Rate the last film you watched



  • Men In Black 3 4/10
    This felt old tired and contrived. Yes there are some cool looking aliens, quality goo splattering kills, once you are beyond those the never ending "J" semi-witty chatter and come backs gets tiring, quickly. Not far into the movie and I was bored.
    Lucky Number Slevin 8/10
    Not a new movie and panned by many as trying to be a Pulp Fiction knock off. But I find it entertaining and really like the interaction between Lucy Liu & Josh Hartnet. I'm a sucker for these twisted plot-revenge movies with just the right touch of violence.
    Smoking Aces 9/10
    Again not a new movie but I was on a "Lets go through the library." kick last night. So many characters, so much violence, so much fun. Whats not to like. And scene where Sharice goes nuts with the .50 talking to herself the whole time....what a crackup.

  • Prometheus 6/10 - that '6' is entirely for the visuals and general production quality, which is some of the best I've ever seen. The daft script unfortunately mostly ruins what could have been a classic horror/sci-fi film. All my problems with the film can be boiled down to the moment when the experienced space scientists/mercs take off their helmets in an alien, hostile, mostly unknown environment. Dur.

    Thought you would get a kick out of this summation:
  • HAH! That is genius. Definitely the best Honest Trailer I've seen so far. Basically summarises all my issues with the film in 4 comedy minutes! And actually points out a fair few problems which I'd overlooked.
  • re Prometheus - totally agree with Simon. Some day I want to see a sci-fi movie where everyone has watched Star Trek, Star Wars, etc and has all the "how to deal with aliens/mosters" rules in the forefront of their brain, rather than being completely ignorant. In "Deep Blue Sea", the Preacher at one point says "Ooh, I'm done! Brothers never make it out of situations like this! Not ever!".
  • Sorry sorry sorry. I know I come and go in these forums- and I've probably seen more movies in-theaters than anyone here, and I'll eventually write a response on the more recent fare I've seen (Zero Dark Thirty, Skyfall, Killing Them Softly, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, The Sessions, Hitchcock, Argo, Flight, Cloud Atlas, Rise of The Guardians, Seven Psychopaths, and many others)- but this I had to address:

    Finally got around to watching all the FreddieW and Corridor stuff, not even going to bother rating it to be honest, definitely the best film makers around for me right now, everything else independent is either up its own ass or has no narrative at all. (Although i think independent is stretching the term to its boundaries for these guys nowadays hehe)

    Do you hear yourself when you write this?
    I have nothing against Freddie, Sam, or Niko- I think they make great stuff, do great things, and do it extremely, extremely well. But the 90% bulk of what their focus and short video projects are, is very clearly no/minimal-narrative special/visual effects work. Short, fun, disposable content completely or very-close-to-completely driven by action, guns, asian-influenced technical style, and effects.
    There's nothing wrong with this, nothing at all. But because of it I don't know that'd I'd consider them 'independent filmmakers', or filmmakers at all- given their massive talent and success as purveyors of short YouTube visual effects content. And again, I mean this as no disrespect- more power to them. But there's a difference between a weekly FX-driven 2-3 minute video that doesn't necessarily have to have a plot, characters, or an ending- and a short film.
    Most-especially then, it's sort of silly to say everything and one else is 'up their own ass' and has 'no narrative at all'. Because, quite frankly, there are thousands and thousands of easily-found, talented filmmakers that don't have their heads up there asses. And there a even more narrative projects than that. To call Corridor Digital, who generally have pretty flimsy narratives to their shorts (to no lack in quality or precision, I must make the concession of- so that it's clear I respect what they do), the masters of independent filmmaking and say others don't have narrative in comparison.....
    It's, well, just wrong.

