Rate the last film you watched

1181921232430

Comments

  • I've not seen KA2, but its very existence does kinda suggest they missed half the point of the first film.
  • AdyAdy Staff
    edited April 2014
    I've not seen KA2, but its very existence does kinda suggest they missed half the point of the first film.


    Is now a bad time to mention that there will be a Kick Ass 3? :P


  • edited May 2014
    The Eagle - 8/10
    Great movie, unpredictable. Channing Tatum can actually act.

    I think I actually enjoyed Kick-Ass 2 more than the original.
  • The Secret Life of Walter Mitty- 7/10
    This was a fun movie in that you had to keep guessing whether you were watching something real or imaginary....until events became ridiculous- then you could tell. The special effects were done quite well however, they also seem to drive the movie as the plot is rather simple.
  • Under The Skin: 9/10
    This film is terribly difficult to summarize, because I'm not even completely sure what happens in it.  It's abstract, beautifully shot and scored, and it will really make you think (unless you don't like it, in which case you might fall asleep).
    Scarlett Johansson plays an alien creature disguised as a human woman, who seduces men and lures them back to her... lair, where she... uses them for... something.  Like I said, I'm not really sure what happens.  However, the plot itself is not all that important compared to the themes the film explores.  I'm convinced that it's a subversive criticism of the objectification of women in film.  Going into why I think this would get into spoiler territory, so I would say go see it and draw your own conclusions.
    However, I also have a difficult time recommending it because it is so incredibly weird that I know a lot of people will be turned off by it.  Yeah, it's "that movie where Scarlett Johansson gets naked", but the types of people who go see a film because of nudity will be completely baffled by it, and it is one of the least sexy films about sex I've ever seen.  So instead, go see it because you have a love of the art, and you want to think about something.  If you enjoyed films like The Tree of Life, Upstream Color, or Beyond The Black Rainbow, you will most likely very much enjoy Under The Skin.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    Aaah, I really want to see Under The Skin.
    Instead, though, I went to see GODZILLA.
    Godzilla 8/10
    Absolutely lived up to the trailers, and the trailers were an accurate representation of the tone and style of the film. Exciting stuff, with a wonderfully fresh look at otherwise tired material. Even aspects which we've seen a million times are shot and pieced together with imagination and a clarity of vision that is rare in films this big.
    It has a slow burn build, much like early Spielberg. Tonally it's a mix of Jaws and Close Encounters. Stylistically it is amazingly similar to Jurassic Park, especially in its first half.
    Godzilla (the monster) is shot with a reverence and grandeur I wasn't anticipating. The film nails the scale of the monsters every bit as well as Pacific Rim - this definitely feels like a less cartoony companion piece to that film (which I also loved).
    The main disappointment is the focus from about halfway on the US military, something which is rarely interesting. The moment the military get involved in a disaster movie is the moment I usually lose interest, though it still just about works here. However, the sections with more focus on civilians definitely work better, with the highlight of the film definitely being the airport scene mid-way through.
    The climax is pretty awe-inspiring and didn't disappoint, though there's not quite as much invention in the monster fights as in Pacific Rim.
    Anyway, good stuff. Reminded me why cinemas have a purpose.
  • Her: 9/10
    This is probably Spike Jonze's masterpiece.  A beautiful exploration of romance and love and technology.  I was worried that the technology aspect would be played like a cautionary tale, or like, "haha look at this freak who's in love with his computer", but aside from a few brief moments, it completely avoids things like that in favor for kinda just telling it how it is (or maybe, how it WILL be).
    I feel like Jonze really has a good grasp on modern technology, and his vision of the near future is probably very close to reality.  It doesn't hurt that I thought the technology presented in the film was really lovely and actually plausible, unlike so many other near-future sci-fi films/shows with their sheet of glass smartphones and holograms and such.
    But it isn't a film about technology; it's about relationships, and romance, and what it's like to be in love.  It's Jonze's most human and naturalistic film, and the dichotomy at its heart speaks to so much more than our relationships with our cell phones.  It's about our relationships with ourselves, and with each other, and how these relationships are the same for everyone no matter who or what they involve.  
    Really fantastic work.
    Don Jon: 7/10
    This one surprised me.  I thought it looked terrible based on the previews, and JGL's smug face was enough to convince me not to see it.  But then my girlfriend was like, "this is a great movie!" so I watched it, and was very impressed.  It's not classic cinema by any means, but it's a really fun movie and shows that JGL's got some chops outside of acting.  Excellently shot, with lots of very creative editing, and his repetition of certain things was a great way to show how his character evolves.  Solid acting too, especially from Scarlett Johansson, who really nailed the role.
    Yeah I'm watching a lot of Scarlett Johansson movies lately.  Sue me.
    Dallas Buyers Club: 8/10
    Jeez, Matthew McConaughey is a damn fine actor.  Even without his insane weight loss, it still would have been one of his best roles.  I don't even really know what else to say about this one.  It's very well shot, has a nice pace, but it's really all about the acting.  McConaughey and Leto knocked it out of the park, and well deserved their Oscars.
  • Under The Skin: 9/10
    This film is terribly difficult to summarize, because I'm not even completely sure what happens in it.  It's abstract, beautifully shot and scored, and it will really make you think (unless you don't like it, in which case you might fall asleep).
     

