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

[QUOTE=theLazyLion;45725359]As much as i loved edge of tomorrow the only thing that didnt make sense to me was [sp] that Cruise didnt have the alien blood in his system when he awoke on base, so how did he retain his powers after dying, because apparently death triggers only your memory being sent back in time to your former self (which didnt have alien blood at the time) so he shouldnt have retained the powers after the first death. Also the reason he always wakes up at the same time when its supposed to be 24 hrs even though he sometimes he died at the beach, sometimes past the beach, and sometimes even at the base, i think its because he was knocked out before being taken to the base camp and kept being transferred to his body while unconscious, and by the time he awoke hed be at the same spot again. [/sp][/QUOTE] That's not how it worked at all. It's not the blood that is the key to the power, the blood only transfers it. He doesn't have to keep on being exposed to the blood, it's a one-time deal. He got covered in the blood once, and basically [sp]filled the position of the Alpha, for all intents and purposes, he was seen by the Omega as being an Alpha. Every time he died, this triggered the Omega's reflex to send back the consciousnesses of itself and it's Alpha Mimics, as it has evolved this as a kind of defense mechanism. If something is strong enough to kill an Alpha, it either means the plan isn't working, or the plan is not as efficient as it could be. Carter was never in control of his powers. The thing controlling it was Omega being tricked into thinking the death of Carter was a death of one of it's Alphas. So it'd send back the consciousness to defeat the threat.[/sp] [sp]Carter kills an Alpha, which is basically a "sentinel". It goes along with the grunts (those orangey Mimics) and if they get killed, it's basically a signal for the Omega to say "Okay, this tactic is not very efficient, we'll rewind and try a different approach". The Mimics don't time travel, the Omega just has the ability to transfer consciousnesses back to previous times. So every time an Alpha dies, Omega does what it's evolved to do: it sends back the consciousness to itself and all the Alpha Mimics, so they can retain their memory and overcome whatever difficulty they face and eventually eradicate their enemy / prey. [/sp] The reason he always wakes up in the same spot is because the Omega set an "anchor" to that point in time. It's not 24 hours, it's just a point in time that it sends it's consciousness back to. If the Omega was successful, it'd set a new anchor point up, in which it - and all the Alpha Mimics - would revert to when one of the Alpha Mimics die. At least, that's my understanding of it?

Watched a couple movies last night with friends. Guardians of the Galaxy 4/5 My third time, their second. Still incredibly enjoyable. Sin City 5/5 They hadn't seen it before and they all liked it rather well. Hopefully A Dame to Kill For doesn't disappoint. The Cabin in the Woods 5/5 If there is one word I would use to describe this movie, it would be "genius." As far as a deconstruction of the horror genre goes, it's brilliant and well written and directed. The Evil Dead 4/5 Yeah, we probably should have watched this before Cabin, but whatever. Despite it having some genuinely freaky moments, it does get a whole lot funnier with the more people you watch it with. (also, around this time I began to nod off) Inglourious Basterds 5/5 Yeah, I slept through this one, but it's a 5/5 movie all the same.

[QUOTE=Joz;45724330]It's a good film, but don't try to make it some kind of masterpiece. Well executed and typical love coming of age story, but underneath it's still the same story that we've seen in dozens of films having nothing groundbreaking or unusual. I'd say it exceeded my expectations but still not enough to explain its Palme d'Or from 2013.[/QUOTE] it might not have told a brand new story or anything but the way it handled the story and the way it tied it into different kinds of love and how they affect you as a person etc was great, films don't have to be something brand new to be fantastic. Bitwc is incredibly honest and beautiful to me and I love it for it, it's the only 10/10 of last year to me. None of the big films of last year really did anything new either except kinda Her. It felt fresh and genuine and I don't think the story was particularly generic at all, I mean looking at it on an purely conceptual level yes it's been done before but it's the characters and events (as well as absolutely amazing performances and beautiful, emotive photography) that make it so good. Like for instance Drive is hailed by many as one of the best films of the decade so far but it's plot is generic as all hell. It's the [I]execution [/I] that makes it great. That's what it is every time. It's how you tell your story.

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;45725893] The Cabin in the Woods 5/5 If there is one word I would use to describe this movie, it would be "genius." As far as a deconstruction of the horror genre goes, it's brilliant and [B]well written[/B] and directed. [/QUOTE] Except the climax. It's absolute awesome, the violence is horrendously and visceral but it's unbelievably stupid.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45725961]Except the climax. It's absolute awesome and visceral but it's unbelievably stupid.[/QUOTE] like the movie is meant to be?

