Rate the last movie you watched V2 - General

dog day afternoon 8/10 good shit, made me feel like i was watching an actual bank robbery take place

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;33999862]what do you mean I think they translate them to pretty much every language[/QUOTE] I mean audio.

[QUOTE=Robber;34001170]I mean audio.[/QUOTE] Check the films IMDB page, just look under Languages in the Specs.

:this is the right thread: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo 3.5/10 It was pretty good until the power went out 20 minutes in. We did get free popcorn though. That was cool. :there it is in its right place:

[QUOTE=Teto;34000274]Some of my favourite movies I watched in 2011 were Donnie Darko, Pan's Labyrinth, and Fight Club. Dark psychological/fantasy stuff. Can anybody recommend me more movies like these? Since there's no thread for movie recommendations ):[/QUOTE] [B]Incendes[/B] Best film I've seen for a long time.

Incendies was good, but it wasn't anything groundbreaking. The 'twist' was kind of obvious half way through the movie and didn't really come as a shock as I thought it was kind of already implied.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;34001724]Incendies was good, but it wasn't anything groundbreaking. The 'twist' was kind of obvious half way through the movie and didn't really come as a shock as I thought it was kind of already implied.[/QUOTE] Your point is fair. I'll say honestly I didn't predict the way the relationships turned out. Sometimes I think we expect film twists to be hidden and maybe the storytellers this time were quite happy tojust let the story tell itself out. Rather than looking for satisfaction in clever twists from Incendes, I feel it was a great delivery of a really good story that gave the film its power. I thought the performances felt very real, the Radiohead soundtrack perfectly added to the dispair of the situation when it was needed and the way the timelines of the mother and daughter cut into the film were excellent. Every so often I'll get friends round for films like this after I've given them a test drive myself and this one seemed to grab everybody.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;33998800]Spirited Away (2001): 9.5/10 or 10/10. Can't decide. Amazing movie. Surprised me in every aspect, definitely one of the best I watched lately.[/QUOTE] That's it, I'm watching it.

[b]Saints and Soldiers (2003) -- 8.5/10[/b] I also just found out a new one is releasing this year; I'm looking forward to it.

The crazies (2010 remake): 4/10 Awful movie. It felt like a chunk of the movie was missing or something. Everything felt rushed, and it was filled with bullshit and terrible character development.

[QUOTE=healthpoint;34002922]The crazies (2010 remake): 4/10 Awful movie. It felt like a chunk of the movie was missing or something. Everything felt rushed, and it was filled with bullshit and terrible character development.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, the only good characters in Romero films are the black ones, considering they're not as stupid as the white people in them.

Star Wars: EP 1 - 7/10 It got pretty cool in the end, but I disliked the first half of the movie. Too much Jar Jar Binks.

