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

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40972984]dont bother with cloud atlas its a pretentious piece convoluted of garbage with terrible acting all around[/QUOTE] Terrible acting? I thought the performances were fairly solid. The idea that the generations were[sp] loosly linked through previous lives[/sp] and the human struggle for freedom from bondage was well constructed. The futuristic stage was excellent and I've not seen anything quite like the whole package. It wasn't a classic but a great attempt at something original. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of permabanned user" - Rusty100))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=judedozer;40974948]Terrible acting? I thought the performances were fairly solid. The idea that the generations were[sp] loosly linked through previous lives[/sp] and the human struggle for freedom from bondage was well constructed. The futuristic stage was excellent and I've not seen anything quite like the whole package. It wasn't a classic but a great attempt at something original.[/QUOTE] From what i've seen, people were [b]really[/b] split on this movie. I personally didn't like it that much, but I can understand why someone else might like it.

After Earth was shit, 4 / 10. Mediocre CGI (those monkeys looked bad, and the Ursa looked terrible), bad acting on Will Smith's sons part, shitty plot, cheesy scenes. Was terrible.

[B]Shooting dogs (2005)[/B] The Rwandan genocide makes a good story and it's already been told near on perfectly through Hotel Rwanda but this is not far off its equal. John Hurt is the priest of a church and school under the protection of a small Belgian UN observer unit but the savages are at the gates. 800000 people were massacred in that place, I guess this is the story of some of them. Moving and brutal but well told. I recommend this film.

Star Trek: The Search for Spock - 7/10 The best of the odd numbered Star Trek films. The Enterprise's destruction was the best scene.

[QUOTE=judedozer;40974948]Terrible acting? I thought the performances were fairly solid. The idea that the generations were[sp] loosly linked through previous lives[/sp] and the human struggle for freedom from bondage was well constructed. The futuristic stage was excellent and I've not seen anything quite like the whole package. It wasn't a classic but a great attempt at something original. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of permabanned user" - Rusty100))[/highlight][/QUOTE] how smart do you think doing this was are you going to make a new account for every post

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40972984]dont bother with cloud atlas its a pretentious piece of convoluted garbage with terrible acting all around[/QUOTE] insulting other's opinions to hide your own insecurity

Lol please don't start this again...

[QUOTE=GunskiMod;40990830]insulting other's opinions to hide your own insecurity[/QUOTE] rofl when did i insult other peoples opinions? i insulted the movie...

rofl

[QUOTE=GunskiMod;40990830]insulting other's opinions to hide your own insecurity[/QUOTE] more like pointing out other people's possible insecurity to hide your own insecurity

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40990787]how smart do you think doing this was are you going to make a new account for every post[/QUOTE] I thought we were cool bro. I've had a slight altercation with one of the other mods but theres no reason that should be a problem between us. I don't cause any problems on your patch so lets start over. Much love. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("please stop" - Rusty100))[/highlight]

i ain't cool with bigots and homophobes, go elsewhere. #told

[QUOTE=judedozer;40979661][B]Shooting dogs (2005)[/B] The Rwandan genocide makes a good story and it's already been told near on perfectly through Hotel Rwanda but this is not far off its equal. John Hurt is the priest of a church and school under the protection of a small Belgian UN observer unit but the savages are at the gates. 800000 people were massacred in that place, I guess this is the story of some of them. Moving and brutal but well told. I recommend this film.[/QUOTE] I have a relative who was killed in the Rwandan genocide. Mum's cousin I think. Fun fact, I rarely get to share it

[B]Safety Not Guaranteed- 9/10[/B] I enjoyed this movie a lot more than I thought I would. I went in expecting it to be a movie about a guy that went back in time, and was very pleasantly surprised when the time travel aspect took a back seat to the character development. [B]Mugabe and the White African- 8/10[/B] Very good documentary about the racist regime put in place by the Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe. It's infuriating to see the kind of things that white farmers in Zimbabwe are put through. [sp]I think it would have been better without the super feel-good ending, though, considering that the story doesn't end where the movie left off and there was still quite a bit of bad that happened after that. [/sp]

[B]Resovoir Dogs 9/10[/B] god this movie was just solid, can't believe i never saw this [B]A Good Day to Die Hard 5.5/10[/B] jai courtney is pretty much one of the worst actors i've ever seen. he and bruce willis just straight up do not work well together some cool action scenes though [B]The Thin Red Line 10/10[/B] saw this for the second time, still my absolute personal favorite

[b]Iceman 7.2/10[/b] eh it was well acted and you actually had sympathy for him, really interesting though i'd suggest you watch this movie first and then the interview with the real iceman

Star Trek: Into Darkess; 8/10 I'm actually surprised by how good this was. The characters were all well played, the references to WOK were excellently placed, and the Abrams universe plays into it perfectly. Although, the part with Nimoy returning a Prime Spock is confusing and uncalled for, to say the least. In other words, a solid, if slightly odd, film that is an excellent sequel to the first Abrams Star Trek.

