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

The Iron Giant 8.7/10 Damn fine animation, and more political than I remembered.

Terkel in Trouble CGI animated movie for the youth. Recommended. 8/10

[B]The Great Gatsby (2013)[/B] I didn't really like this. It was much too fast with an overuse of CGI. The performances also weren't that convincing. This movie had so many camera changes and cuts, you could get motion sickness just from watching it. The CGI is distracting and unfitting. Movies filmed entirely in front of a green screen generally don't look that good. There are some scenes that flat-out look bad (ie one scene towards the end where Nick is in the rain, the rain just looks terrible). However, the distracting nature of the CGI is nothing in comparison to the music. Whoever thought the music for this movie was a good idea shouldn't be working in movies. Also, Leonardo DiCaprio can't act. I love Wolf of Wall Street, but he just isn't that good of an actor, especially here. For Nick, all I could see and hear is Spiderman, which isn't helped by the New York setting. The whole subplot with Nick being in an institution or something was very unnecessary. Overall, skip this. It is not worth your two hours. [editline]14th April 2014[/editline] [B]First Blood[/B] This is my second time seeing this one, and my first thought is that it flew by this time. I remember the first time feeling really long, but this time it felt too short. Performances are solid all around, the setting is gorgeous, and the thrills are exciting. The sequence in the mineshaft looks great with the torchlight and the camerawork. The chases with the police are action-packed and exciting. The ending monologue by Stallone is wonderful. It's just a shame that this film can't be taken seriously by casual movie viewers because they only know the Rambo from the later movies, when this one is a smart and intellectual movie. Watch it, you have to see this amazing movie. Wipe away any previous misconceptions you had about Rambo films by watching this.

[QUOTE=Doctorhooves;44545883]Terkel in Trouble CGI animated movie for the youth. Recommended. 8/10[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386820/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg[/url] yeah. ok.

The LEGO Movie - 9/10 - Fantastic movie with a really satisfying amount of references and an ending that I did NOT expect. Frozen - 6/10 - Eh. Musicals aren't really my thing, and some parts didn't really make sense. It felt a bit short and I don't really think it brought anything new to the table. It was well animated, though.

[QUOTE=MangoJuice;44547078]It felt a bit short[/QUOTE] I didn't really like how it was one of those stories where 90% of the plot takes place over one day

The Raid 2 - 8/10 Not as focused and too long compared to the first one, but makes up for it with the violence being even MORE over the top. If anybody else saw this movie, I have a plot question: [sp]Was it ever explained why Bejo had the same wrist tattoo as the guys whose throats got slit in his restaurant? I was confused by that.[/sp]

The Island 7.5/10 wow Michael Bay made an interesting movie for once

Snowpiercer, weirdest movie seen in a while 7.9/10 [editline]15th April 2014[/editline] also not watching the trailer made it way better

Alien I knew pretty much every iconic scene in this movie, but I just watched it all the way through. Pretty spooky stuff. I can definitely see how it influenced like every horror sci-fi movie ever. I feel like I made a mistake by watching the theatrical version and not the director's cut though, since I missed the famous "kill me" scene. I'm not gonna rate it though because my experience was really tarnished by how much I knew about it already. [editline]14th April 2014[/editline] I know Aliens is supposed to be good as well, but are Alien 3 and Resurrection worth watching?

3 is Ok! It's not fantastic really but it's at least watchable. Don't watch anything with the Aliens in it after that, though.

resurrection is optional but i'd watch 3 make sure it's the assembly/director's cut though

[QUOTE=meppers;44548014]The Island 7.5/10 wow Michael Bay made an interesting movie for once[/QUOTE] Isn't that the one that ripped off that B-movie "Parts: The Clonus Horror", and the only reason the people who made said b-movie was able to get legitimate grounds to sue was because it was featured on an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, thus giving it enough recognition to launch a valid case?

psa to u all who are interested in Gone Girl-- dont watch the last 10 seconds of this new trailer because holy shit spoilers :IIII