I'll review the second-to-last movie I've watched, simply because it's begging for this review. Note that I don't like generic X/Y scores for entire pieces, but prefer reviews that break it down by element. I have done such for this film. I realize this thread is simply for rating, and this post started as a simple rating, but it ended up a full-fledged review. Sorry about that. Please read it, though, and tell me what you think. I don't write many reviews, but I think I did fairly well with this one. Note that spoilers are abound (though, please read the last statement I make; I hope the spoilers won't make a difference to you). [t]http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/image-library/port/376/s/spiderhole-poster.jpg[/t] [b][i]Spiderhole[/i][/b] [b]Synopsis:[/b] Four college friends decide to squat, taking advantage of the fact that it is a legal gray zone and a way to gain ownership of a place for cheap. One of the friends, Toby, has scouted a place out in advance, but when they arrive there, someone had put fresh chains on the doors. Unwilling to risk it, they decide to move on. They eventually decide on a large house that once was very lavish in its prime, but has since fallen into a state of wanton disrepair. After cutting the bolts and giving the main floor a scouting, they decide to celebrate their ownership-to-be. But when they wake up to find that the front door has been bolted shut - from the inside - and the backdoor and all the windows have been piled behind layers of boards, they realize something is not quite right. And when the doors close behind them, locking them into a room, they realize they made a mistake to come here. And when the gas enters the room, and they awake in a room they've never been in before, minus one Toby, they realize they may never make it out. [b]The Story - Background:[/b] There isn't much to say here. In regards to the protagonists, they appear to be college kids who aren't exactly made of money. As far as I can tell, they think dorms are too expensive, and decide squatting is a good way to get a place to themselves for cheap. I say "as far as I can tell" because background to the protagonists was obviously very low on the list: the film donates [b]maybe[/b] ten minutes of the film before they pack up in their Volkswagon to find a derelict house to squat. The house itself has even less history revealed. The only information we learn of the house itself is that it belongs to the antagonist, and his father before him, and that the house is the scene of a crime where a young girl by the name of Daisy was abducted ten years prior, and the dismembered and mutilated corpses of her parents had the deed done in, before being dumped and discovered by police. If it's even possible, the antagonist himself has even [b]less[/b] history than the house. The only thing we know of the antagonist is his name is Karl, he used to work as a Mortician, and his father was (apparently) a war veteran who was crippled in a brutal robbery many years ago. The most story we get is explained in the beginning, on a television broadcast, about Daisy's disappearance and the grisly death of her parents. That's the only saving grace in this field. Score: [b]2/10[/b] [b]The Story - Progression:[/b] Let me explain something first. I watch horror films primarily as a form of entertainment, not because of the "horror" or "scariness" (when was the last time a "horror film" has actually been "horror" or "scary"?), but because they often try so hard to be serious and grim that they come off laughable. I view horror films as that guy in high school who used to act like he was tough shit, but just made himself look like a complete idiot, but he was too dense, proud, or stubborn to admit it and thought that everyone was just jealous of how bad-ass he is (and we all have known people like that). Like those people, I find their try-too-hard act hilarious, and as such I gain a form of entertainment from them. I view horror movies the same way - if I come across one that's even halfway decent, then it's entirely by accident. So, naturally, I watch these horror films with friends who have similar views on these films, and a good chunk of viewing time is spent between ourselves bantering about obvious plotholes (why the fuck would you run up the stairs to the second story when there's a killer in the house? I mean, honestly?) and otherwise acts that are so unbelievably stupid and far-flung that we can't help but poke fun at it. With that in mind, try to realize the full impact of the following statement: there were virtually no jokes or bantering that happened throughout watching this film. That is not to say we were stunned silent by its genre-bending, mind-twisting uniqueness, or the fantastically-unsurmountable writing, or any other flowery definitions being used in obvious sarcasm. Oh no, we were FAR from quiet in this film. The majority of this film was spent with my friend and I bouncing predictions off one another as to what would happen next, and I don't think we failed once. One particularly memorable moment is when the gang walks in on a room modelled like an old waiting room, with four chairs positioned, seemingly just for them (one of the characters remarks on this). As soon as this was evident, I said jokingly, "the doctor... is in!" Then, not a minute later, the scene cuts to the antagonist in a full plastic suit and surgeon's mask, washing surgical tools. I couldn't make this up. This film was generic to the point of nausea. It was like the writers took the "Beginner's Guide to Writing Horror/Thriller Plots" and flipped through the pages, going "oh, this is good," "ahh, this will work great," "ooh, I like that," writing down notes on potential things to do. However, when it came time to start casting and shooting, the writers must have felt a bit rushed, and rather than writing a unique script based off the pointers they wrote down in their notebooks, they instead accidentally