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

[QUOTE=Wingz;45070783]maleficent - 6/10[/QUOTE] I have to watch it because my feminist friend claims undertones of rape and how females can overcome this atrocity. Lol

im not interested in seeing Malificent but that sounds like a good and legitimate claim to make like that is a relevant and important thing to deal with in a hollywood film but it sounds like you have an issue with it striving for womens rights? hm??? [editline]11th June 2014[/editline] considering Hollywood is very anti-women, a mainstream release starring a massive name addressing feminism in a legitimate and empowering way is something I totally get behind and if you disagree then I just have to ask why

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45072596]im not interested in seeing Malificent but that sounds like a good and legitimate claim to make like that is a relevant and important thing to deal with in a hollywood film but it sounds like you have an issue with it striving for womens rights? hm??? [editline]11th June 2014[/editline] considering Hollywood is very anti-women, a mainstream release starring a massive name addressing feminism in a legitimate and empowering way is something I totally get behind and if you disagree then I just have to ask why[/QUOTE] Of course I haven't seen maleficent, but these kinda "hidden separate agendas" are usually hot bullshit spread by idiots. I could say that Rise of the Planet of the Apes has undertones and references of the diamond crisis in africa, but that doesn't mean it's so. I'd be willing to bet dollars to dimes that those allegations of overcoming rape are just people grasping at straws to find a hidden meaning behind a standard film. But again, I haven't seen the movie, so I may be COMPLETELY wrong.

I mean yeah possibly but at the same time just because the writer/director didn't set out to make it that way doesn't mean people interpreting it like that are wrong or anything. Director's intent means very little in my books. Read it how you will. To use another recent kids film I saw Frozen as an allegory on anxiety and depression but I have no idea if that was what they set out to do with the film, but I don't think it matters. That's how I took the film and what the director says won't change my opinion because to me that's the film they made.

[QUOTE]Stop posting forever please Edited: Literally all your posts do is take up peoples bandwidth that they could use for something else, and space on Garry's servers and peoples time[/QUOTE] You sound just like the Nostalgia Critic.

owned......

Godzilla - 8/10 Oh, this was so fucking good. The performances are rock solid, the effects are amazing and I'm pretty sure I orgasmed a little when[sp]Godzilla did that 10 second roar after the HALO jump team landed.[/sp] I can't wait until this comes out on Blu-Ray, this is a day one buy, period. Pacific Rim - 7/10 It's a visually spectacular movie, much like Godzilla, but there's so [b]MANY[/b] issues and problems that it really drags everything down a few notches. Still worth a watch and very enjoyable, even more so if you completely switch off and just don't think about anything.

Yeah but where is the line drawn? Does saying that Jack and Jill is an allegory for the folly of man make it a better film? I think directors intent should definitely be taken into consideration.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45073722]Godzilla - 8/10 Oh, this was so fucking good. The performances are rock solid, the effects are amazing and I'm pretty sure I orgasmed a little when[sp]Godzilla did that 10 second roar after the HALO jump team landed.[/sp] I can't wait until this comes out on Blu-Ray, this is a day one buy, period. Pacific Rim - 7/10 It's a visually spectacular movie, much like Godzilla, but there's so [b]MANY[/b] issues and problems that it really drags everything down a few notches. Still worth a watch and very enjoyable, even more so if you completely switch off and just don't think about anything.[/QUOTE] Pacific Rim's flaws become much more detracting on a second viewing. Hopefully that isn't the case with Godzilla.

i usually dont look for those sort of things in movies but i can see where your friend would see that maleficent is like that i didnt think of it when i first saw it, but if thats where your mind is at at the time it pretty much fits also, im sort of confused about my rating for maleficent it was a good reboot of a good movie, and did away with some tropes that i hated but its still poorly acted and written in some spots so idk what do rate it lol

[QUOTE=Scot;45073761]Pacific Rim's flaws become much more detracting on a second viewing. Hopefully that isn't the case with Godzilla.[/QUOTE] In my experience, in movies like these where the critical and public reception is heavily mixed (though leaning towards favorable), the negative opinions will stick with you for a while and make you more critical of a movie you loved the second time you see it, but when the general public stops paying attention and nobody talks about it for a while you come around to loving it again. Again, that's how it's been for me.

