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

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;41255748] This could well be a whole lot of talk about nothing since i'm still working it out but yeah. Anyone else seen this? I don't think it's started its theatrical run outside festivals yet. I know the two screenings at the EIFF are the UK premiers.[/QUOTE] Yeah same here. I saw it too a few days ago, liked it a lot. Oh and it's out on BluRay but hasn't, like you said, had any theatrical runs outside of festivals. I'm not very confident it would do well outside festivals, perhaps

Avengers was amazing, not only fucking awesome as a movie, but as an achievement. They showed they could put some of the most colorful characters on screen and still make it almost believable. Iron Man is also amazing, probably my favorite superhero movie ever, more so than Avengers. Iron Man 2 was a pretty fun action flick, though the plot was pretty bad. I thought the same with Thor, but apparently a lot of people hate it. I didn't like IM3 but it seems a lot of people did. You can just ignore CA and Hulk, not like anyone cares about those.

"the films are amazing" good argument bro. You'd fit right in in /r/movies (DAE Nolan is the best director of all time??)

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;41255748] Filmhouse or Cameo [/QUOTE] The Cameo's a great cinema, a lot cheaper than ODEON/Vue as well.

[QUOTE=Scot;41256871][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nonFZm2.png[/IMG] Iron Man 1 & 3 are pretty much the only decent ones. Maybe First Class too. Avengers doesn't count.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the mainstream marvel movies where the characters are not owned by fox or anyone else [editline]30th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=mikeyt493;41256917]"the films are amazing" good argument bro. You'd fit right in in /r/movies[/QUOTE] what but your other post is just saying "it's good in the beginning. after that it's bad" how's that any different

[QUOTE=Scot;41256871][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nonFZm2.png[/IMG] Iron Man 1 & 3 are pretty much the only decent ones. Maybe First Class too. Avengers doesn't count.[/QUOTE] you forgot x2 punisher spider-man 1 and 2 cap america thor and im2 was way better than im3 if you don't agree to this, go rewatch it and you'll realize how solid it is in comparison to 3.

[QUOTE=Pops;41256947]and im2 was way better than im3[/QUOTE] Am I seriously reading this right now?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;41256920]I'm talking about the mainstream marvel movies where the characters are not owned by fox or anyone else [editline]30th June 2013[/editline] what but your other post is just saying "it's good in the beginning. after that it's bad" how's that any different[/QUOTE] ok I've not seen any of the films in ages so I can't go into specifics but Iron Man- Tony Stark is an unlikeable asshole. He is a bad person. He doesn't care about anyone, he's a dick, he's self righteous and narcissistic. I cannot relate to him. He basically has no good character traits other than he can deliver a good one liner. The only reason he is remotely enjoyable is because of the way RDjr plays him- he's a funny and eccentric guy, and he carries the entire trilogy on his performance. If it were anyone else the films wouldn't be entertaining at all. That is not a good thing. While a strong lead is important, he has no interesting character arcs, strong plots, no interesting or well developed supporting characters... The films have nice CGI, sure, but that doesn't really matter in making a film good. It fails to match the fun and adventure of the Spiderman movies and doesn't have the brooding darkness and reality, thematic depth or characterisation that makes Nolan's Batman great. It falls somewhere in the middle, with unlikeable, undeveloped characters, very little enjoyment, trivialising murder and other human affairs, lacks any depth (I guess they tried to hide this in 3 with his whole "panic attack" (nope thats not a panic attack) but that actually didn't really affect the film at all iirc? Just trashy plot filler to try and make you care. Also, 3's plot jumped about so much with truly terrible pacing. The kid was annoying and dumb, there were even less funny moments than before thus taking away the main reason to watch the films, they clearly didn't know what to do with Pepper's character- (Is she a superhero??A damsel in distress?? I dont know just sideline her no one will notice.) Also that whole fanboy thing with the guy with the tattoo was super lame, college level "comedy" it was just awkward and bad. Also, the whole instant regeneration, fire breathing shit was awful. Awful. Awful. so out of place in a world it seems they attempted to make "realistic". It'd fit in X-men or something. not this pseudo-real mess of a script. The most real part of the film was the post-credits sequence where Bruce Banner had fallen asleep for the whole story

