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

The Hobbit: BotFA - 8/10 I can see why people were giving this movie shit, but it honestly did not bug me. The whole movie just made me want to go rewatch the original trilogy, and everything at the end with Bilbo gave me feels.

[QUOTE=Pops;46764560]yeah but when "your crits" are really stupid reasons (i.e. fantasy being overdone. fucking seriously?) you lose any real credible standings. we don't love jackson, we just love the movies for bringing the books to life. any two-bit director could do that, jackson just happened to have the right ensemble for it.[/QUOTE] i've never said anything remotely like fantasy being overdone though. the movies are just poorly made [editline]22nd December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pops;46764560]yeah but when "your crits" are really stupid reasons (i.e. fantasy being overdone. fucking seriously?) you lose any real credible standings. we don't love jackson, we just love the movies for bringing the books to life. any two-bit director could do that, jackson just happened to have the right ensemble for it.[/QUOTE] PJ doesn't have the right ensamble for anything because he's a bad director with too much money and blind passion and no good sense [editline]22nd December 2014[/editline] Those movies prominatly feature: hammy acting, a bland story (tolkien is not a good storyteller), lifeless robotic action, flat cinematography, and generally a bad pacing and bad direction.

interstellar i really liked it. music was ace. action scenes were tense. i may have teared up at one point. ending was ok. i kinda see where the criticism comes from that but w/e i don't care everything else was awesome. only thing i regret is not seeing this in imax. blue rays when

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46767275]flat cinematography[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=callumshell;46766034]let us all stop and remember how beautiful the LotR movies are [t]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/1419195751872.jpg[/t][t]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/1419195970207.jpg[/t][t]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/1419196287031.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]

Those are all establishing shots and the only thing peter Jackson can make look nice (something he totally abuses in the lotr movies lol) and even then they are always cheesy tracking shots with hollywood soundtrack playing over which is lame

all of this lotr and hobbit talk made me watch their equivalent in the 80s again, conan the barbarian. not similar in style in any way but they were the movies that "inspired" the genre of fantasy for awhile. most of the films that tried to emulate them were complete shit too. but yeah, conan the barbarian is a fantastic movie. it looks absolutely beautiful and the score by basil is great as always. arnold's shortcomings as an actor are mostly fixed with him staying silent a lot. everyone else brings a solid performance. it's not a terribly complex movie but it's a smartly made one. one of my all time favorites. [editline]22nd December 2014[/editline] one of the things i like about conan is that it explains most of its ideas through showing instead of having characters drone on and on. the dialogue, other than the narration by mako, is usually short and specific. that was also probably due to arnold having chronic can't-act-syndrome

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;46770037]Fucking hardly. As a guy who has seen all the extended editions and all the behind-the-scenes featurettes for the LOTR trilogy, I'll say that if fantasy isn't your thing, you probably won't dig LOTR too much, but to call them badly made films is an outrage. Especially criticizing the cinematography and direction. They weren't just giving those awards away. I'll admit, I can't think of very many Oscar worthy performances in those movies, but I think everyone does a great job. On the same token, I can't think of any BAD performances. You always talk about how shit the acting is but I never see you posting any examples in all the times you've ranted about LOTR. One of the things I really admire about those movies, even if everything else was bad, would be the special effects, something I CAN'T admire in the Hobbit films because almost 100% of everything is CGI whereas LOTR only used it when it was absolutely necessary. If you are going to show an army of 500,000, chances are you're gonna have to CG it unless you can find that many extras. And yes, you have complained about LOTR before because "fantasy is overdone". He's not the only one that remembers it, trust me, I get downright passionate about the Lord of the Rings films.[/QUOTE] After seeing all the work WETA Workshop put into the films, I have nothing but respect for the production that went into the movies. Even in The Hobbit, those guys bust their ass putting tiny details that many people will never notice, all to make the world feel more real.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;46770037]Fucking hardly. As a guy who has seen all the extended editions and all the behind-the-scenes featurettes for the LOTR trilogy, I'll say that if fantasy isn't your thing, you probably won't dig LOTR too much, but to call them badly made films is an outrage. Especially criticizing the cinematography and direction. They weren't just giving those awards away. I'll admit, I can't think of very many Oscar worthy performances in those movies, but I think everyone does a great job. On the same token, I can't think of any BAD performances. You always talk about how shit the acting is but I never see you posting any examples in all the times you've ranted about LOTR. One of the things I really admire about those movies, even if everything else was bad, would be the special effects, something I CAN'T admire in the Hobbit films because almost 100% of everything is CGI whereas LOTR only used it when it was absolutely necessary. If you are going to show an army of 500,000, chances are you're gonna have to CG it unless you can find that many extras. And yes, you have complained about LOTR before because "fantasy is overdone". He's not the only one that remembers it, trust me, I get downright passionate about the Lord of the Rings films.[/QUOTE] ur right they dont just "give away" cinematography oscars but the cinematography in LOTR is really really average cmon :/ very cheesy and uninspired and boring. The WORLD looks nice thanks to New Zealand's landscape and set design/CGI but seriously the photography of LOTR is only decent and not nearly oscar worthy iirc.. Been a while since I've seen them though. [editline]22nd December 2014[/editline] im looking at the cinematography oscars and Fellowship was the only one to even get a nomination in that category anyway lol (but it didn't deserve a win cos cmon Amelié and Moulin Rouge are FAR more impressive from a cinematography standpoint)