The ending is smart. It's stupid too but through self-aware parody and almost critique.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45726013]The ending is smart. It's stupid too but through self-aware parody and almost critique.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's me. To me, the whole[sp]'let's have a button that opens every goddamn monster door with no security whatso-fucking-ever'[/sp]kind of stuck out like a sore thumb. I still love it to death (I didn't pick up the steelbook bluray for nothing) but I'll never be able to let that slide.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45726187]Maybe it's me. To me, the whole[sp]'let's have a button that opens every goddamn monster door with no security whatso-fucking-ever'[/sp]kind of stuck out like a sore thumb. I still love it to death (I didn't pick up the steelbook bluray for nothing) but I'll never be able to let that slide.[/QUOTE] ..i think that's sorta the point, it parodies dumb movies that have shit like that [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=loopoo;45722473][B]Her was boring imo. [/B]Wolf of Wall St was incredible, 12 Years A Slave was heartbreaking, Prisoners was dark and gritty, it took a while to build up, Gyllenhaal's portrayal of the detective was astounding. If I were you, I'd watch Wolf of Wall St first, it's got really funny moment and DiCaprio plays his role perfectly. Then Prisoners, and finally 12 Years A Slave (prepare to have your heart crushed into a million pieces).[/QUOTE] how do you even?? i think Her deserved Best Picture personally. 12 Years was Oscar-bait (but I'm glad McQueen rather than someone like, say, Spielberg, made it. It was still pretty damn good).

I really tried to like Her, because I loved the premise of the film, but I honestly just couldn't get myself to. I found it ridiculously boring. This is coming from the guy who happily watched Locke and Prisoners. Her was just ehh to me

[QUOTE=loopoo;45726466]This is coming from the guy who happily watched Locke and Prisoners. Her was just ehh to me[/QUOTE] didn't realize Locke and Prisoners are similar to Her

[QUOTE=AK'z;45726569]didn't realize Locke and Prisoners are similar to Her[/QUOTE] I dunno, I thought Her was really kind of slow-paced? It was also very ambient (at least to me). I remember how excited I was when I saw the trailer for Her, and then how disappointed I was when I watched it.

[QUOTE=loopoo;45726590]I dunno, I thought Her was really kind of slow-paced? It was also very ambient (at least to me). I remember how excited I was when I saw the trailer for Her, and then how disappointed I was when I watched it.[/QUOTE] kind of for the "Lost in Translation" crowd.

[QUOTE=BustaDan;45723333][B]One flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - 10/10[/B] Just fantastic from start to end, Jack Nicholson was born to play McMurphy in the film. Wonderful performances from the rest cast as well.[/QUOTE] I think what I really love about that film is how it really puts up a mirror on society and mental illness, in particular the stereotype of people with mental health issues being psychos and more violent. It sort of reverses the tables and asks who are real monsters here and it doesn't reflect on well on the supposedly "normal" staff of the facility. I think also it is very compassionate about the people with the mental illnesses, in particular with Billy who I just wants to be like everyone else but he can't due to his circumstances. It enforces the idea that people who have mental health problems are just like us with similar if not the same sort of dreams and hopes.

Spring Breakers- WTF(1)/10 People were saying that this was a great, "deep" movie. I didn't see it. All I saw was an excuse to get ex-Disney stars in small bikinis, them getting high and swearing, playing the awful Christian "good girl" stereotype, pointless nudity from horny teenagers, James Franco looking silly for the camera, and trying to find said cameras bearings on the times it repeats scenes. There was a moment where a crime boss has a naked hooker with him and he has a freaking TODDLER right next to him! What's the point of that besides making me and sane people feel uneasy? I'd like be proven me wrong, but I'm not going back to re-watch that crap.

you have no idea what you've done [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] shitstorm in 3...2....1...

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;45727513]you have no idea what you've done [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] shitstorm in 3...2....1...[/QUOTE] Calm yourself. I didn't like the movie. I just couldn't get by why people praise this movie other than seeing horny teenagers getting nekkid, ex-Disney stars swearing while holding guns wearing small bikinis. I didn't like the move, simple as that.

its not him u should tell to chill hes probably talking about me cos i think its amazing