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL. I'd love to see that written in an "official" reviewer's article!
    Now I'm curious and I'll have to watch it to see if I 'get it'. I like movies like that though. They presume nothing about their audience so they don't usually talk down to you. Just throw you into an experience more or less.

  • KirstieTKirstieT Staff
    edited June 2014
    One Hour Photo - 7/10
    So this is a pretty old one from 2002, with Robin Williams who plays 'Sy the photo guy' - a lonely man who becomes obsessed with the idea of becoming part of a family whose photos he has been developing since the couple got married. 
    The cinematography was really interesting and there was a lot of clean shots where Robin is walking down the 'walmart'? type shopping mall (sorry USA, I have no idea what you call them) and everything is white and serene. It really feels like you're in his head as he continues to develop this unhealthy attachment in a very innocent and almost loving way. 
    It unsettled me, but mostly because I sympathized with Sy quite a lot, which I'm not sure you're supposed to do :)
    There is also some lovely narration and an interesting short history of the word 'snapshot' which was originally used as a hunting term - something which gives you some great foreshadowing of his intentions. Liked it a lot. 
    The Other Woman: 7/10
    OK, before you all mock me, I haven't put this at a higher grade because it won't shock or delight the filmmaking world - but for enjoyment, oh my gosh, amazing. 
    Never have I ever found any film so funny - at one point I was crying with laughter for a good 5 minutes at a scene, along with the rest of the cinema. I missed dialogue because of people laughing and even spotted one woman handing down tissues to everyone in her family to wipe away the hilarity. 
    Usually I love films that are brilliantly scripted and while this one wasn't amazing, it was mostly improvised (as expected from a cast including Cameron Diaz and the well known Leslie Mann). The acting was brilliant and although the characters were annoying at some points, I cannot fault the comedy. 
    If you want to go and laugh your head off at a fresh take on an old subject, or just stare at Kate Upton for a while, please do go and see it. 
    Contrary to the majority of the reviews, it's not just a 'girls film' as I took my dad and he absolutely loved it as well :)
  • Maleficent: 3/10
    I'd put this about on the same level as Snow White and the Huntsman, and Oz: The Great and Powerful.  It's an attempt to tweak a classic tale, and while it has some interesting ideas, overall it's a massive failure.  Turning Maleficent into a misunderstood softie who just wants to be a mommy really diminishes the impact of the events of the film.  Her curse upon Aurora is revenge for something that happened years ago (not reactionary like in the animated original), and she kinda just seems to make it up as she goes, giving in to the King's pleas for mercy eventually and being like, "well okay, if she gets that true love kiss, everything will be fine."  Stuff happens, and then, seemingly minutes after the curse is fulfilled, everything is fine again because of a loophole, and good old happy warm-hearted Maleficent gets her revenge in another way, by letting Aurora's dad plummet to his death.  Retribution without consequence or even any sort of "what happened?" moment.  Aurora's just like, "welp!  Let's get the heck outta here!" and everything is happy for everyone forever, the end.
    It's hard to tell what the message here is supposed to be.  It's like it's trying to be a family friendly exploitation film and an environmentalist fantasy, and a surrogate mother/daughter bonding tale.  No idea.  But what bothers me the most is that it seems to be telling its audience that there isn't really any evil in the world, even though it might look that way sometimes, and that everything will always work out in the end, even if you specifically designed a curse that can never be removed by any force in the universe (except for that one thing that can totally remove it).  And that your father probably assaulted some innocent woman when he was younger and left her for dead in order to secure power.  Something like that.  
    In Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent is just straight up evil, and that makes the good characters feel necessary, and like they have something to add.  In Maleficent, she is not evil, just going through a particularly angsty period, and because of this, there's no real reason for any of the other characters to be around.  Aurora having help from, and living with her fairy godmothers in Sleeping Beauty makes sense because they are actually protecting her from danger, making sure she isn't discovered by Maleficent.  In Maleficent, the titular character is always around, making sure no harm comes to Aurora, while the fairy godmothers are basically The Three Stooges in drag.  Again, it's a very confused narrative, and doesn't really make a lot of sense in the end.  Even Prince Phillip's role in this film is a completely pointless MacGuffin that goes nowhere, except that he's there at the end for some reason with a twinkle in his eye, being like, "yeah, I kissed you while you were unconscious because some tiny distressed women urged me to do it."  Aimless, nonsensical dross.
    Also the CGI characters are shit.  Kids will love it!
  • edited June 2014
    Maleficent: 3/10


