Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dunnar

Rate the last movie you watched

188 posts in this topic

Spotlight - 68%

I've said it before, Liev Schreiber is just excellent in everything, from mysterious assassin-action man to understated newpaper editor. This just proves that.

 

He's not the star - it's hard to say who is as it follows the development of a story rather than a person - and should be given credit just for that. The topic is excellent, being based on real life, tragic events in Boston, where hundreds of children were routinely molested by dozens of Catholic priesthood over a protracted period and the Catholic Church not only systematically covered it up, but just moved the perps around to take up their practices all over again. First rate performances from everyone involved. That and the compelling story makes this a decent flick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Room 59%

There's not much you can say about the acting, outside of the fact that it's first rate. Especially Jacob Tremblay who must have been 7-8YO playing a 5YO. It's hard to believe a kid of 7 can act so well. I just hope he didn't have a "do it for mummy" type of raising.

The story is suitably pitiful and saddening. But there not enough depth to it, to justify a 2 hour film imo. Would have made a decent episiode of CSI or something similar. Unfortunately (for many reasons), we've seen it all before. 

 

The one saving grace is the the film didn't dwell too much on the gratuitous captive scenes that many others would have. More than half the film dealt with them coming to terms with what had happened to them.

 

 

 

 

 

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Sea 48%

Distinctly average. It's trying to be crimson tide and failing in almost every way, except with Jude Law, who i am not usually any fan of - in fact i usually don't like him as an actor. But in this he was really good. Very serious without being hammy. It's just the the story was, well OTT, to the point of being completely unbelievable. I just couldn't imagine anything getting to the point where these guys got to. The whole film is a sequence of barely believeable plot lines overlayed with rather poor direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2016 at 6:15 AM, Pasanda said:

Room 59%

There's not much you can say about the acting, outside of the fact that it's first rate. Especially Jacob Tremblay who must have been 7-8YO playing a 5YO. It's hard to believe a kid of 7 can act so well. I just hope he didn't have a "do it for mummy" type of raising.

The story is suitably pitiful and saddening. But there not enough depth to it, to justify a 2 hour film imo. Would have made a decent episiode of CSI or something similar. Unfortunately (for many reasons), we've seen it all before. 

 

The one saving grace is the the film didn't dwell too much on the gratuitous captive scenes that many others would have. More than half the film dealt with them coming to terms with what had happened to them.

 

 

 

 

 

Saw the preview for this movie and heard a lot about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lasraik said:

Saw the preview for this movie and heard a lot about it.  

Aye. I should also add that  my view contrasts completely with many others. It has won many first class awards.

8.4 on imdb and 94% on rotten tomatoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Andreas - 6/10

The science was crap, but the mass destruction was fun.  The main character was supposed to be a LA fire and rescue for LA, but when LA needs him the most the steals a helicopter and fly's off to save his daughter, who would have been just fine without him, much safer in fact.  Worst fire/rescue guy EVER.  So terrible story, but the movie was fun and wins 6 points for mass destruction.  Wait for it to be free on netflix.

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birdman - 67%

 

OK. So it wasn't great great. But it wasn't bad either. Michael Keaton was just amazing. I would suggest that he's justified all the years of faith that studios have had in him. Edward Norton was excellent too. It's a real film for actors, in that everyone is an actor playing actors.

Technically, the entire film is shot as a single cut with no edits. Obviously that isn't the case and, at a few points, this is evident. But there are long periods where, even as an fx fan, one is left thinking how the fuck did they do that.

 

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interstellar 84%

I've rated this film before. But i watched it again over the weekend and, i have to say that this is one of the best films of recent years. The science is a mixture of very grounded and very fanciful. The ecological message is extremely well delivered and never once drops to preaching anything - it's completely down to you to take whatever message you want. I just love the advances in science, and those robots (TARS etc.) are so incredibly designed and realised for the screen, that i'm certain they should be a blueprint for practical assistants anyway. I also love their dialogue and they way they interact with the crew - just fantastic. Their movement and overall design seems initially clunky, being just blocks of metal. But as you start to see their block sub-division come into play, you start to realise how much thought has gone into creating them, and how genuinely useful they would be.

The parts of the film i didn't like are the facts that a wormhole was created to assist humanity, which they then dumped right next to a black hole. 