handed in the notebooks themselves, and the filmmakers promptly built a movie up around those pointers taken from Horror 101. I don't think you could get any more generic of a plotline than "naive kids break into abandoned house, only to be picked out one by one, tortured and then killed by a crazy surgeon, for absolutely no explicable reason." And even then, with such a storyline, they could at least throw in some original ideas. Like I said, though, the writers accidentally turned in their notebooks, which consisted purely of ideas to build on taken straight out of the book, and thusly there were no original ideas at all. On top of all of that, the story is contradictory to its own implicit rules. Near the beginning, Toby goes to fix the rusty pipes when a drop of water hits him in the eye, and obviously irritates it (as he spends a good few moments repeatedly rubbing it). When the antagonist captures him, he cuts out Toby's eye (I didn't pay attention, but I'm certain it was the afflicted eye). Zoe tripped and cut her leg, and when captured, the antagonist cuts the leg off with a hacksaw (well, he cuts both of them off, but the point stands). And Molly, we learn in the beginning of the film, has an issue where she constantly suffers from heartburn, and when captured, the antagonist attempts to cut out her heart. From this, we can extrapolate that the antagonist has some warped (and telepathically-charged) idea of "fixing the imperfections" in these people, but when Luke is caught, it just fucks it all up. Nothing happens to Luke throughout this entire ordeal, but when Molly finds him, he's minus a hand, for no explicable reason. And let's not forget the all-so-unique, and never-before-done ending of Molly, the last one standing, being captured and tossed into a room with a half-starved girl hungrily feasting on a severed hand (assumedly Luke's). As Molly looks around, scraped all along the walls are "Daisy," explaining the mystery of what happened to the abducted girl. Then the girl attacks her, and we can extrapolate implicitly from the screams and sounds of gore that Daisy then proceeds to eat Molly alive, before the credits start rolling. In fact, this brings up another inconsistency. If the antagonist cuts off Luke's hand for no reason other than to feed Daisy, then why is he seen cracking the door open and tossing Zoe's severed legs away? Why not feed those to Daisy, too? Score: [b]0/10[/b]. I mean, come on guys; at least TRY to put some creativity into it. And for God's sake, if you're going to do a film with as poor, cliched, and simple a plot as this, stay consistent within its tendencies! [b]The Characters - Personalities[/b] Have you ever seen a Claymation film? You know, the ones where the characters are made entirely out of clay? Well, imagine the concept of Claymation to be a metaphor for the characters of this film, where the clay is their personalities. Put another way, their personalities are gray, mushy, and painfully malleable. They're entirely lifeless. Molly is the generally-good-girl-who-gets-pressured-into-doing-this-act-of-questionable-legality, Zoe is the prancy little girl who jumps at everything while trying to hide under a facade of cool, Toby is the guy who thinks he knows best and feels betrayed if anyone ever tries something other than his way (he does a whole guilt-trip thing when everyone else tries to leave the house in the beginning, due to strange noises they heard continually), and Luke is the man with the stone face masking a chicken-hearted pussy. If you want the definition of personality-less, then look no further than the antagonist, Mr. Mortician Karl. He speaks, throughout the film, a single line as far as I can recall, and that is some murmured non-sensical about his father when Zoe asks why he's doing this (they ALWAYS have to ask that! It's in the book!). That isn't to say a character needs to speak in order to have a personality; perfectly mute characters can have amazing depth to their personality through their actions. However, the actions of this antagonist involve silently walking (not sulking, or strolling, or limping; just casual walking) around, using a nozzle spray to gas his victims twice, using zip-ties and leather straps to tie them to beds, and using various medical instruments to perform his dark deeds. That is the extent of what he does. The most we learn of his personality is when Molly is trying to escape through his house, which is connected via a hidden tunnel to the abandoned house, and the man has seven or eight different padlocks on his door, suggesting he's paranoid as fuck. There are absolutely no side-characters in this film. Like, none at all. The entire cast consists of these five people. So it's not like the writers had their time split between writing even shades of personalities for the hordes of secondary characters; they had all their time devoted to these five main actors, and none of them are any more dimensional than some particularly thin cardboard cut-outs. Score: [b]1/10[/b]. I'm giving it a 1 because we at least know SOMETHING about the antagonist, even if it's just that he has absolutely no heart and is a paranoid fucker. [b]The Characters - Development:[/b] I kind of touched on this already in personality, but to go more in depth, the development in this film - what little there is - is patchy at best. It wasn't until Toby and Zoe started fucking in the basement, while he was working on the pipes, that we learned anyone was having a relationship with anyone else there (though it was far from unexpected; two guys and two chicks go somewhere private together? Has there been a film like this where there AREN'T any relationships?) We would then assume that Luke and Molly are with each other, and while there may some actions that imply they're more than complete strangers to each other, the development never really goes beyond that. By the end of the film, what we have learned about our beloved protagonists is pretty