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

Spider Man 3 - 6/10 Damn it, this had so much potential. I feel like it would have been better in two separate films so we could have gotten more screen time with Venom and Sandman. Not enough action in this one either, and that one scene had no place being conceived. You know which one I'm referring to. I wish Harry didn't die as well. Oh well. [sp]Just dig on this[/sp]

I honestly think the best part of Spiderman 3 is when he is possessed by the venom suit because it has provided me with consistent laughter for like 7 years now [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] and it's legitimately hilarious whereas the rest of the film is mediocre to bad

I don't think boring is the word, it was just absurd and almost wrecks the goodness of the first two... [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqKWAc_wt60[/media]

franco got me swooning there ngl

I remember the entire theatre erupting in laugher multiple times when some friends and I went to see SM3. It was a thoroughly entertaining movie.

yea spiderman 3 aint boring its fun as hell even if it does kinda suck but that's why it's a great laugh. It's absurd and surreal, but also Sam Raimi's slapstick influence from people like The Three Stooges is blatantly at play and I think a lot of people miss that. Raimi knew it was dumb and he played on it. Similar to what he did with Evil Dead II (fight me over that comparison i dare ya its true)

i was in tears when i saw this [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOtpeYERu9w[/url]

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;44785055]i was in tears when i saw this [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOtpeYERu9w[/media][/QUOTE] Raimi knew exactly what he was doing

[QUOTE=Hoboiam;44782572]My favorite movie is No Country For Old Men 'cause there's not a single bit o' music in the entire thing Why would you sully the great art of film with a shoddy fraudulent "art" like MUSIC[/QUOTE] Actually, there's about three pieces of music in the movie, but they're very understated.

kung fu panda 2 - 7/10 surprisingly good, the art style is great and the action is really satisfying

[QUOTE=cricket50;44785296]kung fu panda 2 - 7/10 surprisingly good, the art style is great and the action is really satisfying[/QUOTE] the trailers for the Kung Fu Panda movies lied to me they told me the movies would be bad

Looper 4/5 Cool movie.

[QUOTE=Scot;44782580]Damn you're over 40 years old?[/QUOTE] imagine he's reviewing movies that he's been watching for the last 40 years

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;44785287]Actually, there's about three pieces of music in the movie, but they're very understated.[/QUOTE] okay nvm 3/10 then

-snip- I think I just restated the joke...

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;44782141]"no" the world's end was a shoddy attempt to take the same cornetto format and paste it into a sci-fi story. they (wright, pegg and frost) might really like sci-fi, but they're pretty shit at actually making it. they had some semi-interesting ideas about updating the invasion of the body snatchers concept but didn't go far enough with any of them and it just ended up being a massive mediocre mess. and for what was supposed to be a comedy film, having a laugh or two every ten minutes does not a good comedy make. hell, the avengers film was funnier than worlds end whereas scott pilgrim was pretty good and although it suffered from having to compress content that could've made at least two and half movies into one, it was still enjoyable, witty, and had a consistent semi-surreal style that was always entertaining. not to mention the soundtrack, which was flipping fantastic, and was used ridiculously well diegetically in the film[/QUOTE] none of this is true about scott pilgrim. it was entirely unfunny, the comic effects were jarring, and there was no chemistry between the lead actors. it was chock full of video game references just for the sake of them, they added nothing to the movie except to trick your average lolcat videogamer into enjoying it. it was a wholly bad film

I unironically like Scott Pilgrim. It was the best movie ever when I was watching it in the movie theater, but after I watched it again, it bumped down to like an 8. I like the soundtrack a lot, I bought the CD, but maybe that's what carries it for me. I also unironically like Michael Cera as an actor. I guess the age of seeing him all over the place from 07-10 is over. Feels like it was yesterday he was in a lot of movies. Scott Pilgrim came out 4 years ago. I feel old. (It took me 45 minutes to type this, I don't know how to explain myself correctly)

I unironically hated Scott Pilgrim

scott pilgrim is a bad movie but it did lots of good things for example, now we know exactly just how much comic book-like stylization is too much also, as out of place as the effects were, they were still well done imo edit: i said lots but i only listed two, how embarrassing

[QUOTE=Rusty100;44786487]none of this is true about scott pilgrim. it was entirely unfunny, the comic effects were jarring, and there was no chemistry between the lead actors. it was chock full of video game references just for the sake of them, they added nothing to the movie except to trick your average lolcat videogamer into enjoying it. it was a wholly bad film[/QUOTE] some of that makes me wonder if you read the graphic novels like the comic effects and the random video game references are a part of them, so seeing them in the film was a good thing, although they coulda been done a bit better everything else there i can agree with

[QUOTE=Pops;44786862]some of that makes me wonder if you read the graphic novels like the comic effects and the random video game references are a part of them, so seeing them in the film was a good thing, although they coulda been done a bit better everything else there i can agree with[/QUOTE] why would i read the graphic novels of a film i hated? [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] 'ITS LIKE THAT IN THE COMIC' is the worst excuse to use for a movie. if it's like that in the comic DON'T MAKE IT A MOVIE