    I haven't seen Malificent, but from what youre describing it sounds like they are trying to copy what Wicked did in terms of altering your perception of a classic villain. But, it sounds like they failed.
    Godzilla 8/10. great movie all around. Gets a bit slow in the middle, but ends really well. Great writing, effects and story telling. Keeps the idea of Godzilla as a "hero", which is good.


  • Maleficent: 6/10
    I enjoyed it more than Aculag did, apparently. It wasn't perfect, and some of the CGI critters didn't work for me. But Angelina Jolie was great as Maleficent. They really did twist the story as much as they possibly could.
    I went with seven 12-year-old girls (birthday party). They absolutely loved it, and all said that it was better than Sleeping Beauty. I would disagree with that, but it was definitely worth seeing. I've already been told I will be buying it on DVD or Blu Ray when it comes out.
    Who knew that Groot's ancestors were Maleficent's guards...
  • Edge of Tomorrow - 9/10 
    Wow. Just wow, wow, wow. I really, really loved this movie. 
    The reason I knocked it down to 9 was that I didn't quite understand the very last part and so it was left hanging just a little bit for me. 
    But the pacing, the casting, the VFX, the PLOT - they were all just perfect. There were some comedic moments in there as well which made it a very special kind of sci-fi film. 
    Emily Blunt was totally bad-ass and the will-they/won't-they part of it didn't in any way distract from hers (or Tom Cruise's) individually strong characters. 
    There was a lot of sacrifice, heroism and general determination. One of the best parts about having a plot meaning that Tom Cruise is continually re-living the day again is that there are more fight scenes than you could usually cram into one movie, as it needs to be re-shown again and again. The aliens are also brilliantly designed and scary (they look wonderful in 3D).
    I was genuinely on the edge of my seat virtually the whole film, and was upset when it ended. Getting this the second it comes out on DVD. Go and see it if you haven't already. Please.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    edited June 2014
    Well, my fiancee got me (among other things) all Shatner/Nimoy Trek on Blu-Ray for Xmas, and, while doing the FUN part of video work (i.e. waiting for renders, and/or system diagnostics, and/or captures/file transfers) I went through the movies recently, so, here's all six.
    Star Trek: The Motion Picture 3/10
    This movie is boring. There's no other way to put it. Now, for some context, in 1979, just after Star Wars and without any new Trek things for a decade, we were blown away by the visuals. That sequence in spacedock where Scotty pilots a shuttlepod around Enterprise twice for no good reason before docking may be five minutes devoid of plot and character, but, man, does this film still look good!
    That's pretty much what you can say about it. The film LOOKS really good, even 30+ years later. Unfortunately, what we have here is a TV script that was padded out for a feature. Kirk and crew don't really get much to do at all, and the emotional core of the film is carried by Decker and Ilia--which is a problem, since they're the new characters nobody knows or cares about.
    But, hey! Jerry Goldsmith's theme for this film would be reused for both Trek V and Next-Gen!
    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 10/10
    Look, this is just the best 2 hours of Trek from across the entire franchise--counting all 5 series, every movie, and including the reboots. If you've never seen any Classic Trek, this is the one you HAVE to watch (Especially if you want to see exactly what J.J. Abrahms was screwing up with "Into Darkness.") This is the Trek movie that you could show to someone who's never seen Trek before, and they'd get it.