[QUOTE=Hoboiam;45073725]Yeah but where is the line drawn? Does saying that Jack and Jill is an allegory for the folly of man make it a better film? I think directors intent should definitely be taken into consideration.[/QUOTE] I don't mean director's intent is worthless or anything. I just think your own interpretation is equally valid. (i worded it badly) Jack & Jill could have set out to be some piece of existential philosophy or something but it was a terrible movie (going by literally everything ive heard about it- not seen it and have no intentions on doing so) and Sandler's intent doesn't save it. Any kind of film can be bad regardless of what they're trying to do- there's no subject, theme, or filmmaking style that will always result in a good movie. So no. Jack & Jill as allegory for the folly of man does not make it a better film. Or, maybe it does, but it doesn't push it to the point of being good. Just, maybe you can kinda slightly a little bit get where it's coming from if you stretch it a lot? :v: Execution plays into it a lot, obviously. I think a good example of what you're getting at is the awful [I]Revolver[/I] by Guy Ritchie, one of the biggest failures of a film I can think of. Richie clearly thought it was a genius insight of the psyche or... Something. But he fucked it up and made one of the most pretentious and terrible films I've ever seen, regardless of what he was trying to tackle in subject matter/thematic substance. He tried to make an arthouse crime film filled with symbolism and motifs but none of it really means anything and serve only make an already complex and hard to follow plot even more messy and convoluted. His intent of an underlying message didn't make it a better film, it actually made it [I]worse[/I]. But at the same time, I do agree that director's intent is relevant to an extent. For instance I watched [I]Paranoid Park [/I]last night (a good movie), and although it's not an obvious thing in the film I took it as an allegory for being a gay adolescent. Knowing that director Gus Van Sant is a gay man who is interested in the issues of youths, I can look at Paranoid Park not just as a film but as a Gus Van Sant film, and see that yes, this is probably not just my reading of the film, but also Van Sant's intention in making the movie. So I suppose all I am really trying to say is that the filmmaker has one (or a few) ways of looking at their film but ultimately people will likely read it in different ways and I think it's great to think about films like that. The director's meaning isn't the only one ya know? When I was at the screening for my friends short film someone came up to him after and said it was a great feminist short film- something he had never even considered, but on hearing it mentioned realised what she meant and he really liked it. (I never saw it either but it's probably my favourite interpretation of his film now) So I think that's a decent first-hand example of different people reading the same thing in very different ways?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45073722]Godzilla - 8/10 The performances are rock solid[/QUOTE] [quote]performances[/quote] [quote][B]rock[/B][/quote] [quote][B]solid[/B][/quote] :suicide:

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;45074927]:suicide:[/QUOTE] Hey, I've recently watched Kit Harington mumble and mono-expression his way through a movie, I'm still in the fallout where I'm easily impressed. Besides, there wasn't really anything bad per se about the acting. Little wonky here and there perhaps but not worth eating your own beard in frustration at.

the kids were all abysmally shit and ATJ was as flat as could be. Watanabe was weak as well and he's quite good and Bryan Cranston got not nearly enough screen time (being both the pest actor and best character)

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45075273]the kids were all abysmally shit[/quote] They're child actors, good ones don't exactly come by the dozen. [quote]and ATJ was as flat as could be.[/quote] He's bearable. Honestly, he has the unfortunate fact of being compared to Bryan Cranston right from the bat so you're going to have to bring some major game to top that. [quote]Watanabe was weak as well and he's quite good[/quote] Hey man, turning your head dramatically and saying 'GOJIRA'? Nobody does that as good as he did. [quote]and Bryan Cranston got not nearly enough screen time (being both the pest actor and best character)[/QUOTE] Honestly, I was a little pissed at that.

The kids sucked but kids can be good. Given the production values of the film I doubt they didn't do big casting calls and stuff for the roles. It was probably Gareth Edwards not directing them very well.

Godzilla (1954) - 7/10 Let's get the obvious question out of the way; how do the effects hold up? Well, it's one of the most mixed bags you'll ever see. The suit effects (for the most part) and Godzilla's rampage on Tokyo have aged better than I thought they would while some parts are absolutely laughable. There's a close-up of his feet at one point where the suit folds while walking and the atomic breath looks like there's a spray-can of deodorant just off screen. Overall, I'd say it's very obviously aged but not as bad as you might expect. You'll also want to prepare yourself for a surprisingly dark movie. Monster movies, especially ones at the time, tend to have a lighter, almost at times humorous tone about them but Godzilla is very serious and very grim. You can tell that this was a response to World War 2 and the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What brings it down a chunk is the ending being driven by what is probably the worst bit of pseudoscience I have EVER seen. To get an impression of how bad it is; I haven't had a chemistry lesson in 6 years and there were at least 3 problems off the top of my head I could think of. I'm not even going to explain it, you have to see the movie to truly believe it. And you really should, it's a piece of history. A movie that spawned a cult phenomenon and deeply inspired by very recent history. Despite the ending being a tremendous crock of shit, it still has its firmly-rooted place in monster movie history and it's definitely worth your time.

Fargo 5/5 Given that the new show is ending soon, I figured I'd give this a rewatch. Great film by the Coens. If I must ever come up with an example for a flawless film, it's this. Same with No Country for Old Men.

