of film gets NO attention whatsoever. It will so blatantly fall below everyone's radar even though it's a good watch. Such a shame and the familiarity of the struggle between old people in their last third of their lives just hits you like a rock. Even though... I'm not old, I'm gripped by how they feel. Then comes the reason I wanted to watch it in the first place, Jeff Goldblum. What a man, his role here is just Goldblum being the best, that is... level 9 Goldblumness. There is only one. It does break you up a bit, but it also fills you with a good spirit.. this is the kind of thing LACKING in the majority of these films. Here it's just bucket loads of real, awesome, transformation and heart-break in a neat package. I may be over-blowing this a bit since it's not a film that comes at you like a hammer but it really is a great piece of work. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] just realised the director here was the one who made Changing Lanes, another brilliant forgotten flick. I think I'll be going through his work shortly. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [B]Training Day[/B] yes. this is the first time.. i've watched this film, n**** boom Ok, I loved it. It's far from perfect, far from solid as a rock too. But whatever this film was hoping to do, it did it and it dug in. Denzel ain't the average Denzel here, he's no Malcolm X. This film was almost... so very almost, a cop-thriller masterpiece. Then, as it picks up the steam that was building, it kind of skips realism and takes you on an insane whirlwind of a ride. And by the end, I was confused as to which bit of the film flipped the entire thing on its side. Plot holes... boom. Ok, plot holes don't bother me a whole lot until after I've read in depth about it. If I'm not bothered by it the first time around, and then I find out about it, it doesn't matter to me. Here though, yeah there was something fishy going on when people became crooked and things weren't all that ironed out as it should be. This is a shame because Denzel's character is very slick and streamlined in his methods. This movie got nothing on David Ayer's later cop-thriller End of Watch. Glad it all paid off there, but here... ah well.

fucking peter hackson

Peter Jackson used to be good then he made that shitfest King Kong and never recovered cos The Hobbit films come off like he was just lost and confused while trying to make them

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;44354335]No, the Hobbit movies are fucking terrible so far and they aren't showing any signs of improving any time soon. The first one was stupid and the second one was just fucking boring. Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite movie btw[/QUOTE] i agree that they're not good but the second one wasn't boring at all not the best movie ever, sure, but it did have some fun scenes

Rush Hour. 7.5/10. Was pretty damn funny.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;44354611]Rush Hour. 7.5/10. Was pretty damn funny.[/QUOTE] huh, yeah I agree with this

The only thing i hate about the Hobbit is how much CGI and weirdness they look compared to Lotr that looked real.

Under The Skin - 8/10 The best cinema experience of my life so far. Scarlett Johansson... wow. She's not the actress I would have picked to play the role but after seeing the film I can't envisage anyone else. Excellent cinematography, the soundtrack was fucking incredible. I read somewhere online that there was only 5 minutes of dialogue in the whole film (it's 1h50m) and I can definitely believe that. Excellent mood and I was constantly on the edge of my seat wondering what was going to happen next - the best horror film I've seen since The Shining.

tbh I hated Under The Skin. I did not get it. I wanted my money back. It was ridiculously slow and boring. Visually and technically impressive (sound design was [I]amazing[/I]) but ugh. It was so fucking dull and painfully repetitive. It was just 2 hours of fuck all. Legit question-- what was the film about aside the basic plot (which was barely there, although I dont knock a film for lack of plot if the film justifies its existence in other ways- I feel this didn't) cos I wanna fucking know. I kiiiiinda got stuff of it being about alienation in general... With the disfigured dude and the shots of Glasgow people etc. I also took it as pretty anti-human nature. Idk. That didn't make it a good film. What bits of symbolism etc I took from it were minimal and basic. Imo there was very little to the movie. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] with all the acclaim and calling Glazer "the next Kubrick" and shit I gotta say I was ridiculoulsy disappointed when it turned out to be a pile of shit

[B]2 Guns[/B] watchable. the story isn't very interesting, and the editing/pace is dull and uninspired. Some of the action was cool though. 5/10

The Lives of Others - 4/5

[QUOTE=KlaseR;44356029][B]2 Guns[/B] watchable. the story isn't very interesting, and the editing/pace is dull and uninspired. Some of the action was cool though. 5/10[/QUOTE] though I'm not really one to judge a movie by its poster, how does one look at this or the description and think its a movie worth an hour and a half of their time? [t]http://www.impawards.com/2013/posters/two_guns_xlg.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;44356069]though I'm not really one to judge a movie by its poster, how does one look at this or the description and think its a movie worth an hour and a half of their time? [t]http://www.impawards.com/2013/posters/two_guns_xlg.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] i think they banked it on denzel washington and mark wahlberg shooting shit up