    Now for just a sampling of reviews. I was reminded because it was a press screening, I can't talk about Zero Dark Thirty for a couple of weeks- but let's just say it was an excellent procedural, middle-of-the-line, moral-ambiguity-centric war drama, and get back to it later. The rest:
    Killing Them Softly
    "I'm livin' in America. And in America, you're on your own."
    Killing Me Softly. A brutal, bloody, drawn-out slow-burn of a movie, with no particular hero or villain.
    The moral ambiguity alone, with the hollowed-out blaring of 2008 C-SPAN stump speeches by Bush and Obama in the background of many scenes throughout, allow director Andrew Dominik to paint a severely bleak but beautiful film- where hope is just a word, and life and death are just business.
    And as nihilistic as the whole thing is- the masterclass performances, cinematography, editing, and unflinching direction of the material make it infectiously likable. Wrenching. And, above all, memorable.
    It's a dark, bleak, uncompromising film. But Killing Me Softly is also, and it's silly how many of these we've said now the past few weeks (but it's true), one of the finest films of the year.
    Silver Linings Playbook
    Silver Linings Playbook is easily one of our favorite movies of the year.
    It may not be the exact 'best' picture of the year, or the most technically-adept, but it's a career-best for Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, and Chris Tucker. And it's the best we've seen from Robert Deniro in probably 10-15 years. Just a wonderful, heartfelt, fun movie- and further proof that David O. Russell is one of the best directors currently working.
    The Sessions
    The Sessions. An uncommonly-odd, unique vision of love and life through the tale of the disabled Mark O'Brien.
    Led by commanding, likable performances by a never-better John Hawkes and Helen Hunt, The Sessions succeeds in being both a jarring commentary on sex and lighthearted, comedic perspective on an otherwise horrific disease (polio).
    The movie isn't an immediately striking drama, nor a disposable comedy- but instead fits somewhere in that never-quite-exact dramedy range. Only thing is, with such a unique premise and winning performances, the balance between the tragic reality of Mark O'Brien's condition- living life in an iron lung without muscular sensation or power in 90% of his body- and Hawkes' conveyance of the character's optimistic sense of humor about it makes this one of the few dramedies we've ever seen that is both emotionally-resonant and just, generally, infectiously good.
    It has just as many moments of pure comedy as it does endearing drama- and has the makings of being one of the biggest R-rated crowd-pleasers of the year. A great, great movie.