The Fault In Our Stars Everyone's a cunt/10

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45074205]I don't mean director's intent is worthless or anything. I just think your own interpretation is equally valid. (i worded it badly) Jack & Jill could have set out to be some piece of existential philosophy or something but it was a terrible movie (going by literally everything ive heard about it- not seen it and have no intentions on doing so) and Sandler's intent doesn't save it. Any kind of film can be bad regardless of what they're trying to do- there's no subject, theme, or filmmaking style that will always result in a good movie. So no. Jack & Jill as allegory for the folly of man does not make it a better film. Or, maybe it does, but it doesn't push it to the point of being good. Just, maybe you can kinda slightly a little bit get where it's coming from if you stretch it a lot? :v: Execution plays into it a lot, obviously. I think a good example of what you're getting at is the awful [I]Revolver[/I] by Guy Ritchie, one of the biggest failures of a film I can think of. Richie clearly thought it was a genius insight of the psyche or... Something. But he fucked it up and made one of the most pretentious and terrible films I've ever seen, regardless of what he was trying to tackle in subject matter/thematic substance. He tried to make an arthouse crime film filled with symbolism and motifs but none of it really means anything and serve only make an already complex and hard to follow plot even more messy and convoluted. His intent of an underlying message didn't make it a better film, it actually made it [I]worse[/I]. But at the same time, I do agree that director's intent is relevant to an extent. For instance I watched [I]Paranoid Park [/I]last night (a good movie), and although it's not an obvious thing in the film I took it as an allegory for being a gay adolescent. Knowing that director Gus Van Sant is a gay man who is interested in the issues of youths, I can look at Paranoid Park not just as a film but as a Gus Van Sant film, and see that yes, this is probably not just my reading of the film, but also Van Sant's intention in making the movie. So I suppose all I am really trying to say is that the filmmaker has one (or a few) ways of looking at their film but ultimately people will likely read it in different ways and I think it's great to think about films like that. The director's meaning isn't the only one ya know? When I was at the screening for my friends short film someone came up to him after and said it was a great feminist short film- something he had never even considered, but on hearing it mentioned realised what she meant and he really liked it. (I never saw it either but it's probably my favourite interpretation of his film now) So I think that's a decent first-hand example of different people reading the same thing in very different ways?[/QUOTE] Really good post. I guess I'm not really the type of person to make my own interpretations about things in cinema a lot of the time, rather I hear what the director thinks about it, and try to piece everything together based on his or her interpretation. That's just the way I've always sold things off to my friends. A good example would be Only God Forgives. None of my friends seemed to like it too much, but when I went into detail about what the director said this film was touching on and the various bits of symbolism, they kinda came around to see my point of view on why I appreciated it so much. But on the flip side, after showing them Spring Breakers, I tried to share my own interpretation of the film, and was met with mixed reactions because none of them really saw it in the same light as me. They weren't taking my word, because in their mind, it was just some dumb romp rather than what I took out of it. And they never did until I came out and said "no guys, the director himself said ______." And I guess maybe that's a part of being a fan of cinema that I'm missing. I don't have any friends that are as deep into movies as I am, so my role is more about presenting new things for them to watch, rather than having deep discussions about them for days on end, because that's not the type of people I hang around. Most of my more thought-provoking films I watch alone, so I don't have anyone to bounce my interpretations off of. It's mainly what I read from the directors, or other internet users who are smarter than I am.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45075240]Hey, I've recently watched Kit Harington mumble and mono-expression his way through a movie, I'm still in the fallout where I'm easily impressed. Besides, there wasn't really anything bad per se about the acting. Little wonky here and there perhaps but not worth eating your own beard in frustration at.[/QUOTE] oh god you watched that shitshow pompeii as well?

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45072289][IMG]http://puu.sh/9oVrT/fc4211ccdb.jpg[/IMG] [B]nothin sexier than cancer damn boi[/B][/QUOTE] everything ive seen of this movie looks like complete garbage

[QUOTE=Pops;45077931]oh god you watched that shitshow pompeii as well?[/QUOTE] Literally the only parts worth watching are the destruction of Pompeii itself. Everything else is just plain bad.

7/10 Sherlock 2 (maybe even a 6/10) My problem with it was it essentially turned into a big action flick rather than the first one which had more thriller elements. Also, the slow-mo signature of this series was used too much for my taste. I don't know why but I felt like the characters weren't nearly as interesting this time. Without giving away too much, there is a certain event that happens very early in the movie. I felt it would have been more effective to explore the impact this had on Holmes (basically wasn't covered at all). There were also a couple loose ends that were left open...but those could possibly lead to a sequel (although I doubt they will). Basically, it was still a fun movie, but unlike the first one, I felt like this was a run-of-the-mill action flick (which is fine).

Edge of Tomorrow Like pretty much everyone in the thread said, it's a pretty good film. Not, like, amazing, but better than Oblivion (which to be fair I liked a lot). There was a lot more humour in it than I expected, but in hindsight it makes a lot of sense for it to be there, to keep the repeats interesting and point out how silly it can be at times.

i don't get how anyone enjoyed oblivion

watched the Expendables 1 & 2. Both are pretty average even for a mindless action film. I was pretty bored with them both tbh. 4/10

look rusty i enjoy a lot of objectively shit stuff okay :v:

[I]Oblivion[/I] was okay, it's just that the huge reveal was meaningless due to the trailers. [editline]12th June 2014[/editline] Plus, there was a lot of plot-related invincibility.