I also struggle a little with the rendition of future humanity and it's inability to communicate effectively with older humanity. They can time travel themselves, and move other humans through time, but they have no way of actually directly communicating this to us, including binary - which was the mechanism chosen by a past human to communicate to another past human.

Also, if they fundamentally change the timeline so that we are able to control gravity and escape a doomed earth, that has no causal impact down the line for the future humans who gave us that knowledge?

I would also have preferred a little more closure at the end. It would have been nice to see him stepping of the ship and smiling to the abandoned wasserface, or something like that.

Lasraik and Jazz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Pasanda said:

Interstellar 84%

I've rated this film before. But i watched it again over the weekend and, i have to say that this is one of the best films of recent years. The science is a mixture of very grounded and very fanciful. The ecological message is extremely well delivered and never once drops to preaching anything - it's completely down to you to take whatever message you want. I just love the advances in science, and those robots (TARS etc.) are so incredibly designed and realised for the screen, that i'm certain they should be a blueprint for practical assistants anyway. I also love their dialogue and they way they interact with the crew - just fantastic. Their movement and overall design seems initially clunky, being just blocks of metal. But as you start to see their block sub-division come into play, you start to realise how much thought has gone into creating them, and how genuinely useful they would be.

The parts of the film i didn't like are the facts that a wormhole was created to assist humanity, which they then dumped right next to a black hole. 

I also struggle a little with the rendition of future humanity and it's inability to communicate effectively with older humanity. They can time travel themselves, and move other humans through time, but they have no way of actually directly communicating this to us, including binary - which was the mechanism chosen by a past human to communicate to another past human.

Also, if they fundamentally change the timeline so that we are able to control gravity and escape a doomed earth, that has no causal impact down the line for the future humans who gave us that knowledge?

I would also have preferred a little more closure at the end. It would have been nice to see him stepping of the ship and smiling to the abandoned wasserface, or something like that.

Yeah, I liked the film overall but struggled with certain parts of the story and other things as well.  The robots were awesome and were the true stars of the show for me (the main character and assorted other humans actually started to grate on me somewhat, the robots never did).  When you first meet TARS and learn that he was a 'marine' I was like <_< "you what?" precisely because of his appearance.  How could something like that actually move around on the battlefield and be of any use?  Its a block!  Then you see it essentially 'transform' on the planet with the tidal wave and I was like :o "What the??!  I'm in love!" :wub:  Seriously, kick the humans out of the film and make it about TARS and buddies and I would have been happy.  They had more personality than those meat bags.

I don't think they were changing the timeline but rather ensuring it actually played out how it did originally, that it was some sort of loop.  Still doesn't explain why they couldn't communicate or do it themselves, and the whole 'love' thing was just so tacky and spew-worthy.  I also didn't like how he supposedly transmitted the data of what is inside a black hole in morse code to her watch.  I mean, even if he did manage to get through correctly (he was playing with pulling bits of string essentially), it would take her a lifetime to translate back.  I wasn't too enamored with the dual-storyline either, I felt the Murphy bits when she was an adult was just irritating filler and wasn't too enamored with the character either (I liked her as a kid and kept hoping she would go along on the space journey, but as an adult she had no personality beyond "Angry Science Woman", and felt that the actress was a bit crap, especially compared to the child actress who seemed so much better).  

Further issues: Murphy's 'leap of logic' to somehow work out that the watch was being used to communicate from her father just came out of nowhere.  She had not dealt with the 'ghost' thing for decades and was a scientist, there was no logic there to connect anything, and goes back to the spew-worthy 'love being a force' bollocks I mentioned earlier.  Also, once you see the giant space station at the end and you learn that pretty much all of humanity lives on them now my first thought was "So why do we need to find a new world?"  In fact, it was a question I had from the start to be honest: why not just build a space station and have a colony of humans there?  Once they had the gravity thing sorted (which they did with spin gravity as seen on the spaceship they fly around in during the film), and enough room to grow crops you no longer need anything planetside.  You can mine the asteroid belt for resources, which becomes feasible because you no longer have a gravity well to get out of, while growing food and oxygen under controlled conditions, hence why some people think that future colonies will all be space habitats!  And with their control of gravity at the end of the film it becomes even more redundant to need new planets.  Also, why did they send all those astronauts out on suicide missions?  With things like TARS and other AI being around they could have just sent them instead, at least to make a preliminary examination before sending people to their deaths.  Though the way the AI had more personality than the humans I personally consider them people too, possibly even moreso than the humans in this.  Plus, the Matt Damon bit was quite interesting (does Matt Damon have a thing for astronauts at the moment?).