[QUOTE=Sharker;44543341]It really isn't at all, this movie is the worst thing I've ever seen. A prime example of bad dystopian movies. There's a lot I could say but I'll try to keep it short. Besides having the dumbest plot ever conceived, I mean, them getting on a train made them the only survivors of the apocalypse? Yeah okay. So is it ever explained why they can't just stop the train? Or why they never bothered to see if things were getting better outside? Why did they bother letting the poor people on the train in the first place if they were just going to keep them prisoner? If they really wanted the revolution to end in the tunnel, why didn't they just use their guns then? I couldn't care less about any of the characters either, british accent guy dies, then Curtis gives a long monologue at the very end of the movie to explain why I should give shit. Not to mention stupid scenes like the shootout between Curtis and the blonde guy from across the train in a blizzard and the scene where everyone stops fighting to say happy new year, or what about when they all stop to eat sushi for 5 minutes. What about the things that aren't even explained at all? Like the kids that just ignore Curtis at the end of the movie, or why the asian girl seems to have psychic powers.[/QUOTE] Boy you would really dislike most asian movies. Most of your questions could be answered by doing some thinking yourself and I begin to understand why the movie was cut short 20 minutes for the US audience. About stuff that was merely your opinion and not a real question: The Sushi-Scene was awesome and and a huge "in your face" towards traditional movie-pacing. The shootout was better than your standard sci-fi shootout pew pew scenes I don't get your point here, also it's pretty awesome to me since I have this close by: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendsburg_Loop[/url] The "stupid scenes" are meant to make the movie more abstract, fairy-tale like just like a lot of Asian movies do, I'm sorry if that's not what you like or understand but that doesn't make the movie stupid. Basically, don't be such an opinion-baby, we have enough of those in here already.

American Psycho 8/10 Christian Bale plays a crazy person very well. Probably because he really is.

[b]Mission Impossible I[/b] Before I begin, I'd like to make a statement: [b][i]I consider the first installment of Mission Imposible to be the masterpiece of espionage thrillers and one of the best action movie of all time.[/i][/b] There, I said it. And I'm not ashamed of it. A long time ago, before Jason Bourne was killing people around with a newspaper and before James Bond had blonde hair and amazing abs - there was a young, handsome and cocky special agent: Ethan Hunt. And I like to believe that his character and entirety of this film influenced the reinvention of modern spy thriller. Obviously, if I'm saying these things I cannot be unbiased. M:I was my first adult film, that I watched countless of times on VCR when my parents were away. It was my introduction to blood, spies and intrigue on the silver screen. Even to Tom Cruise, whom to this day I consider to be a damn good actor. I've watched it almost religiously several times a month, mostly because we didn't have that many VHS tapes with live-action films. Then I discovered Internet and every single film of the world was right at my fingertips. That made me abandon M:I for some time. As I matured as viewer, I was afraid to return to this film. I didn't want to spoil the illusion, destroy the rose-tinted glasses and live in a world where Mission Impossible is considered as bad, dated and cheesy. But the time came where I had to face it - the film that defined my film taste. And you have no idea how relieved and glam I am. Because the only thing that has dated is the CGI. The rest is still good, and because I'm older it made me appreciate some details I couldn't have possible noticed before. The most important are probably throwbacks to film noir, which, as of now, is my favourite film genre. In his conscious decision Brian de Palma decorated this film with dutch angles, dolly zooms, extreme close-ups and high contrasts. Hell, for a good measure we also have few shots of marching through the full rain and light coming only through blinds. There's also plenty of examples of one of my favourite tropes, that many people find cheesy or obnoxious - a sudden realization. Whether it's [sp]Ethan realizing that entire mission in Prague was a mole hunt, or finding out that Jim is alive and he's the mole - or when the Jim realizes that his plan is gone to shit with a simple trick with glasses.[/sp] This film has plenty "Oh shit." moments. Just as many awesome one-liners ("You want to shake hands with the devil, that's fine with me. I just want to make sure that you do it in hell!") that aren't actually as cheesy as I worried they might be. The characters are also fleshed out really well, having their own, understandable motivations: Ethan, Jim, Kittridge and the minor characters as well (it's even better if you've watched the original TV series and you understand how much it shifts off of it, in a good and surprising way). These elements are a result of collaboration between Steven Zaillian, David Koepp and Robert Towne, all three of them are astonishingly good screenwriters. What's more, this film doesn't lose a thing on repeated viewing, and that's difficult to pull off in a film so heavily based on intrigue and plot twists. As I mentioned earlier, cinematography is awesome for that sort of a movie. De Palma's signature close-ups and wide angles works perfectly here. The locations are great, and the music by Danny Elfman is great and corresponds to Lalo Schiffrin's theme really well. But the most memorable thing about Mission Impossible is the action segments. It may be argued, about their logical fallacies (like, why the most protected room in the CIA Headquarters didn't had a simple CCTV or a motion sensor; or fighting on the top of riding TGV), but there's one thing that you can't deny - how awesome it all looked and felt. They still remained tense. But whether suspension of disbelief will prevent someone from enjoying them - that's up to individual viewer. I'd say that de Palma is actually really good at keeping suspension of disbelief in a right place in his films. I often wonder what went wrong with the sequels. The best answer I can think about is trying too hard. Going away from the roots. I mean, neither John Woo's or J.J. Abrams' interpretations were totally bad, but they were off. Did not have this particular feel of mystery, of unbelievable action and espionage element. A right amount ridiculousness blended with actual drama. A bridge between old-fashioned slow-paced drama and modern action without a moment of calm. Brad Bird understood what defined both the TV series and first installment and that's why it was enjoyable and really good. Also, he tried to retcon most of the Hunt's personal plotlines and kudos to him for that. Mission: Impossible, and I think Desperado are two films that most of the people may not keep in high regard - they're not deep, nor about serious matters, with serious characters. They're cheesy, sometimes bland and subjectively bad, but to me they are perfect just the way they are. Isn't the magic of the cinema just about it? [b]10/10[/b]