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45725930]it might not have told a brand new story or anything but the way it handled the story and the way it tied it into different kinds of love and how they affect you as a person etc was great, films don't have to be something brand new to be fantastic. Bitwc is incredibly honest and beautiful to me and I love it for it, it's the only 10/10 of last year to me. None of the big films of last year really did anything new either except kinda Her. It felt fresh and genuine and I don't think the story was particularly generic at all, I mean looking at it on an purely conceptual level yes it's been done before but it's the characters and events (as well as absolutely amazing performances and beautiful, emotive photography) that make it so good. Like for instance Drive is hailed by many as one of the best films of the decade so far but it's plot is generic as all hell. It's the [I]execution [/I] that makes it great. That's what it is every time. It's how you tell your story.[/QUOTE] One of the things about this film that I strongly disliked was how this was this big love coming of age story, in which you have no likeable characters. Adele is the main, titular character but the longer the film goes the less I liked her to the point "Jesus Christ is she fucking dumb?". Emma on the other hand was supposed to be this more crazy and extreme counterpart, but I find her just bland. But even without this in mind, there were much better films in that year line-up in Cannes, and the decision to choose this was purely political. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl_copter;45724430]am i the only one here who thinks Twelve Years a Slave actually deserved best picture?[/QUOTE]It deserved it, but it doesn't make it any less of an oscarbait. Now The Butler, that was just plain horrible oscarbait.

i'm so fucking tired of defending spring breakers UGH I'm just gonna copy and paste the same points I made months ago [quote](In regards to someone asking what the plot was) Girls succumbing to their hedonistic tendencies using Spring Break as an outlet, who then meet a man willing to give them their fantasies. Then, when everything crumbles, they [sp] just kinda leave with no problem because they've had their fill. [\sp] To me, the film was a hyper vision of what makes spring break appealing, showing the audience exactly how gross it is, and by that merit, it did its job wonderfully. I watched Spring Breakers with a group of friends. First thirty seconds one of them goes "oh man I'd love to do this." This friend has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and I knew he'd hate the film because it portrays his personal fantasy in a bad light. Turns out him and his girlfriend were the only two in the room who hated the movie. Not saying everyone else thought it was a masterpiece, most of them were on the fence, but those two were adamant that it was an awful movie. It wasn't fun to watch, and they hated the main characters. That, to me, speaks more than any glowing review could. personally I really liked the euphoric, loud visual aesthetics, and the disjointed drugged out pacing it took. The scene where Alien is trying to get the nerve to [sp] raid the compound [\sp] really sticks out to me, as well as the Brittney Spears montage. I tell people if I were to put it in a triple feature pack it'd be paired with Only God Forgives and The Councilor. All three very flawed, Love it or hate it ambitious movies that share the same corner of my DVD rack. Would the film have been better with a different director? I don't really know. I think changing hands would lose a lot of what I loved about it. Whether it be the complete disregard for the target audience or the unique pacing, something would have been lost in translation. I feel like it stands well on its own, but I understand why people wouldn't really dig it all that much. [/quote] It was supposed to make you uneasy. It was supposed to make you hate the main characters. It was supposed to make you go "man this is REALLY fucking gross." And by that criteria, it succeeded for me.

Yeah I pretty much agree and with everything i agree to an extent but im also conflicted cos I don't think it's necessarily condemning the kids and the lifestyle, Korine himself said he is interested by the culture and partly made the film cos he was a bit disappointed he never had one. Plus Korine might be 40 but the dude's still 18 at heart :v: I think it's super easy to take it that way though and I thought that on first watch. I thought I "got" the film first time round but every time I've watched it I've taken it a different way which is really interesting to me, there's so much going on and so much to it. It's much much more than just a critique of spring break. It's satire I suppose, in that it's the extreme to point out its ridiculousness, but it's fun, and it's enjoying what it does, it doesn't hate all these kids enjoying themselves. To me the film is just an experience, a big dreamlike fantasy, and because of that detachment from reality you can really draw your own conclusions which can be very different person to person. It's kinda surreal but has some moments of gritty reality that hit home hard, mostly with Alien- imo the best character of 2013. Everyone calls the characters shallow, even fans of the film, defending it as a thematic choice. I absolutely do NOT agree with that when it comes to Alien. He's a really complex character with a lot of emotional depth, we see his background and youth be hinted at through what he said, we see his insecurities and how he's living in a fantasy, he takes the girls because he's tired of being bad but bad's all he's good at. He's a big twisted morality tale and Franco was absolutely perfect in the role (that scene near the end where he's preparing to [sp]take on gucci mane damn it still kills me he was in this[/sp] and [sp]hes in the kitchen loading the guns and its really dark and it's moody [/sp]goddamn that's a fucking good scene that Franco just glows in. Also I feel like im the only person who didn't think the gun-blowjob thing was funny like to me it is a really scary and tense scene and literally the turning point of the entire movie too, it's the whole chastising thing and you never know how that scene is going to play out. Masterful to me.