much restrained to the events that happened to them. Simply put, there is no development. They came into this film as Persons A, and they left the scene as Persons A. The development chart is a complete flat-line. Score: [b]0/10[/b]. I couldn't give it a higher rating, even if I was feeling nice, without downright lying. There WAS no development. Technically speaking, this should be a N/A, but I don't believe in those. [b]Relevance of the Title:[/b] Some people may consider this a minor point, but I'm not one of those. Personally, I believe the title of a work may be one of the most important elements. The ability to name a piece something relevant to the story, without giving anything important away, is a very fine art, and a difficult one to master - but those that do master it often coincide with evenly masterly films. With that being said, the title of this film gives absolutely nothing away about the film. But that's not because the film is in any way masterful, with the possible exception of being masterful at horror film cliches. With the official synopsis on Netflix ending with saying that the teens discover they are "sharing the house with a deeply evil presence," combined with the title of the film, [i]Spiderhole[/i], I was expecting the deeply evil presence to involve spiders. Lots and lots of spiders. Like, the scene in the early Harry Potter films (I don't exactly which one) with Aragon and his masses of spiders, or the Spider Pit in the game [i]Dark Messiah: Of Might and Magic[/i], or various other mediums that use spiders as a symbol for evil. I came out entirely disappointed. Spiders make virtually no show at all. There are only two filler scenes - filler in the sense that they are unrelated to any of the characters, or, indeed, anything about the story at all - that involves spiders at all, and each scene consists of just a spider (looks like possibly a Black Widow) walking around in a pipe, lasting maybe 10 seconds each. That is the extent of what spiders have to do with this film. After talking it over with my friends, we came to the conclusion that maybe the film makers thought they were being artsy, indie, and "deep" by naming the film [i]Spiderhole[/i], as a metaphor for the teens being "caught in the antagonist's web." And, honestly, there may be some credence to it. Taking into light how painfully generic the plot is, this film may be an art project by a bunch of hipsters. Maybe this film is supposed to be a statement about how generic and mainstream horror films have become, and the makers decided to retaliate against this by making the most generic and mainstream horror film they possibly could (because it's ~ironic~), to show off just how generic and mainstream the industry has become. However, and I think this is a far more likely scenario, I think they simply named the film after their production company. Yes, you heard right. The name of the film-making group that made this film is "Spiderhole." I think they simply named the film after their group, because, if the plot is any indicator, these writers have the creativity of a particularly unimaginative stone. I think this is far more likely the case as to the name. Score: [b]0/10[/b]. [b]Final Thoughts:[/b] As I already said, this film was mind-numbingly generic. You don't have to have watched but one or two films like these - or hell, even just heard about them from some friends - to be able to predict, from beginning to end, exactly how this film unravels. There is no mystery, there is no suspense. There isn't even any guessing as to what may happen. I would recommend to watch this film if you just want something mind-numbing for about two hours, but honestly, this film isn't even worth that recommendation. If you want a film like that, go watch one of the new [i]Transformers[/i] films - yeah, you'll probably find yourself predicting every scene to the point of nausea, but at least there'll be lots of exciting explosions and hunks of metal punching other hunks of metal to keep you entertained. This film's writing may be on the same level, but at least those films have mindless action to take your mind away from the horrible writing - the peak of excitement and energy in [i]Spiderhole[/i] is Zoe sobbingly screaming out for Toby when they wake to find him missing. Actually, scratch my previous statement. This film's writing is worse than the new [i]Transformers[/i]. At least those films have some original ideas in them, and aren't ripped straight out of the "How To" book tossed to every student taking a Film 101 class. I would almost say this film is supposed to be a parody of horror films, like I mentioned previously, but honestly, I don't think that was the intention. This film is far too serious and full of itself to be a parody. A proper horror parody is a film like [i]Tucker and Dale vs Evil[/i], and even a film like the generic-cliche-riddled-over-the-top grindhouse [i]Hobo With a Shotgun[/i] is a parody of sorts - I mean, just look at the name! It's obvious (especially if you've watched the film) that [i]Hobo With a Shotgun[/i] isn't meant to be taken seriously, and that it is obviously poking fun at the absurdity that is the grindhouse genre. [i]Spiderhole[/i] carries itself far too proudly (for reasons unknown to me) to be a parody. Like I mentioned in the beginning of this review, many horror films try to pass themselves off as the high-school, leather-jacket-toting, cigarette-smoking bad-ass and only make themselves look like complete asses. [i]Spiderhole[/i] is just such a film - if the leather-jacket-toting asswipe had a lisp, a lazy eye, and slight autism, and [b]still[/b] thought he was the Fonz. If you're even considering this film after reading this, I implore you: step away from the computer/console/rental/purchase rack, get a sticky pad and a pen, sit down, and begin to rethink your life, because you've obviously been going down the wrong track if you've given this film more than two seconds of thought.