[B]Batman: Year One[/B] 8/10 [t]http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/26808/Batman%20year%20one.jpg[/t] Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City after a decade-long absence, seeking to find a way to to save his broken hometown. Lieutenant James Gordon, a good man who's made some bad decisions, is a fresh transfer to the city from Chicago. [I]Year One[/I] explores the lives of these two men as they face incredible odds and challenges from all sides in their search for justice. Frank Miller's writing on the original miniseries was fantastic, breathing new life into the city and the characters. We see Bruce's growing obsession and skill, honing his focus and abilities to become the Batman. In action, Batman is both impressive yet relatable - an exceptionally skilled fighter and a terrifying presence, yet still a man who is prone to error and injury. Gordon similarly refuses to give in to the seedy corruption about him, struggling to keep himself on the straight-and-narrow to truly serve and protect the innocent. Jim knows what is right but constantly struggles against others and himself to stay true to his strong moral compass. However, Miller used a [I]lot[/I] of narration in his writing. Both Gordon and Wayne provided a constant "running commentary" over the events. The adaptation keeps some of this exposition in the form of voice-overs, but ends up cutting a lot of it. Usually I didn't notice, but sometimes the unnecessary silence felt awkward. One of the most iconic lines from the book - [URL="http://i.imgur.com/7JOu2JN.jpg"]"I shall become a bat"[/URL] - is inexplicably cut, and a scene where Batman hides in an abandoned building feels oddly silent. On the whole, though, Tab Murphy does a fine job adapting the script. Rich visuals enhance the film's look. Deep yellow glows, cool gray shadows, sepia hues, the movie feels like a gritty pulp novel. Of course shadows and nighttime are important to Batman, but we see a lot of times and lights to give the movie vibrancy. Bryan Cranston was great as Gordon, giving him the stern roughness but also the gentle humanity the struggling public servant needs. I wasn't too impressed with McKenzie's performance, though. From the first lines his Bruce Wayne was underwhelming, and his Batman never really found a good middle ground between Conroy's menacing baritone and Bale's rough growl. Fortunately the story generally focuses more on Gordon. Definitely a well-made film. It occasionally feels lacking, but it certainly drew me in with the strong characters. Recommended watching (and reading!) if you're interested in seeing more of Batman and Jim Gordon. With all the buzz about the upcoming "Gotham" TV series, this is a solid prequel to look into. [sp]Rusty I'm sorry for saying "IT'S LIKE THAT IN THE COMIC"[/sp] This is the first DC Animated movie I've seen. What other ones should I check out? I remember hearing that [I]Under the Red Hood[/I] and [I]The Dark Knight Returns[/I] are pretty great.

The Dark Knight Returns is probably the best DC animated film so far. [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] And that's saying something considering how much I disliked Miller's Superman but it's still great. Peter Weller makes a fantastic old grumpy weirdo Batman. Under the Red Hood comes at a close second. Most of the others are generally pretty good and at worst, very mediocre.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;44786896]why would i read the graphic novels of a film i hated? [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] 'ITS LIKE THAT IN THE COMIC' is the worst excuse to use for a movie. if it's like that in the comic DON'T MAKE IT A MOVIE[/QUOTE] idk man they wanted to copy the style since it's a comic n all the comics were pretty good, way better than the movie which cut out some decent characterization parts along with the entire lisa miller bit just don't hurt me please

Barton Fink - 10/10 I'll always have a boner for the Coen Brothers, but this movie probably made me the hardest. One of those movies that makes you think for a good long time afterward what it's really about, peeling apart the wallpapers to find whatever symbolism is hidden on a deeper level. Also, John Goodman scares the fucking shit out of me in a good way.

[B]Final Destination 2000[/B] So many great gore scenes here. 8/10

Frozen, 8.7/10 Well paced, well done, good characters. Could have been longer. [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] The World's End 9.3/10 My favourite of the Blood and Ice Cream trilogy. I liked the characters (best background and development in the Trilogy), fight scenes were well done. I've been trying to think of something I didn't like in it for about ten minutes or more. Eh, fuck it.

[QUOTE=Pops;44787308]idk man they wanted to copy the style since it's a comic n all the comics were pretty good, way better than the movie which cut out some decent characterization parts along with the entire lisa miller bit just don't hurt me please[/QUOTE] They tried to copy the comics yes but the problem is comics and films are two very different mediums and what you can get away with in one won't necessarily work in the other. Scott Pilgrim is just a feature length reminder of that.

Honestly my biggest problem with Scott Pilgrim is Michael Cera. He does not fit the role of Scott at all, especially when he's stuck doing his typical awkward teenager schtick. It's even more disappointing when put next to how well the rest of the cast embodied the comic versions of their characters.

Clash of the Titans it was okay. Most of it was very meh but there were a few little things that I liked, such as the scorpion dude's make-up which was fantastic, the animatronic ferryman (who had literally two seconds of screentime) and the fight with Medusa which did a good job of building tension. The "fight" with the Kraken, which is what the entire movie was leading up to, was extremely shit. I might watch Wrath at some point but I've heard it's pretty much the same.