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

[QUOTE=evilweazel;44389050]Just watched The Purge strange I felt like I wanted to enjoy it a bit since it was sort of a neat and unique idea but the characters and the way the story played out just made absolutely no sense as far as motivations and etc. went. It's also never really explained why the purge actually makes society some utopia. Dumb as heck as to how it implied everyone is a closet serial killer underneath or something too. It's just a hair above unwatchable but it was entertaining enough to kill an hour and a half with. I don't know how to rate it aside from saying it is far below average but not a failure in every regard.[/QUOTE] Why do people keep saying the concept of the Purge is good? Its terrible from the ground up. It makes no sense. It's stupid as fuck. Theres literally no way our society could survive even one or two Purges. Its fucking retarded. imo the Purge was a failure in literally all places. Worst film of 2013 for sure and one of the most offensively stupid films I have ever seen.

I think it would've at least been a bit better if the story followed someone in the streets and not some family that gets fucked over by the gender-confused son.

Napoleon Dynamite A great classic 7/10

[QUOTE=Blazedol;44391042]I think it would've at least been a bit better if the story followed someone in the streets and not some family that gets fucked over by the gender-confused son.[/QUOTE] the sequel is basically this, i'm kinda interested in seeing it

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;44391787]the sequel is basically this, i'm kinda interested in seeing it[/QUOTE] I was, but then I found out it's going to be released [I]exactly[/I] a year after the first movie. Think about that for a second.

its going to be shit please dont give them money to make more. for your own good.

capt america 8/10 great story, great visual effects, though the winter soldier could use alot more screen time But, the after credits scene is gonna ruin the fucking marvel film series. [sp]crossover shit involving mutants[/sp]

I've watched [b]Magnolia.[/b] It was a beautiful film, that evoked some really powerful feelings. Although over 3 hours long, it had amazing pacing, fantastic acting creations, great music choices and as always with PTA - great cinematography and overall direction. There's only one thing bothering me. What the fuck [sp]was the thing with the frogs. I've noticed Exodus 8:2 during the film, I checked it and I still don't understand the meaning of this for the overall plot. How does that relates to urban legends mentioned at the beginning (I've read somewhere that frogs falling from the sky [b]technically[/b] are possible, so it's not really an urban legend). Can someone explain this to me, because I feel like I'm missing something crucial here.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Joz;44392560] What the fuck [sp]was the thing with the frogs. I've noticed Exodus 8:2 during the film, I checked it and I still don't understand the meaning of this for the overall plot. How does that relates to urban legends mentioned at the beginning (I've read somewhere that frogs falling from the sky [b]technically[/b] are possible, so it's not really an urban legend). Can someone explain this to me, because I feel like I'm missing something crucial here.[/sp][/QUOTE] forget religion, think context. think what characters have just gone through, and at this moment, some kind spiritual awakening has occurred. most assume 'eh this is just absurd', but it was such a right moment in the film.

[QUOTE=AK'z;44392721]forget religion, think context. think what characters have just gone through, and at this moment, some kind spiritual awakening has occurred. most assume 'eh this is just absurd', but it was such a right moment in the film.[/QUOTE] You mean it was there to somehow point out the "catharsis" moment? It seems reasonable, but unnecessary. It doesn't affect any characters in an extremely noticeable way ([sp]One could argue that Claudia opened the door for her mother because of this, but I'd say that she was on a emotional verge that she'd do it anyway.[/sp]), I mean - film would work exactly the same way without it.

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;44389269]I used to make the joke that the Paranormal Activity movies were made on a budget of less than $10 with most of it going towards fishing line, but I'm starting to think it's not so funny.[/QUOTE] the first and second were alright, they just degrade so rapidly after that throughout the movie I could only chuckle at the common shit they were putting in that was so relentless done If you look at REC, they do demon possession fairly well in the first/second without the characters looking like a fucking steroid induced human shark

[QUOTE=Joz;44392814]You mean it was there to somehow point out the "catharsis" moment? It seems reasonable, but unnecessary. It doesn't affect any characters in an extremely noticeable way ([sp]One could argue that Claudia opened the door for her mother because of this, but I'd say that she was on a emotional verge that she'd do it anyway.[/sp]), I mean - film would work exactly the same way without it.[/QUOTE] it wasnt meant to 'point out' tbh. it was a symbol for what was happening