[QUOTE=Killuah;44551217]Boy you would really dislike most asian movies. Most of your questions could be answered by doing some thinking yourself and I begin to understand why the movie was cut short 20 minutes for the US audience. About stuff that was merely your opinion and not a real question: The Sushi-Scene was awesome and and a huge "in your face" towards traditional movie-pacing. The shootout was better than your standard sci-fi shootout pew pew scenes I don't get your point here, also it's pretty awesome to me since I have this close by: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendsburg_Loop[/url] The "stupid scenes" are meant to make the movie more abstract, fairy-tale like just like a lot of Asian movies do, I'm sorry if that's not what you like or understand but that doesn't make the movie stupid. Basically, don't be such an opinion-baby, we have enough of those in here already.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry I don't like something that you do.

[QUOTE=Sharker;44551910]I'm sorry I don't like something that you do.[/QUOTE] talk shit get crit That is the rule.

[QUOTE=Sharker;44551910]I'm sorry I don't like something that you do.[/QUOTE] You should be sorry you're not trying to understand what you're watching. [editline]15th April 2014[/editline] Also I played the shit out of the PS1 Mission Impossible game back then.

Snowpiercer: [b]Not Ben Affleck/10[/b] i get the criticisms and the praises you guys were talking about earlier. either way, i enjoyed it enough the movie and its source material are pretty creative and i think the polarization of reviews is probably because some people expect adaptations to be completely watertight standalone works, regardless of the characteristics of the source, and others believe an adaptation is only made to press an existing story through another medium, to give it another creative interpretation but whatever your fancy, i liked it because it was a fresh story, and i'm a little sick of the number of commercialized sequels around now

[QUOTE=Joz;44551586]Mission Impossible I[/QUOTE] I saw this movie for the first time 10 years ago, and I still haven't figured out the plot

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp3Ra3Yp74[/media] Ok so do the effects in the new Spiderman movie look very off to anyone else? It's like the light is constantly off. Pause at 0:33 for example, it looks so...like a videogame. Pause at 0:08 or 0:07 to see that the buildings that will be blurred anyway are some really cheap textures heck the buildings in gm_construct look better than that and it's NOT the blurr I'm talking about. 2:02 too when he jumps the car he looks just... too bright. I know it's in the middle of all kinds of lights but then it would be coloured at least.