[QUOTE=junker154;41255826]Yeah, I just realized that my opinion applies to every zombie. I just liked that the zombies in this movie were different from the ones that are slow and the fast ones in newer zombie movies. They always came like a wave, crashing against everything in their way. Similiar to water. I like every kind of zombie though.[/QUOTE] The problem I have with the WWZ zombies is that there's almost no suspense to them. Take your average shuffling Romero zombie. Because they can move so quietly, there can be one around ANY given corner at ANY given time. The fear in these is derived from their omnipresence and the fact that they truly thrive on one of man's most basic needs, food. Then there's your neo-zombies so to speak, like 28 Days Later or the DotD remake. In a sense, they're a lot like the Romero zombies. The fear comes from the omnipresence, albeit in a slightly different way and they are much more animalistic in their hunting ways. Whereas neo-zombies can run up and bite your arm off before you can say 'why the hell didn't I reload earlier', it's entirely possible to encounter 2 Romero zombies and calmly shoot them only to be done in by a third that snuck up behind you. They're still scary but not as scary as the Romero zombie in my opinion because the only thing that scares us more than the unknown is the familiar. The Romero zombie, for the most part, is us but dead. The neo-zombie loses this somewhat since the chances of everyone being an athletic runner are very slim. Everyone can envision themselves turning into a slow shuffling monster but not everyone can see themselves running the 100m dash in 7 seconds. They'll still cause many a panicked bowel movement though. And maybe I'm sounding overly pessimistic but what do the WWZ zombies have? Strength in numbers? Already have that, it's just taken to an extreme here. An extreme that sadly just becomes incredibly silly. Recklessness? Well, it's present already, this is taken to the silly again. A hivemind? Well, disregarding the fucking retarded and spoiler-iffic part of the WWZ's zombies hivemind, that's nothing new either. Humans are pack animals by nature. Someone leads, we follow. Someone finds food, we want some of that too. Part of what I love about both neo-zombies and Romero zombies is the fact that they are terrifying but still somewhat rooted in reality when it comes to what they can do. Neo-zombies slightly less so but still within that area. WWZ fails in both aspects. I mean come on, [sp]building a giant human tower by what appears to be co-operation to get over a wall to breach a city? Ignoring the terminally ill because they're apparently not efficient when it comes to spreading the virus?[/sp] That's not scary, that's fucking laughable and that's ignoring the fact that it completely goes against some key aspects of zombies. And what you said about them coming at you like water, I find it hard to deny that it's silly. Watching a wave of zombies come at you is intimidating and horrifying. Watching a literal wave of zombies come at you, stumbling and tripping over one another just makes me frown so hard my eyebrows almost jump off my face. Numbers, recklessness, the amount in which their need for food drives them and how it affects their target choice (so to speak), these are things that can only be taken so far before it starts getting dumb. WWZ feels like a lesson in knowing where your boundaries lie or what happens when you don't. Oh yeah, one more thing. Not so much about the zombies themselves but more about their relationship to the title. When you hear the term 'world war', what image comes to mind? If you're like me, or like most people, you're probably imagining a large-scale battle, long and drawn-out, many casualties on both sides, a tale for the ages perhaps, right? Take another look at the second spoiler point above. Not only is the movie's answer to this completely lacking in sense altogether ([sp]since I REALLY can't think of a reason how zombies who don't attack the terminally ill being turned into an army-wide advantage by way of a non-lethal vaccine makes any fucking sense[/sp]), it changes the game from being roughly even-sided to the entire army being upgraded with impenetrable zombie stomping boots. That's not a world war, that's your average elementary school playground bully fight. Come to think of it, the ending can get slightly more nonsensical or REALLY fucked up, depending on the way you look at it. Going back to how [sp]the vaccine aids the US army in cleaning up the country. The vaccine isn't lethal yet the zombies ignore them. This leaves you with 2 options. 1. The simple presence of the pathogen stops them from attacking. So that means this same pathogen was already present in sick people so they're coming back either way. Killing them just would've sped up the process. 2. The pathogen-based vaccine is in fact still lethal, meaning that the US army now entirely consists of walking time-bombs. Or entire nations, seeing as the vaccines were also airdropped for civilians all around the world.[/sp]

[b] Spring Breakers - 6/10 [/b] I actually enjoyed it.