[B]Weekend (1967)- 9/10[/B] This is it. This is Godard. This is everything about him and his beliefs and his ideals. Essentially it is just the biggest fuck you to anything ever. This is the biggest middle finger I have ever seen in anything cinematic and I honestly don't know if there is anything that could top it in that respect. Near plotless, brutally dark, casually insane, really hilarious, vibrantly colourful, absurd, murderous, cannibalistic, violent, exploitative, political, anti-bourgeois/love/establishment/capitalist/provocative/cinema/mainstream, frustrating, filled to the brim with pop culture. I have always thought of Godard as an L'Enfant Terrible, as I'm sure he too thinks. A rebellious teenager. He's out to get a reaction, be it positive or negative, and there is no way this film will leave you in the middle. As someone who loves Godard I thought it was great, I hated it at parts but found myself laughing because that was the point and I was basically falling for his game. I appreciated every second however. Mostly I'd say this film is anti bourgeois. It stars a rich couple who both have secret lovers and both intend to kill the other. They go to see the wife's parents to sort out the dad's will so they can get even more money. The film is basically a 100 minute traffic jam (with a lot of stuff going on though, it's basically a load of vignettes, they aren't in their car much), there is a famous 10 minute tracking shot of them driving through traffic. It starts off just like any regular traffic jam, but as we go along we start to see wrecks, then burning wrecks, then corpses... An obvious allegory for the destructive lifestyle of the bourgeois. Godard described the tracking shot as a "moral act". I assume he means that as a filmmaker you must use it legitimately. You mustn't cheat the audience with a thrown in long take (I stand by this also. Long takes can be very distracting and often you can tell they're thrown in to show off) or you are being disrespectful. Use it as a tool, and use it when it feels appropriate. Perhaps also because the long take is honest, it doesn't hide. In this case it shows the anger and rage of people in a jam, it builds and we see there's a case of at least 5 people dead. It questions the morality of these people. Should they be annoyed? Is it ok for them to be annoyed when people have died? Why are they pissed off at being held up a bit when these people will never get where they're going, anywhere, ever? They're dead. You're not. See what's happened. Don't be an unjustified asshole. There's a lot of it. It is a fun, exhilarating film but undeniably frustrating and very layered with meaning, never too overt except when playing for laughs which it is at several points. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kOdbZM1.gif[/IMG] Yeah there's a lot to talk about in this, a lot, but I won't bother. I could write an essay on this film. I'd like to, actually (I think this every time I watch a Godard film. I truly think he is the number 1.) [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] It might also be the most arrogant film I've seen and is very pretentious but Godard doesn't give a fuck and he knows he's being a kid about it. It is totally unadulterated and totally unapologetic. He just trashes everything in this film, making statements fucking everywhere about whatever he could think of, criticizing it all. He's honestly just being nihilistic I suppose, but in a rebellious, fuck the system kind of way. It throws all the conventions out the window, it parodies them, it takes the piss, it uses them and breaks them. It is as with most Godard a piece of meta-cinema ("This isn't a book! This is a film. Film is life.", "this is a rotten film. All we meet are weird people." the use of broken film reel in a car crash (the one in the gif) etc...)

[B]Anchorman 2[/B] - 5.5/10 It was alright, it got pretty stupid. The first one was miles better. It had its moments but I felt as if they tried too hard, especially near the end. [editline]d[/editline] Honestly it really isn't worth your time, it was pretty disappointing overall. Just remember the original as it was and forget about watching this one.

[QUOTE=shian;44391977]capt america 8/10 great story, great visual effects, though the winter soldier could use alot more screen time But, the after credits scene is gonna ruin the fucking marvel film series. [sp]crossover shit involving mutants[/sp][/QUOTE] [sp]Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch got me pumped for Avengers 2! Mutants are awesome.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;44393450][B]Anchorman 2[/B] - 5.5/10 It was alright, it got pretty stupid. The first one was miles better. It had its moments but I felt as if they tried too hard, especially near the end. [editline]d[/editline] Honestly it really isn't worth your time, it was pretty disappointing overall. Just remember the original as it was and forget about watching this one.[/QUOTE] I disagree. I'd give it a 7.5/10. Yeah it got stupid after [sp]Ron went blind[/sp] but everything after that and before it was pretty damn hilarious.

Melancholia - 4/5 Beautiful film, though it was silly that a web page from the 90's could predict planet movement more accurately than scientists like John.

[B]Synecdoche, New York[/B] I've never really felt all that sad over a movie, until now. I'm not sure what it was, but this one just really resonated with me. The performances were amazing, especially from Hoffman. The cinematography was great, every shot looked really nice. The grayness of everything added to the mood of the film and made it stick a bit better. My one complaint is that the story got a little too wild and crazy at points, but overall I still really liked it. Give it a watch if you want something more melancholy than you'll find from a typical Hollywood movie.

[b]Liberation (1971)[/b] 10/10 This movie is great, well directed, and better story about the Eastern Front. It's worth buying, as someone from Russia, suggested it to me to watch it. [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0198811/[/url] This five part epic war drama gives a dramatized detailed account of Soviet Union's war against Nazi Germany during world war two. Each of the five parts represents a separate major Eastern Front campaign (the Battle of Kursk, the Lower Dnieper Offensive, Operation Bagration, the Vistula-Oder Offensive and the Battle of Berlin) More info here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_%28film_series%29[/url] The films are a dramatized account of the liberation of the Soviet Union's territory and the subsequent defeat of Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War, focusing on five major Eastern Front campaigns: the Battle of Kursk, the Lower Dnieper Offensive, Operation Bagration, the Vistula-Oder Offensive, and the Battle of Berlin.