I think its clear that I may have had a few more issues than you with things, so I would probably have not rated it as highly, but it was still a decent film.  I just think it would have been better had it been "TARS and Friends!" instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i agree with you on pretty much everything.

Coolest thing i learned while typing that last post is that the TARS and other robots were almost purely real controlled puppets and not CG. From what i can gather only the water wheel running motion and two legged walking on the Ice Planet were CG. Even getting in and out of the spaceship was a controlled puppet. There was a (known) actor walking behind TARS connected to it with rods n shit. Even awesomer.

Jazz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pasanda said:

I think i agree with you on pretty much everything.

Coolest thing i learned while typing that last post is that the TARS and other robots were almost purely real controlled puppets and not CG. From what i can gather only the water wheel running motion and two legged walking on the Ice Planet were CG. Even getting in and out of the spaceship was a controlled puppet. There was a (known) actor walking behind TARS connected to it with rods n shit. Even awesomer.

Yeah, this is something I have realised over the years: CGI just doesn't do it right by itself.  CGI seems better to enhance stuff that is already there, and brief scenes, I think the over reliance on it was what really killed the Star Wars prequels and Hollywood seems to be finally cottoning onto this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Boag was pretty spot on on his review of San Andreas.  I'll give it a C+.  

Mindless action and destruction for the sake of action and destruction.  Not surprisingly they hung onto the usual action movie tropes.  

Spoiler

The soon to be step dad turns out to be a big wuss, the daughter finds a not so handsome guy to team up with and somehow develop a totally useless relationship with him.  They had my attention with the two main characters and their family history but they didn't dig too deep on it.  I guess this isn't that type of movie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucy 7/10

This a very cool scifi flick along the lines of Limitless, but takes things a step further.  It is a pretty average if not below movie until the last 20 minutes then it is 10/10 because it was very cool.  I would highly recommend you give it a view just because it is an interesting mind tease.

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jag said:

Lucy 7/10

This a very cool scifi flick along the lines of Limitless, but takes things a step further.  It is a pretty average if not below movie until the last 20 minutes then it is 10/10 because it was very cool.  I would highly recommend you give it a view just because it is an interesting mind tease.

Scarlett Johansson kicking ass, you can't go wrong.  Well, other than Avenger movies anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on these reviews, I watched Interstellar.

It was okay ... 6/10.  I agree with a lot of what Pas said.  The love angle was clunky.  

However my biggest issue was McConaughey.  He is a terrible actor.  I cant tell if he is crying or ready to laugh.  I think if they got someone better, it would have made the entire movie much better and less clunky.

 

Reminds me of this:

 

 

Edited by Dunnar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just gonna say, if you can understand him, Matt McC was good in TD1. I liked him in Contact too FWIW. And i thought he was VERY good in "a time to kill", but that could be just because the film was all-round excellent.

I thought TD2 was good too. The star for me was Vince Vaughn; i thought he played bad better than he's ever played good. I'd probably go TD1 over TD2, but there's not a whole lot in it.

Edited by Pasanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain America: Civil War ... 5/10.

It was okay.  The fight scenes were pretty good.  If you are into that sort of thing, then its worth the watch.  However, I felt there were to many dead spots in the story that made it boring.

Mild spoiler alert ... if you know who is in it and the characters, then its not really a spoiler.

Spoiler

The addition of spider man was pretty cool and very well done.  Wonder where they will go with is as spider man is a Disney character?  And Marisa Tomei as Aunt May put an interesting ... by interesting I mean hot ... twist on her character.

I had not seen all the marvel movies, so some of the characters were new to me.

Maybe its just me, but I am tired of the whole I'm a bad buy, I used to be good, but here's what happened and this is why I'm bad angle in movies.  Seems like every movie spends an inordinate amount of time explaining why the bad guy is bad.

Lasraik likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0