    Cloud Atlas
    Cloud Atlas is every bit as astounding, tremendous, and important as all the champions of it have made it seem.
    A wonderfully-poignant, technically-precise meditation of the cyclical, almost heartbreaking nature of life- and one of the very very best movies of the year. Possibly one of the best films of all time. Unnerving, visceral, fun, comedic, dramatic, intense, serene, dark, and optimistic- the film crosses all boundaries and emotions, and does so with the finesse of masterclass filmmakers and cast; with notable credit going to the always-perfect Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and surprisingly-solid Jim Sturgess.
    And certainly, regardless of either of those, a massive accomplishment for filmmaking and broad, universal, genre-crossing narrative force. Tremendous. Just tremendous.
    Lincoln. A solidly procedural movie and exercise in the sad truth of some films, that even with excellent pieces working together- masterful direction, transformative performances, adept writing, and beautifully-period cinematics- you can end up with a product that simply lacks any emotional depth or resonance.
    Daniel Day-Lewis is fine, fine actor. And transforms himself into another person, entirely. But for the role, that simply isn't enough. There is no weight to his decisions felt in the otherwise weakened, high-pitched cadences of his voice. No genuine interaction with others that reasons the pain behind his eyes. There are no glimpses of war past the opening frames, or grounded perspective to impart the gravity of the situation. Just a labored DDL, waiting in the corner of each scene wearing a blanket in some deliberately method-acting-manner, waiting for his turn to talk.
    But most of all- there are no stakes present to support the film. For an issue as divisive and important as slavery and the civil war, we're never shown more than a stage-play's worth of locations or quarrels between Union representatives- mostly over semantics and not the hard issues of moral conscience.
    This displeased us, and made the film as a whole feel like a bunch of moments stitched-together by the other actors waiting in anticipation for another of of DDL's (numerous) long-winded and single-noted monologue.
    Make no mistake. He is transformed, and he is a phenomenal actor. But as is often the issue- his conviction, as is Spielberg's direction, seems to be trapped in conveying that specific, brittle, high-pitched-voiced character; and not a believably multi-faceted incarnation of a real, grounded human being.
    It isn't the most disappointing movie of the year, but it's certainly one of Spielberg's more melodramatic, phoned-in, procedural efforts (which is saying little, and still leaves the movie in the high rungs of good filmmaking)- and Daniel Day-Lewis, where he should shine as the most legendary and iconic of all Americans- comes off more caricaturish than creative. Like a very, very good impression; but not an act of range or emotional depth. Same with the numerous and unending wig-wearing cameos throughout the film.
    Joaquin Phoenix has his Oscar, despite this film's valiant efforts.
    It would have been a great movie, if it simply did more with the talent and material it had. But Lincoln doesn't, and relegates itself to the leagues of 'solidly-produced theatrical production', and falls flat in offering any sort of glance into the antebellum world past the few shadowy sets we linger within. And then there's the ending. God. Phoned-in like no other. Cringe-worthy, almost.
    The little bit of saving grace is in the conviction and genuine performances of comic relief trio James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, and the increasingly-impressive John Hawkes. Them, and a ridiculously-wigged Tommy Lee Jones, who we all thought would seem more self-parody here than anything else. Instead, he's electric, and commands every scene he's included in with a presence that simply isn't earned in DDL by every other actor just going quiet to let him do another monologue.
    6/10. When considering Looper, Wreck-It Ralph, Flight, and Skyfall all of recent weeks, Lincoln simply doesn't hold up.
    That's all I can find for now. More to come soon.
  • edited December 2012
    I would say it is actually objectively wrong to say that a film has "no narrative". Even the most minimalist films of all time have narrative. It's impossible for a film not to have narrative in some form. Even "Empire", the eight-plus hour continuous shot of the Empire State Building, by Andy Warhol, has narrative. It's not conventional, but it's art, so it can be interpreted any number of ways. It doesn't have to tell a proper story to have narrative structure.