    This is just a great story: Good character work for Kirk, Spock and (in the Director's Cut) Scotty. Ricardo Montleban's chest chews scenery with abandon. Intense, exciting, character-driven.... James Horner's score is my favorite of the series. The Mutara Nebula battle is just gorgeous, and I like how weapons fire actually slices into ships, blowing pieces off, rather than the sci-fi convention of beam weapons causing things to immediately explode.
    Also, this film was made for a quarter of the budget of it's predecessor--however, I think it looks fantastic. The designs are gorgeous, I am a big fan of the "Starfleet maroons." that debut in this film, and, of course, the Genesis Planet sequence is the first major all-CG set-piece in film. The Genesis sequence was done by the LucasArts digital animation team that would, eventually, become Pixar.
    Director Nick Meyer famously banged this script out in a week. Then he directed that story with a sure hand--we'll talk more about Mr.Meyer later.
    Star Trek III: The Search for Spock  7/10
    The big problem with this film is that we have a story largely designed to undo the biggest event of the previous film. Well, Kirk gets his best friend back, but he pays a high price for it. The price Kirk pays to save Spock is what keeps this film from being a major reset-button (probably inspired Steven Moffat to never kill anyone in Doctor Who).
    But, hey! Christopher Lloyd and John Larroquette define the modern Klingon in this film. Horner turns in another fantastic score, and I'm one of the few people who seems to prefer Robin Curtis as Savvik to Kirstie Alley.
    Leonard Nimoy had previously directed a few TV episodes, but his debut as a feature director on a major FX film is solid. Nimoy knows how to move his camera, stages his action well, and he knows how to get superb performances from his cast (Watch Scotty during the Enterprise destruct sequence. Kirk and Bones get the lines, but James Doohan's silent stare breaks my heart for Scotty).
    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home  6/10
    For many, this is the second-best Trek film. Some prefer it to "Wrath of Khan," but I've never been that big a fan of this film. Production-wise, you can see why the choices were made to do this story; after the bleakness of II and III the producers were ready to do a light movie. There's a lot of good character humor in it, but it's just never been my favorite. Visually, it's mediocre, But Nick Meyer's final-draft polish does keep things mostly moving along and Nimoy's direction is, again, top-notch.
    But Kirk's love interest is boring.
    Still, I don't have too much to say about it, although I am amused that Majel Barret got a Co-Star credit for 2 seconds of screen time and no lines... It's GOOD to be married to Gene Roddenberry.
    Nick Meyer wrote final screenplay on what the fans consider the two best films in the franchise? Good going Nick! We'll come back to you later!
    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier 5/10
    This is the movie that gets all the hate--and, while it's flawed, it's not quite as bad as legend has it.
    First-time director William Shatner bites off more than he can chew with this installment. His visual goals were lofty, but impractical in the late 1980's (today, we can do a ground-to-orbit pullback shot in $400 Hitfilm in about 30 minutes. in 1989, you're looking at a series of hand-painted mattes that have to match-move and cross dissolve.) You can see where he runs out of money, and it's too bad, because this movie really is classic Star Trek:
    First, you have clearly-defined relationships among the crew. The camping scenes book-ending the film are really very nicely done. The love and respect these characters have for each other is obvious. I LIKE the Uhura/Scotty flirting, and would have liked to see it carry over into the next film. Poor Sulu and Chekov get a raw deal, what with the navigator getting lost in the woods, but it's a valid joke.
    The problems with this movie (besides a low budget, poorly spent) basically come down to two things: First, some of the bits don't work for this cast at this point in time--we'd buy a 40 year-old Kirk free-climbing and throwing cat-hookers, but a 60-year-old Kirk doesn't work. Uhura fan-dancing to distract troops? Man, we'd have all paid good money to see that a few years previously. Second, well, that main quest doesn't work, does it? The "Quest for God" is a classic Trek trope, but that's the problem--it's been done to death in Trek ("The Changeling", "The Apple," "The Way to Eden," "Who Mourns for Adonis," and "Star Trek: TMP."), and we all know it's not going to be God ("Excuse me? What does GOD need with a STARSHIP?"). But Sybok is an interesting character--seriously, the first time you see a Vulcan throw his head back in a deep belly laugh is very jarring, indeed--and Shatner went out of his way to give each of his cast some good personal moments. It's actually shocking to see the crew fall under Sybok's sway.
    Unfortunately, Trek V would have been a good two-part episode of a TV show, but it's not a great movie. Jerry Goldsmith returns with another fantastic score.
    That said, note I've ranked it higher than Trek: TMP? Yeah, because Final Frontier is at least fun. TMP is boring. Also, "Final Frontier" remains a damn sight better than all the Next-Gen movies that aren't "First Contact."
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 9/10
    Oh, LOOK! Nick Meyer again! Nick Meyer directs a screenplay by Meyer and Denny Michael Flynn from a story by Leonard Nimoy and Nick Meyer! (Ignore the other listed writers--none of their work is in this film, but the WGA said credit them... So credit they get.)
    You know what? J.J. Abrahms should have just hired Nick Meyer for his Trek III: more damn Lens Flare.
    The 25th anniversary Trek film is a fitting send-off for the old crew, and it takes a bold tack indeed! Trek VI addresses why the Klingons went from being enemies in Classic Trek to allies in Next-Gen and goes with an interesting take: How Kirk and company react to suddenly being told to make nice with those who have been their enemies for decades. It's certainly daring to show Kirk and crew as prejudiced at best and bigoted at worst. Cast members reportedly had issues with some of these scenes, but you'd never know it from the performances. Great battle scenes, some very emotional moments, solid metaphor and bridging Classic and Next-Gen all combine to make this movie one of the strongest in the canon. The much-maligned CGI blood is actually well done--it just shouldn't have been that shade of pink.
    And Sulu FINALLY gets his own ship.
    The swell of the music going into the ending credits with the signatures of the stars writing on-screen, before zooming off into space really brings home this movie as a celebration of the franchise.
    So, to close out, here's a quick listing of my picks from best to worst of these six.
    Wrath of Khan
    The Undiscovered Country
    Search For Spock
    The Voyage Home
    The Final Frontier
    The Motion Picture
  • Edge of Tomorrow - 9/10 