[B]Nymphomaniac[/B] That feeling when you have an expectation of a film, then you feel like you're dying from the inside? Yes, pretty much all Lars Von Trier films do that, so here I was prepared. This was just through and through superb. It's basically a 4 hour film, split in half.. there really isn't a need for it to be seen as two separate films (it isn't like Kill Bill). Shia LaBOlf, so proud of that dude. He fits in so snuggly into this Lars Von Trier opus, he even invents a totally new English dialect which wasn't awkward at all. It was funny at first, I have to admit but I thought his performance was terrific. Being the last in the depression trilogy, I had literally no clue what to expect, but here it's very much the flying colours of Trier seeping through in this Gainsbourg character. I think this film will be misunderstood as a dark comedy of sorts, but imo the humour is so very slight until it's obvious. It's incredibly descends and unravels in many horrific ways. I did not expect the kid who played Billy Elliot to show up and yeah... what he does here is umm... yeah, quite disturbing. The Scandinavian fella was also superb, I've only seen him in Good Will Hunting and here he's a master-class of conversation. A huge section of the film takes place in a single room, and quite a lot is drawn out of those scenes in order to help depict the bigger picture more easily. Those scenes were really well planned imo, not many films could hold that kind of conversation so smoothly. In many ways, this could be seen as Lars' most easily digestible of films. I'm not yet considering it his best, but it may very well be his opus. One thing may confuse the heck out of people and it may give people a turn, and that's the [sp]ending[/sp]. In all honesty, I could see this coming, I actually hate Lars Von Trier with all my soul. He's just hateful, I don't trust him, even though I'm a fan of his films... I really do not trust that guy. So when that part came, I was astounded at how bitterly funny it was; yet in accordance with the plot, I felt it had a serious function. All in all, it's one heck of a study and well worthwhile. I never expected such an in-depth plot from childhood to adulthood. Definitely will watch again because there's a lot here to go through.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;44401568]Her- 10/10 Sooooooo fucking good. Very relatable in ways you wouldn't suspect and the writing is absolutely spot-on. I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a really interpersonal romance movie.[/QUOTE] All my friends hated the movie simply because they thought it was creepy :suicide:

[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;44401646][B]Sub-Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones[/B] - 1/10 I had no idea a film could be this bad. It shook me to my very core how bad it was. I would have stopped watching, but I was fascinated by how agonisingly abhorrent this movie was. It gets a point for being better than hammering nails into my eyes, but only barely.[/QUOTE] I'm sure it's not that bad. It can't be worse than 4.

[QUOTE=redBadger;44402134]All my friends hated the movie simply because they thought it was creepy :suicide:[/QUOTE] I heard opinions ranging from "I don't like it, it's weird" to "I love it, is weird" :v: It's being released here next week though and I'd love to watch it, but I don't think I know anyone who would watch/not hate it. I'm considering going alone.

el lobo de wall street - 3/5 really fun movie, i had a lot of fun watching it length didn't bother me

[b]They Fought for Their Country (1975)[/b] 9/10 Great movie, really worth the buy. [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073488/[/url] In July 1942, in the Second World War, the rearguard of the Russian army protects the bridgehead of the Don River against the German army while the retreating Russian troops cross the bridge. While they move back to the Russian territory through the countryside, the soldiers show their companionship, sentiments, fears and heroism to defend their motherland Russian. The film is based on the eponymous book by Mikhail Sholokhov. Action is set in Russia in July of 1942 during the Second World War. The advancing Nazi Armies are approaching Stalingrad. The Russians are exhausted and outnumbered. But in a bloody battle the invading Nazi Armies are stopped at Stalingrad. [b]The Hot Snow (1972)[/b] 8/10 Yet, another great movie, based on the Eastern Front and lots of battle scenes. [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212194/[/url] In November, 1942, near the Volga, Stalingrad is under siege of Commander Friederich Paulus and his 330,000 men. The Russian high command unleashes an operation to protect the Mishkova River to avoid that about four hundred tanks join Paulus' army. The Soviet artillery soldiers protect their position with their lives in a bloodshed with few survivors.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;44393372][B]Weekend (1967)- 9/10[/B] [/QUOTE] me and a few friends are having a French New Wave night this friday, thanks to your review Weekend has been added to the list!

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;44401568]Her- 10/10 Sooooooo fucking good. Very relatable in ways you wouldn't suspect and the writing is absolutely spot-on. I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a really interpersonal romance movie.[/QUOTE] Huh I saw this a few days ago and didn't want to post about how great I thought it was because I didn't think I could type out a decent description without sounding like a sperg

If I have any advice to give to any of you, do not go see Her with your parents/grandparents.

[QUOTE=Blazedol;44406958]If I have any advice to give to any of you, do not go see Her with your parents/grandparents.[/QUOTE] Speaking of seeing movies with parents, when I saw Wolf of Wall Street in theaters, some kid went with his mom and dad. They walked out after like 5 minutes.

The Wolf of Wall Street 5/5 You know what, this got better on the rewatch with me. I don't know why, but the first time it felt a little long, but now it just seems perfect. Also In Bruges 5/5 Another damn near perfect film.