    Andrew, are those reviews like, collective Atomic reviews? You use "us" and "we" a lot. You've also made me want to see Silver Linings Playbook, which I had no interest in previously, and Cloud Atlas, which I assumed would be a mess.
  • edited December 2012
    I guess I just mean the difference between 'flimsy narrative that's necessitated to cobble together a hankering for visual effects' and 'self-propelled, purpose-driven storytelling narrative', Aculag.
    And yes, those are reviews from the Atomic Productions Facebook Page, but they're all reviews I myself wrote.
    As far as Cloud Atlas and Silver Linings Playbook go, it's funny you should mention those- because they're actually my two favorite films of the year for different reasons. From a directorial and character-study perspective, there is no better or finer film this year than Silver Linings Playbook. It's the best parts of David O. Russel's direction and writing- the sharpness of Three Kings, the style of I Heart Huckabees, the family dynamic of The Fighter- but packaged into a film that's enormously more-fulfilling than all of them. It's a challenging movie, a fun movie, but more than anything- it's just an outwardly pleasing, positive movie. Though I think there are a handful of 'better' movies all-around this year, Silver Linings was/is my favorite thus far. (I haven't seen The Hobbit or Django Unchained, but I doubt either will sway that opinion.)
    Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence- both actors whom I regularly enjoy- are at their career-bests here. And Robert DeNiro plays a crippingly-OCD father; the type that's both tough and inwardly fragile- trying desperately to remain a solid and dependably strong figure in the film to Bradley Cooper's bipolar, manic Pat that's a turn performance. It's a turn by DeNiro that I haven't seen him 'sell' as well as he does here in probably 15-20 years. At least since Meet The Parents. Probably realistically not since Cape Fear, though.
    Then there's the resolving calm of Jackie Weaver, the borderline-mentally-ill-neer'-do-well character in Chris Tucker, and the rest of the supporting cast- who, regardless of their previous roles (I mean, we're talking Chris Tucker) just seem to naturally, appropriately fall into place in the film in this chaotic jumble of arguments and revelations.
    It's just really, really a fantastic film. A crowd-pleaser, an 'acting movie', and a solid social commentary, too. On all the Oscar leaderboards, there's a reason it consistently ranks in the #3 or #4 spot. It's because it's genuinely a great movie- and I think you'd really like it, man.
    As for Cloud Atlas- there isn't much more I can say over what I wrote above. There's something tremendous and important about viewing it that I simply can't describe. The technical, thematic, narrative, and just all-around filmmaking accomplishment of it is just staggering. I plan to cut together a clipshow/reel of 'Atomic Productions' Top Ten' favorite films for the year- and it's easily getting the moniker of being 'The Profound Movie' out of the bunch. Tom Hanks in full-form, Halle Berry in full-form, the strength of the Matrix Trilogy mythos, the potency and editing quality of V for Vendetta, and the success of a fully-realized vision, of unmatched scope or ambition, shifting gears and genres numerous times onscreen. It just needs to be seen, however polarizing you may hear it is, to be understood and appreciated.
    As for the rest of the films of this year, I thought I'd put together a quick sampling of my current rankings of top 25 wide-release theatrical films of 2012.
    [indent]1. Cloud Atlas
    2. Silver Linings Playbook
    3. Skyfall
    4. Dark Knight Rises
    5. Zero Dark Thirty
    6. The Grey
    7. Robot And Frank
    8. Moonrise Kingdom
    9. End of Watch
    10. Life of Pi
    11. Flight
    12. Killing Them Softly
    13. Argo
    14. Looper
    15. The Hunger Games
    16. Jeff, Who Lives At Home
    17. The Perks of Being A Wallflower
    18. Hitchcock
    19. Bernie
    20. Chronicle
    21. The Five-Year Engagement
    22. Compliance
    23. Seven Psychopaths
    24. Safe House
    25. 21 Jump Street[/indent]
  • Just jumping in a bit here, but Corridor Digital did recently do the longer form Sync that has a coherent storyline that Bammo funded for them.
    And I'm pretty sure that at one point they directed a full feature length film.
  • edited December 2012