    I can't wait to see this.  Looks so good.
    Frozen: 8/10
    After all the hype and acclaim, I had somehow convinced myself that I wouldn't enjoy this.  Haven't seen any Disney animated films in years, and I just assumed they had lost their charm.  Turns out I was way off, and was pleasantly surprised that Frozen was not just quite good, it was in fact REALLY good, and I loved it.  The songs are well written and performed, and there's a lot of genuinely touching moments.  I was also surprised by how funny it was.  Olaf was excellent comic relief, and his song about life in summer was incredible.  Pretty sure there's an Arrested Development reference in an earlier song too, which kinda blew my mind.
    Glad I gave it a shot finally.  Now to watch Tangled and see if that's anywhere near as good. :)

  • Tangled is also excellent - best horse in a movie ever.
    You reminded me that I also saw Frozen recently:
    Frozen 7/10
    Enjoyed the movie a lot, though the songs grated. They're not bad songs, it's more my own personal tastes - it's a rare musical that I can actually enjoy on its own terms. In fact, the only musical I really like it Singin' in the Rain, because the context gives the random outbursts of song a kind of purpose (ie, they're all performers in showbiz). Frozen also suffers from Disney Pacing, whereby just as it gets going you realise it's about to end, although that's partly because they're writing for a child's attention span, so fair enough. Olaf was indeed superb (while they wimped out of having a sad end for Olaf, their solution was actually rather gleeful and cool).

    Triem - I love Undiscovered Country. The two genius moves are showing the hero characters to have prejudices, as you mention, and having them all play to their actual ages. It's rare to have a big scifi action film realistically starring 60 year olds, and it gives it a really unique flavour. The prejudices are also fascinating - it's all too easy to have Bad Guys be bigoted, but it forces an audience to examine their own behaviour when the heroes are the ones being discriminatory. Clever stuff - and that's before you even get to the political metaphors.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    Frozen... Boy, I'm in the minority, but I basically hated that film: Idina Menzel's voice has certain high-mid harmonics that vibrate my ears on her power notes--she is literally physically painful for me to listen to. This will, of course, hamper my enjoyment of the film.
    To it's credit, i did start getting into Act III, and think the scene where evil Prince EVIL does the whole "...if only someone loved you.." bit while pouring water on the fire and taking the blankets is wonderful. But the snowman...
    ....look, Olaf is alive. Olaf tells Olaf he loves Anna. "Some people are worth melting for" is a beautiful line, but a sentient being facing death to protect a friend is "TRUE LOVE!," dammit, and Olaf can just smootch away and solve this issue. Sigh.
    "Brave" did the whole Female Empowerment thing better, IMHO.
    Simon, another nice thing about Undiscovered Country dealing with age is the timeline--you have to pay attention to stardates between movies and some dialog cues, but, Trek II-III-IV-and V all happen back-to-back-to-back-to-back. Basically, kirk is supposed to be about 35 in season 1 of Trek. Wrath of Khan is 15 years later, thus Kirk is about 50. Treks II-V being back to back to back to back take a year--two at most. (while the actors age a decade) Trek VI is about 8 years after five--ok, so retirement at 60 is a little young, but, still... Plus, oh, once again with the NICK MEYER! it was in Trek II that Kirk first confronts his aging.. Reading glasses, right?
  • Yeah, and that final scene in Trek 2 when Kirk is looking out the window at the genesis planet. Shatner is one of those actors who actually CAN deliver a great performance, when in the hands of a great director.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    Oooh, a nice Kirk moment in Wrath of Khan comes when Spock has already entered the dilithium chamber. Cut to bridge: Kirk is sitting, legs crossed, arms folded, stonefaced as he barks "Time." Kirk is VERY comfortable in his chair. That body language sums up Kirk's fear, anger and helplessness more than any raised voice and dynamic movement ever could..
    Boy, it would be nice if Paramount released the Director's Cuts of I, II and VI to Blu-ray...
    As I type this, my phone tosses up the Wrath of Khan theme on the playlist. Synchronicity! Damn, this is a good soundtrack! And the first notes? Spock's theme. Setting up his sacrifice right from the Paramount logo...
  • edited June 2014
    I reject the 1-10 rating system and substitute my own. [Crap, Ok, Good, Great]. I reserve the option to add more as I see fit!  :D 
    Frozen, sorry Triem23, this is great.  ;) 
    As a father of 3 girls I can assure you Disney did something right. This movie has connected with the girls like nothing else. My 2yo is always going Elsa song, Elsa this, Elsa that. She likes the Snowman, she likes the dancing. She makes anyone near her do the actions of the movie.
    This very much may be to do with the characters themselves and not the story. But  good characters do always make a story better.