^^ A+ movie review right there just watched A Clockwork Orange, 8.5/10 the way they talk, dear god i'm never gonna get that out of my mind

[QUOTE=pie_is_good;34001625]:this is the right thread: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo 3.5/10 It was pretty good until the power went out 20 minutes in. We did get free popcorn though. That was cool. :there it is in its right place:[/QUOTE] lol you dumbass, you're rating a movie when you only watched 20 minutes of it? [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod4ever;34006877]*review*[/QUOTE] ^i want more

The Hangover 2 2,5/10 Why would they even do this

i also saw avatar, first time i'd give it an 8/10 second time i watched i gave it a 5/10 i saw it on tv last night and it's a solid 2/10 it's just one of those movies where it's amazing first time you watch it, then as you rewatch it they get shittier and shittier Fight Club however ages well like wine.

[QUOTE=Xephio;34007760]^^ A+ movie review right there just watched A Clockwork Orange, 8.5/10 the way they talk, dear god i'm never gonna get that out of my mind[/QUOTE] lashings of the old ultraviolent

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;33985006]What? Almost all of the big releases are either American or English, you guys haven't watched as many movies with subtitles as we, foreigners, have.[/QUOTE] In Italy all the movies are dubbed and everyone totally hates the idea of watching a film in it's original language with subtitles. They find it completely horrible and nonsensical. so, being the only fluent english speaker around, I get forced to watch terribly dubbed movies with my friends. You have no idea how the dubbed versions make the whole film experience drop. Comedies don't even make sense, drama films get really boring since the voices are stale and nothing like the original audio. Famous actors that are reknown for their hilarious accent and way of speaking, like Samuel Jackson, become completely boring. I mean, imagine watching a dubbed Pulp Fiction.

watched all extended versions of lord of the rings nonstop with my friends. it take about 11-12h fellowship of the ring 8/10 great film with really great intro. two towers 7/10 not the best movie of the trilogy but still great return of the king 9/10 massive battles did make movie really great. drawback was that ending wasn't same as in the book but best of all in that trilogy, MUSIC.

i watched the two towers on new years eve complaints: it was driven by action scenes and not emotion. things happen, just to have them happen. nothing felt necessary or natural, it felt like a compilation of scenes without any soul to them. all the characters felt completely flat and 1 dimensional, the acting was often laughable, the movie was largely uneventful, and even the big battle at the end felt unimportant and like a very small milestone despite how 'big' it was drummed up to be. still don't get why people like the series so much. it's just totally devoid of life, substance end emotion.

Heat 9/10.