    I've probably seen more movies in-theaters than anyone here

    Youre probably right. I cant stand seeing movies in the theater anymore.
  • The Darkest Hour - 6/10
    Everything I heard about this movie made it sound like it would be truly awful and not worthwhile at all, so I was fairly surprised to find that it was actually quite entertaining. It has a cool premise, some decent acting, great special effects (except for the creature design, which looks like something from a video game), and plenty of silly nonsense action.
    Granted, it's still not a great movie. There's a lot of predictability, the 3D is sometimes not done very well, and there's some on-the-nose dialogue that's pretty cheesy. Still, it was a lot of fun, and like I said, the effects are pretty sweet most of the time.
  • War Horse - 8/10
    I found the cinematography at times, breath taking. Early on the landscapes, sun, clouds, and the play of light are gorgeous. Story and character development progress nicely, but are nothing out of the ordinary and leave nothing to the imagination. And of course the spots where gratuitous heartstring pulling and tear jerking are mandatory, are well placed.
    All in all this is a film that I found myself paying more attention, at times, to the cinematography then the main characters or story. It was entertaining while drawing you in emotionally just enough to know your hearstrings had been pulled.

  • Total Recall (2012) 6/10
    It's a good sci-fi romp and loved the world they built, and as a remake it's okay. The one MAJOR thing that took me out of the movie so many times was the unnecessary lens flares (and there were a TON of them) that was just plain annoying.
  • edited December 2012
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 6/10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey( or The Hobbit part 1 which would probably work just as good, if not better ) is very interesting movie to think about and analyze. The main question, Is the Hobbit p1 a good movie? Easy answer. NO, but its not quite that simple.
    Technically The Hobbit is flawless. Great acting, special effects, cinematography, set design, even the 3D (24P) is great. Now we get to the script. This is where its gets difficult, is the script the problem? Yes and no. The main issue with The Hobbit is its complete lack of intensity. And when I say "complete lack of intensity" I mean zero intensity. Don't get me wrong, its a movie filled with well staged battle sequences, but not one of them gets your heart beating. Part of the reason for this I think is the humor. It switches from a overly silly joke one moment to fast paced action, leaving you confused at the purpose of the joke. Not to say the jokes aren't entertaining, but they literally stunt every action scene in the entire movie.
    The lack of intensity can also be attributed to the lack of emotion. The Hobbit is a very easy movie to watch. No awkward moments. No scary moments. No moments that feel violent. Just fun and games until the credits role. There's only one moment that has potential to be emotional for some viewers. Which is the scene where you think Thorin is going to be the biggest jerk in middle earth and reject Bilbo for the 100th time, but apparently he was just joking. HA HA! Very funny Thorin! We almost thought you were serious there for a second. . . HA! Scenes where you actually FEEL for the character in the situation will gain more emotional involvement from the audience then will scenes where you just watch the said character go through the motions. It's hard to blame the script for these issues, but its also hard not to think it should carry some of the blame. The Hobbit drifts from one scene to the next, some entertaining, some not quite so much. The prologue, The Bilbo vs. Gandalf conversation, The party, Leaving the Shire, The camp fire story, The Trolls, The bird poop Wizard, The Orc Chase, The elves, Talking, More talking, Leaving/Stone giants, Goblins, Gollum and the Ring, The white Orc and pinecones, The Eagles, End Credits. . .
    Once I got to the credits I let out a sigh and said to myself, why? What did they do? they literally accomplished nothing. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong(I've watched it 2 times). But it cant be denied that the Hobbit P1 just drifts from one entertaining scene to another, and doesn't feel like a cohesive story. In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey feels uncompleted even considering its the first part in a 3 part trilogy. It successfully hacks through 90% of the significant events of the book and adds fun but entirely unnecessary humor and action sequences. Its entertaining and I would recommend seeing it in 3D but its only a "good" movie, calling it a great movie would be a overstatement. But who knows? it has two more movies to redeem itself.
  • The Avengers - 5/10
    I guess this is a controversial rating on this one, as it seems everyone raves about it. To me the film did little for me, sure it has some entertaining moments but many characters what we're supposed to be concerned about just feel completely two dimensional and almost like their reading off an autoque, some of the Heroes could do with more screentime to flesh them out, such as the yet again new Bruce Banner. The film lacked any real sense of danger for any of the characters and I wasn't particularly impressed with the cinematography, it looked like an digital TV show with an impressive CGI budget, oh and the aspect ratio... To it's merit, some of the action sequences were entertaining.
  • edited December 2012
    John Dies at the End: 7/10
    This is a movie based on the book that was released online several years ago. I only read a little bit of it and then forgot about it until recently. I remember people thinking this was the kind of book that could never be put to film, but I really think they did a great job with it. It's extremely (extremely) weird, and it'll definitely turn a lot of people off with its almost stream of consciousness storytelling, but if you're not put off by how utterly bizarre it is, it's quite a good time. Sometimes incredibly creepy and unsettling, and sometimes downright hilarious. The effects are a bit of a mixed bag (it's definitely a low budget film), and you have to pay close attention, as there are a lot of times that the story gets rather confusing, but I'd recommend it to fans of films in the vein of Cronenberg's Naked Lunch.
    It's available on VOD now, and in theaters in February.
    Flight - 8/10
    I really haven't been much of a Denzel Washington fan lately. The last time I thought he did something really great was Man on Fire, which I only thought was an okay movie. He really hit it out of the park in Flight, however. There were a few points that I felt the film dragged a bit, but it was a lot more engaging than I thought it would be. The crash sequence is handled flawlessly, and it's so riveting, it could almost the be climax of the film.
    Really a great movie, but I do think it suffered from some pacing issues here and there.
    End of Watch - 5/10
    This was an interesting one. For as good as the acting is for the most part, the writing is often quite silly and comes across like an 80s action movie, or a student film, not a gritty cop drama. What seems to be the main plot of the film fizzles out, and it just kind of ends with practically no resolution at all. It's meant to look like it's being shot by the characters, who wear and carry cameras, for a school project. How convenient then, that the main antagonists had the same idea, and are also filming themselves at all times. And in spite of everyone having a camera, we're often left wondering, "who is filming this?" while the camera apparently floats around the room on its own.
    The plot takes the backseat to the interactions between characters, which is okay, but it's made worse by the fact that the writing is so ham-fisted. "I heard about this thing called foreshadowing, so I'm going to have my characters practically spell out the ending. Also I heard of this thing called reversal of expectation, so I'm going to have that happen too in the most obvious way possible." It just feels like it was written by a film student.
    Good acting, some interesting use of handheld cameras, and a few tense scenes, ruined by a poor third act and some inept writing.
  • The Devil's Double. 8/10 stars
    This is a great movie about one of Saddam Husain's sons during the time of their invasion of Kuwait. Well in true it is about the guy that his son "hires" to play himself. Saddam was famous for having a lot of doubles to avoid assassination attempts.
  • Trouble with the Curve- 4.5/10