    Edge of Tomorrow: Good
    The big girls and I saw this on the weekend. Only about 10 people in the cinema.
    Movie passed the biggest test for us... we were still talking about it when we arrived back home.
    It was funny and clever. We were all thinking video games while watching it, but that was ok. It was well done. There was one bit that was stupid (I agree with Kristie). But nothing stopped this being a very entertaining show.
    BTW: I've also read the book. As normal, the movie doesn't resemble it much at all. Both are good.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    @Fredclips. Re: Frozen. Notice I didn't "rate" Frozen. Frozen is a well, structured movie. Technically, it's impeccable, visually, it's beautiful. It's target audience will love it! I just didn't like the songs, and, as noted, above, Idina Menzel's voice is physically painful for me. That's not hyperbole or exaggeration. She hurts my ears, and, when 23 minutes of a 90 minute movie is her singing, there's just no way in hell I will enjoy the movie. I did say I liked Act III--which had no songs. :-) I stand by my comment, that Olaf being sentient, having declared his love for Anna, and being willing to die for her, should have been able to save her via True Love... But Olaf never would have thought of that. ;-)
    I also still think "Brave" did "feminine empowerment" better, but "Brave" lacked catchy songs and comic relief animals and probably didn't play as well to the under-10s.
    Oooh, "How to Train your Dragon 2" opens this week. My fiancée's cousin, who has been senior lighting director at DreamWorks since day 1 says it's, "by far our best movie ever." He also warns to bring tissues. Something very very horrible happens to at least one major character, so be warned.
  • edited June 2014
    Edge of Tomorrow: 9/10
    Tom Cruise sci-fi action flick.  Can't really go wrong here.  I know what Kirstie is talking about with the ending not really making much sense, but I KINDA think I get it?  Maybe?  Something to do with the main conceit of the film, I imagine, although they really could have done a better job of explaining it.
    However, the only bit that I didn't really enjoy was the bit where they went into exposition mode.  It was necessary, but it kinda took me out of it for a moment.  Still, everything else surrounding it was genuinely excellent.  This year's Pacific Rim for me.  Really solid, hugely entertaining film, and it's a damn shame it isn't doing better.  There were maybe 10 people in an enormous theater for it.  Granted that's a Thursday night audience, but it was also only playing on one screen out of maybe 20?  
    It's upsetting that most people don't seem to care for original material like this anymore.  One guy in the theater had his phone out messing around for much of it, another was getting up and walking out like every thirty minutes, and the girl he was with even whipped out her iPad for a while.  Ugh.  This is why I tend to wait and watch movies at home.
  • Edge of Tomorrow seems like a movie that is probably going to have long legs and do very well on bluray/DVD/Netflix/etc. Mainstream audiences won't get it, but it sounds like it's good enough that word will get around and it'll keep bubbling to the top.
    i'm hoping to see it in the next coupla weeks.
  • @Fredclips. Re: Frozen. Notice I didn't "rate" Frozen. Frozen is a well, structured movie. Technically, it's impeccable, visually, it's beautiful. It's target audience will love it! I just didn't like the songs, and, as noted, above, Idina Menzel's voice is physically painful for me. That's not hyperbole or exaggeration. She hurts my ears, and, when 23 minutes of a 90 minute movie is her singing, there's just no way in hell I will enjoy the movie. I did say I liked Act III--which had no songs. :-) I stand by my comment, that Olaf being sentient, having declared his love for Anna, and being willing to die for her, should have been able to save her via True Love... But Olaf never would have thought of that. ;-)
    I also still think "Brave" did "feminine empowerment" better, but "Brave" lacked catchy songs and comic relief animals and probably didn't play as well to the under-10s.
    Oooh, "How to Train your Dragon 2" opens this week. My fiancée's cousin, who has been senior lighting director at DreamWorks since day 1 says it's, "by far our best movie ever." He also warns to bring tissues. Something very very horrible happens to at least one major character, so be warned.