[QUOTE=mikeyt493;41257255]ok I've not seen any of the films in ages so I can't go into specifics but Iron Man- Tony Stark is an unlikeable asshole. He is a bad person. He doesn't care about anyone, he's a dick, he's self righteous and narcissistic. I cannot relate to him. He basically has no good character traits other than he can deliver a good one liner. The only reason he is remotely enjoyable is because of the way RDjr plays him- he's a funny and eccentric guy, and he carries the entire trilogy on his performance. If it were anyone else the films wouldn't be entertaining at all. That is not a good thing. While a strong lead is important, he has no interesting character arcs, strong plots, no interesting or well developed supporting characters... The films have nice CGI, sure, but that doesn't really matter in making a film good. It fails to match the fun and adventure of the Spiderman movies and doesn't have the brooding darkness and reality, thematic depth or characterisation that makes Nolan's Batman great. It falls somewhere in the middle, with unlikeable, undeveloped characters, very little enjoyment, trivialising murder and other human affairs, lacks any depth (I guess they tried to hide this in 3 with his whole "panic attack" (nope thats not a panic attack) but that actually didn't really affect the film at all iirc? Just trashy plot filler to try and make you care. Also, 3's plot jumped about so much with truly terrible pacing. The kid was annoying and dumb, there were even less funny moments than before thus taking away the main reason to watch the films, they clearly didn't know what to do with Pepper's character- (Is she a superhero??A damsel in distress?? I dont know just sideline her no one will notice.) Also that whole fanboy thing with the guy with the tattoo was super lame, college level "comedy" it was just awkward and bad. Also, the whole instant regeneration, fire breathing shit was awful. Awful. Awful. so out of place in a world it seems they attempted to make "realistic". It'd fit in X-men or something. not this pseudo-real mess of a script. The most real part of the film was the post-credits sequence where Bruce Banner had fallen asleep for the whole story[/QUOTE] I agree with everything you said about im3, I hated it. however, with IM1 I think it's a matter of preference. Yeah sure you might take this as "he has no arguments so he's saying it's all about opinion" but it's up to you. I think that the whole point of the movie is that, although he's an asshole, he tries to do what he can to make the world a better place, but yet it doesn't mean he instantly turns into an angel, so although he's out there saving the world, the character stays consistent. besides, there's other characters you can relate to, like pepper, who is there always being the opposite of tony, who's too eccentric. and yes, some people might think that a role that only RDJ can do is the thing that makes it even more amazing and gives his performance even more strength. and the plot was just simple enough, [sp]tony is a douchebag - he gets caught - he decides to become a better person - his friend is the one that betrayed him, and plans to do it one more time - iron man saves the day[/sp] it might have been kind of bland to some, but I really don't think they fucked up anywhere with that.

Had a cold and fever today and watched 3 movies K-9: kind of predictable, and the relationship between the dog and James Belushi is really hilarious but overall an enjoyable film 6/10 Austin Powers Goldmember: Really hilarious film, also Fat Bastard is still one of the funniest characters i have seen in a movie 7/10 I Am Legend: Great apocalypse film, great plot and story however there are a few noticeable continuity goofs, Also the alternate ending was much better 7/10

Has anyone seen Much Ado About Nothing yet?

i saw White House Down not what i expected. it was pretty good bad. like, it knew it was stupid, but it was trying to channel die hard more than anything and it half pulled it off. it could have been soo much worse. don't get me wrong, it was bad, and really overlong, but it did dumb with finesse. it's easy to just have a dumb, dumb movie. but this was a smart dumb one. if that makes any sense. but obviously it had a lot of problems, the main one being it fucking dragged on so god damn long. if you want a movie that knows it's shit, and makes the best of it, go see it. there are far worse ways to spend money. [editline]1st July 2013[/editline] it was a better die hard than the last two die hards let's put it that way. [editline]1st July 2013[/editline] not that that's an amazing feat

Channing Tatum just makes me cringe in general

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;41259376]Channing Tatum just makes me cringe in general[/QUOTE] Watch Magic Mike. Test your limits.