    After watching this I feel like I can now break down Clint Eastwoods "acting" career into 3 distinct zones on a timeline:
    1) Cowboy/Gunslinger
    2) Policeman
    3) Curmudgeonly old coot.
    This movie is very formulamatic. Within the first 20 minutes I knew how this was going to turn out, who the winners and losers would be.
    All in all I found this predictable and boring.
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator
    edited January 2013
    The Expendables 2
    *edit* Probably ought to attempt an actual review. It was very silly, definitely more comedy than anything else. Some very funny moments, lots of bad effects and very old actors. Ermmm 3 out of 10?
  • The Sitter - 1/10
    I'm not sure where to start with this movie. It was just so very bad, a deflated comedy robbed of all laughs, jokes, and originality. It knows formula well, but doesn't know where to go from there.
    The film is relentless with it's events & gags, which none of them believable and none of them at all funny. The Sitter is an exercise in cheap film making, relying on stereotypes & recycled jokes, avoid at all costs!
  • edited January 2013
    Just saw the Total Recall remake. They mis-titled this movie. It should have been called Total Lens Flares.
    5/10 because they changed the premise from the first movie and it wasn't as much of a guessing game so I thought it lacked the intensity and suspence of the Arnold version. Once again, Hollyweird rips out the heart and soul of what made the original great.
    The FX were good- the scene where Quaid wears the collar that put a holographic image over his head was funny with the lady that looked similar to the one in the first movie saying "Two weeks" but I guessed she wasn't going to be him right away. Nice tribute to the original but a little obvious that she was too short to be Quaid. My biggest problem with one concept- if they can't make synthetics that can hit a target while in the same elevator then how could they plan on a successful invasion? There seemed to be no reason for the chick at the beginning to have three breasts either. At least there was an explaination for it in the first movie with the mutants.
    All in all I'd say it's worth seeing once if not for the FX then for the changes they made which were interesting but not always for the better.
    The lens flares really became annoying especially when there was no visible light source that would cause them or one in particular that moved up and down on the screen but there was no movement from the camera or any light source. Seemed like overkill- much worse than the last Star Trek flick.
    Also caught Looper. I'd give it 7/10. I could be wrong because I haven't seen everything Bruce Willis has done but I thought this was an atypical role for him. At least the story was original.
  • edited January 2013
    Django Unchained: 8/10
    Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite directors of all time. I'm guaranteed to enjoy every film he makes. He has this certain unmistakable internal consistency throughout his oeuvre that very few other filmmakers have (Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, and Darren Aronofsky come to mind). Django Unchained is certainly no different in that aspect. It's not as good as Inglourious Basterds, but it's a much different film. Some incredibly snappy and witty dialogue, buckets of blood, lots of scenes of people eating (of course), and oh, so much style. My only real complaint was that it was a little overlong, but it was still enjoyable throughout, and never really seemed to drag on. There were just a few points where I was thinking, "Okay, this has got to be close to the end", and it wasn't.
    The best part of the film, in my opinion, is Christoph Waltz, who is utterly brilliant, and totally owns the film. Without him, I doubt I would have enjoyed it as much. Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio are also great, but Waltz elevates every scene he's in. He's really a master of his craft.
    Go for the grindhouse revenge story, stay for Waltz's perfect performance.