    Will be seeing How to Train Your Dragon 2 soon. Looks good. We all enjoyed the first one. (Even if the dragon look exactly like Stitch.
    I wanted to like Brave. It just didn't kick in for me. I actually would have liked more actions from the main character.
    Frozen: I completely agree that Olaf looked like he was showing an act of true love when he was melting... but he did ruin it by saying something like "But maybe not today!"
    BTW: Just had to dance to that stupid song another 4-5 times... no sign of it letting up yet.
    I feel like this guy!
    Watching Frozen for the hundredth time...
    azbpEDb_460s_v11.jpg
     

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    How to Train your Dragon 2: 9/10
    Excellent visuals. This story successfully expands the world, raises the stakes and follows standard "center-of-trilogy" structure (i.e. Protagonist resists taking the next step into responsibility, until forced to by adversity.l
    Bring your hankies. There are at least three tearjerk moments.
    I saw the 3D--now, there's a thing in 3D films that bugs me. A lot. The unmotivated "pop out" object. To me, 3D works best when treating the plane of the screen as a window we look through. Objects protruding "through" this window into the audience that get cut off by the screen boundary call attention to themselves and ruin the immersion. HTTYD2 is full of this: dialog scenes are staged with the focal character even with the screen with the over/shoulder being in the audience. Seeing half a blurry shoulder appear and disappear, floating in my face is very very distracting to me. If this sort of thing bugs you, don't see the 3D.
    I give the story and design a 9/10. I give the 3D effects a 3/10
  • HTTYD has so much going for it, but it bugs the heck out of me that in a film entirely about Vikings and dragons, they decided to make all the adults Scottish and all the children American.  If they've found a way to fix that in the sequel, it could be great.  Something tells me that it won't be, though...
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    Axel, they didn't. Normally DreamWorks typical reliance on anachronistic humor and "miscast" character voices bugs me severely. (Shrek 2 and the HTTYD films are the only DreamWorks films I enjoyed)
    That said, well, I am a big cat lover, so I can't resist Toothless.
    But I admit, I would cheer if the Viking twins died horribly.
    Anyway, there's gonna be a HTTYD 3. Two characters have to get married and they have to find a mate for Tootless. That's the plot of the next one--I'm calling it now. ;-)
  • Robocop (2014) - 8/10
    I was surprised by how much I liked this movie. Is it as good or better than the original? No. But, as a free standing, modern Robocop movie it does a good job. One thing this movie accomplishes better than the original is giving you a sense of how it would feel to be transformed into a robot. And how that would actually suck and not be fun at all. Come to think of it, this movie does a better job than Revenge of the Sith on that front too.
  • Enders game 9/10 loved it great effects great story only thing i have against it was the fact that it was quite allot different to the book in many ways but that was just minor, I really recommend you see it if you haven't.
  • The voice choices in HTTYD are utterly bizarre, and the only big flaw in the movie for me. Even if ALL the voices had been Scottish, or ALL American, it would have worked better. They should have put a joke in the sequel where one of the children comes of age/hits puberty, and their voice breaks into a Scottish accent.
Sign In or Register to comment.