This isn't the right thread, unless you've confused "movie" with "trailer". If you want to talk about the upcoming "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" go [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1258631]to this thread[/url] [sp]also trailers usually don't show the finalized version of a film[/sp]

isnt this the "general movie chat thread", pretty much?

Trailers often don't have the finished cgi and you'll even notice a lot of the time scenes from the trailer doesn't make it into the film. It's cos the trailers are obviously released weeks to months before a films theatre run, so final cut isn't there and the film is still in post production. You see a lot of placeholder background effects in trailers, things looking a bit faker/unfinished (your lighting point- it'll likely be better in the final film) So you can't really judge 100% how sfx will be until you watch the film (or the film itself as a lot of people say)

I never watch movie trailers or episode previews for the next week. They're all so damn spoilery, and I prefer going into them not knowing what's going to happen. At least my TV shows I never watch the preview since I know I'll watch the next week, but movies I generally go off of word-of-mouth as to whether its good or not.

12 Years a Slave - 10/10 Really jerked my emotions.

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;44557612]I never watch movie trailers or episode previews for the next week. They're all so damn spoilery, and I prefer going into them not knowing what's going to happen. At least my TV shows I never watch the preview since I know I'll watch the next week, but movies I generally go off of word-of-mouth as to whether its good or not.[/QUOTE] I dont understand trailers these days. They release 4-5 trailers showing almost every good scene or the movie. I guess its to keep people hooked but jeez i want to surprised by my movie not already know whats there.

[B]captain america: winter solider[/B] 6/10 some pretty exhilarating action/fight scenes but the plot was dumb as hell. the entire premise being essentially one big plot twist on every previous avenger/shield film they've been serving us since 2008. Tough pill to swallow. These post-Avengers films have been extremely mediocre... with Iron Man 3 bordering on being downright awful. I guess i'm thankful Winter Soldier wasn't on that level with dumbass outlandish crap like house party protocol, extremis, and magical self-propelling suit components. Edited to clarify my stance on why the plot was garbage since Pops is butthurt that i didn't love a comic book movie that he rated an overly generous 9.5 (seriously?) [sp]1)DERP! SHIELD has been Hydra all along! is simply a lame ass plot twist, period. and i don't like the way it pulls the rug from under every previous Avenger film. I wanted to see Hydra make a return, but not like this. The icing on this shitty ass cake was when it randomly turns out for no reason at all that the senator guy from Iron Man 2 (gary shandling) was also Hydra. Through all of this, the actual leaders of Hydra are no where to be seen at all (like Red Skull. we know he ain't dead, he was just transported somewhere by the tesseract) or not seen until the freaking credits are rolling (Baron Strucker). 2)Fury's "Death" was way too lame with how predictable it was going to turn out, and honestly just seemed like a lazy, convenient way for the writers to get rid of his character till the end of the film. 3) Zola's consciousness having been apparently uploaded into 1970's computer equipment was quite simply stupid as fuck. A feat so impossible that it destroys any chance for suspension of disbelief. It's amazing to me that even the comics' explanation for maintaining Zola's consciousness via some magic device that he got from Doctor Doom is still more believable than 1970's computer hardware. 4)More of a minor grievance, but seemed like Falcon was essentially just cannon fodder. All he really did was fly around and get shot at till Bucky ripped his wings off. Kinda lame, really. In addition to these specific points, overall, HYDRA's plan for apparent world domination was awful and ill conceived. So they want to set these 3 helicarriers up and kill a bunch of people? Thereby declaring war on the planet and revealing their existence? wtf? Why would they want to do that when operating secretly within SHIELD has apparently been going so well for so long? Even if they did get those helicarriers operational and successfully murdered everyone targeted by the algorithm, all that would do is immediately make themselves targets of the Avengers. Thor, Iron Man, and the Hulk alone would decimate those 3 helicarriers in less than a hour. The plan was suicide from the beginning.[/sp]