  • Django Unchained: 8/10

    That's reassuring - I loved the trailer, and usually enjoy his stuff, but I'd read a very negative review the other day. That reviewers main problem was with the duration I think, so perhaps that will still be an issue (but hey, I didn't think the Hobbit too long).
    A few things I've seen recently:
    Life of Pi: 7/10
    I enjoyed the book as a story (I missed much of the deepness that was apparently in it though), and the same goes for the film. Visually I liked it, the 3D wasn't overbearing, and was used with a lot of subtlety in places. Obviously for those who know the book, there's quite a bit of fantastical stuff, but I didn't have an issue with this. A sterling effort for something I and others thought unfilmable when reading the book.
    Aside: there was another irritating advert thing just before this film. This time, it flashed up links to the Life of Pi Facebook page, and encouraged us all to share our experiences with #lifeofpi. Jarring, cheesy and pointless.
    The Hobbit: 7/10
    I love the Tolkien world, so for me the Hobbit was always something I was going to watch, and I wasn't disappointed. Technically its far superior to the LOTR films, reflecting how much things have moved on since. There are some great scenes, Gandalf does a lot more wizarding than usual, and Gollum's scenes are great. The film doesn't have the same "epic quality" as any of the LOTR films though, which is due to the source material - it's more about the quest than the fate of the world, and there are a lot of very similar characters - the dwarves. It was always going to be difficult to develop that many characters with similar sounding names and appearances though, so I'm willing to overlook that. For me there are two main failings: the humour, which is somewhat forced at points, and the constant references to LOTR, which didn't exist in my recollection. Some have complained about the length of the film, particularly since it's only part I.. well, if you cut all the LOTR link-ups, I reckon you'd save a good 20 minutes.
    As for the whole 3D 48-frames debacle.. I watched it in 2D on an analogue cinema in the sleepy town of Frome, Somerset (interesting side-note: they've actually stopped making adverts for analogue cinema now, so before it goes out of business that cinema is ad-free, which is both awesome and very sad).
    And a few things I've only just seen, as part of my ongoing film education:
    A Clockwork Orange: 8/10
    The Godfather: 9/10
    Casino: 9.5/10
    Goodfellas: 8/10
    The Green Mile: 9/10
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    edited January 2013
    Over Christmas I decided to re-watch the various Marvel Avengers movies (having previous years selected LotR, classic Star Trek and Star Wars as my festive franchises). So here's how they held up on repeat viewing:
    Iron Man - hugely charismatic and stylish, matched to great VFX and humour. A limp finale is lifted by the fantastic and unexpected final scene - so refreshing compared to the tradition of heroes desperately trying to hide their identity.
    The Incredible Hulk - post-Avengers, Norton seems a little distant, but this is still a fun film with a surprisingly soulful core and some wonderful locations. CG monster fight at the end is creative but lacks emotional investment or the required technical polish.
    Iron Man 2 - much more entertaining than I recall. Whiplash is still a rubbish, non-threat of a bad guy, but Rockwell does amazing things with Hammer. This is essentially a light, rite of passage character comedy, which is probably why most people didn't like it - though it does suffer from having lots of good scenes that don't really hang together properly.
    Captain America - possibly my favourite of the Marvel movies. Heartfelt, exciting and grounded, with great performances and a female lead that also has brains and power. By far the best ending in any of the Marvel movies.
    Thor and Avengers I'll be watching next....
    Also rewatched X-Men First Class, which I still absolutely love. The effects and mutant powers are underwhelming in places, but the Magneto/Prof X stuff is perfect.
  • Splice: 7/10
    Picked this film because it was on a "top 20 sci-fi films" list, with the description "messed up, with an ending you won't expect". It did not disappoint. The effects are really rather good throughout, the story original and suitably disturbing, and the acting solid - almost a great film.
  • edited January 2013
    The Raven 10/10.
    I loved the story, and a kinda unexpected ending!
  • Blessed (2009, Australia: 9/10
    Saw this last night. Note this is an Australian movie, not the American one with the same name. A movie with a number of storylines about troubled teenagers and their parents. Each storyline is told twice; once from the perspective of the teenagers and once from the parents (well, mums really). Incredible acting, very moving and a great score (simple but very effective). Note that to some it may be on the depressing side, so not one to watch if you want to just put your feet up, grab a beer and watch an easy movie.
    Easily the best movie I've seen in months. Highly recommended.
  • Jack Reacher - 7/10
    A solid thriller, I knew nothing about this film, i simply went on a friends recommendation. Pretty good but not exactly very memorable. Tom Cruise is just Tom Cruise but theres some decent action and Robert Duvall has a good role.
  • edited January 2013
    Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol: 6/10 It was better than I expected. Probably my favorite of the series (I guess?). The real reason Im mentioning it here is because there is a scene where the girl in Tom Cruises group is observing something he does and she is using a Canon HV30! Since this is a current movie I have to assume that someone on the production of the movie put that camera in the scene as a 'shout out' to the legendary HV30.
    V/H/S: 8/10. Great horror movie! The new wave of American horror is really good and looks to have a promising future.
    Woman in Black: 8/10. Loved it! Classic and classy British horror. Never stoops to Hollywood bs.
  • FoxFox
    edited January 2013
    "War horse" by Steven Spielberg.

    I am a great fan of Steven Spielberg and has been so ever since his first movie "Duel" so i had to c the his WW1 movie, war horse.
    The first hour is so boring and filled with kliches that its allmost becomes to boring. Its like an old "Lassie" movie where you expect Elisabeth Taylor to pop up every minute. Finally we get into the war and Spielberg do what he can best, creating epic pictures and battelfields scenes. But its still to nice, to much good clean family entertainment. Its if Speilberg wants the audience to cry all the time and in the attempt he over do it far to much. Its not a movie who will be among the other great movies from this director and i reccomend seeing it on DVD at home, this leaves you with the opertunity to use the forward button and escape the most boring scenes . . B-)
  • Les Miserables - 7/10
    I found this very enjoyable, and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the singing (Hathaway owns it, nobody was terrible, Maximus wasn't great but he did try), and the story is good, though not quite as epic as the book.
    Django Unchained - 8.5/10
    Awesome! Funny and entertaining throughout. Up until the halfway point, you could be forgiven for not realising it's a Tarantino film, BUT THEN HE BRINGS IT. Excellent, and as Aculag said, Christoph Waltz.
Sign In or Register to comment.