Started watching Oldboy last night, however I fell asleep as it was really late. But holy fuck it was amazing. That squid scene man...

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;41002937]Star Trek: Into Darkess; 8/10 I'm actually surprised by how good this was. The characters were all well played, the references to WOK were excellently placed, and the Abrams universe plays into it perfectly. Although, the part with Nimoy returning a Prime Spock is confusing and uncalled for, to say the least. In other words, a solid, if slightly odd, film that is an excellent sequel to the first Abrams Star Trek.[/QUOTE] False. The references to WOK were bad and out of space, especially the KHAN scream Even George Constanza does a better KHAN scream than Spock [video=youtube;_3xopNvnyps]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xopNvnyps[/video]

The original Red Dawn - 6.5/10, actually, primarily for its attempts at letting humanity play itself out in a self-respecting manner - although the limits come down hard and fast. It's got some of the redeeming qualities of the mass-market Hollywood of the decades before, but you begin to see a bit of self-serving direction creeping in - it's no longer obliged to show, for example, that war involves just as much mangling as "threat reduction". I'm sure this is where the "protagonists fight through an entire base and leave unscathed" trope comes from. The rest of the movie, though, remains a triviality about trivialities - unless, of course, you believe in reading anything (a) the premise as a projection from the context of the movie's release, or (b) what follows from the premise. If you try your hardest to look for it's got some vaguely tantalizing notes about the grinding nature of insurgency and what asymmetric warfare should mean (there's *some* ambivalence - insurgency is insurgency, and positions of power - "policemen" - are positions of power; and that rhetoric and go on and on without talking about what it actually means to do the human condition good.) But the rest of the movie has this ethereal dream-like quality - it's impossible to engage when you're simultaneously dealing with verisimilitude and heavy-handed attempts at nudging, here and there, just to avoid inconsistency. It's annoying, most of all, to see attempts at meaning "warfare and the hypocrisy it brings"; "they bring back their dead, right? So cruel"; "a warm house where my shadow never falls, your long, black hair in my hands"; "am I doing right?" just left hanging there - either an opportunistically-placed ambush or a cut so that questions don't need to be answered. But I suppose it doesn't tar the movie with inconsistency like that.

Source Code 9/10 Good film.

[QUOTE=loopoo;40977431]After Earth was shit, 4 / 10. Mediocre CGI (those monkeys looked bad, and the Ursa looked terrible), bad acting on Will Smith's sons part, shitty plot, cheesy scenes. Was terrible.[/QUOTE] 4/10 is just below average. the scale goes from 1 to 10.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;41009987]4/10 is just below average. the scale goes from 1 to 10.[/QUOTE] People seem to employ the IGN scale in this thread. [IMG]http://www.thegamecritique.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Review-Scale.png[/IMG]

that's a godawful scale edit: you already knew this

[QUOTE=sp00ks;41009987]4/10 is just below average. the scale goes from 1 to 10.[/QUOTE] 4/10 because I've seen worse? I mean, it's not The Human Centipede shit. I went in expecting something much better, but what I got was a 4/10. I'd recommend it to people who have nothing better to do, but I wouldn't tell someone to actually plan a day out to go see it.

[B]Killing Them Softly[/B] I liked it, a lot, but often had trouble remembering people's names and such so I had some trouble following it. I'm not sure if it's because of me, or if the film itself wasn't clear enough, but the fact remains that I found it confusing. Definetly needs a rewatch for an actual rating. I still grasped the story and most of the dialogue, unfortunately Brad Pitt's character was the only really interesting one. The others were ehh, okay I guess, some better than others. I liked the overall style and direction, they didn't go for the Godfather or Goodfellas gangster "feel", but came up with a fairly unique and fresh way of telling the story. Other than that, some poweful scenes, some slightly boring parts, but I won't say anything else because as I said I need to rewatch it properly.

A Series of Unfortunate Events It's a damn shame this movie didn't develop into a Harry Potter scale franchise. It takes just three of the thirteen books and condenses them into a stand-alone story that looks great but feels overall unsatisfying. It also has a much more humorous tone than the darker books, but that's to be expected for a movie marketed to young teens. I give it an IGN 8.9/10

Without Jim Carrey it would have been complete garbage. I agree, the books are so good and had so much potential to spawn a succesfull movie series. What a shame. I'm still hoping someone talented will retry bringing them to the big screen in the future, but I strongly doubt it.

Terminator 3 7/10 might not be so good story wise but as an action movie its fucking awesome