Hahahaha what the fuck. Do you remember that nice sci-fi flick with Tom Cruise, called Edge of Tomorrow? Well, as of right now it has two additional new titles, and seeing how the distributors have no idea what they're doing more are probably to come. If you ask IMDb, it's [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/]Live on the Edge.[/url] But the Blu-Ray version shall be forever known as [url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Edge-of-Tomorrow-Blu-ray/105588/]Live. Die. Repeat.[/url]

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. I found it in the bargain bin today. 6/10 A fun enough movie. It had no sense of pacing and it had no idea what kind of movie it wanted to be (it was all over the damn place,) and it took itself a bit too seriously, but it had no real gaping problems with the narrative and some fun fight scenes and interesting cinematography made it a decent movie for the $7 I spent for it. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] If I had spent full price for it in theaters I would have probably walked away disappointed.

[QUOTE=Joz;45730323]Hahahaha what the fuck. Do you remember that nice sci-fi flick with Tom Cruise, called Edge of Tomorrow? Well, as of right now it has two additional new titles, and seeing how the distributors have no idea what they're doing more are probably to come. If you ask IMDb, it's [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/]Live on the Edge.[/url] But the Blu-Ray version shall be forever known as [url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Edge-of-Tomorrow-Blu-ray/105588/]Live. Die. Repeat.[/url][/QUOTE] You'd think distributors would've learned by now.

Just saw Mad Max. 1/5 Stars Thought it would be awesome but it was incredibly boring. And the story led to nowhere. Plus, if the apocalypse happened it must have been really week because there is still a police force, stores, restaurants, and a functional society.

[QUOTE=Joz;45730323]Hahahaha what the fuck. Do you remember that nice sci-fi flick with Tom Cruise, called Edge of Tomorrow? Well, as of right now it has two additional new titles, and seeing how the distributors have no idea what they're doing more are probably to come. If you ask IMDb, it's [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/]Live on the Edge.[/url] But the Blu-Ray version shall be forever known as [url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Edge-of-Tomorrow-Blu-ray/105588/]Live. Die. Repeat.[/url][/QUOTE] That was a pretty terrible ad campaign. The trailer did a pretty weak job of explaining either the concept or the tone of the movie - putting the "How many times have we been here?" scene was a huge mistake. Plus "Edge of Tomorrow" (or "Live On The Edge") makes some sense if you've seen the movie but doesn't really imply what it's about. At least "Live Die Repeat" makes sense, although it makes for a better tagline than a title.

[QUOTE=mushroompizza;45730701]Just saw Mad Max. 1/5 Stars Thought it would be awesome but it was incredibly boring. And the story led to nowhere. Plus, if the apocalypse happened it must have been really week because there is still a police force, stores, restaurants, and a functional society.[/QUOTE] Road Warrior is the famous one.

Mad max 2 is by far the best in the trilogy and way different from the others but mad max 1 is still at least a 3/5 imo [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] Also film crit hulk just wrote an absolutely incredible article on [url=http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/18/hulks-favorite-movies-do-the-right-thing-1989/]do the right thing[/url] which I implore you all read. It is a fantastic look at the film and its allegory of American society, and how it still applies now 25 years later, as well as discussing spike lee in general in the way he should be viewed imo. To me the reason people hate on spike lee now is the exact reason Mookie threw the trash can in the film and the exact reason spike lee continues pushing the same message he did in 1989. It's because if he doesn't, no one will. [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] Anyone following the Ferguson incident occurring just now should definitely check it as well as it deals heavily with that. Personally I've been following it really closely as it's a fucking disgusting incident of exactly what's wrong with our society and people are ignoring it. Hell, [I]people are on the fucking cop's side [/I] and it needs to change. Do The Right Thing warned us in 1989, but not as a prediction. It's because it was happening then, is happening now, and will continue to happen until drastic changes are made. [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] Definitely one of Hulk's best articles

Road Warrior is obviously the best of them, but Mad Max is a neat dystopian movie with some great stunts. I'm a sucker for post apocalyptic movies.

[QUOTE=Hoboiam;45728138]i'm so fucking tired of defending spring breakers UGH I'm just gonna copy and paste the same points I made months ago It was supposed to make you uneasy. It was supposed to make you hate the main characters. It was supposed to make you go "man this is REALLY fucking gross." And by that criteria, it succeeded for me.[/QUOTE] Well then it worked. Got me to hate everyone in that film. I saw Spring Breakers, didn't get the appeal because it didn't appeal to me. It's just not for me and I'll leave it at that.

[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;45731486][B]Thor 2[/B] - Really bad/10 Just like the first Thor, this sucked ballsack.[/QUOTE] I thought that Thor 2 was actually a lot better in that it was the first time in the MCU that Loki really felt like a compelling character who was fitting of the title "the trickster god" in that his motivations were murky and unclear throughout. In Thor 1 and The Avengers he was sorta really obvious but in Thor 2 he was much more interesting and I had a harder time discerning what his true intentions were, and even at the end we don't know what his endgame is. Also, Kat Dennings had a lot less screen time, so that helped the movie along tremendously.