Watched Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows again today. 7.5/10 for me. Personally, I love RDJ and him playing Holmes is a great fit. Hell, Jude Law does an even more fantastic job as Watson. Overall there could have been a bit more done with the film and the whole slo-mo action stuff got a bit overdone. Ending was fantastic and couldn't have been any better. [editline]1st July 2013[/editline] Seeking a Friend for the End of the World - 6/10 Had a good premise but the pacing was a bit off. Seemed pretty predictable and I would have loved it if the world didn't actually end so the ending was disappointing but I guess I had that one coming.

Just watched Up god damn it pixar how come all of your movies HAVE to be able to put a tear or two or twenty in my eyes GOD DAMN IT

[QUOTE=Scot;41256871] Iron Man 1 & 3 are pretty much the only decent ones. Maybe First Class too. Avengers doesn't count.[/QUOTE] Spiderman 2 is better.

Fight Club 8/10 I already knew the twist, sadly. But I love David Fischer, I feel like I need to take a shower after every one of his movies.

saw a few: Lars and The Real Girl, Before Sunrise and The Place Beyond the Pines. First two I still need time to sink in, they're very meaningful and magical in their unique way. Place Beyond Pines is the one I feel ready to talk about as I pretty much ran it through my head a few times. Definitely not what I expected. I thought it would be a singular character experience and really delve into the Gosling guy here. Instead what we're given is ambition and turns in which change the film completely. The film is essentially 3 acts, not so much beginning middle end but rather a movement through genre completely, in my mind. Whether the film goes through Heist, Serpico-esque police drama or even coming of age drama, it's bound by something which I can't yet figure out. This is because the first act, albeit straight-forward as anything; is still a mystery to me. I keep trying to figure who this Gosling guy really is and what has driven him. You definitely see his role being somewhat similar as you go over to his child's perspective, going through a big life change in a snap. I probably will treasure that first part more than the second two because of this mystery and will definitely see it again. The beauty of the film is its ambition and success in changing the aesthetic while adding these connecting cables in between. Different perspectives, different people on their search in life. All in all, a highly solid film where a lot can be got out of it. Good writing, very good acting (finally a Liotta role that's interesting, shame he doesn't have more prominence) and an ongoing thematic that binds things together. Now I personally probably didn't get as much out of it as I thought, but being that I can draw a lot out of it despite not being personally drawn in, is a success in itself. Definitely up there with the modern good hollywood flicks. Does things I've never seen, even still you'd think with these kinds of films you'd be reaching the "creative limit", goes to show it's still a strong method.

Saw This is the End. I'd give it a 9/10, only knocking points because although the ending was pretty random, it was a bit cringy. Also I think the party should of went on longer because Michael Cera was funny as shit. Think I'm going to watch Maniac tonight.

[b] The Truman Show - 8/10 [/b]

[QUOTE=Over-Run;41263056]Saw This is the End. I'd give it a 9/10, only knocking points because although the ending was pretty random, it was a bit cringy. Also I think the party should of went on longer because Michael Cera was funny as shit. Think I'm going to watch Maniac tonight.[/QUOTE] I think the ending was perfect The only thing I didn't like about it was some of the gross out humor because I'm just not really a fan of that stuff. It's more gross than it is funny.

Space Jam: 6.5/10 Reason: My childhood.

MacGruber-7.5/10 i find it hard to rate comedies because everyone has a different sense of humor. honestly there's just no objective rating for these types of movies

[QUOTE=BadderSanta;41272917]Space Jam: 6.5/10 Reason: My childhood.[/QUOTE] I haven't seen that movie in something like 15 years. I'm afraid to see how it holds up.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Legendposter.jpg[/img] the story is kind of bland but holy fuck the visuals, it's like ridley scott made the dark crystal the sets, the costumes, make-up, effects and of course dat jerry goldsmith score slightjizz/10

[b] Evil Dead - 7/10 [/b] Not as [i]groovy[/i] as the original, and I didn't like what they did with some things, but I think they did a decent job.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;41254051]World War Z - 7/10 Highly entertaining movie, it was great seeing a Brad Pitt movie, haven't watch one in years. Loved every moment, can't rate it any higher as it is still just a normal zombie movie although I liked the different "cure" and the ending.[/QUOTE] Almost all the exciting parts were already shown in the trailers, so most of the movie was a bore. The only interesting part in the movie was the climax when [sp]they were trying to be sneaky to get the cure.[/sp] Besides that, it was "pew pew, got a zombie! *trailer scene* pew pew, got a zombie! *trailer scene*"