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;46769490]Those are all establishing shots and the only thing peter Jackson can make look nice (something he totally abuses in the lotr movies lol) and even then they are always cheesy tracking shots with hollywood soundtrack playing over which is lame[/QUOTE] Are you telling me that, gasp A director took a classic approach to a classic of literature to emphasize on the very classic aspect of its classic fantasy ? What exactly did you expect, pitch black shots with streetlamps as the only source of light with Frodo staring into the distance as Sam awkwardly waits for an answer, with Kavinsky playing in the background ?

no lol quit being stupid I mean his approach is very uninteresting and boring and he didn't have to sacrifice the feel of grand scale and beauty and "classic feel" to make better looking movies. The films' visuals are just solid and passable but nothing more. U dont have to be unrealistically stylish like Drive (thx for chucking me in2 the shitty fanbase of that circlejerk movie btw!! its a great film but still) to be a great looking movie

Considering these films came out in the early 2000s I'd say the visual quality is absolutely astonishing. Most of this stuff could not be done better today. The movie has questionable acting every so often and a huge problem with pacing, but if the visual aspect is seriously what you're going to complain about then you're just grasping at the thinnest straws. They managed to give more personality and character to the landscapes and various locations than Avatar with a budget three times as small, and ten less years of technology to work with (not that Avatar is a good movie mind you, but it's got some really good looking shots and as far as just visuals go, it's a really pretty movie).

what?? the films are only 10ish years old they're not ancient and ive seen so many films that are far far older than LOTR that look a million times better. Unless you're talking about CGI in which case I am not talking about CGI at all

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46770758]Considering these films came out in the early 2000s I'd say the visual quality is absolutely astonishing. Most of this stuff could not be done better today.[/QUOTE] uhm

I think he means a movie of this scale, with battles n shit yo

[QUOTE=callumshell;46770812]I think he means a movie of this scale, with battles n shit yo[/QUOTE] he didnt say that a movie with that visual quality HASNT been done today though, he said it COULDNT be done better nowadays. are good cinematographers an extinct breed? did our technology devolve or something? i really like lotr and i think it has its charm but that statement is just close minded and clouded by nostalgia

Yeah obviously a movie like that just as good if not better looking than LotR could be made today.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46769646][B]Robocop (superior version)[/B] Holy shit, this blew the other Robocop film out of the water. This film is unnaturally violent from beginning to end. It was kind of strange seeing Robocop without his robotic parts, which shows the unnatural and dystopian take of humanity's future. The film got a bit sentimental at times, sure, but it doesn't detract from the real message that this film has about corporations, corruption, and people having a human souuuulll etc. etc. The cinematography, special effects, and acting were all pretty amazing. I especially loved the action scenes where Robocop teared shit up. The 80s was a hell of a time for action films.[/QUOTE] I'm amazed you didn't do a "michael keaton did a great job" this time :v:

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46767275]i've never said anything remotely like fantasy being overdone though. the movies are just poorly made [editline]22nd December 2014[/editline] PJ doesn't have the right ensamble for anything because he's a bad director with too much money and blind passion and no good sense [editline]22nd December 2014[/editline] Those movies prominatly feature: hammy acting, a bland story (tolkien is not a good storyteller), lifeless robotic action, flat cinematography, and generally a bad pacing and bad direction.[/QUOTE] but you've said numerous times that you dislike high fantasy, in this very thread???

[QUOTE=usaokay;46772314]That's because the reboot is fucking god awful.[/QUOTE] It could have been a lot worse, I enjoyed it.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46772699]It could have been a lot worse, I enjoyed it.[/QUOTE] Honestly I agree. It maintained the satirical feel of the original, lampooning issues that are closer to the heartbeat of todays society. The social commentary of then is lost, but we gained some on the use of drones and the fact that everything has to look "tacticool". It is technically a fine film with decent acting and some shocking parts. There is still elements that make it strange such as the [sp]ending and the pg-13 rating. I feel like there was a lot of producer meddling in this one[/sp] It sucks that it will always be compared to the classic Verhoeven film because frankly this one is underrated and needlessly bashed-upon. The trailers were mis-guided, the producers were probably mis-guided, but the films style, directing and heart were there. For me, it is a 7/10, a good effort, better than it seemed it was going to be. At least its better than Robocop 3.

[B]Elf[/B] it's funny, I like it

[QUOTE=callumshell;46769480][/QUOTE] estaestablishing shots. every conversation is shot reverse shot like a soap opera or dexter season 7 lol [editline]23rd December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;46770758]Considering these films came out in the early 2000s I'd say the visual quality is absolutely astonishing. Most of this stuff could not be done better today. The movie has questionable acting every so often and a huge problem with pacing, but if the visual aspect is seriously what you're going to complain about then you're just grasping at the thinnest straws. They managed to give more personality and character to the landscapes and various locations than Avatar with a budget three times as small, and ten less years of technology to work with (not that Avatar is a good movie mind you, but it's got some really good looking shots and as far as just visuals go, it's a really pretty movie).[/QUOTE] lol wtf how is 2000s old there are movies with beautiful cinematography to this day from the 60s (and prob earlier too) [editline]23rd December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;46772191]but you've said numerous times that you dislike high fantasy, in this very thread???[/QUOTE] I'd be down with a good one. I haven't seen many in the genre but a good movie is a good movie, 'high fantasy' or not [editline]23rd December 2014[/editline] anyone who thinks lotrs are good movies or even good source material is in denial

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46776763]or even good source material[/QUOTE] uh oh

ive met plenty of people who hate it as much as me and they usually have very well thought out analysis of why (more than me)

The Station Agent one of the nicest comfiest movies I've seen, highly recommended if you're feeling a bit low.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46776763] anyone who thinks lotrs are good movies or even good source material is in denial[/QUOTE] Remember kids; there's no such thing as disagreeing with Rusty, only being wrong.

[B]The Equalizer[/B] 7/10 if you enjoy watching Denzel killing people and generally being a badass this is the movie to watch. Nothing special, but entertaining and well [I]executed[/I].

Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels 4/5 Took me a while to get into this one, but all in all, it was pretty good. Sadly, not quite as good as Snatch, despite all the similarities. The big problem I had with this one was that Snatch's plotline was nice and tight, despite being everywhere at once. This, on the other hand, felt more like Guy Ritchie was playing fast and loose with the script, throwing everything together and just barely making it work.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;46781790]Oh man, this movie is A+. Still haven't seen Snatch, though. I hear it's even better.[/QUOTE] I prefer lock stock myself.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;46781790]Oh man, this movie is A+. Still haven't seen Snatch, though. I hear it's even better.[/QUOTE] They are both great and unique, you should definetly watch Snatch as soon as possible it's so good.